Public administration plays a critical and multifaceted role in the functioning and development of the modern state. It encompasses the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which government policies and programs are implemented. As a discipline and practice, public administration ensures that state resources are managed efficiently, public services are delivered equitably, and the rule of law is maintained. In an era of globalization, technological innovation, and complex societal challenges, public administration serves as the backbone of governance, ensuring that the modern state meets its obligations to citizens and stakeholders.

Implementation of Public Policy

One of the primary roles of public administration is the execution of public policies. After policies are formulated by the legislative and executive branches, it is the responsibility of public administration to translate these policies into actionable programs and services. For example, in the context of healthcare, public administration ensures that policies like universal healthcare or pandemic response plans are effectively implemented by coordinating hospitals, supply chains, and medical personnel.

Public administrators act as the intermediaries between policymakers and the public, ensuring that government directives align with the needs and aspirations of the people. This role becomes even more critical in a democratic system, where accountability and transparency are paramount.

Ensuring Efficient Resource Management

Public administration is responsible for managing the resources of the state, including financial, human, and material resources. The modern state relies on a robust public administration system to allocate resources efficiently and equitably to different sectors such as education, infrastructure, defense, and public health. For instance, in times of economic downturn, public administrators are tasked with implementing austerity measures or economic stimulus programs.

Through budgetary planning, auditing, and monitoring, public administration ensures that taxpayer funds are utilized effectively, reducing waste and corruption. In countries like Singapore, efficient public administration has been instrumental in driving rapid economic development and ensuring high standards of public service delivery.

Delivery of Public Services

The modern state is characterized by its commitment to providing essential public services such as education, healthcare, water supply, sanitation, and transportation. Public administration ensures that these services are accessible to all citizens, particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups. For example, universal primary education initiatives rely on public administrators to manage schools, recruit teachers, and monitor educational outcomes.

In developing nations, the effectiveness of public administration directly impacts the quality of life for millions. The implementation of welfare programs, subsidies, and social security schemes relies heavily on the efficiency of public administration.

Regulation and Maintenance of Law and Order

Public administration is pivotal in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring public safety. This involves regulating various aspects of society through laws, policies, and enforcement mechanisms. Public agencies like police departments, judiciary systems, and regulatory authorities work to uphold justice, protect citizens, and resolve disputes.

Modern public administration also deals with complex regulatory functions, such as overseeing financial markets, ensuring environmental sustainability, and regulating industries to prevent monopolistic practices. For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces regulations to curb pollution and protect natural resources, balancing economic and ecological priorities.

Promoting Social Equity and Justice

Public administration plays a central role in reducing inequalities and promoting social justice. Through targeted policies and programs, it addresses issues like poverty, unemployment, gender inequality, and racial discrimination. Welfare schemes such as food distribution, housing programs, and unemployment benefits are implemented by public administration to uplift disadvantaged communities.

In a globalized world, public administration must also address transnational issues such as climate change, refugee crises, and human trafficking. International collaborations and partnerships, often facilitated by public administration, are essential to tackling these global challenges.

Adapting to Technological Innovation

In the digital age, public administration has embraced technology to enhance governance and service delivery. E-governance initiatives, such as online tax filing, digital payment systems, and virtual public hearings, have revolutionized how governments interact with citizens. Countries like Estonia have pioneered digital governance, enabling citizens to access almost all public services online.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and blockchain technology into public administration is improving decision-making processes, enhancing transparency, and reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, this also poses challenges, such as ensuring cybersecurity and protecting citizens’ privacy.

Crisis Management and Disaster Response

In times of crisis, such as natural disasters, pandemics, or economic recessions, public administration is at the forefront of managing responses and mitigating impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, public administration globally demonstrated its critical role in coordinating healthcare systems, enforcing lockdowns, distributing vaccines, and providing economic relief.

Effective crisis management requires a well-coordinated administrative system capable of rapid decision-making, resource allocation, and public communication. This role underscores the importance of building resilient and adaptive administrative institutions.

Upholding Democratic Values and Citizen Engagement

In democratic states, public administration serves as the custodian of democratic values, ensuring that governance remains inclusive, participatory, and accountable. By facilitating mechanisms for public consultation, feedback, and grievance redressal, public administration strengthens the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Participatory governance models, such as town hall meetings or digital platforms for citizen input, enable public administrators to understand and address the concerns of the populace. This fosters trust in government institutions and enhances the legitimacy of state actions.

Facilitating Economic Development

Public administration contributes to national development by creating an environment conducive to economic growth. It oversees infrastructure projects, trade policies, and investment programs that drive industrialization and job creation. For example, the role of public administration in China’s rapid industrial growth highlights its ability to mobilize resources and implement strategic policies effectively.

In addition, public administration regulates markets, protects consumer rights, and ensures fair competition, which are essential for sustainable economic progress.

Conclusion

The role of public administration in the modern state is indispensable and evolving. It is the engine that drives policy implementation, ensures efficient resource utilization, maintains social order, and promotes equity and justice. As societies become more complex and interconnected, the challenges facing public administration will continue to grow. However, by embracing innovation, fostering citizen engagement, and adhering to principles of transparency and accountability, public administration can continue to serve as the cornerstone of effective governance and societal progress.

In sum, the success of a modern state is intricately tied to the quality of its public administration, making it a critical area of focus for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners alike.

Meaning of New Public Administration

The term new public administration simply means that there was a public administration which was old. Literally this is correct. But the fact is that with the change of all the major and minor aspects of society the administration of society has undergone changes, because the public administration is to cope with the changes. Otherwise it cannot meet the basic necessities of society.

In our analysis of the evolution of public administration, we have already noted that towards the end of the sixties of the last century people experienced in admin­istration developed, new paradigms of public administration were devised, and these were suggested to meet the new challenges of society. It has been suggested that the administrators must find out new methods of administration, otherwise the administrative structure will not be in a position to keep the momentum of change.

Whatever may the form of government be, there must exist an admin­istration. This is a fundamental notion and from this comes the notion of new public administration. It is to be noted here that the concept of new public administration first arose in America. Nicholas Henry says that in 1968 some enthusiastic administrators took an initiative to hold a conference for finding out ways which would be capable of dealing with new changes plaguing the administration of American society.

These enthusiasts found that the old public administration was “ineffective”. The time was quite crucial. The Second World War (1939-1945) completely changed the economic and social structure and the old administrative system could not deal with this change. So these new enthusiasts proposed that there had arisen the necessity of devising new methods of administration and the American administrationists call it new public administration.

Subject of New Public Administration

The public administration of pre-1960s was primarily concerned with the budgeting, efficiency, decision-making and the implementation of decisions. But the events of post-Second World War threw a challenge to these basic concepts or aspects of public administration. It was strongly felt that the whole public administration should be overhauled. The sponsors of new public administration raised some causes such as values, ethics, the development of individual member in the organisation.

Again, in the seventies of the last century, the concept of justice gained enormous importance. This issue of justice was raised by John Rawls in his famous work A Theory of Justice (Oxford 1971, Third edition 1999). John Rawls in his new theory of justice suggested that the “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all”.

Rawls has further suggested that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others”. If we patiently analyse this new scheme of justice a complete change public administration is indispensable. Because without such a change in public administration justice can never be ensured for all persons of society. It is correct that John Rawls did not suggest any form of change in public adminis­tration and this is due to the fact that this was outside Rawls’s jurisdiction.

It is further to be noted that in the seventies of the last century liberalism started to assume new meaning and content. The old liberalism was incapable of meeting new challenges that surfaced in society. People wanted more liberty and less state restrictions. The exact role of the state would be like a night watchman. In earlier periods the state was aggressive, so was the public administration.

In the new era the power of the state should be drastically curtailed and the public administration must adjust itself with new philosophy-the philosophy of liberalism. The values, ethics, philosophy of liberalism are not devalued. There must exist bureaucracy. But the purpose and function of the bureaucracy must be to protect freedom and ensure justice. A concept was circulated in the academic market and it is new bureaucracy.

Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia was published in (1974) and John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) combinedly threw light on the nature and functions of state and all these considerably influenced the public administration. It is to be specially noted that all these works do not deal with public administration but their centre of attention was modern liberalism and justice. But all these are to be achieved through the instrumentality of state which means administration of states.

Naturally in one form or other public administration comes to be a potent factor. The new public administration wants to emphasise that it must have its own philosophy, ethics and value system which shall not stand on the furtherance of liberalism. Nozick imagined of a new state which will be an anarchical state and it will be the culmination of liberalism. Thus new public administration is embedded with liberalism, justice and crucial role of state in the attainment of these principles.

The new public administration does not rule out the decision-making and the execution of decision as its function. But the periphery of new public administration has expanded very considerably. An important aspect of new public administration is that there shall exist bureau­cracy but the top bureaucrats must change their outlook and mentality so that administration can meet the needs of people of new age.

