Over the past few years, government workers of the United States have moved into a state of relative liberation. This doctrine can largely be said to have been caused by the legal and judicial practices as well as, the political efforts that have further driven the development of a modern militancy on the part of authorities. The overall effect of this privilege is that the president and other Executive branch members in the government; can overrule or resist certain subpoenas and policies made by the judicial and legislative arms of the government. However this privilege is not documented and accounted for in the United Nations constitution, but was put in place by the supreme court as a measure to help separate the powers held by the different arms of the administrative system. However the legitimacy of the privilege depends on an individual case where it is established by the prosecutor; especially in matters where the supervision of the executive would interfere or influence the security concerns of the given federal branch.
The doctrine of privilege was reversed because; it gave unlimited powers to the executive arm of the government; which is not responsible for the enforcement of the law and other policies. The fact that the executive could overrule the decisions of the other two arms of the government would further mean that the power of the state would only lie with the executive. The ultimate defect of allowing the powers to be left with one arm of the government would be that; the executive would impair cases that were of interest to the National security of the nation. The other claim is that the powers bestowed by the given privilege on the executive; would mean that the process of evidence discovery and information sharing between the different arms on matters of national interest would be affected. However the doctrine of privilege still prevails in matters that infringed the general interest of the American people and where justice administration was under threat. An example of the impacts of this privilege was the release of classified information documents to the defense counsel of the Oregon-based Islamic charity case; that was seen as a great compromise to the national security system.
The basic principles of the Pendleton Act of 1883 drafted by the New York civil service commission; were basically geared towards reforming the administration of civil service administration. The principles were meant to limit the excessive misuse of power, and were also to play the role of limiting the unfair practices that were being practiced especially on matters of employee recruitment. The Act had the principle of ensuring that there was the installation of a system of competitive scrutiny of individuals, in filling up federal civil service posts so as to ensure that the civil service was not utilized for the political interests of certain officers. Initially only 10 percent of the number of federal positions was selected based on critical examination; leaving the rest to the choice of individuals and affiliated groups. The act also sought to address the political removal of federal employees from posts of work; due to politically motivated reasons. This was achieved through an order that provided that the removal of civil service personnel could only be done based on just reasons; which were officially presented in writing before the removal was executed. It also provided that the removal of employees would be preceded by a written explanation of the causes of dis-employment; and that they were entitled to the making of a reply concerning the case. It also held the principle that the world war two victims were to get jobs in the civil service, and provided for the thirty-day suspension of workers based on personnel-related violations among other actions.
The civil service reform act led to the development of a system that would be used in the resolving of disputes. This involved the formation of unions and employment agencies that would help protect the rights of employees and manage the difficulties of tenure administration. The act provided that recruitment would be merit-based covering the different groups in society depending on the knowledgeability of the candidates and equal opportunity. The preference hiring of family members was prohibited; and it also created the provision for the removal of employees who proved inadequate in performance. The act also sought to establish a more flexible public service administration; that allowed for the formation of rules to govern the course of service. The act also provided that civil workers especially those within the classified service could turn to any independent administrative court, to petition actions taken against them. Finally, the labor relations agency was established to oversee the processes of dispute resolution and collective advocating of the workers rights and dispositions.
The interpretation of the Pickering v. Board of Education case is that; the lack of substantial evidence to the knowledge or recklessness of employees in making wrong statements to do with public importance; would not lead to the loss of employment positions. This interpretation holds that employees have the right to speak on matters of administration and policy enforcement where they find acts of injustice, or gaps in action provided they do not do that with malicious or individualistic interests.
Connick V. Myers 1983 was a case between a junior Attorney who rejected the change of the section of the court in which cases would be heard. After that she wrote a questionnaire to other attorneys practicing at the same level as hers; about the transfer policy; the need for a grievance committee; and on matters of confidence in their supervisors. After making this move the seniors were furious and discharged her for failing to accept the transfer and insubordination. Due to this she appealed to the District Court that she had wrongfully been discharged; and after consideration into the case she was reinstated and given back pay damages among other fees. This case was resolved due to the fact that an employees freedom of speech is arrived at; after balancing the personal interests and the public concern in a given action. This is the case because the interest of the state as an employer was promoted in the attempt, to make the public service more efficient through the given employee.
