"If nature abhors a vacuum, historiography loves a void because it can be filled with any number of plausible accounts." These are Nicholas Howe's words, which we find apt to punctuate the article's reconsideration of the question: is Public Administration a science? This is an old question in the historiography of the discipline, which just doesn't go away. It emerged in the 20th century to seemingly frame the rejoinders to the contentions that Public Administration is a science. In the 18th century, Cameralism had been preoccupied with what it referred to as the science of government. Did this refer to Public Administration? In other words, is the science of government the same as the science of Public Administration? To some, these questions are pedantic, bordering on trivialities. This cannot be true. On the contrary, they are important for seeking conceptual clarity, especially in the discourse, and as impo