DEV'T MGT Chapter One PDF

Chapter 1: 1. Trends in Public Administration Today; 1.1 Introduction After the Second World War ‘development’ becomes the buzz word for the developing country. As development is considered as a multi-dimensional concept, the management of various sectors of development became a challenging tas...

Chapter 1: 1. Trends in Public Administration Today; 1.1 Introduction After the Second World War ‘development’ becomes the buzz word for the developing country. As development is considered as a multi-dimensional concept, the management of various sectors of development became a challenging task before the managers of development. In a holistic sense, true development means not only high economic growth and per capita income but also enhancement of education, health, and living condition of the people. Balanced development calls for growth and development of all the sectors in the long run. Development management usually means management of development, management in development, and management for development. All of these are discussed in this unit. Development management is a growing and important area in development studies. It is used as an instrument for achieving smooth and faster development. Definitions given by various experts on development management are given below. According to Paton, “Development management is contemplated with a realization of the importance of the expressive aspect of management in which values and ideas are promoted as part of, not just as one way, of getting things done”. According to Wuyt, “Development management aims at promoting values, in particular, what is to be regarded as development, in this way”. According to Seers, “Development management means managing, as far as possible, in such a way as to enhance the potential of those one who is working with directly and development organizations that carry similar values, even if this is not the most straight forward way of getting a particular job done”. In the words of Korten, “Development management can be thought of in terms of positive linkages between development, capacity building, and learning in individual, organizational, institutional and societal levels”. Allan Thomas in his book on development and management has critically discussed development management. The three definitions of development management given by him are: i.. Development management includes, firstly, the management of the specific tasks involved in development interventions called management of development; ii. Secondly the normative idea of management oriented towards development ideals called management for development; as well as the more straightforward notion of management in a development context, known as management in development. iii. Development management is not just a question of getting the task at hand completed by the best means available. It also means simultaneously building the capacity to undertake future tasks and learning 1|Page  how to be able to cope with what at present are unspecified task; iv). Management for development implies a style of management in which any and every activity is undertaken in such a way as to enhance development. AIMS OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT Development management aims to improve the management of development projects or programs in a systematic manner, in order to improve the quality of life of people at the grassroots level. The aim of development can be outlined as follows: i. It is aimed at promoting development through the best alternative ways and in a cost-effective manner. ii. It is aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the individuals as well as organizations for achieving development objectives. iii. It is aimed at synergizing the three important aspects of development management: management of development, management for development, and management in development iv. Development management is more value-laden and aims at promoting present development without affecting the future. In other words, development management aims at sustainable development. v. Development management is a positive and proactive approach to formulating, considering, determining, and delivering development activities. It employs a participatory approach in development project and programme formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation; instead of the one sided, top down approach. In other words, it is undertaken in the spirit of partnership and inclusiveness. vi) The aim of development management is to improve the quality of life of the people through better management of development projects and programmes. vii) It is intended to build up both individual as well organization capacities in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness at all levels. viii) It aims at developing an alternative model of development, which is more efficient, effective, and productive compared to its existing counterparts. ix. Development management aims at effective management of funds, functions, and functionaries at various levels. 1.2.New Public Administration (NPA); New Public Administration is an anti-positivist, anti-technical, and anti-hierarchical reaction against traditional public administration. A practiced theory in response to the ever changing needs of the public and how institutions and administrations go about solving them. Its focus is on the role of government and how it can provide these services to citizens who are a part of the public 2|Page interest, by means of, but not limited to, public policy. New public administration (NPA) is a key method of introducing new trends in the administrative system to meet the requirements of society. The Father of Public Administration, Woodrow Wilson, introduced the concept of public administration in the United States of America. NPA is the last theoretical term of the sixties that evolved in the twentieth century. Its ideas and principles worked well in favour of the general public and worker relations. New