Rules and regulations are the key elements that make the public understand an organization. The public administrators should therefore follow the rule to ensure such laws are upheld. However, some public administrators see it as they can break these rules at the street level to do what they believe is right (Fleming, 2019). This kind of behavior is therefore known as pro-social rule-breaking. Through study, it is established that the behavior can be triggered due to peers, bureaucratic attributes, and influence from the leaders. This paper, therefore, discusses pro-social rule-breaking, when it is ethical for public administrators to dissent, and some of the problems it might cause.
Pro-social rule-breaking is when an employee goes against the company’s rules and regulations to promote the organization. An example of such an act is voluntary work, yet the company has the directive to exit a working area once your job is done. Another example is donating money to needy kids, while the company’s rule only allows food donations. Such behaviors can therefore be influenced by workplace perceptions, counterproductive behaviors, and contextual performance ratings (Fleming, 2019). The most common type of pro-social behavior is provoked by altruism, which considers the need to help another out of empathy. It is, therefore, ethically suitable for a public administrator to offer help in scenarios whereby one is hungry. An individual cannot help themselves do a task due to old age and even in voluntary activities since it shows that the administrators have a passion for community building. Such scenarios, therefore, define humanity and should be rewarded in society. Dissenting should not be viewed as going against the bosses but as a trigger to do good within the community.
However, such ethical dissent has a fair share of associated problems that significantly affect public administrators’ roles and performance. Primarily, it exposes the vulnerabilities of the officials, making them an easy target for offenders. This can lead to an upward spiral in crime and violence. Over time, such administrators lose sight of themselves because other people become the center of attention (Fleming, 2019). Additionally, such ethical dissent creates a conflict of interest between the public administrator’s beliefs and the laws and regulations they must uphold. This may result in them providing subpar service. For example, a judge can be lenient to a husband rushing his wife into labor since the judge has been in a similar circumstance. Applying empathy in this situation puts other drivers at risk, yet the judge’s leniency demonstrates their concern for the infant.
In conclusion, when a public worker goes against the rules and regulations they are sworn to protect to do good, society should take it positively since it is an informed choice. The informed choice shows the public a good direction; hence the administrators should be appreciated when they do right. This is because comfort is shared when a public administrator helps another individual achieve their goals. This can be done by engaging individuals in helpful activities, improving their empathy skills, and nudging them towards pro-social choices. Pro-social skills are, therefore, beneficial when they are used to doing right and should be nurtured in individuals to create a healthy society. However, it should be considered that an individual can take advantage of a pro-social administrator and exploit them. A public administrator can also develop a conflict of interest, which can cause issues in the workplace.
Statesmanship is a vital concept of the public administration discipline that concerns political virtue and compassion. Ruderman (2012, p. 89) characterized it as the “art of moderation” that can lead society to a better future. Many experts emphasized statesmanship as a primary quality of exceptional politicians who can find the appropriate balance between innovation, preservation, and public sentiment (Baldwin, 2012; Ruderman, 2012). The current paper applies the primary concepts of statesmanship to a specific case study in public administration in Denmark.
Article Overview
Namely, the examined article concerns the digitalization of the public administration sector in Denmark and its effect on creating enduring value. Scupola and Mergel (2022) thoroughly analyzed the implementation of innovative solutions and governmental policies in the public sector, determining the direct relationship between the eventual result and co-production among the central, local, and regional governments. They found that five primary aspects, such as co-design, co-assessment, co-delivery, co-management, and co-planning, significantly enhanced communication and improved the outcomes of public policies and digitalization efforts (Scupola & Mergel, 2022). The authors applied a qualitative research methodology and a case study design to accurately reflect the perspectives of vital stakeholders on the digitalization process in the public administration sector (Scupola & Mergel, 2022). Ultimately, the authors concluded that collaboration on the national and local levels was immensely effective in advancing the relationship between the government and the public.
Connection to the Concepts
The overarching goal of the digitalization process described in the case study was to improve the communication among the vital stakeholders, directly connecting politicians and citizens. This initiative transparently reflects the primary principles of American statesmanship and the biblical-covenantal perspective on public administration (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017; Fischer, 2010). Particularly, the concept of a covenant refers to a “morally informed agreement among various parties to ratify and establish a long-term, mutually-affirming relationship” (Fischer, 2010, p. 8). According to the current case study, it was the primary reason for initiating the collaborative digitalization process (Scupola & Mergel, 2022). Moreover, the authors emphasized that the increased speed of the governmental response was one of the outcomes. As mentioned by Burns (2018, p. 62) in his analysis of Taft’s statesmanship, one of the primary criticisms of the judicial system was being “slow and expensive.” The goal of the examined policy was aimed precisely to mitigate this drawback, which is another reference to the fundamentals of public administration. Ultimately, the analyzed digitalization process is a direct continuation of American statesmanship.
Conclusion
The current paper has applied the concepts of statesmanship and the biblical-covenantal perspective to the specific case study of public administration digitalization. Although the described process occurred in Denmark, the underlying motivation behind the decision directly related to the principles of American statesmanship. Ultimately, the goal of public administration is to ensure effective communication between the government and citizens, quickly reacting to any emerging problems, and the examined case study transparently demonstrated the application of the fundamental concepts to improve the public administration sector in Denmark.
References
Baldwin, C. (2012). Franklin’s classical American statesmanship. Perspectives on Political Science, 41, 67-74.
Burns, K. J. (2018). Chief justice as chief executive: Taft’s judicial statesmanship. Journal of Supreme Court History, 43(1), 47-68.
Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior and leadership. Faculty Publications and Presentations, 523.
Ruderman, R. (2012). Statesmanship reconsidered. Perspectives on Political Science, 41, 86-89.
Scupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2020). Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1).
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Classics of public administration (8th edition). Cengage Learning.
This paper is aimed at a holistic and comprehensive analysis of the U.S. researched public administration case study by Tarlton et al. within the framework of moral, ethical, philosophical, worldview, and managerial aspects. Thus, primarily from the point of view of moral influences, it should be emphasized that this work clearly expresses an appeal to justice, honesty, and unity as one of the critical components of the modern practice of American public administration (Tarlton et al., 2020). Christian dogmas and currents seem to run like a red thread through the judgments and decisions of leaders, who, in most cases, “plays hard and plays to win” to acquire certain benefits but simultaneously avoid conflicts (Huckabee, 4:30). Nevertheless, in this case, everyone deserves an objective attitude toward their person, qualities, and abilities, regardless of race, skin color, nation, gender, age, and other characteristics.
Discussion
Accordingly, philosophical influences and trends in the case study are in close contact with ethical elements. Hence, social equity is expressed as “the fair, just, and equitable management of all institutions” (Tarlton et al., 2020). According to the authors, the origins of inequality in the XXI century have long-standing roots arising from natural differences in virtue (Tarlton et al., 2020). Therefore, some remnants of the past, which can be seen in the example of the relationship between the police and some representatives of the American public along the “color line,” require eradication (Tarlton et al., 2020). Hence, according to philosophical influences, justice should be a criterion that every law must meet to be genuinely fair and, therefore, valid and authoritative.
Finally, it is important to emphasize the influences of worldview and ideological attitudes on the decision-making of public administration on justice and equality. It is no secret that everyone has their own worldview, looking at some phenomena from a certain angle and finding a specific meaning in them (Fischer, 2010). For example, personal experience, environment, and cultural aspects allowed American leaders in 1968 during the Minnowbrook Conference to put forward justice and social equity as the crucial values of American public administration (Tarlton et al., 2020). The human worldview is closely connected with historical moments. Thus, modern approaches to governance require integrating new and relevant strategies to eliminate inequality.
Challenges
It is essential to note that social inequity, in particular, challenges the ethical values and moral code of residents of the United States and the entire planet from the point of view of discrimination and infringement of human dignity, rights, and opportunities. Thus, for example, the low socio-economic status of an individual often determines the unsatisfactory quality of medical services provided and, as a result, increases the risks of harmful consequences to population health (Haverkamp et al., 2018). In general, relying on ethical phenomena, the social polarization of American society has far-reaching implications. Hence, sometimes it entails the precarization, marginalization of certain social groups, criminalization of values and behavior, and political passivity or destructiveness of part of the country’s population.
Moreover, to some extent, social inequality is an obstacle and a problem on the way to statesmanship and wise and balanced leadership decisions. In particular, striving for wisdom concerning the modern state arises during a period of restrictions and crisis (Overeem & Bakker, 2019). Therefore, with the development and accumulation of problems in the field of social inequality, political leaders each time have to consider the situation and implement more improving strategies affecting forces, time, and resources.
Conclusion
Furthermore, problems and issues in the field of equality and unity pose increasingly challenging and complex tasks for the governance of public administrators. Social injustice can undermine the foundations of citizens’ lives and their trust in the courts or the police (Lee, 2021). In general, the problem is fundamental to functioning a wide range of government processes and can change them both for the worse and the better.
References
Fischer, K. (2010). A Biblical-Covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. Liberty University.
Huckabee, M. (2019). Huckabee – November 16, 2019 [Video]. TBN. Web.
Tarlton, E., Harper, R., Blessett, B., Williams, B. N., & Carter, J. (2020). Addressing social inequity: A case study of success. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 27(1), 87. Web.
