Abstract Nicholas Henry outlined 6 paradigms that he felt help shape and develop the field of Public Administration into what it is today. Henry’s premises states that public administration now includes two paradigms and those are the independence and purpose of public administration. Independence and purpose are crucial to the existence of public administration and without it the study would ultimately be drowned out. Purpose gives the field a need for its existence and individuality it the freedom to choose its own destiny. The study has come very far over the years and continues to grow into a well-rounded discipline.

Public Administration and Public Affairs is a text written by Nicholas Henry. Within this text Henry describes how he believes the study of Public Administration has over time developed into an academic discipline. Henry accomplishes this by outlining six paradigms which evolved in succession of one another. The sequence of paradigms defines a self-analysis of the field of Public Administration. The six paradigms that Henry discussed with great detail are as follows: Paradigm 1: The Politics/Administration Dichotomy (1900-1926), Paradigm 2: Principles of Public Administration (1927-1937), Paradigm 3: Public Administration as Political Science (1950-1970, Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Management (1950-1970), Paradigm 5: Public Administration as Public Administration (1970-Present), and Paradigm 6: Governance (1990-Present). Henry’s six paradigms of Public Administration tells a historical story of significant challenges, growth, and success the study has had to endure in order to be recognized and respected as the distinct academic field it is today. It is Henry’s belief that currently the study of Public Administration connects two paradigms. “One asserts its independence as a stand-alone field of study and practice. The other asserts its paramount purpose-creating and implementing social change or social good” (Henry 2010). Henry further stated his belief that the two paradigms were existing within harmony of one another and equally important. As he put it “Without independence, public administration would be a sorry, surly supplicant, shorn of the capacity to chart its own course. Without purpose, independence would be irrelevant” (Henry 2010). He stated that the merging of two paradigms was well over due. Henry asserts that today public administration has made a return as a prestigious model as it was in the 1930’s. Henry quoted a journal in saying “Public governance…offers a distinct set of ideas for how corporate governance can be improved in practice…[and], to an even larger extent; [these ideas] could be applied to not-for-profit firms” (Henry 2010). I couldn’t agree more with the thoughts and premises set forth by Henry. Learning the history and foundation of public administration has given me a new respect for it as an independent study. Throughout history scholars have argued over the political/administration dichotomy and several attempts have been made in order to make public administration synonymous to both political science and management. All have placed the study of public administration endanger of extinction. However, this study has withstood the test of time and emerged as a very exemplary field. At the beginning of its existence many held the belief that administration could not exist without the presence of politics. The paradigm 1: political/administration dichotomy was essential in dispelling this belief and differentiating the two. Frank Goodnow explains that government has two very distinct functions. Those two functions are Politics and Administration. “Politics has to do with policies or expressions of the state will. Administration has to do with the execution of these policies” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2012). Politics are the written rules and Administration is the method in which such rules are carried out efficiently. It helped that this dichotomy was experienced during the Great Depression because administrators were in demand. The political/administration dichotomy help create a need for public administration specifically. During Paradigm 3 an effort was made to connect public administration and political science. Due to the confusion caused by Paradigm 2, in which the so called principles of public administration were challenged and found to be extensively flawed, public administration was in danger of losing its identity. “Public administration professors groped for answers to the point that “the study of public administration in the United States” during this period was “characterized by the absence of any fully comprehensive intellectual framework” (Henry, 2010) Political scientist attempted to help with the issue by combing the study of public administration within their study. The connection of the two would not prove to be successful. As a subfield of political science, public administration was not receiving the proper advancement and attention it needed. Students were no longer taking or studying public administration, journals were rarely producing material related to public administration, and public administration was seldomly offered by university graduate programs. Political science made significant contributions to the study of public administration, however the two are very different and each worthy of their very own discipline. As a result of being treated like the red headed step child of the political science family, public administration was now in search of a new identity. This brings us to Paradigm 4 in which public administrationists found themselves a new home in management. Once again, just as in Paradigm 3, public administration found itself lost and in search of identity. Public administration was considered to be a byproduct of management. As with its connection with political science, the connection with management did not prove to be a successful one for public administration. Public administration and private sector management have a vast amount of differences and for obvious reasons should not be considered on in the same. Paradigms 1, Paradigms 3, and Paradigms 4 are excellent examples of Henry’s belief that independence is necessary and public administration should be its own discipline. Paradigms 3 and 4 are evidence that without independence the field of public administration as we know it may have never existed. In order to have the freedom to choose it’s on path, be respected and recognized, and experience significance, the study of public administration has to be acknowledging as its very independent study. Individuality prevents the study of public administration from being misplaced and limiting itself based on the realm of another study. As Woodrow Wilson mentioned in “The Study of Administration”, “Public administration is worth studying” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2012). Public Administration’s purpose is vital to its existence. “Public administration is the detailed and systematic execution of public law” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2012). The importance of the social component of public administration cannot be expressed enough. George Frederickson said it best “Conventional or classic Public Administration seeks to answer either of these questions: (1) How can we offer more or better services with available resources (efficiency)? or (2) how can we maintain our level of services while spending less money (economy)? New Public Administration adds this question: Does this service enhance social equity?” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2012) If public administration wasn’t a stand-alone study then many minorities groups and social equality may be neglected. Public administration improves the political representation and economic status of those who wouldn’t ordinarily have a voice in such matters. “One of the forces that threatened the public good and the balance of power in a republic was the unequal division of power and property in a society” (Kennedy & Schultz, 2011). Henry’s belief that public administration now straddles two paradigms was very well supported. Paradigms 3 and 4 are excellent examples of the need for independence in the field of public administration. The new public administration explained and supported Henry’s premise that public administration’s purpose is to create and maintain social equality.

References
Henry, N. (2010). Public administration and public affairs. (11 ed., pp. 27-40). New York, New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2012). Classics of public administration. (6 ed.). Massachusetts: Wadsworth.
Kennedy, S., & Schultz, D. (2011). American public service, constitutional and ethical foundations. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.