Public Administration is a new theoretical stream of public administration that emerged in the sixties of the twentieth century in response to the prevailing trend of public administration. New public administration came at the height of the political upheaval and turbulence of the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which Western societies especially the USA witnessed many social problems: disturbance, instability, confusion and the like. New public administration is a theoretical term used to enhance the bureaucratic methods of government institutions. It aims at providing various administrative services to the general public, employing public policies. The action plans include issues like democratic citizenship, public interest, public policy and services to citizens of the country. The new public administrative systems tend to build a structure that can be the voice of the common public in administrative decisions. Not only this, but it also sets transparency and social-equity, which is often named as the fourth pillar of NPA. It explains how government institutions can improve their services with utmost efficiency in the work culture. The conventional public administration Opens in new window with its pillars economy and efficiency was unable to give suitably response to the escalating turmoil and the complications that arose from the political turbulence. In the wake of this, reality began to dawn on some of the best generation of young scholars of public administration that they began to question their discipline and profession. Eventually, a movement was developed within the discipline in search of a new public administration one sensitive to and capable of solving societal problems that had gone. Features of New Public Administration The features of New Public Administration apply the following elements to the audience and administrative workers.  Restructure of government institutions – The new public administrative system divides the government into small units. It then distributes the roles and responsibilities of each sector to private sectors. The divided para-diagrams and structures are less hierarchical and more flexible than the old public administration. Additionally, it tends to manage the formulated public policies 3|Page.  Target clients – The target client of the new public administration system is the country’s citizens. For instance, if an administrator has decided on behalf of the government sectors, it has to bring in positive results in the well-being of citizens. The administrative system cannot escape from the public response to that decision  Recognition and information – The new public administration system tends to spread awareness about the work of public administrators and organizations. Any decision taken by government institutions affects the lives of its natives. Thus, they should be well aware of the importance and action plans of the administrators  Multi-disciplines – The multidisciplinary nature of the new public administrative system focuses on enhancing the economic, political, social relations in adherence to improving the growth structure of institutional systems Decentralization – Decentralization is one of the most important features of the new public administration system. The process converts the bureaucratic ways to more dynamic and adaptable support systems, thus bringing in more devolution in the work ethics and culture of the organization  Knowledgeable – A public administrator acquires an efficient knowledge of politics, law, community diagrams and so on. It helps officials to formulate and implement public policies effectively. Principles of New Public Administration Following are the principles of the new public administration system- Transparency – The new public administrative system brings more transparency to their workspace by checking on public servants. It ensures that all information that concerns the citizens is accessible in free- flow ways Social Equity – Social equity is one of the major principles that every government sector aims to improve on. It promises equality, justice and fairness while forming a public policy, dividing public services, implementing the public policies and managing the institutions involved. Economy – The concept of the economy under NPA derives from the regulation effectiveness and efficiency in its new policies. It works by delivering public services with low costs and maximum benefits. Relevance – Earlier, the old public administration system ignored the problems associated with 4|Page public services. Social realities were far away from the reach of public administrators. It has changed with the emergence of new public systems. Now, NPA tends to include rationality of people even in policy formulations and verifications. Values – Greeks declared neutral values impossibility in the traditional public administration system. Thus, to act against the same, NPA advised being transparent with the values being served. Change – Public administrators are responsible for social change in the community. Therefore, the 1968 Minnowbrook Conference explained several ways of countering bureaucratic tendencies, formulating a change in society. One of the ways is to bring the political science concept closer to the administrative system 1.3 New Public Management (NPM); New Public Management or NPM is an approach that seeks to build an administration by implementing flexibility, transparency, minimum government, de-bureaucratization, decentralization, the market orientation of public services, and privatization. It is a paradigm shift from traditional public administration to New Public Management. NPM makes a citizen-friendly administration from a rigid, hierarchical, disciplined bureaucratic administration that needs to make weak public administration strong and effective. New Public Management (NPM) is an approach to running public service organizations that is used in government and public service institutions and agencies, at