Public administration officers are people who are employed by the government to work as overseers of the government in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Public officers are entitled to apply evenhandedness when performing their duties. This is meant to enhance public confidence in government agencies.
There are rules that govern the conduct of public officials. This is necessary because public officers portray the image of the government. Public officials provide a bridge that links the government to the public. Therefore, public administrators should be restricted to only laid down rules.
Max Weber stressed on the need for authority and control. This was called the bureaucratic theory, which emphasized the notion of bureaucratic power. It acknowledged the separation of labor and specialization, thus communication was only from the top managers to lower level managers.
Likewise, the administrative theory emphasized the need of establishing guidelines that can be implemented in all organizations (Thompson 51). Public administrators should observe the guidelines given to them and exercise their duties are required. This means that public should not use their authority to oppress people but instead they should use it for the betterment of the public. Public officers should not violate public expectations because they may be fired.
When a public officer encounters a problem in the line of duty they should first take time to visualize the situation at hand and consider the effects of their decision. Denhardt (10) advises that by visualizing, the officer will have an upper hand. Public officers should execute their duties free from political influence and without fear.
Sometimes administrators are forced to go against the ethics of administrators by using their own expertise to ensure a decision has been made. Before a decision is made it is recommended that the problem be analyzed and come up with possible alternatives. These alternatives should be arranged according to their effectiveness.
Though an administrator may make a decision that looks unethical, it should not be interpreted to mean that the officer has lost his mind. Administrators should consider the culture of the organization that they serve. The key role of these administrators is to monitor their juniors and ensure that the rules and regulations are adhered to.
Each administrator commands authority in his/her department and should not extend his authority to people who don’t fall under his department. It is obvious that when people are being hired to work for an organization, they are selected according to their qualifications. They are then deployed to departments that match with their qualifications.
This is supposed to enhance the performance of elements in an organization. It would be irrelevant to deploy employees in departments that are in conflict with their qualifications. As Weber suggested, specialization in the area of expertise is essential in public administration (Thompson 52).
Authority in an organization is arranged in ranks and that means decisions are made at the top most rank and are spread to lower levels by heads of department. The chief administrator of an organization should ensure that he gives his orders through the administrators rather than literally engaging directly with low level employees.
This will instill fear in employees because they are not used to dealing with the chief administrator. When faced with difficult situations, it is not only the administrators who should respond but also people who have the potential to perform. The idea here is to achieve satisfactory results without criticism. The administrator should not only control people under him but manage the process of attaining the anticipated results.
However, having set of rules hinders democracy in operations. There are always issues between democracy and bureaucracy. Democracy requires having a free consent directed by values. Administrators should know that their positions are not that important but they will be more appreciated according to what they contribute to achieving organizational goals in line with ensuring the public is satisfied by the outcome.
Uniformity in making decisions is very crucial towards satisfying the public contentment. This means that all situations should be handled with respect to fairness. It is important for administrators to do their best to achieve equal satisfaction rather than uniformity in handling public matters (Denhardt 18).
Administrators should understand that the public does not rate their performance by the way they handle issues but by the outcome they bring. This can be enhanced by ensuring that all members of public who are in need of government offices are given alternatives to choose from.
For instance in the department of immigrations, when people come seeking to get passports should be made to book an appointment or follow the long line. This will go a long way in satisfying public expectations because each individual will choose the option that best suits him depending on the urgency of the matter at hand. The administrator will therefore be shielded from public critics.
Works Cited
Thompson, Dennis. Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in government, business, and healthcare. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
Denhardt, Robert, and Janet Denhardt. Public Administration: An Action Oriented. 6th ed. California: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Public administration is concerned with the advancement of policies and the necessary management to allow governments to function effectively. On the other hand, we could also define public administration as the act of managing public programs. It is mainly meant to ensure that politics are translated into a reality that citizens expect to see in their day to day lives. Public administration ensures the process of decision making by the government is well understood by its citizens (Sheffrin 8).
In addition, it is necessary to have a good analysis of the established policies. This includes the various inputs aimed at producing the desired policies. On the other hand, it should also include other inputs that will produce alternative policies. Public administration is also concerned with the conduct of public officials while executing their roles and duties (Sheffrin 12). This is done in relation to government programs and policies that will be formally responsible for their conduct in different perspectives.
What this means is that most unelected public officers can in fact be considered as public administrators. They might include police officers, city managers, cabinet secretaries, and analysts, amongst others. These administrators work in public agencies and departments at the various levels of the government. There has been an argument that public administration is multidisciplinary in character (Sheffrin 15).
The scope of public administration is so large that it has not been easy to understand and this has been left to individual interpretations depending on one’s general overview. It therefore means that public administration can be both a field of study and an occupation. There is an argument as to whether it can still be referred to as a discipline because of its complexity (Denhardt 11).
A private business is mostly concerned with enterprises that are owned by investors and shareholders. In this case, the business can be owned jointly or it can still be owned by an individual. This is in contrast to other publicly owned businesses or enterprises that are run by government through the mandate of its citizens. These businesses exist with profit motives other than ensuring that the people get essential services or products.
In other words, a private business is a legally recognized institution that is expected to enhance the provision of services and goods in exchange for money. Private businesses are predominant in capitalist economies where they are formed with profit motives and with a view to increasing the wealth of its owners (Denhardt 15). This means that the owners expect returns after engaging in a risk as far as their business is concerned.
A private business can be widely accepted as a state of being busy either as a society or as an individual while doing commercially viable work that will lead to profits. This can be an activity of continuity in the supply of essential goods and services that are in demand by customers and the public at large (Denhardt 18). As far as private business is concerned, there are various forms of ownership that are generally accepted and this might depend on the different countries.
This means that forms of business organizations will vary in relation to the jurisdiction. Although this is expected in a normal society, there some common forms of business ownership. They include; sole proprietorship, partnerships, corporations and cooperatives (Denhardt 21). This therefore means that there are various classifications of private business depending on their motives.
Discussion
Contrasts
As far as public administration and private business are concerned, there is a difference in the organizational goals and principles of the two entities. Private business has always had a definite mission.
This is mainly in pursuit of stability, profit, and growth of returns. The only way to achieve this is by ensuring that there is quality provision of goods and services. On the hand, public administration has ambiguous plans and purposes (Aucoin 17). The essence of public administration is to ensure that the public or citizens are well served and attended to, in line with their expectations.
It can be explained that private business and public administration derive their mandate from different people. This therefore demands that they provide what they are expected to. On the other hand, the ambiguity of purposes in public administration is complicated by many inoperable and unnecessary agencies (Aucoin 19). Their purpose and aim has been complicated by bloated and overlapping bureaucracies.
There is an argument that the main aim of public administration is to enact public policies while the aim of private business is to ensure that owners and shareholders increase their wealth and net worth. It is undeniable that there is a lot of vagueness in the enforcement of public administration policies. This is due to overlapping and ambiguity in these policies (Aucoin 22). On the other hand, private business has not witnessed any overlapping tendencies in their policies because of achievable business goals.
The fact that public administration is not concerned with profit motives should not be confused or used as a way of deviating from the normal operation tendencies. This means that just as private business managers are more concerned with financial matters, the same should also apply to public administration (Aucoin 23). In fact, good public administration managers have always ensured that they carry out their financial matters in an open and efficient way that will guarantee sustainability.
Private businesses are always guaranteed of funding from their owners and shareholders while public administrators have to fight for funding from the government. In as much as public organizations or units may fight for funding and influence, this should not be misused. There are cases whereby public administration has been biased depending on the priorities that the government has.
There are differences with respect to the issue of decision making in both public administration and private business. In public administration, decision making is mostly pluralist. This means that decisions are supposed to please the majority even if they are poor. There is a common practice in which key decisions are made in a politicized environment (Kettl and Fessler 12).
This allows for open debate, maximum participation and multiple veto points. In the long run, there is a hierarchy that needs to be followed to ensure that consensus is reached. The main aim of doing this is to come up with an informed decision.
Private business decision making is simple in nature as it does not involve a lot of people, like in public administration. In other words, it is almost monopolistic or in some instances, duopolistic (Aucoin 28). This decision making avoids a lot of conflicts in interests. The long term effect has always been a clearly defined goal that will suit the organization in enhancing its operations.
Visibility is another notable difference between public administration and private business. Managers in private business can work in an environment of relative obscurity as they are only answerable to the shareholders (Aucoin 29). This is not the case with public managers or administrators who will always work under the watchful eye of the public.
Their actions or moves are always subjected to a lot of public scrutiny to see if they are advancing their interests. This means that a public administrator or manager will always respond to diverse demands in the course of carrying out a public policy. Such demands have ended up creating an inevitable tension (Aucoin 32). This is in relation to efficiency and responsiveness. It implies that a public manager will be forced to manage effectively and respond to public concerns.
Because of this pressure, public organizations are often left in a no-win situation. This is because the public demands a lot of effective service delivery. Most of them pay taxes and this explains why they are always interested in what mangers are doing. On the other hand, they also demand accountability and an assurance that those in charge will not act irresponsibly.
There is a difference in unity analysis as far as private business and public administration are concerned. Most public institutions or organizations are a chain of command and control and this makes it hard to draw a line between different parts of the systems. As a matter of fact, existing frameworks might provide little help in this scenario. It therefore means that investment and strategic decisions will be made by this chain of command.
