Case Study: Public Administration

Pages: 9 (3079 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 20  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: Government  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] " (Olsen, 2007, p. 13 )

The public program has as its bases the various assumptions about what citizens have the ability and the will to do and the assumption that citizens are "informed, resourceful and active" means the less likely that those with less in the way of resources will benefit to the extent that the groups that are more resourceful will benefit. (Jacobsen, 1964, 1965, paraphrased cited in Olsen, 2007, p. 14) Public programs are based upon different assumptions about what citizens are able and willing to do, and the more a program assumes informed, resourceful and active citizens, the less likely that individuals with few personal or group resources will benefit as much as more resourceful groups (Jacobsen 1964,1965 in: Olsen, 2007, p. 14).

It is therefore clear that the vision of the liberal-democratic legislature is that of the political authority centric power in that the authority of the legislature is derived from the people and that through the electoral institutions however, this does not relate the reality of the resources impact on decisions and neither does the various channels that exist between public authorizes and citizens come to light and individual resources are not evenly distributed and this impacts public policy matters that are formulated at least partially by the distribution of group and individual resources.

The challenge in this study is to maintain a balance among the three major objectives of the hospital, which are: (1) the provision of quality patient care; (2) the provision of quality education and training; and (3) biomedical research. The grant amount received in this scenario is the amount of $250,000.00. There are competing interests where the funding allocation is concerned and specifically as follows:

1) The Assistant Director of Biomedical Research envisions the following allocation of funds: (a) A new research facility - $250,000.00; (b) Establishment of a $5,000 fund to reward an outstanding staff researcher; and (c) Attend national and international symposium and to host a symposium - $250,000.00.

2) The assistant director of teaching envisions the following allocation of funds: (a) More competitive salaries - $50,000.00; (b) Remodel and improve interns living facilities - $30,000.00; (c) Seminar rooms -- conversion of a wasted storeroom - $20,000.00; and (d) Visiting Professor Program - $10,000.00 to $25,000.00.

3) The Associate Director for Patient Care envisions the following funding: (a) Heating and air conditioning installation - $150,000.00; (b) (this includes improvements to the central system, storm windows, awnings, and electronic controls which equals cost savings through increased efficiency; and (c) Three machines to remove wax buildup $5,000.00 X 3 = $15,000.00. The decision concerning allocation of the grant funding is upon the basis of the hospital's primary objectives.

Because the following two funding sources precisely adhere to the objectives of the hospital they have been chosen for allocation of the grant funding: (1) Heating and air conditioning installation including improvements to central system, storm windows, awnings and electronic controls to be funded at $150,000.00; and (2) Biomedical Research $100,000.00. It is certain that without proper heating and cooling that patients cannot receive the best possible care and in addition, the funding of the first stated receiver of funds will serve to increase efficiency and bring about cost savings to the organization. As biomedical research is, also one of the three primary hospital objectives the remainder of the funding for $100,000.00 after funding the heating and air installation and accompanying improvements will go to fund biomedical research at the hospital.

Summary and Conclusion

This work has examined public administration theories and concepts and the work of individuals that have contributed to the field of public administration. This work has at the same time, reviewed the case study attached to this work in 'Appendix A' relating to a matter of funding resources in which several key administrative personnel are focused upon and which each individual clearly has their own research agenda self-assigned. It does appear that these individuals are conformed to a great extent to the organizational fundamental processes in regards to funding resource allocation. Each has their own ideal budget for the monies while at the same time acknowledging that they did not expect to receive any funding whatsoever and that this most recently non-earmarked funding was a surprise.

It is likely that these administrators will have to choose what they believe is of primary importance to each of these departments along with the various needs of each department. As pointed out in the research in this study, the democratic process is one in which a cooperative effort occurs and in which there is equity assigned in the funding and allocation of organizational resources. Each of the administrators is clearly focused on their personal responsibility and those who are stakeholders which include the patients of each department represented as well as the organizational employees of each of these departments.


Basu, R. (2004) Public Administration: Concepts and Theories. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2004. Retrieved from:

Olsen, J. (20007) Organization Theory, Public Administration, Democratic Governance. 1 Jan 2007. Retrieved from ARENA at:

Behn, R.D. 2001, Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington DC: Brookings.

