Profession

A profession arises when any trade or occupation transforms itself through "the development of formal qualifications based upon education, apprenticeship, and examinations, the emergence of regulatory bodies with powers to admit and discipline members, and some degree of monopoly rights."[11]

Originally, any regulation of the professions was self-regulation through bodies such as the College of Physicians or the Inns of Court. With the growing role of government, statutory bodies have increasingly taken on this role, their members being appointed either by the profession or (increasingly) by government. Proposals for the introduction or enhancement of statutory regulation may be welcomed by a profession as protecting clients and enhancing its quality and reputation, or as restricting access to the profession and hence enabling higher fees to be charged. It may be resisted as limiting the members' freedom to innovate or to practice as in their professional judgement they consider best.

An example was in 12, when the British government proposed wide statutory regulation of psychologists. The inspiration for the change was a number of problems in the psychotherapy field, but there are various kinds of psychologist including many who have no clinical role and where the case for regulation was not so clear. Work psychology brought especial disagreement, with the British Psychological Society favoring statutory regulation of "occupational psychologists" and the Association of Business Psychologists resisting the statutory regulation of "business psychologists" – descriptions of professional activity which it may not be easy to distinguish.

Besides regulating access to a profession, professional bodies may set examinations of competence and enforce adherence to an ethical code. There may be several such bodies for one profession in a single country, an example being the accountancy bodies of the United Kingdom (ACCA, CAI, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW and ICAS), all of which have been given a Royal Charter, although their members are not necessarily considered to hold equivalent qualifications, and which operate alongside further bodies (AAPA, IFA, CPAA). Another example of a regulatory body that governs a profession is the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, which governs the conduct, rights, obligations and duties of salaried teachers working in educational institutions in Hong Kong.

The engineering profession is highly regulated in some countries (Canada and USA) with a strict licensing system for Professional Engineer that controls the practice but not in others (UK) where titles and qualifications are regulated Chartered Engineer but practice is not regulated.

Typically, individuals are required by law to be qualified by a local professional body before they are permitted to practice in that profession. However, in some countries, individuals may not be required by law to be qualified by such a professional body in order to practice, as is the case for accountancy in the United Kingdom (except for auditing and insolvency work which legally require qualification by a professional body). In such cases, qualification by the professional bodies is effectively still considered a prerequisite to practice as most employers and clients stipulate that the individual hold such qualifications before hiring their services. For example, in order to become a fully qualified teaching professional in Hong Kong working in a state or government-funded school, one needs to have successfully completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Education ("PGDE") or a bachelor's degree in Education ("BEd") at an approved tertiary educational institution or university. This requirement is set out by the Educational Department Bureau of Hong Kong, which is the governmental department that governs the Hong Kong education sector.

Professions tend to be autonomous, which means they have a high degree of control of their own affairs: "professionals are autonomous insofar as they can make independent judgments about their work".[12] This usually means "the freedom to exercise their professional judgement."[13]

However, it also has other meanings. "Professional autonomy is often described as a claim of professionals that has to serve primarily their own interests...this professional autonomy can only be maintained if members of the profession subject their activities and decisions to a critical evaluation by other members of the profession "[14] The concept of autonomy can therefore be seen to embrace not only judgement, but also self-interest and a continuous process of critical evaluation of ethics and procedures from within the profession itself.

One major implication of professional autonomy is the traditional ban on corporate practice of the professions, especially accounting, architecture, medicine, and law. This means that in many jurisdictions, these professionals cannot do business through regular for-profit corporations and raise capital rapidly through initial public offerings or flotations. Instead, if they wish to practice collectively they must form special business entities such as partnerships or professional corporations, which feature (1) reduced protection against liability for professional negligence and (2) severe limitations or outright prohibitions on ownership by non-professionals. The obvious implication of this is that all equity owners of the professional business entity must be professionals themselves. This avoids the possibility of a non-professional owner of the firm telling a professional how to do his or her job and thereby protects professional autonomy. The idea is that the only non-professional person who should be telling the professional what to do is the client; in other words, professional autonomy preserves the integrity of the two-party professional-client relationship. Above this client-professional relationship the profession requires the professional to use their autonomy to follow the rules of ethics that the profession requires. But because professional business entities are effectively locked out of the stock market, they tend to grow relatively slowly compared to public corporations.