Rankin v. McPherson is a Supreme Court ruling as to whether the first amendment defends public employees who make severely serious comments about the President. The courts ruled out that protection would not extend to statements that are threatening to the president, but an extreme statement on matters of public interest by an employee without policy-making mandates and no public involvement would be protected.
Government decisions have a direct impact on the lives of its citizens. Hence, citizens are allowed to seek legal action whenever they feel that the decision-making process is not fair and democratic. Democracy refers to active participation of citizens in the decision-making process, while fairness is about how fair the decision-making process is, both in terms of transparency and the procedures used. Fairness has two connotations, but of great importance in administrative law is procedural fairness.
Procedural fairness is concerned about fairness with regard to the decision-making process. Substantive fairness, on the other hand, is concerned about the outcome in terms of whether the decision made is in good faith. As a government agency, it is a requirement that our decision-making process does not only involve citizens, but is also conducted in a fair manner.
We have had several instances in the past where citizens have taken us to court because of lack of fairness in our decisions. Therefore, I have developed this brief manual to guide employees on issues pertaining to administrative law. The manual addresses four critical concepts of procedural fairness, namely; discretion, credibility, bias and the extent of duty to give reasons.
Discretion
Discretion is about making choices, depending on the individuals interpretation of circumstances. For example, your boss can give you work to do, but you are at discretion to decide how you will do it so long as you meet the set targets. Similarly, we are always at discretion to choose our friends, what to wear, places to visit, etc.
Public officers make decisions on a day-to-day basis. The difference between administrative decisions and personal decisions is that administrative decisions have to be made within jurisdictive boundaries. Therefore, the law determines how much discretion a government officer has when making the decision in question.
For instance, using the word shall in the law means that a government officer has no discretion while may gives the officer some discretion. If the law states that the Minister may grant application&, then the Minister can as well choose not to grant the application if he/she feels that it is in the publics best interest.
But does discretion lead to procedural fairness? Most government officials have been sued because of unfairness in their discretionary decisions. However, it is never easy to assess discretionary decisions. Prior to Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) case, the courts understood discretionary decisions simply to mean reasonable decisions. The court would rule in the governments favor without considering the decision-making process if the decision made was reasonable.
This approach, however, only looks at substantive fairness issues at the expense of procedural fairness. When determining Baker v. Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal judges introduced a criterion for assessing discretionary decisions, i.e. pragmatic and functional approach, which considers: the decision makers expertise; the nature of the decision and; the language in the law. This approach takes into consideration such important issues as legitimate expectations and fettering, which are important in procedural fairness.
Credibility
Credibility refers to how trustworthy and believable a person is. As public officers, we are often bombarded with information from different sources, hence the need to determine the credibility of such information before factoring them in the decision-making process. For instance, if a person appears before a public officer in charge of immigration to seek federal refugee recognition, then the officer will have to subject the person to some sort of interview as a way of assessing the persons credibility before granting him/her the recognition.
So far you must have realized that credibility goes hand in hand with discretion. In the example above, the officer will exercise discretion, but must assess the credibility of the applicant to be able to provide reasons for either granting or denying the recognition.
When assessing credibility, government officials must: state it in advance that credibility is being assessed; grant the victim an oral hearing; give the victim a chance to address concerns about his/her credibility; believe evidence that passes the test of truth; be moderate with interrogations targeted towards the search for inconsistencies and; give reasons when the victim is found not to be credible.
But does credibility lead to procedural fairness? In my opinion, credibility is based on personal judgment and can be more subjective than objective. The burden of proof lies with the person whose credibility is being assessed and issues such as personal differences, power, race, skin color or class can easily mar the process. Credibility assessment can only be fair if it does not overstep on human rights.
