Part II - Theoretical Approaches C PDF

Part II. Theoretical Approaches Part II Theoretical Approaches Session 4 The Hierarchist Model Video 1 State Design and Cultural Theory Ma...

Part II. Theoretical Approaches Part II Theoretical Approaches Session 4 The Hierarchist Model Video 1 State Design and Cultural Theory Many questions in PA are about designing the state. When looking at the relation btw the state and society, we can disaggregate the state anatically. On the one hand, there is the political system formed by elected representatives. On the other hand, the PA. What is the relation btw the political sphere and the administration? What is their relation with society? Christopher Hood suggests in The Art of the State (2000) that the variety of answers can be summarized into 4 models, i.e., 4 ideal, typical recipes for organizing the relations between citizens, politicians, and PA. Hood employes GRID and GROUP theories, borrowed from the field of cultural theory and originally developed by anthropologist Mary Douglas. Main idea: societies and their culture can be categorized into two dimensions about the level of individual freedom: The GRID dimension is the degree of regulation to which each individual and behavior is subjected. - low-GRID society leaves a lot of room for individuals to make a decision - high-GRID society: most choices are limited by rules. The GROUP dimension is the degree to which an individual's choice is constrained by group choice. It is about group cohesiveness. - low group pressure - high group pressure EX religious groups At the lower end of the group scale, you are a member of a religious group but you only turn out on Sundays or perhaps once a year, for Xmas. At the other end of the scale, there are groups that demand life-time commitment (monasteries). Combining the GRID and GROUP dimensions leads to four models of human organizations. Mary Douglas said that these are four opposed and incompatible types of social control. Hood uses them as ideal type of public management. Applied to state organization: GRID refers to the extent to which PA is governed by specific rules. GROUP refers to the extent to which PA involves careers and collectivities that are institutionnally distinct from other spheres of society. The four models reflect the most extreme points of the spectrum. IRL it is more messy and complex. Page sur 12 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Another important aspect mentioned by Hood in his introductory chapter is the cyclical recurrence of the models. In other words, we observe trends in PA. Take-aways Four ideal types of state organization that Hood discusses based on the cultural GRID/GROUP theory. The models are based on specific understandings of the relations btw PA, the political sphere and society. Each model suggests specific mechanisms to coordinate the action of different parts of the state or bureaucracy. They relate to each other: they are extreme ideal types. In practice, they are often layered and overlap. They tend to turn in cycles. Video 2 The Hierarchist Model = one of the four models of state organization The hierarchist model combines a high level of GRID and a high level of GROUP. High GROUP, high GRID Group centrality Key aspect = the importance of the group The interests of the group are given priority over individual interests. Strong feeling of belonging Use of coordination tools to reinforce group cohesiveness A metaphor for group centrality = ‘the family’ The state is referred as a family, i.e. a cohesive unit of ppl bound biologically. The state as a family reflects the idea that the individual is part of something larger and more important. Variation of the metaphor refers to the state as a father and the society as a family. Rules, norms and procedures = second key characteristic = high GRID The hierarchist model puts rules at the center. It is based on formal rules. Rules and normes structure organization and prescribe specific procedures that PA organizations have to follow to implement policies and provide public goods and services. Rules are important to define roles within the state. Roles are fixed into a hierarchy with clearly defined centers of authority (vertical specialization). Page sur 22 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches High GRID means also that compliance is required and checked. The system is based on controlling individuals and organizations and wether they comply with the rules. The second metaphor refers to the rule-heavy and rule-bound organization, ie the image of a machine. The hierarchist model aims for organizations to work as clearly, perfectly and predictably as a machine. Best example of such a hierarchist organization: the military. Military combines a very high degree of group cohesion with a high density of rules. Strong sense among individuals of belonging to the group. Shared understanding that everyone has to make sacrifices for the group, even of its own life. On the other hand, the military is organized according to clear and strict rules. Prevalence of hierarchy. It is all abt commands and following commands. // private firms and large corporations are often organized hierarchically. The antrophologist Mary Douglas (1970) speaks abt the advantages of the hierarchical model as an organizing principle. Hierarchy is a good solution for pb of coordination, ie hierarchy is a tool to organize a group of ppl and coordinate their actions so they follow a shared goal. Hierarchy is often based on traditions. Traditions are understood as norms, shared powerful ideas abt how things are organized and should be organized in a collectivity. A way to justify such normative claims is to build on traditions. Traditions and norms are part of the GRID that structures social life in the hierarchist model. Hierarchist model is based on specialization (= division of labor) // classic PA argument abt specialization: when division of labor is necessary, a clear hierarchy and clearly defined roles and procedures can help to coordinate. The chain of democratic delegation The hierarchist model does not only advocate hierarchy within one government department but also within the state, btw politics and administration. One of his advocates: Thomas W. Wilson How does representative democracy work? Voters elect their representatives based on their political preferences. Votes are turned into political mandates. Politicians can decide on policy. PA implements policies. We can also understand this as a hierarchist model: Voters delegate to elected politicians. Page sur 32 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Politicians delegate the implementation to PA. The hierarchist model is very much based on the idea of a hierarchy btw the political sphere and the administrative sphere. Key idea: delegation and supervision. Politicians delegate to the PA but the public servants themselves are not legitimized. Justification of the central role of the state and its officials in the hierarchist model: public servants are recruited for their competencies based on merit. Because the state recruits only the bests, it is in a position to make and implement decisions for the society. That is why society should trust the state and its officials. In a democratic setting, it leads to a dilemma: merit-based recruitement means that political preferences are not clear and not necessarily in line with voters preferences. And because public servants enjoy certain room for discretion in their admnistrative action, they have power to influence how policies are implemented in practice. How to adress this dilemma? Rules and procedures limit the room for discretion (high GRID). Check the compliance with these rules. Supervision and control of the actions of public servants are important part of hierarchical cooperation. They also ensure the neutrality of public servants. The citizens play no active role in this model. Even in the democratic variante, the role of citizens is limited: they participate in the policy-making process only every few years through elections. Other models advocate for more active ways of citizen participation. In the model, the state is superior to the society. The state knows better. Take-aways The hierarchist model combines group centrality and cohesion with a high degree of rules. The state is understood as a family. Deviant behavior is not accepted nor tolerated. The model is based on faith and trust in the state competences to govern. The state is hierarchically superior