Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT. This paper addresses the current "big questions" debate in public administration and proposes an appropriate placement for organization theory in the discourse of the discipline. Major scholars in organization theory are analyzed in terms of their relationship to the big questions. Public administration is discussed as a confused discipline, but a discipline nonetheless, and organization theory finds its place as the foundation for discussion and examination of public administration's "big questions."
INTRODUCTION
Almost thirty years ago Nicolas Henry (2001) discussed public administration's various attempts at establishing a paradigm. The famous "Five Paradigms of Public Administration" has since sparked much debate over establishing an acceptable paradigm for the study and practice of public administration (Henry, 2001). Since the publication of the Five Paradigms, very little progress has been made as to what we actually are: an academic discipline, sub-field of a large discipline such as political science or what (Henry, 1990)? Assuming that Henry was right in suggesting that public administration's "Travail Toward the Future" (Henry, 1990) has ended in the consensus that five paradigms, including the politics/administration dichotomy, the principles of public administration, public administration as political science, public administration as administrative management, and public administration as public administration were all deficient attempts at successfully establishing an identity for public administration, our field of inquiry finds itself in an "intellectual crisis" (Ostrom, 1989). In an attempt to establish an identity for public administration, scholars have endorsed searching the literature focused on organizational theory as the foundation of public administration (Neumann, 1995; Kirlin, 1995; Behn, 1995; Daneke, 1990). Behn, for instance, suggests that public organization theory deals with the nature of the public firm. For Behn, understanding the nature of the public organization is essential in order for public administration to answer its big questions. Neumann and Kirlin (1995) posit that Behn's focus is narrow and they add to the paradigmatic argument by suggesting a focus on the "nature" of the public organization and the democratic environment in which public firms operate. Daneke (1990), on the other hand, indicates that paradigmatic progress is essential for establishing an identity of public administration. He advocates the use of advanced systems theory for his paradigmatic choice in public administration, again suggesting that public organization theory has dealt...