Public organizations and institutions have a complex system of organization with distinct demanding tasks. This is the main reason why most of them have been inefficient. Private businesses on the other hand don’t have a lot of bureaucracies that will complicate their management and operations. This means that there are no bloated bureaucracies.
A political aspect can be witnessed in both public administration and private business but it is prevalent in public administration. It should be noted that politics affects the policy direction that these companies will take either directly or indirectly (Aucoin 40). This is through regulation, laws and financial support. In addition, the public sector is controlled by elected politicians who might be out of touch with the realities on the ground.
Private businesses might not witness a lot of politicking because of their ownership and control. In this case, the board of directors will be involved in governance dimensions and funding. This explains why public administration is concerned with developing and structuring organizations by the government while private business is concerned with developing institutions and organizations on an individual basis.
Public administration oversees government programs that can not be tasked to the private sector. Private businesses on the other hand go into business because of their own motives that will guarantee returns and profits (Aucoin 42). Although they might be having different motives, they are not supposed exploit or mistreat people in any way.
As much as public administration and private business might be having different motives in their operational goals, partnerships should be encouraged for efficiency that will ensure that all the stakeholders are satisfied. These partnerships can be encouraged in technological or innovation ways.
Comparisons
Public administration and private business are both incorporated and as a matter of fact, there is the expectation that they will provide whatever they are expected to provide as per their liability. This means that they have separate legal entities as per their owners. It therefore implies that the owners will get real value for what they have invested in. This should be done as they execute their operations without contravening any laws (Denhardt 29).
For public administration and private businesses to achieve their expectations, there is need to have an effective and efficient management. This will enhance their operations and in the process ensure that they are more efficient. The management has to be inclusive and ensure that all aspects are well covered (Denhardt 31). This might include human resource management, production management, operation management, financial and service management which are important for proper functioning.
As far as their operations are concerned, there is need to ensure that assets are well managed to enhance returns. This is because without these assets, public administration and private businesses will not achieve their goals and aims.
This seems to be one feature that they share in their day to day running. Although they might be established for different reasons best known to shareholders, the essence of being operational is to ensure that people are well attended to (Denhardt 35). This is as far as the provision of goods and services is concerned in a broad way.
As far as these aspects are concerned, there is a common way by which they are organized and regulated. Legal jurisdictions come up with a way by which regulation will be done in both public administration and private business (Denhardt 41). This will depend on various factors that guide how businesses are organized. It is obvious that public administration might not be having profit motives like private businesses but the fact remains that they need to be regulated for efficiency and accountability.
Public administration and private business have to perform as per their expectations because of their essence and necessity in the society at large. This means that there is interdependence as afar as their operations are concerned which is necessary for sustainability (Sheffrin 23). Sustainability should be emphasized as there is no way a customer and the public can do without goods and services they are used to.
Proper policy formulation is the strength behind public administration and private business. This has always been enforced by involving all concerned parties. It is evident that many organizations (be it private or public) will only be successful with a good policy framework that will define and give a good direction to be followed (Sheffrin 27).
Public administration and private business needs funds to ensure that they operate well. This means that they should incur costs in their day to day operations. Without these funds, they will not be in a good position to enhance service delivery. Although their operations might not be the same, the fact remains that they need enough funds to discharge their duties well (Sheffrin 32). There will be no needs for them to continue being in operation if they don’t provide good and services.
Accountability is necessary in both private business and public administration. This has always ensured that their actions and operations are not questionable. The only way that an organization can be successful is to ensure that they are accountable to the public, shareholders, owners and all interested stakeholders (Sheffrin 36). There are various measures that are employed by both (private and public) to enhance accountability.
Public administration and private business have thrived because of a good organization framework. An organization framework ensures that good policies and aspirations are put in place. In the process, it is easy to delegate roles.
These well defined roles will ensure that activities and operations are not grounded. All of them have ensured that they first of all craft a good organizational framework that will guide their operations (Sheffrin 45). This is the only way that they can evaluate themselves and know how to enhance their expectations and aims.
Decision making is always enhanced and adhered to in both public administration and private business. This is the only they can make good strategic moves that have ended up enhancing their sustainability and operations. Decision making is essential for operational efficiency and it is common in both scenarios of public administration and private business. This is the reason why they have put in place the right frameworks that will guide the way they make decisions (Sheffrin 56).
It is quite clear that both of them (public administration and private business) have some good similarities that guide their day to day operations. This is because they share some commonalities as far as their goals and aims are concerned. Although they might not be same, the fact remains that public administration and private business play an important role in the society. This means that there should be no contradictions as far as their existence and operations are concerned.
Conclusion
The scope of public administration is so large that it has not been easy to understand and this has been left to individual interpretations depending on ones general overview (Aucoin 32). It therefore means that public administration can be a field of study and also on the other hand an occupation. There is an argument as to whether it can still be referred to as a discipline because of its complexity.
It therefore implies that most unelected public officers will be considered as public administrators. They might include police officers, city managers, cabinet secretaries, analysts etc. These administrators work in public agencies and departments which should be at all levels of the government. There has been an argument that public administration is multidisciplinary in character.
A private business is a legally recognized institution that is expected to enhance the provision of services and goods in exchange for money. They are mostly predominant in capitalist economies where they are formed with profit motives and on the other hand with an aim increasing the wealth of its owners (Aucoin 32). This means that owners expect returns after engaging in a risk as far as their business is concerned.
This can be an activity of continuity in the supply of essential good and services that will be demanded by customers and the public at large. As far as private business is concerned, there are various forms of ownership that are generally accepted and this might depend on different countries (Sheffrin 15). This means that forms of business organizations will vary in relation to the jurisdiction. Although this is expected in a normal society, there some common forms of business ownership.
There is an argument that the main aim of public administration is to enact public policies while the aim of private business is to ensure that owners and shareholders increase their wealth and net worth. It is undeniable that there is a lot of vagueness in the enforcement of public administration policies (Aucoin 54). This is due to overlapping and the ambiguity in these policies. On the other hand, private business has not witnessed any overlapping tendencies in their policies because of good business goals.
Works Cited
Aucoin, Peter. New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada. Sweden: University of Gothenburg, 2008. Print
Denhardt, Robert. Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Kettl, Donald and Fessler, James. The Politics of the Administrative Process. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2009. Print.
Sheffrin, Steven. Economics: Principles in action. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hal, 2003. Print.
The desire to continuously improve service delivery to citizens is a challenge faced by most governments across the globe. Governments are put to power by citizens through a democratic process with the hope that it will implement better governing policies that will benefit all and sundry.
Effective and efficient modes of implementing such policies in spite of myriad challenges have to be sought. These changes have inspired new ways of thinking in service delivery. Gow (2005) clearly observes that since the early 1990s, the idea of result-based accountability facilitated the search for alternative forms of service delivery within our parliamentary system.
The world has always been evolving as mankind seeks better ways of accomplishing tasks. Quality improvement is highly desired when delivering services be it in manufacturing, management or administration. On the same note, the concept of total quality management became widespread as focus shifted to satisfying customers.
The approach was successful in Japan where high quality products were being manufactured. This type of management approach has also found its way in public service. Most governments are at crossroads due to insufficient resources. Hence, efficiency is apparently a mandatory requirement for effective public administration.
The objective of introducing such management practices is to improve service delivery. Gow (2007) clearly notes that after five decades of predominant attention to processes, the emergence of management thinking and program budgeting in the late 1960s led to the concern for better results in public management.
Since the early 1990s, the idea of result-based accountability facilitated the search for alternative forms of service delivery within our parliamentary system.
Governments have had to resort to such measures for varied reasons bearing in mind that the New Public Management (NPM) concept was complex in itself from the very beginning making it quite cumbersome to understand and implement all the principles of NPM.
Public management
Schacter (2008) defines public management as activities, structures, processes, procedures, rules, norms and incentives established within the public service that facilitate, monitor and control direct or indirect production by the public sector.
Public outputs may take the form of, among other things, financial support, advice, services, research, information, and training provided to individuals or organizations. Outputs are delivered with a view to realizing the outcomes established by the elected government.
The subject of public management is not new as governments have always sought better ways of service delivery. It concerns itself with efficient utilization of public resources. Most practices are borrowed from the private sector.
It is the belief that private sector practices can be effectively used in public sector that has prompted its widespread application. There are more or less similar temperaments involved in both the private and public sector.
In addition, techniques and skills being used to managed these institutions do not vary significantly except that in the private sector, most problems experienced in the public sector are not common in the private wing (Lynn, 2001).
However, Rainey (1997) notes that some differences exist in the sense that public interest differ from private ones. public officials, because they exercise the sovereign power of the state, are necessarily accountable to democratic values rather than to any particular group or material interest, and the constitution requires equal treatment of persons and rules out the kind of selectivity that is essential to sustaining profitability.
Despite such concerns there are valuable practices in the private sector that can be successfully used in public management. Moreover Mingus (2007) observes that at the end of the day any system of government will eventually witness acts of corruption and abuses of power on the part of individuals, organizations, and political parties.
The entire public sector and the modalities of controlling it through effective management is all enshrined in public management policy. Motivation and guidance are key elements in this respect.
Therefore, institutional guidelines and rules are pertinent in any public sector largely due to the large number of people being served at any given time (Barzely, 2007). With such tools available at its disposal the government is able to influence lives of its citizens in a big way.