to the society. There is also a hierarchy btw politicians and PA: politicians make decisions and delegate their implemenations to the PA. Importance of merit in the selection of public servants. Belief that through a merit-based selection and together with a set of rules and procedures, the public servants will work for the public interest. Simple approach. Hierarchy provides order, clarity and predictability. Video 3 Examples of the Hierarchist Model The origins of the hierarchist model of bureaucractic organization 1. Ancient China: the Chinese modern state = one of the oldest real-world manifestations of the hierarchist model Qin Dynasty: first example of the recruitment of civil servants with merit-based system. Song Dynasty: extensive use of competitive written exams to select public servants (= merit-based recruitment) and development of a highly centralized, unitary public administration that covered a large and dispersed territory. The army was a role model for developing a coherent administration. It reflects the hierarchist mindset. Page sur 42 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches The Chinese modern state as many of these characteristics have later become modern features of organizations. Max Weber has refered to them as characteristics of modern bureaucracy. What were the principal ideas behind Chinese modern state? There is a natural hierarchy of capabilities and merits: humans are unequally gifted. The best individuals should rule the society. Merits were not so much technical skills resulting from education but the ability to fulfill high ethical standards. These standards were based on Confucianism. Confucianism is abt respect for rules and obedience and commitment to the collectivity. These values overlap with the hierarchical model of high GRID and high GROUP. The selection of public servants was aimed to reflect the natural hierarchy of merits. The goal was to find the best individuals for the state. Public servants were monitored and punished. Control and punishment are hierarchical tools. The relation btw state and society was also conceptualized as hierarchy. In the Chinese and Confucian tradition, the relation btw state officials and the population has been compared to that between parents and children. Family metaphor to comply with the action of the state. In imperial China, there was a particular selection procedures for public servants. Applicants had to stay and sleep in rough cells for three days. During that period, they had to answer two essay-format philosophical questions. These rules reflect the hierarchist approach: everything was (i) planned and codified, and (ii) organized according to homogenous procedures. But in fact, recruitment was not entirely merit-based. In reality, there was problems with hereditary privilege: the children of influential elites were more likely to get access to the public service. Corruption and bribery. Influences Centralized selection procedures are widely used today. The concours process in the EU is another prominent contemporary example of a merit-based and centralized recruitment procedure. Today, we use the term ‘Mandarin’ for high-level public servants. 2. European monarchies and cameralism Cameralism = a science and practice of administration developed in the German states before the German unification. It was also applied in the Baltic region (Sweden, Russia). = closely linked to the peace of Westphalia (1648), where concept of state sovereignty over territory was established = comes from the German word for state administration and budgeting It is the starting point of a science of PA in Germany. It reflects the practical context of governing in the 18th and 19th centuries. Main idea: a professional administration is needed to exercise authority over a territory. Practical starting point: monarchs and princes wanted to have a professional bureaucracy to rule their territory and to exploit it economically for their own benefit. It relied on a professional and merit-based public service. In the cameralist approach, PA should address such policy fields: economic policies, finance and taxation, census of the population, security and public order, administration of resources and infrastructures. Page sur 52 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Basic cameralist idea: a state power is based on its economic development. The gouvernment should as the manager of the country in order to increase the ruler’s economic benefit from its territory. It is a hierarchist idea that the state should intervene: economic statism = state-driven economic development. On the one hand, state action is thought to be in the interest of the state. On the other hand, the state should be capable of intervening to show its power and should develop economy and social welfare. The state had to show its competence by governing sucessfully. To do that, it needed a professional administrative apparatus. ➡ Public servants should be employed in a professional and official format: they should receive a permanant salary. ➡ Merit-based selection. Merit was understood primarly as technical competences. The cameralist thinkers urged universities to develop a science of administration. This historical line of thought and practice is based on the idea that if the state educates and selects the most gifted individuals, then it can gouvern effectively. It believes in a hierarchy of skills. According to the cameralist approach, decisions in PA should be made in team. It was preferred over individual authoritarian decisions. The reliance on teams is a deviation from the pure hierarchist model and is rather egalitarian. But, in its essence, the cameralist approach is primarily hierarchist, as reflected in the family metaphor: the prince is the head of the family and is ruling in the interest of the family (the society). Cameralism is all abt governing correctly, according to well-defined rules. 3. Progressive and Fabian movements = were prominent in English-speaking countries Progressive movement occurred in the US in the progressive era btw 1890s and 1920s. The Fabian society was a socialist movement in the UK from the late 19th century onwards. It was of great influence over the British Labour party. They also advocated a strong state with hierarchical bureaucracy but with a different idea than the Cameralists. Progressive and Fabian movements were inspired by socialism and aimed for broad social and political reforms in the interest of the masses. They addressed social issues related to industrialization and political corruption. They wanted to break the power of elites that had dominated the government and state. Their recipe: A hierarchical approach with professional and merit-based PA to break the dominance of political and economic elites. Recrutment based on competencies. Public servants should be dedicated to the interest of citizens and not be corrupted by big business. PS should have an education to understand the rules and procedures. They favoured education in law. Although different political backgrounds, Cameralists, progressists and Fabian activists highlight similar aspects: merit, profesionalism, a belief in science and education. Take-aways The Chinese modern state, the Cameralists in Germany and the progressive and Fabian movements in the English-speaking countries are three examples of the hierarchist model. Page sur 62 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches The hierarchist model has been widespread in the past and it still dominates PA around the world today. Despite their differences, the examples all highlight: ➡ the need to establish a professional administration that works according to clear rules and procedures ➡ a focus on recruitment based on merit and competencies ➡ trust and ability of the state to govern effectively Video 4 Thinkers in the Hierarchist Tradition A. Max Weber and the theory of bureaucracy Max Weber = a German social scientist = coined the term ‘bureaucracy’ in the early 20th century Weber’s work was based on the observations and descriptions of many types of organizations and societies. One ideal-type of modern organization is that of a bureaucratic organization. He understood bureaucracy as the internal structures and procedures of an organization. He argued that these features of the bureaucratic model of organization can be applied to public and private organizations. Based on his empirical observations, Weber identified many ideal-typical features of bureaucratic org that make them