both sub-national and national levels. The term was first introduced by academics in the UK and Australia to describe approaches that were developed during the 1980s as part of an effort to make the public service more "businesslike" and to improve its efficiency by using private sector management models. As with the private sector, which focuses on customer service, NPM reforms often focused on the "centrality of citizens who were the recipient of the services or customers to the public sector" NPM reformers experimented with using decentralized service delivery models, to give local agencies more freedom in how they delivered programs or services. In some cases, NPM reforms that used e-government consolidated a program or service to a central location to reduce costs. Some governments tried using quasi- market structures, so that the public sector would have to compete against the private sector (notably in the UK, in health care). Key themes in NPM were "financial control, value for money, increasing efficiency..., identifying and setting targets and continuance monitoring of performance, handing over... power to the senior management" executives. Performance was assessed with audits, benchmarks and performance evaluations. Some NPM reforms used private sector companies to deliver what were formerly public services. NPM advocates in some countries worked to remove "collective agreements [in favor of]... individual rewards packages at senior levels combined with short term contracts" and introduce private 5|Page sector-style corporate governance, including using a Board of Directors approach to strategic guidance for public organizations. While NPM approaches have been used in many countries around the world, NPM is particularly associated with the most industrialized OECD nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America. NPM advocates focus on using approaches from the private sector – the corporate or business world which can be successfully applied in the public sector and in a public administration context. NPM approaches have been used to reform the public sector, its policies and its programs. NPM advocates claim that it is a more efficient and effective means of attaining the same outcome. In NPM, citizens are viewed as "customers" and public servants are viewed as public managers. NPM tries to realign the relationship between public service managers and their political superiors by making a parallel relationship between the two. Under NPM, public managers have incentive-based motivation such as pay-for-performance, and clear performance targets are often set, which are assessed by using performance evaluations. As well, managers in an NPM paradigm may have greater discretion and freedom as to how they go about achieving the goals set for them. This NPM approach is contrasted with the traditional public administration model, in which institutional decision-making, policy- making and public service delivery is guided by regulations, legislation and administrative procedures. NPM reforms use approaches such as disaggregation, customer satisfaction initiatives and customer service efforts, applying an entrepreneurial spirit to public service, and introducing innovations. The NPM system allows "the expert manager to have a greater discretion". "Public Managers under the New Public Management reforms can provide a range of choices from which customers can choose, including the right to opt out of the service delivery system completely. In general NPM ideas emphasises markets and competition which include contracting out and adopting private sector styles of management practice. In this second strand, NPM can be defined as a set of particular management approaches and techniques which are mainly borrowed from the private sector and applied in the public sector. It is also perceived as an ideology based on belief in the efficacy of markets and competition and business-like management ideas and practices (Ferlie et al., 1996; Thynne, 2003). More recently, Pollitt (2001) and Christensen and Laegreid (2001) noted that NPM involves the use of market or market-like mechanisms for the delivery of public services (including privatization, contracting out and the development of internal markets). Lane (1999) and Ferlie and Steane (2002) contend that NPM has been evident in contracting out, a variant of the purchaser- provider type of relationship. Elements of New Public Managements - Administrators play the role of managers. Management has a role at the upper level of the organization in new public management.. 6|Page - Organizational Flexibility. - Promotes Efficiency... - Result Oriented. - Measures Outputs, - decentralization. - Responsiveness - market based approach Fig. New public management (NPM) 1.4. New Public Service The New Public Service (NPS) is a newly developed theory for 21st-century citizen-focused public administration. This work directly challenges the clientelesm and rationalist paradigm of the New Public Management. Fifteen years ago, Janet and Robert Denhardt introduced a set of norms and practices they called the New Public Service. Their perspective was created as a counterbalance to the popularity of reinventing government and the larger wave of New Public Management that began in the 1980s. "New Public Service," a movement built on work in democratic citizenship, community and civil society, and organizational humanism and discourse theory. The primary role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interests rather than to attempt to control or steer society. 