Professions enjoy a high social status, regard and esteem conferred upon them by society.[15][16] This high esteem arises primarily from the higher social function of their work, which is regarded as vital to society as a whole and thus of having a special and valuable nature. All professions involve technical, specialized and highly skilled work often referred to as "professional expertise."[17] Training for this work involves obtaining degrees and professional qualifications (see Licensure) without which entry to the profession is barred (occupational closure). Updating skills through continuing education is required through training.

All professions have power.[18] This power is used to control its own members, and also its area of expertise and interests. A profession tends to dominate, police and protect its area of expertise and the conduct of its members, and exercises a dominating influence over its entire field which means that professions can act monopolist,[19] rebuffing competition from ancillary trades and occupations, as well as subordinating and controlling lesser but related trades.[20] A profession is characterized by the power and high prestige it has in society as a whole. It is the power, prestige and value that society confers upon a profession that more clearly defines it. The power of professions has led to them being referred to as conspiracies against the laity. On the other hand, professionals acquire some of their power and authority in organizations from their expertise and knowledge. As such they can bend rules, reduce bureaucratic inertia and increase problem solving and adaptability.[21]

Public Service as a Profession to Moderate Abuses of Power

There is considerable agreement about defining the characteristic features of a profession. They have a "professional association, cognitive base, institutionalized training, licensing, work autonomy, colleague control... (and) code of ethics",[22] to which Larson then also adds, "high standards of professional and intellectual excellence," (Larson, p. 221) that "professions are occupations with special power and prestige", (Larson, p.x) and that they comprise "an exclusive elite group," (Larson, p. 20) in all societies. Members of a profession have also been defined as "workers whose qualities of detachment, autonomy, and group allegiance are more extensive than those found among other groups...their attributes include a high degree of systematic knowledge; strong community orientation and loyalty; self-regulation; and a system of rewards defined and administered by the community of workers."[23]

A profession has been further defined as: "a special type of occupation...(possessing) corporate solidarity...prolonged specialized training in a body of abstract knowledge, and a collectivity or service orientation...a vocational sub-culture which comprises implicit codes of behavior, generates an esprit de corps among members of the same profession, and ensures them certain occupational advantages...(also) bureaucratic structures and monopolistic privileges to perform certain types of work...professional literature, legislation, etc."[24]

A critical characteristic of a profession is the need to cultivate and exercise professional discretion - that is, the ability to make case by case judgements that cannot be determined by an absolute rule or instruction.[25]

• Professional
• First professional degree
• Professional association (or body)
• Professional boundaries
• Professional class
• Professional development
• Professional responsibility
• Professional ethics
• Professionalization
• Semiprofession
• Centre for the Study of Professions
• List of professions

References

Abbott, A. (1998). The theory of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Addams, J. (1094). Problems of municipal administration. The American Journal of Sociology, x(4), In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 51–56). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Albrow, M. (1996), The global age: state and society beyond modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Allen, K. (2004). Max Weber: A critical introduction. London: Pluto Press.

Arnett, P. (1968). Grim decisions for the military "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it",. Retrieved from http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/02/it-became-necessary-to-destroy-town-to.html

Balducchi, D. E. & Wandner, S. A. (2008). Work sharing policy: Power sharing and stalemate in American federalism. Publius, 38(1), 111–136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4624812

Bailey, J. D. (2007). Thomas Jefferson and executive power. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes law. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 318–331). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Bell, G. & Gonzalez, A. (2011). Adaptation and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations experiencing environmental deterioration. Science, 332(6035). 1327. doi: 10.1126/science.1203105

Berling, J.A. (2019). Confucianism. Retrieved from https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

Berman, H. J. (19775). The religious foundations of western law, Catholic University Law Review, 24(3), 490–508.Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol24/iss3/4

Bertalanffy, L. von, (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller.

Beyer, W. C. (1959). The civil service of the ancient world. Public Administration Review, 19(4), 243–249. doi: 10.2307/973271

Bradscher, J. G. (1985). Ebla's royal archives. Information Development, 1(4), 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/026666698500100410

Brownlow, L., Merriam, C. E., & Gulick, L. (1937). Report on the president's committee on administrative management. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 114–118). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Bryant, J. M. (2019). Ashoka and Constantine: On mega-actors and the politics of empires and religions.  In F. G. Duina(Ed), States and Nations, Power and Civility: HallsianPerspectives (pp. 263–302). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Burns, J. M. (1963). The deadlock of democracy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Carey, G. W. (1978). Separation of powers and the Madisonian model: A reply to the critics. American Political Review, 72(1), 151–164. doi: 10.2307/1953605

