The scope of the discipline of Public Administration is determined by what an administrative system does." Does it mean that the scope of this discipline is boundaryless? Explain.

Defining the Scope: A Functional Perspective

The assertion that the scope is determined by ‘what an administrative system does’ implies a highly pragmatic and descriptive approach. This view suggests that as administrative systems evolve and take on new functions – from environmental regulation to digital governance – the scope of Public Administration expands accordingly. For instance, the increasing role of administrative systems in disaster management (post-Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 1984) broadened the discipline’s focus to include crisis management and resilience. Similarly, the rise of e-governance initiatives like Digital India (2015) has necessitated the study of information and communication technologies within Public Administration.

Arguments for a Boundaryless Scope

• Adaptability and Relevance: Defining the scope functionally allows the discipline to remain relevant in a constantly changing world. Administrative systems are increasingly involved in addressing complex, cross-cutting issues, demanding interdisciplinary approaches.
• Focus on Practicality: A purely functional definition prioritizes practical problem-solving and effective governance, rather than being constrained by rigid theoretical boundaries.
• Globalization and Interdependence: The increasing interconnectedness of nations means administrative systems are now involved in international collaborations and global governance, further expanding the scope. The role of Indian administrative services in UN peacekeeping missions exemplifies this.

Arguments Against a Boundaryless Scope

• Lack of Theoretical Foundation: A purely functional definition risks reducing Public Administration to mere technical skills, neglecting the crucial role of theory in providing analytical frameworks and ethical guidance. Without theoretical grounding, it becomes difficult to evaluate the effectiveness and legitimacy of administrative actions.
• Normative Considerations: ‘What an administrative system does’ doesn’t address *how* it does it. Issues of equity, accountability, transparency, and citizen participation are central to Public Administration and cannot be ignored. For example, the implementation of Aadhaar (2009) raised concerns about privacy and exclusion, highlighting the importance of normative considerations.
• Disciplinary Identity: A completely boundaryless scope could lead to the dilution of Public Administration’s distinct identity, blurring the lines with other disciplines like political science, sociology, and economics.
• Potential for Abuse: Without ethical and legal boundaries, an administrative system’s actions, however expansive, could be detrimental to public interest.

A Balanced Perspective

While acknowledging the importance of adaptability and practicality, it’s crucial to recognize that Public Administration cannot be entirely boundaryless. A robust discipline requires a balance between functional relevance and theoretical rigor, descriptive analysis and normative evaluation. The scope should be determined not only by *what* administrative systems do, but also by *why* they do it, and *how* they do it, guided by principles of good governance and ethical conduct. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) emphasized the need for ethical governance and citizen-centric administration, reinforcing the importance of normative considerations.