The Public Administrative Sector - Admission/Application Essay Example

Case Study: Public administration Executive Summary Budget making process is a multidisciplinary activity that involves many administrative units. As such, there is great need to effectively coordinate the many factions to ensure formulation of an effective budget that takes into consideration all the vital requirements of the general public. Basically, the process can be grouped into four major stages; the drafting stage, legislative stage, the implementation stage and the review and auditing phase. In many of these phases, there is need for transparency, accountability, efficiency and sensitivity to public demands so as to ensure the resultant budget is non-fraudulent and effective. However, the process is often marred with instances of administrative lapses. According to this case, policy making in budgeting and finance sector is a highly consultative process. Consequently, there arise accountability concerns, a common phenomenon in group undertakings. It therefore calls for stance and clear observation of organizational principles to ensure credibility and timely delivery of quality services. According to Wilson, politics and the centralized administrative system of the United States has a great influence on critical decisions. This consequently negatively impacts on the activities of the experts. This observation is supported by works of Goodnow, Taylor, Weber, Gulick, McGregor and Lindblom. Introduction The public administrative sector has for a long time been under limelight for mismanagement instances that have often resulted into institutional loss of finances. In fact, different people have often viewed the sector from different perspectives, with some supporting the current management setups while a greater majority is opposed to the management systems. Working in the local government, budgeting and finance section, there have been many administrative issues, some of which are critically explored in this case analysis. Basically, budget involves formulation of proposed financial undertakings by a firm, clearly defining out projected financial sources and expenditures. This is a process that is very critical in ensuring accountability and prioritization. In the public perspective, the budget making process aids in minimizing taxation concerns, limiting possible over- taxation. The process is also credited for helping in identification of scarce resources and consequently strategically using them to meet essential and basic needs. However, this sector is at times faced with the challenge of effectively dealing with the many competing interests of the many players involved in the process. This leads to fraudulent budgeting process with minimal regards for the welfare of the general public. Eventually, the civilian citizens end up bearing the burden of heavy taxation to meet substitute the embezzled funds. Based on theorists’ observation, this case provides a critical insight into the occurrences and administrative challenges experienced within the budgeting sector. Specifically, the article bases arguments herein on the works of Wilson, Goodnow, Taylor, Weber, Gulick, McGregor and Lindblom. Issues in Budgeting Process Budgeting is a complex multidisciplinary process that takes into account various factors. Firstly, the process is often carried out under different stages by different administrative organs. To ensure the formulated budget is effectively delivered, all operations by different sectors must always be timely. This poses great challenge in many countries, especially noting that there must be effective balance of power between the many governmental organs involved in the budget making taskforce. As outlined by Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative and African Development Bank (2008), the budget making process involves various stages that can be largely categorized as expert drafting, approval, execution, audit and evaluation. This therefore stresses the fundamental need for urgency and timely accomplishment of various tasks, noting that each stage of the process is often allocated limited timeline during which the their duties must be accomplished to ensure the final budget draft is delivered before the next financial year for which it is to be operative. During the budget formulation process, many factors are often considered. Firstly, the government must determine the likely sources of revenue. This provides an ideal platform to plan based on concrete facts rather than mere assumptions. In addition, the government is often called into looking into the proposed national expenditure. In the United States, for instance, there are many departments with differing financial needs. As an example, the heavy involvement of the US in the Global fight against terror implies that more resources must often be allocated to the security department. In fact, one of the fundamental obligations of the US government is to ensure safety of her populations and citizens wherever they may be. In addition, the budgeting committee must consider the medium and long term projections of various departments to ensure no critical issues are left unaccounted for in the budgeting process. This prospect, however, becomes a great challenge since many projections delivered to the committee are often inaccurate forcing the panel to ignore some issues. Within the United States systems, budget making process has greatly changed since World War II. The country focuses on priority sectors which include the healthcare and social programs. In fact, this has become an issue of heated local and national political debates, with many politicians promising to critically look into and adopt proper mechanisms of tackling the wanting issues. Sadly, the population of the public has been constantly rising. This implies that public expenditure in the US critical sector is on the upward trend. With increasing demand and lower supply, the country has constantly run into deficit in its budgeting process. This has prompted adoption of long term techniques aimed at ensuring fiscal balances. This process has, however, been marred with inter-house conflicts which have often derailed the steps made. In addition, short-term budgeting plans (micro budgeting) have proved ineffective for many reasons. Aims of Budgeting Process The budgeting process is often conducted with various aims in mind, some of which are hardly met due to leadership and administrative challenges. However, the experts