SURVEY OF STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WITHIN AND ACROSS INSTITUTIONS

A Report by an UNDESA/IASIA Task Force

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgements by Guido Bertucci, Allan Rossenbaum, and Turgay Ergun Chapter One Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and

Training: an Introduction to the Antecedents, Rationale, and Milestones

Chapter Two Survey of Standards: Design, Testing and Administration of On-

line Questionnaire Chapter Three Ownership, Funding, and Governance of Participating Institutions Chapter Four Mandate, Focus, and Clients of Public Administration Education

and Training Institutions Chapter Five Trends in the pursuit of education and training standards: Public administration curricula across institutions Chapter Six Trends in the pursuit of education and training standards: Quality control strategies, mechanisms, and practices Chapter Seven The Place of Research in Public Administration Education and Training Chapter Eight Education and Training Standards: Does Ethnic/Cultural Diversity

Matter? Chapter Nine Participating Institutions’ Self-assessment of Capacity and

Performance Chapter Ten Conclusions and Recommendations

3

Foreword and Acknowledgements

by

Guido Bertucci, Allan Rossenbaum, and Turgay Ergun

Barely five years ago, our two institutions (the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration) launched a new initiative aimed at improving the quality and standards of public administration education and training. The only thing that was clear to the two partners at that time was the need to enhance the capacity of public administration schools and institutes to attune government and public service leaders to the multiple and increasingly complex challenges facing the world in general and the various regions and countries in particular. Neither UNDESA nor IASIA had yet completely grasped the nature, essence, and magnitude of the challenge that lay ahead or the measures that should be instituted to respond to it. An expert group meeting organized in September 2002 in Turin, Italy, helped define the scope of the challenge, besides identifying the activities that ought to be undertaken over a period to promote excellence in public administration education and training. Follow-up meetings and conferences further clarified the issues to address, and the modalities to apply to achieve the underlying objective – that is, of improving standards of public administration education and training sufficiently to have a positive impact on the quality and caliber of government and public service leadership in different parts of the world. The inauguration in 2003 of a Task Force, made up of representatives of the two institutions, reflected the importance attached by the partners to the subject of excellence in public administration education and training. Under the supervision of the Task Force, experts were recruited to carry out studies aimed at clarifying the key concepts, and generating data on wide ranging subjects (among them, the organizational arrangements for the design and delivery of public administration education and training programmes, the standards and criteria applied in evaluating the quality of the programmes, and the accreditation policies and strategies integrated into various education and training programmes). The papers prepared by two experts (Dr Natalya Kolisnichenko and Dr Theo van der Krogt) highlighted the critical issues in public administration education and training and provided insights into measures adopted across the world’s regions in pursuance of the objectives of excellence. These were supplemented with contributions from Allan Rossenbaum, Blue Wooldridge, Theo van der Krogt, and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). As part of the effort at addressing the challenge of excellence in public administration education and training, the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force requested schools and institutes in different parts of the world to complete an online questionnaire, and by so doing, supply the data needed to arrive at some fairly definite conclusions. The Task Force is

4

highly indebted to these schools and institutes for the timely and helpful response to the questionnaire. The Task Force in any case would also like to acknowledge other contributions to the successful implementation of the project. The modest achievements reported in this publication would have been well nigh impossible without the resources and the time made available by the United Nations, the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration, and the other institutions to which members of the Task Force are affiliated. The Task Force further acknowledges the support that it received from the well-known survey research firm, QuestionPro. At no cost to the Task Force, the firm granted the Task Force permission to post the questionnaire on its website. It also placed at the disposal of the Task Force the software needed to receive, tabulate and analyse the responses, as well as produce real-time results. The Task Force expresses its profound gratitude to QuestionPro for this vital public service. All members of the Task Force, without exception, deserve to be commended for their commitment to the cause of excellence in the study and practice of public administration. Under their Chairperson, Professor Allan Rosenbaum, the Task Force members participated at meetings where the key conceptual issues were raised and strategies for accomplishing upcoming activities were mapped out. Finally, the Task Force recognizes the time and the expertise that the staff of the Development Management Division (of UNDESA) set aside to ensure effective implementation of the project. Jide Balogun served not only as a member of the Task Force but also as de facto Secretary and Project Coordinator. His colleague in the Division for Public Administration and Development Management, Deniz Susar, provided the vital help-desk services. In this capacity, he, Deniz, responded to Jide Balogun’s endless queries on, among other things, the management of the website and the respondents’ request for information on access to the questionnaire posted thereon. It is our hope that this initial exercise would not only sensitize the principal stakeholders to the challenges of excellence in public administration education and training, but would also trigger the policy changes that are necessary in the medium- to long-term to enhance the capacities of the schools and institutes to set and sustain constantly high standards of performance. We cannot over-emphasize the need for the active participation of the schools and institutes in the implementation of the survey recommendations, as well as for the unstinting support of governments, donor agencies, and other development partners to efforts at achieving consistently high standards of excellence in public administration education and training. Guido Bertucci (Director, Division for Public Administration and Management, UNDESA and Convener of UNDESA/IASIA Task Force)

