Chapter 1 Reflection, (9/11/17):

Certainly, public administration is a bricolage of interconnected professions as well as areas of studies, however that in itself makes public administration a field of its own. Taxation is a perfect example, governments needs funds; necessary for the allocation of resources for the public good and effective public policy to be conducted. Conversely for a government to exist there is the necessity for a populous willing (enough) to allow taxation from an administration and conscious enough of their real desire for some semblance of order. This paradox requires infinite levels of potential for a field in itself, as well as the amalgamation described in question three. Human beings are not public administration by nature, but they are the lifeblood of public administration’s purpose. In the instance of taxation, the perception of public administration and its purpose can be infinitely complicated as well as confoundedly simple: we need people for public administration, but we need taxation for effective public administration, therefore we need people who produce work that generates an economy capable of being taxed. We could dive infinitely deep into the intricacies of this whole idea – tax collectors, economists to study populations to determine taxes, job creators, market climate, etc. – but the whole equation boils down to people with an infinite possibility for potential knowledge, activates, and desires. I could postulate potential possible examples of how public administration is its own definitive area as well as an amalgam of professions. However, that would serve no purpose but to distract me from my dinner and take up more time of yours. Therefore, I respond with the questions with the simple answer that it is both.

 

Public administration is a lifestyle, as the book refers to the firefighter’s of 9/11 as well as the Spartans of Thermopylae. These people had occupations essentially defined by their names, and they gave their lives for these occupations. Being paid to fight people or fires can be considered an occupation, but sacrificing your life for the public welfare is expected by those regarded as professionals within those positions. Thus, constituting the quandary of the question asked by the text itself. Political machines for instance reflect this reality, people who are in the occupation of public policy administration and some of them may have been professional politicians, some professional extortionists, some may have even been professional murderers. Their occupation may have been within government professionally, as well they may have been professionals within government. It all comes down to the language we use to describe what our ideas mean. Is an occupation a job? If so then the position of president of the united states is not a profession as we do not live in a dictatorship. Is a profession a job? If so then this very same president must be in some sense professional. Without a clear definitive difference between these two words, public administrations can be defined as neither.

 

Chapter 2 Reflection, (9/16/17):

The text outlines a few major components to the majors check in the executive power the president of the United States has, to wage war. Naming article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, this article clearly allows the U.S. Congress the official ability “to declare war”. (Shafritz, Russell, Borick, Hyde, 2017, p. 40) Contrasting this constitutional claim with article III, section 2, of the U.S.  Constitution, an article that essentially allows the President to grab the reigns of the military itself as assume complete control in the commanding of U.S. troops. This is further reflected on, noting that the war of 1812 was the last time a President ever used this power, following Madison’s decision the White house, the Capitol, and large portions of Washington D.C. were burned to the ground. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.41) Formal declarations of war have become an archaic practice since World War II as administrations began to use more and more convoluted practices to engage in military conflict. As well, legislation like the War Powers Resolution (1973) failed because their use of vague language was incapable of considering war, like the text suggests, as a wicked problem. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.43) However, it is my opinion that the most effective check to executive wartime powers is the opinions and influences of the citizen population. While it is true that within a representative democracy the citizens are not in direct control over the creation and implementation of public policy, their political voice, as well as collective actions have had a large impact on U.S. conflict operations, as was the case with the Vietnam war. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.43) This power wanes as the population continues to stagnate in their political activism as well as the adoption of apathetic attitudes towards their respective role within our social contract, its essence, however, remains intact.

 

            Chapter two further discusses a term accredited to C. West Churchman – a systems theorist – called a “wicked problem” an issue that confronts public administrators, policy makers, and numerous other professional positions. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.76) Characterized by H.W.J. Rittel and M.M. Webber in Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning (1973) there are nine attributes that define a “wicked problem”. All the defining characteristics of these issues suggest an overwhelming complexity of the issue at hand, citing unbeknownst externalities which arise from implemented solutions, changing interests of affected parties, multi-causal sources, and unclear solutions to the chaotic nature of the problems. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.76) This evidence leads me to conclude that there is no doubt that public policy makers as well as administrators must take a multiperspectival approach to solving wicked problems. If the systems in place have individuals of integrity operating with educated knowledge of a particular issues from many sides, whether social, physical, economic, anthropologic, historic, technologic, or otherwise unmentioned, an administrations power to devise a solution for complex problems can be better conceived, with these individuals independently investigating the ambiguous nature of the issue at hand – there can be a collective movement towards the aversion from what would otherwise be unforeseen externalities. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.76) This would ultimately create a better policy solution and implementation granted the actors in this decision-making process would interact in mutually beneficial methods in the spirit of fair play.

