Positive and Negative Points of the Hybrid Model of the New Administration - Literature review Example

The Hybrid Model The ic definition of American democracy has always been Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This classic definition implies the supposedly intimate relationship between government and the people. However, author Alan Weibe, in his book “Does Democracy Still Work?” objected to this description and called it inaccurate, citing historical facts which illustrate that an “entire panoply of voluntary associations that has drawn the attention of acute observers from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam” has made that kind of relationship impracticable to exist. Weibe was referring to institutions and groups like political parties, the press, business organizations and the like that stood between the government and the people and which makes that intimacy between the two not viable. If power is concentrated at the top, the tendency is towards anarchism but if power is allowed to filter down too much to the bottom, anarchy will result (2006). The implication therefore is that democracy is largely a balancing act, one in which the fulcrum of power is located in the middle rather than on any of the opposing sides. As Weibe states, democratic life is institutional life. A correct definition of democracy is vital and sine qua non to the crafting of a blueprint for any model of accountability in public administration upon which forms the skeletal basis of a new administration’s line of governance. In drafting the blueprint of a new hybrid model of public administration, it is important to acknowledge the inescapable existence of institutions that fill the distance between government and the people and the need to strengthen government bureacracies to bridge that distance. As the newly appointed interim president, the basis of my governance will be a model which will incorporate all the points culled from the strongest and effective aspects of the various public administration models which are the Jacksonian Democracy model, the Progressive Reform model, the Reinventing Government model, the New Public Management model, and the New Public service model, which will all bring the desired effects of strengthening the fulcrum of power that lies between and separate the government from the people so as to effectively bring the two together. It is important therefore to discuss the said models to be able to point out and explain the facets which had made these models attractive and successful and adopt them in the new model. The Jacksonian/Machine Politics Model. The Jacksonian model, utilized by President Andrew Jackson when he ascended to power starting in 1928 was characterized by an overly strong presidency that initially was adopted to benefit the common man but which eventually deteriorated to “corrupt, narrowly responsive political machines, that used selective favors- favors that were excludable and divisible, rather than public in character-to exclude large segments of the citizenry from the receipt of government goods and services” (Weber 2006). Although Jackson had good intentions as he believed in the sovereignty of the people and his presidency, was in fact, according to one author, “the beginning of true democracy in the American political system” (McDuffie, Piggrem & Woodworth 1991), he nevertheless made the mistake of believing that the presidency is the center of government, and all authority emanates from the position. To defend the authority of his presidency, Jackson rewarded those who supported its ascendancy and continued existence. He set up, for example, the spoils system where public offices were awarded to his political supporters. If there are any lessons that may be learned from the Jacksonian model which can be validly applied in drafting a new model, it is that in a democratic society, no one government office can stand strong alone, leaving all the others weak and fragmented. Moreover, there is no shortcut to the dispensation of public service from the presidency directly to the people because the danger is not only that a few rather than the public in general will benefit from it but also this kind of system will erode public institutions which have been skipped over in the process. Intentions, even if it is centered on the least advantaged sectors of society, cannot take the place of a good and sound public administration and management planning. Progressive Reforms Model. The Progressive Reform model was envisioned to resolve the problems that were prevalent in the latter part of the 19th century like graft and corruption, spoils and patronage politics. This movement which took place between 1915 and 1965 was aimed at the creation of governmental structures and organizations that would be efficient and accountable to the public and covered the local, state and national agencies. This model is the prototype of the “reinventing government” model of the Clinton era (Rabin 2003). The Progressive Reform model, which was largely based on the Scientific Management concept of Frederick Taylor and the Administrative Management concept of Luther Gulick, is valuable even to this day and should be considered in the drafting any new blueprint of public administration model because there should be a never-ending search for appropriate structural policies in administrative bodies. Administrative bodies constitute the façade with which the abstract nature of the government manifests itself and they must always be ready to reinvent themselves to make them responsive to the ever-changing needs of the people. Reinventing Government Model. Coined from the title of