PA IN DEVELOPED NATIONS
description
Transcript of PA IN DEVELOPED NATIONS
PA IN DEVELOPED
NATIONS
TOPICS
• Quote of the day • Evolution of PA in developed systems• Similar but not equal • Key characteristics of developed vis a vis
developing PA systems • Historical growth of government • Paradigms in Public Administration
Old PA
Paradigm shift: the New Public Administration
The New Public Service: A new paradigm?
Quote of the day
“The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all.”
John Maynard Keynes: The End of Laissez-Faire (London, 1926) Cited in Oser (1970:394)
Evolution of PA in developed systems
• According to Jreisat three revolutions (English 1688, American 1776 and French 1785) marked the development of modern political thought which provides the fundamentals of modern social organization.
• The liberal state that emerged from these revolutions emphasized the following:
American French British German
Primary Primary function of function of government government
Protect liberal rights and liberties
Social equity Protect liberal rights and liberties
Administer effectively
(Prussian)
Role of PARole of PA The study of administrative law
Regulation and redistribution
Output oriented
Adjudicative responsibility given to the lander
Relationship Relationship between between politics & politics & Bureaucracy Bureaucracy
A formal line between politics and bureaucracy
Bureaucracy often filled the vacuum of shifting political leadership
Top-ranking officials play a substantial role in policy-making
Harmony between the bureaucratic elite and the dominant political leadership
SIMILAR BUT NOT EQUAL
Developed vis a vis developing PA systems
DEVELOPED (Jreisat) DEVELOPING (H. Farrel)
A balanced system of power distribution (Politics-
administration)
A blurred line between bureaucracy and politics
Focus on results (performance oriented management)
Bureaucracy orientation or goals (job, status, security) are not production-driven
Technology at the service of management: Information technology
Deficient bureaucracies in skills for development
A profound concern with ethics & accountability in the public sector
Discrepancy between form and reality (‘”formalism’)
A redefined role of PA and its linkages with the private sector
Imitative rather than indigenous
Historical growth of government
• There exist three inflexion points in the historical growth of government
1. The great depression ended the laissez-faire dream and opened the door to government intervention often known as the Keynesian model.
2. The postwar years (1945-1970) of the welfare state expanded government action from macroeconomic management towards redistribution . The Old Public Administration.
3. The raise of neoconservative governments (Reagan & Thatcher) and the New Public Administration philosophy.
USA Government Expenditures (Billions)
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
1902 1922 1942 1962 1982 2002
Source: Holcombe:1996
USA Gov. Expenditures as % of GDP
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Great Depression
WWIIEnds
ReaganYears
Source: Holcombe:1996
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
COUNTRY % OF GDP (1996)
Sweden 65.4France 54.1Germany 49.6Canada 45.6United Kingdom 41.6Netherlands 50.0Japan 36.2United States 33.3Australia 36.4Mexico* 23.1
Source: Savas 2000:20 * INEGI
http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/pamphlet/cjfc_m.htm
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES
$0.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00
EUROPE
NORTH AMERICA
OPEC COUNTRIES
SOUTH AMERICA
ASIAREGION
PER CAPITA
EXPENDITURES
EUROPE $9,344.05
OECD $7,331.03
NORTH AMERICA $5,506.14
CARIBEEAN $1,723.66
OPEC COUNTRIES $1,563.89
MIDDLE EAST $1,244.66
SOUTH AMERICA $635.01
AFRICA $452.20
ASIA $410.44
Source: CIA World Factbook, December 2003
Share of Public Employment to Total Employment (1985-1999)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Canada Germany Spain Finland France
Irlande Korea Portugal Turkey United States
Source: OECD Public Management Service, 2001. Copyright OECD 2001. All rights reserved.