 

Chapter 3 Reflection, (9/27/17):

            As our book explains, nonprofit supplementation of governmental services is as convoluted and redundant as a centipede with all left feet in a tango contest. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the couple has donated over $8 billion to improve global health (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 112). Surely improving global health can be accomplished with $8 billion. Divide the donated $8 billion among the 7.5 billion total population of humans around the globe, each person then receives an additional $1.06 in health. Suddenly, the idea of improving global health with $8 billion seems impossible.

If the United States were Germany, universal healthcare would be provided as a government service and that $1.06 per U.S. citizen could be allocated to a different country where the aggregate improvement of health is much higher. This is not the case however, as U.S. citizens have experienced with the Affordable Care Act (2010) our government can paradoxically produce and provide or produce and permit itself from unitarily addressing and administering expected provided services to its citizens. In response to this conundrum the nonprofit sector should feel socially obligated to altruistically provide services if they have means to do so. Alas should implies a reality of nonexistence, in fact, “Now that philanthropy has to a large extent been institutionalized, its role has changed from random charitable or community developmental efforts to systematic efforts to find causes for focused efforts. . . The large-scale nature of philanthropy has caused it to become bureaucratized. No longer will an emotional charitable appeal suffice” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 126).

If the bureaucracies of philanthropic ventures are effective in accomplishing these services, it could look like a well-coordinated disaster relief program over state lines. If these bureaucracies are ineffective they do not accomplish anything of merit.

 

Truthfully, privatization – as described by the text – a strategy adopted domestically and internationally is deserved of critical speculation and analysis. Domestically, in the case of the Grace Commission; President Regan was unable to complete in practice the idea that, “A little private sector know how was all that it would take” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 112). Internationally, Halliburton in Iraq in the early 2000’s reinforced the stigma that the pure market capitalist ideology proudly driving these events is widely inaccurate, grossly misrepresents the essential humanness of citizens, and fundamentally does not work. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 121). While it is true that, in theory, market forces would prevail to resort any dilemma private firms would encounter in a market, a purely economic rationale behind privatization policy implementation is far too simple for the realities of a public policy implementation regarding our inalienable human rights.

Fire departments are paid for through taxes because no one would buy fire department services unless they had a fire, firefighters put out fires because their institution is built as a government service. Therefore, you do not have to run back into your house to grab your credit card to pay for the service to extinguish the fire that is destroying your house. Public schools are, by their essence, government implementations. Education, fair and free, equally accessible to all people is a fundamental human right; for Wisconsin, 2017 Assembly Bill 383, pages of legislation are dedicated to defining costs and fees that can be charged to individuals going to non-public education. A semblance of freedom and equality for all must be fought for when barriers of oppression are created through the privatization of governmental services.

 

Chapter 4 Reflection, (10/5/17):

A pernicious tendency to misconstrue words to accomplish goals has become a U.S. precedent, diminishing the credibility of forthright politicians’ use of language. False language is a tool utilized by populists, nationalists, fascists, and demagogues to create fissures in our democratic system by polarizing the population and promoting faction – a tactic clearly demonstrated by President Trump. Recognizing the value of genuine language use as well as non-value of disingenuous language use is imperative. In the case of the Trump administration the text clearly defined a political instrument that has become egregiously misunderstood by the President, that is, Mandates: “One level of government requiring another to offer – and/or pay for – a program as a matter of law or as a prerequisite to partial or full funding for either the program in question or other programs” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 183). A presidential mandate can be used effectively situations where it is appropriate, however, this concept clearly befuddles the 48^th president of the United States. Our text describes, “The new American thrust toward devolution is mandate. Normally this word refers to the perceived popular or electoral support for a public program, political party, or a particular politician. US presidents who win elections by overwhelming majorities may feel the vote was a “mandate” to carry out their proposed policies” (Shafritz, et al, 2017, p. 160). President Trump represented himself while campaigning with the use of disingenuous language, and subjective half-truths and now perceives his presidency as one mandated by the public.