Change, Y. N. (1976). Early Chinese management thought. California Management Review, 19(2), 71–77. doi10.2307/41164698

Clausewitz, C. P. G., von, (1873). On War. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 32–34). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Clausewitz, C. P. G., von, (1832). On War. Howard, M. & Paret, P., editors & translators. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Common features of classical civilizations. Retrieved from https://www.historyhaven.com/COMPARISON%20%20OF%20CLASSICAL%20CIVILIZATIONS.htm

Columbia University, Asia for Educators. (2009). Timeline of Chinese dynasties and other key events. Retrieved fromhttp://afe.easia.columbia.edu/timelines/china_timeline.htm

Cooper, P. J. (1990). Public administration review: The first fifty years. Public Administration Review, 50(2), 293–312. doi: 10.2307/976878

Cruess, S. R., Johnston, S. & Cruess R. L. (2004). "Profession": a working definition for medical educators. Teaching and learning in Medicine,16(1): 74–76.

Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7(1), 1-11. doi: 10.2307/972349

Dahl, R. A. & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper.

Denhardt, R.& Denhardt, J. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review,60/6, 549–559.

Denhardt, R.& Denhardt, J. (2006). Public administration: An action orientation. Belmont, CA: Thomson.

Dunn, D. D., and Legge, J. S. Jr. (2001). U.S. local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 11(1),73-88. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003495

Dyson, T. (2018). A population history of India: From the first modern people to the present day. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Eaton, R. M. (1993). The rise of Islam and the Bengal frontier, 1204–1760. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ellis, J. J. (2000). Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. New York, Random House.

Feldheim, M. A. (2003). Mary parker follett lost and found - again, and again, and again. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 7/3, (341-362). doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-07-03-2004-B003

Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 76–83). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/i239812

Frederickson, G. H. (1971). Toward a new public administration. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 282–294). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecyand policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C. J. Friedrich & E. S. Mason (Eds.), Public policy: A yearbook of the graduate school of public administration (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Fry, B. and Raadschelders, J. (2008). Mastering public administration. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Gailmard, S. & Patty, J. W. (2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 873–889. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00286.x

Green, R. T. (1988). The Hamiltonian image of the public administrator: Public administrators as prudent constitutionalists. Dialogue, 10(3), 25–53. Retrieved from.

Green, R. T. (2002). Alexander Hamilton: Founder of the American public administration. Administration and Society 34(5): 541–562. doi: 10.1177/009539902237275

Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. (2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 873–889. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00286.x

Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 48–50). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 105–114). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Gulick, L. (1987). Time and public administration. Public Administration Review 47(1): 115–119. doi: 10.2307/975478

Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 72, The same subject continued, and re-eligibility of the executive considered from the New York packet, Friday, 21 March 1788. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-72

Herring, P. J. (2017) The historical evolution of public administration in the United States. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@patrickherring/the-historical-evolution-of-public-administration-in-the-united-states-58f7e30c2eec

Howlett, M., McConnell, A., and Pearl, A. (2014). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3) 419–434. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12064

Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons, Public Administration, 69, 3–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.

Jiang, Y. (2011). The mandate of heaven and the great Ming code. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Karl, B. D., (1963). Executive reorganization and reform in the new deal (pp. xx-292) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kettl, D. F. (2002). Transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00112

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 433–443). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Kramer, S. N. (1963). The Sumerians: Their history, culture, and character. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Lambert, W. G. (1990). Ancient Mesopotamian godssuperstition, philosophy, theology. Revue de l'histoire des religions, 207(2), 115–130. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23671046

Levin, J. (2009). Hammurabi. New York: Infobase Printing.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of "muddling through". In J. Shafritz and A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition, (pp. 172–182). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Luton, L. S. (1999). History and American public administration. Administration and Society 31(2), 205–221. doi: 10.1177/00953999922019094

Lynn, L. (2003). Public Administration in the Twenty-First Century. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 631–635. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00326

Mainzer, L. C. (1994). Public administration in search of a theory: The interdisciplinary delusion. Administration and Society 26(3): 359–394. doi: 10.1177/009539979402600305

Mark, J. J. (25 September 2017). Egyptian empire definition. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Empire/

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Shafritz, Jay M.. Classics of Public Administration (p. 616). Wadsworth Publishing. Kindle Edition.