New Public Administration and Globalisation

In the perspective of new public administration, I wish to elaborate the issue. During the period of old public administration there was no existence of globalisation and liberalisation and, naturally, the public administration, that existed before the seventies of the last century was not concerned with these two issues. Henry rightly observes, “Beginning in the 1980s, a number of trends accelerated that harbour the possibility for fundamental change in how we perceive government and its administration. We group these trends under the rubrics of globalisation, devolution and redefinition”. In the age of globalisation and liberalisation no state, big or small, can be treated as being separated from the rest of the world.

Very few multinational corporations situated in USA and UK are practically controlling the world economy. The public administration and organisation of various countries are gradually coming under their influence and these states are rather forced to readjust or remodel their administrative structures to make room for the entry of globalisation and liberalisation. This they are doing for their own survival. Not only economy is influenced by globalisation, internet, world­wide environment, travel and communication have gradually come under the influence of globalisation.

All these are challenging the time-old administrative systems. The result is public administration is forced to accept the influence of globalisation. The impact of globalisation in national economy and public administration can be seen in another sector also. Reluctantly or willingly the governments of many countries and America in particular are relinquishing responsibilities towards public administration or administrative responsibilities and this creates a vacuum in the sphere of public administration. But this vacuum cannot continue indefinitely. A new model of public administration was badly needed and it is new public administration.

Minnow-Brook Conference and New Public Administration

In my analysis of the development of public administration I have already referred to the Minnow-brook Conference. The author of the article Public Administration: Theory and Practice Writes: New Public Administration Movement starting from the 1968 Minnow-brook Conference began to assume new shapes and dimensions.

The scholars and public administration specialists attending the conference strongly felt that the advancement of new technology and its impact on state activities, change in the outlook of men, the unprecedented expansion of the study of political science have created a situation which requires a change in the subject of public administration.

Certain conclusions were framed by the specialists who attended the Minnow-brook Conference in 1968. Even the relationship between political science and public administration was discussed. The young scholars who attended the conference felt that public administration was no longer an ordinary branch of political science, it can reasonably claim a separate status in the vast field of social science.

The second Minnow-brook Conference was held in 1988. It is again a landmark event in the field of new public administration. Landmark in the sense that the term new public administration was first used by the enthusiasts and energetic scholars of political science and administrationists in 1971 and again in 1988 the concept was elaborately discussed in the perspective of several incidents or new atmosphere.

The US President Reagan introduced several administrative mea­sures to curtail the quantum of state intervention in economic and social affairs. It is called New Right theory of Neoliberalism. In the post-Second World War period J.M. Keynes suggested state intervention to fight the economic crisis and this was accepted by large number of experts as an effective means against economic crises. Reagan in the USA boldly advocated that the state has very little to do in economic spheres and, not only in this order to put the state economy in right order the expenditure for social welfare measures must be drastically curtailed or brought down to the minimum level.

The Reaganism in USA or Thatcherism in Britain put heavy stress on public administration. There was a clear conflict between public purpose and private purpose or private interest. The state shall perform minimum work for the public. Private persons shall be allowed and encouraged to do those jobs which were previously done by the state. The Second Minnow-brook Conference focused its attention to this very aspect. There was also thematic discussion in the Second Minnow-brook Conference and this changed, to a large extent, the contents and approach of public administration.

The Second Minnow-brook Conference 1988 adopted several proposals relating to public administration. Some of them are:

(1) If is the duty of public administration to give special emphasis on the normative aspects of administration. The participants at the conference wanted to say that the public administration should not be concerned with what has happened, but what should happen. The classical or old public administration emphasised not on the normative aspects and that was its drawback.

(2) If public administration starts to pay more attention to normatism or normatic character of public administration as well as ethics, morality or values the public administrators must also be prepared to reformulate the policies and methods of administration. In other words, the accountability of public admin­istrators shall be to normative aspect of public administration.

(3) Another decision adopted by the conference was human society is constantly changing and the administrators must take into account these changes and they will build up policies in the background of these changes. In other words, the administrative system will change in accordance with the change of society.

(4) I have already referred to John Rawls’s theory of justice and its relation with public administration. The Second Minnow-brook Conference (1988) sug­gested that the public administration must aim at the realisation of social justice and equality. For greater justice, redistribution of wealth is essential and the burden of that task inevitably falls upon the administration.

(5) In past there was a boundary wall between general public and admin­istrators. That wall is required to be abolished. The public administrators ought to be accountable to the public. This accountability will bring about a change in the whole system of public administration.

At the beginning of the seventies of the last century the American Academy of Political and Social Science held a conference and its chief aim was to discuss the theoretical and practical aspects in great detail. The conference also emphasised the scope of public administration.

The members of the conference thought the public administration must be released from the confinement of old thought and ideas. To speak the truth the scholars attending the conference were serious about the role of public administration in changing society. The attitude and tempera­ment of the scholars was that the subject must be treated as a separate discipline of clear status and outlook. This outlook helped to build up the foundation of New Public Administration and this has both academic and practical aspects.

Aspect of New Public Administration

An important aspect of new public administration is the public administration has achieved considerable progress, so far as its subject matter is concerned. Under such circumstances it should no longer be treated simply as a “branch of political science. The scholars and administrationists in unequivocal terms demanded that it should be regarded as a special subject. Its subject matter shall be the various aspects of administration—both public and private.

Public administration is a separate discipline. The administrators must be specially trained in order to be good administrators. The methods and subjects of training shall be decided by the public administration. If necessary the public administration shall have freedom from necessary principles of other subjects.

Public administration is not a science and for that reason the subject matter of this subject has no scope to be called a science in the sense physics and chemistry are sciences. But the term science shall be used in liberal sense and public administration shall be called science in that liberal sense.

In 1970, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Admin­istration was founded. This body demanded that public administration could properly call itself, and increasingly be recognised as a separate self-aware field of study. This approach clearly indicates that numerous developments that took place in the post-Second World War period directly or indirectly came under the aegis of public administration. The subject matter has increased, so to speak, beyond any imagination. I have already noted that public administration is a separate subject. The National Surveys conducted in the seventies have argued that the separating of public administration from other subjects is real and justified. The expansion of subject matter demands this.

The administrative system in India underwent a profound transformation during the British period, laying the foundations of modern governance in the country. Over nearly two centuries of British rule, the administration evolved from the fragmented structures of the Mughal and regional kingdoms into a centralized bureaucracy that served as a tool of colonial exploitation but also introduced several institutional reforms. This evolution can be studied through different phases, highlighting the major administrative policies, institutions, and their impact on Indian society.

Early British Administration: The East India Company (1757–1858)

The period from the Battle of Plassey (1757) to the Revolt of 1857 marked the establishment and consolidation of British control through the East India Company. During this phase, the British were primarily concerned with securing revenue and expanding territorial dominance.

Administrative Foundations:
Initially, the British retained the existing Mughal administrative framework, but they gradually altered it to suit their interests. For instance, the zamindari system in Bengal was modified into the Permanent Settlement of 1793, introduced by Lord Cornwallis, which created a new class of hereditary landlords responsible for revenue collection. This system prioritized revenue maximization for the British while neglecting agricultural productivity and the welfare of peasants.

Judicial Reforms:
The British established a dual judicial system under Warren Hastings, separating civil and criminal jurisdictions. The creation of Supreme Courts (1774 in Calcutta) and the codification of laws introduced an element of Western legal principles into Indian administration.

Civil Service:
The early civil administration was dominated by British officers of the East India Company. Warren Hastings initiated measures to reduce corruption among Company officials, but it was under Lord Cornwallis that the civil service became institutionalized. He introduced competitive examinations (open only to Europeans at that time) and established clear hierarchies, laying the groundwork for the Indian Civil Service (ICS).

The Crown Administration (1858–1947): Post-Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857 marked a turning point in Indian administration. After the revolt, the British Crown assumed direct control of India through the Government of India Act of 1858, bringing an end to Company rule. This period saw significant administrative changes to strengthen British control, prevent further rebellions, and modernize governance.

Centralization of Power:
The British centralized administration under a single authority—the Viceroy of India—who acted as the representative of the British Crown. The Viceroy’s Council, an advisory body initially comprising Europeans, became the key decision-making entity. Lord Canning was the first Viceroy, and his administration focused on reconciliation after the revolt.

Provincial Administration:
The Indian Councils Act of 1861 introduced a decentralized governance model by granting limited legislative powers to provinces. Provinces were headed by Governors (in major provinces) or Lieutenant Governors, with a structure of commissioners and district magistrates under them.

Indian Civil Service:
The ICS evolved into the backbone of British administration in India. The Charter Act of 1833 opened the service theoretically to Indians, but in practice, racial discrimination and difficult examinations conducted in England ensured that only a few Indians entered the service. Notable Indian entrants like Satyendranath Tagore (first Indian ICS officer) were exceptions rather than the rule.