When elected Trump sought to do-away with the presidential precedent established by his 47 predecessors, “Like a grown child demanding his or her parents are obligated to pay for this and that, while at the same time insisting that he or she be treated like an independent adult” (Shafritz, et al, 2017, p. 160-161). Displaying colossal ineptitude for long term political strategy through the use of presidential mandates, Trump has displayed a forte for rash decision making and his addiction to digital echo chambers via Twitter. While there are dozens of executive orders President Trump has attempted, I am specifically referencing Trump’s travel ban, border wall, and Trump’s ban of American military members who are transgender, for the sake of this reflection. Trump was elected by a population with, at the very least, populist nationalist ideologies. “Build the wall!’ masses cheered, reveling in the promise that Trump would “Make America Great Again”.

So, what do these ideas equate to? First, the travel ban; the United States is a nation built on the genocide of indigenous Americans and the enslavement of Africans, populations were eradicated through disease, perverse violence utilizing the physical body as the site of conquest, and disingenuous language riddled with false promise. In a Trumpian logical equation, the ban makes sense: it is completely rational to assume, in a nation formed the way the United States was formed, that immigrants entering the U.S. are as capable of genocide and enslavement as Americans have been, because we have a repeated history of this practice. This equation, however, clearly lacks an in-depth understanding of the United States position in a unipolar international system. This ban instates fear to the U.S. population, closes our boarders to populations capable of diversifying infinite aspects of the American identity, and signals our Presidents lurch to a nationalist authoritative government.

The border wall is clearer cut, it was a keystone in his political platform, ululated by his adoring fans. As ludicrous as building a physical structure between bordering countries may sound, President Trump has had to repeatedly attempt its creation because he was elected by a population that mandates him to do so. Again, Trump displays his lack of long term strategy, Mexico won’t pay for it, Congress doesn’t want to pay for it, its sheer scale makes the task of completing such a wall asinine. It is but a hollow promise reiterated by the hearts of those whom elected President Trump.

Last, pudgily thumbed on the screen of a smartphone and broadcast to twitter, President Trump’s attempt to ban people who are transgender from active participation in the U.S. Military. This executive order, if a tweet merits such a title, fundamentally undermines what it means to be an American. The curious thing is, I can’t tell who mandated President Trump to do this. This order dehumanizes people who are trans by declaring that the trans identity is not welcome to participate in the military based on an ill-perceived suggestion that the presence of people who are trans inordinately burden the U.S. military financially. It is appalling, unconstitutional, and un-American to deny people who are trans the right to fight and die in service of the United States.

We, the citizens of the united states have allowed the value of truth to degrade. It is we who have allowed our government to dehumanize and oppress members of our society. It is our responsibility to restore the value of truth and freedom to our institutions by whatever means necessary. If we are idle in this mission, our republic will dissolve into the meaninglessness we have allowed the ideals of truth to disintegrate to

 

Chapter 5 Reflection, (10/19/17):

Is a government official who lies to the public an actor of evil or an actor of common good? It could be asserted that the seeding of lies at a public level would indeed mandate the reaping of such mistruths, however our text suggests, “On the other hand, it also can be argued that public officials in a democracy may be excused at times from the general obligation of truth telling”. (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p.198) Objective truth, is an enigma of humanity’s odyssey for meaning; therefore, in the context of this discussion the truths we are discussing are subjective truths. Meaning, our own ideas of honor, truth, and wrong as resultants of our formative experiences as individuals creating and defining biological relationships within time-space. These subjective truths are a testament to the objective truth that there is an objective truth – alas we are dimensionally limited in its understanding.

In the United States, “Honor comes before ethics because a person without honor has no moral compass and does not know which way to turn to be ethical”. (Shafritz, et al. 2017, p.192) As our text describes the interlocking features of ethics and honor play out in long-term and short-term analysis of human action and they are incredibly important ingredients for successful public administration. The ‘what if’ tendency of human beings renders it essentially impossible to for completely legal and truthful political regimes to exist – similar to Marx’s notion of global communist revolution, the only real way this could be achieved is if every single public administration internationally and simultaneously adopted universal truth and legality as their only policy formation basis.