New public management
In recent years, government organizations have shifted their operations to become results oriented. This approach places more emphasis on measurable outcomes other than traditional lethargic ways of operation.
These ideas are deeply rooted in the private sector where efficiency and effectiveness are the guiding philosophies.
Free and Radiffe (2005) call for a shift in the traditional interests of governments and bureaucrats on inputs and process toward results and performance. Such paradigm shifts have found application in many parts of the world. For example in the mid-1980s and 1990s, New Zealand radically reformed its public sector.
Changes included corporatizing and privatizing state owned enterprises; introducing performance related individual contracts for senior staff; increasing departmental management autonomy; changing financial management and reporting requirements, including moving from input-based to output based reporting; a move to strategic planning for the government; and departmental decoupling, including promoting policy-operations and funder-provider splits (Goldfinch, 1998).
This movement has received much attention by public administrators and scholars. Although administrative theory is apparently the key ideal of NPM, it may also be perceived as a reform movement since it entails restructuring of old systems and structures for the sake of improving productivity (Roland, 2001).
However, there are those who argue that NPM has been largely consumed by the urge to control and self interest.
Mingus (2007) defines new public management as shorthand for applying the private sector or market-based techniques to public services.
This managerial approach to governing incorporates ideas ranging from establishing internal competition to increase bureaucratic efficiency and focusing on outcomes measures, to contracting out traditional public services or outright privatizing traditionally public functions.
NPM can be traced from the 1980’s when governments realized that bureaucracy was slowing down their efficiency. Moreover, it is also plausible to note that business restructuring was already a reality way back in 1980s when most governments realized the need of revamping the business by adopting the most recent and up to date models.
Nonetheless, this early realization may not have been fully beneficial in some countries where implementation phase was poorly executed (Hess & Adams, 2007).
This approach to public management borrowed most ideas which were initially being used in private sector. Strategic asset management, accrual accounting, output-based budgeting, benchmarking and competitive tendering have been adopted in NPM as the right ideals when managing public institutions.
Although these practices have been found successful there is considerable debate on whether they can cater for public interests. Additionally, a non-partisan interest which has been lost or is evidently absent has led to difficulty in solving modern day management problems in public institutions (Hess & Adams, 2007).
Worse still, the problem or weakness is not merely confined within smaller regions; it is a global phenomenon. Thus, developing, adopting and implementing broad policy implications is of great importance if NPM is to positively impact management in the public domain.
Mingus (2007) poses whether or not NPM brings a package of values into public-sector organizations that ultimately allows private interests and greed to supersede the public interest, broadly conceived.
Elements of new public management
New public management was implemented in various forms. The most visible changes introduced included public private partnerships, privatization of public enterprises and downsizing of government workforce size. These changes were aimed at introducing efficiency in public sector service delivery.
Although public management is practiced with public interest at heart it is not uncommon for it to fall prey to vested interests. Such interests like politicians self interests, pressure groups and private interests at times derail implementation of effective public management.
Introduction of new ideas will always face resistance and introduction of new public management was no exception (O’Flynn, 2007).
For example one scholar has argued that NPM has been subject to ongoing and fierce debate in the academic literature because it challenged conventional thinking and brought together a range of practices, policies and theories rather than proposing some coherent theory (O’Flynn, 2007). Despite such challenges there have been successes of NPM.
At the end of the 20th century, a post bureaucratic paradigm of public management was firmly embedded in many countries reflecting the outcome of the suite of reforms intended to enact a break from the traditional model of public administration (O’Flynn, 2007).
These reforms have been happening in many areas of public sector management with different approaches being chosen. Management of public enterprises like private sector companies has been implemented and resulted in many failures and successes. Some public enterprises that were making losses have been transformed into cash cows for the state.
O’Flynn (2007) describes some of the measures introduced which included corporate planning based on central goals, comprehensive program budgeting, management improvement programs, contract employment for managers; central auditing and performance monitoring of individuals. The key aims were to empower public servants and increase managerial quality.
NPM received much enthusiasm in New Zealand where measures introduced included corporatizing and privatizing of state owned enterprises; the introduction of performance related individual contracts for senior staff; increasing departmental management autonomy; changing financial management and reporting requirements, including moving from input-based to output based reporting; moving to strategic planning for the government; and departmental decoupling, including promoting policy-operations and funder-provider splits (Goldfinch, 1998).
With NPM concepts such as monitoring, evaluation have evolved to become a standard practice. In every government department people are given specific targets which they have to achieve which is commonly referred to as performance contracting.
In order to measure achievement, performance indicators have been devised to benchmark performance. Reward within public sector is now pegged on these indicators.
Another element of NPM has been private public sector partnerships. This is an arrangement where private and public sectors bring together resources and expertise to improve service delivery.
This is a symbiotic relationship where public sector benefits from expertise in private sector and ensures resources are optimally used for benefit of all. Besides this the recruitment of public sector managers is more rigorous and based on merit. This is done to attract the best people for the job and ensure the person hired has the ability to do the work.
Competition is another pillar of NPM. The introduction of competitive tendering led to the perception that public managers would be able to deliver value for taxpayers’ money.
Political patronage in awarding of government contracts would be eliminated. All these measures were aimed at improving quality delivery to citizens who are now regarded as clients.
Benefits of new public management
NPM has had its proponents and critics. On one side of the debate are its staunch supporters who believe market based techniques would bring efficiency and effectiveness.
On the other hand are skeptics who feel NPM was introduced without any consideration of the way public sector is organized. In this group, there are those who feel that market based approach is too narrow to achieve public interests. Despite these debates, NPM has some associated benefits.
To begin with, it is important to realize that private sector is profit driven and while some practices may fit in public sector, others may be unacceptable altogether. An overriding concern in private sector is efficiency, where focus is on results.
If such a measure is introduced in public sector its benefits are immense. However efficiency has many dimensions and some like downsizing of staff may not be acceptable to politicians. Perhaps an area where efficiency has worked well is in hiring of public managers. Competitive sourcing as opposed to political patronage has arrived in public management.
An important benefit that NPM brought to public management is accountability. Public servants are expected to uphold to higher level of ethics and values that serve public interests. Such servants are expected to deliver value for taxpayers’ money.
Such performance has to be measured continuously to ensure specific objectives are achieved. These objectives are defined in terms of specific indicator outcomes.
Another benefit brought by NPM is performance contracting. This ensures that whatever people are hired to do is measured to ensure effectiveness of government policy. Monitoring and evaluation has evolved almost into an industry on its own.
Most government departments have setup evaluation teams whose mandate is to measure progress and achievement of government objectives.
Security of tenure and performance rewards provided to public service employees increases motivation and productivity. Employment and salaries were done in a more open and fair way. With such incentives overall effectiveness of public service improves as employees are more confident in the way they interact and carry out their duties.
An important element of NPM has been market liberalization where there is no monopoly in provision of services by state corporations. This has had mixed results, some positive and others negative. On a positive note service delivery to customers has improved.
This has been brought about by competition for customers so state corporations have to measure up to the competition. Another positive outcome has been increased profitability of state firms. With sound management practices these firms are profitable ventures and present a revenue stream for governments.
Risks of new public management
The introduction of new management practices will apparently lead to failure. Perhaps, an area where skeptics of NPM have found its shortcomings is the manner in which it was introduced without any risk management strategies (Schacter, 2008).
The old bureaucratic management was found not optimal and a new approach in the name of NPM was introduced. There was no forward thinking on problems that may arise in implementation of NPM.
Notably erosion of public interest has been a major concern. Such a risk management framework would have anticipated and mitigated some of the problems associated with NPM.
With new changes to be introduced a considerable investment was required. Since such changes would not result in instantaneous improvements patience was necessary if output was to be felt. With huge investments many expected short term gains.
However such short term gains could not be realized. It would have been better if NPM was introduced as a long term project.
The need to change conventional bureaucracies was also an important step in the entire New Public Management initiative. As such, transparency in governance ass well as result-oriented focus was perceived to be an integral constituent of NPM.
However, this may not be a reality if public managers fail to be effective enough when discharging their duties. On the other hand, perceiving NPM as a way of governance has greatly eroded its practical meaning.
It is imperative to note that most governments across the world have implemented the principles of NPM in a bid to restructure and streamline services being offered (Noordhoek & Saner, 2004).
However, orders of necessity has not been adequately addressed by the principles of NPM thereby discrediting the entire concept as being fruitless as far as public administration is concerned (Hess & Adams, 2007).
Market based principles may not at best serve public interests and there is need for government intervention to restore discipline.
Minogue (2000) claims that fundamental values of public service organizations have been undermined by competition and the NPM, by limited resources, conflicts between individual demands and public interest, the erosion of accountability and responsibility due to fragmentation, and increased risk-taking (Christensen & Per, 2001).
In an effort to introduce efficiency downsizing of public sector workforce has been a key element. This has been coupled with restructuring of government departments with some being abolished and others set up.
With shift to being results oriented monitoring and evaluation departments have to been setup and tasked to continuously measure results. For abolished departments staff has to be redeployed or sent home. For such citizens NPM is a bitter pill to swallow.
Achieving results was a major pillar of NPM. To measure delivery of results indicators had to be constructed. In an attempt to measure achievement each objective needed an associated indicator. This brought about multiplicity of indicators some of which are hard to interpret.
