In the 1940s two political theorists, Carl J. Friedrich and Herman Finer, debated a critical question of accountability in American public administration: "how much to rely on formal prescriptions and control mechanisms and how much must depend on what we have called the inner compasses of persons entrusted with public responsibilities." In other words, how much can we rely on the laws to keep administrators in check and how much can we rely on the moral consciences of our administrators. Which do you think is a better accountability measure, external or internal controls and/or the personal character of the administrator? How do you support your choice?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 12:31 am ad1c9bdddf
I am going to take an assumption with the solution below - that you are familiar with the points of view of either Friedrich & Finer and that you have access to their debates provided for in your course materials. The solution below then is a point of view I have taken from these debates, a side. This is what is asked of you - who do you think is right? If not, what do you think is the most acceptable position? Good luck & thank you for using Brainmass.
OTA 105878/Xenia Jones
The Friedrich-Finer Debate on Public Administration: Responsibility or Accountability?
Public Administration whether one is entrusted the responsibility via election or via the bureaucratic route means one thing - public service. How ...
The solution is concise 325-word APA-format essay discussing the views of political theorists, Carl J. Friedrich and Herman Finer on the issue of accountability in US Public Administration, particularly that of external/internal controls in ensuring that public administrators' behavior are to the benefit of the public they serve (moral character vs. behavior control mechanisms). References are listed for expansion.