Two questions help us in putting the debate into proper perspective:_› Do we need Government?

› What difference exists between government and the state?

Understanding these two questions will help us in articulating the intentions and spirit of the paper

› For decades, conservatives have been pushing for smaller government, and have consistently called for reduced social spending, less regulation, and more tax cuts.

› Service delivery has been argued to be put in the hands of the private sector

› Unfortunately, during times of crises like the financial crisis of 2008, calls for an active government emerges.

› If there was no government in any society, chaos would be the order of the day

In a popular talk the terms the 'State' and Government" are very often used synonymously.

Even king Louis XIV once ignored the distinction when he declared "I am the State".

The political scientists make a clear distinction between the State and government.

Population

Territory

Government

Sovereignty.

But the government is temporary AND it changes frequently.

A government may come and go, but the State continues for ever.

Death of a ruler or the overthrow of a government in general elections does not mean the change of the State

› The organs of government (executive, legislature ad judiciary) consists of only a few selected citizens.

› The few selected persons run the three organs of the government on behalf of the many citizens

› Membership of the State is compulsory but not that of the government.

› Its authority is absolute and unlimited.

› Its power cannot be taken away by any other institution.

› Government possesses no sovereignty, no original authority, but only derivative powers delegated by the State through its constitution.

› The Powers of government are delegated and limited.

Nobody sees the State and the State never acts.

Unlike government which is a physical manifestation and it acts for the State.

It consists of a definite group of persons who can be seen and known.

It is a tangible organization which can be seen and questioned.

Whether big or small, the characteristics of the State do not undergo changes.

But governments are of different types and they may vary form the State to state› Aristotle had classified government into

monarchy, aristocracy and democracy › Marriot classified government into

parliamentary or presidential and unitary or federal.

But the State is a universal institution having one single form with its four essential characteristics.

The State only acts through the government and the government may commit mistakes and not the State.

Thus, the citizens have only rights to go against the government.

Moreover, the State consists of all the citizens, IF the citizens go against the State, it will mean going against themselves.

If the majority of Africans were to have a wish, a well – governed, peaceful, secure, stable and prosperous continent where human dignity is cherished would likely top the list.

People (principals) , through recorded history agreed to transfer their powers to government as an agent

Government powers are exercised through three arms-legislature, executive and judiciary; working under the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances to manage a range of services

Government designs and implements a range of policies to regulate the management of public affairs

Public Policies mean what our governments may decide to do or not do

The Politicians-who are charged with the policy making processes

The administrators-who are charged with broadly implementation of the policies

Governments in Africa also have the non-state actors

In recent times, confusion emerges between the role of government and the non state actors

Public-politician (gives mandate, accompanied by demands)

Politician-administrator (determines policies for administrator to implement and holds them accountable for same)

Administrator-public (translates policies into goods and services for the public and treats all citizens fairly and impartially), and

Public-politician-administrator-public (complex web of relationships that could also operate in the reverse direction).

Public-Government-Private Sector( mandates, monitors, regulates and demands accountability

Public-Government-CSOs( mandates, regulates, and demands accountability)

NOTE: Collusion is on the increase among the politicians,

the administrators and (some members of the public) to deny the broader majority citizens good services

In the old Relationship, Public administration was central but under the new form of marriage, Public management is the order of the day and will be the subject of my presentation in regard to how it has influenced service delivery

The role of government, the private sector and some other non-state actors is blurred

It is quite common to find activities which were traditionally done by the government (at whatever level) now being done by other actors particularly the private sector

It is also no longer strange to find governments doing certain activities which are known to be for the non state actors

Government departments and agencies also want to make profits; which used to be the concern of the private sector

The arrangements of service delivery have at times left citizens confused on whom they should hold accountable

The current development model has been driven by the markets championed by public choice theorists and institutional economists› Terms like Management literally replaced

Administration› Business Administration/Management Graduates

have in some countries been favored to work in government than graduates of public administration-whose primary area of operation is government

› Certain public policies have shifted and are driven by public management approaches as opposed to public administration approaches

› National development plans in most African Countries, have adopted a Business Approach as opposed to a Public Administration approach