5

Allan Rossenbaum (Professor, Florida International University and Chairman of Task Force) Turqay Ergun (IASIA President and Co-Convener of Task Force)

April 2007

6

Chapter One

STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION AND TRAINING: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ANTECEDENTS, RATIONALE,

AND MILESTONES

How to raise and sustain standards of excellence in public administration education and training is a longstanding and perennial challenge1. It was among the topics exhaustively discussed at a meeting of the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA) held in Bratislava in 2001. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and IASIA revisited the subject in September 2002 when the two institutions jointly organized an Expert Group Meeting in Turin, Italy, on “New Challenges for Senior Leadership Enhancement for Improved Public Management in a Globalizing World”.

Since then, a number of activities have been undertaken as part of the joint initiative. Specifically, follow-up meetings were held at which discussions focused on a strategy for promoting the cause of excellence in public administration in general, and enhancing the capacity of education and training institutions in particular2. One of these activities is the seminar on “Improving the Quality of Public Administration Education and Training: New Needs, New Approaches” held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 10 to 13 January 2003. Co-sponsored by UNDESA/DPADM, IASIA, and the Brazilian School of Public Administration, Fundacao Getulio Vargas (Getulio Vargas Foundation), the seminar deliberated on ideas and techniques appropriate for the education and training of succeeding generations of government and public service leaders. Besides identifying areas in which education and training programmes might be developed, the seminar considered ways of making the programmes relevant to public service leaders in developing countries.

As indicated in a later part of this chapter, a Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training was also established comprising representatives of UNDESA and IASIA. In addition, studies have been commissioned focusing on key issues in public administration education and training. Above all, a questionnaire was designed and subsequently administered on-line to solicit the views of public administration education and training institutions on approaches to standards of excellence in various regions of the world.

1 See Allan Rossenbaum and John-Mary Kauzya, 2006, “Introduction”, in Allan Rossenbaum and John-Mary Kauzya (eds.), Excellence and Leadership in the Public Sector: The Role of Education and Training, (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration), p. v 2 Among the meetings were those held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; New York City, USA; Kampala, Uganda; Johannesburg, South Africa; Como, Italy; Berlin, Germany; Livingstone, Zambia; Ljubljana, Slovenia; and Warsaw, Poland.

7

Highlights of Turin Expert Group Meeting

The Turin expert group meeting of September 2002 in any case is, and remains, a major landmark in the two partner institutions’ quest for excellence in public administration education and training. The meeting not only discussed the broad outline of a programme of action to guide future interventions, but brainstormed ideas for collaborating with education and training institutions on the design and implementation of capacity upgrading projects. Coming from various institutions (among them, university schools and faculties of public administration, management development institutes and staff colleges, university faculties and schools of administration, and the UN) the participants at the Turin EGM brought their diverse experiences and perspectives to, thereby enriching, discussions at the meeting.

It should be recalled that the Turin expert group meeting was organized with the following objectives:

(a) attaining a broad measure of consensus on the meaning and essence of government and public service leadership in a rapidly changing world;

(b) reaching an understanding on the leadership competencies that need to be acquired by public service leaders to respond effectively to contemporary and unfolding challenges;

(c) agreeing on the steps to take to design leadership training programmes, mobilize the needed resources, and link the UNDESA/IASIA leadership development efforts with parallel initiatives at regional and international levels.

