Public administration is both an academic discipline and a field of practice; the latter is depicted in this picture of US federal public servants at a meeting.

Public administration houses the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work.^[1] As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental goal... is to advance management and policies so that government can function."^[2] Some of the various definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public programs";^[3] the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day";^[4] and "the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves, the various inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative policies."^[5]

Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct"^[6] Many unelected public servants can be considered to be public administrators, including heads of city, county, regional, state and federal departments such as municipal budget directors, HRadministrators, city managers, Census managers, state [mental health]directors, and cabinet secretaries.^[4] Public administrators are public servants working in public departments and agencies, at all levels of government.^[4]

In the US, civil servants and academics such as Woodrow Wilson promoted American civil service reform in the 1880s, moving public administration into academia.^[7] However, "until the mid-20th century and the dissemination of the German sociologist Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy" there was not "much interest in a theory of public administration."^[8] The field is multidisciplinary in character; one of the various proposals for public administration's sub-fields sets out six pillars, including human resources, organizational theory, policy analysis and statistics, budgeting, and ethics.^[9]

Definitions[link]

Even in the digital age, public servants tend to work with both paper documents and computer files (pictured here is Stephen C. Dunn, Deputy Comptroller for the US Navy)

One scholar claims that "public administration has no generally accepted definition", because the "scope of the subject is so great and so debatable that it is easier to explain than define".^[10] Public administration is a field of study (i.e., a discipline) and an occupation. There is much disagreement about whether the study of public administration can properly be called a discipline, largely because of the debate over whether public administration is a subfield of political science or a subfield of administrative science".^[10] Scholar Donald Kettl is among those who view public administration "as a subfield within political science".^[11]

The North American Industry Classification System definition of the Public Administration (NAICS 91) sector states that public administration "... comprises establishments primarily engaged in activities of a governmental nature, that is, the enactment and judicial interpretation of laws and their pursuant regulations, and the administration of programs based on them". This includes "Legislative activities, taxation, national defense, public order and safety, immigration services, foreign affairs and international assistance, and the administration of government programs are activities that are purely governmental in nature".^[12]

From the academic perspective, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the United States defines the study of public administration as "A program that prepares individuals to serve as managers in the executive arm of local, state, and federal government and that focuses on the systematic study of executive organization and management. Includes instruction in the roles, development, and principles of public administration; the management of public policy; executive-legislative relations; public budgetary processes and financial management; administrative law; public personnel management; professional ethics; and research methods."^[13]

History[link]

Antiquity to the 19th century[link]

Dating back to Antiquity, Pharaohs, kings and emperors have required pages, treasurers, and tax collectors to administer the practical business of government. Prior to the 19th century, staffing of most public administrations was rife with nepotism, favoritism, and political patronage, which was often referred to as a "spoils system". Public administrators have been the "eyes and ears" of rulers until relatively recently. In medieval times, the abilities to read and write, add and subtract were as dominated by the educated elite as public employment. Consequently, the need for expert civil servants whose ability to read and write formed the basis for developing expertise in such necessary activities as legal record-keeping, paying and feeding armies and levying taxes. As the European Imperialist age progressed and the militarily powers extended their hold over other continents and people, the need for a sophisticated public administration grew.

The eighteenth-century noble, King Frederick William I of Prussia, created professorates in Cameralism in an effort to train a new class of public administrators. The universities of Frankfurt an der Oder and University of Halle were Prussian institutions emphasizing economic and social disciplines, with the goal of societal reform. Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi was the most well-known professor of Cameralism. Thus, from a Western European perspective, Classic, Medieval, and Enlightenment-era scholars formed the foundation of the discipline that has come to be called public administration.

Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor from Vienna, is considered the founder of the science of public administration in many parts of the world. In the time of Von Stein, public administration was considered a form of administrative law, but Von Stein believed this concept too restrictive. Von Stein taught that public administration relies on many prestablished disciplines such as sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance. He called public administration an integrating science, and stated that public administrators should be concerned with both theory and practice. He argued that public administration is a science because knowledge is generated and evaluated according to the scientific method.

Modern American public administration is an extension of democratic governance, justified by classic and liberal philosophers of the western world ranging from Aristotle to John Locke^[14] to Thomas Jefferson^[15][16]

Woodrow Wilson‎

In the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of public administration. He first formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article entitled "The Study of Administration." The future president wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy."^[7] Wilson was more influential to the science of public administration than Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson wrote in 1887 in which he advocated four concepts:

• Separation of politics and administration
• Comparative analysis of political and private organizations
• Improving efficiency with business-like practices and attitudes toward daily operations
• Improving the effectiveness of public service through management and by training civil servants, merit-based assessment

The separation of politics and administration has been the subject of lasting debate. The different perspectives regarding this dichotomy contribute to differentiating characteristics of the suggested generations of public administration.

By the 1920s, scholars of public administration had responded to Wilson's solicitation and thus textbooks in this field were introduced. A few distinguished scholars of that period were, Luther Gulick, Lyndall Urwick, Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor, and others. Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), another prominent scholar in the field of administration and management also published a book entitled ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’ (1911). He believed that scientific analysis would lead to the discovery of the ‘one best way’ to do things and /or carrying out an operation. This, according to him could help save cost and time. Taylor’s technique was later introduced to private industrialists, and later into the various government organizations (Jeong, 2007).^[17]

Taylor's approach is often referred to as Taylor's Principles, and/or Taylorism. Taylor's scientific management consisted of main four principles (Frederick W. Taylor, 1911):

• Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
• Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.
• Provide ‘Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task’ (Montgomery 1997: 250).
• Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.

Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his system (approach): ‘It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone.’^[18]

The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) the leading professional group for public administration was founded in 1939. ASPA sponsors the journal Public Administration Review, which was founded in 1940.^[19]

US in the 1940s[link]

The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson continues to play a significant role in public administration today. However, the dominance of this dichotomy was challenged by second generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s. Luther Gulick's fact-value dichotomy was a key contender for Wilson's proposed politics-administration dichotomy. In place of Wilson's first generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of discretion and interaction".^[20]

Luther Gulick (1892–1993) was an expert on public administration.

Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick are two second-generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new generation of administrators built on the work of contemporary behavioral, administrative, and organizational scholars including Henri Fayol, Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Paul Appleby, Frank Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. The new generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical assumptions and generalizations about human nature like classical and enlightened theorists.