often attempt to articulate the various issues in attempts to formulate effective and timely budgets. The first consideration of the budget making process is the frequency and timeliness. Based on Hunt’s observation, the business sector is constantly changing (2004). As such, there is need for states to be more dynamic in their budgeting processes to accommodate the inevitable changes. In fact, he observes that most budgets produced by states and organizations are often out-dated and irrelevant to the current setup. Consequently, there is need for quicker response from management bodies to adopt the changes so as to remain competitive in the business world. There is a greater need for firms to adopt forecast strategies. This is essential in preparing the organization or country to the likely future economic setup. Consequently, the nation is able to develop a competitive advantage and provide for its basic needs. Forecast techniques are a key towards development of balanced budgets with negligible financial deficits. Moreover, the state must be flexible enough to adopt the vital organizational structures. In many organizational setups, accountability is a major challenge. This notion must however be changed by institutions opting to prosper since accountability, transparency and accuracy of facts are a vital pillar towards development. According to Hunt (2004) the problems experienced by the United States are a result inaccurate forecasting which leads to improper mobilization of resources. This in long term causes the firm to solve issues that are not of urgently concern to the public, ignoring vital issues that should be urgently solved. One critical observation is the existence of high-order embezzlement of funds within the treasury and the budget committee. These occurrences are against the principle of best practice and must be shunned at all costs if a nation is to realize financial and economic growth. Actors, Positions Taken and Reasons There are many actors involved in the budget making process. First, the process involves the technical committee of experts mandated with the task of critically analyzing the nation’s financial position. This is often determined through assessment of the basic needs of a nation relative to the development goals the government wishes to adopt in different departments. In addition, the government must look into the sources of revenue to be used to cover the proposed expenditure. There are many sources of government revenue, differing depending on the type of government. In federal government, for instance, the likely sources of finance include; capital gain tax, social security tax, excise duty, inheritance tax and the individual and corporate tax. In addition, the governments are likely to generate more revenue through borrowing and user fees. Since taxation is a critical source of revenue, the implication is that the tax collection agencies, lenders and general public are essential partners in the budgeting process. As such, they have great influence on the likely directionality of a given budgeting body. In fact, the general public and citizens of the United States from who the taxes are collected opt to have the lions share in decision making process in regards to the budget, since the process directly affects their activities. Moreover, the taxes and revenue cannot be effectively collected in the absence of the collecting body. This would consequently translate into lack of finance for meeting various proposed government projects. The banks, which are lenders to the state also greatly influence the final budget proposed by a state or country. In the absence of the borrowed revenue, the government would have to forgo many planned state undertakings. Policy Making Process Policy making is a complex process that involves many organs and personnel reinforcing the works of each other to achieve a common goal- better livelihood for humanity. According to Gurick, such a process requires effective leadership to spearhead success. He specifically outlines leadership as an ingredient of converting potentials into reality. As such, the theorist, there is great need to replace ineffective leaders with new administrators capable of moving a decision making panel forward (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). The budget making process involves projections by experts on ways of tackling national development. The process involves allocation of national or state revenues to different projects depending on the urgency of such issues. This therefore points out to public consultation forums to identify the main issues the citizens would like to see urgently tackled. Following expert projections, the legislature is mandated to review the budget making process. In the process, the legislature has the power to review certain sections and re-allocate finance to sectors that they feel has been disadvantaged by the budgeting process. In addition, the legislature has the power to formulate policies aimed at controlling the implementation of the projected budget. Basically, the budget making process can be categorized under five main classes. First, the executive budget and finance committee prepares the budget draft, outlining proposed priorities. The draft is then submitted to the parliament for debate and review to determine its suitability for adoption. At this stage, various changes may be proposed by the parliamentary group. In some instances, the changes adopted may water down the proposed budget. After successful legislative review, the proposed budget passes through the third stage- the implementation phase. In some instances, this phase may be marred with corruption and insensitivity to public needs. Therefore, the budgetary implementation is often subjected to strict legislative supervision. Following successful implementation, the financial expenditure and incomes are subjected to scrutiny by external auditors. This is critical in determining the level of success of the budget implementation process (OECD, 2004). This oversight role is okay based on Gurick’s principles. However, it slightly contravenes his POSDCORB proposals which seek to ensure the executive planning committee is accorded the fundamental rights to planning, staffing, directing and coordinating the budget making process. The current state of affairs, on the contrary, gives more powers to the legislature thus weakening the activities of the budget committee. In addition, Gurick proposes an executive chair with the sole right