In Khan v. University of Ottawa, the court noted that the process used failed to fairly assess Ms. Khans credibility by not allowing her an oral hearing. However, the court referred the case back to the examination committee instead of ordering the law school to allow her to write another exam.
While this judgment might lead to procedural fairness, it is very unlikely that it would lead to substantive fairness. The committee has already prejudged Ms. Khan and listening to her oral submission might not change much. Nevertheless, assessing credibility is not as easy thing because it depends on how convincing the person is.
Bias
Bias can be considered the opposite of credibility. While credibility focuses on you evaluating others , bias is more of others evaluating you . As a public officer, it is expected that your decisions are free from prejudice. It is wrong to make decisions based on prejudgment. For example, a suspect can never be labeled criminal unless he/she is subjected to a court process and a ruling made based on the facts presented. In this regard, the notion of bias comes in when someone feels that the decision-making process is marred with partiality.
The notion of bias is important in achieving procedural fairness. Bias has two concepts, namely: impartiality, which is concerned about the decision makers state of mind and; independence, which focuses on the relationship between government agencies and the government. In this regard, procedural fairness is only achieved if the process is free from influence by the government and the decision maker is impartial.
While it is easy to raise concerns about credibility, it is never easy to handle biasness, given that the accused usually has powers over the decision-making process than the person accusing. For instance, a job applicant may notice nepotism in the recruitment process, but raising the issue would make the applicant look snoopy while keeping quiet would only make the applicant uncomfortable.
In the event that the applicant decides to sue the recruitment committee and the court rules that the process be repeated, the committee is most likely to victimize the applicant, hence prejudice.
In defining bias in Zundel v. Citron, the court gave room for objectively justifiable bias arguing that fairness is not absolute. This can, however, be misused in the decision-making process, especially in cases where the decision maker has some discretional powers. Again, evaluating the courts definition raises issues as to whether or not disposition or inclination amounts to bias.
According to the courts definition of bias, disposition or inclination only amounts to objectively justifiable bias, which is acceptable in administrative law. However, some layers may argue that an inclined person already has a biased understanding of the issue. But, which is worse? Having an expert in the decision-making process or someone who does not understand the issue?
The Extent of the Duty to Give Reasons
In the introduction section, I mentioned that a governments decision-making process is only considered fair if it is transparent and follows the right procedures. In this regard, citizens have a right to know the reasons supporting the various decisions made by government officials. It is only when citizens have access to the reasons that they are able to judge whether or not the decision arrived at is fair. In this regard, the duty to give reasons as used in administrative law refers to written reasons.
However, granting this right can be tricky, especially where the reasons are considered highly confidential. Hence, the need to define the boundaries within which the duty to give reasons is applicable. In determining Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) case, the court noted that the duty to give reasons does not apply in all circumstances.
Consequently, the court came up with two exemptions, namely: where the person has right to petition and; where the decision is likely to significantly affect the person concerned. Hence, government officials are at discretion to give written reasons only where the decision being made falls within this criterion.
Today, it is necessary to state clearly the essential character of public administrations activities. The question of the essential character of what public administration can do in relation to the public services was proposed by Denhardt and Denhardt. The discussion of the question should be referred to the concept of new public management developed by researchers. The essential character of public administrations actions is associated with the notions of political neutrality, democracy, public interests, and new public management.
Introduction
To improve the approaches used by public administrators in order to do the public service effectively, it is necessary to state clearly the essential character of this process and associated procedures. The question of the essential character of what public administration can do in relation to the public services was proposed by Denhardt and Denhardt, thus, to respond to this question, it is also necessary to refer to the concept of new public management developed by researchers to describe the modern situation in the sphere of public administration (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011). From this point, today, the essential character of public administrations actions is closely associated with the ideas and notions of political neutrality, democracy, public interests, and new public management.