Gulick developed a comprehensive, generic theory of organization that emphasized the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism, structural reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the duties of administrators with an acronym; POSDCORB, which stands for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Fayol developed a systematic, 14-point, treatment of private management. Second-generation theorists drew upon private management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic management theory bleeding the borders between the private and the public sector was thought to be possible. With the general theory, the administrative theory could be focused on governmental organizations.

Post–World War II to the 1970s[link]

The mid-1940s theorists challenged Wilson and Gulick. The politics-administration dichotomy remained the center of criticism. In the 1960s and 1970s, government itself came under fire as ineffective, inefficient, and largely a wasted effort. The costly American intervention in Vietnam along with domestic scandals including the bugging of Democratic party headquarters (the 1974 Watergate scandal) are two examples of self-destructive government behavior that alienated citizens.

The costly Vietnam War alienated US citizens from their government (pictured is Operation Arc Light, a US bombing operation)

There was a call by citizens for efficient administration to replace ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy. Public administration would have to distance itself from politics to answer this call and remain effective. Elected officials supported these reforms. The Hoover Commission, chaired by University of Chicago professor Louis Brownlow, to examine reorganization of government. Brownlow subsequently founded the Public Administration Service (PAS) at the university, an organization which has provided consulting services to all levels of government until the 1970s.^{[citation needed]}

Concurrently, after World War II, the whole concept of public administration expanded to include policy-making and analysis, thus the study of ‘administrative policy making and analysis’ was introduced and enhanced into the government decision-making bodies. Later on, the human factor became a predominant concern and emphasis in the study of Public Administration. This period witnessed the development and inclusion of other social sciences knowledge, predominantly, psychology, anthropology, and sociology, into the study of public administration (Jeong, 2007).^[17] Henceforth, the emergence of scholars such as, Fritz Morstein Marx with his book ‘The Elements of Public Administration’ (1946), Paul H. Appleby ‘Policy and Administration’ (1952), Frank Marini ‘Towards a New Public Administration’ (1971), and others that have contributed positively in these endeavors.

1980s–1990s[link]

In the late 1980s, yet another generation of public administration theorists began to displace the last. The new theory, which came to be called New Public Management, was proposed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book Reinventing Government.^[21] The new model advocated the use of private sector-style models, organizational ideas and values to improve the efficiency and service-orientation of the public sector. During the Clinton Administration (1993–2001), Vice President Al Gore adopted and reformed federal agencies using NPM approaches. In the 1990s, new public management became prevalent throughout the bureaucracies of the US, the UK and, to a lesser extent, in Canada.

Some modern authors define NPM as a combination of splitting large bureaucracies into smaller, more fragmented agencies, encouraging competition between different public agencies, and encouraging competition between public agencies and private firms and using economic incentives lines (e.g., performance pay for senior executives or user-pay models).^[22] NPM treats individuals as "customers" or "clients" (in the private sector sense), rather than as citizens.^[23]

Some critics argue that the New Public Management concept of treating people as "customers" rather than "citizens" is an inappropriate borrowing from the private sector model, because businesses see customers are a means to an end (profit), rather than as the proprietors of government (the owners), opposed to merely the customers of a business (the patrons). In New Public Management, people are viewed as economic units not democratic participants. Nevertheless, the model is still widely accepted at all levels of government and in many OECD nations.

Late 1990s–2000[link]

In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public service model in response to the dominance of NPM.^[24] A successor to NPM is digital era governance, focusing on themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and digitalization (exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and digital storage).One example of this is openforum.com.au, an Australian non-for-profit eDemocracy project which invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people and other key stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate.

Another new public service model is what has been called New Public Governance, an approach which includes a centralization of power; an increased number, role and influence of partisan-political staff; personal-politicization of appointments to the senior public service; and, the assumption that the public service is promiscuously partisan for the government of the day.^[25]

Approaches to the study of Public Administration[link]

• Behavioural Approach
• System's Approach
• Ecological Approach
• Structural Functional Approach
• Public Choice Approach
• Contingency Approach

Core branches[link]

In academia, the field of public administration consists of a number of sub-fields. Scholars have proposed a number of different sets of sub-fields. One of the proposed models uses five "pillars":^[9]

• Human resource management is an in-house structure that ensures that public service staffing is done in an unbiased, ethical and values-based manner. The basic functions of the HR system are employee benefits, employee health care, compensation, etc.
• Organizational Theory in Public Administration is the study of the structure of governmental entities and the many particulars inculcated in them.
• Ethics in public administration serves as a normative approach to decision making.
• Policy analysis serves as an empirical approach to decision making.
• Public budgeting is the activity within a government that seeks to allocate scarce resources among unlimited demands.

Decision-making models[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Given the array of duties public administrators find themselves performing, the professional administrator might refer to a theoretical framework from which he or she might work. Indeed, many public and private administrative scholars have devised and modified decision-making models.

Niskanen's budget-maximizing[link]

In 1971, Professor William Niskanen proposed a rational choice variation which he called the "budget-maximizing model". He claimed that rational bureaucrats will universally seek to increase the budgets of their units (to enhance their stature), thereby contributing to state growth and increased public expenditure. Niskanen served on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors; his model underpinned what has been touted as curtailed public spending and increased privatization. However, budgeted expenditures and the growing deficit during the Reagan administration is evidence of a different reality. A range of pluralist authors have critiqued Niskanen's universalist approach. These scholars have argued that officials tend also to be motivated by considerations of the public interest.

Dunleavy's bureau-shaping[link]

The bureau-shaping model, a modification of Niskanen, holds that rational bureaucrats only maximize the part of their budget that they spend on their own agency's operations or give to contractors and interest groups. Groups that are able to organize a "flowback" of benefits to senior officials would, according to this theory, receive increased budgetary attention. For instance, rational officials will get no benefit from paying out larger welfare checks to millions of low-income citizens because this does not serve a bureaucrats' goals. Accordingly, one might instead expect a jurisdiction to seek budget increases for defense and security purposes in place programming. If we refer back to Reagan once again, Dunleavy's bureau shaping model accounts for the alleged decrease in the "size" of government while spending did not, in fact, decrease. Domestic entitlement programming was financially de-emphasized for military research and personnel.