to organize and report budgeting proceedings, and also empowered to staff. As such, the leaders are enabled to positively influence lives of others thus moving the department forward (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). A critical insight into the budget and finance department paints a vivid picture of administrators who are either too tired to perform their constitutionally designated duties, or too old to cope up with the constantly changing world. Indeed, most American interests are rarely taken into action because the leaders spearheading the vital process hardly believe in modernity. As a result, they resort to accomplishing tasks the traditional (analogue) ways thus derailing national progress. The Decision Making Process Within the United States setup, the budget decision making process involves multiple organs. First, the president obtains the draft copy of the budget and goes through it. The president then submits it to the congress, clearly outlining priority areas. This follows wide consultation between the executive and other federal agencies. The next decision making panels are the house and senate committees which adopt a budgeting resolution. The two houses are then mandated to pass appropriate bills, a process which occurs in May. Thereafter, the budget goes through the next stage during which reconciliatory legislation is adopted. This is followed by authorization legislation, which permits the government to implement the budget. This authorization phase is accomplished by the congress and the senate in compliance with the laid down legislations of the house and senate. Through various legislations established by the House of Representatives, the US has enhanced accountability and transparency in federal budgeting. The passing of bill 245-180 in 2012 was particularly a major boost towards transparency in federal budgeting. Leadership and Management Transparent leadership and management structures are major challenges to many public firms. In fact, many firms have often collapse following instances of public outcry or employee revolution following long periods of oppressive institutional structures. Based on the observations in this case, the major failures experienced in the budgeting and finance committee result from competitive interests of the various personnel involved in the process. This is against the principle of best practice as outlined by Woodrow Wilson and fellow theorists. According to the theorists, the danger of power is attributable to lack of accountability, a situation which occurs when designated jobs are spread across a wide array of personnel. This makes it quite difficult to trace the origins of specific errors that may be encountered during the budget making process. In addition, the contest for power among top governing bodies has, in many instances, resulted into budgetary failures with every sector advocating for interests (Feldman and Khademian, 2001). In addition, the budgetary section is one of the few areas within the United States national and local governments in which flexibility in decision making is lacking within the top management organs. This leads to delays in enforcement of simple policies. This is further worsened by the dichotomous approach to tackling issues as commonly employed by many local and state budgetary committees. According to Wilson, it is more preferable for organizations to reinforce each other’s roles in a mutual manner rather than a dichotomous system which is an impediment to flexibility, accountability and timeliness of activities. This view is closely shared by Goodnow who disapproves of the constitutional balance of power. Based on Goodnow’s observation, America needs a central system and bold political network able to effectively oversee service deliveries. Through the centralized system, it would be easier to initiate timely projects, a great necessity in the budgetary system (Denhardt, Warnicke and Andonoska, 2010). Therefore, there is great need to transform the leadership of the budgetary and finance departments. This can be accomplished through organizational revolutions aimed at setting up proper channels to be followed in accomplishing tasks assigned to different department. Moreover, tracking mechanisms should be setup to identify and probe malpractices during the process. This will ensure that all perpetrators of malice, improper conduct and abuse of office are brought to book. In long term, the budgetary system will be transformed into a public- sensitive system with great regard for public opinions and interests. This boosts public confidence and hence the people’s desire to pay tax since they know it will be of great benefit to national development programs. Finally, it is necessary to accord team leaders appropriate powers. This will play a great role in ensuring maximum respect from members. Consequently, the leaders will be able to perform at their best levels, fully focused on the expected outcomes. Sadly, this has thus far been the reverse of the happenings at the treasury and budgeting department in which the team leaders are answerable to many constitutional organs. As a result, most of them fear delivering their designated duties for fear of victimization should things go wrong (Bolden, et. al., 2003). Administrative Ethics From my public service in the budgetary and finance department, I have learned of many administrative issues, most of which are not being observed by the officers in charge. As defined by Orlic (2004), administrative ethics involves applying specific principles of humanity to a given people. Sadly, many public servants, especially the young managers and administrators, are continuously adopting principles that they never believed in. This affects them psychologically and socially thus corrupting their minds and personalities. While it is expected that administrators should always act with uttermost respect and professionalism towards clients, the reverse has been true for many government institutions. As a result, the administrative professionals often tend to break the administrative code of conduct which stipulates courtesy and good will as ideal ways of representing the employer. In fact, due to the poor attitude portrayed by different administrative professionals, America has been negatively branded as a nation of arrogant and lazy people. This perception is the true inverse of the reality, a nation of ambitious and hardworking citizens always committed to better livelihoods. In some