Judicial Reforms and Law Codes:
The Indian Penal Code (1860), Criminal Procedure Code (1861), and Civil Procedure Code (1859) were introduced to standardize laws across the country. These legal reforms were based on English common law and were aimed at ensuring administrative uniformity.

Revenue and Land Policies:
The British introduced various land revenue systems across India:

• Permanent Settlement (Bengal, Bihar, Odisha) favored landlords.
• Ryotwari System (Madras, Bombay), introduced by Thomas Munro, directly taxed cultivators.
• Mahalwari System (North-West Provinces, Punjab) assessed revenue at the village level.

While these systems ensured a steady revenue flow to the British, they often led to the exploitation of peasants and the destruction of traditional agricultural systems.

Social and Economic Impacts on Administration

The British administration brought about significant changes in the social and economic structures of India. These changes were often geared toward facilitating British economic interests.

Education Reforms:
The introduction of Western education under Lord Macaulay’s policy in the 1830s aimed to create a class of Indians “Indian in blood and color, but English in tastes and intellect.” English became the language of administration and education, creating a small, educated elite that eventually spearheaded the nationalist movement.

Infrastructure Development:
Administrative efficiency required infrastructure. The British built railways, telegraph lines, and postal systems to consolidate their control over India and facilitate the movement of goods and troops.

Police System:
The modern police force was established under Lord Cornwallis. The Police Act of 1861 institutionalized the force, creating a hierarchy of constables, inspectors, and district superintendents. The police primarily served colonial interests, suppressing dissent and maintaining law and order.

Rise of Indian Nationalism and Administrative Response

By the late 19th century, Indian resistance to British rule began to grow. Administrative policies inadvertently sowed the seeds of nationalism.

Introduction of Representative Institutions:

• The Indian Councils Act of 1892 allowed limited Indian representation in legislative councils. However, these councils had minimal power, serving primarily as advisory bodies.
• The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) provided for separate electorates for Muslims, introducing communal divisions into Indian politics.

Administrative Repression:
The British administration used repressive measures to suppress nationalist movements, including the use of laws like the Rowlatt Act (1919). Incidents like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre revealed the oppressive nature of British rule.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919):
The Government of India Act, 1919, introduced the concept of diarchy in provincial administration, dividing responsibilities between elected Indian ministers and British officials. This was an attempt to placate growing demands for self-governance.

The Final Phase: Towards Independence

The period between the Government of India Act of 1935 and independence in 1947 witnessed significant administrative changes as Indian political aspirations grew stronger.

Government of India Act, 1935:
This act introduced provincial autonomy, expanding Indian participation in governance. It also proposed a federal structure, although it was never fully implemented. The act formed the basis of India’s post-independence constitution.

Quit India Movement and Administrative Strain:
The mass movements of the 1940s, such as the Quit India Movement (1942), strained British administration. By the end of World War II, British resources were depleted, and their capacity to manage Indian administration waned.

Transfer of Power (1947):
The Mountbatten Plan led to the partition of India and Pakistan and the end of British rule. The Indian administrative system, largely modeled on British frameworks, was inherited by independent India.

Conclusion

The evolution of Indian administration during the British period was marked by centralization, institutionalization, and the introduction of modern governance principles. While the British administrative system served colonial interests, it also left a legacy of efficient bureaucratic structures, legal codification, and infrastructure development. This dual legacy profoundly shaped independent India’s governance, providing both challenges and opportunities for its leaders. Despite its exploitative intent, the British administrative apparatus laid the groundwork for a unified and modern Indian state.

India is the largest parliamentary democracy in the world, a distinction that reflects the scale, complexity, and diversity of its governance system. Rooted in the Westminster model, parliamentary democracy in India has been adapted to suit its unique socio-political conditions. Since its adoption in 1950, this system has facilitated governance in a country of over a billion people with extraordinary diversity in language, religion, culture, and economic status. Despite numerous challenges, India’s parliamentary democracy has shown resilience, adaptability, and continuity, making it one of the most studied and debated political systems globally.

The Framework of Parliamentary Democracy in India

India’s parliamentary democracy is established under the Constitution of India, which came into effect on January 26, 1950. The system emphasizes the supremacy of the Parliament and the responsibility of the executive to the legislature. The President of India is the constitutional head of state, while the Prime Minister, supported by the Council of Ministers, wields real executive power. The Parliament consists of two houses:

• Lok Sabha (House of the People): The lower house, whose members are directly elected by citizens.
• Rajya Sabha (Council of States): The upper house, whose members are indirectly elected by state legislatures and nominated by the President.

The parliamentary system is underpinned by the principles of universal adult suffrage, collective responsibility, and accountability of the government to the legislature.

Strengths of Parliamentary Democracy in India

1. Representation of Diversity India’s parliamentary democracy allows for the representation of the country’s vast diversity. With over 2,000 ethnic groups, 22 officially recognized languages, and multiple religions, the parliamentary system ensures that various interests are represented through a federal structure and bicameral legislature. For instance, reserved constituencies in the Lok Sabha for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes provide political representation for marginalized communities.

2. Flexibility and Responsiveness The parliamentary system’s flexibility enables the government to respond to dynamic socio-political changes. For example, the landmark economic reforms of 1991, which liberalized India’s economy, were facilitated through parliamentary debates and consensus-building.

3. Accountability of the Executive One of the core principles of parliamentary democracy is the accountability of the executive to the legislature. The government is answerable to Parliament, which ensures transparency and scrutiny through mechanisms like Question Hour, Zero Hour, and parliamentary committees. This system acts as a check on executive power, as demonstrated during debates over the implementation of policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or during the no-confidence motions against governments.

4. Adaptability to Regional Aspirations India’s parliamentary democracy has adapted to address regional and local aspirations by decentralizing power. The establishment of Panchayati Raj Institutions under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1992) exemplifies how democracy has been extended to the grassroots level.

5. Peaceful Transfer of Power The system has facilitated regular and peaceful transitions of power since independence. Despite challenges, the parliamentary framework has withstood changes in government, such as the transition from single-party dominance under the Indian National Congress to coalition governments in the 1990s and later shifts to majoritarian politics.

Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy in India

1. Coalition Politics and Instability With a multi-party system, coalition politics often leads to political instability. Between 1989 and 2014, India witnessed frequent coalition governments, some of which lacked cohesion and faced difficulties in decision-making. For instance, the collapse of the United Front government in 1998 highlighted the fragility of coalitions.

2. Erosion of Parliamentary Standards The decline in parliamentary functioning has been a growing concern. The number of sittings of the Parliament has decreased over the years, reducing the time available for deliberation on important issues. For example, the Lok Sabha sat for an average of 120 days per year in the 1950s, compared to fewer than 70 days in recent years.

Moreover, disruptions and adjournments during parliamentary sessions have impeded legislative business. Important bills, such as the farm laws passed in 2020, were criticized for being passed without adequate discussion, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic principles.

3. Criminalization of Politics A significant challenge to India’s parliamentary democracy is the criminalization of politics. According to reports by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a substantial percentage of Members of Parliament (MPs) have criminal cases pending against them. This undermines public trust in the system and raises questions about the integrity of lawmakers.

4. Dominance of the Executive Despite the theoretical supremacy of the Parliament, in practice, the executive often dominates the legislature, reducing the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight. The use of ordinances by the government, bypassing parliamentary debate, reflects this imbalance. For instance, the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 was criticized for being rushed through Parliament without extensive debate.

5. Marginalization of the Rajya Sabha The Rajya Sabha, intended to act as a check on the Lok Sabha and represent states’ interests, has often been sidelined. Political parties sometimes use their majority in the Lok Sabha to bypass or undermine the Rajya Sabha, reducing its effectiveness as a deliberative body.

6. Electoral Malpractices and Money Power Elections, the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, have been marred by money power and electoral malpractices. The increasing use of corporate funding and opaque electoral bonds has raised concerns about the influence of money on policymaking and governance.

Landmark Achievements of Parliamentary Democracy in India

1. Social Legislation Indian democracy has delivered significant social reforms through legislation. Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989), and Right to Education Act (2009) illustrate the progressive role of Parliament in addressing social inequalities.

2. Economic Reforms The parliamentary system has facilitated transformative economic policies, including the nationalization of banks in 1969, the liberalization of the economy in 1991, and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017, demonstrating its capacity to adapt to changing economic paradigms.

3. Constitutional Amendments India’s Parliament has enacted over 100 constitutional amendments, addressing critical issues like reservations, federalism, and electoral reforms. For instance, the 73rd and 74th Amendments empowered local governance, enhancing democratic participation.