As an academic field[link]

In the United States, the academic field of public administration draws heavily on political science and administrative law. Some MPA programs include economics courses to give students a background in microeconomic issues (markets, rationing mechanisms, etc.) and macroeconomic issues (e.g., national debt). Scholars such as John A. Rohr write of a long history behind the constitutional legitimacy of government bureaucracy. In Europe (notably in Britain and Germany), the divergence of the field from other disciplines can be traced to the 1720s continental university curriculum. Formally, official academic distinctions were made in the 1910s and 1890s, respectively.

The goals of the field of public administration are related to the democratic values of improving equality, justice, security, efficiency, effectiveness of public services usually in a non-profit, non-taxable venue; business administration, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with taxable profit. For a field built on concepts (accountability, governance, decentralization, clientele), these concepts are often ill-defined and typologies often ignore certain aspects of these concepts (Dubois & Fattore 2009).^[26]

One minor tradition that the more specific term "public management" refers to ordinary, routine or typical management concerns, in the context of achieving public good. Others argue that "public management" refers to a newer, market-driven perspective on the operation of government. This latter view is often called "new public management" by its advocates. New Public Management represents a reform attempt, aimed at reemphasizing the professional nature of the field^{[citation needed]}. This will replace the academic, moral or disciplinary emphasis. Some theorists advocate a bright line differentiation of the professional field from related academic disciplines like political science and sociology; it remains interdisciplinary in nature.

One public administration scholar, Donald Kettl, argues that "...public administration sits in a disciplinary backwater", because "...[f]or the last generation, scholars have sought to save or replace it with fields of study like implementation, public management, and formal bureaucratic theory".^[11] Kettl states that "public administration, as a subfield within political science...is struggling to define its role within the discipline".^[11] He notes two problems with public administration: it "has seemed methodologically to lag behind" and "the field’s theoretical work too often seems not to define it"-indeed, "some of the most interesting recent ideas in public administration have come from outside the field".^[11]

Public administration theory is the domain in which discussions of the meaning and purpose of government, the role of bureaucracy in supporting democratic governments, budgets, governance, and public affairs takes place. In recent years, public administration theory has periodically connoted a heavy orientation toward critical theory and postmodern philosophical notions of government, governance, and power. However, many public administration scholars support a classic definition of the term emphasizing constitutionality, public service, bureaucratic forms of organization, and hierarchical government.

Comparative public administration[link]

Comparative public administration is defined as the study of administrative systems in a comparative fashion or the study of public administration in other countries.^[27] Another definition for "comparative public administration" is the "quest for patterns and regularities in administrative action and behavior".^[27] There have been several issues which have hampered the development of comparative public administration, including: the major differences between Western countries and developing countries; the lack of curriculum on this subfield in public administration programs; and the lack of success in developing theoretical models which can be scientifically tested.^[28]

Comparative public administration studies can compare different types of states at the same time, such as religious states vs. secular states or authoritarian states vs. democratic states. Even though public administration systems vary a great deal, there are some common elements which they all share which can be compared, such as the recruitment of bureaucrats and common programs which all governments have (e.g., a taxation regime) and common roles (e.g., rule-making).^[29]

Master's degrees[link]

The Knapp-Sanders Building, the home of the School of Government at the University of North Carolina.

As a field, public administration can be compared to business administration, and the master of public administration (MPA) viewed as similar to a master of business administration (MBA) for those wishing to pursue governmental or non-profit careers^{[citation needed]}. An MPA often emphasizes substantially different ethical and sociological criteria that are traditionally secondary to that of profit for business administrators. The MPA is related to similar graduate level government studies including MA programs in public affairs, public policy, and political science. Differences often include program emphases on policy analysis techniques or other topical focuses such as the study of international affairs as opposed to focuses on constitutional issues such as separation of powers, administrative law, problems of governance and power, and participatory democracy.

Doctoral degrees[link]

There are two types of doctoral degrees in public administration: the Doctor of Public Administration and the Ph.D. in Public Administration. The Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) is an applied-research doctoral degree in the field of public administration, focusing on practice. The DPA requires a dissertation and significant coursework beyond the Masters level. Upon successful completion of the doctoral requirements, the title of "Doctor" is awarded and the post-nominals of D.P.A. are often added. Some universities use the Ph.D. as their doctoral degree in public administration (e.g., Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada).

Notable scholars[link]

Notable scholars of public administration have come from a range of fields. In the period before public administration existed as its own independent discipline, scholars contributing to the field came from economics, sociology, management, political science, administrative law, and, other related fields. More recently, scholars from public administration and public policy have contributed important studies and theories. For a longer list of academics and theorists, see the List of notable public administration scholars article.

International public administration[link]

There are several organizations that are active. The oldest is the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA). Based in Brussels, Belgium, IASIA is an association of organizations and individuals whose activities and interests focus on public administration and management. The activities of its members include education and training of administrators and managers. It is the only worldwide scholarly association in the field of public management.^[30] Also the International Committee of the US-based National Association of School of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) has developed a number of relationships around the world. They include sub regional and National forums like CLAD, INPAE and NISPAcee, APSA, ASPA.^[31]

The Center for Latin American Administration for Development (CLAD), based in Caracas, Venezuela, this regional network of schools of public administration set up by the governments in Latin America is the oldest in the region.^[32] The Institute is a founding member and played a central role in organizing the Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE). Created in 2000, this regional network of schools is unique in that it is the only organization to be composed of institutions from North and Latin America and the Caribbean working in public administration and policy analysis. It has more than 49 members from top research schools in various countries throughout the hemisphere.^[33]

NISPAcee is a network of experts, scholars and practitioners who work in the field of public administration in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Russian Federation and the Caucasus and Central Asia.^[34] The US public administration and political science associations like NASPA, American Political Science Association (APSA)^[35] and American Society of Public Administration (ASPA).^[36] These organizations have helped to create the fundamental establishment of modern public administration.

See also[link]

	Book: Public administration
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

• Administration (government)
• Administrative law
• Budgeting
• Bureaucracy
• Civil society
• Doctor of Public Administration
• Municipal government
• Politics
• Professional administration
• Public management – focusing on the efficiency and effectiveness of a government
• Public administration theory
• Public policy
• Public policy schools
• Theories of administration
  • Max Weber

Societies for public administration[link]

• American Society for Public Administration
• Chinese Public Administration Society
• Institute for Public Administration in Canada
• Dutch Association for Public Administration
• Royal Institute for Public Administration
• Indian Institute of Public Administration
• Korea Institute of Public Administration
• Public Administration Association of Nepal

References[link]

External links[link]

• Gov Monitor: A public administration, policy and public sector website
• Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net) : This is an international network of professionals concerned with the advancement of public administration theory.
• The Global Public Administration Resource : A forum where practitioners, academics and students can discuss topics in public administration.
• United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN): A body which aims to establish an Internet-based network that links regional and national institutions devoted to public administration.