Federal Employment Per 1000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Norway
USA
Netherlands
Sout Korea
Mexico
Spain
France
Source: OECD Public Management Service
Emp per 1000 Exp. Per capita corruption index
Mexico 8.3 $ 1,334.50 3.6
Sout Korea 7.9 $ 1,981.81 4.5
France 38.2 $ 5,483.50 6.3
Spain 9.5 $ 7,331.03 7.1
USA 5.2 $ 7,067.51 7.7
Norway 0.9 $ 12,670.13 8.5
Netherlands 7.1 $ 8,296.95 9
Source: OECD for employment and expendituresCorruption index 1 most corrupt 10 least corrupt: Source The Economist
Paradigms in PA • It guides research on problems and solutions• A paradigm governs in the first instance, not a
subject matter, but a group of practitioners • A paradigm commits the group of practitioners to
a disciplinary matrix (methods, language, questions, values, etc.)
• There will be “paradigm shifts” or “paradigm competition” but never a lack of paradigm (s) unless the field becomes simply speculative and unscientific. To reject a paradigm without substitution is to reject science itself
• PA revolves around three main paradigms: Old PA, New PA, and New Public Service
Paradigm Competition
Old Public Administration
New Public Management
New Public Service
Primary theoretical and epistemological foundations
Political theory, socialand political commentary augmented by naive social science
Economic theory, more sophisticated dialogue based on positivist social science
Democratic theory, varied approaches to knowledge including positive, interpretive, and critical
Source: Denhardt & Denhardt (2003: 28-29)
Prevailing rationality and associated models of human behavior
Synoptic rationality, "administrative man“
Technical and economic rationality, "economic man," or the self-interested decision maker
Strategic or formal rationality, multiple tests of rationality (political, economic, and organizational)
Conception of the public Interest
Public interest is politically defined and expressed in law
Public interest represents the aggregation of individual interests
Public interest is the result of a dialogue about shared values
To whom are public servants responsive
Clients and constituents
Customers Citizens
Role of government
Rowing (designing and implementing policies focusing on a single, politically defined objective)
Steering (acting as a catalyst to unleash market forces)
Serving (negotiating and brokering interests among citizens and community groups creating shared values)
Mechanisms for achieving policy objectives
Administering programs through existing government agencies
Creating mechanism and incentive structures to achieve policy objectives through private and nonprofit agencies
Building coalitions of public, nonprofit, and private agencies to meet mutually agreed upon needs
Approach to accountability
objective) Administering programs through existing government agencies
Creating mechanisms and incentive structures to achieve policy objectives throughprivate and nonprofit agencies
Building coalitions of public, nonprofit, and private agencies to meet mutually agreed upon needs
Administrative Discretion
Limited discretion allowed administrative officials
Wide latitude to meet entrepreneurial goals
Discretion needed but constrained and accountable
Assumed organizational structure
Bureaucratic organizations marked by top-down authority within agencies and control or regulation of clients
Decentralized public organizations with primary control remaining within the agency
Collaborative structures with leadership shared internally and externally
Assumed motivational basis of public servants and administrators
Pay and benefits, civil-service protections
Entrepreneurial spirit, ideological desire to reduce size of government
Public service, desire to contribute to society
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
8 10 12 14 16 18 20Perception of level and quality of KM practices, organisational and cultural change
(improving with higher score on the indicator)
Efforts made at improving KM
(increasing with higher score on the indicator)
Pol Bel
Por
Hun
Irl USNor
Kor
Swe
Slo
DenEng
Fin
GerGre
CanFra
Ice
Group 1Group 2
Group 3
Notes: Group 1: Countries whose scores on the average of the two indicators are significantly above the average of OECD member countries: x>(average*std*(2^(-1/2)))Group 2: Countries whose scores on the average of the two indicators are not significantly different from the OECD average. (average+std*(2^(-1/2)))>x>(average-std*(2^(-1/2)))Group 3: Countries whose scores on the average of the two indicators are significantly above the OECD average: (average-std*(2^(-1/2)))>x
(Knowledge Management)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
13 14 15 16 17
Efforts made at improving KM
(increasing with higher score on the indicator)
Finance
Trade & IndustryJustice
LabourPrime Minister's
OfficeHealth /SocialAffairs Foreign
AffairsEconomy
EducationInterior
StateReform/Public Administration
Group 1Group 2
Group 3
Perception of level and quality of KM practices, organisational and cultural change
(improving with higher score on the indicator)