This confusion causes skepticism on whether real results are being achieved or people just focus on numbers. The overly obsession with numbers can miss out an important like public benefit.
Government has a large and complex interconnected structure and measuring its effectiveness is difficult. This is in contrast with private companies which have fewer and are better structured. This is an important difference architects of NPM missed out on.
Moreover, small governments have also been part and parcel of NPM since they are extremely interested in devising ways and means of improving the growing government in order to catch up with big players in the global arena (Hess & Adams, 2007).
The enthusiasm with which NPM was received in the 1980’s has slowed down with identification of some of its shortcomings. Honestly government needs to be efficient in its service delivery but some aspects of NPM have failed. To move forward a new way of thinking that incorporates NPM is needed.
Although it is not clear if NPM is coming to an end visible signs of its decline have started surfacing. Some countries have rejected NPM and are seeking alternative ways of improving service delivery. A case study of Switzerland gives a clear example of how NPM has been managed so far.
The administrative reforms that have been initiated by NPM in this country have been stopped by parliament. This has occurred even though such restructuring programs have been in implemented for some time now (Noordhoek and Saner, 2004).
A major reason for the decline of NPM is that these practices were entirely brought to public sector without a clear understanding of differences that exist in public and private sectors.
O’Flynn (2007) clearly points out the wholesale application of private sector models and the failure to pay heed to the interconnected and interdependent nature of the public sector.
Objectives and the need to exist of the two sectors are different. Whereas the private sector is an exclusive club of profit minded individuals the public sector exists for representation of all and to ensure equitable distribution of resources.
Improving public organizations does not stop with the end of NPM. On the same note, an alternative such as ignorance of the conventional way of managing pulic institutions may not work at all. Old mechanisms of managing public institutions may have lacked some authenticity.
However, conceptual restart is indeed necessary if the modern institutions will be productive. Attaining this requirement in management of public institutions may be aggravated by distrust. Hence, the ability to build rational concepts as well as good relationship among all stakeholders in public institutions is important (Noordhoek & Saner, 2004).
Conclusions
There is no reason why the government can be excused for inefficient service delivery. Even skeptics of public management will agree that there is need to search for a system of government that can efficiently deliver services to the citizenry.
The bureaucratic government was found ineffective and NPM was proposed as a panacea. NPM involved application of market based techniques in public sector. The idea was to bring private sector effectiveness and efficiency to public sector.
The idea found widespread following in the 1980’s when governments were experiencing dwindling revenues to support public programs.
In recent years realization has emerged that wholesale application of market based techniques is not a panacea to public administration. To begin with there are fundamental differences in the organization and objectives of public and private sectors.
Private sector is profit driven often involving a small group of people with vested interests. In the private sector the end justifies the means and that is why they are results oriented organizations. On the other hand public sector is driven by public interest and incorporates values like democracy, equity and representativeness.
In NPM, an expert group of people is given the responsibility of making decisions. In such a setting it is not possible to identify whether they represent public interest or their personal interest. This goes against values of democracy, equity and representativeness.
This approach to decision making is oblivious of the fact that there are many stakeholders who need to be incorporated. In such a decision making strategy there is no consultation of potential beneficiaries which is unlike in private sector where interested parties are consulted before a decision is arrived at.
A key point that was missed in the implementation of NPM is that public sector involves a larger number of stakeholders. A key point that arises from this discussion is that the process of decision making in public sector will be slower than in the private sector.
Privatization of state firms was a key element of NPM. Perhaps this is an area where the greatest success of NPM has been felt. Under bureaucratic management there was no regard to results and merit. Public corporations had no regard to quality of service delivered and often most were unprofitable ventures.
Besides this most held monopolies in economic sectors. NPM introduced liberalization and the state had to opt out of business. Most of the state owned firms lost monopoly and they had to compete with private sector companies for clients and business.
The newly privatized firms had to change their methods of hiring and service delivery. Associated with such changes was perky remuneration of chief executives and introduction of sound management practices. These firms were able to improve service delivery and profitability.
Measurement, if it is to be feasible and useful, requires simplification, particularly when one is dealing with a subject as large and complex as the quality of public management at the level of a national government (Schacter, 2008).
A key objective of introducing NPM was to set objectives and ensure these objectives are achieved to produce results. For such a process to be effective constant monitoring and evaluation was required. Clear definition of what is to be measured and how it is to be measured is difficult and expensive. Indicators have to be constructed and at times interpretation to conclude whether results are being achieved is difficult.
Furthermore the costs of setting up monitoring and evaluation teams are high which goes against the concept of NPM of efficient governments. Such a development is counterproductive as it increases the costs of operation in private sector.
A common philosophy of NPM was that a citizen is a client. This is the focus in private sector where companies strive to continuously satisfy their clients which it was hoped would also be achieved in public sector. However there are differences between a citizen and a client. These differences are pronounced in the duties and responsibilities of a citizen.
NPM in its wholesale application was felt it would eliminate inefficient governments. Scholars and practitioners’ of public administration did not realize incompatible differences exist in public and private sector.
Some elements of NPM have been undoubtedly successful while others have totally failed. A new system of government administration needs to be sought.
However it will not be reinvention of the wheel as NPM provides some basis. Key features of NPM that have been successful include privatization of state firms, public private partnerships and competitive hiring and tendering.
With identification of shortcomings of NPM there is another movement that advocates for public value. Hess and Adams (2007) argue that a new paradigm for thinking about government activity, policy-making and service delivery may emerge bringing with it important implications for public managers.
For citizens these developments may not be very encouraging. Scholars and practitioners of public administration will be hard pressed to justify continued investment in initiatives that do not seem to work.
Perceived or real inefficiencies in the public opinion will continue to haunt scholars and practitioners as they strategies on the best way to improve public administration efficiency. Moreover governments will be under more pressure to justify increased public expenditure on improving efficiency.
In the public value paradigm, public managers have multiple goals which, in addition to the achievement of performance targets, are more broadly concerned with aspects such as steering networks of providers in the quest for public value creation, creating and maintaining trust, and responding to the collective preferences of the citizenry in addition to those of clients.
Such goals dovetail well into the idea that the dominant focus for managers shifts from results to relationships in the public value paradigm (Hess &Adams 2007).
For scholars and practitioners of public administration, governments and citizens these are challenging times. NPM brought some efficiency gains but some elements failed. Implementation of NPM had substantial public investments and its initial dismal performance may not inspire much public confidence in future public administration improvement initiatives.
The need for efficient government will not end with lack of confidence in NPM. Scholars will continue to seek for ways of improving efficiency. Administrators will have to weigh costs and benefits of efficiency improvement programs before they commit public resources.
References
Adams, D. & Hess, M. (2007). Innovation in Public Management: The role and function of community knowledge. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 12(1), 74-81.
Barzelay, M. (2000). The New Public Management: a bibliographical essay for Latin American (and other) scholars. International Public Management Journal, 3(2000), 229-265.
Christensen, T. & Per, L. (2001). New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gow, I, J. (2007). Quality Management and Organizational Innovation in Canada. El Colegio de Mexico: International Conference on Public Management in North America.
Goldfinch, S. (1998). Evaluating public sector reform in New Zealand: have the benefits been oversold? Asian journal of public administration, 20(2), 203-232.
Mingus, S. M. (2007) Leading the future of the public sector: The third transatlantic dialogue, Workshop 6: Ethical leadership in the context of globalization. Delaware: University of Delaware.
Noordhoek, P & Saner, R (2004). Beyond public management: answering the claim of both politics and society. Madrid, Espana, IX Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública.
O’Flynn, J. (2007). From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353-366.
Rainey, Hal G. (1990). ‘Public Management: Recent Developments and Current Prospects,’ in Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 157-184.
Rolland, A. (2005).The Free-Market Innovation Machine and New Public Management. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(2), 33-45.
Schacter, M. (2008). How good is your government? Assessing the quality of public management. Web.
People face situations in their daily life that require them to make decisions either on individual basis or collectively. The process by which people make decision collectively is called politics. Public administration translates politics in to real life situations that people face in every day life.
People serving in public administration are called public administrators and they serve the public. There may include the police, government employees and other civil servants. Public administration is important in every country because it helps control the functioning of the state and public sectors.
The increasing importance of public administration in the world today increases the need for studying public administration as a separate discipline (Power, 2008, p. 2). The objective of this research paper is to describe the rationale of creating a separate discipline of public administration and the creation of graduate schools of public policy, whether public administrators should matriculate in a Masters in Public Administration program and its advantages or disadvantages to those interested in entering the field of public administration
Discipline of Public administration and graduate schools of public policy
Since public administration focuses on the means of management of public programs, there is need to have professionals trained in that area. Public administrators interact with the members of the community on daily basis and therefore, they need to have skills on how to deal with them (Power, 2008, p. 1).
They need to have special knowledge that will enable them serve the public effectively. The rationale of creating a separate discipline of public administration is to provide public administrators with knowledge, skills and competence that they need to offer services to the public.
Public sectors on the other hand have organization structure that is different from that of private sectors and needs specialized skills to operate them. For instance, the principles used in auditing for public sectors are different from those used in private sectors. To effectively establish a body of knowledge or discipline of public administration, graduate schools of public policy are essential.