The Essential Character of Public Administrations Actions in the Field
Public administration serves to implement the governmental regulations in order to address the public interests, thus, to develop the most effective plan of implementation. As a result, the governmental policies and regulations are managed to respond to the publics needs, and this shift from writing the document to implementing the policy in the real society is very important. That is why, the effectiveness of the public administrations activities depends on the definite neutrality of public administrators from business and politics necessary to avoid any negative impacts on the process of policy implementation to satisfy the needs of this or that group.
Denhardt and Denhardt state that government shouldnt be run like a business; it should be run like a democracy (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011, p. 2-3). From this point, it is impossible to refer to the profits for one of the parties, but it is necessary to contribute to democracy. Political administrators cannot follow this or that political actor as well as the certain business (Overeem, 2005, p. 312). Thus, the essential character of what public administration can do in the public service is reflected in the efficient implementation of governmental policy to provide the good for all the categories of the society while basing on the principles of democracy and neutrality.
The Main Tenets of New Public Management
The rapid development of the world makes public administration also adapt to the changes in the vision of public management. Nowadays, it is important to focus on the innovative business methods to realize the public management, but it is necessary to avoid the domination of the business principles (Rubin, 2002, p. 90). Thus, the principles of new public management can serve to create the perfect background for the dynamic development of public administration. According to Denhardt and Denhardt, the New Public Management refers to a cluster of contemporary ideas and practices that seek, at their core, to use private sector and business approaches in the public sector (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011, p. 12-13). This approach guarantees the necessary flexibility in providing the services (Morse, 2010, p. 111).
For instance, to realize the anti-poverty and welfare neighbourhood programs, public administrators more often choose to cooperate with the private sector and to apply effective practices used by charity organizations, investors, and sponsors to promote and implement the productive welfare programs. The war with poverty is the complex process which should be resolved at the governmental level while involving the business resources.
Thus, the essential character of public administrations activities today should be discussed with references to the principles of new public management as the way to improve the approaches used in the sphere of public administration during a long period of time.
References
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Morse, R. (2010). Public administration and community collaboration for Capella University. USA: Wiley.
Overeem, P. (2005). The value of the dichotomy: Politics, administration, and the political neutrality of administrators. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 311-329.
Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships in communities and schools. USA: Corwin Press.
Lessons from Serving as a Public Budgeting Leader and Manager in the Public Sector
Public budgeting refers to a field of administration that revolves around the assessment of the available resources and their allocation to the various activities of a firm or organization. I have learned that public budgeting managers must possess relevant financial analysis skills to conduct their roles effectively (Fudge, 2013).
One of the key roles that I learned about a budgeting manager is that the person must be well equipped with the knowledge to analyze a variety of financial information, which may include revenues, expenditures, and the opportunity costs to determine the feasible projects in which the available resources should be assigned (Lee, Johnson, & Joyce, 2012).
Other than financial analysis for decision-making, the budgeting manager must conduct regular internal audits to ensure that the costs at each stage of project implementation are in line with the budget. It is important to note that the primary objective of budgeting is to track costs, a purpose that can only be achieved by regularly comparing the actual costs with the budgeted ones. Next, I learned that the budgeting manager must reconcile the budgeted cost against the actual expenditure at the end of every financial year or at the completion of each project (Fudge, 2013). Any variances between the budgeted and the actual costs must be explained. Other roles include offering professional advice to other departments of the firm and participating in meetings to discuss the various budgeting issues.
Skills and Knowledge Attained
One of the important skills I have attained from the course is the processes and approaches to preparing a suitable budget for an organization. As it currently stands, a budgeting manager can apply several methods to formulate a budget. One of the approaches that may be used to develop a financial plan is the lump sum budgeting. The stated method involves estimating the revenues and expenditures as lump sums without indicating the various units of disbursement (Stillman, 2012).
The other method of budgeting is the line-item approach, which involves breaking down the estimated revenues from each unit and linking such income with the corresponding expenditures. Another approach to budgeting is the balanced budget, which involves estimating the revenues and expenditure of each item to make sure that the income exceeds the disbursement. Next is the performance budgeting method, which involves the assessment of the outcomes of funds allocated to various projects. Others include program budgeting, PPBS budgeting, zero-based budgeting, flexible freeze, and priority-based budgeting, among others.