The meeting proceeded from the assumption that contemporary public administration systems face challenges whose magnitude and complexity could not have been earlier imagined. Among the challenges that public administration systems are expected to manage are those of globalization (and the corresponding impact on poverty and widening inequality in developing countries), economic and political liberalization, and technological as well as socio-economic transformation. In addition, and against the backdrop of the growing demands on government (for improved health and social services, for the rehabilitation of decaying urban and rural infrastructure, for police protection, and for jobs, among others) and the shrinking resources, public administration agencies are now under increasing pressure to accomplish more with less. These and other challenges confronting a rapidly changing world, as the meeting noted, called for the acquisition and deployment of above-average leadership capacities in the various arms of government and the public service3.

3 Guido Bertucci, “Strengthening Public Sector Capacity for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals”, in Rossenbaum and Kauzya, op. cit, pp. 1-8.

8

According to the Turin meeting, the demand that contemporary challenges placed on government has far-reaching implications for institutions charged with the responsibility for the delivery of public administration education and training programmes – especially, programmes targeted at government and public service leaders. The meeting concluded that these institutions ought to be equipped and revitalized for the specific objective of developing the critical capacities that government and public service needed to anticipate and respond to complex challenges. The meeting underscored the importance of the following capacities, in particular:

(a) visionary leadership and strategic thinking;

(b) Policy coordination (including design of appropriate information and knowledge management systems);

(c) Performance management (including design and implementation of service delivery systems to enhance access to water, health, sanitation, education, poverty eradication and other services, and application of appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms);

(d) Management of change (with emphasis on conflict and diversity management, reconciliation of paradoxes and ambiguities, team-building, and negotiation);

(e) Containment of major pandemics (such as HIV/AIDs, Ebola virus, and avian flu) and monitoring and evaluation of impact of intervention measures;

(f) Leadership succession planning (including the development of succeeding generation of leaders, and empowerment of subordinates).

The Turin meeting concluded that leadership capacity development programmes ought to target the following different levels:

• Potential leaders (those who are still at University and other tertiary institutions and have plans to join the public service);

• Junior civil servants aspiring to top leadership positions in government and the public service;

• Senior civil servants (who are already holding leadership positions); • Other policy makers such as Ministers, Members of Parliament, Chairpersons and

Managing Directors of state corporations, chairpersons and members of regional and local assemblies;

• A mix bag of leaders from the public sector, civil society, and the private sector. Each of the target groups would require a strategy, an approach and a methodology congruent with its needs. Even the thematic content for the programme would vary depending on the target group.

9

The significance of the Turin meeting lies in the acknowledgement of the continued relevance of the public sector, and as well as the need to give increasing attention to the quality of public officials. As argued by Bertucci,

“Governments all over the world need to face the challenge of having in place

adequate public sector human resources in order to plan, implement, monitor

and evaluate policies and strategies for achieving the Millennium Development

Goals, including poverty eradication policies”4

Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration

The papers presented at the Turin and the follow-up meetings were eventually edited and included in a publication that was released by UNDESA in 20035. However, realizing that the Turin meeting raised far more significant issues than those treated in the 2003 publication, both UNDESA and IASIA decided to establish a special Task Force whose remit would be solely to examine the practices adopted within and across public administration education and training institutions in grappling with the challenges of excellence. The Taskforce on Standards of Excellence for Public Administration Education and training comprise the following:

• Prof. Allan Rosenbaum representing IASIA (Chairperson) • Mr Guido Bertucci, representing UNDESA (Joint Convener) • Dr Turgay Ergun, President, IASIA (Member) • Prof. R.K. Mishra: Representing IASIA (Member) • Prof. Bianor Cavalcanti: Representing IASIA (Member) • Dr. John-Mary Kauzya: Representing UNDESA (Member) • Mr Mark Orken: Representing UNDESA (Member) • Ms. Barbara Kudrycka: representing UNDESA (Member) • Ms. Natalya Kolisnichenko: Representing IASIA (Member) • Dr Theo van der Krogt: Representing UNDESA (Member) • Dr Mark Orken, Director-General, SAMDI, (Member) • Prof. Jide Balogun: Representing UNDESA (Member)

The Taskforce was expected, among other things, to produce a number of outputs, notably:

4 Ibid., p. 3. 5 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2003, Leadership and Social Transformation in the Public Sector: Moving from Challenges to Solutions, (New York: United Nations).