The definition of public administration assumes several dimensions. The most common relates to the study of public entities and the relationship that exists among such entities and the world at a larger extent. It is, therefore, easier to explain the concepts related to public administration than attempt to offer a conclusive definition.
The manner in which organizations in the public sector are managed and organized, especially in reference to the guidance offered by public policy structures, which in turn influence government operations is the backbone of public administration.
It is worth noting that such government operations determine the extent of success of the plans put in place to meet the needs of the public.
Public administration also determines the extent in which states, towns and counties work in conjunction with the central and federal government in an effort to meet the needs of the public. Public administration as an educational discipline involves the training personnel who in turn offer crucial services to the general populace.
Street-level bureaucracy refer to activities carried out by public service entities whose constituents are street-level bureaucrats, such persons have distinct characteristics such as assuming front line position in carrying out activities.
This term also incorporates public servants who experience challenges in the real world, especially in the delivery of service. This is attributed to the existence of limited resources necessary for countering such challenges. Examples of street-level bureaucrats include Doctors, lawyers, clerks, teachers and healthcare workers.
Street-level bureaucrats make policies through conformation to set out guidelines and procedures such as taking responsibility on the direction to be taken in executing existing policies. In the process new policies are formulated to cover up for the existent gaps.
Street-level bureaucrats also make policies through screening recipients of public service thus changing the criteria for selecting persons thus eventually deciding who can be a client or not.
Street-level bureaucrats also decide the areas in the society where resources will be directed, especially in regard to the level of need, this eventually brings forth the need for policymaking. The above-mentioned activities can be achieved through maintaining discretion, interpretive ability and high degree of authority.
Rational comprehensive approach to decision making involves careful analysis of all the possible solutions or methodologies required to achieve a definite end result. It is necessary to appreciate the usefulness of clarifying values as it helps in identifying the most effective and efficient manner in achieving the stipulated end results.
This type of decision making is founded on the assumption that an individual possesses all the relevant information required to make informed choices.
Incremental decision making differs from rational comprehensive approach to decision making in that it is a progressive form of decision making that develops slowly from the initial steps with the aim of building consensus and incorporating all possible and suitable options critical to achieving end results.
It takes a considerably long period of time and involves people with the sole objective of producing results through concerted efforts. In short rational comprehensive model involves acquisition of information, a factor that brings clarity in thoughts actions, goals and selection criteria.
This process creates several options critical for decision making to take root. These issues are absent in incremental model which is seen as muddling through thus absence of vision.
Charity is an activity that aims at relieving the suffering that is experienced by people with the sole purpose of making such persons comfortable on a temporary basis. Philanthropy, on the other hand, aims at solving the root cause of such problems with the aim of creating irreversible change among individuals.
The foundation of philanthropy is innovation and empowering persons to take charge of their destiny with the sole purpose of meeting the deficiency in needs of the general population, resources given out as a result of philanthropy is directed towards social investment.
Resources given out as a result of charity can be best illustrated when a well off person or company dips into his pocket and provides money to mitigate an impending distortion of how life ought to be.
An illustration is the corporate social responsibilities taken up by AIG insurance that aim at empowering people especially young entrepreneurs in developing countries, this can be termed as philanthropy.
The same company gave out a considerable amount of money to victims of disasters, especially in Asia in a bid to reduce their suffering, this point to charity.
Picket fence federalism is a term used to refer to the application of policies and guidelines at all levels of government with the aim of achieving specific goals and objectives. It is necessary to point out that such policies in a number instance refer to education, health, infrastructure, urban development and eradication of unemployment.
An example of application of picket fence federalism is in Fresno County, especially in the enactment of preschool education strategies for the purpose of enrolling a majority of the children in the county into schools.
This procedure is made possible by policies and rules put forth at both higher and lower levels of government. This is then replicated in the whole of central valley and California at large.
Government as a Catalyst: The Thompson-Perry Argument
Support or contradict?
According to the Thompson-Perry argument, collaboration involves interactive co-operation between two or more bodies with mutual interests (Stillman, 2009). The two groups are not always in the same domain or share similar interests, but they come together in a collaborative effort and combine their resources to achieve a common goal.
The case study ‘Government as a Catalyst’ ultimately supports the Thompson-Perry argument. Although it may not be a perfect model of the Thompson-Perry argument, it contains three key elements that make it remarkably similar.
First, it involves a collaborative effort between several stakeholders that have similar interests. Secondly, the stakeholders involved are all interested in making the situation a win-win situation for all of them. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it follows Thompson and Perry’s process framework.
The Philadelphia Municipal Wireless Network (MWN) is a perfect example of the initiative that involves ‘collaborative public management’ with the interest of the public, private sector and the economy as a whole to benefit. It requires co-operation of the public sector and the private sector, as well as the citizens, for it to succeed. With a MWN in the city, Philadelphia’s socio-economic potential was broadened.
As a result, the local economy was improved, there is an increased communication at a cheaper price, and businesses benefir from a boost in the internet connectivity. Today, most businesses and individuals are significantly dependent on the internet.
Finally, the Philadelphia MWN initiative follows the three key steps of the collaboration process: negotiation, commitment and implementation.
The Collaboration Process
Thompson and Perry maintain that collaboration is a process-oriented phenomenon involving negotiation, commitment and implementation (Stillman, 2009). This cyclic process is supported by the Game Theory. As research has shown for several times, during a period of a socio-economic dilemma, individuals are more likely to invest in ways that will change the system itself in order to promote joint outcomes.
Although a definite definition of collaboration does not exist, there are certain elements that all definitions must have. First, the collaboration process involves a number of stakeholders brought together by common interests with the aim of benefitting mutually.
Secondly, collaboration becomes possible when the stakeholders create rules and structures that govern their relationship. Finally, the stakeholders interact through a series of formal and informal negotiations.
The process’ three key phases are all interrelated cyclically, and they are assessed by all stakeholders based on reciprocity. Negotiation is usually the first step in the collaboration process. During negotiation, different stakeholders interact with one another via formal bargains and informal sense-making.
Once formal and informal relationships are formed and certain terms areagreed upon, the process moves to the commitment phase. During this phase, the stakeholders commit to the future of their relationship via formal contracts, the ability to solve free-rider problems and psychological contracts.
Finally, the actions agreed upon are implemented. During this stage, an organized effort is put up by different parties to carry out the required actions. Implementation involves a high level of personal interactions and co-operation from different organizations.
A Different Model?
The ‘Government as a Catalyst’ case has all the classic elements of the Thompson-Perry argument. The entire project has the three distinct steps of their argument, i.e. the negotiation, commitment and implementation stages (Stillman, 2009).
At the initial phase of the process, the Philadelphia Wireless released a statement stating that they aimed to provide wireless internet connectivity throughout the city. The main purpose for this was to provide basic digital infrastructure for schools, businesses, community organizations and citizens (the stakeholders).
All these stakeholders would benefit from the availability of this technology to achieve different goals. As the negotiation process goes, this first step was vital in planting the seed of interest into the minds of these stakeholders.
Philadelphia Wireless then got these stakeholders to commit to the process by negotiating with them and explaining their intentions. They also took into consideration the role that would be played by all stakeholders in the process.
They realized that the government, for example, was not interested in providing wireless internet, but was willing to give the private sector the necessary support it needed to make the project’s implementation possible. Once all stakeholders were on board, Philadelphia Wireless, a creation of the city, was given a green light to roll out the project. It is clear, therefore, that the process was a detailed model of the Thompson-Perry model.
Public Accountability and Public Acceptability
Meaning of terms
According to Rubin’s text, it is reasonable to deduce that public accountability refers to the obligations that public agencies and enterprises, entrusted with public resources, have towards those that have assigned these responsibilities to them. In this case, the latter refers to the public, since it elects officials to public offices and entrusts them with the responsibility to manage public funds that they remit to the government through tax.
The public officials have a responsibility to ensure the resources allocated to them are utilized to the benefit of the greatest section part of society over the long term. Public acceptability, on the other hand, refers to the degree to which the public agrees to a budget drawn up by the public entity responsible for managing public funds. The public accepts budgets that appear transparent, detailed and allocate the funds responsibly.
Tension caused by Public Accountability and Public Acceptability
The tension is caused by the difference in interests between the two parties. The public always wants, and has the right, to see clearly how their resources are utilized by people to whom they assign this responsibility. They work hard, pay taxes diligently and expect to receive acceptable services from the government through public institutions.
Public institutions are given the responsibility to ensure they provide different services to different members of society. Some of the key services provided by these institutions include national security, social services, and adequate infrastructure.
As expected, different members of society are more concerned with different aspects of their lives. The lower class of America, for example, is more concerned about how much public institutions allocate to healthcare, while the upper class might be more concerned with more abstract issues like national security.
The public institutions are faced with a dilemma, because of the fear of offending one group of people over another. Using the example of America, the lower class will feel more aggravated if public funds are channeled towards funding the war in Iraq while they lack basic needs.
The upper class, however, feel as though public resources should be allocated to ensuring public safety, so that people are able to work hard and ensure they have basic needs.