Can Budgetary Decision-making be Rational
A rational decision can be described as a course of action taken after considering several courses of action. In taking such a decision, the responsible person considers several courses of action. The individual chooses the best one. Some of the factors that a decision-maker considers include the resources required to implement the program, the capital available to the firm, the human assets accessible, technological needs, and the opportunity costs (Henry, 2015).
Based on such analysis, the decision-maker considers the course of action, which maximizes the revenues of the firm with minimal costs. In other words, the rational decision is the one, which yields maximum revenues to the firm. A company can implement such decisions with the available resources. It is important to note that a project may be profitable. However, a company may lack the resources necessary to implement it. This situation underscores the need to consider the available resources to ensure that the chosen course of action is executable.
Based on the described explanation of rational decisions, it may be concluded that the budgeting process is characterized by level-headedness. As stated previously in this paper, the budgeting process involves assessing the revenues of a company for a specified period and assigning the revenues to the various projects available for investment. The budgeting process is characterized by the assessment of the costs associated with mutually exclusive projects to determine the one that is worth investing (Mikesell, 2013).
The budgeting manager is charged with the responsibility of assessing the costs associated with each project to prepare a report regarding the most feasible project. In addition to assessing the costs, the budgeting manager also assesses the human capital needs of the project to determine whether the company has the necessary labor and technology to successfully implement the project without failure. In the absence of such assessments, the project would fail at different stages of implementation, a situation that may negatively affect the profitability of the business.
The Origin of Line-item Budgetary Structure
The line-item budgeting refers to a method of preparing the budget, which involves grouping individual financial statement items based on the unit price and departments (Joseph, 2017). The method offers a comparison between the figures for the past accounting periods and those of the current or future transactions. This structure was invented as a remedy to the gaps created by the lump-sum budgeting approach in terms of tracking the costs associated with each department or unit.
As stated previously, the lump-sum budgeting method involves estimating the revenues and expenditures as a whole. The method could not clarify the amount that each department contributed to the total revenues or costs. This situation made the accounting of the departmental costs a hectic task to the extent of necessitating the development of a budgeting method that could track the revenues and costs associated with each section.
Scholars Primary Criticisms of this Budgetary Structure
Although the line-item budgeting approach has notable strengths over the lump-sum method, it faces several criticisms from scholars. One of the shortfalls of this budgeting method that critics use to discredit the approach is that the budgeted items are not accurate (Joseph, 2017). The reason for such allegations is that this method utilizes historical figures to predict current and future revenues and costs. Basing the future estimates on historical figures is a major shortfall since such numbers may change with fluctuations in the business environment. For example, inflation and currency fluctuations may affect future costs, which may not be reflected in the historical figures.
The other shortfall of the line-item approach is that it may precipitate overspending by the departmental managers (Joseph, 2017). Since the budgets are formulated based on historical figures, the departments are assigned a standardized amount of money each year. If the money assigned to a section is not fully exhausted at the end of a financial year, the departmental managers are motivated to spend it in a rush for fear of budget slash in the subsequent period.
Factors that Account for its Broad Acceptance and Continued Use
However, as much as the line-item budgetary method has several shortfalls, it also has a certain level of strength, which makes it attractive to budget managers. One of the strengths of the method is that it is simple to apply. It can also give accurate figures. The view is grounded on the fact that the method bases its estimates on past figures (Joseph, 2017). A budget manager only needs to scrutinize the trends in revenues and expenditure for a particular item to estimate the costs for the subsequent period. This situation creates simplicity, which makes it attractive to small and medium-sized enterprises.