Comparative Perspective

India’s parliamentary democracy stands out in its scale and scope compared to other nations with similar systems, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. While the UK’s Parliament evolved in a relatively homogeneous society, India’s system has had to navigate immense diversity and socio-economic inequalities. Despite these challenges, it has succeeded in sustaining a democratic framework for over seven decades, a feat unmatched by many post-colonial nations.

Future Prospects and Recommendations

1. Strengthening Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms like parliamentary committees should be strengthened to ensure thorough scrutiny of policies and legislation. Improving transparency in legislative processes is crucial to restoring public confidence.

2. Electoral Reforms Addressing the criminalization of politics and curbing the influence of money in elections are imperative. Electoral reforms, including the introduction of state funding for elections and stricter regulations on campaign financing, are needed.

3. Enhancing Public Engagement Innovative methods to increase public participation in parliamentary processes, such as e-governance platforms and citizen consultation mechanisms, can make the system more inclusive.

4. Improving Parliamentary Productivity Increasing the number of parliamentary sittings and ensuring that debates are constructive and focused on policy issues will enhance the efficacy of the system.

Conclusion

India’s parliamentary democracy has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, emerging as a beacon of democratic governance in the developing world. While challenges like political instability, executive dominance, and electoral malpractices persist, the system has also facilitated significant progress in social, economic, and political spheres. As India moves forward, addressing these challenges through reforms and renewed commitment to democratic principles will ensure that parliamentary democracy continues to thrive and serve the aspirations of its diverse populace.

The main function of Indian administration or administrative system is to act in accordance with the objectives or principles laid down in the Preamble to the Constitution, Directive Principles of State Policy and, finally, the Fundamental Rights. Our administrative system is also related to the development of the Indian economy. India will be constituted into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. India will also make untiring efforts to secure to all its citizens—justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It is also the duty of the state to create an environment in which all the citizens can enjoy the fundamental rights.

The state of India shall be administered in accordance with the directive principles. Though these principles are not enforceable by the court, these must guide the policy of the state. In other words, whenever the state India or the authorities of constituent units make law or formulate policies they must keep the Directive Principles of State Policy in mind.

This indicates that the public administration of India is burdened with certain responsibilities. Both in the formulation of policies and in their implementation the authority must be guided by both the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This makes the public administration responsible. The idea of responsibility is associated with accountability. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the public administration of India is both responsible and owes accountability to the people. It is not simply a tax collecting and order maintaining agency.

There is another feature. The administration of India will make utmost efforts to ensure justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Our administration must make all efforts to realise the lofty ideals stated in the Preamble. These constitute the key to our Constitution. Ernest Barker in his Principles of Social and Political Theory says: “I am proud that the people of India should begin their independent life by subscribing to the principles of political tradition which we are in the West call Westerns, but which is now something more than Western.”

What Barker wants to say is that the principles or the ambitious ideals laid down in the Preamble are out and out Western. But the great fathers of our Constitution wanted to make all these as indispensable parts of our life. Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity must be our goals. These are not only confined within the two covers of our Constitution, these are to be achieved through continuous efforts.

Our administration is the vehicle and it is reformulated from time to time to reach the goals. The President, the ministers, governors and all other top admin­istrators are to take oath that all of them must act in accordance with the principles laid down in the constitution and observe it faithfully. It is a clear indication of the fact that the public administration in India is always accountable to the people.

From broader perspective we can say that our administration is a respon­sible one. The term accountability cannot be effectively differentiated from accountability. Whenever a body or person or public administration is account­able it indicates that it is responsible. In our parliamentary system of Westminster model there exists a chain of responsibility.

The council of ministers including the Prime Minister is responsible to the parliament, the parliament is responsible to the electorate. The violation or breach of accountability will result in serious consequences which are undesirable. More than two centuries ago Rousseau talked about popular sovereignty which was supposed to work through open general assembly. His concept of democracy and governmental function were modelled by direct democracy.

The people who met at the open general assembly were the supreme authority and for that reason the government was accountable to the people for all activities. Today this type of government is simply a practical impossibility, but the underlying idea—the accountability or responsibility — remains. In the administrative structure of India the accountability has been prioritised.

Our public administration is based on law. The Constitution is the authority and supreme guidance. It is generally said that in USA the constitution is sovereign and in all federal states this principle holds good. Since the constitution is the supreme authority the accountability of all is to the constitution. Admin­istration is based on the constitutional law.

This has greater and important implications. Art. 14 of our Constitution says: The state shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. Our administration must discharge its duties in accordance with this principle. It is known to the students of public administration and political science that the common law of Britain contains this principle.

The British administration scrupulously follows this principle. In our administrative system the equality before law and equal protection of law are strictly adhered to. We can say that the public administration in India is based on law and acts according to law.

Indian administration may reasonably be termed as development admin­istration. The father of the concept is Fred Riggs who initiated the idea that the Weberian theory of bureaucracy has been modelled specifically for the developed capitalist societies.

But this model has very little relevance for nations which have not earned the status of capitalism. He has shown that the administrative model of capitalist society is not fully applicable to the emerging nations and from this background a new term has been coined the development administration.

The idea of development administration has radically changed the general concept of public administration. The chief aim of public administration is not to collect revenue, maintain law and order and implement the decisions of state. The aim is far more important —modern public administration must ensure the development of a prismatic society.

The collection of revenue and maintenance of law and order are no doubt important tasks but no less important is to reach the desired stage of development through the administrative function. In this respect it has been observed that in a developing nation the public administration must give the utmost priority to the rapid progress of economy. Since India is a developing nation its progress can be achieved through a rejuvenated admin­istrative process.

Hence one of the most important characteristics of Indian public administration is to develop the economy through the judicious use of scarce resources. Since the ministers are temporary executives it is not possible for them to shoulder the onerous burden of development, the responsibility falls upon the public administration.

Amartya Sen in his recent book Development as Freedom (Oxford, 2000) has said that development can be achieved through an elaborate process of expanding the real freedom that people enjoy and public administration is a part of that process of expansion of freedom. Sen maintains, development requires removal of major sources of unfreedom, poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive state.

The crux of the issue is the bureaucracy is not directly accountable to the electorate but its accountability to the legislature and executive has been a well-established concept in India, Naturally the public administration is to bear the major part of burden of development.

In India the development administration is not confined within the four walls of implementation of policies. India’s is a planned economy-naturally all aspects of planning, programmes, policy formulations, projects and implementation of decisions are all associated with planning. In India there is a central Planning Commission. The Prime Minister is the head of the Planning Commission. But he is a political and, in that sense, temporary, executive.

For this reason all decisions regarding plan as well as development pass through the multi-staged bureaucratic structure. Viewed from this angle we can say that the major part of development administration falls upon the bureaucracy. Even where there is no existence of planning, development work exists and the administration is at the centre of development. A clear example is the US administration. A major part of the development work is performed by the public and private administration.

Indian administration is flexible. India is a developing nation or a state in transition. Naturally the public administration of such a state cannot be fixed. Economic, political and other issues and subjects change and the public administration also changes. To cope with the changes in various fields the public administration also changes and these changes assume the form of reform.

There have occurred several administrative reforms. In recent years several terms have entered into the domain of public administration in India and one such term is good governance. In order to fulfill the ideals of a political system and realise the demands of the electorate the politicians and top administrators plan for reforming the existing principles and structure of public administration. This process aims at good governance. That is-the purpose of public administration must be to cater the interests of the people of all walks of life. The idea of good governance is a potent factor of reforming administration.

In the 1990s when India launched the policy and principle of liberalisation it was strongly felt that the administrative system of India is required to be reformed so that the liberalisation of economy can achieve desired goals. Today globalisation is a hot issue. Different nations-states of the world today are no longer separate from each other.The nation-states are physically or geographically separate from each other.

But from the standpoint of economy, culture and other aspects the nations are dependent on each other and this interdependence has necessitated the changes in administrative system. This is called the flexibility of Indian public administration. Moreover, Indian administrators borrow administrative principles from other countries to improve our admin­istrative system and this is the cause of flexibility of public administration.

Neutrality is an important feature of Indian public administration. In a multiparty state the neutrality of bureaucracy is essential. Today’s opposition may be tomorrow’s ruling party and this generally happens in parliamentary system of- government. In this situation bureaucracy cannot take side of a particular party government.

When a new party comes to power the entire group of civil servants tenders its support to the new government and continues to perform its duties as it did earlier. A civil servant may have his own views or opinion but he has no scope to implement his personal .opinion. He does not express his personal political opinion.

The opinion of the departmental minister is his opinion. In the policy-making affairs the departmental officer can express his personal, opinion but he cannot force the minister to accept his view. Again if a new party comes to power and the minister adopts a new policy directly opposite to the previous one, the same bureaucrat gives his consent.