instances, financial and budgeting cases have often found their ways to law courts. This has often prompted need for witnesses to testify. In such instances, some government employees have often gone ahead to testify without the consent of their employers. This is totally against the administrative codes of conduct, amounting to severe misrepresentation of the codes. Moreover, some employees at the budgeting department are under multiple employments. In such a case, the employer firm is able to experience artificial lapses in service delivery thus derailing public and client confidence in the employer firm. Based on administrative ethics, an employee should never seek alternative or supplementary employment without the consent of the parent employer firm. In professional setups, the administrators are often tasked with the prospect of determining and ensuring equal opportunities for all. However, this was not the case as observed in the budget and finance sector. Rather, the government firms are often marred with instances of corruption, nepotism and social segregation. Most administrative officers are often driven by self gain and tokens aimed at luring them to accomplish specified tasks. Some administrators are also often ready to release critical and confidential information about the firms for which they work. This contravenes the principle of best practice. Discussion and Conclusion Based on the reviewed articles, it can be concluded that unfavorable political climate play a great role in budgetary lapses and deficits encountered in the budget making process. According to Tahmasebi and Musavi (2011), the dichotomy nature of the political set up in the United States was a major factor in leading the US into the financial crisis. In fact, the United States would have hardly experienced the economic deficits it has for a long time been faced with if the republican leadership had paid focused attention to budgetary predictions. This would have enabled the country to be prepared to tackling the ever looming economic challenges it has from time to time been forced to go through. Moreover, there is need for role assignment and accountability in the public service sectors. Working with the budgeting and finance department, there were arrays of malpractices and ignorance of duty among top officials. This lack of vigilance and commitment is a greatly enhances the pace at which vital processes are ignored, leading to massive loss of public funds. In addition, the long term threat posed by ignorance of duty is immeasurable. Leadership wrangles and superiority contests have cost the government and hence the public a great deal. During budgeting and financial analysis, superiority tags of war have often resulted in the poorly accomplished tasks. Different sections involved in the process often look at their proposals as being the best and hence must be followed. Failure in such understanding results into many essential clauses and requirements being ignored, culminating a long-term economic and social disaster. Therefore, it is high time American civil servants learnt to serve and defend the public interests beyond personal aspirations, political or economical. It is key to understand the sovereignty of the people as the employers, hence personal duties to serve them as masters. This is a principle that is in many instances ignored in the budget making process as evident from heavy taxation imposed on the people from time to time. It is high time the American government and public systems reviewed some retrogressive laws that have for a long time subjected citizens to immeasurable oppression and exploitation. This will help in building the faded public trust in governmental systems. As a result, public bodies and officials will find it easier to adopt policies aimed at safeguarding people against vices such as bribery, gifts or favors. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that consultative leadership is essential to achieve faster economic, social and political development. It is essential to note that while politics has for a long time been blamed for the problems faced in the public sector, the co-existence of the two distinctive but essential components of humanity has grown into a mutual relationship. Tahmasebi and Musavi (2011) observe that politics has a lot to learn from public administration, just as much as public administrative sector should borrow a few lessons on commitment from the political class. References Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2007). Leadership theories and styles: 2009 administrative professional week event. Jossey Bass. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from http://www.etsu.edu/ahsc/documents/leadership_theories.pdf Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (June 2003). Edited Version of a Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Retrieved 22nd July, 2014, from: http://www2.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/luisrodrigues/textos/Lideran%C3%A7a.pdf Tahmasebi, R. and Musavi, S. M. (2011). Politics-Administration Dichotomy: A Century Debate. Tehran University, Tehran, Iran. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from: http://www.ramp.ase.ro/en/_data/files/articole/2011/17-09.pdf Denhardt, R., Warnicke, M. and Andonoska, L. (2010). An overview of organization theory and behavior. Foundations of Public Administration. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from: http://www.aspanet.org/public/ASPADocs/PAR/FPA/FPA-ABO-Article.pdf Orlic, R. (2004). Main areas of administrative ethics. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Jove Ilica 154-11040 Belgrade, Serbia. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/integriteit/egpa/previous-egpa-conferences/lisbon-2003/orlic.pdf Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative and African Development Bank. (2008). Budget practices and procedures in Africa 2008. CABRI Secretariat, National Treasury, South Africa. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/CABRI%20AfDB%20ENG.pdf Hunt, S. (2004). Budgeting and forecasting: issues and leading practices. Accenture Finance and Performance Management Services. Retrieved 22 July, 2014 from: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/112192TacticalV7.pdf OECD. (2004). The legal framework for budget systems; an international comparison. OECD Jounal on Budgeting, Special Issue. Retrieved 22 July, 2014, from: http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/43487903.pdf Read More