Suggested reading[link]

• Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), 'Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public Administration, 32(8): 704–727.

• Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim, & Nor Fadzlina Nawi. (2007). Principles of Public Administration: An Introduction. Kuala Lumpur: Karisma Publications. ISBN 978-983-195-253-2

• Smith, Kevin B. and Licari, Michael J. Public Administration — Power and Politics in the Fourth Branch of Government, ISBN 1-933220-04-X

• White,Jay D. and Guy B. Adams. Research in public administration: reflections on theory and practice‎.1994.
• Donald Menzel and Harvey White (eds) 2011. The State of Public Administration: Issues, Challenges and Opportunity. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Jayaprakash Narayan (11 October 1902 – 8 October 1979), widely known as JP Narayan, Jayaprakash, or Loknayak, was an Indian independence activist and political leader, remembered especially for leading the opposition to Indira Gandhi in the 1970s and for giving a call for peaceful Total Revolution. His biography, Jayaprakash, was written by his nationalist friend and an eminent writer of Hindi literature, Ramavriksha Benipuri. In 1998, he was posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, in recognition of his social work. Other awards include the Magsaysay award for Public Service in 1965. The airport of Patna is also named after him.

Early life[link]

Jayprakash Narayan was born on 11 October 1902 in the village of Sitabdiara, Bihar, India. He came from a middle-class family.^[1]

Politics[link]

Sandip Das, a biographer, says that

"... in 1920, he joined the non-cooperation struggle and gave up his studies. He joined the Bihar Vidyapeeth established by the Congress to pursue his education. The determination to continue the boycott of British educational institutions led him to study in the United States."^[1]

Returning from the US in late 1929 as a supporter of Marxist theories,^[2] Narayan joined the Indian National Congress on the invitation of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1929; Mahatma Gandhi became his mentor in the Congress. He shared the same house at Kadam Kuan in Patna with his close friend and nationalist Ganga Sharan Sinha (Shrivastava).^[3] with whom he shared the most cordial and lasting friendship.^[3]

During the Indian independence movement he was arrested, jailed, and tortured several times by the British.^{[citation needed]} He won particular fame during the Quit India movement.^{[citation needed]}

After being jailed in 1932 for civil disobedience against British rule, Narayan was imprisoned in Nasik Jail, where he met Ram Manohar Lohia, Minoo Masani, Achyut Patwardhan, Ashok Mehta, Yusuf Desai and other national leaders. After his release, the Congress Socialist Party, or (CSP), a left-wing group within the Congress, was formed with Acharya Narendra Deva as President and Narayan as General secretary.^{[citation needed]}

When Mahatma Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement in August, 1942, Yogendra Shukla scaled the wall of Hazaribagh Central Jail alongwith Jayaprakash Narayan, Suraj Narayan Singh, Gulab Chand Gupta, Ramnandan Mishra and Shaligram Singh with a view to starting underground movement for freedom.^[4] As Jayaprakash Narayan was ill then, Yogendra Shukla walked a distance to Gaya with Jayaprakash Narayan on his shoulders.^[5]

During the Quit India Movement of 1942, when senior Congress leaders were arrested in the early stages, JP, Lohia and Basawon Singh (Sinha) were at the forefront of the agitations.^{[citation needed]} Leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan and Aruna Asaf Ali were described as "the political children of Gandhi but recent students of Karl Marx."^{[citation needed]}

Initially a supporter of the use of physical force, Narayan was won over to Gandhi's position on nonviolence and advocated the use of satyagrahas to achieve the ideals of democratic socialism. Furthermore, he became deeply disillusioned with the practical experience of socialism in Nehru's India.^{[citation needed]}

After independence and the death of Mahatma Gandhi, Narayan, Acharya Narendra Dev and Basawon Singh led the CSP out of Congress to become the opposition Socialist Party, which later took the name Praja Socialist Party. Basawon Singh (Sinha) became the first leader of the opposition in the state and assembly of Bihar and Acharya Narendra Deva became the first leader of opposition in the state and assembly of Uttar Pradesh.^{[citation needed]} His party is the first national party who distributed tickets on caste line.^{[citation needed]} This was the point where Jayaprakash Narayan disagreed with the party principles and pursued Sarvodey and Lokniti.^{[citation needed]}

Sarvodaya[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Narayan with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, 1958

On April 19, 1954, Narayan announced in Gaya that he was dedicating his life (Jeevandan) to Vinoba Bhave's Sarvodaya movement and its Bhoodan campaign, which promoted distributing land to Harijans (untouchables). He gave up his land, set up an ashram in Hazaribagh, and worked towards uplifting the village.

In 1957, Narayan formally broke with the Praja Socialist Party in order to pursue lokniti [Polity of the people], as opposed to rajniti [Polity of the state]. By this time, Narayan had become convinced that lokniti should be non-partisan in order to build a consensus-based, classless, participatory democracy which he termed Sarvodaya. Narayan became an important figure in the India-wide network of Gandhian Sarvodaya workers.

In 1964, Narayan was vilified across the political spectrum for arguing in an article in the Hindustan Times that India had a responsibility to keep its promise to allow self-determination to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. He hit back at critics in a second article, dismissing the Indian version of the "domino theory" which held that the rest of India's states would disintegrate if Kashmir were allowed its promised freedom. In his graceful if old-fashioned style, Narayan ridiculed the premise that "the states of India are held together by force and not by the sentiment of a common nationality. It is an assumption that makes a mockery of the Indian Nation and a tyrant of the Indian State".

Bihar Movement and Total Revolution[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Narayan returned to prominence in State politics in the late 1960s. In 1974, he led the student's movement in the state of Bihar which gradually developed into a popular people's movement known as the Bihar movement. It was during this movement that JP gave a call for peaceful Total Revolution Together with V. M. Tarkunde, he founded the Citizens for Democracy in 1974 and the People's Union for Civil Liberties in 1976, both NGOs, to uphold and defend civil liberties.