the superior form of org. Specialization. Roles are formalized, and obligations, rights and responsabilities are clearly described. It is necessary in the context of organizations supervising large territories and population. The more complex the environment, the more useful the specialization. Hierarchical organization. Clear and formal system of supervision and subordination with one clear unit of command. The unit guides the subordinated levels. Professionalism and merit. Recruitment and career progression based on competence and experience. At the time of his writing, professionalism was not self-evident. Rule- and record-based procedures. Homogenous, consistent rules that guide all actions, interactions and processes. All organizations are guided by high GRID: there is no room for improvisation and individual action. Standardized procedures ensure that procedures are always implemented the same way, regardless of the indivuals that implement them and the person they serve. It is supposed to ensure the impersonality of the administration. There is no room left for discretion. Weber argues that all actions should be recorded. The use of written files is a typical aspect of bureaucratic organization. It allows to monitor and control administrative behavior. His theory is a formalization of the hierarchist approach. The features reflect the practices of hierarchist administration. Bureaucracy is an ideal-type of modern organization, ie a theoritically pure type, like the hierarchist model. It does not mean that is normativelly desirable. Weber (1921) saw bureaucracy as the most efficient and rational way of organizing human activity. He uses the metaphor of machine to describe the technical superiority of bureaucracy. But he also sees the bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom. Weber was one of the first theorists of bureaucracy but was not uncritical. Page sur 72 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Weber’s model is a reference point in academia. Weberianism refers to his concept of bureaucratic organization and especially his idea of merit-based recruitment. B. Frederic Taylor and scientific management or taylorism Taylor developed taylorism in the late 19th century in the US. Its peak influence was in the 1910s. Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes its work flows. Main objective: to improve economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. The goal is to find an efficient organizational model through the scientific, empirical study of organizations and the development of scientifically-based management rules. Taylorism was first developed for private companies and factories. But resonated with PA scholars. It reflects hierarchichal understanding of org: Taylor says that the system must be first. The organisation is superior to the individual. The essence of the organization should be structures and procedures. Only a rule-based recrutment procedure based on skills and merit can lead to the best outcome. Most characteristic point: the almost religious belief in science. It is an hierarchist belief: solutions to pbs exist and all that is needed is to find them. Assumption that org are all abt efficiency, the only value that must be pursued. It is related to the focus on private companies but also reflects the simplistic perspective on org that is typical of the hierarchist approach. C. Woodrow Wilson and the politics-administration dichotomy Before he became president, he published The Study of Administration (1887). He suggests the virtuous separation of politics and PA for the common good. = the politics-administration dichotomy In the US, elected politicians are to set the overall political goals and the tasks then to be fulfilled by the administration. But the technical questions and the implementation of policies are the domain of the administration. It is about the division of labor and specialization between politics and administration. Each sphere has a specific role in the state and specific tasks. In the model, the political sphere is superior to the administration bc politicians are directly legitimated by voters. In the US, it applies to the president and the Congress. The PA is expected to follow the politicians and the society. Wilson is also an advocate of merit-based and competitive recruitment procedure in the PA. He characterizes the administration as a tool that serves the politicians. It is still very influential today. Page sur 82 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Take-aways Weber, Taylor and Wilson all emphasize that only when competent people are recruited can the administration work efficiently. A key to good organization is specialization. Shared belief that is the best for the organization when everyone in the org follow the same rules and procedures. Page sur 92 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Session 5 The Individualist Model Video 1 The Individualist Model In the GRID/GROUP framework, the individualist model is at the opposite end of the hierarchist model. It differs on both dimensions: low GROUP = low relevance of the group and dislike of collective approach. low GRID = low degree of rules In short, low GRID and low GROUP leave as much room as possible for the individual. Centrality of the individual Focus on the individual = at the heart of the approach. The group is at most the sum of the individuals, but no more. Along these lines, John Stuart Mill wrote in the 19th century that the worth of the state is the worth of the individuals composing it. The interest of the group is not a higher good than the sum of the individual interests. Individual thinkers reject the idea of a common interest as a higher good ≠ hierarchist and egalitarian models It should be the role of society at large and the state to protect the individuals and to support them in pursuing their own goals. Important value: individual freedom. David Hume wrote that the social good arrives naturally if each individual is free to express his own passion. Freedom is a necessary condition for individuals to realize their full potential. By letting every individual pursuing their own interests, it is the way to achieve the interest of society. As few rules as possible = dislike for formal rules Rules are constraints to individuals freedom and the realization of their interests. Individuals should not only be free from group pressure but also from rules, norms and laws that prescribe behavior. In its purest form, the individualist model rejects all rules. However, many writers admit that rules can sometimes be useful and in the interest of indiv. But these rules should be minimal. One legitimate reason for rules = protecting indiv from harm. Second legitimate reason for rules = guaranteeing indiv. liberties and civic and economic freedom. In that case, rules prevent from the intervention of the state. This understanding is based on a negative conception of freedom, ie about preserving freedom from sth. Freedom is understood as the absence of constraints, as low GRID. Page sur 2 1 9 0  Part II. Theoretical Approaches The intersection of low GROUP and low GRID results in a distrust of collectivism, statism, centralization and the big state. Instead of a big, powerful hierarchical state that intervenes in the economy, the individualists prefer market mechanisms to organize social economic life and to manage PA internally. The individualist model is based on a critique of the hierarchist model. John Stuart Mill (1859) as a representative of classic liberalism criticized the strong state. The better the bureaucracy functions in a hierarchist way, the more it becomes a threat to all members of society. In such scenario, bureaucrats themselves and the society become slaves of the organization and discipline. Mill argues that the perfectly trained bureaucrats (Mandarins) can work efficiently in the public interest, but they may work as efficiently for a dispotic purpose. It is a caution against the omnipotent state and bureaucracy. It is a perfect example of the classic liberal tradition. The state should always leave room to individuals. Over time, the liberal skepticism toward the state has developed into a fully fletched anti-state position. Neo-liberal thinkers like Friedrich Hayek argued that any type of group organization is bad and leads to the enslavement of individuals as it limits their freedom of choice. = basis for a neo-liberal critique of the state In modern social sciences, there are several individualist