Bleiklie, I. et al. (eds.) 1985, Politikkens forvaltning. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Blyth, M. 2006, Great punctuations: Prediction, randomness, and the evolution of comparative political science. American Political Science Review 100 (4): 493-498.

Christensen, T. And P. Laegreid 1998, Public administration in a democratic context -- a review of Norwegian research. In N. Brunsson and J.P. Olsen (eds.): Organizing Organizations: 147-170. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Christensen, T. And P. Laegreid (eds.) 2001, New Public Management -- the Transformation of Theory and Practice. Aldershot: Asgate.

Christensen, T. And P. Laegreid 2004, Public administration research in Norway: Organization theory, institutionalism and empirical studies in a democratic context. Public Administration 83 (3): 679-690.

Clegg, S.R., C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (eds.) 1996, Handbook of Organizational Studies. London: Sage.

Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. And Olsen, J.P. 1972, A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1 -- 25.

Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen 2007, The Garbage Can Model. To appear in S. Clegg and J.R. Bailey (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Czarniawska, B. And G. Sevon (eds.) 2003, The Northern Lights. Stockholm: Liber.

Egeberg, M. 2001, How federal? The organizational dimension of integration in the EU (and elsewhere). Journal of European Public Policy 8 (5): 728-746.

Egeberg, M. (ed.) 2006, Multilevel Union Administration. The Transformation of Executive Politics in Europe. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eriksen, E.O. 2005, Making the European Polity. Reflexive Integration in the EU. London: Routledge.

Etzioni, A. 1964, Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Habermas, J. 1996, Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Hamilton, A., J. Jay and J. Madison 1964 [1787], The Federalist papers. New York: Pocket Books.

Hernes, H.-K. 2004, Public administration in Norway: A rejoinder. Public Administration 83 (3): 691-700.

Jacobsen, K.D. 1964, Teknisk hjelp og politisk struktur. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Jacobsen, K.D. 1965, Informasjonstilgang og likebehandling. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 6 (1): 147-160.

Jacobsson, B., P. Laegreid and O.K. Pedersen 2004, Europeanization and Transnational States. Comparing Nordic Central Governments. London: Routledge.

Laegreid, P. And J.P. Olsen 1978, Byrakrati og beslutninger. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

March, J.G. 1965, Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

March, J.G. 1992, The war is over and the victors have lost. The Journal of Socio-Economics 21 (3): 261-267.

March, J.G. 1997, Administrative practice, organization theory, and political philosophy: Ruminations on the Reflections of John M. Gaus. PS Political Science & Politics XXX (4): 689-698.

March, J.G. (forthcoming), The study of organizations and organizing since 1945. Organization Studies, scheduled for no. 1, 2007.

March, J.G. And J.P. Olsen 1976, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

March, J.G. And J.P. Olsen 1989, Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.

March, J.G. And J.P. Olsen 1995, Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.

March, James G. And Johan P. Olsen 1998, The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization 52 (4): 943-969.

March, J.G. And J.P. Olsen 2006a, The logic of appropriateness. In M. Rein, M. Moran and R.E. Goodin (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy: 289-308. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

March, J.G. And J.P. Olsen 2006b, Elaborating the 'New Institutionalism'. In R.A.W. Rhodes, S. Binder and B. Rockman (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions: 3-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J.S. 1962 [1861], Considerations on Representative Government. South Bend IN: Gateway Editions.

Nystrom, P.C., and W.H. Starbuck (eds.) 1981, Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Olsen, J.P. 1983, Organized Democracy. Bergen: Univrsitetsforlaget.

Olsen, J.P. 1990, Demokrati pa svenska. Stockholm: Carlssons.

Olsen, J.P. 1991, Political science and organization theory: Parallel agendas but mutual disregard. In R.M. Czada and A. Windhoff-Heretier (eds.): Political Choice. Institutions, Rules, and the Limits of Rationality: 87-119. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Olsen, J.P. 2006, Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy? Journal of Public Administration… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 9-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Leadership in Administration Case Study

Fact Pattern Case Study

Macroeconomics Cases Study New Sports Stadium Case Study

Israel Internal Security Case Study

Education in Today's Education Environment Case Study

View 999 other related papers  >>

Cite This Case Study:

APA Format

Public Administration.  (2010, October 23).  Retrieved June 25, 2019, from

MLA Format

"Public Administration."  23 October 2010.  Web.  25 June 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"Public Administration."  October 23, 2010.  Accessed June 25, 2019.