Public sector has been fundamentally reduced through reforms like downsizing and retrenchment; although those retrenched in a number of countries, come back to government through the back door

Public administrators have been replaced by public managers

Government parastatals in most countries were privatized only to come in a different form as executive autonomous agencies

Central governments were decentralized through a wave of initiatives

Public service values have been replaced by business values

Employment terms which used to be permanent and pensionable basis have been replaced by contract –based employment

An entrepreneurial spirit was to be injected in the running of government and government entities were expected to run on business models as business corporations

Citizens were replaced with a more business oriented terminology of customers and clients

Certain management philosophies and styles borrowed from the private sector entered the public sector- like results-oriented management, benchmarking, right sizing, re-tooling , out-put based budgeting etc

Alternative modes of service delivery emerged such as outsourcing, contracting out, PPPs, third-sector governance etc

Performance management systems were introduced and managers

Institutes of Public Administration had to be re-named to at least add the word management or drop the word public administration altogether

That explains why some MPA courses have Public Management Theories as opposed to Public Administration Theories

Reforms at a political and economic levels to reduce the role of government become a household name-decentralisation, privatisation etc

Answers to such a question requires a torch into the history of our field-Public Administration

Public administration regarded both as an area of practice and a discipline of study has an impressive history

Practices of administration have been around since man started living in organized societies

Kings, emperors and other leaders of the category had the systems for managing public affairs and the governments of the time played a major role

The discipline of public administration is however slightly younger.

Has moved through the following phases:-› The Politics-Administration Dichotomy (1887-1926)› The Principles of Administration (1927-1937)› The Era of Challenge (1938-1947)› The identity crisis (1948-1970)› From Public Administration to Public

Management (From 1970s to early 1990s)› From Public Management to public governance (late

1990s to 2008)› Global economic crisis (2008-2010)› From Governance to New Public Governance (2010….) › From Public service to New Public Service

(2013…..)

The fundamental Question

The Architecture Question

The Unit of Analysis question

The values question

The skills Question

The accountability question

The sustainability question

A new dominant approach based on the public service dominant approach as opposed to the public management approach based on the manufacturing sector and not ‘services’ has been suggested

This latter approach emphasizes › the distinctive characteristics of services and their

impact upon their management› takes a holistic and systemic approach to the

delivery of (public) services and acknowledges the central role of service user expectations and experience to the performance of (public) services.

The public service is a key instrument to regulate, administer, execute, mediate, invest and delivers the construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of service delivery infrastructure, and ensures that the public service machinery is oriented to diligently serve the citizens.

Public servants are the backbone and heartbeat of the public service, but if this heartbeat is unethical and unprofessional, there will be no blood circulation and the public service will ‘die’ (Mle, 2012:29).

Public service essentially focuses not only on the delivery of services, but it is also crucial for economic and social development through providing the essential services and basic infrastructure necessary to help spur economic development and improve the lives of communities, especially poor communities.

While ultimately public servants must be responsive to the government of the day, they must use their professional knowledge, skills and competencies to ensure a better life for all by offering their best services in the most known efficient way while being economic and effective in the use of tax payer’s money.

The public servants must be fully accountable for their decisions; in all its forms

The key challenge for African countries today is how to build an efficient public service that can design and implement effective policies.

Well intentioned policies are influenced from wrong premises and end up not posting the right results

The Public administration systems are not working as expected-they have fundamental issues

The public servants are accused of so many corruption, absenteeism, incompetence etc

The Citizens have also taken a backseat on matters concerning their taxes

Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) inherited public administration (PA) systems that performed two key functions of a modern state fairly satisfactorily: › assuring the continuity of the state and

maintaining law and order within each country’s territorial areas.

Most countries moved quickly to recruit and train nationals to replace the departing colonial officials and to assure the steady supply of trained men and women for their expanding public services.

From the late 1970s through the 1980s, the rot and a decline of the PA system in many SSA countries became noticeable.

The onset of the decline coincided with a steady collapse of commodity prices and the weakening of the economies of many countries (the exceptions were the mineral producing countries), widespread political instability, and the accession to power of political leaders (many of them military officers) who undermined rather than nurtured PA institutions.