the bestselling book of David Osborne and Ted Gaebler “Reinventing Government” in 1992, this model was made the blueprint of the Clinton administration policies a year later as an answer to the call for reforms of the Total Quality Movement of the 1980s. The aim of this model was to make the government bureaucracy perform better for less cost on the basis of four principles: customers first; less red tape; employees empowerment; and cutting back-to-basics. Among the primary tools used were privatization on all governmental levels and the creation of PBOs or Performance-Based Organizations, (usda). Based on a sound policy, the good thing about this model is that it compelled periodic reviews of the government bureaucracies and subsequently issued recommendations based on the results. The search for fresher, more efficient, less costly strategic plans were made the focus of the model with the creation of more than 300 reinvention laboratories within each government agency (usda). The implication is that of a dynamic, more responsive government. New Public Management Model. In the New Public Management model, the emphasis is on the periodic measurement of bureaucratic performance as well as external control. However, instead of measuring and controlling inputs, the NPM stresses on the measurement and control of results. In other words, what is considered paramount in this model is the end rather than the means believing that previous government models were failures because of its reliance on the input aspect of the bureaucracy. To illustrate the importance of the shift, the model looks to private organizations as superior models which operate on the principle that emphasizes on results as a means of sustaining their existence (Denhardt & Denhardt 2007). This model sees the public individually as “customers” with individual interests. There is no accountability to the public or to the common good to speak of. What is paramount upon a bureaucratic agency is to offer and address the individual needs of the customer and the satisfaction of that particular need is the accountability owed by that agency to the specific customer (Denhardt & Denhardt 2007). Like the Reinventing Government model, the NPM also subscribes to privatization to shift accountability and responsibility from the government to the private sector so as to engender the desired objective or result which is to operate the government at a less cost (Denhardt & Denhardt 2007). The NPM is rather unique in its approach which is to bring down the public to the level of “customers.” The wisdom in this approach is that the private sector is noticeably more attentive and efficient where customers are concerned because the latter are the lifeblood of their business. However, it is doubtful that the bureaucratic agencies can really and actually operate on the same level as and step on the shoes of the private sector and look at the public as individual customers. In the first place, customers voluntarily seek and pay for the services of the private firms, while the public pay taxes compulsorily. The New Public Service Model. The NPS model was developed by Dernhardt & Derhardt as an alternative to the NPM. While the NPM considers results as important, they are nevertheless not as important as being ethical or administratively responsible. Moreover, while the NPM sees the public as individual citizens, the NPS views the public as citizens. As a matter of fact, this model focuses on citizenship and public interest (Denhardt & Denhardt 2007). The NPS objects to NPM’s method as an “aggressive attack on the tradition of democratic accountability.” The NPS does not see the parallelism between administrative agencies and the private sector emphasizing that the public accountability of the latter is a complex concept that carries with it matters of national interest and public policies (Denhardt & Denhardt 2007). The NPS is based on six fundamentals: 1. Serve rather than steer, because public policies are no longer the result of governmental decision-making processes. 2. The public interest is the aim, not the by-product. It is necessary to establish shared interest and shared responsibilities based around a vision for the community and a single set of goals. 3. Think strategically, act democratically. Collective effort and collaborative processes should exist within open and accessible government. 4. Serve citizens not customers, and have a concern for a larger community. Accountability is not simple and involves complex constellations of institutions and standards. 5. Value people, not just productivity. Processes of collaboration and shared leadership should be based on respect for people. 6. Value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship. (Diamond & Liddle 2005). Conclusion: The Hybrid Model In drafting the Hybrid Model for the new administration, the five models of public administration accountability were examined; their positive as well as their negative points was assessed. The objective is to fuse the best elements that all the five models can offer. The main goal of the Hybrid Model is to bridge the gap between the government and the public. However, it will not be the policy of the Chief Executive to engage in patronage politics by directly promoting the welfare of the few especially political supporters nor shall it be the policy of the government to bypass legal processes to achieve its aims however noble and lofty they are. The bridging of the gap therefore shall be primarily done by strengthening the bureaucratic structures of the government and make them more responsive, more efficient, to the needs of the public. The end goal is to give