Public Administration Discretion Essay

Administration Discretion Public administration in itself is a structure. A structure of many different administrative organizations working to carry out the orders/laws of the government. As with many structures, elements of it have to work or fit a certain way for it to be stable or function properly. There is also a structural plan (laws/rules) that must be followed in order for the structure to be safe and effective (run smoothly).
On the other hand, although most structures can usually abide by these rules there are times when plans (laws/rules) are misinterpreted, they do not fit in a particular case, they create unseen problems, etc. In such a case, limited discretion may be required in order to provide the best probable outcome. Of course, the discretion used may also end up being disastrous for the structure as well. Either way, structures, as well as the tasks of public administration can always change or be misinterpreted, which is why it is important for public administrators to be allowed to have some amount of discretion. As Woodrow Wilson stated “The cook must be trusted with a large discretion as to the management of the fires and the oven” (Wilson, 1886). While a large amount of discretion usually is not the best thing to give to a person/organization in power, they must still be able to have a little leeway in their executive decisions. For instance, when a law/policy is created and has to be carried out by a specific office, this law may interfere with executive functions already in place. This law or policy may also be vague and leave much room for interpretation. As a result, this could cause problems in administrative functions, such as cause confusion as to which policy to use in certain cases. The discretion given to public administrators could also be an advantage for the reason that these administrators are the ones who are executing these functions that were handed down to them. They know how their administrative functions work and what functions do not work. For an example with the No Child Left behind Act. It was a law that was supposed to “even the playing fields” for the children of America. The act was supposed to help every child, no matter their class in society, be prepared for college and be competitive in the work field. However, due to the Obama administration’s “one shoe fits all” outlook on the situation, the act did not succeed. The administration could only see the “big picture” and was not able to see all the problems their law would create for the schools as well …show more content…
In addition, by not being allowed to use administrative discretion everything can work only one way, or as Weber wrote, it “does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly” (Stillman, 2010). By giving no administrative discretion to public administrators, as Weber’s suggested, could be an advantage as well. With no discretion given every individual job in the administration would be the same, according to the duties of that station/office. As such, if a higher position in the hierarchy left their job then their position could easily be filled with the person under that position. This is due to people in the office being expertly trained or specializing in that task/duty as well. As a result, the office would still be able to effectively carry out their duties as