Even the colossal scale of this idea creates the scenario of ‘what-if’ regime is dishonestly agreeing, in which case, wouldn’t you rather have a government, “Cunning, cynical, and ruthless” using, “behavior based on the notion of the end justifying the use of almost any means”. (Shafritz, et al. 2017, p.189) Simply answered, yes, it is appropriate for a government official to lie to the public. You just need to be absolutely sure that they are better at lying to the public than any other government official – then it doesn’t even matter if they’re telling the truth or lying.

 

            Public employees absolutely need special protection in situations like whistleblowing particularly when it is involved in the protection of the public interest. Personal honor and public good often coincide but there are internal compromises made by public administrations on a regular basis that conceded to the tendency for those with the most power within a system to perpetually gather and protect the power they have in a Machiavellian fashion. Our text suggests, “A higher law is often appealed to by those who wish to attack an existing law or practice that courts or legislators are unlikely or unwilling to change”. (Shafritz, et al. 2017, p. 202) While it is true that appealing to a higher law is effective in some situations, indeed this type of appeal even reiterates our existential search for objective truth. However, a sharp reminder is due regarding Machiavelli’s words in The Prince, “Men should either be treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries – for heavy ones they cannot”. (Shafritz, et al. 2017, p.189)

            Public administrators are treated generously, including government salary and retirement, but more so in the fundamental psychology of working for the public. High profile public administrators get the prestige, airwaves, and soundbites associated with their national platforms, but all public administrators perform work that is necessary for the cohesion of society. That type of service feels different than any other type of work an individual could do, a scientist creates a vaccine for a disease that could save millions, but they will only discover that vaccine once – a public administrators function is responsible for keeping society from dissolving every day they’re at work.

 

            If a public administrator is whistleblowing, they are in a sense disrupting the function of government. At a certain level dealing with this type of disruption involves reacting to the social dissonance associated with the act that prompted the whistle blowing. Whistleblowing as a behavior is in line with Machiavelli’s idea of taking revenge for minor injury. If you’re whistleblowing you’re not directly affected by the issue, you were an active participant in the formation of the issue, as well as the creator of social instability by whistleblowing. In a contained system government would be more smoothly functioning if the whistleblower ceased to exist, therefore, it is a natural consequence of government, that like the t-cells in the human blood, certain areas of government develop specifically for the eradication of potentially harmful problems, “When the act accuses, the result excuses” (Shafritz, et al. 2017, p. 198) just as the t-cell eliminates countless unknown pathogens, innerworkings of government coalesce to rid itself of harmful problems. That is why, in the spirit of Hamilton, we must have special laws to protect public administrators who act out of line with government practices for the good of the public. In taking this action to protect these people, the ambition to eradicate them is counteracted no doubt preventing the deaths of countless public administrators. 

Chapter 6 Reflection, (11/1/17):

In the early pages of chapter six, box 6.1 details a portion of the book of Exodus, from the Bible, to indicate the longstanding ties human beings have had with organization, in the verse, Jethro (Father-in-Law of Moses) poses the following query to Moses, “What are you really accomplishing here? Why are you trying to do all this alone while everyone stands around you from morning till evening?” (Exodus 18:14, New Living Translation). In social science disciplines the ability for an investigator to recognize trends from our past to cultivate wisdom for future situations is abundant. It is an interdisciplinary process which thrives on the examination and evaluation, as well as re-examination/evaluation of theories and ideas. Optimization of resources – and more importantly time – in other words, really accomplishing something with people in our lifespans, is one of those ideas that been subjected to that type of scrutiny. The quandary Jethro proposes is an indicative precursor to what our text describes as classical organization theory.

