The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue - Assignment Example

Public Management in an International Context Assignment One Introduction "What citizens want their governments to do in different countries is driven both by politics and the capacities of the other institutions in that society." (Bovaird & Lffler 2003) Moreover, political institutions are distinctive units in public management that are both significant in every politician's regime. They are the principal means by which a system of the government can achieve its collective purposes. But, political institutions also exert a formative effect on a regime. A community that seeks to govern itself through representatives must create a representative assembly, and in doing so the people give the assembly a particular character. But then, by virtue of its composition, its structure and operation, and the purposes it chooses for the polity or system of the government as expressed in the laws it passes, the representative assembly has a far-reaching impact on the character of the polity, and how it develops over time. (Cook 1998) Based from the definitions prominent of public management that generally talks about political strategy and political skill, it could be concluded that this orientation in public management is definitely a short-term goal. (Cook 1998) However, there is a variety of definitions concerning public management. These various ides are too narrow resulting into a weak and undeveloped literature of public management. In particular, Laurence Lynn concluded that "public management is essentially concerned with the performance of the executive function in government at the heart of public management... is a strategic judgment: a choice concerning goals and actions in specific settings that satisfies reasonable criteria" (qtd in Cook 1998) Lynn (1996), at the same time quoted Ott, Hyde, and Shafritz with their definition of public management in order to represent and differentiate the term from public administration for which public management is often confused. "Public management is a major segment of the broader field of public administration. . . . Public management focuses on public administration as a profession and on the public manager as a practitioner of that profession. . . . Public management focuses on the managerial tools, techniques, knowledge, and skills that can be used to turn ideas and policy into programs of action. A few of these techniques and competencies are: position classification systems, recruitment and selection procedures, management by influence, budget analysis and formulation, supervisory skills, long range or strategic planning, program and organizational evaluation, feedback and control mechanisms (typically through management information systems), contract management, project management, and reorganization." (qtd in Lynn 1996) Even highly developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have different public management policies. The people who make up the society of both countries have played an important role in the development of the country's public management strategies. The United States' Public Management The federal government of the United States in 1980s and 1990a were found to have several similarities with the Benchmark Case such that changes were too evident in most areas of public management policy. "Institutional rules and organizational routines in the area of audit and evaluation were affected by the Government Results and Performance Act, the Chief Financial Officers Act, and the National Performance Review's service quality initiative. Change was also evident in the area of procurement, with legislative changes known as "procurement streamlining" and major changes in routines within the General Services Administration. To some degree, change was evident in the area of civil service and labour relations, with rules and routines developed to downsize the federal workforce and to reform the Office of Personnel Management (Barzelay 2001)." The change in the area of organization and methods in the American public management policy were constituted by the reinvention labs initiative. However, there were no major reorganization of the federal bureaucracy had occurred. (Barzelay 2001) According to John Elwood, in the United States, public "management is associated with decisions and practices of those at the top levels of organizations and institutions." (qtd in Cook 1998) The United Kingdom Public Management The British society and its politics are often discussed in terms of their homogeneity and integration. There was no observed difference or any changes as to the political leadership and management among its leaders aside from the social class and the presence of uniform set of political and social values. An agreement has also been argued to exist on the nature of the political system and about the general policies of government. The impression commonly given is one of homogeneity, stability, and indeed of a rather boring locale in which to study politics. Margaret Thatcher reinforced the impression of stability - that is to remain in power for over a decade and for her party to win the subsequent general election. (Conradt 1998) However, in reality, the social and political systems of the United Kingdom are substantially more diverse than what most people thought. Many of the factors that divide other democracies politically also divide the citizens of the United Kingdom. There are differences in religion, language, regions, and perceptions of issues that both mitigate and reinforce the traditionally dominant class divisions in British politics. "Those divisive factors have become even more important as immigration, Europeanization, and economic change have tended to generate ever greater social divisions". (Conradt et al 1998) These several policy debates about administration and management in the government on a narrow perspective had been true in the twentieth century. However, during the post-war era of government expansion, public management and administration was not given as much attention as it had been at present. Interests were more focused on other policy issues such as the national security, economic performance, social security, health and safety. "Public management was generally regarded as a process through which policies were formulated, resources allocated, and programs implemented, rather than as a policy issue in its own right". (Cook 1998) However, beginning in the 1970s, the potential for policy change in the area of public management increased, as economies suffered stagflation and public perceptions of bureaucracy became more negative. (Cook 1998) During her tenure as prime minister of the United Kingdom, Thatcher successfully made the culture, size, cost, and operation of the British civil service a policy issue. Thatcher drove through changes in public management policies in such areas as organization and methods, civil service and labour relations, expenditure planning and financial management, audit and evaluation, and procurement, playing the functional role of "policy entrepreneur," as well as the official role of prime minister. Her successor, John Major, kept public management policy high on the formal agenda of the Conservative government, leading to the implementation of the Next Steps Initiative and the launching of the Citizens Charter Initiative, Competing for Quality, Resource Accounting and Budgeting, and the Private Finance Initiative. (Cook 1998) Not only is there diversity, but the setting of British politics has a number of seemingly contradictory elements that make the management of government much more of a balancing act than might be thought at first glance. In fact, the genius of British politics in maintaining a stable political system over several centuries is not the good fortune of operating in a homogeneous society but the development of a set of institutions, values, and customs that permit the realistic acceptance of diversity and an effective accommodation to change. Historically these changes have been rather