An important aspect of Indian bureaucracy is “permanency of tenure and the assurance of due process of law”. This feature has considerably strengthened the neutrality. The ministers cannot always adopt penal measures against the civil servants. The minister cannot force the civil servants to act according to a particular political opinion. They always act according to due process of law.

In Indian administration there is a system of reservation for different categories such as SC, ST, OBC people. It is a constitutional provision and’ is strictly adhered to. These categories of people always get preference over other people or people belonging to the general category. The purpose is to help the upliftment of backward people and to ensure social justice which has been stated in the Preamble to our Constitution.

The public administration of independent India is to a large extent a continuation of the civil service created by the British raj. There were several factors behind this Continuation and one such factor is that the founding fathers of free India largely adopted the British parliamentary system and neutrality, the civil service system adopted by the British rulers had, its relevance in the post-independent India.

During the British rule the ICS officers were the servants of the British government. But in free India the situation has changed completely. Let us quote few words from a critic, “The civil servant today is really a servant of the people. The people who were subjects of the British rulers of the past are masters today”. This is a basic feature of Indian bureaucracy. This change is primarily due to the prioritisation of accountability. Both change is primarily due to the prioritisation of accountability. Both executive and legislature are accountable to the electorate. The bureaucrats are bound by the directives of the ministers.

India has adopted an integrated system of public administration. For examples there are some central services such as IAS, IPS, IPS, Indian Audit and Account Service etc. The holder of these posts work for whole of India. At the same time there are state service, such as WBCS, Maharashtra Civil Service’ etc. Though the services are different they work combinedly for the betterment of public administration.

The Preamble of our Constitution, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy are the elements that guide the administrators in the making and implementation of policies. Even the top administrator cannot neglect the Directive Principles of State Policy. While a bureaucrat implements a policy he must remember the philosophy of the Preamble. This is termed by same as a limitation upon the activities of the bureaucracy.

Indian bureaucratic system is neutral. That is they serve all ministers of different political colours. But there is another side of the picture. Generally a minister guides a civil servant but there is also another feature of our bureaucracy. A highly qualified and experienced bureaucrat guides a minister and practically determines policy.

Let us liberally quote Paul Brass (The Politics of India Since Independence): “Although they are subordinate at the highest levels to the most powerful political leaders and at the lower levels to powerful local politicians, the higher grades of Indian bureaucracy dominate routine decision making and, in the frequent absence of ministerial leadership, general policy-making in both the central and state governments. They are no longer the elite “rulers of India”, but the leading elements of a vast dominant class, whose members are the principal beneficiaries of the benefits and resources produced and distributed through the agency of the Indian state”.

It has been alleged that there is a nexus, in India, between the politicians and bureaucrats and from this nexus has developed the worst type of corruption. In fact, in India’s public administration there is corruption at all levels. Since both politicians and civil servants are involved the corruption is unlikely to be uprooted.

In the post-independent era the number of civil servants has increased several times. Several factors are responsible for this growth of bureaucracy. In every country the number of public servants has increased and India is not an exception. During the British regime the sphere of public services was” unthinkably limited.

The primary duty of the civil service was to maintain law and order and to collect revenue. Today these two main functions remain and the civil servants are to perform additional duties and this number is quite large. The main area that has increased is the economic functions. India and all other nations (except one or two) are called nations in transition which means that they are developing nations. They are trying to move from un-development or underde­velopment to development —and the burden of this task falls upon the bureau­cracy. The bureaucracy is also to perform some social services.

All these have resulted in the increase of number of civil servants. There is another reason. The quantity of public services has increased due to the rise of democracy. In British period the whole of India was ruled from one or very few centres. Today there is a central government, there are state governments, and various types of local governments. The proper management of all these services requires a large array of government officers.

Moreover, the social structure and the relations among people have undergone changes. There are tensions among different classes, groups, and religious sects. For the proper management of all these, government officers are necessary. Above all, abnormal rise of democratic feeling has been a cause of tensions and, for the management of these, greater number of police is required.

India is a Third World state and, in that sense, according to Gunnar Myrdal, it is a “soft state”. Myrdal has defined the term in the following way. The term “soft state is understood to comprise all the various types of social indiscipline which manifest themselves by deficiencies in legislation and, in particular, law observance and enforcement, a widespread disobedience by public officials on various levels to rules and directives handed down to them”. This is the general picture of the Third World states.

But the responsibility of management of this untoward situation falls upon the civil servants. It is a fact that indiscipline, chaos or anarchy cannot be allowed to continue because that will weaken the very foundation of the state. Who will do the job? The simple answer is—bureaucracy.

There is a controversy regarding the importance of specialists and generalists. The generalists mean the general category of administrators such as IAS, IPS. The specialists include technologists of all types. There was a time when the generalists controlled the entire system of public administration. But the introduction of planning, the application of technology required special services of specialists that is technologists.

For general administration generalists, are essential but for technical services such as construction of bridges building up factories, model preparation for planned economy specialist knowledge is indis­pensable. This sometimes gives rise to controversy-Who is essential? Since India is a developing nation, it needs the services of both generalists and specialists. But, so far as public administration is concerned the controversy has not died down.

New public management is a part of the public administration system in which the management activities are conducted in public interest. The term ‘new public management’ was introduced in the late 20th century to counter the problems related to globalisation, worldwide contention, and automation changes in the industry. The main function of new public management is to control the financial entities and accelerate efficiency in public administration.

Different marketing tools like Total Quality Management, Operational Research Techniques, and Objective Management are used in new public management to get the maximum output from the private sector. There are many fields of public management systems like transportation, public health services, education, enforcement of law and order, etc.

Traditional Public Management

Before New public management, the traditional public management functioned in sectors. This conventional public management system had some limitations, due to which the new traditional public management was introduced. The limitations of traditional public management are listed below.

1. The traditional system of public management was not that effective. Different persons were authorised for a function and kept on changing due to the change of governance. This authority change affects the efficiency of function. 
2. In the traditional public management system of management, the policies were made at a higher level but could not be implemented at ground level with full potential.
3. For public administration, the management authority should be free to make the decisions for a better outcome. In traditional public management, they were not supposed to make the decision or make it very rarely.
4. The main limitation of traditional public management was that it is led from the centre, restricting the free flow of transmission.
5. Lack of motivational sources and activities for the public officers resulted in low efficiency in their work while implementing the policies.
6. Traditional public management followed the same pattern or format while implementing a scheme. It did not focus on the achievement of goals.

Beginning of New Public Management

The ending of the 20th century was the beginning of new public management. In 1991, new public management was introduced by Hood and Jackson, scholars from the United Kingdom and Australia. While working in the public administration sector, they introduced the new public management system to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional public management system and enhance efficiency. 

This system resolves the many problems based on globalisation, worldwide contention and automation change in the industry in the last decade of the 20th century. New public management is the mixture of several business approaches which consist of many tools. 

Advantages of New Public Management 

The new public management system was introduced to overcome the boundaries of the traditional public management system and enhance efficiency. The advantages of new public management (NPM) are listed below.

• NPM forces the new technologies to get the maximum output from a function. This system boosts the technology revolution
• In the transportation sector, the NPM system accelerates material flow in national and international markets by generating competition
• New public management focuses on customer satisfaction and serves the customer first compared to the traditional system
• Employees of this system are provided with the training and motivated and regular bases to make their working style effective
• The NPM system is goal-oriented, which improves the achievement of goals
• The NPM system provides the freedom of action to the individual, which increases the efficiency of effectiveness

Differences between the Traditional Public Administration and New Public Management

In many sectors, a new public management term is used in place of public administration. The differences between traditional and new public management are listed below.

The Approach of New Public Management

To compete with the private sector at the national and international level, new public management focuses on a modern approach to management. This approach to new public management is listed below.

• Technical approach: The new public management system allows creativeness in management. It approaches implementing new ideas to achieve the targets effectively
• Optimistic approach: New public management encourages the public administration’s flexible, respective and problem-solving system
• Anti-hierarchical approach: This public management system provides freedom to individuals, making this system an anti-hierarchical system

Conclusion

New public management is the approach to use the different management techniques used in the private sector in public administration. The concept of new public management helps to run public service corporations in an economically efficient manner. The NPM system boosts product delivery and manages the financial goals.

An organization is a collection of people who work together to attain specified objectives. There are two types of organization structure, that can be formal organization and informal organization. An organisation is said to be formal organisation when the two or more than two persons come together to accomplish a common objective, and they follow a formal relationship, rules, and policies are established for compliance, and there exists a system of authority.

On the other end, there is an informal organisation which is formed under the formal organisation as a system of social relationship, which comes into existence when people in an organisation, meet, interact and associate with each other. In this article excerpt, we are going to discuss the major differences between formal and informal organisation.

Definition of Formal Organization

By the term formal organisation, we mean a structure that comes into existence when two or more people come together for a common purpose, and there is a legal & formal relationship between them. The formation of such an organisation is deliberate by the top level management. The organisation has its own set of rules, regulations, and policies expressed in writing.