This dilemma applies insurmountable pressure on the public institutions, which must apply a delicate balancing act to their budgets and ensure all resources are properly budgeted for. As a result, they often end up in not pleasing all sections of society, and the result is a public tension.
Death of the Spy Satellite
The spy satellite is a perfect example of how public accountability and public acceptability can cause substantial tension in public budgeting. In the beginning of the 1990s, the spy satellites that were gathering intelligence for the CIA were getting old and needed improved technology, particularly since global security had worsened in the post-Gulf war era.
The CIA, therefore, decided to launch a number of lightweight satellites that would use radar and optical technology to spy on enemy locations and bring the information back to earth safely and faster than before.
Each new satellite would cost approximately $1 billion to build, which is relatively cheap for a satellite, and about $450 million to launch. CIA’s ultimate goal was to improve national security, which was expects of them by the public.
The budget was opposed, however, by the public – via congress – since it was considered to be too extravagant. At the time (the mid 1990s), the government was searching for means of minimizing costs, reducing public spending and working on a shoestring budget.
Congress argued that the project was not feasible in the long term, given that the plan was to spend approximately $5 billion in five years. The project’s budget was not acceptable to so many fragmented sections of congress, in which case the public most likely felt the same.
Another Example
Currently, the most contentious issue in terms of public-resource spending is the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to many estimates, the United States has spent between three and four trillion dollars. The war has also led to the death of approximately 236,000 people since it began ten years ago.
The primary reason the country entered the war was to eliminate the external threat that terrorists posed to the nation, particularly in the wake of 9/11. When the country entered the war, its budget was not of a primary concern. The government had placed priority on protecting the citizens of America.
However, ten years and nearly four trillion dollars later, the country ponders as to whether it was necessary to keep American troops in Iraq any longer. The US economy is reeling from the effects of the recession, and with rising costs of living, rising unemployment and increasing socio-economic pressure, tension rises as to whether it is still practical to support the war. While public institutions are accountable for the nation’s security, the public is finding it hard to accept the budgetary cost of a war that, it is argued, not helping improve security in the United States.
Helco’s Concept of Issue Networks
Reinventing School Lunch
Helco’s concept on issue networks is unique: he believes that America does not pay as keen attention as they should to issue networks, particularly within the government.
Issue networks, also referred to as ‘iron triangles’ by Helco and other scholars, are small alliances of interest groups who came together to promote single or numerous government policies. Their support of these policies is centered upon a mutual benefit that they receive from this policy in place.
The National School Lunch Program, launched in the United States in 1945, was intended to make sure that all school-going children received at least one meal a day. This was a national drive to lower levels of malnutrition, promote the health of these children and to reduce the burden on these children’s parents.
It was an initiative by the Food Consumer Service (under the US Department of Agriculture), the State Departments of Education and funded partly by the federal government. The children receive milk, a protein source, a carbohydrate source, and fruit or vegetables.
Fast forward to 2011, and obesity is the fastest-growing problem among school children in America today. However, the food rations have remained the same, leading certain lobby groups to campaign against the food these children are fed with.
One argument is that the Department of Agriculture maintains the menu simply to promote farmers within the continent, and the federal government has turned a blind eye to these protests because of the mutual interests of a number of organizations.
However, not many Americans know about or bother to investigate these issues, and the voice of the protestors is nothing but a flicker. This is a perfect illustration of Helco’s concepts on issue networks in the United States.
Public Administration Training
Implications of Helco’s Concept
Three key elements of issue networks affect the training of public administrators. First, Issue networks seeks for what is complex in what would otherwise be easy issues. Members within a policy network realize that policy objectives are mostly vague, and results are difficult to measure. Participants, therefore, juggle these complexities, and demand that all experts within the different fields have the knowledge and ability to juggle these complexities too.
Secondly, Helco’s concept argues that issue networks help to bring consensus among different interest groups. Government policies are usually aimed at ensuring there is a right outcome on an issue. However, the definitions of what is right being not always clear. Iron triangles are usually formed to campaign for what they think is right, and the result is always consensus.
Finally, issue networks tend to go against what most politicians, who end up in being the policy markets, believe in. The norm in politics was to take credit for success, avoid appearing weak and focus on an opponent’s weaknesses. Today, policy networks have placed politicians on the back foot.
Taking credit for matters makes the politician appear to lack knowledge of intricate policies. Spreading blame threatens certain established institutions and may raise expectations in the politician to levels beyond their means. Issue networks have, therefore, created lukewarm policy makers.
Alteration of the Role of Public Administration, Caused by Helco’s Concept
Helco’s view on issue networks does not change the types of jobs and tasks that public administrators perform, but alters the manner in which they are done. It sensitizes them towards formulation and implementation of public policies. Policies must favor as many stakeholders as possible or certain iron triangles are bound to protest against it.
There is only one argument that could be raised regarding the role of issue networks in changing the types of jobs. The argument that public administrators perform is that there are some networks that have been known to influence public administrators. At times, the pressure applied by these external interest groups is positive, while, at times, they serve the selfish interest of these groups.
Alteration to My Thinking
As a public administrator, there are two ways that Helco’s concept has changed my view towards being a public administrator. First, it has made me aware that the American public pays less attention to issue networks than they ought to. This means that it is easy for a small iron triangle to influence how public policies are made and implemented.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, issue networks could promote fair policy making by promoting consensus among policy makers. They ensure that when a public decision is made, different stakeholders within society get a fair ruling.
Although this may create vague policies, at least the interests of the majority are served in the long run. Not all members of society can be pleased, but democracy dictates that at least a large majority of the public should benefit from decisions made by public officers.
Friedrich’s and Finer’s Central Ideas
Case study: Torture
In his text, Friedrich’s central idea is that administrative responsibility is at a much wider scope at the moment, and it is no longer simply a responsibility for executing formulated policies (Stillman, 2009). In essence, he means that when a policy has been formulated, it does not mean that those charged with administering it are only responsible to themselves, but they are responsible to other parties as well.
They have a responsibility to ensure that the interests of the majority are met in a fair and legal manner. However, an unfair action has to be carried out for the benefit of the greater effect then the action could be justified.
Finer shares a similar principle. He argues that public servants are responsible to the elected representatives of the public. These representatives have the right to determine the cause of action of all these public servants to the smallest degree feasible. This is one of the core values of democracy.
Torture has often been justified as a necessary evil, required to extract information or achieve results for the benefit of the majority. Friedrich’s argues that the administration has the greatest responsibility to the majority. When all else fails, torture may be justified as a means to an end.
Finer’s sentiment lies along the same line. However, he specifies that decisions such as these have to be passed through a hierarchical judicial system for approval. The actions of a person are accountable to a number of other people.
Abu Gharib
The central argument in the torture case is that it is justified to torture a prisoner of war if certain conditions are met. A scenario is given, where there is a ticking time bomb, and a prisoner has been captured and is believed to have some information about his bomb.
The only condition that would warrant torture is if the suspect knew the location of the ticking bomb, and if he was aware of the planned attack. In addition, all other means of obtaining information have to be exhausted before torture is resorted to.
Public administrators, in this case the federal government and the prison services, had the responsibility to ensure that a majority of the citizens are secure, according to Friedrich. In the Abu Gharib case, torture would only be justifiable if there was a ‘ticking time bomb’ that the government was aware of.
Democracy is based on fundamentals like these. This, unfortunately, was not the case, since these prisoners were arrested at random with insufficient evidence of terrorist activity.
Finer argues that there must be an external agency that has authority over a person or an entity. It is vital that an administrative structure exist (Stillman, 2009). Without an oversight body, it is easy to have prisoners tortured and treated unfairly in the hands of their captors. If, however, the hierarchical judicial system comes to the decision that torture has to be used to obtain certain crucial information, then it is justifiable.
Friedrich argues that government officials should have a little room to work with the mentality that prevails in prisons like Abu Gharib, where the responsibility to protect the innocent in America gives soldiers and security personnel a little justification to ‘do whatever is necessary’ to obtain information.
Securing public interest
One of the best ways to secure public interest is to involve them into the decision making process. Through their elected representatives, every scenario, decision and matter that will not bring the majority of the population to harm must be passed to the public for scrutiny.
Although it makes the process longer and complicated, it eliminates the danger of a public office that is not adequately monitored and evaluated. Since public office bearers have a responsibility to the citizens, they should avail information that will not harm national security in any way to the hands of the public.
Finer’s arguments also support the notion that leaving public institutions in the hands of a few individuals, without creating a link between these institutions and the public, there is bound to be potential for evil. The government sets up various controls measures that individuals and groups must abide to. Without these regulatory measures, the interest of a few will be exalted above the interests of the public.
Friedrich, however, gives a slightly different view to the statement above. He argues that government officials ought to be given more room to maneuver, or as he puts it, some space for the ‘inner cheek’. A public official ought to be given some latitude to work in an environment that would be mutually beneficial to the majority.
Friedrich’s argument carries some weight, particularity when one considers the amount of a pressure public worker works under. It is difficult enough to have a tough working environment, and adding the pressure expecting perfection and braying for blood at the slightest mishap is unrealistic. Giving public administrators some space to maneuver allows them the luxury to find the best way of carrying out their duties.