These graduate schools of public policy offer public policy courses that will enable public administrators in their responsibilities of public service. These schools offer degrees and master’s degrees in public policy and public administration.
Matriculation in a Masters in Public Administration (MPA) program
It is essential for the public administrators to matriculate in MPA, a post graduate degree in public administration, because it equips them to serve in governmental and non governmental sectors.
It also equips them with skills necessary in public policy management. In doing MPA, the public administrators gain skills in different fields of public sector such as urban management and planning among others. Others that are interested in joining public administration will also be equipped with the necessary skill to serve effectively in public sectors.
Public administration, business administration and political science
The three disciplines differ in definition and the reason why they are taught. According to American Global University (2010, p.1) Public administration is meant to provide the students with knowledge of governmental and administrative concepts that will enable them in serving effectively in public organization.
In political science, governing procedures and governments are studied for better understanding by students. It also studies international organizations and their structures. Business administration on the other hand, has to do with manning of business operations and criteria for making major decisions in the organizations (American Global University, 2010, p.1). The three disciplines are slightly different but they improve efficiency in organizations and government operations.
Conclusion
The discipline of Public administration is important to all the public administrators because it will enable them gain the necessary skills in their service. It should be a separate discipline so that it can develop high specialized skills applicable in public sector. Public policy schools should be separately established to aid the development of public administration as a discipline.
Reference List
American Global University (2010). Political Science and Public Sector. USA: American Global University, Inc. Web.
Power, J. M., (2008). The Discipline of Public Administration and the Study of Local Government. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Public policy administration can be defined as “the implementation of government policies, based on the expert analysis and the resolution of specific issues that generally have far-reaching impact on the citizens who live under the government in question” (Stewart, 2007).
Public policy is mainly handled by the following groups. First, we have interests groups and they are “people who always bargain on behalf of the citizens” (Cochran & Mayer, 2011). For example they can pressurize for the implementation of the public interests. Secondly, we have politicians. This group of individuals is mainly preoccupied with the role of ensuring that the government operates within the country’s constitution and also implements its policies within the accepted framework (Stewart, 2007).
The third group is the citizens and they mainly participate in public administration through voting. The public vote is very important because it is one of the key mechanisms that are used in choosing the public leaders. The constituents can channel their interests to the government through their representatives.
Public policy is meant to improve the leaving conditions of the citizens and at the same time it is meant to ensure that the government bureaucracy is well maintained. In this case the policy stakeholders ensure that both the government and public interests are fulfilled.
Healthcare inequalities
People have always been discriminated in social economic and political circles. For example there many inequalities when it comes to access to medical and healthcare services. Healthcare inequality can be defined “as the disparities in the access to adequate healthcare between different gender, race, and socioeconomic groups” (Dolgoff, 2008).
Healthcare inequalities are more common in countries which are poor and still develop as compared to the industrialized nations. However, healthcare inequalities have also been experienced in developed countries like USA (Dolgoff, 2008).
There are three examples of healthcare inequalities in USA and they include the following. Socioeconomic constrains always hinder people from getting proper healthcare. For example the poor people in USA cannot take health insurance covers to cater for their medical bills. Most of the poor people do odd jobs which do not offer medical allowances.
They are also not much aware of their healthcare needs due to their poor education backgrounds. The rich people on the other hand have enough money to spend on healthcare and in most cases they do well paying jobs that provide incentives such as family health insurance cover.
Health inequalities are also based on race. For instance in USA the provision of healthcare is still dictated by ones race. People from minority groups always get the worst medical attention and they do not have substantial health insurance covers compared to the whites who have well developed healthcare facilities and more insurance covers.
The last category of healthcare inequality is gender based. Men in USA have less access to health care compared to women. Women are also perceived to be more conscious about their health status. This makes them struggle to have medical insurance programs than men do. Medical care is also generally expensive due to lack of enough government support (Cochran & Mayer, 2011).
Conclusion
For the status of the American citizens to be uplifted it is important for the USA government to design policies that can boost the job market so that people can have enough resources to sustain themselves. The citizens as one of the interests groups should also be given an opportunity to fully participate in the process of making and implementation of the public policies (Dolgoff, 2008).
References
Cochran, C., & Mayer, L. (2011). American public policy; an introduction. Boston: Wadsworth.
Dolgoff, R. (2008). Understanding social welfare: a search for social justice. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Stewart, J. (2007). Public policy: a revolutinary approach. Boston: Wadsworth.
This article is an Inquires on the effectiveness of the tools employed by the government in realizing sustainable, effective and proficient public institutions. Early childhood education is the epicenter of the analysis, with the active integration of third parties in the public platform being one of the major emphases.
Major theme of the article and the hypothesis developed
This article examines the effectiveness of the diverse tools used by the government in the realization of proficient institutional outlook. The evaluation is pivoted on three major tools – vouchers, subsidies and contractual agreements.
The authors differentiate institutional practices into four main components – managerial potential, realistic managerial outcomes, viability of the program and the resultant program outcome- In a bid to fully conceptualize the manner in which government tools impact service delivery in federal funded institutions.
Empirical evidence shows that each of the varied tools employed by the government serves a unique role in the execution of early childhood programs, with government subsidies impacting highly on the achievement of positive outcomes. (Sandford, 2008, p. 1)
Authors’ support of the main premise
In this seminal work, the author supports the major hypotheses by reviewing the development of Public Administration policies of investing on nursery schools, reflecting the ideal expectation of a fully-fledged and performing public organization.
The author draws a broad spectrum of empirical findings from third-party, public organizations and weighs their contribution to the advancement of a better pre-school endowment- justifying the premise along the public administration theoretical framework (Sandford, 2008, p. 1).
Having noted the wide range of deviation between the intended policy projection and the realistic state of third-party public organizations, the author advocates for proper implementation of various government instruments such as monitoring services by public managers, a continuous assessment of organizational performance, observing social laws and facilitating financial empowerment to institutions.
For instance, the use of government grants to finance pre-school institutions offload families and education managers of unnecessary financial strain in implementing early childhood education (Sandford, 2008, p. 1).
Federal contracts provide another avenue of financing government enterprises and have proved to be very reliable in educating young children. The last major tool employed in pre-school institutions is the use of vouchers, which enhance parent autonomy such that they can attend to their career responsibilities without much strain (Sandford, 2008, p. 1).
Style and the substance of the article
This article takes a variety of styles; from the investigative touch of relating public administration theoretical concepts with empirical and tangible evidence accumulated from third-party public stakeholders, to its persuasive elegance in a bid to bring its recommendations to the attention of both macro-level and micro-level stakeholders of early childhood education.
Recommendation
I recommend this article to both macro-level and micro-level practitioners. This is because of its utilitarian approach not only in implementing government tools; giving viable strategies and alternatives of funding public institutions caring and educating pre-school pupils, but also in providing invaluable tenets on drawing governmental policy tools for evaluating the performance of early childhood organizations.
The article under consideration is called Post-foundational development management – power, politics and complexity and written by Christ Mowles (2010).
The author discusses the place of management theories in learning and development theories as well as how they are applied to introduce changes and improvement. Particularly, the author focuses on post-foundational management theory based on the principles of emergence.
The work combines empirical and theoretical framework for analyzing the major aspects and strategies needed to upgrading the development management. Investigating future perspectives of improvements and programs, the research also places an emphasis on such concepts as predictability, control, emergency, and system change.
All the above-described aspects are considered in regional context that provides a favorable ground for more effective implementation of theoretical approaches. In addition, the author provides some historical facts and a comparative analysis of theories for the audience to have clearer understanding of their essence.
While discussing particular theories, the author resorts to assessment of post-foundational management within the local context believing that this principle creates a number of positive perspectives for improvement of public sphere.
To enlarge on this, Mowles believes that strategies and generalized plans are always perceived in particular contexts with certain actors participating in political cooperation aimed at grouping their efforts and sharing their experience in overcoming particular problems.
In this respect, an alternative theory put forward by the research draws on the concept of emergence, a condition under which all governmental and managerial procedures can be considerably improved. This is explained by the fact that quick adjustment to changes creates a number of benefits in critical situations, especially when time is of primary importance.
Considering these concepts, the author reaches a conclusion that, even if future perspectives and strategies are idealized and, sometimes, far from reality, planning and projecting intension can better assist in meeting the future goals rather than taking no measures at all.
In the article, the author presents a well-planned presentation of arguments and approaches used to assert the validity and reliability of facts. More importantly, the author has managed to sustain the balance between theoretical and empirical information applied. It should also be stressed that the main hypothesis of the paper is quite specific and consistent with the proposed supportive arguments.
However, excessive reference to theoretical materials provides a number of ambiguities that prevent readers from understanding the connection between practical and theoretical information. Despite that, the major strength of the article lies in a multidimensional approach the author has chosen for considering one theory within different contexts.
The writing style of the article refers to scientific genre, because the researcher resorts to a great number of business and scientific terms. Nevertheless, the abundance of terminology does not distort the overall impression from the text.
The information is logical and consistent where each argument is supported by evidence and facts. Besides the explanation for the key concepts, such as emergency, development management, post-foundational management, emergence, and future perspective, is provided in a well-grounded and detailed manner.
In general, the article will be of great significance and relevance to the sphere of public administrations because it provides readers with a number of important theoretical approaches aimed at improving public infrastructure. What is more important is that consideration of local context can give a better picture of how management theories contribute to the improvement of administration policies.