7|Page The core principles of New Public service Serve Citizens, Not Customers: The public interest is the result of a dialogue about shared values rather than the aggregation of individual self-interests. Therefore, public servants do not merely respond to the demands of “customers,” but rather focus on building relationships of trust and collaboration with and among citizens. Seek the Public Interest: Public administrators must contribute to building a collective, shared notion of the public interest. The goal is not to find quick solutions driven by individual choices. Rather, it is the creation of shared interests and shared responsibility Value Citizenship over Entrepreneurship: The public interest is better advanced by public servants and citizens committed to making meaningful contributions to society than byentrepreneurial managers acting as if public money where their own. Think Strategically, Act Democratically: Policies and programs meeting public needs can be most effectively and responsibly achieved through collective efforts and collaborative processes. Recognize that Accountability Isn’t Simple: Public servants should be attentive to more than the market; they should also attend to statutory and constitutional law, community values, political norms, professional standards, and citizen interests. Serve Rather than Steer: It is increasingly important for public servants to use shared, value-based leadership in helping citizens articulate and meet their shared interests ratherthan attempting to control or steer society in new directions. Value People, Not Just Productivity: Public organizations and the networks in which they participate are more likely to be successful in the long run if they are operated through processes of collaboration and shared leadership based on respect for all people.  New Public Management and its Criticisms While ideas about NPM have spread internationally and many countries have introduced reforms associated with it, a number of criticisms have been levelled at it. Before examining these criticisms it is important to emphasise that NPM is not a definitive set of measures. 8|Page The first criticism of NPM involves a paradox of centralisation through decentralisation. To illustrate the point, Kaboolian (1998), Khademian (1998) and Maor (1999) pointed out that giving public managers more authority to manage programs may result in concentrating decisions making in them. Thus, NPM may lead to centralised decision making by public managers, rather than encouraging decentralization in public organizations as it claims. The second criticism concerns applying private sector management techniques to the public sector. While NPM has encouraged the use of private sector management techniques, there may be risk associated with adopting some private sector practices (Flynn, 2002). Many academic commentators such as Pollitt (1990) and Armstrong (1998) argued that most areas of public service and administration have distinct political, ethical, constitutional and social dimensions and these factors make the public sector different from the private sector. A complementary view is provided by Savoie (2002) and Singh (2003), who argues that NPM is basically flawed because private sector management practices are rarely adopted into government operations. For them, NPM is inappropriate for the public sector as it has more complex objectives, more intricate accountabilities and a more turbulent political environment than the private sector. Moreover, the relationship between public sector managers and political leaders is of a different order to any relationships in the private sector. In support of the above mentioned argument, Painter (1997) contended that there is danger in using private business models in the public sector because of the contextual differences. Additionally, Cheung and Lee (1995) noted that NPM ideas have limitations in terms of using private techniques for the public sector. They argue that in the public sector there is not the same degree of freedom as there is in the private sector. They provide an example of Hong Kong where private companies lay off staff in times of recession and restructuring while in the public sector, the government gives careful consideration to staff morale issues (Cheung and Lee, 1995). Thirdly, general criticism of NPM involves ethical issues. It is argued by Hughes (2003) that perhaps the new managerialism [NPM] offers greater transparency so that unethical or corrupt behaviour can be detected more easily; the greater stress on measurable performance may impose its own kind of behavioural standard. Perhaps managers can be inculcated with the ethical standards in the old model (Common, 1998). Even though NPM provides transparency for the public sector, it can nonetheless lead to corrupt practices (Barberis, 1998). Doig (1997) argued along the same line that in rich countries, NPM can 9|Page undermine ethical standards and lead to corruption. To illustrate the point, Minogue (2001a) also noted that increased managerial autonomy has brought blurred accountability and higher risk for public managers to become corrupt, while Ormond and Loffler (2006) contended that increased freedom of management within public sector organisations allows more opportunities for unethical behaviour. Another ethical issue about NPM involves contracts. Hughes (2003) pointed out those contracts are supposed to offer improvement in accountability; however, contracts with government are often kept secret for reasons such as commercial research. Thus, there is no transparency in terms of practice. In Addition NPM principle of decentralization has diffused from rich countries into developing countries, governments in developing countries often retain centralized decision making. Leading public managers still have authority to make all decision within their organization. This centralized decision making can generate its own pressure for arbitrary action and corruption (World Bank, 1997). A supporting view is provided by Polidano and Hulme ( 2001) who claims that public management in developing countries is afflicted by corruption and nepotism and that such practices may hinder NPM implementation. NPM may not be useful for public sectors in developing countries that have been greatly affected by corruption (Bale and Dale, 1998). Thirdly, it is claimed by various scholars such as Batley and Larbi (2004) that NPM is based on