Administrative Law Week 7 Definitions PDF

1\. Traditional administration According to Weber, an ideal bureaucratic organization: 1\) prioritizes the competence of individuals in their respective positions and makes the careers and promotions of employees contingent on the proper performance of assigned tasks. 2\) Is based on a hierarchy...

1\. Traditional administration According to Weber, an ideal bureaucratic organization: 1\) prioritizes the competence of individuals in their respective positions and makes the careers and promotions of employees contingent on the proper performance of assigned tasks. 2\) Is based on a hierarchy and chain of official subordination that clearly and unambiguously defines the responsibilities of individual members. 3\) guarantees organizational continuity of functions carried out in all positions, thanks to legal authority, among other things. In this way, any employee can be replaced by other trained employees and the organization as a whole will not be affected. 4\) documents all activities and processes so that they can be controlled and improved. 5\) is based on the non-appropriation of positions by individual employees, who are assigned tasks only for a specific period of time. 6\) assumes the exclusive employment of all its members (the organization is their only or main workplace), who are thus not subject to conflicts of interest or loyalty. 7\) the basis of the employment relationship in it is the appointment of employees, which involves the appointment of the most competent for a particular job.  8) where the official subordination of employees is strictly defined and results from the hierarchy in the organization and the organizational chart. 9\) hires employees according to their qualifications and not according to extrinsic criteria (such as familiarity). 10\) remunerates according to the position in the hierarchy and the responsibility held. 11\) guarantees clerical careers to those who perform their tasks efficiently and allows them to plan their career path, which develops with the age of the employee and his achievements. The most important problems in an ideal bureaucracy-organization are: \- The avalanche of regulations- each new situation in the organization requires, according to the rule of documentation, the creation of a procedure that would regulate similar circumstances in the future. However, since life constantly creates more and more new situations, more rules are necessary, which over time grow to such a number that the functioning of the organization becomes increasingly difficult. This cumulative mechanism of formalization is the most frequently seen problem in bureaucratic organizations. \- Monotony of work - since every situation occurring in the organization is codified and described, a sense of monotony and boredom can arise among employees, which in turn can affect the decline in productivity. \- Distancing of employees from the organization - emphasizing objectivity, rationality and impersonality at every turn can lead to distancing of the organization\'s participants from its activities, which in turn can lead to a decrease in motivation and commitment. \- Restricting creativity - regulating and documenting all aspects of the organization\'s functioning inhibits creativity and hinders development beyond previously defined patterns. Major characteristics of the traditional model according to Guy Peters  1\) An apolitical civil service;  2\) Hierarchy and rules;  3\) Permanence and stability;  4\) An institutional civil service;  5\) Internal regulation;  6\) Equality (internally and externally to the organization).[\[1\]](applewebdata://03F0099C-BB37-4D67-B81C-F3257899FF55#_ftn1) 2\. The New Public Management Public management models have evolved in response to the challenges brought about by public management reform processes. These processes have increased the emphasis on the economic aspects of spending public funds, on improving the quality of public services and ensuring greater efficiency in the operations of public organizations. The reform of public management assumes that the implementation of new management concepts will affect the more effective implementation of the tasks that the state performs for citizens. New public management introduces a managerial approach to public sector management. The novelty of this management model lies in the adaptation of management methods and techniques used in the private sector to the conditions of managing public organizations. In particular, it is about orienting these organizations to achieve results, decentralizing their management, taking a strategic perspective and using market mechanisms. This management model is supposed to ensure the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public organizations. Opponents believe that NPM, ignoring the differences that exist between the public and private sectors, will not bring the expected benefits.   The NPM features: \- orientation not on processes but on achieving results,  - a shift from traditional public administration toward a model that places much more emphasis on the personal responsibility of managers, \- a willingness to move away from classic bureaucracy toward the creation of more flexible employment, working and organizational conditions, \- the goals set for the organization and for employees are clearly delineated, and the extent to which they are met can be evaluated with indicators. Evaluation of public programs uses the 3Es\' principle: economy, efficiency and effectiveness, \- some of the tasks carried out by the public sector are subject to market evaluation in the form of contracts, for example, \- there is a push to reduce the functions performed by public authorities through privatization     NMP in relation to traditional forms of management in the public sector   +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ |   | Traditional | New management in the | | | management in the | public sector | | | public sector | | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | 1\. Organizational | Centralized | Divided among units | | structure | | organized around | | |   | specific services | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 2\. Relationships | indefinite | Based on contracts | | between | | | | administrative | | | | units | | | | | | | | and within them | | | | | | | |   | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 3\. Modes of | Emphasis on | Adoption of | | operation | governance ethics, | management modes from | | | without | the private sector | |   | organizational change | | | | | | | |   | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 4\. Funding method | Fixed or growing | Cuts in use of | | | budget | resources | |   | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 5\. Management style | The important role of | Transparent | | | political skills | management | |   | | | | | and knowledge of | | | | regulations | | | | | | | |   | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 6\. Results | Use of implicit and | Need for clearly | | orientation | implicit standards | defined goals | | | | | |   |   | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | 7\. Method of | Controlling only | Controlling results | | control | procedures and rules | and outcomes | | | related to spending | | |   | money | | | | | | | |   | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ The strategy of NPM:   +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Strategy | Action | +===================================+===================================+ | \"Political control"  | Strategic management through | | | political and administrative | | | leadership, clear mandate and | | | funding rules | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Streamlined | Decentralization, greater | | | independence of public | | and flexible organizational | administration institutions, | | structure  | interdepartmental cooperation | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Processes | Focus on results, producing | | | reports | |   | | | | and evaluations of tasks | | | performed | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Professional and organizational | Increased responsibilities of | | development  | management level employees, | | | increased training, career | | | planning and professional | | | development of employees | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Relations with citizens | Improve relations with citizens | | | through marketing activities and | |   | improving the quality of | | | governance | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ Source: J. Czaputowicz, Zarządzanie w administracji publicznej w dobie globalizacji, „Służba Cywilna" 2005, No. 1, p. 22.   The NPM concept, as a result of the flattening and dismemberment of organizational structures and decentralization of powers, has provided flexibility in the operation of the public sector and increased its efficiency, but has not reduced its tasks and programs. The new public management focuses on: the recipient of services - his needs and expectations, promoting competition among service providers, transferring control to the community, decentralizing powers and introducing participatory management. The goal of administration in the spirit of NPM is to produce results and control and accountability for results. Effective action requires combining the efforts of the public, private and non-governmental sectors to solve problems.   The shortcomings of the NPM paradigm are that it recognizes that the market itself is efficient. Opponents of this concept believe that NPM-style public sector reform will not bring the expected benefits. According to them, this is due to the limited applicability of the managerial model of management in the public sector. This limitation is due to, among other things, the following situations: \- NPM uses various market solutions to meet a variety of social needs, where the market as a resource allocation mechanism fails, \- the concept does not recognize the difference between the client-consumer, who finances the provision of goods and services, and the client-consumer, who needs goods and services, \- markets created in the public sector are not markets of free competition, but markets of competition organized by various public authorities, \- NPM does not recognize that market forces are not sufficient to achieve full consumer satisfaction (for example, the social and environmental effects of production on buyers and employees) 3\. The New public Governance The concept of new public governance (NPG) has come to the fore to describe the plural nature of the contemporary state, where multiple different actors contribute to the delivery of public services and the policymaking system.[\[1\]](https://elearning.unito.it/scuolacle/mod/book/view.php?id=219077&chapterid=3258#_ftn1) [\[1\]](https://elearning.unito.it/scuolacle/mod/book/view.php?id=219077&chapterid=3258#_ftnref1) Helen Dickinson, From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The implications for a 'new public service', in: The Three Sector Solution (ed. John R. Butcher and David J. Gilchrist), ANU Press, p. 43   Public governance is not an administrative or governmental structure, but a process of governing a complex society with the participation of public and private sector actors, often in the form of a network, in which the central place does not necessarily belong to the public administration. Public governance perceives citizens and their groups as entities vitally interested in the decisions of public authorities, and the term "stakeholders" (nota bene the English original of stakeholders was noted as early as 1708) has become one of its hallmarks. The links between the idea of public governance and the principles of liberal democracy (public administration seen as governance is an element of democracy participatory democracy, i.e. democracy based to the greatest possible extent on the participation of citizens in the decision-making system - participatory democracy, interactive democracy, deliberative democracy, partnership democracy) and with the principle of subsidiarity, one of the later formulated aspects of which leads to a specific deregulation in the form of entrusting numerous public tasks to civil society institutions without diminishing public responsibility for the proper implementation of these tasks. **The similarities between NPM and NPG:** The concepts of governance and NPM undoubtedly have much in common. First of all, both governance and NPM recommend shifting power from bureaucratic structures (public office or legal mandates) to networks with their entrepreneurial activities (entrepreneurial activity in policy networks). Nota