Reference List
Mowles, C. (2010). Post-Foundational Development Management – Power, Politics and Complexity. Public Development and Administration. 30(2), pp. 149-158.
The article under consideration is called The Present and (Normative) Future of Public Administration and Implications for ASPA taken from the journal of Public Administration Review. Eikenberry (2009), the author of the article, believes that the ASPA future is closely connected with recent institutional tendencies in public administration that are formed by contemporary network governance. In this regard, the future implications for ASPA’s activities are quite significant.
The work in question is a theoretical analysis of problems in the sphere of public administration dedicated to the problems of morality and ethics. It is based on empirical and theoretical studies where the author attains significant attention to normative theory.
In particular, the author puts forward the idea that government authority is necessary for establishing and proliferating democratic processes and regimes. This encouragement will consist in an attempt to renew moral and ethical values of social equality and fairness. However, the contemporary government fails to understand those concepts using them for their own purposes.
Living in a post-traditional society, hence, there is a growing necessity to develop new social and political governance skills contributing to maintaining openness and transparency in society.
According to Eikenberry (2009), ASPA should focus on enhancing social and democratic equity within the government institution. In order to support this standpoint, the author forecasts the major benefits of introducing this reform to the field of public administration.
Hence, democratic orientation entails that ASPA and related associations will have greater opportunities to take part in the process of policy-making and develop political and governance skills. In addition, the author believes that encouraging democracy will lead to political fairness in decision-making.
The arguments presented in the article to support the major thesis are quite persuasive and provide a broader outlook on the current state of affaires in the American society. In order to prove the appropriateness of shifting from government to network governance, Eikenberry (2009) presents an original view on the government authorizes and contributions to the development of the contemporary society.
While exploring the problem through the prism of normative theory, the author researchers the importance of questions related to the transparency and democracy within the public sector. In particular, Ekienberry (2009) seeks to identify the method for maintaining the public’s perception of morally justified actions.
While analyzing all controversial standpoints of the article, it should be stressed that the author has approached to the problem very subtly, with full comprehension of existing problems. In general, the article is well-structured and organized as the author applies effective techniques and theories to support each component of a hypothesis.
In particular, Eikenberry (2009) begins her investigation with historical aspects of government formation and ends with viable and pivotal solutions to the challenges connected with the introduction of new democratic values and strategies. Being logical and consistent in building the arguments, the article enables readers to track the main essence of the problem throughout the article.
The article under analysis is of great value for practitioners as it presents clear information about the contemporary aspects of governmental polices with regard to existing public professional associations, such as ASPA.
It enables to understand the role of democracy and social equity in building transparent relations between people and the government. What is more important is that the article displays effective solutions for improving the field of public administration from the theoretical and practical viewpoint.
Reference List
Eikenberry, A. M. (2009, November – December). The Present and (Normative) Future of Public Administration and Implications for ASPA. Public Administration Review. 69(6), pp. 1060-1067.
Rational choice theory is also termed choice theory or still rational action theory. It is an approach by social and political scientists to understand human behavior. This approach was formerly applied by economists; but has recently become popular in other disciplines such as sociology, political science, and anthropology.
The spread of the rational choice theory into political science first appeared in 1962 in William Rikers Theory of political coalitions (Amadae & Amadae 2003). In his theory, Rikers took the theory of economics and the mathematics based game theory and integrated them into political decision-making. His move presented an alternative to focus on concepts such as power and authority practiced for a long time by political scientists.
Rational Choice Theory in Politics
The rational choice theory is drawn from a general approach termed rational actor theory. The general approach emphasizes that an individual who is faced with several goals but has to make a decision among competing alternatives while at the same time possessing extensive information, has a coherent preference ordering and is committed to all the principles he is interested in and would like utility maximization.
Like in many other instances, the analysis of a rational choice usually begins with a question. Accordingly, rational choice takes several steps (Amadae and Amadae, 2003). Initially, an individual identifies the pertinent agents, assumes about their responsibility, and then isolates the restrictions faced by this agent.
He defines the “decision rules” of each of the agents, concludes how the rules of the decision of various agents may be made steady, explores how the equilibrium of the model alternates in response to varying external factors, and finally examines whether his predictions are consistent with actual experience.
In recent decades, rational choice theorists have been able to explore some complex aspects of politics through qualified fundamental assumptions on individual behavior. The theory of comprehensive rationality, which is comparable to neoclassical economic models, hypothesizes that political decision-makers are excessively egotistical utility maximizers who clench stable preferences and intentions.
In order to understand politics at collective level, Peters and Pierre (2006) advice that one should strive to understand the ordered preferences of the individual agents who crowd a given organization or a political sphere and measure the prescribed rules that combine these static preferences. Such an approach will make clear that policy outcomes are a combination of both rules and preferences (Peters & Pierre 2006).
Institutions and Identities
Although significant distinctions exists between rational choice models in public policy, political science, and in economics; all rational choice models have similar characteristics in that decision makers possess constant ranked and ordered preferences for outcomes. For instance, if one is offered three possible routes- 1, 2, and 3, a practical chooser will favor each of these three alternatives differently.
The preferences depicted by this rational chooser will be transitive and will have the necessary information to link his choices to the outcomes. This implies that individuals armed with this information will tend to optimize when making decisions. Therefore, individuals will tend to make strategic choices in order reach the best-preferred result. In this case, individual self-interest is used in the determination of preferences.
Rational choice theorists rush to label utility maximization a question of self-interest without considering other underlying reasons. According to these scholars, the behavior of the individuals reflects their desire to maximize utility of their choice.
What proponents of the rational choice theory I do not understand is that decisions made by individuals under the influence of complete certainty-even if specific strategic choices are believed to result in explicit outcomes-are uncommon in political life. In many instances, theorists of rational choice look at how individuals make choices in risky situations.
This is in cases where an action may lead to several other unforeseen results whose probability of occurring is understood, or with some conditions of uncertainty-in instances where the results are known but the probability of these outcomes occurring is uncertain and can only be estimated- has led to the rise of new acumens.
Instead of making use of a clearly understood value, these theorists have opted to make use of the expected utility theory in estimating how individual voters design calculations that enable them rank alternatives.
In contemporary living, and under conditions of risk, individuals tend to make strategic preferences based on probabilities where they associate the probability that their most preferred outcome will happen, and both against the cost of making a decision. Theorists only consider that individuals calculate the likelihood that election outcomes will vary if they choose a particular action.
They (theorists) do not consider that individual voters also look at the possibility that their selection will lead to different outcomes against the possibility that their choice will not result into the identified outcome.
Individual electorates not only look at the likelihood that an incident will happen, but they must also envisage that the event is probable to happen without them. They also look at the likelihood of their least preferred event occurring in the absence of their participation.
Voting As a Rational Choice
In the rational voting model, voters with social preferences, it is argued that the expected utility of voting is independent of the size of the electorate. Rational theorists perceive that people vote because this gives them positive utility.
They consider this social benefit not just as a psychological feature felt by the individual but as a utility that is related to the likelihood of being pivotal and to the number of people being affected by the said election.
People vote not just as an enjoyable act or a democratic duty, but also as a latent contribution to the welfare of the society. It has been shown that the potential impact of the election outcome is directly proportional to the size of the jurisdiction. In this model, a voter is perceived to have “narcissistic” preferences.
It is only by separating the rationality assumption from the self-centeredness notion that the act of voting can be said to be rational. A rational voter will choose which candidate to vote for on the basis of his own judgment of what is expected of him depending on the outcome of the election and not the direct consequences of voting.
Voters make a decision on whether or how to vote with the hope of making a maximum utility with both social and selfish terms. Observation reveals that even the most selfish voter votes for what he believes to be the common good but not for his direct good. The model does not explain how rational people vote and does not indicate the social vote choices of rational voters.
Vote casting in huge elections is not explicable in terms of egotistical benefits of ballot vote to human beings as the likelihood that a vote will make any change is too low to be “worth it” in effectiveness sense. Although voting provides psychological benefits, it cannot help us predict variations in voter turnout or give guidance on knowing which candidate will be preferred by a voter.
If a voter decides to support Barack Obama for U.S. President in 2012 because he believes that Obama will be better for the country as a whole, other Americans may not see this. In this case, the voter is not updating on the basis of the opinion of others in deciding the quality or social utility of Barack Obama. The voter’s skewed social advantages are comparative to the number of civilians, but are independent from the way others vote.
A voter will be less likely to vote as the probability of his importance shrinks, but as the importance of the election increases, many voters will choose to vote. It is also true that when the cost of voting decreases, more voters will find it rational to vote.
I am inclined to suggest if other factors are held at a constant, the scope of the election will not affect the outcome in any way unless the election is very small. In the actual sense, in very small elections, the individuals are controlled by self-regarding concerns. Again, it is only rational to vote if one cares about the welfare of others.
Apart from participating in voting, a lot of people contribute cash to many political campaigns. While this could be taken as an enjoyment, contributing to national or even local political campaigns can only be warranted as offering success or the opportunity to influence policy directly.
A small cash contribution to national campaigns, just as in voting, is also motivated by the likelihood of a large social benefit rather than by direct voter benefit.
The objectives of individuals are a function of their decision not independent of the framing like rational theorists would like to put it. Individuals in rational voting theory possess severe limitations in their ability to be consistent in their probability calculations.