Indeed, fundamental to scientific management and subsequent organization theories as, “Classical organization theory. . . continues to be the base on which other schools of organization theory have been built” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 243). Our text outlines, as people began to gather in cities, the need for organization arose; as the habit has been in human existence, the desire to outdo – outperform, served as basis for our expansion into the fields of scientific management, and organization theory (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 235). We must give both theories credit, since history has been recorded we find evidence suggesting humans have been organizing: in hunting groups, civilizations, even knitting circles. Human-existence and organizational tendencies is proof positive that organization theory and scientific management are relevant to this day, for without them we would not be what we are now.

 

            Within chapter 6, the ideas of sociologist Max Weber surface, “To extrapolate from the real world the central core of features that would characterize the most fully developed bureaucratic form of organization. [Weber’s] ideal type is neither a description of reality nor a statement of normative preference; it is merely an identification of the major variables or features that characterize bureaucracy” meaning that Weber recognizes that a better bureaucracy is rooted in the real world, but cannot be accurately describes in reality, just as is cannot truly be generalized, “The fact that such features might not be fully present in a given organization does not necessarily imply that the organization is not bureaucratic” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 254). This idealistic realization of the flawed notion of perfect bureaucracy indicates that there are applied principals that may or may not be present, either in the bureaucracy itself, or reality. Weber does however outline 10 characteristics, that may be present, this further defines the essence of Weber’s bureaucracy.

            While this reflection does not have the ability to fully investigate and analyze Weber’s characteristics, in the spirit of essence I will attempt to illuminate the features that stood out to me.

“Bureaucrats must be free as individuals; they can only be bossed around with respect to the impersonal duties of their offices” and “Bureaucrat’s conduct must be subject to systematic control and strict discipline” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 254-255). This means that bureaucrats must independently operate to the extent of their own free will, outside of their profession they should not be subjected to the wills of their bureaucracy. Further, the freedom of individual conduct must be subject to scrutiny and repercussions given the actions taken – this is essential, not only in bureaucracy, but in humanness, if humans are not subject to consequences for our actions, positive or negative, there is an abundant tendency to have our cake, eat it, and then look for any other cake within arm’s length and eat that too. While I do not have time to examine in depth the further 8 characteristics, the balance between humanness and ideological optimization are fundamental components of the essence of Weber’s bureaucracy.

 

Chapter 7 Reflection, (11/7/17):

         The simplicity of cooperation as a concept shrouds the complexity of the interworking of human interactions in an organized fashion. Indeed, it seems blatantly obvious, but if group cooperation could be made without an authority present, there would be no managers if individual people were capable of cooperating without dissonance. Our text explains, “There has been consensus about the need for motivated employees, the same cannot be said for beliefs about how to induce higher levels of motivation – and concomitant productivity” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 294). Understanding this helps define how organizational optimization can be sought through competent managers understanding group dynamics. For this brief analysis, I will focus on Parkinson’s Law, and the Peter principle (Shafritz, et al. 2017 p. 293).

                While there are numerous examples in chapter seven that could be analyzed as important factors of group dynamics, particularly in the context of organizational optimization via management, my examples, “Parkinson’s Law that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion” (Parkinson, 1957, p. 2) and the Peter principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence” (Peter, 1969, p. 8) – are generally more amusing” (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 293). Parkinson’s Law is particularly valuable in that if a manager is capable of utilizing the knowledge of the law’s existence, then theoretically, said manager should be capable of implementing effective deadlines for task completion in a way that would otherwise have time spent idly. However, it is the Peter principle that I find much more interesting; if the tendency exists for employees to rise to their own incompetence, specialization of tasks within a group decreases organizational inefficiencies, however in spirit with Mile’s Law (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 277) once that level of incompetence is reached, a sort of organizational reshuffling provides the opportunity to test employee incompetence to discover individual employees’ position of least incompetence.

           

         This pyramid of self-actualization created by Abraham Maslow is fundamental in researching organizational motivation through its ascension: physiological needs, safety needs, love or affiliation needs, esteem needs, self-actualization (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 297). These factors underpin the position of an individual in any aspect of being, furthermore, understanding of the stratification of needs, and their ability to greatly impact the critical thought processes on any individual in an organization is of utmost importance. As our book states, “A person will risk being eaten by a hungry lion if that risk is the only way to get food and water. Only after the body is sustained can thoughts turn to safety and the other higher needs” (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 296). This hierarchy is fundamentally integrated into our humanness, from this we can understand further the importance of the coexistence between human nature and our hierarchy of needs.