10

• A concept paper focusing on the issues to consider, as well as the standards and the criteria to apply, in assessing the level of excellence in public administration education and training;

• A paper on national organizational arrangements for delivering public administration education and training and identifying good practices in the accreditation of public administration education and training programs and curricula;

• A joint UNDESA/IASIA publication on “Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training”.

All the outputs expected from the Task Force have since been produced. In particular, a paper on “National Organizational Arrangements for Delivering Public Administration Education and Training” was prepared by a consultant, Dr Natalya Kolisnichenko. Another on “Quality Standards in Public Administration Education and Training: Issues, Models, and Contemporary Evaluation Policies” was submitted by Dr Theo van der Krogt. In addition, the Task Force’s Chairperson, Professor Allan Rossenbaum submitted a paper on “Excellence in Public Administration Education: Preparing the Next Generation of Public Administrators for a Changing World”), as did Dr Blue Wooldridge (with his contribution titled “High Performing Schools and Institutes of Administration: the Role of Standards of Excellence”). The accreditation criteria and policies developed by the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation (EAPAA) and by NASPAA were also discussed at a meeting of the Task Force. The issues raised in these and the previous contributions (on the essence and building blocks of excellence in public administration education and training) are captured in this report and integrated in the conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force. Salient Research Questions The pursuit of excellence in public administration clearly raises a few important research questions, among them, what constitutes excellence in the academic study of, as different from practical training in the art (or science) of public administration, the ownership, funding, and governance structure of institutes assigned the responsibility for the design and implementation of public administration education and training programmes, the mechanisms developed within the institutions to achieve the goal of excellence, as well as the standards and criteria against which the performance of the institutions could be evaluated. Goal, content and methodology of public administration education and training A paper submitted to the Task Force by Allan Rossenbaum6 looks at excellence from the academic institutions’ angle. Rossenbaum observes that contemporary public

6 Allan Rossenbaum, “Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training: Preparing the Next Generation of Public Administrators for a Changing World”, paper presented at the third meeting of the

11

administration was faced with challenges that required it (or those working in it) to constantly “think outside the box”. Unlike in the past when the challenges came neatly packed and clearly labelled, today’s public administration is operating in an environment characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity, and unparalleled complexity7. Rossenbaum holds that the erstwhile approaches to the education and training of public administrators would not suffice in meeting the precipitate and increasingly intractable challenges facing the world. In his view, success in meeting the challenges depends not so much on the acquisition of technical (“how-to”) skills, as on the ability to think through and around issues, to analyse multiple, complex and sometimes non-quantifiable variables, and to manage diversity. He, Rossenbaum, further argues that, with its individual orientation, learning is not the solution. To manage the growing challenges effectively, contemporary public administration has to design and implement a bold, comprehensive and broad-based programme of education. In other words, preparing the public administrator for contemporary challenges requires that s/he be motivated to participate in education programmes focusing on the whys and wherefores of democratic governance and public administration, rather than merely in training courses designed to impart specialized skills or technical “know-how”. He adds: “The educated individual not only possesses knowledge of particular administrative skills and techniques, and subject matter expertise, but is also someone who understands the need to, and has some capacity to, recognize the many subtleties of the social, political and environmental context within which his or her skills must be applied…. Such an individual has an understanding of why things function as they do; why institutions work as they do; and even more importantly, how to improve those processes and institutions with which they must work”. Rossenbaum believes that by its very nature, excellence is “a work in progress” – or a perpetual and unrelenting quest for perfection. According to him, it is doubtful that one could achieve complete excellence in public administration education or in any other human endeavour for that matter. However, the perpetual search for it, i.e., excellence, is what marks the concept apart from its opposite – mediocrity.

UNDESA/IASIA Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training, Brussels, Belgium, 18 March 2007.