schools of thought, all based on a liberal understanding and scepticism of democracy. First approach: general theories of government based on public choice (Buchanan, Olson, Tullock). They use economic tools (utility maximization, game theory) to explain political science problems. This approach conceptualizes voters, politicians and bureaucrats as self-interested agents. Second approach: the economic theory of the bureaucracy (Niskanen, Dunleavy, Downs). It employs similar economic concepts to study PA and the behavior of bureaucrats. Third: market vs. hierarchy (Coase, Williamson). It is much abt transaction costs. These approaches are still influential today and the mainstream theories for studying PA, esp. in English- speaking countries. What does the individualist model suggest instead? Only the most extreme thinkers suggest there should be no state at all. Most others suggest there is a need for a state but a small and minimal. State should not managed with bureaucratic hierarchy but with market-based tools: ➡ Economic incentives and rewards are the individualist answer to hierarchist tools like procedures, rules and control. Individualists believe that paying bureaucrats based on their performance will incite them to work efficiently without the need to have hierarchical control and command. Incentives and rewards are also used to manage entire organizations like government agencies. The head of an agency negotiates specific performance goal with the governement. Then, the agency is held accountable on whether it has reached this goal or not. It is performance management. Downside: performance management requires some form of control to measure the achievement. ➡ Competition between bureaucrats or administrative units is also believed to incentivize them to work efficiently. It gives individuals room for choice. Individuals that make up society are understood as consumers of public services. They have the choice btw different service providers (e.g., health services). By choosing a provider, they contribute to the invisible hand that stirs service providers in the direction that is desirable for the majority of individuals. It is the individuals that make consumer choices, and thereby stir public sector. The role for politicians is limited in this model. These tools appeal to individuals self-interest to motivate behavior that is in the general interest. These individualist ideas and tools have been applied more comprehensively in the New Public Management program that became fashionable in the 1980s. The program aimed at reforming the state Page sur 2 1 9 1  Part II. Theoretical Approaches and PA. It is clearly linked with the international advancement of neo-liberalism advocated by Tatcher and Reagan. Take-aways Individual is the most important unit for the individualist model. Individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest and should not be constrained by state. It means that the state should be as small as possible. In case where it is needed, PA should be organized in small units serving specific needs of citizens. Management through incentives and competition. From an individualist perspective, such tools align with the human nature. But they require some form of measuring performance. Individuals are primarily understood as consumers who choose service providers. Video 2 The Individualist Critique of Bureaucracy = a world phenomenon = bureaucracy has a negative connotation Individualist thinkers tend to use the word ‘bureaucrats’ in a pejorative way (instead of public servants). Bureaucrats are depicted as gready, self-interested and uncapable. Idea that bureaucrats live unfairly at someone else’s expense. From an individualist point of view, bureaucrats pursue their own goals and self-interest. Their interest is likely to be different to the interest of society. Theoretical starting point: bureaucrats are utility-maximizers. All individual actors are assumed to be rational and try to achieve their own interest. It applies to all actors of the political game, as they are above all rational-calculating individuals. There is no reason to expect that the interests of the rulers and the interests of the ruled coincide. There is no clear natural reason for the rulers to align their interests with the common interest. What do bureaucrats do to maximise their personal utility? Bureaucrats are understood in the individualist literature as budget maximizers. By maximizing the size and budget of their unit, they ensure economic resources and survival. They can also maximize their personal utility through their influence on the policy-making process. They can monopolize information and technical knowledge they have to gain prestige and influence over politicians and policy-makers. They can use their room for discretion to their personal advantage during the implementation process. It is called bureaucratic drift. The budget-maximizing model has been proposed by William Niskanen. Page sur 2 1 9 2  Part II. Theoretical Approaches An alternative model is the bureau-shaping model. It expects that rational bureaucrats will not want to maximize their budget but instead to shape their agency in a way their personal utility is maximized. They want to avoid running an agency with bigger budget and many staff that may bring risks and problems but prefer to work in a small elite agency, close to political decision-makers in the government. There, they can do more interesting and influential work. Why is a bureaucrat's action that aims at maximizing personal utility bad for society? Because it is costly. It leads to the typical individualist pb definition, namely that bureaucracy is inefficient by design. Niskanen famously argued that we need to ‘taim Leviathan’, the big and strong state. According to Niskanen, public bureaucracy with a hierarchist structure is always inefficient. It will generate: allocative inefficiency by maximizing budget and therefore oversupplying public goods and also x-inefficiency by producing public goods inefficiently, as there are no incentives in the traditional bureaucracy to be efficient. It is not in the interest of the society. Many voices have critized the increase in public spending in many countries over the past century. The idea culminated in the neo-liberal movement. Besides his academic work, Niskanen was also economic advisor to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan supported the individualist critique of the state. Critique: as big budgets are funded by taxpayers, they restrict individual economic freedom. New Public Management = individualist solution to the pb NPM aims at reforming state and PA. It has gained popularity from 1980s onwards. It contains the essence of the individualist approach. Shift from traditional PA to NPM. Both approaches are empirical approaches to respectively the hierarchist and individualist models. NPM aimed at breaking up the special status of the public sector. It should be more business-like. NPM tried to reduce the density of rules. NPM gained attention around the world and was implemented in many countries. Key aspects of NPM doctrine according to Hood (1994): Disaggregate the public sector into manageable units. The big centralized state should be broken down into smaller units that focus on the provision of certain goods/services. Smaller = more manageable units. It can also include the privatization of some units. Extensive use of coontracts inside and outside the PA. Contracts become necessary when services are privatized. Then, we say: the services are contracted out. Contracts mean that goal and target shoudl be clearly defined and measurable. Emphasis on performance measurement and output controls. It highlights results over procedures. Competition btw units and individuals. Give freedom and discretion to public managers. Page sur 2 1 9 3  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Take-aways Critics of bureaucracy and bureaucrats are widespread. In the individualist tradition, critique of bureaucracy is based on the conceptualization of bureaucrats as rational self-interest utility-maximizers. They try to maximize the budget of their unit, monopolize information and use their discretion to derive personal games. It leads to the pathology of bureaucratic state: too big, too costly, and inefficient. The individualist model has become very influential with the rise of neo-liberalism. NPM is the individualist solution to the bureaucratic pbs. Business-like management through smaller