McGregor, D. (1957). Theory Y: The integration of individual and organizational goals. McGraw-Hill n J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 166–171). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Merton, R. K. (1940).  Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press,18(4). 560–568. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 119–126). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Michael, S. (n.d.). Mesopotamia: Overview and summary. Retrieved from https://www.historyonthenet.com/mesopotamia

Nagarajan, K. V. (2011). The Code of Hammurabi: An economic interpretation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 108–117.

Newbold, S. P. (2006). All but forgotten: Thomas Jefferson's contribution to the development of public administration in the United States. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/30191

Newbold, S., & Rosenbloom, D. (2007). Brownlow report retrospective. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1006–1009. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4624660

Niskanen, Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York: Imprint Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315081878

Olson, C. (2005). The different paths of Buddhism: A narrative-historical introduction. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216. doi: 10.2307/974676

Professional Standards Council. Retrieved from https://www.psc.gov.au/what-is-a-profession

Reagan, R. (1981). Inaugural address, Retrieve from https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/inaugural-address-january-20-1981

Riccucci, N. M. (March 2001). The "old" public management versus the "new" public management: Where does public administration fit in? Public Administration Review, 61(2), 172–175. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00019

Richards, J. F., (1995). The new Cambridge history of India, I.5, the Mughal Empire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Rivlin, A. M. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 307–317). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Robinson. M. (). From old public administration to the new public service – implications for public sector reform in developing countries. Retrieved from https://cluelesspoliticalscientist.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/from-old-public-administration-to-the-new-public-service-by-mark-robinson-a-summary/

Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 421–432). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Simon, Herbert A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Sinek, S. (2019). The Infinite Game. New York: Random House

Shirley, J. J. (2010). Viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct: the power of heredity and strategic marriage in the early 18th dynasty. Journal of Egyptian History, 3(1), 73-113.

Smith, A. (1761). Theory of Moral Sentiments (2 ed.). Strand & Edinburgh: Millar A.; Kincaid, A. & Bell, J. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=bZhZAAAAcAAJ&dq=editions%3Au_L0P5LRqXkC&pg=PP3#v=onepage&q&f=true

Stearman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), pp 8–25. doi:10.2307/41166098

Stillman, R. II, (2003). The American Public Bureaucracy. Syracuse: Cengage Learning.

Stivers, C. (1995). Settlement women and bureau men: Constructing a usable past for public administration. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 522–529. doi:10.2307/3110343

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House.

Taylor, F. W. (1912). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Taylor, E. B. (1878). Researches into the early history of mankind and the development of civilization. Boston: Estes and Lauriat.

The National Academy of Public Administration, (n.d.). Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance. Retrieve from https://web.archive.org/web/20090506083627/http://napawash.org/aa_social_equity/index.html

Ventriss, C. (1989). "Toward a Public Philosophy of Public Administration: A Civic Perspective of the Public". Public Administration Review, 49(2), p. 173-9.

Waldo, D. (1948). The Administrative State. New York: The Ronald Press Company.

Waldo, D. (1987). Politics and administration: on thinking about a complex relationship. In Ralph C. Chandler, (Ed.), A Centennial History of the American Administrative State (pp 89–112). New York: Free Press.

Wamsley, G. L. and Wolf, J. F. Eds. (1996). Refounding Democratic Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weber, J. L. (25 March 2013). Was Lincoln a Tyrant? Retrieved from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/was-lincoln-a-tyrant/

Weber, M. K. E. (1925). Bureaucracy. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition(pp. 63–67). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

White, L. D. (1951). The Jeffersonians: A study in administrative history 1801–1829. New York: MacMillan Company.

White, L. D. (1955). Introduction to the study of public administration. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 68–75). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, eighth edition (pp. 35–47). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Wilson, Woodrow (1887) "The Study of Administration", Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. doi: 10.2307/2139277

Wigfall, P. M. & Kalantari, B. (2001). Biographical dictionary of public administration. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

• Penelope J. Corfield, Power and the Professions in Britain, 1700–1850, Routledge, London, 1995.
• Yves Dezalay and David Sugarman, Professional Competition and Professional Power, Routledge, 1995, ISBN 0-203-97721-1.
• Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986, ISBN 0-226-26225-1.
• Joseph M. Jacob, Doctors and Rules: A Sociology of Professional Values, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London, 1999.
• Montgomery, Jonathan (1989). "Medicine, Accountability, and Professionalism". Journal of Law and Society. 16 (3): 319–39. doi:10.2307/1409987. JSTOR 1409987. hdl:10822/833082.