the government a concrete face through the bureaucratic system in the eyes of the people and literally and figuratively bring government within the access of the public. First on the agenda is the cutting of red tape in the government bureaucracy. This is a term that has evolved into a cliché as it has become the battle cry of every administration. However, red tape still exists in the bureaucracy and there should be no let up in the efforts to streamline the bureaucracy in the interest of the public good. The Scientific Management concept espoused by Frederick Taylor of the Progressive Reform model is still applicable and relevant to this day. The concept calls for the scrutiny and analysis of the workflow processes for the purpose of optimizing labor. The periodic implementation of this concept is necessary not only because there is always room for improvement but also because workload of agencies changes as time goes by which can affect their efficiency and there may be a need to either transfer or divide some of their functions to different departments or agencies. Another important factor that the Hybrid Model will implement is cost cutting through the streamlining and downsizing, if need be, of government departments, agencies, and functions. Taylor’s concept as well as Gulick’s theory of Administrative Management is also relevant here. This means that government agencies performing duplicate or nearly similar functions should be consolidated if practicable. For example, in the wake of the 9/11 cataclysm, the previous administration immediately dismantled the previous counterterrorism program of the government mistaking the inefficiency of program as the core flaw in the failure to anticipate the attack. According to Louise Shelley of the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center this was a mistake because terrorism is necessarily linked to serious crimes (Shelley 2006). If indeed this is true, then government resources are not only erroneously but unnecessarily misspent in the disengagement process. This and other unnecessary splitting of valuable government resources shall be necessarily looked into with the full implementation of the Hybrid model. The Reinventing Government model will be adopted by this administration to the extent that its principles are still viable to the present as the present administration finds that many of its policies are in sympathy with the model. For example, the periodic assessment of government departments and agencies and subsequent recommendations after each assessment shall be observed and are considered very vital to the growth and progress of the government. It will be the policy of the present administration to focus on the efficiency of the government bureaucracy and make them more responsive to the public’s needs. The idea of a think tank within each department sufficiently teethed by immunity from internal rules and regulations is appealing but economic considerations will compel the government to abolish the system and incorporate the functions to existing departments capable of performing the functions. Privatization will be continued as far as practicable not only because it will cut cost for the government but also to enable it to focus on more important things that require immediate attention. However, extra care will be employed in shifting government responsibilities to the private sector not only in the selection of the services but the manner in which the privatization will be done. The private sector shall be initially assisted in the undertaking and government disengagement from the service shall be gradual. Public interest is paramount at all times. The NPM model shall be adopted in respect to its result-oriented perspective. However, it will not be the policy of this administration to reduce the public to the level of “customers” because there are significant differences in the connotation of the terms. This administration finds no parallelism in the terms “customers” and “public” or “citizens,” and the primary distinction being that customers are primarily served for the profit they bring to the private sector whereas the public is served by the government agencies as part of their obligations and functions. Works Cited  Denhardt, Janet Vinzant & Denhardt, Robert B. (2007). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. M.E. Sharpe, p. 130 Diamond, John & Liddle, Joyce. (2005). Management of Regeneration: Choices, Challenges and Dilemmas. Routledge, p. 132. Government Reinvention. usda. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:t0GKMvnj29kJ:www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bi/emergingmarketcondition_files/6govrein.pdf+reinventing+government+model&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ph&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a McDuffie , Jerome A. & Piggrem, Gary Wayne & Woodworth, Steven E. (1991). AP United States History: The Best Test Preparation for the Advanced Placement Examination. Research and Education Association, p. 411 Rabin, Jack. (2003). Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. Marcel Dekker, p. 1127 Shelley, Lousie. (2006). Countering Terrorism in the US: The Fallacy of Ignoring the Crime Terror Nexus. National Counter-Terrorism Strategies: Legal, Institutional, and Public Policy Dimensions in the US, UK, France, Turkey and Russia by Robert W. Orttung, Andrey Makarychev, NATO. IOS Press. Weber, Edward P. (2003). Bringing Society Back in: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability and Sustainable Communities. MIT Press. P. 235.  Wolfe, Alan. (2006). Does American Democracy Still Work? Yale University, p. 75. Read More