7 See also Allan Rossenbaum, 2003, “New Challenges for Senior Leadership Enhancement for Improved Public Management” in Leadership and Social Transformation in the Public Sector: Moving from Challenges to Solutions” (New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), as well as M J Balogun, “Promoting, Training and Developing the Best for the Public Service”, Keynote Address delivered at the IAISIA Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 5 July 2006.

12

Excellence in public administration education and training: Meaning and approaches The subject of excellence is taken up again in a paper submitted to the Task Force by Dr Blue Wooldridge8. Wooldridge’s paper is not just about transforming the SIAs into high-performing organizations; it represents yet another serious attempt at defining excellence, and identifying measures that ought to be taken to achieve it in the design and implementation of public administration education and training programmes. A particularly significant contribution is that which comes towards the end of Wooldridge’s paper – that is, a framework for conceptualizing, as well as for promoting and sustaining consistently high standards of public administration education and training. Adapting the systems analytic model, he portrays excellence as being made up of the following elements (or building blocks):

(a) Inputs (e.g., number and quality of instructors; library resources; research, computing and office facilities; number of classrooms; range of sporting and recreation facilities; audio-visual and multi-media presentation devices; attachment/internship/field trip costs);

(b) Processes (the steps followed in deciding on the purpose/mission/mandate of a programme or institute; the role played by the various stakeholders in articulating the vision, determining the mandate, and formulating the education and training strategies; the data collected to aid the strategic planning process and to assess level of accomplishment; the process adopted in arriving at decisions on student admissions, credit hours, examination/assessment of students, student affairs, budgeting and finance, scholarships/fellowships, management of grounds and property, staff recruitment, placement, and promotions, as well as the measures adopted to improve performance in all areas);

(c) Outputs (type, number and length/duration of programmes, number and status of participants; graduation as against failure/drop out rates; research and publications output; consulting and advisory services); and

(d) Outcomes (knowledge acquired, skills/competencies gained; attitudes influenced or changed; impact on delivery of public services; impact/influence on employing authorities; impact on community; revenue generated from different sources; honours/accolades/prizes/awards/recognitions won).

8 Blue Wooldridge, “High Performing Schools and Institutes of Administration: the Role of Standards of Excellence” , paper presented at the third meeting of the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training, Brussels, Belgium, 18 March 2007.

13

Proceeding from the conceptual framework, Wooldridge lists the attributes of a high-performing SIA. In his view, a school or institute of administration capable of promoting and achieving consistently high education and training standards is identifiable by its:

(i) commitment to a clearly articulated vision, a precise mission, and a set of underlying values;

(ii) focus on quality service and on meeting client’s changing demands and expectations (e.g., demand for well-constructed courses, and alignment of courses to the needs of participants, students, as well as sponsoring organizations);

(iii) continuous improvement and pre-emptive correction (reflected in the attention given to the installation and operation of sound information/data management systems, emphasis on performance measurement and results-orientation, and competitive benchmarking, or striving to be better than the best competitor);

(iv) employee empowerment and motivation (involvement of employees in decision making process, and actively soliciting employee inputs into the process);

(v) team building; (vi) training and staff development (indicated in the implementation of staff

development policies and practices compatible with the mission, and responsive to curricular demands);

(vii) application of appropriate technology (identification of technologies most effective in delivering SIA products and services);

(viii) focus on the positive side of, and mainstreaming, diversity (reflected in integration of diversity issues in the curriculum, in staff recruitment, in student enrolment and welfare, and, to counter the adverse effects of ‘inbreeding’ and politicization of the academic process, in the commitment to cosmopolitanism in the recruitment of faculty and the admission of students);

(ix) timely and effective response to environmental change (by furnishing evidence that curriculum is keeping up with technological, socio-economic, demographic, and political changes, as well as changes in client demands);

(x) generation and sustenance of trust (the standards for which include demonstration that hiring, promotion, pay, and staff development practices are fair, consistently and transparently implemented, as well as evidence that sponsoring organizations, students, and other stakeholders have confidence in the institute’s service delivery pledges and marketing practices, products and services);

(xi) effective communication (reflected in the extent to which insiders and outsiders have a ‘true picture’ of goings-on in the SIA);