slow, but its transformation has accelerated during the last part of the twentieth century. (Cook 1998) The US and the UK public management policies The development of public management in every country differs, since the people that compose the community are varied. As much as the people under their political system have their own ideals concerning the kind and the form of government they would want to impose on their country. Since public management is a product of the political agenda of the country's political figures, it depends mostly on their initiatives in transforming its public management. There are in various ways, the development of the US and the UK public management becomes similar as well as they differ. There are several factors affecting this similarities and differences between the United Kingdom and the United States when it comes to developing their own public management policies. One of these factors, according to Lavery is the local government contracting. Thus, Lavery (1995) enumerated several differences between the UK and the US's local government contracting. The first local public management policy where the two countries differ come in their public/private competition. English local governments nearly always "contract in" by encouraging their employees to compete with the private sector. U.S. local governments mostly contract out, with some high-profile exceptions, such as Phoenix and Indianapolis. Another one is regarding the complete and partial contracting wherein English local governments tend to favour more on "complete contracting" than their US counterparts - meaning, many contracts are for one hundred percent of a function. On the other hand, many US local governments retain a proportion of the work in-house or contract with more than one firm. Both countries at the same time differ when it comes to the firms for which the government make contract with. Majority of the United States government contract with small local firms that are family-owned businesses. However, in England, they believe, the "big is beautiful." The UK government contract with much bigger enterprises, thus a reflection of their preferences for complete contracting. Support services are among the other policy issues that US and UK government are of the opposite. US local governments have focused on contracting for manual services, such as trash collection. English local governments, by contrast, have been more prepared to contract out professional support services, such as computing and financial services. Intergovernmental contracting is also a significant aspect in the public management policy. Considerably more intergovernmental contracting goes on in the United States than in England. Indeed, English intergovernmental contracting is constrained by law. Local governments can supply services to other governments only if they have "surplus capacity" and supply the service "at cost." Foe such intergovernmental contracting, intragovernmental contracting also plays an important role in US and UK public management. British local governments do much more "internal contracting" than do their U.S. counterparts. In these cases, internal support services are provided on a quasi-contract basis within the organization. This is much more than an accounting technique, as it involves transferring the budget from the support function to front-line departments and giving the latter the freedom to buy the services from outside. (Lavery 1995) There were reforms in the public management of the two countries. These reforms had been significant they are essential in the development of the policies that the countries had in public management. Initially, the reform of the state organization that had been a historical event for every nation was the civil service reform that was represented by the transition from patrimonial administration to public administration. However, civil service reform took place at different periods. In Europe, civil service reform took place in the nineteenth century, while in the United States it happened at the beginning of the twentieth century. But proper public management reform gained momentum only in the 1980s, with the neo-liberal wave and with Margaret Thatcher's election as prime minister of the United Kingdom. According to Peter Aucoin, Thatcher launched public management reform, but in the end it was "adopted by governments formed by political parties from across the political spectrum, including parties on the traditional left, most notably Labour governments in Australia and New Zealand." (Bresser-Pereira 2004) In 1995, Donald Kettl wrote an essay that analysed and commented on the political reform campaign of the Clinton administration that he referred to as Reinventing Government. The essay was entitled "Building Lasting Reform: Enduring Questions, Missing Answers." It argues that the National Performance Review (NPR) will soon become the landmark in public sector management reform in the US federal government. In political terms, the NPR demonstrates that public management reform is an issue that can remain near the top of a presidential agenda for at least an entire term. In substantive terms, NPR demonstrates that executive leadership from the White House can have an impact on the management of federal departments and on specific activities or programs. In both respects, NPR seems to have broken the mould of public management reform in the federal government. (Barzelay 2001) Conclusion The mono-cultural and free of conflict image of the nation is oftentimes interrupted by questions of the care of black elders, by the question of pension benefits for non-married couples and gay or lesbian partners, by employment tribunals confronted by evidence of the racist, sexist or homophobic organizational cultures of public services, by disability activists demanding citizenship rights, and by the long-running-and multi-faceted -"crisis of the family." In these and many more ways the unresolved crisis of the social settlement ensures that the formation of a new relationship between the state and the public will remain embattled - and unstable. (qtd in Box et al 2001) The similarities and differences of the US and the UK public management were more on the political level than the management issues. When as a matter of fact, the people should dictate the government as to the policies it needs to implement in the country in order to benefit the community as a whole. But this was not the case in the United States and the United Kingdom as the initial reforms of the public management were initiated by the highest ranking government official - which are the President and the Prime Minister. Moreover, history of both nations also dictates as to whether there is a need to develop its public management strategies that had been implemented since the early centuries. The political figures in the government further take the opportunity of creating an image for themselves thus they try to apply a different public management scheme such that they would be able to impress the people whom they serve. Therefore, a new public management scheme is yet studies to further address the different issues concerning public management reforms. Works Cited: Barzelay, M. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA. Bovaird, T. & Lffler, E. 2003. Public Management & Governance. Routledge, New York. Box, R. 2001. New Public Management and Substantive Democracy. Public Administration Review. Vol. 61:5. American Society for Public Administration. Conradt, D. et al. 1998. Politics in Western Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the European Union. Chatham House Publishers; Chatham, NJ. Cook, B. 1998. Politics, Political Leadership and Public Management. Public Administration Review. Vol. 58:3 American Society for Public Administration. Lavery, K. 1995. The English Contracting Revolution. Public Management. Vol. 77: 8. International City-County Management Association. Lynn, L. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science and Profession. Chatham House Publishers. Chatham, NJ. Read More