Dwight Waldo
Ethical Behavior in the Public Office
One of the most crucial lessons by Waldo was that public office bearers had obligations to different stakeholders. They were obligated to the constitution, law, nation, democracy, family, friends, humanity, God/religion, rules and the profession.
These elements are part of the twelve obligations of a public office holder. They bind the public servant, and act as guideposts upon which his career may flourish and most importantly, fulfill his duty.
Waldo also teaches the concept of ethical mapping. This is a guidepost upon which one bases his moral standards when making an ethical decision in the work place. The public service sphere is a world full of discordant values that often lead a worker to a the wrong way and makes him unsure of where to make a stand.
Ethical mapping, as described by Waldo, is a way of finding ‘where we are’. This helps public servants find a way of proceeding with their professional lives in the work place. The twelve obligations, discussed above, are the main guideposts used when making an ethical map.
In addition, Waldo helped to contextualize the idea of public administration in a world where it did not exist at the time. Instead on basing their decision on basic principles, public servants ought to rely on contingent intentions and value pluralism.
By basing their decisions only on facts, public figures are less likely to take into account the needs of the community around them. Basing decisions on values, on the other hand, enhances an individual’s sense of obligation towards the community that he serves.
Compare and Contrast
The case study ‘George Tenet and the Last Great Days of the CIA’ describes a small restaurant in Virginia where CIA officers were frequent visitors. Apart from its famous beer-soaked chilly dogs, the restaurant was also known for one unique feature: the officers were never given bills by the waitresses.
Before leaving, the customers would go to the owner of the restaurant, tell how much they had eaten and paid for their meal before they left. This example is used to illustrate how Waldo’s theory of ethical mapping and obligations towards, among other things, humanity, could be applied to help improve honor and honesty within a community.
On the flip side of the coin, the case ‘The Blast in Centralia No.5’ describes how 111 miners died after an explosion rocked a small town in Illinois. The mine within which the explosion took place belonged to Centralia Coal Co. The government had the responsibility to ensure that all mines were inspected for worker safety.
The deaths were caused by ignited explosives that were fired in a non-permissible and dangerous manner. An investigation later revealed that the possible causes of fire were the shot firers and their open fires. The manager of the mine was later charged with failing to safeguard the mine.
These two stories show contradicting sides to Waldo’s lessons on public administration and ethics. As it has been discussed already, the CIA officers felt an obligation to the café to pay for their orders. The mine’s administrators, on the other hand, were not interested in ensuring the mine remained safe for its workers.
The government also felt no sense of obligation towards the nation and its citizens by failing to close down the mine after inspecting it and finding it did not meet the required safety standards. If the management of the mine and the officers responsible for inspecting it were able to follow the ethical sense of doing their business rather than being driven by business principle, the accident might have been prevented.
Important Lessons for Practicing Public Administrators
There are three main lessons that public administrators are able to take away from the contrasting stories above. First, the main aim of a public administrator’s job is to ensure that their work is for the benefit of the majority in society.
They are meant to be guided by their personal values and not by the systems and its values. Using Waldo’s obligations as guideposts, they should develop the ability to make decisions and carry out their duties based on their personal values. Using an ethical map is a convenient way to get started. Ethical maps help public administrators to know where they stand ethically.
Secondly, public administrators need to know what is at stake when they carry out their work. Taking the example of the mine explosion, if the public administrator responsible for inspecting the mine had conducted a thorough job, 111 lives would not have been lost that day.
There are certain public administrators that work in highly sensitive public sectors, where small mistakes could put the lives of other people at risk. Such sectors include food, health, sanitation and medicine.
Finally, the CIA story may paint a rosy picture of how public administrators ought to work in the public domain. However, attaining such a high level of discipline and dedication is not a simple task. First of all, as described beforehand, the public domain is not as tightly knotted as the CIA.
These are highly-trained individuals who undergo rigorous training to ensure they are completely ready to take on the sensitive nature of their work. However, public administrators should borrow a leaf on how to maintain the rigorous discipline and stick to principles no matter how difficult the working environment is.
Reference
Stillman, Richard. (2009). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases 9th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Public administration is concerned with the implementation of government policies and management of the behavior of non-elected officials before they are inaugurated to work in the public service. People who are willing to join the public administration personnel should be competent and well informed. They are required to maintain a high degree of devotion and adherence to the rule of law by setting a good example to the citizens since they bear the responsibility of implementing government policies.
The development of effective pubic administration personnel is paramount to the success of organizations that operate in the public sector. This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of four key components that include employee rights and responsibilities, democracy and bureaucracy, constitutional competence, and ethical competence, which are essential for public administrators.
Employee Rights and Responsibilities
Effective public administration personnel should have diverse knowledge concerning the rights of the labor force. At the outset, employees have a right to a workplace environment that is free from any form of discrimination, harassment, and/or abuse. According to Farazmand (2007), employees should not be discriminated based on personal characteristics such as color, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender, and/or disability, among others.
Employees are also entitled to equal employment and promotion opportunities in organizations. This right entitles all employees to enjoy various benefits in the organization equitably. Hiring and placement practices should provide equal grounds for employment to qualified candidates regardless of their race, beliefs, age, and gender, among other factors (Farazmand, 2007).
Furthermore, employees have the right to fair and correct payments. In that manner, they ought to know the terms and conditions concerning salary, allowances, pension recompenses, bonuses, payments for extra work, and performance rewards, among others. Moreover, they should be allowed to discuss their pays with colleagues to identify any differences (Farazmand, 2007). Public administration workers also have a right to correct types of annual, personal, and public holidays among others.
They are entitled to pay off on public or annual holidays. Besides, the employees in the public service have a right to dress and act in ways that adhere to their respective religions. Most importantly, they have a right to work in a safe and healthy environment. This circumstance entitles them to the fair benefits, free safety equipment, proper control of health risks, stopping and leaving work for safety if reasonable risk concerns arise, and rest breaks during working days. Employees should also be free to tell their employers about various health and safety concerns (Klinger, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010).
The United Nations Global Combat (UNGC) stipulates ten principles for human rights protection in businesses. The principles are based on labor standards, environment, human rights, and anti-corruption. The central role of the stipulated guidelines is to ensure that business corporations adhere to the protection of human rights during their operations. They agitate for fair employee treatment, workplaces that are free from discrimination and abuses, elimination of forced labor, and supporting and respecting internally proclaimed human rights (Arnold, 2010).
Responsibilities
Employees are charged with a number of responsibilities in the course of work. Their roles include arriving on time and ready to work, wearing the appropriate uniform or style of dress, and carrying out their jobs to the best of their abilities, among others.
Health and Safety Responsibilities
Employees are entitled to a number of occupational health and safety responsibilities. The foremost health and safety responsibility entails taking reasonable care of their wellbeing. Other key responsibilities include protecting other employees by avoiding activities that can pose them to risks in the course of duty. This state of play is also ensure through the proper use of facilities provided for their health safety and welfare, reporting any injuries or unsafe situations in the workplace, and co-operating with the employer to ensure proper training and understanding of the Company’s Health and Safety Policies.
Other responsibilities include adhering to occupational health and safety policies such as lifting items correctly, cleaning up pills, and using equipment such as the protective gear, among others, for the right job. They should also be familiar with their employers’ fire escape and evacuation plans. Employee rights and responsibilities are essential in promoting a healthy workplace environment that underpins successful work outputs. Employee rights guarantee them protection in their course of pubic duties. The responsibilities are driving factors for work as well as guiding principles for ensuring a safe and healthy workplace environment.
Bureaucracy and Democracy
Bureaucracy and democracy are both termed as approaches to providing governance to the society. Bureaucracy can be analyzed from two different perspectives in its applicability in public administration (Peters, 2010). Organizational bureaucracy refers to the rules, regulations, and procedures that must be followed by an organization. Bureaucracy is highly prevalent in public organizations in comparison to private ones.
It is a formal and rational organization of rules, routines, and regulations in an institutional environment. Bureaucratic organizations are governed by the administrative rules, regulations, and procedures that limit the authority of administrators. Any civil service action taken by the bureaucratic administration is legitimate, provided it falls within the limits of the rules governing the organization (Peters, 2010).
In public administration, bureaucracy is viewed as hierarchical and authoritarian (Ionescu, 2011). Organizational rules, regulations, and procedures can be good or bad depending on the way employees perceive them. They are good when employees regard them as satisfactory and consistent. In this case, employees can be either satisfied or dissatisfied with red tape in an organization. For instance, if the rules and regulations imposed by collective bargaining limit the ability of managers to make personal decisions, employees can feel satisfied due to reduced feelings of alienation and exploitation (Ionescu, 2011).
The workers feel satisfied with work because of the favorable rules and regulations. However, employees are dissatisfied with excessive bureaucracy when the imposed rules and routines are exploitative (Peters, 2010). According to Ionescu (2011), bureaucratic quality strengthens corporate development. It is essential for corporate growth in operating competitive environment. Bureaucratic quality also serves as an institutional security for shareholders (Ionescu, 2011).