This reality is paramount to any and all research on organizational motivation. Just as an individual would not risk their life to eat unless their inability to eat would risk their life, each subsequent step in Maslow’s hierarchy pairs an individual’s ability to further actualize themselves with the ingredients necessary for their further self-improvement. As the base of Maslow’s hierarchy details, physiological needs are the keystone to any process of organization – if you are starving and another individual is starving, in a situation where there is only the potential to provide food for one person, meaning the other would starve to death, these individuals will fight until one of them dies and the other eats. In other words, unless we as individuals are able to understand each other’s ability to move along that hierarchy, we will never understand the individual complexities and roadblocks in our ability to interact on an organized manner.

 

Chapter 8 Reflection, (11/9/17):

In the preceding 7 chapters of our text there has been subtle ques illustrating the process that public administration and bureaucracy are constantly involved in – the evolution and reengineering of organizational practices in favor of efficiency. Whether human nature necessitates the drive for improvement and innovation is the sole factor responsible for this constant of change could be debated with strong historical evidence in favor or opposed to that notion, however it cannot be denied, “Productivity in private and public-sector organizations has become the overriding issue in top management suites as well as in the legislative corridors of power” (Shafritz, et al., 2017, p. 335). While this quote pins productivity as an “overriding issue” the text fails in this statement to recognize that productivity has not become – productivity has been – the paramount issue for effective managers preceding the existence of the word manager.

Furthermore, before an in-depth discussion of what it actually means for public administration/management to deal with inefficiency, we must address the nature of so called traditional inefficiencies of public bureaucracy. Our text postulates, “What the would-be reformers so often forget is that government operations are not inefficient because stupid people work there; they are inefficient because they have been designed by the legislature to reflect the competing interests of political, representativeness, and due process” (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 331). Human societies are not efficient, while we may strive for efficiency, it is unattainable to be entirely efficient. Indeed, we have sought to optimize societal ability in every aspect of our life from food production to communication. Unfortunately, this process often involves the implementation of technological advancements that ultimately replace the utility of our cognitive input as operators in our own societies. I postulate optimizing our organizational interactions for efficiency will ultimately make human input useless.

 

            While often recognized within intra-human interactions, the practice of othering – creating a dichotomy between groups of people – it is rarely recognized that its core, human presence on every continent on Earth is the presence of an entirely invasive species that has been othered to be a non-animal existence. Linguistic cognition has given humanity the ability to organize effectively in groups to convey complex ideas that allow us to invent the tools necessary for our survival in environments that would otherwise be inhospitable. Unfortunately, “The proliferation of technological tools. . . has entailed significant costs to both citizens and public administrators” within our bureaucracy, “Government employees have fully joined the technology-addicted American populace” (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 339). Our nature is a testament to the beauty of invention – the beauty an African Bush Viper.

            Humanity’s drive towards optimization may indeed be off a cliff we will not survive, “Governments have been increasingly turning to technology, including social networks, to help them meet the demands of citizens” (Shafritz, et al., 2017 p. 356). We developed the perverse metric of cost-efficiency, if New York’s Mayor’s Office of Data Analytics (MODA) is any indicator of this obstinacy, six individuals analyzing metadata are capable of identifying and addressing strategies that create the reality of, “8 million New Yorkers with a safe and productive environment”. Six individuals (.00000075% of 8 million New Yorkers) are capable of identifying problem-solution scenarios (1,333,333.33 New Yorkers per analyst) for the preeminent metropolitan city of the U.S. That ratio, applied to the entire nation; 240 analysts would be more accurate and cost-efficient identifying problem-solution scenarios in our society. 99.99999925% of our population’s ability to critically think becomes irrelevant in identifying societal problems and solving them. Our cognitive ability to solve difficult problems is keystone in our existence. Sadly, we are addicts to technology rather that the process of creating technology – we literally cannot help ourselves – we have resigned operational authority to technology that, through metadata, understands us better than we understand it.

             

Reference List:

 

Shafritz, J.M. Russell, E.W. Borick, C.P. Hyde, A.C. (2017). Introducing Public Administration. New York, NY. London, Eng: Routledge.