The survey method, as well as the experimental method, can be used for quantitative research. As a rule, survey research is used to investigate the attitude of respondents and demographic peculiarities of different research groups. Ethical issues are very important for survey design because respondents should be provided with questionnaires, interview questions, or self-completion mail surveys (Cox, 2009, p. 221) about the expected outcomes. For investigation of the attitude of the respondents to the educational reforms, it is necessary to include different types of questions (open-ended, multiple-choice, etc.) into the list to be answered. Written consent should be signed by respondents to notify them and receive their permission to use data collected with the help of surveys and personal data. Survey research can be used in experimental designs (Garson, 2008, p.1).
The experimental strategies used for inquiry should include dependents and independent variables and the relationship between variables (Mcnabb, 2007, p. 212); when one of the independent variables changes, the dependent one changes as well. The sampling methods are not applied to experimental strategies while being applied to survey strategies. The written consent of respondents and their demographic features are not relevant to the experimental strategies unless the experiments involve certain changes in the parameters of the organism as in health care. The quantitative methods are popular in public administration though experiments concern more the attitude and changes that can be attained through changes in the group sample sizes and conditions in which they occur. Reliability and validity are integral components in research because invalid data cannot be used in practice with the same or at least similar results as in the research. The theory should be supported with practical application of findings.
Abbreviated Research Plan
Introduction
The relationships between different organizations can be built on various bases including mere cooperation or direct partnership when the organizational behavior of one company may influence the organizational culture of another. In this respect, it is necessary to trace the tendencies in the violations of organizational rules and policies to prevent violation of mutually adopted organizational rules when two organizations cooperate in the areas related to public administration.
Purpose Statement
The ability of organizations to cooperate without violation of each other’s organizational policies is very important, especially for the areas where people provide services and promote policies and regulations and where no conflicts should arise due to the expected high level of organizational culture in such companies.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research should be conducted to investigate the organizational culture in different fields related to public administration and companies that work directly with this sector. In this respect, it is necessary to analyze the organizational culture in two parties concerned (using examples of the effective and ineffective cooperation of organizations in this sector) and explore how the two organizations can influence each other’s organizational behavior in case it was strong/weak, violated/non-violated, and other aspects. The research hypothesizes that a company with strong organizational behavior regardless of the fact whether it is positive or negative is sure to influence another company’s organizational behavior in terms of adoption of the same rules, regulations, and behavioral principles.
Research on Organizational Culture
The importance of the organizational behavior in the company is great because it influences the way the organization operates in terms of partnership, cooperation, and other types of activities that include other companies that either operate in the same sector or can be impacted by the operation of the organization. In this respect, a company with stronger organizational values that can be reinforced through “leadership, selection, and socialization” (Pfister, 2009, p 156) is sure to impact the company with weak organizational values. Analyzing the cases when the rules were violated and collecting data with the help of surveys concerning the employees’ ideas about the reasons of violation and the overall attitude toward the organizational culture including the set of policies, bonus/punishment strategies, and other aspects.
Schein (2010) claims that there are assumptions concerning the behavior of individuals and possible explanations of different patterns of behavior; as such: “People work best when they are given clear rules to cover all situations… and (2) people like immediate feedback and will not obey rules unless rule violation is immediately punished” (p. 322). In other words, it is possible to combine the interviews with observations and standard surveys as suggested by Creswell (2003, p. 15). The variables to be investigated in this case include the number of employees in each organization, the period when the organizational policy was operating and frequency of changes in organizational policy under the influence of employees’ opinions. Besides, it is necessary to investigate the relation of the similarities and differences in organizational polices of the companies to be reviewed with regard to the level of satisfaction expected from employees that can be collected with the help of open-ended interviews bearing in mind possible threats to internal validity enumerated in the study by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002).
References
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pfister, J. (2009). Managing organizational culture for effective internal control: From practice to theory. New York: Springer.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin.
Cox, R. W. (2009). Ethics and integrity in public administration: concepts and cases. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Garson, D, G. Research Designs: Statnotes, from North Carolina State University, Public Administration Program. (2008). Web.
Mcnabb, D. E. (2007). Research methods in public administration and NONP: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
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.