The basic objective of the establishment of an organisation is the attainment of the organisation’s goal. For this purpose, work is assigned, and authorities are delegated to each member and the concept of division of labour and specialisation of workers are applied and so the work is assigned on the basis of their capabilities. The job of each is fixed, and roles, responsibilities, authority and accountability associated with the job is clearly defined.

In addition to this, there exists a hierarchical structure, which determines a logical authority relationship and follows a chain of command. The communication between two members is only through planned channels.

Types of formal organization structure

• Line Organization
• Line and Staff Organization
• Functional Organization
• Project Management Organization
• Matrix Organization

Definition of Informal Organization

An informal organisation is formed within the formal organisation; that is a system of interpersonal relationships between individuals working in an enterprise, that forms as a result of people meet, interact and associate with one another. The organisation is created by the members spontaneously, i.e. created out of socio-psychological needs and urge of people to talk. The organisation is featured by mutual aid, cooperation, and companionship among members.

In an informal organisation, there are no defined channels of communication, and so members can interact with other members freely. They work together in their individual capacities and not professional.

There is no defined set of rules and regulations that govern the relationship between members. Instead, it is a set of social norms, connections, and interaction. The organisation is personal i.e. no rules and regulations are imposed on them, their opinions, feelings, and views are given respect. However, it is temporary in nature, and it does not last long.

Difference between Formal and Informal Organisation:

The principles of organization form the foundation for the efficient and effective functioning of any structured entity, whether in the public sector, private enterprises, or non-governmental organizations. An organization is a systematic arrangement of individuals and resources working collaboratively to achieve specific goals. The principles of organization are rooted in management theories and administrative practices, serving as guidelines for designing, structuring, and managing organizations to optimize performance.

These principles, developed over centuries, have evolved through contributions from thinkers like Henri Fayol, Max Weber, Luther Gulick, and Herbert Simon. They encompass key aspects of hierarchy, communication, specialization, coordination, and decision-making, ensuring that organizations operate harmoniously and achieve their objectives. This essay provides a detailed exploration of these principles, examining their relevance and application in contemporary organizational settings.

1. Principle of Objective

The enterprise should set up certain aims for the achievement of which various departments should work. A common goal so devised for the business as a whole and the organization is set up to achieve that goal. In the absence of a common aim, various departments will set up their own goals and there is a possibility of conflicting objectives for different departments. So there must be an objective for the organization.

2. Principle of Specialisation

The organization should be set up in such a way that every individual should be assigned a duty according to his skill and qualification. The person should continue the same work so that he specialises in his work. This helps in increasing production in the concern.

3. Principles of Co-ordination

The co-ordination of different activities is an important principle of the organization. There should be some agency to co-ordinate the activities of various departments. In the absence of co-ordination there is a possibility of setting up different goals by different departments. The ultimate aim of the concern can be achieved only if proper co-ordination is done for different activities.

4. Principle of Authority and Responsibility

The authority flows downward in the line. Every individual is given authority to get the work done. Though authority can be delegated but responsibility lies with the man who has been given the work. If a superior delegates his authority to his subordinate, the superior is not absolved of his responsibility, though the subordinate becomes liable to his superior. The responsibility cannot be delegated under any circumstances.

5. Principle of Definition

The scope of authority and responsibility should be clearly defined. Every person should know his work with definiteness. If the duties are not clearly assigned, then it will not be possible to fix responsibility also. Everybody’s responsibility will become nobody’s responsibility. The relationship between different departments should also be clearly defined to make the work efficient and smooth.

6. Span of Control

Span of control means how many subordinates can be supervised by a supervisor. The number of subordinates should be such that the supervisor should be able to control their work effectively. Moreover, the work to be supervised should be of the same nature. If the span of control is disproportionate, it is bound to affect the efficiency of the workers because of slow communication with the supervisors.

7. Principle of Balance

The principle means that assignment of work should be such that every person should be given only that much work which he can perform well. Some person is over worked and the other is under-worked, then the work will suffer in both the situations. The work should be divided in such a way that everybody should be able to give his maximum.

8. Principle of Continuity

The organization should be amendable according to the changing situations. Everyday there are changes in methods of production and marketing systems. The organization should be dynamic and not static. There should always be a possibility of making necessary adjustments.

9. Principle of Uniformity

The organization should provide for the distribution of work in such a manner that the uniformity is maintained. Each officer should be in-charge of his respective area so as to avoid dual subordination and conflicts.

10. Principle of Unity of Command

There should be a unity of command in the organization. A person should be answerable to one boss only. If a person is under the control of more than one person then there is a like-hood of confusion and conflict. He gets contradictory orders from different superiors. This principle creates a sense of responsibility to one person. The command should be from top to bottom for making the organization sound and clear. It also leads to consistency in directing, coordinating and controlling.

11. Principle of Exception

This principle states that top management should interfere only when something goes wrong. If the things are done as per plans then there is no need for the interference of top management. The management should leave routine things to be supervised by lower cadres. It is only the exceptional situations when attention of top management is drawn. This principle relieves top management of many botherations and routine things. Principle of exception allows top management to concentrate on planning and policy formulation. Important time of management is not wasted on avoidable supervision.

12. Principle of Simplicity

The organizational structure should be simple so that it is easily understood by each and every person. The authority, responsibility and position of every person should be made clear so that there is no confusion about these things. A complex organizational structure will create doubts and conflicts among persons. There may also be over-lapping’s and duplication of efforts which may otherwise be avoided. It helps in smooth running of the organization.

13. Principle of Efficiency

The organization should be able to achieve enterprise objectives at a minimum cost. The standards of costs and revenue are pre-determined and performance should be according to these goals. The organization should also enable the attainment of job satisfaction to various employees.

14. Scalar Principle

This principle refers to the vertical placement of supervisors starting from top and going to the lower level. The scalar chain is a pre-requisite for effective and efficient organization.

Public Administration is a critical field that operates at the intersection of governance, management, and public service. It deals with the implementation and management of governmental policies to serve societal needs and ensure the welfare of citizens. This assertion that public administration is primarily concerned with the execution of public policies underscores its pivotal role in converting the intentions of government leaders and policymakers into tangible outcomes. 

Understanding Public Administration and Public Policies

Public Administration, as a discipline, has been defined by scholars like Woodrow Wilson and Max Weber as the machinery and processes through which governments implement their decisions. Public policy, on the other hand, refers to the decisions and plans formulated by governmental authorities to address societal issues. These policies are designed to achieve specific objectives, such as economic growth, social equity, national security, and environmental sustainability.

The execution of public policies involves a wide range of activities, including planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting—often referred to as the POSDCORB model, conceptualized by Luther Gulick. These activities form the backbone of administrative processes that ensure the smooth translation of policies from paper to practice.

The Role of Public Administration in Policy Execution

1. Bridging the Gap Between Policy Formulation and Implementation

Public policies are the result of extensive deliberations, research, and consultation among various stakeholders. However, their success depends largely on effective execution. Public Administration serves as the bridge between the abstract intentions of policymakers and the real-world outcomes experienced by citizens. Without a competent administrative apparatus, even the most well-conceived policies risk failure due to poor implementation.

2. Operationalizing Governmental Decisions

Once policies are formulated, Public Administration mobilizes resources—human, financial, and material—to ensure their execution. For instance, the implementation of a public health policy, such as a vaccination drive, requires public administrators to coordinate with healthcare professionals, manage logistics, and engage with communities to ensure compliance.

3. Ensuring Compliance and Regulation

Public Administration also plays a regulatory role, ensuring that the objectives of public policies are met while maintaining transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. For example, environmental policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions involve monitoring industries, enforcing regulations, and penalizing violators.

4. Managing Public Resources

Efficient resource allocation is a hallmark of effective public administration. Public administrators are tasked with budgeting and allocating resources to various programs and departments to ensure that policy goals are met without wastage or corruption. This involves financial planning, auditing, and ensuring accountability.

Theoretical Perspectives on Policy Execution

Several theories underpin the relationship between public administration and policy execution:

1. Systems Theory

Public administration is viewed as a system that transforms inputs (policies) into outputs (services and programs). This theory emphasizes the importance of feedback mechanisms to improve policy outcomes.

2. Principal-Agent Theory

This theory highlights the relationship between elected officials (principals) and public administrators (agents). Administrators are expected to act in alignment with the objectives of policymakers while maintaining operational discretion.

3. Policy Cycle Model

The policy cycle divides the policymaking process into stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation, evaluation, and termination. Public Administration is most active during the implementation stage, translating the theoretical constructs of policies into actionable programs.