According to Ionescu (2011), democracy is a governing system in which all the people are involved in decision-making. Supreme power is vested in the people involved in the system who control by electing the representatives of the organization. With democracy, all stakeholders have an active role in determination of the public leadership positions. Organizations are significantly affected by politics and civic life (Ionescu, 2011). Effective democracy is essential for the effective functioning of bureaucracy. In addition, the values of bureaucracy can also be effective for democracy. Therefore, bureaucracy and democracy are deemed complimentary practices (Ionescu, 2011).
Ethical Competence
Competence refers the performance of responsibilities to the required standard based on particular qualifications. This situation implies that an individual must have the required skills and capabilities to conduct duties satisfactorily. However, qualifications do not guarantee work proficiency. Other aspects such as personality, attitudes, and values among others also determine competency (Menzel & Cooper, 2013).
Ethical competence is a learned capability that results from harmonious relationships with the society based on ethical intelligence. Ethical competence builds on emotional competence that relates to with the way people handle themselves and their relationships with others. It can be viewed from three dimensions that include personal, social, and global competence (Menzel & Cooper, 2013). Each dimension is further divided into other components; hence, it is not possible to measure it, but it can be noticed in individuals (Menzel & Cooper, 2013).
Menzel and Cooper (2013) posit that ethical competence is an essential component of public administrators that helps them influence citizens. It is effective for creating a harmonious and peaceful co-existence in the society. Public administrators are policy implementers dealing and interacting with the citizens. Therefore, they should communicate the policies effectively, handle conflicts amicably, and ensure unity of the society, employees, and organizations. However, politically influential coercion does not bring peace and harmony to the society (Menzel & Cooper, 2013).
Constitutional Competence and the Role of the Government in TQM
According to Hahn-Lorber (2010), constitutional competences are stipulated in a statutory setting. Public administration in America is governed by the rule of law and government decisions. Constitutional competence for public administrators is important for promoting general knowledge amongst the members of the civil society. It is also stipulated that the lack of knowledge is not an excuse for infringing the rights of civilians. Therefore, public administrators should be aware of the fundamental rights of citizens that are stipulated in the rule of law (Hahn-Lorber, 2010).
The role of the government in total quality management (TQM) cannot be undermined in public administration. According to Hahn-Lorber (2010), public administrators can face criminal charges due to neglect of their professional responsibilities of protecting citizens. Public administrators take an oath of office that connects them to the government. By taking an oath of office, public administrators make a moral commitment to the constitutional processes that are expressed through their loyalty in administering the roles of government institutions.
It also implies that public administrators will be committed to their responsibilities by being answerable to their personal or official breach of constitutional laws in the course of work (Hahn-Lorber, 2010). Public administrators should be competent individuals who can solve conflicts and tensions professionally. They should integrate the stipulated constitutional laws into their work. Furthermore, they should be creative to resolve issues that arise amicably within the limits of the rule of law (Hahn-Lorber, 2010).
Conclusion
The essay has examined various factors that should be embraced to develop effective public administration personnel. Public administrators are individuals who should demonstrate a high-level of leadership skills. They should be aware of the constitutional laws governing their professional duties, rights, and responsibilities of employees. Public managers should portray high integrity and professional competence. They should set a good example to the people they are leading.
Moreover, they should be well informed and aware of the underlying constitutional laws and regulations for their job. They should also exercise a high degree of job performance inaugurating both ethical and constitutional competencies. The above values are binding factors of a holistic and competent administrative leader.
Reference List
Arnold, D. (2010). Transnational Corporations and the Duty to Respect Basic Human Rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 371-399.
Farazmand, A. (2007). Strategic public personnel administration: building and managing capital for the 21st Century. Bloomberg, LP: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hahn-Lorber, M. (2010). Are There Methods of Reasoning on ‘Meta-Legislation’? The Interpretation of Legislative Competence Norms within the Methodology of European Constitutional Law Methods of Reasoning on ‘Meta-Legislation’ European Law Journal, 16(6), 760-779.
Ionescu, L. (2011). Does Bureaucracy Work In The Public Interest? Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 6(4), 144-149.
Klinger, D., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2010). Public Personnel Management: contexts and strategies. New York, NY: Longman.
Peters, B. (2010). Bureaucracy and Democracy. Public Organization Review, 10(3), 209-222.
Almost all governments of the world, regardless of their nature, have one common feature – that of public administration. Public administration constitutes a process or responsibility of determining policies and programs of the various governments. As a special system linked to governance, public administration is involved in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling numerous government functions.
In its operation, public administration functions may be practiced at the central, intermediate, and local levels of government and as a result of existence of relationships between various levels of government, public administration is compounded with numerous problems.
In most cases, public administration is carried out in a more unstable environment and factors such as politics, changing power relationships, economic swings and volatile social issues affect the field in varied ways. In broad sense, public administration can be thought as the process or activity of organization and management of people and resources in order to accomplish the objectives of government.
The bulk of this paper will dwell on case analysis where issues with regard to public administration will be analyzed in the perspectives of theories and principles of public administration.
Case Analysis
A lot of literature view public administration to largely involve coordination of individual and group efforts in order to carry out a particular public policy.
As one of its characteristics, public administration reflects or is occupied with the daily work of governments, utilizing group effort in public setting and further public administration assumes a vital role in formulating of public policy, thus constitute part of the political process (Ginandjar and Deddy, 2006).
Characterization of public administration does not stop here, for instance, other writers have described public administration to be largely concerned with how political elites and rulers in government together with non-political public sector administrators device policy, sustain the machinery of government in an effort to make sure various policies are put into practice and succeed (Ginandjar and Deddy, 2006).
Moreover, public administration does not function or operate in independence, but rather it is intertwined into other fields of politics, law, business, economics and many more.
Origin of public administration can be traced to the midst to buttress the field with knowledge, which could help the government respond to the various social needs that were brought about by processes of democratization, urbanization, industrialization, population growth and globalization (Raadschelders, 2003).
The response of public administration to the various social needs of the government has been effective, but what emerges from analysis of the concept of public administration is that choice of particular public policy is usually political, which is further enhanced and served by administrative structures and processes in implementation of the policy.
Study and analysis of public administration encompasses numerous issues such as organizational structure, policy and decision-making styles, the management of human and financial resources and so on (Raadschelders, 2003).
Case Study: Summary and analysis
The presented case is about a dialogue of three senior committee members: committee chair, the assistant secretary, and the bureau chief. As it is evident, two different political views are represented with committee chair coming from an opposite political part to that of the assistant secretary. The concerns of the committee chair are on the move by the administration to reduce the budget for the Indian Health Program.
Assistant asserts that the move was taken in accordance realization that the needs of the Indians could be met through other mechanisms available. This leads to the committee chair disputing these, indicating that an extensive expert research had indicated that this could not function well to the Indians.
The Bureau Chief who is the head of the program when asked about his position, he clearly states that his action and overall position are in accordance with the position of the administration. When asked by the committee chair to reveal the amount located to the program during the current financial year, he is reluctant to do so citing that he is not authorized to discuss matters of internal budget requests.
Assistant Secretary makes it clear that various programs submit their budgets and it was the role of the administration to evaluate and prepare appropriate budget for the various submitted programs. In addition, in an attempt to bring the discussion to a halt, the Ranking Minority Member advised the committee that since the budget was yet to be submitted, as a committee, they were not entitled to discuss it.
This dialogue reveals the various aspects and processes in public administration. First, public administration is an administrative organ where the decision-making role rests with the government. At the same time, public administration involves different actors who in one way or the other would want to influence key policy formulation.
Further, public administration is seen to reflect bureaucratic nature where there is hierarchical in decision making, which has to be followed and observed.
Moreover, public administration manifest itself as a complex process, especially in decision making and finally, as an organ public administration appears to operative within specified premises of ethical requirements. Therefore, the rest of the paper will explore the concept of public administration within this perspective.
Public policy
As it has widely come to be known and used, public policy may refer to particular policies made and implemented by the government with aim to achieve certain set goals. Hence, government uses public policies as means to attain precise and specific objectives of the government (Naidu, 2005).
A public policy may largely emanate from health, education, rural development, urban development, or even industrial development and in all the cases, the policies will be shaped in accordance to the available government budget to attain broad goal of the policy.
In most cases, public policies are concerned with efforts by the government to provide goods and services to the identified people in need and as such, public policies largely are concerned with government’s behaviors (Naidu, 2005). In designing public policy, various authorities of the government are involved in the process, such as: legislators, executives, administrators, judges and many more.
In its nature, policy-making can bee described as a continuous process, which always occurs in the determination of major objectives while at the same time, also occurs in the continuous adaptation of the existing policies to the problems that the government may be facing.
In many cases, the current policies may be reformulated with regard to experiences with their implementation nature; hence room is presented for new policies to be developed based on the old ones in order to meet the changing needs of the society, a fact that makes policies to be dynamic in nature.
Government/Administration and public policy making
Public policy, as earlier seen is implicated in governance. Primarily, to ensure a public policy functions to meet its objectives, three things are important. First, the need to ascertain the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of public policies.
Second, ascertain and have concise knowledge about the effect of public policies on the lives of the people in various spheres. Third, make precise consideration of the extent to which a policy has the ability to cause change in the desired direction of the various spheres of life’s social, economic and political (Naidu, 2005).