units, contracts, competition, incentives. Video 3 Individualist Tools: Incentives & Competition Following liberal and individualist thinkers, the pursuit of the state should be to pursue ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ (Bentham, 1789). But bureaucrats do not tend to care about the general welfare as rational self-interest utility-maximizers. How can bureaucrats and PA motivated to work for the public interest? The hierarchist model is not the solution. Individualists believe that rules don't work because individual bureaucrats will also find ways around them. Ethical standards don’t work as it is not human nature to serve others’ interest before one’s own. Individualist coordination instruments Incentives = align the utility function of bureaucrats with the one of society Incentives should be designed in a way that it is in the bureaucrats immediate interest to work efficiently. Liberal idea that money offers the greatest freedom to people as it can be exchanged for a wide choice of rewards. Historical incentive systems The idea to use rewards and incentives to make PA more efficient is not new. Adam Smith wrote about this. His contemporary Jeremy Bentham (1822) developed a system of rewards and incentives for bureaucrats, called ‘rules of reward’. Central idea: instead of a fixed salary, payment should be related to actual results // performance management. Rewards should be designed so that fulfilling a public duty/task leads to an increase of personal utility through monetary reward = ‘duty and self-interest junction’ Bentham suggested salaries should be paid on a daily basis to ensure PA workers show up at work. It should ensure society to get the best possible return for its money every single day; Rewards should be paid at the lowest market price: the state should only pay the minimum amount for the state to obtain a certain performance. It is in the interest of the society and the state to keep the costs low. Rewards should be paid directly to bureaucrats by service users. Higher salaries for positions that are particularly vulnerable to corruption. Bentham general idea is about payment scheme and economic incentives for public servants. EX Bentham’s reward system for prison governors Page sur 2 1 9 4  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Idea of maximum efficiency = payment of public servants should be linked to their performance in order for society to receive a service at the lowest possible price The relation btw the state and the prison governor is organized by a contract with clear conditions. The state pays a fixed amount per inmate. First incentive mechanism to ensure the minimum quality of the prison (living conditions for inmates): it is the negotiated death-rate among inmates. That rate functions as a minimum quality level. When the actual death rate exceeds the agreed one, then the governor must pay penalties to guarantee some decent quality of living for inmates. Other incentive for the governor: he can derive additional profit from work carried out by the inmates. He can make the inmates work for him and put the money in his pockets. It is an incentive that motivates the governor to keep his inmates healthy and productive enough to work. Modern incentive systems F. Taylor (1895) proposed a ‘scientific payment system’. Traditionally, Taylor is associated with the hierarchist approach. But he also designed a reward scheme based on the assumptions of the individualist model. He proposed to pay workers on an individual and daily basis at a fixed rate per unit produced. More recently, pay for performance (P4P) has been applied in many countries in several public sector settings, esp. during 1980s and 1990s. The OECD played an important role in the diffusion of this payment scheme. In practice, P4P is more complex, as it is usually only one part of the pay on top of a fixed part of the salary. The practical implementation of P4P led to the development of sophsticated systems of performance measurement. How can we actually measure the performance of a public servant? The measurement and assessment of performance is a form of control. But instead of the hierarchist model, the individualist idea is to control the output of administrative behavior. Empirical studies have analyzed the implementation of P4P in practice with mixed results: in many effects, the introduction did not have the expected positive effects on performance. Sometimes, some unwanted side effects: public servants would ignore tasks whose performance is not easy to quantity and measure. Competition = exploit the competitive nature of individuals while respecting their freedom Competition is facilitated in systems that use fixed-term contracts and position-based recruitment. Short contracts and openness to applicants from the private sector increase the pool of potential applicants and then the competition between applicants. Page sur 2 1 9 5  Part II. Theoretical Approaches But from an individualist perspective, it is not abt having competition btw bureaucrats once, but constantly thourghout their career to motivate them. P4P can be implemented in a competitive form when individual performance is not only compared on a grid but compared to the performance of others. Competition btw units is a solution provided by NPM. Thibault competition (from the economist Charles Thibault): there is competition btw local jurisdictions for taxpayers. They compete against each other for mobile citizens who are searching for an optimal mix of low tax rates and quality of public services. This idea can be applied to mobile firms. Competition btw departments is also used to avoid corruption and overconcentration of power. Rationals for the use of competition: Competition btw two individuals/units means that the winning one will receive some form of reward. It is related to the idea of incentives. To get the reward, indiv/units will increase their efficiency and productivity. Competition allows citizens to take the role of clients/consumers. It gives citizens choice between the best performing public service providers based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. Competition among public organizations For consumers or service users (schools, universities, hospitals): it is up to the citizen to choose btw several service providers. For state funding (funding schemes for research, development funding). It motivates them to be at the top level to receive the funding. Limitations of individualist tools Incentives and competitive schemes do not foster cooperation. But some tasks require cooperation. Incentives and competition require specifying and prioritizing concrete goals to be reached by PA. The results must be measurable and measured in a reliable way. Making information abt performance accessible and understandable to citizens. Competition is based on well-informed rational users who can calculate costs and benefits. Take-aways 2 preferred coordination mechanisms of the individualist approach: incentives and competition. Incentives and competition align with the individualist dislike of centralized, interventionist, big state. They leave room of choice for citizens and bureaucrats. Administrative action is stirred in a bottom-up way. It aligns with the competitive and selfish human nature. Page sur 2 1 9 6  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Session 6 Images of bureaucrats and bureaucracies Image of bureaucrats in the hierarchist and individualist tradition: key points. Hierarchist bureaucrat Individualist bureaucrat Positive image Negative image Merit-based Self-interested utility maximizer Neutral instrument within the hierarchy Increasing budgets Serving the common good as a public servant Monopolizing information and implementation (drift) Page sur 2 1 9 7  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Session 7 The Egalitarian and Fatalist Models Video 1 The Egalitarian Model In the GRID/GROUP metrics, the egalitarian model combines: A high score on the GROUP dimension A low level of GRID Rather than being a middle way between the hierarchist and individualist models, the egalitarian model leads to a unique understanding of the state. Group centrality = the group is central in this approach The group is referred as a community. It is based on values such as solidarity and cooperation. It is distinct from the rest of the world. It has a positive connotation. Important assumption: strong sense of belonging to the group. Individuals should contribute to the group’s objectives