Challenges in Policy Execution

Despite its importance, the execution of public policies is fraught with challenges:

1. Bureaucratic Inefficiencies

Rigid structures, excessive red tape, and lack of innovation in bureaucracies can hinder the timely and effective implementation of policies.

2. Resource Constraints

Many governments face financial and human resource limitations, which can compromise the quality and reach of public programs.

3. Political Interference

Public Administration often operates in a politically charged environment, where conflicting interests and corruption can derail policy objectives.

4. Socio-Cultural Barriers

Cultural attitudes, resistance to change, and lack of public awareness can impede the acceptance and success of policies.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation Challenges

Ensuring that policies achieve their intended outcomes requires robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. In their absence, administrators may struggle to identify and address implementation gaps.

Real-World Examples of Policy Execution

1. The Green Revolution in India

The success of the Green Revolution in the 1960s is a testament to the role of public administration in implementing agricultural policies that transformed India from a food-deficient country to a self-sufficient one. Public administrators worked tirelessly to disseminate new technologies, distribute seeds, and ensure credit availability.

2. COVID-19 Vaccination Campaigns

The global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines highlighted the critical role of public administration in coordinating logistics, ensuring equitable distribution, and addressing public hesitancy.

3. Poverty Alleviation Programs

Programs like Brazil’s Bolsa Família and India’s MGNREGA showcase how well-designed policies can achieve their goals through effective administrative execution, targeting vulnerable populations and improving their quality of life.

The Evolving Role of Public Administration

In the 21st century, the role of Public Administration in policy execution is undergoing significant transformation. The rise of e-governance, public-private partnerships, and data-driven decision-making has enhanced administrative efficiency and accountability. Technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain are being leveraged to improve service delivery and reduce corruption.

Moreover, the growing emphasis on sustainable development goals (SDGs) has broadened the scope of public administration to include global challenges like climate change, gender equality, and poverty eradication.

Conclusion

Public Administration is undeniably central to the execution of public policies, serving as the operational arm of government and ensuring that the benefits of governance reach the intended beneficiaries. While it faces numerous challenges, the field continues to adapt and innovate in response to evolving societal needs. A robust, transparent, and accountable public administration system is essential for translating policy promises into tangible progress, fostering trust in governance, and enhancing the quality of life for citizens worldwide. The essence of governance lies not only in formulating visionary policies but also in their successful implementation, a responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of Public Administration.

Effective organizational management is built on certain core principles that guide the structure and functioning of institutions. Among these, hierarchy and unity of command are fundamental. Both principles play a vital role in ensuring clarity, accountability, and efficiency in the management process.

Meaning of Hierarchy

Hierarchy refers to the arrangement of positions and responsibilities within an organization in a tiered or graded structure. It establishes a clear chain of command where authority flows from the topmost level of the organization to the bottom. Typically visualized as a pyramid, a hierarchy ensures that every individual has a designated role and reports to a specific superior.

Key Features of Hierarchy:

1. Graded Authority Levels: Power is distributed across levels, with each successive level subordinate to the one above.
2. Chain of Command: A clearly defined line of communication and control exists, ensuring that instructions and feedback flow smoothly.
3. Span of Control: It determines the number of subordinates that a superior can effectively manage.

This principle is deeply rooted in classical organizational theories, particularly in the work of Max Weber, who emphasized bureaucracy as an ideal organizational structure. Weber highlighted hierarchy as one of the key features of bureaucracy, ensuring systematic functioning through clear roles and responsibilities.

Meaning of Unity of Command

The principle of unity of command dictates that each employee in an organization should report to and receive instructions from only one superior. This ensures that there is no conflict or confusion regarding authority and responsibility. It is one of the 14 principles of management outlined by Henri Fayol, a pioneer in administrative theory.

Key Features of Unity of Command:

1. Single Authority: Every employee is accountable to only one superior.
2. Avoidance of Dual Allegiance: It prevents employees from receiving contradictory instructions from multiple superiors.
3. Clarity in Decision-Making: It ensures that orders and responsibilities are clearly assigned, reducing ambiguity.

Fayol argued that the absence of unity of command could lead to chaos and inefficiency, as employees might be torn between competing directives from different managers.

Utility of Hierarchy in an Organization

The principle of hierarchy has far-reaching implications for organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Its utility can be analyzed through its contributions to structure, accountability, and coordination.

1. Establishes Clear Lines of Authority

Hierarchy defines who holds decision-making power at each level. This clarity helps prevent disputes over authority and ensures that decisions are made by the appropriate individuals. For instance, in a multinational corporation, the CEO’s strategic decisions are cascaded down through regional managers and department heads, ensuring uniformity.

2. Facilitates Coordination and Communication

A hierarchical structure promotes organized communication channels, allowing instructions and feedback to flow systematically. For example, in the military, orders from generals are passed down to soldiers through a clear chain of command, minimizing misunderstandings.

3. Ensures Accountability

By assigning specific responsibilities to individuals at each level, hierarchy makes it easier to hold people accountable for their actions. When an issue arises, it is possible to trace it back to the responsible party within the hierarchical framework.

4. Simplifies Organizational Growth

As organizations grow, hierarchy provides a scalable structure for incorporating new roles and responsibilities. For instance, a startup with a flat structure may find it challenging to manage a larger workforce, necessitating the adoption of a hierarchical model.

5. Enhances Specialization

Hierarchy allows for specialization, as individuals at different levels focus on tasks suited to their expertise. Higher-level managers handle strategic planning, while lower-level employees concentrate on operational tasks.

Utility of Unity of Command in an Organization

The principle of unity of command is critical for maintaining order and ensuring efficiency within an organization. Its utility lies in its ability to streamline decision-making and minimize conflicts.

1. Prevents Confusion

When employees receive instructions from a single superior, they are less likely to face conflicting directives. For instance, in a manufacturing unit, if a worker receives contradictory orders from both a floor manager and a quality control supervisor, it can lead to delays and errors.

2. Enhances Efficiency

Unity of command reduces the time spent resolving conflicts or clarifying responsibilities, allowing employees to focus on their tasks. For example, in a hospital, a nurse reporting to a single physician can provide better patient care without conflicting priorities.

3. Promotes Discipline

A single chain of authority fosters discipline, as employees know whom to approach for guidance or grievances. This clarity strengthens adherence to organizational protocols.

4. Supports Better Decision-Making

When each manager is responsible for a specific set of subordinates, they can focus on providing guidance tailored to their team’s needs. This leads to more informed and effective decision-making.

5. Improves Employee Morale

Employees are less likely to feel overwhelmed or demotivated when they report to a single superior who understands their roles and responsibilities. This clarity reduces workplace stress and boosts morale.

Challenges and Criticisms

While hierarchy and unity of command are beneficial, they are not without challenges:

1. Rigidity in Hierarchy

A rigid hierarchical structure can stifle creativity and innovation. Employees at lower levels may feel disconnected from decision-making processes, leading to dissatisfaction.

2. Potential for Bureaucratic Delays

Excessive focus on hierarchy can slow down decision-making, as approvals must pass through multiple layers. This is particularly evident in large government organizations.

3. Issues with Unity of Command in Complex Structures

In matrix organizations, where employees work on multiple projects under different managers, maintaining unity of command can be challenging. This necessitates a balance between strict adherence to the principle and operational flexibility.

Real-World Examples

1. Hierarchy in the Military

The military is a prime example of a hierarchical organization. From generals to foot soldiers, every rank has a clearly defined role, and orders flow through a strict chain of command.

2. Unity of Command in Corporate Settings

In traditional corporate structures, such as those in Toyota or Walmart, unity of command ensures that employees report to a specific manager, reducing conflicts and streamlining operations.

3. Exceptions in Modern Organizations

In contemporary organizations, such as tech companies like Google or Spotify, flat hierarchies and collaborative reporting structures challenge traditional notions of hierarchy and unity of command. However, these companies still rely on modified versions of these principles to maintain order and accountability.

Conclusion

The principles of hierarchy and unity of command form the backbone of traditional organizational management, ensuring clarity, accountability, and efficiency. While hierarchy provides a structured framework for distributing authority and responsibilities, unity of command prevents conflicts and enhances decision-making. Together, they contribute to organizational stability and effectiveness. However, as organizations evolve to meet the demands of a dynamic global environment, these principles must be adapted to balance structure with flexibility, ensuring that they remain relevant and beneficial in contemporary contexts.

Meaning

An entrepreneur organizes various factors of production like land, labour, capital, machinery, etc. for channelizing them into productive activities. The product finally reaches consumers through various agencies. Business activities are divided into various functions, these functions are assigned to different individuals.

Various individual efforts must lead to the achievement of common business goals. Organization is the structural framework of duties and responsibilities required of personnel in performing various functions with a view to achieve business goals through organization. Management tries to combine various business activities to accomplish predetermined goals.