14

Organizational arrangements and the quest for excellence Bringing further clarity to the issue of excellence in public administration education and training are two papers earlier commissioned by the Task Force, that is, the contributions by Natalya Kolisnichenko, and Theo van der Krogt. One of the questions that Kolisnichenko sought to answer in her own paper concerns the organizational arrangements that various countries have put in place in pursuit of excellence in public administration education and training9. After undertaking a survey of practices within and across countries, she concludes that no one model approximates all experiences. According to her, differences in size, wealth, and other circumstances all play significant roles in determining approaches to public administration education and training. While observing that only France and a few other countries had specialized schools (like the Ecole Nationale d’Administration) to prepare candidates for entry into the public service, Kolisnichenko underscores the point that in most countries, the universities or university-affiliated institutes are the principal providers of public administration for new entrants into public service. This, in essence, means that most countries require at least first-level university degrees as minimum qualification for those seeking entry-level positions in the senior cadre of the public service. Kolisnichenko finds that both public and private (including the non-profit) sectors are heavily involved in the provision of public administration education. While these education programmes are mostly funded by student tuition, in almost all cases, government subventions or grants play an important role in supporting the activities of the university faculties, as well as the institutes and the schools providing public administration education services. With regard to non-academic public administration training (as against education) programmes, some countries rely heavily on government-controlled training institutions, while others rely on non-governmental or private sector organizations. The institutions not directly controlled by government tend to enter into some form of contractual relations with government agencies, or on external donor funding, to stay afloat. Another critical question that Kolisnichenko attempts to answer is what makes for quality or excellence in public administration education and/or training. While admitting that it is difficult to pin-point one specific factor, she concludes that having one identifiable institution play a pre-eminent role in the delivery of public administration education and training is a major advantage. She is particularly impressed with the French model, which, in her view, has greatly influenced the development of public administration education and training programmes in countries such as Argentina, China, Poland, and Ukraine. Kolisnichenko’s contribution is not limited to her cross-national comparison of institutional arrangements for public administration education and training. Her review of

9 Natalya Kolisnichenko, “National Organizational Arrangements for Delivering Public Administration Education and Training” (Text of Paper prepared for the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education and Training, September 2005).

15

the thematic content of the education and training programmes implemented by the various institutions, at the very least, raises the question what is meant by “public administration” and what one needs to know to be an “expert” in the field. Her survey of the knowledge- and skill contents of the programmes implemented in different institutions confirms the eclectic nature of the field known as public administration. The subjects taught range from team work, quality management, and languages, through personnel and human resources management, policy analysis, strategic planning and management, political science, law, administrative law, international relations, psychology, ethics, organizational theory, comparative public administration, local government and regional administration, to economics, finance, budgeting, accounting, business management, and computer skills. Standards, criteria and quality control mechanisms Another paper commissioned by the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force was prepared by Theo van der Krogt10. He starts with definitions of the key concepts (e.g., evaluation, accreditation, audit, benchmark, benchmarking, quality assurance, quality, criteria, and standards). He then examines the general, non-discipline specific evaluation models applied in various countries, in contrast to the evaluation models applied on public and business administration programmes. Krogt examines general evaluation from various angles, paying particular attention to internal versus external, formative versus definitive or final, institutional versus programme, peer versus non-peer, efficiency versus effectiveness, academic versus practical, mission-based versus ‘normal’, and voluntary versus mandatory evaluation. He maintains that when the primary aim of evaluation is formative (that is, programme improvement) peer review is the most logical. However, when the aim is to make a final and definitive judgement on programmes, peers can be seen as ‘too close’ to be objective. If for instance a decision is about to be taken on the fate of a programme, it is not certain that peers could be trusted to come up with harsh evaluation reports. The tendency would be to be lenient to colleagues in the hope that the favour would some day be returned. As regards the distinction between ‘academic’ and ‘practical’ evaluation, Krogt observes that the tendency under the former is to focus on the academic or knowledge content of programmes, in contrast to the practical skills appreciated by organizations nominating their staff for on-the-job training programmes. Some programmes also target professional clients, and therefore rely on ‘professional accreditation’ to survive. Examples that readily come to mind are the education and training programmes in accounting, banking, law, medicine, engineering, and architecture. Another distinction that comes out clearly in Krogt’s analysis is the evaluation which is ‘mandatory’ as against the voluntary type. When an institution requires a ‘licence’ or authorization to run a programme (mostly of the academic and degree-awarding type), 10 Theo van der Krogt, “Quality Standards in Public Administration Education and Training: Issues, Models, and Contemporary Evaluation Policies” (September 2005).