and interact based on reciprocity and solidarity. The centrality of the group also means that the group exercises social control over individuals. But in the egalitarian model, pressure is not exercised in a hierarchical way but between peers. Few rules and hierarchies There are small room for human behivior and choices. There are no pre-defined hierarchies, roles or formal rules that constrain individuals. Group members frequently discuss and jointly decide on rules and positions. They try to find on consensus on how labor and tasks should be divided. The egalitarian model accepts rules and roles if they express the will of the group. Critique of the hierarchist state = start of the egalitarian model Egalitarians reject the idea of a clear hierarchy btw the state and citizens. They criticize two aspects of the hierarchist school: Page sur 2 1 9 8  Part II. Theoretical Approaches ➡ Governing and policy-making should be left to experts. Egalitarians don’t agree that profesionnal politicians and public servants should have a monopoly on expertise for governing. ➡ Egalitarians reject the idea that citizens are passive, at the receiving end of governance. The egalitarian tradition rejects the dichotomy between the state (the governing) and citizens (the governed). It rejects the idea of big and centralized state, far away from local communities. Egalitarians don’t agree either with the individualist approach with citizens seen as consumers. This role is still too passive. The egalitarian way became fashionable in the 1990s as a response to neo-liberalism. It is based on participation and empowerment of local communities. It is a counter-movement to the dominance of individualist and neo-liberal thinking. Critique of the hierarchist model by egalitarians: Citizens have needs. But it is up to the profesionnals and experts to figure out solutions, as the experts know best. This traditional view is challenged by the egalitarian perspective. The egalitarian approach is based on the idea that citizens themselves are experts in their own right. Egalitarian coordination tools Egalitarians reject hierarchy, profesionnalism and market-based tools. They believe in citizen participation, cooperation and empowerment of communities. First egalitarian coordination mechanism = group self-management. A community should also decide on the rules and policies. It should rule, manage and govern themselves without the intervention of an external authority. Second egalitarian coordination mechanism = control by mutuality // peer control. Control shoud be exercised among peers. Groups organization should be run with maximum participation of the members who supervize each other’s action. Group members control each other. Applied to a government agency, it means that public servants should work together and check on each other as colleagues. It reduces the need for hierarchical and external control. Take-aways In the egalitarian approach, the group // community is at the center. Community typically means local community. Egalitarians reject the idea of a big and centralized and hierarchical state. They advocate decentralization of power and empowerment of local communities of citizens. Human individuals are understood as social beings who need to be active members of their communities. They should participate in governing their community. Communities should be self-managed. There should be no hierarchy between the governed and the governing. Controls should not be exercised hierarchically but among peers on a mutual basis. A real-world application of group self-management is coproduction. Page sur 2 1 9 9  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Video 2 Egalitarian Tools and Examples 2 coordination mechanisms of the egalitarian model: Group self-management Mutual control Group self-management The egalitarian model is based on a distrut of professionalism, centralism and hierarchy. All citizens should play a central role on policy making and implementation. The group should manage its own affairs. Communities should make decisions for themselves based on solidarity and consensus and participation. The ppl who consume public services should be the same who produce them. Group self-management relies on the commitment of group members. Rationale: through the participation of the group members, decisions will automatically be in line with the group interests. Peer control and accountability Control should not be exercised in a hierarchical way but mutually btw group members. When citizens and PA fulfill tasks jointly, citizens scrutinize and adjust public actions. Citizens are no longer passive recipients and get a better understanding of how services are produced and delivered. They can check on what the professional administartors do. Control and accountability by peers can also be applied within PA. ➡ Allocating roles and positions for short periods of time. It ensures that no permanent hierarchy is built up in an organization. ➡ Assuring rotations in leadership positions. ➡ Elections of public officials instead of appointing them. ➡ Ensuring peer control, e.g., through open spaces and peer assessments. Historical Examples Ancient Athens = based on direct participation of the citizens The system was egalitarian for the men that were citizens. Public decisions were made directly by the citizens. Their implementation was also left to the citizens. There were no professional PA. If in practice every citizen could attend the citizens assembly and have equal rights to vote and speak in the assemby. To keep hierarchy to its minimum, chairman and the members of the governing council were selected by chance to avoid forming a professional bureaucratic elite. The assembly monitered the governing citizens anc could decide to punish misbehavior. In short, ancient Athens is an example of: governing among peers and for peers control by peers The Paris Commune in 1871 = an extreme example of community self-management with (i) peer accountability and (ii) minimal hierarchies. Most local public officials were elected by local citizens for a limited period of time. The were only paid the standard wage. Page sur 2 2 9 0  Part II. Theoretical Approaches The implementation of policies was inderstood as the responsability of an entire community. It applied egalitarian ideas to PA quite comprehensively. It was of very much influence in the socialist tradition. Contemporary Example: Co-Production Co-production and collaborative government = concepts en vogue in PA research = also a practice started in English-speaking countries and spread worldwide Citizens, local communities and civil society organizations contribute to the delivery of public services and implementation of policies. They coproduce the services together with the professional PA. It is built on voluntary contribution of citizens (≠ contractual relations), based on commitment and motivation. That is, built on egalitarian values and assumptions. It is spread more widely at the local level, particularly in the health care sector. Patients and their relatives are increasingly included in the design of programs and the delivery and improvement of health services. Also important in education and security. There is a clear demand from citizens for coproduction. Potential barriers to successful coproduction: A lack of commitment from governments and lack of skills from PA to maintain a coproduction network with citizens and communities. => broader reflections on the limits of the egalitarian approach Limitations of the egalitarian model High demand for time and commitment from all members of the group. It expects that all group members are equally interested in management and governing issues and they are motivated to discuss them repeatedly. Assumption that individuals prioritize the group’s goals over their own. Is it realistic? Veto powers to all members (no hierarchy) can block progress. These points of criticism can be summarized in the following way: The egalitarian model is not suited to the complexity of the modern world. They may be suited in theory but not for real practice. Another aspect: high group cohesiveness It limits individual freedom of choice. But the emphasis of the group may lead to the exclusion of some ppl and minority groups as an outgroup. Leads to exaggerated identification to the group and a feeling of superiority. It increases inequalities btw members of the group and the outgroups. // Ancient Athens The more egalitarian the group becomes, the more it sets