The government and larger administrative unit involvement in public policy is an issue that has occupied enormous amount of time for many researchers and professionals of public administration. For instance, in 1887, Woodrow Wilson asserted that the main aim and concern of public administration is to facilitate the implementation of public laws generated and designed by the political system (Naidu, 2005).
According to these views, Woodrow, therefore, regarded public policy-making to be purely a political function, whereas the duty of enforcing the policy was left to the administration. Elaborating the views of Woodrow, Frank Goodnow (1900) noted that politics had largely to do with policies while the execution of these policies was the work and duty of the administration (cited in Naidu, 2005).
The period after the Second World War saw the emergence of classical doctrines writings, which largely discredited the earlier policy-administration dichotomy. To this group administration could not be divorced from politics (Naidu, 2005) and that the process of making and implementing policy are purely intertwined.
According to Appleby, the fact is that public administration is involved in policy-making and an administrator act as an influential advocate of the political approach to public administration (cited in Naidu, 2005).
He summarizes this in succinct words that, “administrators are continually determining what the law is, what it means in terms of action, what the rights of parties are with respect both to transactions in process and transactions in prospect; administrators also participate in another way in the making of policy for the future, they formulate recommendations for legislations, and this is part of the function of policy-making” (cited in Naidu, 2005, p.62).
This statement shows how key administrators plays role in formulation of public policy.
Key actors in public policy making
For a long time, public policy content and its institution characteristic have been products of the association and interaction between the political-administrative authorities on one side and the social groups that have the capacity to cause or support the negative effects of the collective problem that the larger public policy seeks to address (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone and Hill, 2007).
Lastly, the beneficiaries of the public policy constitute a third category of actors. These various and different actors possess different values and interests, which they transform into a game-like that they eventually want to play in the field of policy-making and implementation based on their interests.
The actors will always pursue their various interests on policy-making and implementation based on the resources they succeed to mobilize in order to be in a position to defend their positions, of course with respect to the objectives, instruments and development processes involved in a public intervention measure (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone and Hill, 2007).
The ‘games’ the actors involve in has the potential to affect the relevant content of the public policy and also the procedural and organizational modes of its formulation and subsequent implementation.
The context of public policy-making environment
The policy-making process and it subsequent implementation process do not operate in vacuum, but rather are affected by both internal and external environment. McCurdy (1977) states that environment constitutes an “area in which the government and its institutions strive to function effectively and efficiently” (cited in Fox, Bayat and Ferreira, 2007, p.29).
Swella, Burger, Fox and Muller (1996) observed that key public resources do not function or operate in vacuum, but rather they are utilized efficiently in order to pursue policy objectives while at the same time various variables influence the management of these resources (cited in Fox, Bayat and Ferreira, 2007).
As it can be seen, environment can refer to much more than just the actual physical environment where in this case it involves the internal environment consisting of: suppliers, competitors, and regulators whereas the external environment of the policy-making process may include: political component, social component, economic component, technological component, cultural component, physical component and religious component (Fox, Bayat and Ferreira, 2007).
On its part the external environment is what affects policy-making and implementation processes a lot. For example, external environment constitute numerous characteristics, which have the capacity to affect the policy-making process. These characteristics include turbulence, hostility, diversity, complexity, restrictiveness, and the overall state of the economy (Fox, Bayat, and Ferreira, 2007).
Clash of values in the administration of public policy
Gary Bryner observes that public administration role is to execute in form of implementation the policies formulated by the government (Peters and Pierre, 2007). The efficiency on the part of the government to achieve the objectives of a particular policy depends on the capability of the public administrators. At the same time, other factors are vital to achieve these objectives, such as commitment by the legislature and authority to authorize key resources of the policy goals.
Further political decisions are vital, especially those concerned with priorities and tradeoffs among the competing needs. As a fact expectations on the part of the government to initiate wide range of policies and the constraints public administrators have to go through in realizing the goals of policies have sometimes resulted into clashes of values.
For instance, some policies reflect political arrangements that implicate bureaucracy sometimes inconsistent to the strongly held values of democratic accountability and representation, while others are generally problematic (Peters and Pierre, 2007).
In nature, public administration attachment to politics makes the policy-making process to be dependent on politics of the day. On overall assessment of the outcomes of public policies has the ability to shape and influence the way the public will think about public administration.
For example, those who get convinced that outcomes are positive are likely to support and defend the existing bureaucracies, while those with a more critical view of the outcome will agitate for the existing bureaucracies to be changed (Peters and Pierre, 2007).
Frequently public administration of most public corporations will be termed to be ineffective, unable to provide solution to the various existing problems but what must be remembered is that bureaucratic success or failure depends a lot on the ultimate function and distribution of power in the political economy of which they are part (Peters and Pierre, 2007).
While the focus may concentrate on particular public organization, it needs to be remembered that questions of administrative structure, bureaucratic behaviors, process, management and even inter-governmental politics, public administrators cannot be regarded to be very divorced from the wide context of the politics.
Decision making in public-policy making process
Better public policy has largely been viewed to possess the following characteristics: they are easy to analyze, they always have transparent and legitimate decision-making processes and are open to discussion of issues (Peters and Pierre, 2007). Better analysis has to do with good research work before a particular policy can be adopted.
With regard to transparent and legitimate decision-making processes, a mere analysis has the inability of providing the right answers and even in real sense there exist no right answers to policy questions. Generally, each policy demonstrates its strengths and weaknesses and further each policy has varying degrees in terms of affecting the society.
For a policy to be legitimate, it will largely depend on the legitimacy of the decision-making process where all the affected parties and groups need to have access to the decision-making process and their opinions need to be factored either directly or indirectly.
To this extend, an effective and functional public policy should reflect the needs and overall desires of the larger public, whereby the public should also express confidence in the decision-making process, which therefore need to be open and transparent.
The third concept postulates that the public cannot operate without adequate information and as such, they need to be provided with basic facts about specific issues. The issues should be discussed and scrutinized since it is only from challenging and defending principles, theories, and positions that true and rational decisions will be found.
Conclusion
Public policy-making process has been viewed to be a long process that has to be undertaken in phases. In essence, for public policy to become functional it must be remembered that rule-of-thump technique is not the way to go. The policy-making process should assume both a top-down and a bottom-up process. Further, sometimes, public policies will demonstrate to be clashing with values in their administration.
This may be due to political reasons or other related reasons available in the contextual environment in which the policy is operating.
As it aims and struggles to function independently, public administration cannot divorce itself from the political bureaucracies, which generally allocates the necessary resources to implement the policies. In such cases, proper decision-making processes that include key actors are seen to contribute to effectiveness of policy in realization of the broad set goals.
Therefore, observation made is that, as much various interest groups intertwined and operating from different political backgrounds will want to influence the policy-making process, it is important to remember that any policy should be in a position to serve the needs and desires of the affected people and identifying the needs should assume a continuous research process of assessing how well a particular policy can serve or fulfill the needs of the affected people.
Lack of diversity in the United States’ public administration has been a major concern for the past several decades. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s helped in brining attention to the suffering and neglect that the minority groups, especially the African Americans, were going through in this country. Since then, there has been an attempt to ensure that there is a balanced representation of people from different races, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. However, that balance is yet to be realized. Whites still hold important positions allowing them to make and implement policies they feel are appropriate in the country. The study emphasizes the need to have dialogue, especially when making important laws and regulations that affect everyone, to ensure that views of the minority are not ignored. It may not be easy to achieve equal representation in public administration because of the varying population of people from different races, religion, and sexual orientation. However, objective dialogue and selflessness can help to ensure that every American feels represented in policy-making and implementation.
Introduction
Diversity in the workplace is a major concern in the United States. There is the desire to ensure that people of different races, religion, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are effectively represented and allowed to contribute on issues relating to public administration. However, Selden (2015) argues that lack diversity and equal representation and effective participation at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life is still a major concern in the country. Although the country has made tremendous steps towards promoting a new culture that is accommodative to people of diverse background, there is still a feeling that some members of society are still ignored. Finding ways of including everyone in public administration, especially when it comes to issues relating to important decision-making processes, is crucial in enhancing harmony in the country. The effective representation helps in ensuring that no one is ignored when developing major public policies that affect lives of everyone. The following are the specific questions that the researcher seeks to answer through this study:
How does a lack of diversity play a role in limited representation in public administration in the country?
What is the history of diversity in public administration in the United States?
What is the current situation on the issue of diversity in the United States’ public administration?
Why is lack of diversity in public administration an important topic for the study?
Background on the Issue
The United States is one of the most diversified countries in the world. According to Braedel-Kühner and Müller (2016), the country has been the preferred destination for immigrants coming from different countries. Some of them come through legal means while others sneak into the country through the porous borders in search of employment and a better life than the one they had in their home country. Proper representation has been a major issue. Selden (2015) explains that people of color, women, gays, Muslims, and other minority groups are not effectively represented in public administration. In such a situation, it is not easy for the government to make policies that adequately represents their interests. Gooden (2014) states that a section of the society still hates gays, and given opportunity, they can make policies that would prohibit such practices. Similarly, some people still associate Islam with terrorism and believe that these people have no place in the country (Norman-Major & Gooden, 2015). The only way of moderating such extremism in public administration is to have everyone represented, especially at the decision-making level. The paper will analyze the past and present nature of the problem, and propose ways in which it can be solved in the future.