Rational choice theory emphasize on utility-maximization behavior only producing a concept of human rationality lacking “substantive concept” similar to a scrabble blank tile that can “assume the value of any letter” (Breuning and Ishiyama, 2010).
The theory is also skewed in both its method and theoretical perspectives. Through its deep-seated social scientific pathologies, its research possesses little or no interest in solving political issues. It has a growing reliance on formal modeling and game theories applications.
Alternative Perspectives
Although it is predicted lesser elections to have lower turnouts, it turns out that other conditions combine to keep the turnout at a considerable level. This is an indication that voters are irrational. Trying to assume that voters systematically overestimate their influence on the outcome of the election will not be compatible with the underlying assumption of the rational behavior (Kirshassner, 2008).
Modern rational choice theorists led by WILLIAM H. RICKER have tried to reformulate the voter rational model where they argue that utility is not only derived from a certain electoral outcome, but also from taking part in the process itself. What rational theorists fail to address is the fact that the act of casting a vote is mainly a sociological factor and is not dependent rational voting behavior.
In this model, rational action is seen to produce unintended, unwanted, unexpected and unstable outcome-the opposite of social order as this outcomes lack meaning and structure. There is no any social order that has the capability to endure the unintended consequence of its actors (Lichbach, 2003).
In the rational choice theory, a choice is said to be “rational” meaning that an agent’s choices echo the most preferred viable alternative inferred by the preferences that are often complete and transitive. This definition is very narrow for rationality. The theory limits a “rational” choice on the basis of reason. It defines “reason” as the process of making logical deductions. In this paper, two kinds of question arise.
First, should the conclusion arrived at arise from a given set of premises? Second, are these premises justifiable? A choice can only be rational if it is consistent with utility maximization. An irrational choice is consistent with utility maximization based on irrational preferences. This is taken to imply that choice arise from maximization of utility given preferences (Shapiro, 2007).
Recommendation and Conclusion
Recent years have shown great interest by political researchers to find the meaning and application of rationality. Research has shown that there are limits in the application of rationality in choosing public policy.
Alternative conceptions of rationality are necessary to address among other issues the idea that politics and government can be better understood by the use of the economic leaning model of individual and organizational decision-making and behaviors. Policy formulation, and government decision making are not simple structured processes as one may think.
Politics cannot be reduced to simple self-centered, utility maximizing political actors. Bound rationality assumptions and attention to the impact of public policy should be developed. It is paramount that principles that allow the selection of the most useful decision-making model be developed for other purposes other than economic rationality.
In conclusion, it is evident that the study of rationality in public administration and public policy will be shaped by the criticism, theory development, and empirical research in the future. The heat generated against rationality in public administration arises from the methodology in political science solely because of its theory of human action.
Reference List
Amadae, S. M., and Amada Michelle S. (2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Breuning, M., and Ishiyama, T. (2010). 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook, Vol1. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Kirchgassner, G. (2008). Homo Oeconomicus: The Model of Individual Behavior Its Applications in Economics and Other Social Sciences. London: Springer.
Lichbach, I. M. (2003). Is Rational Choice Theory All of Social Science? Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Peters, G. Pierre, J. (2006). Handbook of Public Policy. Los Angeles: SAGE
Shapiro, I. (2007). The Flight from Reality in Human Sciences. New Jersey: Princeton University press.
Most governments have embraced the e-government initiatives to argument; service delivery, reduce corruption, spread information, support transparency and increase democratic involvement. The e-government involves two approaches in attaining e-government initiative. These approaches are internal and external. Internal approach involves government dealing with its employees and the government itself.
External approach involves government engagement with its citizen and businesses (Hussein et al, 2011). E-governments has transformed the external government interactions by enabling the public unswervingly receive government services at their suitable time without making visits or getting the services through bureaucratic processes.
Introduction
Rapid development in the technology has largely altered the way modern governments engage with their citizens and eventual service delivery. Most governments have recognized the technology by shifting from traditional service administration to digital or e-governance dispensation. E-governance has made governments services accessible to its citizen at their convenient time.
Therefore, this has increased citizen participation, transparency, accountability in government operations and common participation by citizens in decision making. The shift towards e-government has altered the structure of governments, the mode of government information transmission and decision making processes. Thus, these changes have had a trivial effect on the services, which states needs to plan and harmonize.
This research paper explores the shift in public administration because of e-government. Through literature review, the writer discusses e-government and how it has heightened accountability in governments with e-enabled technologies. Also, the writer evaluates e-governments technologies such as social media and their roles in heightening government accountability.
Though, the e-governments technology has simplified service delivery and information access from government and it’s agencies, some challenges has been observed. Such challenges include; accessibility by wider public, redefining government boundaries and cultural issues among others.
The E-government
E-government is a popular word in Information Technology. It refers to the general practice of using electronics in government. This may encompass using the internet, telephones, fax machines, surveillance systems and tracking systems by the government. Television sets and radios are used by governments to pass on information. Hussein et al (2011) offers another definition for e-government.
He asserts that e-government is where governments use information and technologies to support or improve the activities of public sector organizations. For many years, governments have used radio waves to broadcast warnings in times of disasters or even during election processes. Thus, e-government is not a new phenomenon in present governments (Davison, 2005).
E-governments and Accountability
Information Distribution
Government managed media strengthens pro-government broad casts and messages forming e-government (Reddick, 2011). This is achieved by influencing effective information distribution and fostering accountability. Government procedures and improved functionalities of governments are being realized by using new non-internet applications of e-government.
Information technologies embraced by e-government encompasses Government tracing structures of citizens, biometric documentations and surveillance information systems. Hussein et al (2011) argues that with the fast evolving and access to internet technology among many people, the government has an opportunity of managing business online.
Besides, most governments, like the United States, embrace the integrated e-government information systems to manage government projects. The integrated systems provide valuable information which aids in online payments and tracking of social security payouts.
According to Reddick (2011) government as also employed the use of mobile phones. The mobile telephones are essential in providing useful information and simplify transmission of government information between the government and its citizens.
By using text messages, governments can is able to provide up-to-date information on request, send out mass and region-wide messages, sounding alert or specific emergency warnings. These ensure government accessibility by the people at any given time from anywhere.
Efficiency in Information Storage
E-government also implies the use of information and communications technologies to better transparency and increase efficacy in public institutions. With this technological advantage, Governments may make use of technology in several ways. One of it is storing information in digital format to lessen the paperwork used which in turn makes access to the information easy (Srivastava, 2011).
Besides, electronic platforms pave way for better accounting, data collection, and better planning of public sector spending. Internet portals, help in saving time going through government processes. For instance an entrepreneur may gain a business permit through these portals. This reduces the waiting time and walking the distances to physical government offices.
Reddick (2011) explains that E-government has created convenience to citizens. People are expecting more government services to be online. With services being online, people don’t worry about where to find information as it is available anytime and anywhere. E-government usually focuses on the activities that people usually need help with.
Hence, through online services a person can get explanations on complex policies and how they work (Srivastava, 2011). Online tools also provide language translations; this is a major benefit considering that not all the people understand one given language. Besides, updating information on the social media sites is easily and fast therefore the agencies can ensure users get up-to-date information from the government.
Information Access 24/7
E-government services are not limited to the traditional working hours. Accessing information hosted on the site is available for 24 hours a day all through the week. E-government also come with some standards that allow people to search for particular information and is user-friendly (Flensburg, 2010). Most of them provide a search function to help trace information that may be available from other sources.
With E-government, many companies reports saving more money. Traditionally citizens had either to drive to government offices and perhaps wait to get information; this meant that a citizen productive time was wasted. By governments using the information online, less time is used accessing it as opposed to driving time and the queuing time (Flensburg, 2010).
For organizations to make future strategies they need to have more Information Access. The e-governments has granted this wish by providing a wide range of services and information online; it has become easier for organizations to decide which information impact positively on their growth and success.
E-governments collect and store huge amounts of information related to economy, demographic research and other inclinations (Davison, 2005). Thus, when organizations access volumes of information to simplify decision making, it gives them a competitive edge against their rival in a similar business venture. This leads to development of strategies on how to devise ways of increasing profits to swell economically.
Paperless “Office”
E-government Increases efficiency by reducing the time needed to carry out online transactions. This is aided by automation which significantly reduces paperwork and fixes a paperless “office”. The process removes overheads, time and risks that can is associated with clerical duties.
Through benefits associated with e-governments; better, reliable, accurate and timely information and communication is spread to the public by building transparency between the government and its citizens (Carter and McBride, 2010). Besides, efficiency enables citizens to contribute and offer needed support to the government because of direct and personal communication with the government.
Public Feedback Mechanism
Karunasena et al (2011) illustrate that most governments have widely embraced the e-government in carrying out external affairs. The e-government technology fixes a two-way interaction between an organization, citizen and the government. Through two-way communication accountability is increased through a process known as “public feedback mechanism”.
Public feedback mechanism ensures the government responds timely to citizen issues or challenges. The public feedback mechanism achieve this through; ensuring the information is spread to the suitable party rather than at indistinct point of contact, and the information circulated is easily tracked internally. This makes the recipient of the response accountable for processing it (Karunasena et al, 2011).
The public feedback mechanism ensures the information disseminated is tracked by increasing the government simplicity in e-governments undertakings. It also unleashes the e-governments true identity to alter the system that governments interrelate with citizens, and the organizations.
