000			04044naa a2200241uu 4500
001			0052809421637
003			OSt
005			20240226175739.0
008			100528s1998 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aINGRAHAM, Patricia Wallace _95045
245	1	0	_aThe new public personnel and the new public service
260			_aNew York : _bMarcel Dekker, _c1998
520	3		_aThe New Public Administration sought a public service whose legitimacy would be based, in part, on its promotion of “social equity.” Since 1968, several personnel changes congruent with the New Public Administration have occurred: traditional managerial authority over public employees has been reduced through collective bargaining and changes in constitutional doctrines; the public service has become more socially representative; establishing a representative bureaucracy has become an important policy goal; more emphasis is now placed on employee participation in the work place; and legal changes regarding public administrators' liability have promoted an “inner check” on their behavior. At the same time, however, broad systemic changes involving decentralization and the relationship between political officials and career civil servants have tended to undercut the impact of those changes in personnel. The theories of Minnowbrook I, therefore, have proven insufficient as a foundation for a new public service. Grounding the public service's legitimacy in the U.S. Constitution is a more promising alternative and is strongly recommended.
520	3		_aThe New Public Administration, like other historical calls for drastic administrative change in the United States, sought to develop a new basis for public administrative legitimacy. Earlier successful movements grounded the legitimacy of the public service in high social standing and leadership, representativeness and close relationship to political parties, or in putative political neutrality and scientific managerial and technical expertise. To these bases, the New Public Administration sought to add “social equity.” As George Frederickson explained, “Administrators are not neutral. They should be committed to both good management and social equity as values, things to be achieved, or rationales. “(1) Social equity was defined as “includ[ing] activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well being of
520	3		_aLike the Federalists, the Jacksonians, and the civil service reformers and progressives before it, the New Public Administration focused upon administrative reform as a means of redistributing political power.(3) Also, like these earlier movements, the New Public Administration included a model of a new type of public servant. This article sets forth that new model and considers the extent to which the major changes that have actually taken place in public personnel administration since 1968 are congruent with it. We find that while contemporary public personnel reflects many of the values and concerns advanced by the New Public Administration, substantial changes in the political environment of public administration have frustrated the development of a new public service that would encompass the larger goals and ideals expressed at Minnowbrook I. Building on the trends of the past two decades, this article also speculates about the future. Our conclusion is that ultimately the public service's legitimacy must be grounded in the Constitution. Although its focus is on macro-level political and administrative developments, the broad changes it discusses provide the framework from which many contemporary personnel work-life issues, such as pay equity and flexitime, have emerged.
590			_aVolume 21
590			_aNumbers 6-8
700	1		_99204 _aRosenbloom, David H.
773	0	8	_tInternational Journal of Public Administration - IJPA _g21, 6-8, p. 995-1025 _dNew York : Marcel Dekker, 1998 _xISSN 01900692 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20100528 _b0942^b _cDaiane
998			_a20100531 _b1617^b _cCarolina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c33695 _d33695
041			_aeng