bene this shift of power, characteristic of governance and NPM, gives rise to the problem of accountability, common to both concepts. Namely, if the government (and administration) has less power and fewer opportunities, is it right, or even possible, to hold it responsible for social policy? In case of a negative answer, the question arises: who should be responsible for social policy? (NPM points here to the law of supply and demand and competition among public service providers). Another similarity between governance and NPM is to be seen in the fact that both concepts express concern that government is too distant from citizens and society, and that its organs and employees are inefficient and behave inappropriately. For both concepts, inefficiency is innate to the traditional bureaucratic model, and both seek to combat it by introducing competition and forcing greater accountability to citizens from those providing them with public services. Further, both governance and NPM are results-oriented: unlike traditional models of public administration, they are - to use the language of systems theory or communication theory - oriented toward controlling outputs (efficiency and citizen-customer satisfaction) rather than inputs (resources at the disposal of administrative bodies). Finally, both governance and NPM accept the concept of steering, according to which the government should "steer rather than row ", i.e. it should set general policy goals rather than engage in direct action to achieve them. **The differences between NPM and NPG**   First, governance, concerned with the relationship between government and society, is a concept that has always been an integral part of democratic politics. Western democracies, for example, have always engaged in partnership with the private sector. NPM, compared to governance, is more ideological: it represents a particular normative view of how the relationship between the government and the rest of society should be shaped. In essence, it is an attempt to instill corporate values into the public sector, as NPM does not see any sacred cultural or social values in the public sector, and distinguishes it from the private sector only by the criterion of products offered. Governance, on the other hand, sees fundamental differences between the public and private sectors and recognizes that the public sector has a unique role in guaranteeing the common good its proper place in democratic politics.   Second, governance and NPM take different perspectives. Governance is interested in processes, while NPM is concerned with results. Governance explains the process of shaping and implementing social policy. The goal here is to identify the most important actors and their role in this process, and to show how their behavior and interactions shape the delivery of public services. NPM is much less concerned with processes. The concept is not about how policy is made, but how much policy is made. Its goal is efficiency and citizen satisfaction, i.e., it seeks to show how public goods and services that are valued by citizens can be provided at minimal expense. In pursuing its exploratory mission, NPM sees processes as well, of course, but only as a means to an end, which is efficiency.  Third, governance and NPM have different scientific or even philosophical foundations. NPM is essentially an organization theory. It draws on the achievements of institutional theory, especially public choice theory, and its descriptive and normative conclusions are largely concerned with organizational structures. In public choice theory, NPM proponents find a well-developed set of intellectual tools, which are a comprehensive alternative to organizing the provision of public services differently from that proposed in the Weberian model. Using these tools, they have constructed a concept that is oriented toward institutional and organizational reform. Governance, on the other hand, is a concept that is less interested in institutions and more, as we already know, in the relationship between government and society. There is, of course, a place for an institutional component in such an orientation, but governance is much less hostile to the Weberian model and has nothing against it in situations where it considers it appropriate. Governance is essentially a political theory, or at least a political theory in statu nascendi. It sees authoritative allocation of values as its ultimate goal, seeking to explain why government does what it does and to determine how it can do it better.   Fourth, governance, being a concept that includes government and society, accepts the unique cultural and political role of public goods and the public sector. Hence, representatives of governance are interested in keeping the provision of public services under government control. And while they allow for a change in the form of this control to bring the government closer to society, which may mean giving a greater role in social policy-making to the private sector, they ultimately seek to maintain the government\'s considerable and clear competencies with respect to public services. The NPM, on the other hand, seeks to fundamentally change the public sector. In short, NPM representatives are interested in new models of public management not to preserve the government\'s ability to control public sector resources, but to replace them with the Weberian organizational orthodoxy of traditional public administration.   Fifth and finally, governance does not have the ideological baggage of NPM. In particular, governance does not have as its basis that ideal or motivation inherent in NPM, that is, it does not seek to effect a cultural market revolution in the public sector. Instead, NPM is an attempt to unilaterally impose corporate values, goals and practices on the public service delivery system. Such ideological goals are not shared by governance. Governance raises important questions about what government should do and how it can do it better, but the answers do not necessarily point to the need for institutional market reform. Governance may even be more in favor of granting more power to administrative bodies and bringing them into closer cooperation with the private sector, rather than stripping them of their powers and creating a competitive market for public goods and services. Three approaches to public administration.