The process gives everyone, despite of religion, gender, race and class the opportunity to interact unswervingly with the government (Carter and McBride, 2010).
E-Government Technologies
Most government has employed e-government technologies which are instrumental in fostering accountability and transparency with the citizens. The citizens have continuously used these technologies to ensure the governments do live to its promise and better service delivery (Flensburg, 2010).
Social Media
Social media refers to the use of technology for social purposes. Social Media technology and Web 2.0 describe undertakings aimed towards integrating technology, social contact, and content design.
Flensburg ( 2010) elaborates that social media has largely encouraged members of the public to involve in activities of the governments though producing, organizing, commenting or sharing of contents in a more personalized form. Through this, the government’s transparency and its constant contact with its citizens are increased.
The technology has presented a great potential in public capacity to transform governance. This is because of the interactivity, instantaneous, pervasiveness nature of social media technologies.
They can be used to provide avenues for democratic involvement, create pressure for new institutional arrangements, and result in practices and frameworks that ensure an open and transparent government on an exceptionable measure (Flensburg, 2010).
These great abilities of social technologies also present some challenges especially when it comes to policy development, governance, process design, and formations of democratic commitments. A clear example is the influence of social media in the Arab world.
The citizens of these nations held the governments responsible for social and political ills affecting the society. Issues in context were high rate of unemployment, corruptions and bureaucracy with the ruling class.
Government services are often reinvented to adapt new and innovative applications of information technology. These efforts by governments mainly focus on creating efficient and effective governments besides continuing to better citizen services by strengthening procedures and technology.
In strengthening the way government conducts its work, makes policies or promotes and performs solutions, it is important to look at the technological, social and policy aspects of social media as well as raising participation (Goldkuhl, 2011).
The social media provides room for innovative ideas that try to bridge the gap between technology, people and the government. Besides governments increasing their efforts in using social media technologies to perform their business and request participation, several efforts are also running concurrent on the grassroots level outside government.
By using social technologies by governments to increase service delivery it is important to take a closer look at several points. First, in improving service delivery it is essential that Co-production be encouraged, this involves the public and the governments collectively developing, designing, and increasing the government services quality.
Second, the governments’ transparency in its operations which strengthens accountability; this is important in the governments’ search to build trust and foster accountability with the citizens.
Social Media and the Citizen Engagement
Public engagement in policies and roles by the government is done in different ways. This may involve the government information and services being available online, seeking responses on expected controls to pursuing a constant dialogue to find solutions in matters about critical areas of governance. Government bodies are continually expanding and developing their interest in the use of social media technologies.
Several agencies interact with people through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube for divergent purposes which include increasing participation and improving transparency.
Other agencies use new platforms in social media to enable access and distribution of government information, services, and resources. These include: The General Services Administration (GSA) which uses technologies like Facebook. This help people to access and learn more about government services offered (Homburg, 2008).
Several avenues exist that affirm the governments’ efforts to engage public participation in democratic processes (Goldkuhl, 2011). These include Blogs, applications and mobile resources. Blogs are websites that are updated regularly and preserved by an individual or organization.
They contain regular entries, commentaries, news, descriptions and other material such as videos and graphics on a particular subject. Blogs are interactive in the sense that they allow people to comment or message each other. This is seen as an effective way to get feedback on government services as opposed to static websites.
Applications and mobile resources are developed to promote public involvement on mobile devices, offer instantaneous location-specific information among other services.
For instance, The Environmental Protection Agency and General Services Administration have created mobile platform websites to ensure further interaction with the public. These efforts clearly outline the rising pervasiveness in the use of applications through social media technologies by the government.
Role of social Media and Accountability
With integrating Social media technologies into government and community matters, a great shift is defining the future of democratic models. As seen above, social media technologies can significantly alter how the public and government interrelate, develop solutions, and deliver services (Heeks, 2001).
On many occasions there has been a need for citizens to engage in or report on matters happening or affecting their neighborhoods, communities region or county. Local reporting is made possible through social media such as Twitter, Facebook and similar technologies.
These channels are not only fast but are also efficient in reaching out to like-minded people and relevant authority (e.g., local, state, or central government). The reporting may cover a wide range of areas such as power outages, traffic situation and even accidents (Margetts, 1999).
Social media technologies enable local problem solving by communities and the government. Because of the government procedures and operations being revolutionized by social media technologies traditional limits of time and space for government processes are being broken. In other words, social media technologies have a major influence on government-public community interactions.
Challenges of E-governance
Beynon-Davies (2007) notes a challenge of understanding e-government whether it is accessible to wider public or incorporated in state governance. Seeking participation and response is one thing while incorporating the received public participation into government rules, legislation, and services is another thing (Lam, 2005).
Mechanisms are therefore necessary to check whether remarks, responses, and other forms of participation are either assimilated into the government organization or are turned into actions. And help in making the government deliver the change sought by the public in the shortest time possible.
E-governments have simplified government engagement with its citizens. However, with their impression, significant challenges have occurred. And they include: redefinition of government boundaries. Halaris et al (2007) notes that with a change in democratic boundaries the relationship between governments and communities also changes.
This makes it difficult to define where the governments leave off and communities start. It is therefore important to consider what roles continue to be of governments’ concern and what is left for communities to resolve and find suitable action.
With the fast pace at which e-governments are growing there is a need for new policies, procedures, frameworks and structures to take care of this.
Though there are various reasons policies exist, in information communication and technology, guidelines are drafted to offer protection, trust, safety, ownership privileges, social attachment, participation and maintenance of records. Of importance are areas related to privacy, e-participation and democratization, right to use, and commitment (Ibrahim and Irani, 2005).
Lack of a strategy for using these new tools poses a major challenge to government agencies (Degenne and Forse, 1999, p.136). With many agencies viewing the use of e-governance technology as a technological issue, many decisions are made based on technological considerations (Goldkuhl, 2011). This leads to agencies focusing more on what can’t be done instead of embracing openness and transparency.
Also, government need to be aware of the social and cultural results for the use of e-government will have in present-day. Despite of governments organization embracing the advantages of e-government, the government should streamline and improve its e-government to promote and encourage transparency and dependability in today’s e-governments (Carter and McBride, 2010).
Conclusion
Transparency and accountability is vital if government’s wants to win the trust of its citizens while accessing e-government services, and carrying out transactions with the government. When people access government services in a secure environment, transparency and accountability is enhanced.
According to Ibrahim and Irani (2005) the power of technology has helped to improve efficiency in public administration by strengthening citizen interaction with government agencies. Through e-government, citizens are able to take part in government decision making process through active involvement. This is a shift from traditional initiative, which compelled citizens to travel for long miles seeking government services.
Presently, citizen can access government services provided they have technology tools such as computer connected to the internet, mobile phones among others (Ibrahim and Irani, 2005).
However, the technology has elicited new challenges. This has been in terms of accessibility of technology to the wider society, lack of strategy and culture constrain among other challenges. The governments need to address these issues to facilitate wider accessibility of public services by citizens.
References List
Beynon-Davies, P. (2007) “Models for e-government”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (1), 1, pp.7 – 28
Carter, L., McBride, A., (2010) “Information Privacy Concerns and E-Government: A Research Agenda”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (4), 1, pp.10 – 13
Davison, R. M., Wagner, C., and Ma, L.K., (2005) “From Government to E- Government: A Transition Model”, Information Technology & People, (18), 3, pp.280 – 299
Degenne, A., and Forse, M., (1999) Introducing Social Networks. London: Sage
Ebrahim, Z., and Irani, Z., (2005) “E-government Adoption: Architecture and Barriers”, Business Process Management Journal, (11), 5, pp.589 – 611
Flensburg, P. (2010) “Handbook of Research on E-Government Readiness for Information and Service Exchange: Utilizing Progressive Information Communication Technologies”, Online Information Review, (34), 5, pp.819 – 821
Goldkuhl, G. (2011) “Generic Regulation Model: The Evolution of a Practical Theory for E-Government”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (5) 3, pp.249 – 267
Halaris, C., Magoutas, B., Papadomichelaki, X., and Mentzas, G., (2007) “Classification and Synthesis of Quality Approaches in E-Government Services”, Internet Research, (17), 4, pp.378 – 401
Heeks, R. (2001) Reinventing Government In The Information Age: International Practice In IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform. New York: Routledge
Homburg, V. (2008) Understanding E-Government: Information Systems in Public Administration. New York: Routledge
Hussein, R., Mohamed, N., Ahlan, A.R., Mahmud, M., (2011) “E-Government Application: An Integrated Model on G2C Adoption of Online Tax”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (5), 3, pp.225 – 248
Karunasena, K., Deng, H., and Singh, M., (2011) “Measuring The Public Value Of E-Government: A Case Study From Sri Lanka”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (5),1, pp.81 – 99
Lam, W. (2005) “Barriers to E-Government Integration”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, (18), 5, pp.511 – 530
Margetts, H. (1999) Information Technology in Government: Britain and America. New York: Routledge
Reddick, C. G., (2011) “Citizen interaction and e-government: Evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (5), 2, pp.167 – 184
Srivastava, S. C., (2011) “Is E-Government Providing the Promised Returns?: A Value Framework for Assessing E-Government Impact”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, (5), 2, pp.107 – 113