group members apart from other ppl that are not part of the group. In the egalitarian model, citizens are not only voters but active members of the community. In coproduction, citizens are not only consumers of public services but coproducers. In modern democracy, it may lead to a tension btw the opinion that citizens voice in the ballot box and the opinion that motivates their action in the community. In other words, if all electives decide on a policy but only some exceptionnally motivated citizens contribute to the provision of public goods, it can hamper the neutral implementation of policy. Citizens who implement policies may not feel as bound by laws and procedure rules as professional bureaucrats would. Page sur 2 2 9 1  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Take-aways Egalitarian mechanisms for coordination: group self-management and mutual control. Extreme examples: ancient Athens and the Paris Commune. Less extreme example: co-production = group self-management but in cooperation with a professional bureaucracy. Other tools: rotation of leadership positions, open office spaces. Egalitarian recipes for organizing the state and society have resurfaced throughout history. But their success is limited by the high and perhaps unrealistic expectations it puts in their members. Members are expected to be entirely commited to the group and to invest a lot time in the management of public affairs. Video 3 Egalitarian Theories and Concepts 3 theoretical approaches related to an egalitarian understanding of the state and society: 1. Political communitarianism = concept from political philosophy and political science = reflects egalitarian ideas. A. Etzioni, The Spirit of the Community (1994) = manifesto Assumption that humans are profoundly social animals. They have a natural tendency to interact and cooperate. They are not self-sufficient and could not survive outside a community/group. Fundamently opposite to the individualist perception of humans as self-interest and selfish creatures. Social should be at the center. The community and interactions within the community should be of highest importance because all humans rely on them. Sense of belonging to actively contribute to the community. Citizens should play an active role in shaping the community. The state should encourage and support the formation and functioning of strong communities. It should promote values like participation and solidarity through public education. It should empower the citizens to realize their social potential. It should not provide help to a pb that the citizens accept passively. It should help citizens to develop the capacities to help themselves. It means giving power and responsabilities to local communities. Obama was a communitarian, as he empowered connections and networks between ppl. 2. Social Capital = very prominent in the social sciences = introduced in the late 1990s by political scientists as a reaction to the individualist and neoliberal understanding of society. R. Putnam (2000) defines social capital as the connections and social networks btw individuals, and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. Page sur 2 2 9 2  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Human capital as an individual capital ≠ social capital refers to the networs and relations btw individuals. It focuses on the group dimensions. Also used as a analytical concept by economists. World Bank economists have shown that the level of social capital is related to a country’s wealth and development. It reflects the egalitarian idea that solidarity and interactions within the group are good for the group and the group members. A good state is one that promotes social capital, ie that empowers local communities in order for them to help themselves. Social capital has also been challenged. Pierre Bourdien understands social capital in a negative way. It is herarditary among those ppl (families, elites) who have had it already before. It is not necessary spread btw social groups. Therefore, social capital can reproduce social inequalities within a society and prevent solidarity. 3. Coproduction = first introduced in the 1970s by Elinor Ostrom = fundational study from Ostrom Elinor Ostrom tried to explain why crime rates went up in Chicago when the police officers retreated from the streets into cars. From switching from patrolling on foot to patrolling in cars, police officers became detached from ppl. The police lost an important source of insider information. It made it more difficult for the police to work effectively. The research presents citizens as an important source of insider knowledge. The police and the community were coproducing security. After that study, the term coproduction has been used widely, esp. in PA. = refers to the active role of citizens and service users in the management of their communities. Normative ccl from Ostrom’s research: = the state should treat citizens as coproducers, as peers = citizens should be acknowledged and included as experts that can provide insider information. + self-organization is thought to be superior to hierarchist state solutions which ignores the resources that citizens can provide: information, understanding, support and time. Take-aways 3 theoritical egalitarian approaches to political, social and economic questions. All emphasize the role of the community. Comunitarianism, social capital and coproduction are examples of how egalitarian appears in modern social sciences. Video 4 The Fatalist Way = a rather pessimistic perspective on the state and PA = it is less of a model that provides structural forms and procedures Page sur 2 2 9 3  Part II. Theoretical Approaches In the GRID/GROUP matrix, it combines: low GROUP high GRID It is a residual category compared to the other three. A pessimistic perspective = focuses on the problems of societies, organizations and PA High GRID = belief that the world is ruled by a dense, complex web of relations and rules PA is understood as a highly complex system that combines several institutional logics and motivations. Its outcomes are affected by several environmental spheres. The GRID that rules social reality is multi-dimensional and so complex that is impossible to understand. Low GROUP = disbelief in social groups Hood claims that the fatalist approach governs in situations in which cooperation is rejected and distrust widely spread. The fatalist approach is characterised by an anti-group attitude: it doubts their ability to govern themselves and others. It doubts the ability of groups to understand the complex rules that affect social life and governments. But low GROUP ≠ individualism. It rather means disbelief in humans in general, eitheir in individuals or groups. Because humans make mistakes and are incapable of understanding the complexity of the world. In that sense, fatalists are different from the other three models: they question the positive aspect of PA. They reject the recipes, ideas, and tools of the other approaches. From a fatalist perspective, one cannot be sure that either of these models will lead to a desired outcome. The fatalist approach does not only reject these models but focuses on their problems. The approach does not lead to proposals. But it has a lot in common with the mainstream positivist approach to social science research. // paradigm = we cannot scientifically prove our hypothesis, we can only be sure abt which hypothesis is false and rejected, we can only know for sure what’s wrong. It resembles the fatalist way of thinking. The fatalist pathology = in this understanding, problems in the way public officials behave and citizens behave feed into each other and reinforce each other. Starting point: the inability of the state to understand and predict all consequences of its actions. Page sur 2 2 9 4  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Argument: public officials (= politicians + administrators) know that they cannot perfectly plan for organizational efficiency or an effective policy intervention. It leads to apathy and stagnation. Fatalists don’t see the point in reforming the public sector when they feel the outcome is affected by complex factors beyond their control. The state surrenders and leaves outcomes even more to external forces (market forces, international powers, natural forces). When the state surrenders, it has negative effects on citizens. Citizens lose their trust in the state’s ability to govern. It leads to a lack of political participation and apathy. They lose their motivation and interest. It is a reduction in social capital. It makes it more difficult for the state to govern. Fewer participation of the citizens also means less accountibility, ie less checks on those who govern. There is no more incentive for politicians to care about voters preferences. It leads to further dislikes of citizens for the state. = vicious cycle = extreme negative scenario EMPIRICAL STUDY from the 1950s Edward Banfield studied a peasant village in Southern Italy. He characterized it as a fatalist society. Lack of cooperation among citizens. Instead, citizens retreated to the private spheres and family life. They were cynical about public affairs and collective interest. Lack of public collective action. It looked at fatalism among citizens. What about fatalism in the state? Organizational pathologies What issues associated with standard organizational structures? 