Administrative Responsibility and Issues for the 21st Century

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Post-Regan Politics
Public Administration
Myths and Realities
References

Abstract

After Regan’s term, the republicans always wished to compel voters to take part in electing their own candidates since the ideologies formulated by him would be maintained.

The nature and direction of American politics were marred by many myths and misguided beliefs that were used by both republicans and democrats in their campaigns. By analyzing the administrative responsibility and issues in the 21^st century, this paper will identify the myths and truths about post-Regan politics.

Keywords: public administration, post-Regan politics

Post-Regan Politics

After Regan’s end of tenure, the republicans wanted the citizens to believe that the upcoming leadership would be as set by former president Regan. Public administration is set and defined by public law and there is no individual who should try to evade the responsibilities that concern it.

Due to the changing nature of public law, there have been attempts by politicians and social leaders to evade some responsibilities defined by the law, which they are required to carry out. Many officials started to use the Regan’s achievements and prior activities to compel the citizens to follow a certain path.

One of the activities that were undertaken by the political and social officials was ignoring and deviating from their responsibilities. This move was linked to the burdens and the responsibilities that are attached to the public law.

In public administration, all officials must abide and be role models who champion for adherence to the law. The concepts were however not considered by most of the officials after the end of Regan’s term (Raphael, 2009).

Issues in the contemporary politics saw politicians shift blame to the public law and made them create unseen barriers that limited their service delivery. There were always efforts from the officials to use shortcuts and other unprofessional means to achieve their goals.

Public Administration

The fundamental framework that supports public administration is public law, which is developed and implemented in such a way that the values and ethical consequences are well evaluated. This means that all the public leaders and officials must be vibrant enough to embrace the values that govern the country (Kettl, 2006).

One way of realizing and adapting to public administration policies is by re-evaluating the principles and values within the public law and its contemporary dynamics. These are the fundamental elements that define legal and official requirements by those in office.

To understand the requirements under public administration, a joint effort should be applied by all the stakeholders. These stakeholders include employees, government agencies and students in various faculties. This is meant to encourage a review of the fundamental aspects that define and shape public administration (Gilbert, 2009).

Responsibility can only be achieved by looking at the current problems and relating them to the past issues, in order to shape up a more secure future. Re-addressing the principles under public administration requires individuals to be vibrant and aware of the inter-networked responsibilities.

Public administration is composed of a large network of responsibilities that should be addressed independently and later integrated into one arena for effective implementation. Addressing the arms of public administration independently enhances the realization of individual goals and all these achievements constitute its main objectives.

Constitution and leadership agencies represent one of the arms in public administration. The constitution defines the roles and the degrees of freedom of all citizens (Gilbert, 2009). It should therefore be addressed cautiously and as applied in the public law. Inconsistencies and errors should never be tolerated when addressing the principles in the constitution.

It is from these principles that politicians and voters derive their powers and responsibilities. For this reason, the constitution emerges as one of the most important documents and element supporting public administration (Lens, 2009).

The government and administrative agencies also form part of the public administration units. These agents have different roles that should be incorporated in the public administration domain.

These organizations have however been overshadowed by the superiority of the constitution. Several attempts to divert the roles of the administrative units have emerged that are based on some clauses in the constitution.

The administrative officials in the country are always on the look out for loopholes in either the constitution or other arms of the public administration. The loopholes are meant to provide an advantage over other political or social individuals with similar goals.

When passing the heath bill, for example, the government overlooked some fundamental aspects and needs of the doctors. The administrative unit has therefore been more vibrant in ensuring that personal interests, which are based on partisanship, are achieved.

Management of public funds and organizations has also been threatened by the emergence of a greedy culture, which is mainly focused on selfish interests such as partisanship and other personal gains (Lens, 2009).

There is much confusion over the application of legal and ethical judgments in decision-making. Most of the public administrators have identified the presence of the confusion and embarked on using it to their advantage. Ethical and moral issues have therefore been practiced in public, but their legal status is often unclear.

Public administration in the country has been constantly misguided by the differences between law and ethical responsibilities. After Regan’s end of tenure, there was an attempt by the officials to implement issues based on ethics, morals and other beliefs.

However, the attempt was completely different and at loggerheads with the legal expectations. The judiciary has been greatly affected by the changing culture. Different individuals have had to deal with different misconceptions in the operation and interpretation of the law.