Emergency[link]

When Indira Gandhi was found guilty of violating electoral laws by the Allahabad High Court, Narayan called for Indira to resign, and advocated a program of social transformation which he termed Sampoorna kraanti [Total Revolution]. Instead she proclaimed a national Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975, immediately after Narayan had called for the PM's resignation and had asked the military and the police to disregard unconstitutional and immoral orders; JP, opposition leaders, and dissenting members of her own party (the 'Young Turks') were arrested on that day.

Jayaprakash Narayan attracted a gathering of 100,000 people at the Ramlila Grounds and thunderously recited Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar''s wonderfully evocative poetry: Singhasan Khaali Karo Ke Janata Aaati Hai.^[6]

Narayan was kept as detenu at Chandigarh even after he had asked for a month's parole for mobilising relief in areas of Bihar gravely affected by flood. His health suddenly deteriorated on October 24, and he was released on November 12; diagnosis at Jaslok Hospital, Bombay, revealed kidney failure; he would be on dialysis for the rest of his life.

The "Free JP" campaign was launched in the UK by Surur Hoda and chaired by Nobel Peace Prize winner Noel- Baker for the release of Jayaprakash Narayan.^[7]

After Indira revoked the emergency on January 18, 1977 and announced elections, it was under JP's guidance that the Janata Party (a vehicle for the broad spectrum of the anti-Indira Gandhi opposition) was formed.^{[citation needed]} The Janata Party was voted into power, and became the first non-Congress party to form a government at the Centre.^{[citation needed]} On the call of Narayan many youngsters joined the JP movement.^{[citation needed]}

Death[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Narayan died in Patna, Bihar,^[8] on 8 October 1979, 3 days before his 77th birthday. due to effects of diabetes and heart ailments; but a few months before that, in March 1979, his death was erroneously announced by the Indian prime minister to the parliament as he lay fighting for his life in Jaslok Hospital, causing a brief wave of national mourning, including the suspension of parliament and regular radio broadcasting, and closure of schools and shops. When he was told about the gaffe a few weeks later, he smiled.

The then Prime Minister of India Charan Singh declared seven days of mourning to mark the death, calling him, "the conscience of the nation".^{[clarification needed]}

Awards[link]

• Bharat Ratna, 1999 ^[9]

^[10]

• Rashtrabhushan Award of FIE Foundation, Ichalkaranji^[11]

Bibliography[link]

• Why Socialism, 1936
• War Circulars, 1-4 CSP, Lucknow
• Inside Lahore Fort, Sahityalaya Patna 1947
• Nation Building in India — JP Narayan
• Three Basic Problems of India. From Socialism to Sarvodaya, Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varansi 1957
• A Plea for Reconstruction of Indian Polity, Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varansi 1959
• Swaraj for the People, Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varansi 1961
• Sarvodaya Answer to Chinese Aggression, Sarvodaya Prachuralaya Tanjore 1963
• Face to Face, Navchetna Prakashan, Varansi 1970
• Prison Diary, Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha Calcutta 1976 and Popular Prakashan, Bombay 1977.

Edited works:

• Towards Struggle, edited by Yusuf Meherally, Padma Publications, Bombay 1946
• Socialism,Sarvodaya and Democracy, edited by Bimal Prasad, Asia Publishing House Bombay 1964
• Communitarian Society and Panchayti Raj, edited by Brahmanand Navchetna Prakashan Varansi 1970
• Nation-Building in India, edited by Brahmanand Navchetna Prakashan Varansi 1974
• Towards Revolution, edited by Bhargava and Phadnis, Arnold-Heinemann New Delhi 1975
• J.P’s Jail Life (A Collection of Personal Letters) translated by G S Bhargava, Arnold-Heinemann New Delhi 1977
• Towards Total Revolution, edited by Brahmanand Popular Prakashan Bombay 1978
• J P:Profile of a non-conformist, Interviews by Bhola Chatterji, Minerva Associates, Calcutta, 1979
• To All Fighters of Freedom II, A Revolutionary’s Quest-selected writings of Jayprakash Narayan, edited by Bimal Prasad Oxford University Press New Delhi 1980
• Concept of Total Revolution: An Introductory Essay(JP and social change) by Bimal Prasad

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Red Fugitive: Jayaprakash Narayan by H L Singh Dewans Publications Lahore 1946
• Life and Time of Jayaprakash Narayan by J S Bright Dewans Publications Lahore 1946
• Jayaprakash Narayan: A Political Biography by Ajit Bhattacharyajea Vikas Publications New Delhi 1975
• J.P: His Biography, Allan and Wendy Scarfe, Orient Longmans New Delhi 1975
• Jayaprakash: Rebel Extraordinary, by Lakshmi Narayan Lal, Indian Book Company New Delhi 1975
• Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, by Suresh Ram Macmillan Co. Delhi 1974
• Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan by Farooq Argali Janata Pocket Books Delhi 1977.
• Bimal Prasad (editor). 1980. A Revolutionary's Quest: Selected Writings of Jayaprakash Narayan. Oxford University Press, Delhi ISBN 0-19-561204-3
• Jai Prakash Narain, Jayaprakash Narayan, Essential Writings, 1929-1979: A Centenary Volume, 1902–2002, Konark Publishers (2002) ISBN 81-220-0634-5
• Dr. Kawaljeet, J.P.'s Total Revolution and Humanism (Patna: Buddhiwadi Foundation, 2002). ISBN 81-86935-02-9
• Dr. Ramendra (editor), Jayaprakash Vichar Sankalan [Hindi] (Patna: Rajendra Prakashan, 1986).
• Satyabrata Rai Chowdhuri, Leftism in India: 1917-1947 (London and New Delhi: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

External links[link]

