Public Administration as a Dynamic Balance and Integrative Science Across Politics, Management, and Law: Rosenbloom’s Framework and Chinese Experiences

• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074018759337
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018759337

American Review of Public Administration

2019, Vol. 49(1) 79 –97

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074018759337

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction: The Century-Long

Quandary of Public Administration

Since the groundbreaking publication by Wilson (1887), the

discipline of public administration (PA) has often been

plagued by questions of whether it is an independent scien-

tific subject. In the United States, for example, Parker (1965)

noted that “there is really no such subject as ‘public adminis-

tration.’ No science or art can be identified by this title, least

of all any single skill or coherent intellectual discipline” (p.

99; see also Rosenbloom, 1983, p. 219). Mosher (1956, p.

177) also claimed that PA can only be deemed a “resource”

and “is more an area of interest than a discipline.” In China,

in 1952, 3 years after the foundation of the new China

(People’s Republic of China), the subject of PA was com-

pletely abolished as a pseudo-discipline for 34 years, until it

was reconstructed in 1986. Even approximately 30 years

after its redevelopment, there are still many scholars who

publicly declare that PA is not an intellectual discipline,

although they do not express this opinion in their articles and

books. Thus, today, PA in China faces serious identity and

legitimacy crises regarding whether it is a respected indepen-

dent discipline (Gao, 2010; Lü, Wang, & Chen, 2015; Ma &

Liu, 2007). As in the United States and Western Europe, the

“identity crisis” label for PA in China concerns two main

types—academic crises and existential crises (Raadschelders,

2011b)—although

most scholars refer to one identity crisis that centers on the battle

between empiricists (Simon, Meier, and O’Toole) who believe

in objective knowledge and interpretivists (e.g., Waldo, Stillman)

who value the intersubjectivity of knowledge so characteristic of

the social sciences. (Raadschelders, 2011b, p. 22)

759337ARPXXX10.1177/0275074018759337The American Review of Public AdministrationYang

research-article2018

1Peking University, Beijing, China

Corresponding Author:

Lihua Yang, Department of Public Administration, School of Government,

the Leo KoGuan Building, Peking University, No. 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing

100871, China.

Email: journeyylh@163.com; lihua.yang@pku.edu.cn

Public Administration as a Dynamic Balance

and Integrative Science Across Politics,

Management, and Law: Rosenbloom’s

Framework and Chinese Experiences

Lihua Yang1

Abstract

An identity crisis has plagued public administration for over a century. The core of the crisis is how to address the relationship

between public administration and the three major related disciplines—political science, management, and law; especially the

first two—and whether public administration is an independent scientific subject. By studying the discipline identity problem

of public administration using the three-perspective framework of politics, management, and law developed by Rosenbloom,

this article argues that the developmental history of Chinese public administration is also a history of the relationship between

public administration and the three major related disciplines. Furthermore, after comparing United States and Chinese public

administration, the article suggests that we can define public administration as a dynamic balance and integrative science

across the three major related disciplines by placing greater emphasis on administration, public management, and the laws

and rules of administration and public management. This new definition suggests that seeking dynamic balance and synthesis

is the nature of public administration, differentiates public administration from other disciplines, and stresses its status as

an independent discipline. Thus, we do not need to be frightened of this feature of public administration or reframe it but

must instead admit that this unique feature represents a specific advantage of public administration. Furthermore, this view

provides a new way to dismiss the nightmare-like identity crisis faced by public administration.

Keywords

identity crisis, discipline, Rosenbloom, China, public administration

80 American Review of Public Administration 49(1)

Academic crises include theoretical and methodological

weaknesses as well as the lack of attention on the roots of

Chinese government, indigenous issues of Chinese PA, and

the needs of practitioners (Lü et al., 2015; Yang, Li, & Zhang,

2012), similar to the perspectives noted by many scholars

(e.g., Denhardt, 2004; V. Ostrom, 1974; Perry & Kraemer,

1986; Seibel, 1996; J. D. White, Adams, & Forrester, 1996)

studying the identity crisis of United States or Western PA.