2 EXAMPLES 1. 9/11 in the US Why were US security agencies not able to prevent and predict the terrorist attacks? Organizational principles inspired by the individualist and egalitarian models. Lack of cooperation btw US security agencies did not allow to join pieces of information. Competition and mutual control to ensure they worked for the common good led to deadlock. ➡ They were competing so much for reputation, political support and funding that they were bot willing to share information with each other. 2. 2015 migration crisis in Germany Why was the German state not prepared for the 2015 migration crisis? Specialization prevented the detection of the crisis. Vertical specialization btw the national and subnational levels and horizontal specialization btw government’s ministries led to rival identities and interests that prevented cooperation. Silo-thinking. False belief in professionalism and rules. Policy pathologies = negative effects of state intervention Limited information available to policy-makers can lead to ineffective or detrimental policies. Page sur 2 2 9 5  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Incorrect assumptions abt policy situations, pbs, environmental factors are another for a boomerang effect, ie a good intention can turn into bad outcome if a policy is not correctly designed, in the sense of fitting with its social and economic environment. Moore and Tumin (1949) said that every time a culture works out an answer to a pb, it generates a host of derivate pbs. Policies also have unintended consequences. Each policy outcome leads to a new but still imperfect status quo, which is the new starting point for a new round of policy-making. Fatalist approach: incapable of finding valid solutions to the problems. EXAMPLE One-child policy in China Had a number of unattended consequences: increase in twins births, higher share of mixed marriages. Reason: they were exempted from the one-child restriction. Additional indesirable effects: the sex ratio btw newborns became unbalanced as many families preferred to have a boy. Dissatisfaction with the government. Mistakes and failures Some organizational tasks are riskier than others. It is riskier and more complex to organize and manage technological systems (nucleat plants, airplanes). High reliability systems theory = the hierarchist conclusion Because some systems are particularly prone to risk, they have to be managed with additional care. Making security a shared priority of all members. Setting up crystal-clear management structures and procedures with no room for individual discretion. Institutionalizing emergency procedures. In short, many people believe that accidents and system failures can be prevented with the right procedures and practices. Normal accidents theory = the opposite fatalist perspective Failures and accidents cannot be avoided: they are normal. It is a critique of the hierarchist approach. Every human-run system will always experience mistakes as human nature also makes mistakes. Even the most elaborate procedures will not prevent accidents. Humans will never perfectly implement them. Organization based on chance Fatalist approach is mostly abt the diagnosis of problems. But how should the state and PA be organized if we cannot predict the csqs of design choices? => use chance as an organizational principle Manifestations of a chance-based approach: Random selection of officials (ancient Athens selection by lot). Aim is to avoid politicization and the influence of specific group interests. Page sur 2 2 9 6  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Random allocation of programs to legislative commissions. Niskanen discussed it in the US context. Oversight and control of public programs should be randomly allocated to commissions in parliament in order to ensure effective monitoring and to avoid conspiracy btw bureaucrats and legislators. Random placement and rotation bureaucrats to avoid corruption. Applied in PA in Singapour. Randomized checks on citizens, e.g., alcohol tests for drivers, tax files. The monitoring system becomes unpredictable for citizens. These tools are fatalist but also hierarchist in the sense that these chance-based tools are applied with a clear goal about their positive effect. If followed, they should limit corruption, rules violations… Take-aways The fatalist model is no clear understanding or expectation abt how the relation btw state and society and btw politics and PA should be organized. It is more about pointing out pbs of other organizational models than abt developing own recommandations. Fatalists believe that extremely complex networks and patterns rule the world and affect the outcome of organizational choices. Neither individuals nor groups or the state are capable to fully understand this multi-dimensional system and complex interdependencies. Humans are assumed as imperfect whose nature is to make mistakes. Therefore, there can't be no good or right way of organizing PA and designing public policies. Every solution has unintended consequences and leads to new pbs. But organization based on chance complies with the fatalist approach. Page sur 2 2 9 7  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Session 8 Case discussion: Organizing education Bureaucracy It is an organizational principle to ensure organizational predictability and efficiency. Connotation? Negative connotation in colloquial usage. Neutral in academia. Regulation It is a state intervention to manage markets and societies via rules. Connotation? Postive or negative, depending on political position on intervention. Neutral use. Red Tape It refers to bureaucratic obstacles, excessive regulation, rules and procedures. It is a negative term to refer to bureaucracy, considered as excessive. Connotation? Clearly negative. Hating regulation and red tape has turned into a dominant frame that shapes political decisions on deregulation and their real-world effects. However, red tape has to be understood as the frozen memory of past disasters, reminder of the former dangerous practices of unrestrained industry. EX UK government’s deregulation policy: ‘one in, two out for regulation.’ It is a manifestation of that regulation- and red-tape-averse frame. ➥ can lead to disasters killing lives: the Grenfell tower fire. Case study: Education Free schools in Sweden Since the 1990s, Sweden has promoted the establishment of free schools. Independent groups of parents and teachers can create a school, design curricula, and decide on teaching modalities. Private companies are also allowed to run schools for profit. Free schools receive public funding based on the number of enrolled students but with discretion for municipalities. Parents and students are free to choose the school they prefer. Free schools in Sweden are a mostly egalitarian policy, with some elements of individualism, as there is also competition btw the schools for students and the freedom of choice. It is more a question of choice btw school providers. What are the effects of the free schools in Sweden? Students in free schools get higher grades. But in the OECD’s PISA ranking, Swedish student performance has declined since establishing free schools, from near-average in 2000 to significantly below average in 2012. Free school students homogeneously come from the most educated and richest families. Problems? There is a lack of (i) central oversight, (ii) school evaluation, and (iii) comparable assessment of students. Page sur 2 2 9 8  Part II. Theoretical Approaches Keywords fletched transaction costs insider information Page sur 2 2 9 9