Discover more from Civic Insighter
Meet the MBPA: Master of Business and Public Administration
Consider 9 reasons to merge business and policy degrees.
In a recent post, I suggested that Master of Public Policy (MPP) and Master of Public Administration (MPA) degrees should merge, in order to help close the gap between policymaking and policy implementation.
To take things a step further: I think this combined public policy/administration degree and the MBA should merge into a single degree for management in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.
(MBA and MPP/MPA programs all pitch themselves as relevant prep for nonprofit management, so I’ll include that on the graphic too.)
Meet the MBPA: Master of Business and Public Administration—or pick another name of your choice!
I promise it’s not radical or crazy. Here are 9 reasons:
1. Careers often don’t follow degrees
MBA and MPA/MPP programs advertise themselves as being focused on students seeking different careers. “Professionals who obtain [an MPA] develop insight into the intricacies of how various disciplines apply in the context of public service, whereas those getting an MBA are focused on profit-driven results,” one program says.
Career outcomes tell a more complicated story. Three years after graduation, a majority of MPP and MPA grads work in the private and nonprofit sectors. You can even find programs where the private sector alone is the destination of a majority of grads.
To be fair, from the data I’ve seen, it does seem that most MBA grads go to the private sector—at least at first. But taking a step back, across all of these degrees, many (if not most) people will work across multiple sectors over the course of a decades-long career. (You can find many MBA grads in government!) Why, then, do we make a big deal out of having different degrees? Why not explicitly provide all students with a strong cross-sector foundation, given that many will meander anyway?
By the way: Some governments are struggling to recruit enough younger employees to help replace the many that are on the brink of retirement. We should actively showcase government careers to students that think of themselves as business-interested.
2. Many students don’t have strong attachment to one sector
Lots of government workers would love to get paid more for doing the same job—in other words, maximizing personal profit—while lots of folks in the private sector care about the public good and social entrepreneurship. We describe programs using this binary where you either care about doing good for the world or just making money for yourself, but most people are capable of caring about both themselves and others!
For many, choosing a job is more a question of the pay, benefits, duties, culture, location, and hours of currently available jobs—rather than grand philosophical commitments to the public, private, or nonprofit sector.
3. The boundaries between sectors can sometimes be quite fuzzy
Consider:
Some private companies, like Amtrak or New Zealand Post, are government-owned—plus others are social-enterprise-y and not particularly profit-focused.
Some government agencies, such as many public utilities, act almost like private companies—and many others sell services (e.g. swimming lessons, campground sites) that directly compete with the private sector.
Nonprofits run the full range from being very business-like (e.g. the College Board) to very government-like (e.g. the New York Public Library).
I once worked as an independent contractor—effectively a one-person for-profit company—for a nonprofit dedicated to helping governments. Which sector was I working in?
4. The sectors interact with each other extensively
Even if you spend an entire career in just one sector and it’s not one that blurs the lines, you will still almost certainly have to deal with the others. They interact in countless ways:
Graduates are much better prepared to work in any sector when they have a basic understanding of all of them and can see situations from multiple perspectives.
5. It helps to speak the same language
In a post on the UChicago business school’s blog, former Wisconsin government official Brad Wassink wrote:
[M]any public entities achieve goals (e.g. delivering a service) through the private sector under contract. The two often don’t speak the same language, even with many core functions in common. Immersion among those in business, and learning new frameworks from a business perspective, equips those in government to bridge that gap.
He is spot-on, and the same can be said for business leaders needing to learn the language of government.
6. They have a lot in common
Wassink also writes:
[G]overnment agencies are large and complex organizations whose product is generally a service and which need people in order to operate effectively. This could describe thousands of private-sector firms. Each sector is subject to some unique restraints, but both require leadership, decision-making, operational functioning, and any number of other basic aspects to succeed.
and:
[R]igorous inquiry leading to new insights that ultimately deliver impact … describes work in the public sector as much as in the private sector. The definition of impact may differ a bit, but the search for new approaches, guided by data, that lead to discoveries that make change for the better, is a necessity for both.
7. They have a lot to learn from each other
You sometimes hear business leaders lamenting that government should be “run like a business”—but there are many reasons that it can’t and should be. That said, there are lessons that government can learn from business. And businesses can learn from government too!
For example, the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that is stereotypically associated with businesses is also needed in government. (It has always been there in some fashion, but there are many cases where more would help.)
An emphasis on stability is needed in the private sector too, not just in government. In 2014, Facebook changed its internal motto from “Move fast and break things” to “Move fast with stable infrastructure.” I hope Boeing is listening.
Everyone, in all sectors, should aim to be innovative and entrepreneurial while also focusing on stability and risk management. The right balance varies case by case, and is not remotely just a question of public vs. private.
8. We should actively encourage movement between sectors
Government, business, and civil society/nonprofits are three cornerstones of our world that all need to work together. There’s no way to definitively prove this, but: I strongly believe that our society is strengthened when the sectors collaborate and share ideas rather than turning their backs on one another, and that we should actively encourage students to pursue careers that bounce between them.
In his phenomenal book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, David Epstein explores a wide field of research showing that “in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel.”