The existential crises concern the relationship between PA

and other disciplines, and the question of whether PA can be

considered to be an independent discipline (Raadschelders,

2011b). In this study, I mainly focus on the existential crises

of PA. Furthermore, although Raadschelders (2011b) noted

that both the academic and the existential crises concern

“both the study and its object, the practice of public adminis-

tration or government,” (p. 22) I only focus on “the study” in

this current research. Moreover, as China is a strong-govern-

ment society, its educational disciplines are often influenced

by government intervention. For example, according to the

lists of subjects promulgated by government, there are three

levels of disciplines, from high to low: discipline categories,

first-class disciplines, and second-class disciplines. A higher

status for a discipline strengthens its resource acquisition

capability and benefits its development. On the list distrib-

uted in 1990, PA was a second-class discipline, listed under

the first-class discipline of politics within the discipline cat-

egory of law. On the revised list promulgated in 1997 and

still valid today, PA is a first-class discipline under the disci-

pline category of management. That is, PA was deemed a

subsidiary discipline of politics before 1997 and has been

considered a subsidiary discipline of management (in China,

management is deemed an independent discipline) since.

However, scholars and students of Chinese PA have no con-

sensus regarding whether PA should be considered an aspect

of politics or management (Zhang, 1996; Zhou, 2004). In a

word, as in the United States, PA in China has been plagued

by the question of whether it is an independent scientific

subject.

In his classic study, Wilson called on U.S. researchers to

learn PA from Europe, mainly Germany and France (Wilson,

1887); this study marked the birth of modern PA in the United

States, although PA in Europe dates back to the 17th century.

Learning from Western countries, especially the United

States (Gao, 2010; Xia, 1990), contributed to the birth and

development of PA in China. For example, the PA theories

taught in Chinese universities since 1986 are mainly Western,

in particular United States, theories of PA (Gao, 2010; Ma &

Liu, 2007; Yang et al., 2012). Now, we must ask what the

major impact of studying and learning from the development

of PA in China might be on the development of global studies

of PA. The main purpose of this article is to reflect on the

identity of PA as an independent scientific discipline by

exploring the identity problem of Chinese PA and comparing

the Chinese experience with U.S. perspectives on PA.

Through studying “administrative concepts and processes

across organizations, nations, and cultures,” a comparative

analysis of PA in two typical countries, China (the largest

developing country) and the United States (the largest devel-

oped country), can serve not only to “recognize similarities

and differences among administrative systems and func-

tions” but also to “establish general patterns and to discover

and define successful or unsuccessful practices” (Jreisat,

2011, p. 834). V. Ostrom (1997) argued, “I presume that a

meeting of East and West is possible. However, those efforts

depend much more on what Soyinka (1988) has referred to

as ‘culture producers’ than on heads of State” (p. 264).

Gulrajani and Moloney (2012) also noted that “developing

country administrative research can strengthen both

American and international administrative science” (p. 78).

Although a comparison of the PA only between the United

States and China might not thoroughly resolve the identity

crisis of PA, it can provide a valuable reference for us to

finally shed light on this problem. The article argues that in

the developmental history of Chinese PA, PA has been

deemed a subsidiary discipline of politics, management, and

law. This viewpoint is similar to (if we cannot say “is consis-

tent with”) Rosenbloom’s three-perspective approach or

framework for understanding PA, which views PA through

the lenses of management, politics, and law at a macro-level

(Rosenbloom, 1983, 2013). Based on a comparative analysis

of the development of PA in China and the Unites States, the

article proposes a new approach to understanding PA by

viewing it as a dynamic balance and integrative science

across politics, management, and law.

The rest of the article is organized as follows. The next

section summarizes Rosenbloom’s three-perspective

approach or framework for understanding PA and analyzes

the feasibility of using this framework to explore PA’s disci-

pline identity problem. Then, I briefly review the history of

Chinese PA and note that its discipline identity has wavered

between politics, management, and law. Next, I compare the

development of PA in China and the United States through

the lenses of management, politics, and law and analyze the

factors underlying the similarities and differences between

the two countries. At last, I propose a new approach for

understanding PA that deems PA to be a dynamic balance and

integrative science across politics, management, and law,

and analyzes the feasibility and advantages of this approach.

Rosenbloom’s Three-Perspective

Approach or Framework

The main problem in the discipline identity of PA lies in

resolving the relationship between PA and other disciplines.

The founders and early students of PA highlighted the dis-

tinction between administration and politics (Goodnow,

1900; Gulick, 1937; Stillman, 2010; Wilson, 1941) as well as

the distinction between PA and law (Goodnow, 1893, 1905;

L. D. White, 1926; Wilson, 1941). In his classic work,

“Public Administration Theory and the Separation of