applying market principles into public policy and management. However, Hughes (2003) argued that developing country governments often have only little experience in the operation of markets. Basic infrastructure of management in developing countries is also not developed enough to support market-oriented reforms (Sarker, 2006). Moreover, there are various factors which are required before the market can be effective. Hughes (2003) pointed out that markets are ineffective without the rule of law, for example, to ensure compliance with contracts. Yet it could be argued that many people in the developing world are natural traders with a history of commerce lasting for many centuries and that these instincts were stifled during the period of command economies. But, until capital markets develop or domestic entrepreneurs arise, a market economy may mean greater domination by foreigners and foreign corporations. Fourthly, Hughes (2003) argued that it is difficult for the government in developing countries to move to contractual arrangements for the delivery of service because the necessary laws and the enforcement of contract are not well established. If informal norms have long deviated significantly from formal ones (with regard to personnel practices, for example), simply introducing new formal rules will not change much. Where specialized skills are in short supply, performance contracts and 10 | P a g e other output based contracts for complex services may absorb a large share of scarce bureaucratic capacity to specify and enforce them (World Bank, 1997). It seems difficult for developing countries to move away from the bureaucratic system. Hughes (2003) pointed out that this old model of organization allows favoritism and patronage. Fifthly, as mentioned earlier, an aspect of NPM that useful for one developing country might not be useful for other developing countries. Turner and Hulme (1997) have explained this when writing about efforts to impose standardized reform package in the 1990s. They pointed out that whatever the reasons-naivety, historical and environmental blindness, or ideology a powerful international lobby is promoting a ‘one size fits all’ approach to public sector reform in spite of the evidence accumulated from organizational and management theory and from empirical study that the outcomes of planned changes in organizations are conditioned by many contingent factors, especially those in the organization’s environment. In some contexts, the NPM may yield its promised benefits, but in others the possibility of it contributing to reduced performance and even political instability must be recognized. Therefore, Bowornwathana (1995) claimed that when developing countries borrow an NPM technique from rich countries, they must understand the details of the borrowing, consider if it is appropriate to circumstances in their countries and make decision accordingly. Sixthly, another explanation for the inappropriateness of NPM involves public expectations of government in developing countries. Manning (2001) indicated that public expectations of government in those countries are different from those found in OECD countries. He contends that ‘public expectations of service quality from government in many developing countries are justifiably low, with the consequences that citizens are unlikely to feel that complaints are worth the effort’ (Manning, 2001). It is difficult for developing countries to succeed in implementing NPM unless citizens in developing countries are motivated to complain about their local service. Seventhly, Schick (1998) criticized the introduction of performance-based mechanisms of accountability by pointing to the existencd of a sharp dichotomy between the formal and informal rules of the game in developing countries and the predominance of the informal realm which is non- bureaucratic. He argues that the rules which actually guide people’s behavior may be different from those which are written down. Therefore, contractual mechanisms of accountability may have little impact since they are in the formal realm. A classic example of informality subverting contractual mechanisms in Ghana is provided by Christensen and Laegreid (1998). The country attempted to improve the performance of its state-owned enterprises through contracts which proved ineffectual, 11 | P a g e owing, among other things, to the political connections of managers. Finally, the NPM commitment to privatization may be difficult to manage in developing countries because those countries may not have the administrative capacity to undertake this complex task successfully (Haque, 2005; World Bank, 1995). Moreover, there are circumstances in which privatization will inevitably mean foreign ownership or ownership by one particular ethnic group which may cause a risk of societal cohesion (Hughes, 2003). An example of failures in privatization is provided by the World Bank (1995). Guinea privatized 158 public enterprises between 1985 and 1992, but this change proceeded without a clear programme or legal framework; procedures for competitive bidding and accounting were not made clear; assets were often sold for much less than their value; and successful bidders were offered terms which sometimes included monopoly licenses and the like. In developing countries, Manning (2001) noted that rather than a single option, NPM provides a menu of choices. NPM is compared to a menu of techniques and developing countries are experimenting with some items on the NPM menu (Andrews, 2003; Batley and Larbi, 2004; Caiden and Sundaram, 2004; Turner, 2002; Polidano, 1999; Manning, 2001; Schacter, 2000). However, NPM has not yet become the only public management paradigm in developing countries since the organizing principles of bureaucracy have not been substantially replaced by the market-based principles of NPM. Manning (2001) emphasized that most government functions in developing countries are still executed by vertically integrated bureaucracies 12 | P a g e