Detailed Presentation of the Importance of the Issue
In a highly diversified society such as that of the United States, peaceful coexistence can only be achieved when everyone’s interests and concerns are taken into consideration in public administration. Katherine, Riccucci, and Freyss (2014) argue that diversity challenges include race, gender, religion, ethnicities, and sexual orientation. Some minority groups feel that they are not adequately represented in public administration and as such, their views do not matter in the country. Studies show that such concerns are true. As shown in figure 1 below, about 73% of the local law enforcement agents are Whites. Their dominance ensures that their interests are always represented in most of the decisions made by the police departments. When making promotions, Whites are more likely to climb the career ladder faster than any other race in the country. They get a privileged position because of a system that favors them. The figure below shows that African Americans account for only 12% of the local police workforce, Latinos make 11%, while Asians and native Hawaiians account for just 2.4%.
Source (Wal, 2017, p. 49).
The disparity is not expressed only in the law enforcement agencies. Ongaro (2019) explains that Whites dominate various other sectors of the economy, especially those with good salary or positions of power. Figure 2 below puts it into perspective. As of 2015, over 80% of the United States 114th Congress was male. It is important to note that the population of women in the country is slightly higher than that of men (Norman-Major & Gooden, 2015). However, their representation in the Congress was less than 20%. It shows a trend where men dominate positions of power at the expense of women. The figure also shows that White was the dominant race, accounting for over 82% of the population, followed by Blacks at slightly less than 9%, Hispanics at about 7%, and Asian at 2%. In such a House, Whites can pass any law they consider desirable to their race with ease. They have more than two-thirds majority needed to make critical decisions in the country. Once they pass a bill and send it to the President, who is also a White, for ascent, then the concept becomes a low.
The White-dominated police department will then have the task of implementing the law, which then reaffirms the claim that Whites can easily have their way with very little opposition from other races in the country. In terms of religion, Christians dominate the Congress, at about 92% while Jews come second. Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, and other religious groups account for less than 2% of the Congress’ population. When making laws that affect everyone in the United States, the views of these minority groups may not matter, unless they get the support of the majority. Sicakkan (2016) explains that the majority can only support them if there is a shared view, and the dominant population feels safe under such a new legislation.
Figure 2. Diversity of the United States’ 114th Congress (Wal, 2017, p. 64).
Past, Present, and Future Situation, and Associated Challenges
When analyzing the problem of lack of diversity in public administration, it is important to compare the past and the present to predict the future. According to Rice (2015), there was a time when both the Senate and Congress were exclusively for White men. African Americans and other minority groups had to appoint a White to represent their interests in Parliament. During that period, it was hard to imagine that a Muslim would be in any of the houses (Norman-Major & Gooden, 2015). Important public administration positions, especially those that had good salaries, were also held by White men as they were considered superior to the rest of the population, hence they had the capacity to make informed decisions on how the country can progress.
African Americans felt marginalized and as such, they started rebelling against establishment. Sometimes such protests would turn into battles between the law enforcement agencies and African Americans. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s had a major impact on the way African Americans were viewed in the country (Stazyk & Frederickson, 2018). They managed to gain the attention of the policy makers and the public. Since then, there has been a genuine attempt to take into consideration views of the minority in public administration. The election of President Barrack Obama into the highest office in the land was an indication that the American society had evolved and could now embrace an African American president. Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews are also in both the Congress and Senate (Sicakkan, 2016). The trend shows that the challenges that existed in the past in terms of racial and religious inclusivity are being overcome. The future is more promising than the past as society embraces the view that the way forward is to embrace diversity instead of fighting it.
Way Forward to Near Equal Representation and Effective Participation
It is desirable to have a near equal representation and effective participation at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. However, Ongaro (2019) says that in a democratic society where the majority always has their way, it may not be easy to have an optimal situation where every group feels effectively represented. The desire of each group is to have a situation where those in positions of power can respect their views. Stazyk and Frederickson (2018) believe that a policy should be enacted to ensure that the minority groups are represented in public administration through special appointment. These appointees should be responsible for presenting views of those they represent. Through dialogue, they can help the majority to understand why such a policy would be important or detrimental to their group.
The aim is to have a system where interests of everyone are protected while at the same time allowing democracy to have its way. Rice (2015) explains that a system should exist where policies are made and enforced after objective debates and with the interest of everyone taken into consideration. In many cases, the issue is not to have equal representation. In fact, it is common to have cases where those in position of power ignoring the interest of those whom they represent. As such, the focus should be on having a platform where decisions made reflect the interest of everyone.
Discussion of Possible Solutions
The United States is a highly diversified community that has people of different races, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Although public administration has been dominated by the majority Whites, Sicakkan (2016) explains that there has been an attempt to have a system where everyone feels represented and respected. The goal of this study is to come up with ways that can balance out existing inequalities in the public administration. It is important for the world to make a profound change to ensure all people, regardless, have better access and opportunities to lead the institutions that govern our societies. Selden (2015) says that it all starts with proper representation. It is not possible to hold the argument that society is becoming tolerant of diversity and divergent views if representation is skewed in favor of one section. Creating a platform through which people of varying races can be represented is one of the best ways of solving this problem. Having an equal representation may not be possible in this democratic society. However, it is possible to have a situation where almost everyone is represented in public administration. Their presence in such positions is meant to enable policy makers to understand views of their people.
There needs to be an increase in participation and leadership in public institutions from a diverse panel. Rice (2015) says that the Congress, Senate, and other legislative positions at the state and county levels should have adequate representation of people from diverse background. It may not be possible to make legislations that addresses specific concerns of women if the policy makers do not involve women. In case some people cannot be elected through democratic processes because of their minority population, it may be necessary to have appointive positions for them. The goal is to ensure that the house is as representative of the entire population as possible. The legislative houses should encourage consultative forums when debating on issues that may have a significant impact on a section of society. Fighting stigma and stereotypes is important in promoting objectivity when making decision. Those who are trusted with positions of power should always remain objective when making decisions or taking any action that may have devastating consequences on the minority groups.
It is necessary to understand how proper representation could improve how the current concerns in public administration. According to Braedel-Kühner and Müller (2016), besides the legislative arm of the government, the judiciary and the executive also have a crucial role to play in promoting and embracing diversity. The United States Supreme Court has nine justices, and none of them is a Muslim. In such a situation, when an individual of Muslim faith has an issue with a Christian or a Jew relating to religious conflict, going to the Supreme Court may be considered an inappropriate decision. As Ongaro (2019) observes, judges are often expected to make decisions based on facts other than personal feelings or shared interests. However, it is common to find cases where they are influenced by public opinion, personal affiliations and a host of other factors unrelated to the constitution. There is only one Hispanic and one African American in the American top court. None of the nine justices is publicly known to be a gay, and as such, the personal opinion on the issue may be another factor that can influence their judicial decisions. Ensuring that there is a proper representation in the justice system creates a sense of legitimacy. Everyone feels represented and protected by the courts. They feel that they can trust decisions of judges and magistrates.
The executive arm of the government should also be as representative as possible. When selecting members of the cabinet, the president should be compelled to ensure that there is adequate representation of people from diverse backgrounds. Currently, White male dominates the cabinet of President Donald Trump (Stazyk & Frederickson, 2018). Such disparities may create discomfort among the rest of the population who feel that they are not represented in the government. Important government policies such as the head of CIA, FBI, and the justice department should have equal representation. As Rice (2015) observes, equal representation does not mean the appointing authority should ignore competency in an effort to have a balanced system. It entails selecting the most qualified candidates from the population in a way that makes it possible to have a diversified workforce. It involves eliminating barriers that often limit the ability of women and minority groups from achieving career success.
The private sector also has a role to play in an effort to promote a society where everyone feels represented. According to Braedel-Kühner and Müller (2016), the problem often starts in the private sector. In most of the cases, those appointed in senior government positions are chief executive officers and top managers in various large companies in the country. In case the private sector fails to provide a perfect platform for women and minority groups to succeed, then those in the legislative and executive arms of the government will continue to ignore them as being irrelevant in political discourses. As shown in figure 3 below, women accounts for only 20% of the workforce who are in senior management positions in the private sector. Their representation gets even smaller, at 6%, when it comes to those who are chief executive officers in Fortune 500 companies in the country. As such, the private sector also has a role to play in promoting equal representation in the country.
Source (Wal, 2017, p. 67),
Conclusion and Recommendation
Diversity in public administration has been one of the important issues in public discourses over the last several decades. As shown in the discussion above, the country has made impressive steps towards encouraging equal representation in public administration. The topic of diversity is critical because it defines the level of harmony and unity within the country. When people feel represented, they tend to believe in and respect the rule of law. They would believe that the system works for them and for everyone in an effort to have a just country where everyone’s interests are respected. Analyzing the historical records relating to diversity in public administration and the current situation shows that the society is becoming more accommodative of diversity than was the case in the past. The following recommendations should be considered to help improve the current situation:
The legislature should enact laws that require effective representation of people from diverse backgrounds in different public administrative positions.
The government should engage in public awareness campaign to promote diversity in public administration and in the private sector.