Present business system is very complex. The unit must be run efficiently to stay in the competitive world of business. Various jobs are to be performed by persons most suitable for them. First of all various activities should be grouped into different functions. The authority and responsibility is fixed at various levels. All efforts should be made to co-ordinate different activities for running the units efficiently so that cost of production may be reduced and profitability of the unit may be increased.

Definitions

Louis Allen, “Organization is the process of identifying and grouping work to be performed, defining and delegating responsibility and authority and establishing relationships for the purpose of enabling people to work most effectively together in accomplishing objectives.” In the words of Allen, organization is an instrument for achieving organizational goals. The work of each and every person is defined and authority and responsibility is fixed for accomplishing the same.

Wheeler, “Internal organization is the structural framework of duties and responsibilities required of personnel in performing various functions within the company………… It is essentially a blue print for action resulting in a mechanism for carrying out function to achieve the goals set up by company management”. In Wheeler’s view, organization is a process of fixing duties and responsibilities of persons in an enterprise so that business goals are achieved.

Koontz and O’Donnell, ‘The establishment of authority relationships with provision for co-ordination between them, both vertically and horizontally in the enterprise structure.” These authors view organization as a coordinating point among various persons in the business.

Oliver Sheldon, “Organization is the process so combining the work which individuals or groups have to perform with the facilities necessary for its execution, that the duties so performed provide the best channels for the efficient, systematic, positive and coordinated application of the available effort”. Organization helps in efficient utilization of resources by dividing the duties of various persons.

Spriegel, “In its broadest sense organisation refers to the relationship between the various factors present in a given endeavor. Factory organisation concerns itself primarily with the internal relationships within the factory such as responsibilities of personnel, arrangement and grouping of machines and material control. From the standpoint of the enterprise as a whole, organisation is the structural relationship between the various factors in the enterprise”.

Spriegel has given a wide definition of the organization. He has described it as the relationship among persons, factors in the enterprise. All factors of production are coordinated in order to achieve organisational objectives.

George Terry, “Organising is the establishing of effective authority relationships among selected work, persons, and work places in order for the group to work together efficiently”. According to Terry organisation is the creation of relationship among persons and work so that it may be carried on in a better and efficient way.

C.H. Northcott, ‘The arrangement by which tasks are assigned to men and women so that their individual efforts contribute effectively to some more or less clearly defined purpose for which they have been brought together”. According to Northcott the purpose of organisation is to co-ordinate the activities of various individuals working in the organisation for the attainment of enterprise goals.

L.H. Haney, “Organisation is a harmonious adjustment of specialised parts for accomplishment of some common purpose or purposes”. Organisation is the adjustment of various activities for the attainment of common goals.

Concepts of Organisation

There are two concepts of organisation: 

1. Static concept

2. Dynamic concept,

1. Static Concept:

Under static concept the term ‘organisation’ is used as a structure, an entity or a network of specified relationship. In this sense, organisation is a group of people bound together in a formal relationship to achieve common objectives. It lays emphasis on position and not on individuals.

2. Dynamic Concept:

Under dynamic concept, the term ‘organisation’ is used as a process of an on-going activity. In this sense, organisation is a process of organising work, people and the systems. It is concerned with the process of determining activities which may be necessary for achieving an objective and arranging them in suitable groups so as to be assigned to individuals. It considers organisation as an open adoptive system and not as a closed system. Dynamic concept lays emphasis on individuals and considers organisation as a continuous process.

Characteristics of Organisation

Different authors look at the word ‘organisation’ from their own angle. One thing which is common in all the viewpoints is that organisation is the establishment of authority relationship among persons so that it helps in the achievement of organisational objectives.

Some of the characteristics of organisation are studied as follows:

1. Division of Work:

Organisation deals with the whole task of business. The total work of the enterprise is divided into activities and functions. Various activities are assigned to different persons for their efficient accomplishment. This brings in division of labour. It is not that one person cannot carry out many functions but specialisation in different activities is necessary to improve one’s efficiency. Organisation helps in dividing the work into related activities so that they are assigned to different individuals.

2. Co-Ordination:

Co-ordination of various activities is as essential as their division. It helps in integrating and harmonising various activities. Co-ordination also avoids duplications and delays. In fact, various functions in an organisation depend upon one another and the performance of one influences the other. Unless all of them are properly co­ordinated, the performance of all segments is adversely affected.

3. Common Objectives:

All organisational structure is a means towards the achievement of enterprise goals. The goals of various segments lead to the achievement of major business goals. The organisational structure should build around common and clear cut objectives. This will help in their proper accomplishment.

4. Co-operative Relationship:

An organisation creates co-operative relationship among various members of the group. An organisation cannot be constituted by one person. It requires at least two or more persons. Organisation is a system which helps in creating meaningful relationship among persons. The relationship should be both vertical and horizontal among members of various departments. The structure should be designed that it motivates people to perform their part of work together.

5. Well-Defined Authority-Responsibility Relationships:

An organisation consists of various positions arranged in a hierarchy with well defined authority and responsibility. There is always a central authority from which a chain of authority relationship stretches throughout the organisation. The hierarchy of positions defines the lines of communication and pattern of relationships.

Types of Organisation

• Formal Organisation
• Informal Organisation

Formal Organisation

In every enterprise, there are certain rules and procedures that establish work relationships among the employees. These facilitate the smooth functioning of the enterprise. Further, they introduce a systematic flow of interactions among the employees. Effectively, all of this is done through a formal organisation.

Notably, the management is responsible for designing the formal organisation in such a way that it specifies a clear boundary of authority and responsibility. Coupled with systematic coordination among various activities, it ensures achievement of organisational goals.

Again, the management builds the formal organisation. It ensures smooth functioning of the enterprise as it defines the nature of interrelationships among the diverse job positions. Additionally, these ensure that the organisational goals are collectively achieved. Also, formal organisation facilitates coordination, interlinking and integration of the diverse departments within an enterprise. Lastly, it lays more emphasis on the work to be done without stressing much on interpersonal relationships.

Advantages

• The formal organisation clearly outlines the relationships among employees. Hence, it becomes easier to rack responsibilities.
• An established chain of commands maintains the unity of command.
• As the duties of each member is clearly defined, there is no ambiguity or confusion in individual roles whatsoever. Further, there is no duplication of efforts which eliminates any wastage.
• In a formal organisation, there is a clear definition of rules and procedures. This means that behaviours and relationships among the members are predictable. Consequently, there is stability and no chaos existing in the enterprise.
• Finally, it leads to the achievement of organisational goals and objectives. This is because there exist systematic and well thought out work cultures and relationships.

Disadvantages

• Decision making is slow in a formal organisation. It is important to realise that any organisational need has to flow through the respective chain of commands before being addressed.
• Formal organisation is very rigid in nature. This means that there prevails perfect discipline coupled with no deviations from the procedures. Hence, this can lead to low recognition of talent.
• Lastly, the formal organisation does not take into account the social nature of humans as it talks about only structure and work. Interestingly, we cannot eliminate this integral part of our nature. Hence, it does not entirely display the functioning of the organisation.

Informal Organisation

It’s easy to understand that if we interact with certain people regularly we tend to get more informal with them. This is because we develop interpersonal relationships with them which are not based solely on work purposes. Rather, these relationships might arise because of shared interests, like if you get to know that your colleague likes the same football club of which you’re a fan of.

As a matter of fact, informal organisation arises out of the formal organisation. This is because when people frequently contact each other we cannot force them into a rigid and completely formal structure. Instead, they bond over common interests and form groups, based upon friendship and social interactions.

Unlike formal organisation, informal organisation is fluid and there are no written or predefined rules for it. Essentially, it is a complex web of social relationships among members which are born spontaneously. Further, unlike the formal organisation, it cannot be forced or controlled by the management.

Also, the standards of behaviour evolve from group norms and not predefined rules and norms. Lastly, as there are no defined structures or lines of communication, the interactions can be completely random and independent lines of communication tend to emerge in informal organisation.

Advantages

• In this type of organisation, communication does not need to follow the defined chain. Instead, it can flow through various routes. This implies that communication in an informal organisation is much faster relative to formal organisation.
• Again, humans are social animals. The needs to socialize exists deep within our existence. The informal organisation ensures that there is socialization within the enterprise. Consequently, members experience the sense of belongingness and job satisfaction.
• Informal organisation, getting true feedbacks and reactions is not easy. Hence, in informal organisation, various limitations of formal organisation is covered up.

Disadvantages

• The informal organisation is random and can result in the spread of rumours. Again, we cannot manage and control informal organisation. Consequently, this may result in chaos within the enterprise.
• It is important to realise that it is not possible to effect changes and grow without the support of the informal organisation. This can work in both ways, for growth or decline of the enterprise.
• To point out again, informal organisation conforms to group standards and behaviours. If such behaviours are against the organisational interests, they can eventually lead to disruption of the organisation.