Public Administration: Conceptual Study

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

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

Table of Contents

Government as a Catalyst: The Thompson-Perry Argument
Public Accountability and Public Acceptability
Helco’s Concept of Issue Networks
Friedrich’s and Finer’s Central Ideas
Dwight Waldo
Reference

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.

Click Here To Order Now!