By the late 1980s, there was widespread acknowledgment of a development crisis in SSA and the decline of the PA in the majority of the countries was just one of the manifestations

The 1980s and 1990s are THUS often described as the “lost decades”

African countries have been unable, until now, (with few exceptions) to build a public service infrastructure worth its name.

The problems of the lost decade, › the International Monetary Fund and the World

Bank imposed structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and 1990s.

Their theoretical premise was that markets were efficient while government interventions were inefficient because they distorted the market signals.

Long-term development planning was abandoned and industrial policies neglected in most African countries.

African governments focused on macroeconomic stability and institutional reforms but without coherent strategies to address market failures

During the early 1990s, events in SSA evolved in two diametrically opposed directions: › on the one hand, the governance crisis deepened

in a few states, culminating in the phenomenon of failed states (Liberia, Sierra Leone and Somalia) or failing states ( Angola, Burundi, Sudan, and Zaire), suffering from civil strife or civil wars of varying magnitude

› On the other hand, many states were joining the worldwide waves of democratization and economic liberalization.

Comprises a few countries where public administration decline did not take place because the inherited tradition of merit-based and politically neutral civil service system was maintained and nurtured (for example, Botswana and Mauritius).

Namibia and South Africa qualify to be under this category as well

The countries made reasonable progress in socio-economic development and were, able to finance the cost of nurturing their civil service systems: › Providing decent pay levels for officials;› Funding educational institutions at fairly adequate

levels to assure supply of trained Manpower

In both Botswana and South Africa, the nurturing of a career civil service remains a priority of the governments even when a dose of NPM-style contract appointment was introduced in the late 1990s for the chief administrative heads of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of the central government.

Comprises countries that experienced a decline of their PA system but were seriously committed to rehabilitating their civil service systems by the early 1990s.

They also embraced the democratization wave of the period but with significantly varying speed towards the establishment of democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia belong to this category of countries).

Attention was focused on civil service staff reduction, freezing of new recruitments, and removal of “ghost workers” with a view to reducing the size of the civil service wage bill.

Only modest results were achieved: some retrenched workers returned through revolving doors; some new appointments had to be made to some essential services (notably in the social sector); and in most cases the largest numbers of retrenched staff were from the lower pay levels, yielding only small savings

Comprised countries that introduced some of the reform initiatives but none of them had by 2004 recorded any success noteworthy as those of Group B countries.

The fourth category involved the beginners or non-starters that constituted the opposite end of Group A countries and these appeared to have been caught up in a vicious cycle of unending conflicts (civil strife or civil wars), poor economies, and failed or failing states, with decaying PAs.

Poor enforcement of public service codes of conduct

Questionable public service professionalism and ethics

Dishonest management of public affairs and corruption

Scandals involving public officials with the public

Collusion is a common disease to break through complicated systems.

Breakdown in public accountability. The indebtedness malaise that has hit the

legislature has found its way to most public servants across levels and sectors.

Attitudinal impairments of public servants. Public servants have poor attitude reflected in poor time management and the blatant misuse of public resources.

The culture of absenteeism and doing less than expected in a particular day without much concern is a reflection of the poor regard for the trust of citizens.

Public servants have poor relations with tax payers.

Public servants have poor Communication skills

Poor coordination of Government Programmes

The neutrality of the public service as a whole remains questionable.

Public services recruitments seem are biased and merit-based doctrines are being replaced with informalities

Most reforms have concentrated on public service infrastructure at the expense of the remaining two pillars-the public servant and client.

There is implementation paralysis and this is caused by poor funding, which is compounded by a public service culture where public interest is replaced by private interest.

Infusion of Politics into management of state affairs Increased citizen apathy and Dysfunctional systems and

institutions

Challenged on how to deliver services-relying on the market, management and measurement or getting involved

Some people favor the centrality of government-public administration while others seek to eliminate government, and thus, government bureaucracy, by moving as many of the functions of government to the private sector

Government agencies become contract administrators rather than persons who deliver services, the justification being that private bureaucracies are more efficient than government bureaucracies

Public service transformation covers a high level deliberate and well-coordinated process of radical change that re-orients the public service in a new direction to make it efficient and effective in enabling the government fulfills its mandate to citizens and ‘other customers’.