In some of the cases, the Supreme Court judges have considered the public administrators to be immune to some of these charges. This has left the citizens wondering about the effectiveness and the reliability of the courts in various proceedings.

The availability of sovereign immunity has motivated most public officials to engage in abuse of office and take up certain activities that do not comply with the public law. Responsibility has been revoked and instead, confusion has emerged concerning the use of ethical and moral guidelines rather than legal principles (Lens, 2009).

Lack of responsibility among the public office bearers has been made worse by the availability of escape routes within the legal frameworks. Sovereign immunity is one such issue that has created disarray in public administration.

Myths and Realities

One of the existing myths in America’s public administration is the presence of impediments to proper delivery of services. The public administrators see the courts and the law as barriers towards developing an effective and reliable management plan. There have been attempts to apply ethical issues and other misguided plans in the realization of public administration goals.

This is a myth that has caused the public administration arena to be ineffective and full of irresponsible acts. Ignoring the effectiveness of the courts and the legal system in the development of an effective public administration reduces the society’s confidence in it, with respect to proper management of public offices (Lens, 2009).

Most of the public administrators have been having ideas on how to privatize all the government agencies for better delivery of service (Cooper, 2006, p. 27). In privatization, there is the idea of contracting that requires the involved parties to get into agreements that define their actions as well as their operations when controlling public and stakeholders’ funds (Cooper, 2006, p. 29).

The increased call for privatizing and contracting the public agencies has reduced the confidence of citizens in the public officers and has caused the American public administration to carry a tarnished name at the expense of other corrupt persons.

Privatization of public agencies and other public offices is perceived as an appropriate plan to end the pressure created by the law on public leadership. The myth illustrates that the pressures from the public law are regarded as insignificant upon privatization. However, this is a wrong assertion, since without regulation the public could witness embezzlement and other uncouth activities.

Such acts normally lead to increased calls for regulation (Post, & Siegel, 2006). In all the transactions and operations by pubic agencies and organizations, there must be some regulations to help in maintaining the agreement terms.

Calls for deregulation are meant to spark negative and unfounded assertions and blame-games towards the public law. The myth calls upon the termination of the public law by the government for increased freedom.

Another myth is the linking of formal legal elements to barriers to organizational management. The myth expands on the misconception that relates formal legal principles to organizational management barriers. Lack of formal legal procedures leads to various intricacies and inconsistencies in governance and administration (Raphael, 2009).

Public administration has to be incorporated into any organization to make up for the weak legal frameworks that promote mismanagement and incompetence. The myth alleges that without formal legal procedures, public officials would have the needed environment to effectively manage public funds.

These myths and the existing organizational problems in the country require that members of public join hands with the government to ensure responsibility and accountability are upheld (Lens, 2009). Training and creating awareness on the vanity of the myths would create an opportunity to fight for better representation (Post, & Siegel, 2006).

The assertion that Regan’s regime would continue helped the public administrators to develop self-centered interests and gain public support. The current attack on legal frameworks and procedures is meant to give the public administrators an opportunity to gain their self-interests. The sovereign immunity clause should be disregarded to make sure that public interests are prioritized and that impunity is not tolerated (Kettl, 2006).

Instead of removing the legal procedures regulating public administration, they should be enhanced and strengthened to remove all the loopholes.

Strengthening the legal procedures and the judiciary would make public administration more effective and stable. The impunity perpetrated by some of the public administrators should be eradicated to avoid compromising the credibility of the justice system and to ensure that accountability is upheld at all times.

References

Cooper, P. J. (2006). Public Law and Public Administration. Akron, OH: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Gilbert, C. E. (2009). The Framework of Administrative Responsibility. The Journal of Politics, 21, 373-407.

Kettl, D. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 10–19.

Lens, V. (2009). Confronting government after welfare reform: Moralists, reformers, and narratives of irresponsibility at administrative fair hearings. Law & Society Review, 43(3), 563–592.

Post, R., & Siegel, R. (2006). Questioning Justice: Law and politics in judicial confirmation hearings. The Yale Law Journal Company. Web.

Raphael, T. (2009). The president electric: Ronald Reagan and the politics of performance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Click Here To Order Now!