13 Best Public Administration Law

List Updated May 2020

Bestselling Public Administration Law in 2020


Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector

Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector
BESTSELLER NO. 1 in 2020

Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector

Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector
BESTSELLER NO. 2 in 2020

Public Administration and Law (Public Administration and Public Policy)

Public Administration and Law (Public Administration and Public Policy)
BESTSELLER NO. 3 in 2020
  • Used Book in Good Condition

Public Administration: Cases in Managerial Role-Playing

Public Administration: Cases in Managerial Role-Playing
BESTSELLER NO. 4 in 2020

Public Administration and Law (ASPA Classics)

Public Administration and Law (ASPA Classics)
BESTSELLER NO. 5 in 2020

By Philip J. Cooper - Public Law and Public Administration: 4th (fourth) Edition

By Philip J. Cooper - Public Law and Public Administration: 4th (fourth) Edition
BESTSELLER NO. 6 in 2020

Administrative Law for Public Managers

Administrative Law for Public Managers
BESTSELLER NO. 7 in 2020
  • Westview Press

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption
BESTSELLER NO. 8 in 2020
  • Spiegel Grau

School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders (6th Edition) (The Pearson Educational Leadership Series)

School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders (6th Edition) (The Pearson Educational Leadership Series)
BESTSELLER NO. 9 in 2020

Essentials of Health Policy and Law (Essential Public Health)

Essentials of Health Policy and Law (Essential Public Health)
BESTSELLER NO. 10 in 2020
  • Essentials of Health Policy and Law

Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice: A Case Study Approach

Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice: A Case Study Approach
BESTSELLER NO. 11 in 2020

Public Law and Public Administration

Public Law and Public Administration
BESTSELLER NO. 12 in 2020

Understanding Law for Public Administration

Understanding Law for Public Administration
BESTSELLER NO. 13 in 2020
  • Used Book in Good Condition

Should Public Administrators Make Value Judgments to Promote Equity when Implementing Laws?

Public administrators make value judgments to further equity as they work to implement the law. The question at hand is whether they should or not.

Public administrators work in a culture of change and improvement, and upholding the antidiscrimination statements of public organizations is just the beginning of their work toward social equity. Scholarly research reveals that, for the most part, the American people believe in fairness, justice, and equality and that the processes and rules of policy implementation generally support principles of social equity (Frederickson, 1990). In addition, Frederickson (1990) states that a theory of social equity was designated as the "third pillar" of public administration in 1968, given equal footing with economy and efficiency as foundational principles of public administration (Frederickson, 1990). Thus, it is logical that public administrators necessarily make value judgments in order to promote equity in the provision of public services, within the interpreted intent of the legislation. Because of the vague wording and objectives of policy legislation, public administrators must make value judgments in their interpretation of the policy, and given the culture of social equity in their bureaucracies, it is logical that those value judgments would favor social equity. This is not only expected and desired by the general public, but also supported by the culture of public administration and supported by scholarly research (Frederickson, 1990).

Some observers might find this use of administrative power undesirable because of the nature of human fallibility, a lack of belief in the equality of all humans, or a desire to see the ethic of neutrality in action in public (not just private) bureaucracies. First, some of those who object may be concerned about the personal biases and agendas of those public administrators making the value judgments and their concern that self-interest might interfere with the promotion of social equity. Lipsky (1990) notes that the average street-level bureaucrat regularly faces demands and pressures from multiple directions and often has the opportunity to substitute his or her self- interest for the public interest (Shafritz amp; Hyde, 2020). However, scholars find that even though these opportunities arise, public administrators and street-level bureaucrats tend to ignore these opportunities (Maynard-Moody amp; Musheno, 2000). Instead, they often make their own jobs harder in the pursuit of promoting social equity and responding to the needs of individuals (Maynard-Moody amp; Musheno, 2000).

Second, there are still some American citizens who do not find the idea of social equity desirable, instead viewing women, minorities, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and the elderly as less worthy than other people. The idea of public servants making value judgments to promote their equality and equitable access to public services is appalling to those small-minded people. In addition, many conservatives and other people do not support the distribution of welfare services to the poor, instead thinking that the poor just need to pull themselves up by their boot straps. They may view the value judgments of public administrators as preventing the poor from making it on their own, or they may feel that the poor should not receive public services they do not pay for. While it is unfortunate that some Americans still feel this way, research supports the idea that most Americans do in fact support social equity (with the exception of gays and lesbians).

Lastly, those more familiar with private bureaucracies than public bureaucracies may be offended by the lack of the ethic of neutrality when considering the scenario of public administrators making value judgments of any kind. The ethic of neutrality does not allow for the exercise of independent moral judgment in policy implementation, beyond what is needed after determining the intent of the legislators and elected officials (Shafritz amp; Hyde, 2020). However, Thompson (1985) argues "administrative neutrality itself is neither possible nor desirable" (Shafritz amp; Hyde, 2020, p. 456).

What is my personal view on the issue of public administrators making value judgments in order to provide social equity in the delivery of public services? It's simple. Laws are vaguely written and must be interpreted in order to be implemented. Isn't it best for that interpretation to be as equitable as possible? Woodrow Wilson argued for the "vesting of 'large powers and unhampered discretion' as the indispensable conditions of administrative responsibility" (Kettl amp; Fesler, 2020, p. 41). The public administrators are the interpreters of laws, the distributors of public services, in a public job with a duty to the public to be as fair and equitable as possible. I fully support the use of value judgments by public administrators when considering the socially equitable provision of public services.

References

Frederickson, H. G. (1990). "Public administration and social equity." Public Administration

Review, 50(2).

Maynard-Moody, S. amp; Musheno, M. (2000). "State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of

discretion." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 329-358.

Shafritz, J. M. amp; Hyde, A. C. (2020). Classics of Public Administration. Boston: Wadsworth,

Cengage Learning.