Regarding the research of psychologist Christopher Connolly, he writes:
Connolly’s primary finding was that early in their careers, those who later made successful transitions had broader training and kept multiple “career streams” open even as they pursued a primary specialty. … They had range. The successful adapters were excellent at taking knowledge from one pursuit and applying it creatively to another, and at avoiding cognitive entrenchment. … They drew on outside experiences and analogies to interrupt their inclination toward a previous solution that may no longer work. Their skill was in avoiding the same old patterns. In the wicked world, with ill-defined challenges and few rigid rules, range can be a life hack. (p. 34)
Describing the work of intelligence researcher James Flynn, he notes:
Flynn’s great disappointment is the degree to which society, and particularly higher education, has responded to the broadening of the mind by pushing specialization, rather than focusing early training on conceptual, transferable knowledge. (p. 47)
9. Sector difference often isn’t the most important one
Things that may seem unique to one sector often are not.
Marketing isn’t just for businesses. Governments engage in lots of marketing about their programs and services. They also run campaigns encouraging people to take action on critical issues, like getting vaccinated, driving sober, and preventing wildfires.
Competition isn’t just for businesses. Governments extensively compete: for residents, businesses, tourists, grant money, employees, and recognition.
Politics isn’t just for government. Businesses are greatly affected by the general political environment and specific policies—and are political actors themselves.
There can be just as big—if not even bigger—of a difference between organizations based on subject/industry. For example, is running a private-sector health clinic really more similar to running a private-sector airline or oil company than it is to running a public-sector health clinic? I’m skeptical. Similarly, differences between occupations (e.g. finance, HR, IT) can easily eclipse public/private/nonprofit differences.
I’m not trying to minimize differences. Yes, corporate finance and public finance are different. But so are finance for a tech startup vs. a legacy global oil company, or a small parks department vs. the U.S. Department of Defense. Differences abound, and public vs. private isn’t always the most important.
Why this isn’t too hard: The curricula are already quite similar
Let’s return to my proposal:
How on earth are we going to fit that greatly-expanded curriculum in the same amount of time?
Simple: It’s not actually a huge expansion, because the curricula already have a significant amount of overlap—and even the areas where they don’t currently overlap are mostly topics that ought to be taught to all students to at least a basic level, if you ask me.
I’ll dig into this topic in more detail in a future post.
Proposed MBPA curriculum
The core curriculum would provide a foundation in topics like: organizational strategy, economics, quantitative and qualitative research methods, game theory, finance, operations, personnel management, leadership, negotiation, analytics and evaluation, policy and political analysis, procurement and contracts, tech, design, marketing, communications, ethics, and law. For some, an introduction is fine; these don’t all need to be entire courses.
Beyond the core, students could then choose electives focused on:
Industries and policy areas: Health, education, infrastructure, energy, international affairs, etc.
Occupations and skills: Data analytics, accounting, HR, product management, etc.
Sectors: Public, private, nonprofit
I can think of a lot more potential courses in the first two groups than in the third—which is part of why I find it so strange we’ve chosen the third group as our dividing line.
Overcoming silos
If you’ve ever seen two similar government programs and wondered “Why aren’t they just the same program?” there’s a good chance the answer was that they were created by different legislative committees at different times and are managed by different departments. Changing program structures in an environment like that is very hard.
So, too, is often the case in academia, where siloed departments and schools can be quite difficult to bridge.
Yet I have hope. The fact that some schools already offer three-year MBA/MPA or MBA/MPP dual-degree programs means that cooperation is possible. And in the two-year world, UChicago offers a joint degree between its policy school and department of computer science—a bigger curricular stretch than anything I’m proposing! (I used to oversee a summer-fellowship program that partnered with UChicago’s policy school, and have recruited, selected, and supervised students from this master’s program.)
Opportunity is knocking
To recap: We know that students will pursue diverse career paths that often don’t align with the boundaries of existing MBA, MPA, and MPP degrees. The sectors also interact extensively and can learn a lot from one another. We should prepare students for a range of career options—especially given that it wouldn’t be that heavy of a lift due to existing overlap between programs. Let’s generate forward-thinking leaders of tomorrow.
I want to note two differences between my proposal and existing MBA/MPP or MBA/MPA dual-degree programs: First, this would be a two-year program, just like the degrees it replaces; I think the benefit of a third year is not worth its cost. Second, it should be one cohesive integrated program where each class draws examples from all sectors, not a mishmash of two degree programs that are seen as separate.
I’m all for “evolution, not revolution,” so while I do like the idea of the MBPA as a replacement for the MBA, MPA, and MPP, I fully endorse trying it out as a new option alongside existing ones, then seeing how things go and evolving from there.
A few issues and questions beyond the scope of this post are:
The prospect of a one-year master’s, such as Brown’s
How this relates to undergraduate education
The reality that a lot of the value comes from meeting people and not the classes themselves
The idea of merging the faculties too, not just the degree programs
The diverse reasons that international students do these programs
I intend to write about some of these topics—so subscribe to hear when they’re published!
What do you think? Love it? Hate it? Intrigued but need more convincing? Have you completed any of these degrees? Let me know in the comments! And share it with your colleagues and friends to keep the conversation going.
Also, Yale used to have (still has?) an MPPA - Master of Public and Private Administration
Hi, interesting to know your perspective. Actually, I also have the same ideas as yours since MPP/MPA tends to provide the foundation in policy and social perspective but is not that deep in the specific field. Even though many universities have provided a lot of specialization, for instance combining MPP/MPA with business school/environmental science is somewhat that I was looking for when I prepared for my master's. As a person who works in the public sector, specifically in energy, a combination of those programs are a perfect combo for me.
Anyway, what's the difference between Public Administration/Public Affairs/Public Policy? Sometimes, i find it difficult to distinguish between public affairs and administration