The justice department should be committed to ensuring that individuals presented to court for violation of laws relating to diversity are punished as enshrined in the laws.
References
Braedel-Kühner, C., & Müller, A. (2016). Re-thinking diversity: Multiple approaches in theory, media, communities, and managerial practice. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Katherine, C. N., Riccucci, N. M., & Freyss, S. F. (2014). Personnel management in government: Politics and process (7th ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Norman-Major, K. A., & Gooden, S. T. (2015). Cultural competency for public administrators (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ongaro, E. (Ed.). (2019). Public administration in Europe: The contribution of EGPA. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rice, M. F. (2015). Diversity and public administration: Theory, issues, and perspectives. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Selden, S. C. (2015). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sicakkan, H. G. (Ed.). (2016). Integration, diversity and the making of a European public sphere. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Stazyk, E. C., & Frederickson, H. G. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of American public administration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Wal, Z. (2017). The 21st century public manager. London, UK: Palgrave.
Why does Stillman suggest that defining public administration has become difficult?
According to Stillman, public administration is hard to define because this field, having developed over the 20th century, appears almost all-encompassing, covering an enormous area of human activity, beginning with delivering mail and patching potholes and ending with creating and implementing the policies of the government and distributing the vast majority of the resources present in the society (1).
The fact that this notion comprises so many constituent parts makes it virtually impossible to provide a definition that would cover each of the areas touched by this activity, as well as explain all the numerous, sometimes inconsistent, values involved in it. Attempts to unequivocally “define the core values and focus of… public administration” have failed, causing numerous debates and entirely different opinions on the topic (Stillman 1).
How have historians and the literature defined public administration? Do the views coincide with how public administration is viewed today?
Public administration has been defined in many various ways, ranging from “the production of goods and services designed to serve the needs of citizens-consumers” through “activities… involved in the establishment and implementation of public policies” to “cooperative effort of the individuals who make up the administration” (Stillman 2-4). The definitions are sometimes inconsistent; some of them incorporate all the three branches of government (executive, judicial, and legislative), others claim that only the executive branch should be included (Stillman 2-4).
These views partially constitute the contemporary perceptions of public administration. All of them cannot be adopted at the same time due to the mentioned inconsistencies; however, they provide a sketch of how to view public administration. Some of the views can still be reconciled; for instance, it is claimed that public administration is primarily related to the executive branch of government, at the same time being related to the other two (Stillman 4). Most of the elements of these definitions can be viewed as constituent parts of contemporary definitions, for it is apparent that no definition can grasp the field in question thoroughly.
Stillman in Chapter One, “The Blast in Centralia”
What reforms would you recommend to prevent the tragedy from reoccurring elsewhere? How could such reforms be implemented?
In our opinion, to prevent similar tragedies from occurring elsewhere, it is a good idea to introduce more severe responsibility for the authorities of the mine for a failure to comply with the safety regulations. It is necessary, though, to be able to enforce such a law; perhaps the regular checks by higher state authorities would be helpful. In any case, it is also paramount that the workers pay more attention to the safety standards; they should refuse to work in a mine where these standards are not met, and demand from the authorities to provide the necessary conditions.
To implement that, the workers should have some effective mechanisms to protect their rights if their workplace is unsafe. They should also be allowed to take days off work, and be compensated for these days off if the mine is dangerous (which fact should be confirmed by an independent party).
Based on your analysis of “The Blast in Centralia #5,” can you generalize about the importance of public administration for society? Can you list some of the pros and cons of having a strong and effective administrative system to perform essential services in society?
In our opinion, the public administration in the society should be able to create and maintain the situation in which it is relatively disadvantageous for an individual or a group of individuals to take actions that could be harmful to others (or even themselves), and relatively advantageous to take actions that would benefit the society. The advantages and disadvantages should be concrete and direct. In the case of Centralia #5, if it had been possible for workers to effectively complain to the authorities to achieve compliance with safety standards in the mine, they would not have neglected the problem themselves; it seems, though, they had no hope to make their workplace safe or find any other appropriate job.
If the administrative system in a society is strong and effective, then, according to this very description, it can effectively perform its functions, which is supposed to be beneficial for the society (pro). The problem is the absence of universally accepted views on what these functions should be. Therefore, it appears likely that a strong administration, despite its effectiveness, will infringe someone’s freedom in some ways (contra).
Works Cited
Stillman, Richard J. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. 9th ed. 2010. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Print.
Public administration is the process through which governments manage the public. The laws of the land define boundaries in which public administrators offer guidance, as well as the roles of the citizens in the decision making process. Administrative law provides codes of operation for both the public administrator and the citizens. It encourages transparency and openness in carrying out public administration.
The law provides fairness in decision making process, which guarantees equity in the society. Administrative law ensures that citizens are part of the decision making in every public administration process. Rather than focusing on the outcome of the decision, administrative law focuses on the process of making the decisions.
When it is conducted transparently on a state level including the opinions of the citizens, this is democratic decision making. Administrative law goes hand in hand with the values of democracy; therefore, most democratic nations use administrative laws to guide administrators on ways of handling the public.
The Ontario government in the year 2007 promised to increase the minimum wage incrementally for three years. However, in 2009, the Premier held a closed-door meeting with business executives where he stated that he would stop the increments before achieving the decided amount. The Premier did not follow the right channels of making a decision as stipulated in the administrative law.
For this reason, the idea of altering the wage increment promise raised many procedural fairness issues. The wage increment was a top priority issue during the election period. Leaders who took office promised to raise the minimum wage to about eleven dollars per hour in a period of three years.
The outcome of the decision was fair, but many people claim that the government did not consider their views in making such decision. A fair decision making process must include the views of the affected group, in this case – the employees. Besides, the decisions concerning such issues as minimum wages must not be made behind the closed doors.
In his statement, the Premier admitted that wage increment should be fair to both the employees and the employers. However, he only consulted the business leaders on the matter and did not seek the views of the workers. The law states that the administrators must offer the affected group, in this case these are the employees, a forum to express themselves before making a decision.
The wage increment was to protect the employees from malicious employers. For this reason, the views of the employees were supposed to become the basis for making any decision concerning wage increment. Since the employees were not given an opportunity to express themselves, the decision-making process can be viewed as undemocratic and non-transparent.
In a democratic nation, politicians cannot alter decisions or promises made to the public without consulting the affected group. Although the Premier alluded to economic struggles as his driving force, both the law and the principles of democracy prohibit such actions.
The Premier could have held meetings with different unions and shared his concerns about the economic stability of the nation. This way, both the public and the Premier could have come up with reasonable and agreeable ways to deal with the wage increment issue openly and fairly.
One might say that the approach the Premier employed was the most efficient way to solve the problem. According to the definition of efficiency, it is the way to achieve the desired result with minimal waste of effort and time . The Premier arranged the meeting with business leaders, and after a private discussion, the decision was made.
This certainly helped to save a lot of time and effort, since finding out the opinion of the workers would have included making ballots, voting and then processing of the votes. Besides, to vote properly, the employees would have to be provided with the information concerning the financial problems and the obstacles to the planned wage increment. All of these preparations and procedures are normally rather lengthy.
This way, instead of engaging the employees, the Premier involved the business leaders as the representatives of the public. It goes without saying that business leaders possess a lot of theoretical and practical expert knowledge and are able to analyze the situation they face professionally, which they did.
Yet, the reaction of the employees was logical, they were not informed about the financial issues, they were not a part of the decision making process, and their promised wage increment was suddenly taken away for unknown reasons. Of course, the public immediately blamed the leaders of being crooked liars.
This is a typical reaction, which happens every time and in every situation when certain benefits are first promised and then not provided to the public. In order to avoid misinterpretations and frustration in the masses, democratic laws require that the public is informed about the events in time.
In turn, the democratic government officials do not have the right to make decisions on behalf of the public without having a consultation with the public, assuming that the public is well aware of the problems and can provide a wise and sober opinion.
The inclusion of the public into the decision making process does not only help to avoid disorders in the masses and develop mutual trust between the leaders and the public, but also psychologically prepares the citizens for the upcoming changes and makes them less unexpected and shocking in cases when the anticipated outcomes are negative.
The procedural fairness, in this case, goes beyond administrative law. The process of decision-making in public administration has a significant impact on the political, social, and economic aspects of life in a society. For instance, the failure to involve the employees in a decision-making process would breed enmity between the employees and employers.
The employers and employees present two main segments of a society including the rich and the poor. The purpose of the wage increment program was to bridge the gap between these two groups through equity and fair remunerations. Altering those decisions in favor of one group would sour the relationship between the rich and the poor, and enhance social inequality in the society.
The concept of discrimination is the cornerstone of human rights law. In the studied case, the actions of the Premier and business leaders and the exclusion of the public from the discussion of an issue may be perceived as discrimination of the working class and increase the tension between the classes and social equality is detrimental to the economy in a society.
In conclusion, administrative law is an essential element of governance in democratic nations. Public administrators have a duty to honor the laws of the land, including administrative laws in making decisions that affect the lives of the citizens.
The constitution and courts enforce these laws to ensure that the government serves its people with justice. Other than directing the daily operations in a society, the law provides an ideal coexistence between the leaders and their subjects by ensuring respect for the authority.