This article offers an empirical articulation of paradigmatic views that guide research in contemporary public administration. Based on the findings, the authors argue that the debate on whether there is an intellectual core in public administration is becoming less relevant. What is more important from this point on is public administration scholars’ self-consciousness and better articulation of these existing paradigms. A self-aware normal science practice in public administration offers us a clearer research focus, a sharper sensitivity for recognizing anomalies, and thus a better chance for advancing public administration theories.

This article examines issues of culture and values in the context of a highly unusual situation. Alaska Natives (Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts) are attempting to mould a corporate organizational structure (established by an act of the U.S. Federal Govern ment) into development institutions that will help them keep their traditional home- land. After presenting relevant aspects of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the legislation which mandated these corporations, this article discusses fundamental differences in values, goals, and operational styles of conventional bureaucratic cor porations, and contrasts them with the shared values of Alaska Natives. An effort is made to expose the reader to the variety and complexity of institutional responses, while at the same time offering certain insights that expose critically important problems faced by Alaska Natives regarding conflicts between Native culture and the profit-making functions of their corporations. Our research suggests that there are limited prospects for achieving goals of both a social and economic nature unless major changes are made.

This paper explores the changing nature of federalism in the United States. While the paper highlights different phases of federalism and its impact on sub-national governance, the focus is on "New Federalism" a reform initiative begun in the 1970s that emphasizes decentralization from the national to state and local governments. Today, federal programs and funding are transferred to the states; however, these program responsibilities are then devolved from state to local governments. This creates tension across governments in a good economy; however, it can be a formula for disaster in times of severe budget shortfalls. The argument is made that, though devolution is largely a positive development, collaboration among interdependent national and sub-national governments needs to be advanced.