Public Administration as a Dynamic Balance and Integrative Science Across Politics, Management, and Law: Rosenbloom’s Framework and Chinese Experiences

An identity crisis has plagued public administration for over a century. The core of the crisis is how to address the relationship between public administration and the three major related disciplines—political science, management, and law; especially the first two—and whether public administration is an independent scientific subject. By studying the discipline identity problem of public administration using the three-perspective framework of politics, management, and law developed by Rosenbloom, this article argues that the developmental history of Chinese public administration is also a history of the relationship between public administration and the three major related disciplines. Furthermore, after comparing United States and Chinese public administration, the article suggests that we can define public administration as a dynamic balance and integrative science across the three major related disciplines by placing greater emphasis on administration, public management, and the laws and rules of administration and public management. This new definition suggests that seeking dynamic balance and synthesis is the nature of public administration, differentiates public administration from other disciplines, and stresses its status as an independent discipline. Thus, we do not need to be frightened of this feature of public administration or reframe it but must instead admit that this unique feature represents a specific advantage of public administration. Furthermore, this view provides a new way to dismiss the nightmare-like identity crisis faced by public administration.