• A plea for the reconstruction of Indian polity
• Total revolution
• On Hindu revivalism
• Magsaysay award acceptance speech; Citation
• JP's visit to an RSS camp, as told by Sita Ram Goel in "Perversion of India's Political Parlance"
• JP information from Gandhi museum

v t e Indian independence movement History Colonisation East India Company British India French India Portuguese India Plassey Buxar Anglo-Mysore Wars Anglo-Maratha Wars First Second Third Polygar War Vellore Mutiny First Anglo-Sikh War Second Anglo-Sikh War Rebellion of 1857 British Raj more Philosophies and ideologies Indian nationalism Swaraj Hindu nationalism Gandhism Satyagraha Muslim nationalism in South Asia Swadeshi Socialism Khilafat Movement Events and movements Partition of Bengal Revolutionaries Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy The Indian Sociologist The Sedetious conspiracy Champaran and Kheda Rowlatt Committee Rowlatt Bills Jallianwala Bagh Massacre Non-Cooperation Kakori conspiracy Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre Flag Satyagraha Bardoli 1928 Protests Nehru Report Fourteen Points of Jinnah Purna Swaraj Salt Satyagraha Round table conferences Act of 1935 Legion Freies Indien Cripps' mission Quit India Indian National Army Bombay Mutiny Coup d'État de Yanaon Provisional Government of India Organisations Indian National Congress All-India Muslim League Anushilan Samiti Jugantar Arya Samaj Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh India House Berlin Committee Ghadar Home Rule Khaksar Tehrik Khudai Khidmatgar Hindustan Republican Association Swaraj Party Indian Independence League All India Kisan Sabha Azad Hind more Social reformers Bal Gangadhar Tilak Muhammad Ali Jinnah Muhammad Iqbal Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Acharya Kripalani Rahul Sankrityayan Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gopal Ganesh Agarkar Shahu Maharaj Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Dhondo Keshav Karve Vitthal Ramji Shinde Mahadev Govind Ranade Swami Dayananda Saraswati Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Swami Vivekananda Swami Sahajanand Saraswati Vinoba Bhave Baba Amte Ram Mohan Roy Gopal Hari Deshmukh Indian independence activists Puli Thevar Yashwantrao Holkar Rahul Sankrityayan Swami Sahajanand Saraswati Tipu Sultan Veerapandiya Kattabomman Sangolli Rayanna Baba Ram Singh Mangal Pandey Rae Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal Bakht Khan Veer Kunwar Singh Rani of Jhansi Bahadur Shah Zafar Swami Dayanand Saraswati Bal Gangadhar Tilak Gopal Krishna Gokhale Dadabhai Naoroji Bhikaiji Cama Shyamji Krishna Varma Annie Besant Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Har Dayal Subramanya Bharathi Lala Lajpat Rai Bipin Chandra Pal Rash Behari Bose Chittaranjan Das Bidhan Chandra Roy Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Maulana Azad Ashfaqullah Khan Ram Prasad Bismil Chandrasekhar Azad Rajaji K. M. Munshi Bhagat Singh Hemu Kalani Sarojini Naidu Achyut Patwardhan Purushottam Das Tandon Alluri Sitaramaraju Muhammad Ali Jinnah Sardar Patel Acharya Kripalani Subhash Chandra Bose Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Jawaharlal Nehru Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Allama Mashriqi Kotwal Dhan Singh Gurjar V. K. Krishna Menon more British leaders Clive Outram Dalhousie Irwin Linlithgow Wavell Cripps Mountbatten more Independence Simla Conference Cabinet Mission Indian Independence Act Partition of India Political integration Constitution Republic of India

v t e Bharat Ratna laureates Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1954) C. Rajagopalachari (1954) C. V. Raman (1954) Bhagwan Das (1955) Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya (1955) Jawaharlal Nehru (1955) Govind Ballabh Pant (1957) Dhondo Keshav Karve (1958) Bidhan Chandra Roy (1961) Purushottam Das Tandon (1961) Dr. Rajendra Prasad (1962) Dr. Zakir Hussain (1963) Pandurang Vaman Kane (1963) Lal Bahadur Shastri (1966) Indira Gandhi (1971) V. V. Giri (1975) K. Kamaraj (1976) Mother Teresa (1980) Acharya Vinoba Bhave (1983) Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1987) M. G. Ramachandran (1988) B. R. Ambedkar (1990) Nelson Mandela (1990) Rajiv Gandhi (1991) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (1991) Morarji Desai (1991) Abul Kalam Azad (1992) J. R. D. Tata (1992) Satyajit Ray (1992) A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (1997) Gulzarilal Nanda (1997) Aruna Asaf Ali (1997) M. S. Subbulakshmi (1998) Chidambaram Subramaniam (1998) Jayaprakash Narayan (1998) Ravi Shankar (1999) Amartya Sen (1999) Gopinath Bordoloi (1999) Lata Mangeshkar (2001) Bismillah Khan (2001) Bhimsen Joshi (2008)

Pride of Performance Award Recipient
Parveen Shakir was recipient of the Pride of Performance Award 1990[2]
Presented by	Ghulam Ishaq Khan
Date	14-08-1990
Country	Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Parveen Shakir (Urdu: پروین شاکر) (November 24, 1952 - December 26, 1994) was an Urdu poet, teacher and a civil servant of the Government of Pakistan.

Shakir started writing at an early age and published her first volume of poetry, Khushbu [Fragrance], to great acclaim, in 1976.^[3] She subsequently published other volumes of poetry - all well-received - Sad-barg [Marsh Marigold] in 1980, Khud Kalami [Soliloquy] and Inkar [Denial] in 1990, Kaf e Aina [The Mirror's Edge] besides a collection of her newspaper columns, titled Gosha-e-Chashm [The Sight Corner], and was awarded one of Pakistan's highest honours, the Pride of Performance for her outstanding contribution to literature.^[3] The poetry books are collected in the volume Mah e Tamam [Full Moon] with the exception of Kaf e Aina.

Shakir died in 1994 in a car accident while on her way to work.^[3]

Early career[link]

Shakir started writing at a young age, penning both prose and poetry, and contributing columns in Urdu newspapers, and a few articles in English dailies.^[4] Initially, she wrote under the pen-name, Beena.^[3] Shakir was highly educated with two masters degrees, one in English Literature and one in Linguistics. She also held a PhD and another masters degree in Bank Administration.

She was a teacher for nine years before she joined the Civil Service and worked in the Customs department. In 1986 she was appointed the second secretary, CBR in Islamabad.

Style[link]

Shakir employed mainly two forms of poetry in her work, one being the prevalent ghazal [plural: ghazalyaat], and the other being free verse. The most prominent themes in Shakir's poetry are love, feminism, and social stigmas, though she occasionally wrote on other topics as well. Her work was often based on romanticism, exploring the concepts of love, beauty and their contradictions, and heavily integrated the use of metaphors, similes and personifications.^[5]

Arguably, Shakir can be termed the first poetess to use the word larki (girl) in her works—the male-dominated Urdu poetry scene seldom employs that word, and uses masculine syntax when talking about the 'lover'. Similarly, she often made use of the Urdu first-person, feminine pronoun in her verses which, though extremely common in prose, was rarely used in poetry, even by female poetesses, before her.^[6]

[edit] Ghazalyaat

See also Ghazal in Khushbu.

