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)