Unlike public service 'turnaround' (which implies incremental progress) public service transformation suggests a basic change of the entire machinery of the public service.

Not only should such a transformation cover the public service infrastructure (processes, procedures, policies, rules and regulations, practices) but should re-orient the character and attitudes of the public servants to a good job within the prescribed rules and regulations.

It should equally extend to emancipating the citizens in whatever capacity necessary to demand accountability from those in charge of the state apparatus.

Public servants need to be educated in their philosophical roles and the inherent public service values which are expounded in the public service codes of conduct. › Most public servants appear to have taken away

by the public management prescriptions and have no regard for public administration philosophies in a democracy.

› The elected leaders themselves seem not to understand the foundation of government.

The implementation of national service courses becomes a matter of necessity not choice.

More attention towards policy preparation and evaluation. › If governments want to have major impact, they

need to take decisions based on well thought visions that have seen major stakeholders participated and feeling a degree of ownership of the policies.

› The culture of minimalist consultation during policy development needs to be replaced with a true meaning of consultation.

› While participatory representation may be a challenge due to the complexities of its implementation, the representative representation itself has to take the heterogeneous nature of the country.

More regulatory role of the government in a complex society is urgently required and will be a catalyst for effective transformation agenda. › While most government activities are driven by the

business approach, government’s strong arm is critical.

› Government has to exert its influence through an efficient regulatory function.

› An effective government must have an elaborate instrument to safeguard the well-being of citizens in society.

› Our complex society needs an intelligent government who supports opportunities for further growth towards a harmonious organization and an effective and safe society.

New delivery through partnerships needs to be explored but within the strict conditions that government retains the role to do due diligence and perform its regulatory and monitoring role as explained above. › Government; it has been argued by public choice

theorists, can no longer have the ambition to accumulate all needed knowledge and budgets.

› To safeguard the positive impact, governments have to elaborate new collaboration models with different stakeholders and private partners.

› Controlled trust and respect instead of distrust should be the main driver in the relation between government, citizens and companies.

Attention to the doctrines of good government and governance; guided by the century old principles of separation of powers and checks and balances in the context of democratic doctrines will be a critical pillar for transformation.

Democratic principles of public financial management will need to be at the center of government-citizen interaction.

Reliability, transparency and accountability will only need to be key words for a government with visible interest in ensuring societal transformation.

The use of civil society organizations and other non-state actors in instilling a stewardship culture and demanding accountability on behalf of the people will by most probability post impressive outcomes.

Building the public sector landscape of the future; with foresighted public servants; is a suggested urgent area for policy intervention.

The culture of designing efficient processes and managing complexities needs urgent policy attention.› All administrations will need to have a continued desire

for innovation in the public service processes while they optimize the processes – adapting to the specific strategy, legal changes, innovation, new services and delivery models.

› An efficient government should look for standardized solutions in domains as finance, human resources, public procurement, adapted to the specific public sector environment.

The power of an efficient coordination and monitoring framework is critical.› Government urgently needs to re-evaluate the

mandates of its various departments and agencies with a view of consolidating existing mandates into related areas.

› This will build synergy among related functions but will also see significant resource saving which will be put to good use.

› The relationship between the central government and local government should be a major area of emphasis in debating coordinating and monitoring.

Performance measurement for senior managers will need a much more robust attention than it has attracted.

Even public servant in responsible supervisory position must be given clear benchmarks of performance and remedial action needs to be taken where non adherence to agreed benchmarks is not accomplished.

The Economic Report on Africa (2013) that Africa is now one of the fastest growing economies of the world and the continent has been hailed as the next frontier for opportunity and a potential global growth pole due to: › Political conflicts have declined› Economic growth is robust › Economic management and governance

Africa boasts of significant human and natural resources -though some are resource poor.

The continent has as a growing, predominantly young and urbanizing population

Africa is endowed with many natural resources, including plentiful land and fertile soils, oil and minerals.

Africa has about › 12% of the world’s oil reserves› 42 % of its gold› 80–90 % of chromium and platinum group metals,

and › 60% of arable land in addition to vast timber

resources.

African governments work on building a strong public service infrastructure

African governments work on improving the quality of the public servant

African countries empower the citizens to demand accountability

THANK YOU