Shakir's ghazalyaat are considered "a combination of classical tradition with modern sensitivity",^[5] and mainly deal with the feminine perspective on love and romance, and associated themes such as beauty, intimacy, separation, break-ups, distances, distrust and infidelity and disloyalty.

Most of Shakir's ghazalyaat contain five to ten couplets, often - though not always - inter-related. Sometimes, two consecutive couplets may differ greatly in meaning and context [For example, in one of her works, the couplet 'That girl, like her home, perhaps/ Fell victim to the flood is immediately followed by 'I see light when I think of you/ Perhaps remembrance has become the moon'^[7]].

Shakir's ghazalyaat heavily rely on metaphors and similes, which are repeatedly and thought-provokingly used to bring force and lyricism in her work. A fine example of this is seen in one of her most famous couplets, "Wo tou khushbu hai, hawaon main bikhar jaye ga/ Masla phool ka hai, phool kidher jayega?"^[8] [Translation: He is fragrance and would waft in the air/ the trouble lies with the flower - where shall the flower go?] where Shakir relates 'fragrance' to an unfaithful lover, 'air' to the unfaithful person's secret loves, and 'flower' to the person being cheated. Other metaphors Shakir commonly uses are titli [butterfly] for a Romeo, badal [cloud] for one's love, baarish [rain] for affection, and andhi [storm] for difficulties.

Some of Shakir's ghazalyaat or, more specifically, couplets, have gained an iconic status in Urdu literature. One of her most famous couplets if the one given above. Another famous, Shakir couplet is "Jugnuu ko din kay wakt parakhne ki zid karain/ Bachchay hamaray ehed kay chalaak ho gaye"^[9] [They insist upon evaluating the firefly in daylight/ The children of our age, have grown clever], which is often quoted to comment on the often surprising knowledge and awareness of the 21st century child.

Free Verse[link]

As compared to her ghazalyaat Shakir's free verse is much bolder, and explores social issues and taboos, including gender inequality, discrimination, patriotism, deceit, prostitution, the human psyche, and current affairs. It is also much more modern and up-to-date.

Shakir is known for having employed the usage of pop culture references and English words and phrases, that have mixed up with Urdu, in her free verse - a practice that is both generally considered inappropriate, and criticized, in Urdu poetry. An example is the poem Departmental Store MeiN [In a Departmental Store], which is named thus despite the fact that there the term 'departmental store' could easily have been substituted with its Urdu equivalent, and where words like 'natural pink,' 'hand lotion,' 'shade,' 'scent' and 'pack' are brought into use, and references made to cosmetics brands like, Pearl, Revlon, Elizabeth Arden, and Tulip.^[10] Other examples are her poems Ecstasy, Nun ^[11] and Picnic.^[12]

Shakir's free verse also contains a few, credited translated or inspired works i.e. poems that are translations of, or inspired by, other authors. Examples are Wasteland, a poem inspired by Elliot's poem of the same name,^[13] and Benasab Wirsay Ka Bojh [The Burden of Illegitimate Inheritance], a translation of W.B. Yeats's Leda and the Swan.^[14]

Critical reception[link]

Shakir's poetry was well-received, and after her untimely death she is now considered one of the best and "most prominent" modern poets Urdu language has ever produced. Hailed as a "great poetess," her poetry has drawn comparisons to that of Iranian poet Forough Farrokhzad, and she is considered among the breed of writers "regarded as pioneers in defying tradition by expressing the "female experience" in Urdu poetry."^[5]

A source states, "Parveen ... seems to have captured the best of Urdu verse ... Owing to [her] style and range of expressions one will be intrigued and ... entertained by some soul-stirring poetry." ^[15] Another praises "her rhythmic flow and polished wording."^[4]

Literary figure Iftikhar Arif has praised Shakir for impressing "the young lot through her thematic variety and realistic poetry," for adding "a new dimension to the traditional theme of love by giving expression to her emotions in a simple and pellucid style," and using a "variety of words to convey different thoughts with varying intensities."^[5]

The Delhi Recorder has stated that Shakir "has given the most beautiful female touch to Urdu poetry."

Honours[link]

Shakir's first book, Khushbu, was awarded the Adamjee Award. Later, she was awarded the Pride of Performance, one of Pakistan's highest honours.^[1]

Upon her death, the Parveen Shakir Trust was established by her close friend, Parveen Qadir Agha. The Parveen Shakir Trust organizes a yearly function and gives out the "Aks-e-Khushbo" award.

Personal life[link]

Birth[link]

Shakir was born on 24 November 1952 in Karachi,.^[6]

Education[link]

Shakir was highly educated. She received two undergraduate degrees, one in English literature and the other in linguistics, and obtained MA degrees in the same subjects from the University of Karachi. She also held a PhD, and another MA degree in Bank Administration.^[3]

In 1982, Shakir qualified the Central Superior Services Examination. In 1991, she obtained an MA degree in Public Administration from Harvard University, USA.^[6]

Family, and death[link]

Shakir married a Pakistani doctor, Naseer Ali, with whom she had a son, Syed Murad Ali—but the marriage did not last long and ended in a divorce.^[6]

On Dec 26th, 1994, Shakir's car collided with a bus while she was on her way to work in Islamabad. The accident resulted in her death, a great loss to the Urdu poetry world.^[3] The road on which the accident took place is named after her.

Books[link]

Following is a list of Shakir's published books. A translation of each's title follows in italics.

Volumes of Poetry

• Khushbu (1976) - Fragrance
• Sad-barg (1980) - Marsh Marigold
• Khud-kalaami (1990) - Talking to the Self
• Inkaar (1990) - Refusal
• Maah-e-Tamaam (1994) - Full Moon
• Kaf-e-Aa'ina - The Edge of the Mirror

Prose

• Gosha-e-Chashm - The Sight Corner

See also[link]

• Fehmida Riaz
• Kishwar Naheed
• Forough Farrokhzad

References[link]

External links[link]

• Parveen Shakir at the Internet Movie Database
• Parveen Shakir at Kavita Kosh (Hindi)
• Parveen Shakir Shayari & Urdu Poems, by Dard
• Kaf-e-Aeena - Online book of her poetry
• Parveen Shakir at Jakhira (Hindi)
• Khushboo - Read Parveen Shakir's famous book 'Khusboo' online in Urdu font, roman Urdu as well as in designed image form.
• [1] - Parveen Shakir: A Note and Twelve Poems, by C.M. Naim
• Designed Urdu Poetry - Designed Urdu Poetry of Famous Pakistani Poetess Parveen Shakir.
• [2] - Five poems by Parveen Shakir, translated by Alamgir Hashmi
• [3] - Where am I? | Wo bin ich?

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.^[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service who has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

Roberts is a critic of Israel, calling Gaza "the world's largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land." Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Although Roberts praised Ronald Reagan, he has compared supporters of George W. Bush to "brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters." He has opposed the War on Drugs and the War on Terror stating it has "made widows and orphans of millions of Muslims". He believes the official explanation for the events on 9/11 is a "scientific impossibility".

Publication[link]

He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship.

His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews, Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.com, Antiwar.com, the web site VDARE.com. LewRockwell.com, CounterPunch. He is a contributor to the American Free Press which is critical of the New World Order and Israel. Roberts has been featured as a guest on the Political Cesspool radio show.^[2]

In order to create a coherent uncensored and unedited archive of Robert's writings, paulcraigroberts.org ^[3] was created by the The Institute For Political Economy and appeared in January 2012. His articles continue to appear in other venues, but are first available on this website along with links to relevant videos and books.

Biography[link]

Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University.^[4] His first scholarly article (Classica et Mediaevalia) was a reformulation of "The Pirenne Thesis."

In Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), Roberts explained the Soviet economy as the outcome of a struggle between inordinate aspirations and a refractory reality. He argued that the Soviet economy was not centrally planned, but that its institutions, such as material supply, reflected the original Marxist aspirations to establish a non-market mode of production. In Marx's Theory of Exchange (1973), Roberts argued that Marx was an organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out good will as an effective force for change.

From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff. As economic counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp^[5] he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which became the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.^[4] His influential 1978 article for Harper's,^[6] while economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch,^[7] had Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley give him an editorial slot, which he had until 1980.^[8] He was a senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.^[5]

From early 1981 to January 1982 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy."^[4] Roberts resigned in January 1982 to become the first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.^[9] He held this position until 1993. He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution (1984), in which he explained the reformulation of macroeconomic theory and policy that he had helped to create.

He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.^[4]

In The New Color Line (1995), Roberts argued that the Civil Rights Act was subverted by the bureaucrats who applied it and, by being used to create status-based privileges, became a threat to the Fourteenth Amendment in whose name it was passed. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Roberts documented what he saw as the erosion of the Blackstonian legal principles that ensure that law is a shield of the innocent and not a weapon in the hands of government.

Recognition[link]

In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor on March 20, 1987. The French Minister of Economics and Finance, Edouard Balladur, came from France to present the medal to Roberts at a ceremony at the French Ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C. President Reagan sent OMB Director Jim Miller to the ceremony with a letter of congratulation.^[4]

In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism from the American Legislative Exchange Council. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.^[4]

Views[link]

Criticism of Bush[link]

Roberts opposed the Iraq War and writes frequently on the subject. On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war.

Roberts was also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran. In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia."

Although his criticisms of Bush often seem to align him with the political left, Roberts continues to praise Ronald Reagan and to endorse many of Reagan's policies, arguing that "true conservatives" were the "first victims" of the neoconized Bush administration.^[10] He has said that supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."^[11]

Israel[link]

In an article for Counterpunch magazine titled "Pirates of the Mediterranean", Roberts wrote that for 60 years, Israel has replicated "the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers." Roberts repeated charges that Gaza is "the world largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land." He called the U.S. State Department a "puppet" of the Israelis and the U.S. itself a "puppet state" of the Israelis. He concludes the article by claiming that "there’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it."^[12]

The pro-Jewish [Anti-Defamation League] has criticized Dr. Roberts as promoting anti-semitism for his increasing focus on "criticism of Israel and Jews" making his writings "popular with fringe publications on both the left and the right".^[13] However, Dr. Roberts nominated Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper for the Nobel Peace Prize and he cautions against confusing a right-wing Zionist government with world Jewry. In one of his classic columns, "What Became of Western Morality?" (January 2005), he noted that it is Israeli newspapers, not American ones, that protest the Israeli government's atrocities against Palestinians:

"It is the goyim moralists who are silent, not the Jews. It is the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, not the goyim media, that provides reports of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians. Gideon Levy’s “The Neighborhood Bully Strikes Again” was published in Haaretz on Dec. 29, not in the goyim press. Levy’s words—”Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom”—are not words that can appear in American print or TV media. Such words, printed in Israeli newspapers, never reach the goyim."

Dr. Roberts cautions against blaming all Jews for crimes of a right-wing government:

"The world will need to remember that although Israel is a Jewish state, it is a state whose policies many Jews find objectionable, just as a majority of American Jews oppose President Bush’s wars of aggression in the Middle East and his unconstitutional policies at home. We must not confuse Israel’s Zionist government with world Jewry, just as we must not confuse the American people with the war criminals in the Bush regime.

"Consider, who do you trust with your civil liberties, the U.S. Department of Justice or the ACLU’s phalanx of Jewish attorneys? [Dr. Roberts according to Who's Who In America is a member of the ACLU, a Jewish organization.]

"We must avoid the mistake that was made by blaming the German people for Adolf Hitler. It was the aristocratic German military that tried to remove Hitler. In contrast, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blocked the attempt to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Pelosi is a discredit to California, but shall we blame all of America for Pelosi’s defense of war criminals? How can we do so when U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich courageously read out the articles of impeachment on the House floor?

"Are all Americans guilty because Kucinich did not prevail?" ^[14]

Neoconservatives and the South Ossetia War[link]

In an interview on August 27, 2008, on a broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, Roberts stated that he believed that influential neoconservatives affiliated with the Bush administration were leading the United States into a nuclear confrontation with Russia over the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia. Roberts gave the conflict “almost total certainty if John McCain gets in office" and stated that the conflict would be in a timeframe of about two or three years.^[15]