16

the evaluation or accreditation is said to be ‘mandatory’. He notes that up to 1998, less than half of the European countries had mandatory accreditation policies. By 2003, all, with the exception of Greece and Denmark, had various types of accreditation systems in place. In contrast, a few programmes rely mainly on voluntary accreditation (e.g., AMBA or EQUIS systems for MBA programmes, and the systems of NASPAA and EAPAA in the field of public administration). Krogt identifies the criteria and standards – qualitative and quantitative – that are generally applied in evaluating institutions and programmes. Examples are depth of knowledge, type and range of skills, and professional know-how. In his conclusion, Krogt observes that the terminology of evaluation is characterized by diversity. According to him quality improvement is sought through the evaluation of institutions or programmes, and the application of diverse evaluation instruments. Among the mechanisms that appear common are audit, benchmarking, and evaluation. The diversity in evaluation mechanisms is matched by much similarity. Krogt states that on close examination, terms with different labels mean more or less the same thing, and seek to achieve the same objectives. Almost all external evaluations are based on a combination of institutional self-evaluation and site visits by external experts. Besides, the criteria or standards applied in evaluating programmes and institutions are fairly similar. Most of the criteria or standards are quantitative (e.g., budget levels, length or duration and number of programmes/courses, student/teacher or programme/teacher ratios, failure/drop out rates), while some are subject to qualitative interpretation (e.g., impact on institutional transformation and client confidence). Enhancing and sustaining public administration and training standards: Towards a consensus on critical elements and strategies Based on the papers presented at various meetings and the discussions thereon, the Task Force concluded that excellence in public administration education and training required that SIAs accord high priority to measures that would ensure consistently high standards in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes. The Task Force accordingly agreed on the adoption of a strategy that was most likely to promote the quest for perfection as a constant and on-going process and at all critical stages in the delivery of education and training programmes. The main elements (or building blocks) of such a strategy are:

• Clarity of vision, mission, and underlying values/philosophies: As much as practicable, the mandate of each SIA should be clarified along with the role of all the stakeholders, and the original vision should be kept alive or updated by a highly participative process of strategic planning);

• Transparency of governance, structure and process (There should be no doubt as to which body is accountable for specific policy or operational decisions, and the rules and regulations concerning admissions, student assessments/examinations, and the recruitment of faculty should be applied in a fair and consistent manner);

17

• Commitment to quality, and continuous, nay, permanent, quest for perfection: Rather than regard quality assurance as a one-off process, SIAs are obliged to view excellence as an unending quest, as ‘work in progress’;

• Emphasis on Performance Management and Results (including the establishment of viable information management, monitoring and evaluation systems, as well as mechanisms for the collection, storage, and retrieval of input, output, and process data);

• Formulation of input and output indicators (such as, for inputs, number and qualifications of staff; and for outputs, number of graduates as a percent of total enrolment);

• Client orientation and commitment to quality service (reflected in the attention given to client demands and expectations in the design of courses, the application of appropriate instructional methodology and techniques, and provision of client-focused consulting and advisory services);

• Employee empowerment and motivation (with particular emphasis on encouragement and accommodation of staff inputs into the decision process, and fair, transparent, and consistent application of personnel rules);

• Commitment to ethnic and cultural diversity and equity (as well as projection of cosmopolitan (or international) outlook in the enrolment of students and recruitment of faculty).

Searching for additional answers: administration of survey questionnaire To build on the conclusions reached at earlier meetings and conferences and revisit the issues raised in the papers prepared by experts and professional networks (particularly, the papers by Rossenbaum, Wooldridge, Kolisnichenko, Krogt, EAPAA and NASPAA), the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force requested schools and institutes of public administration in different parts of the world to complete an online questionnaire on standards of excellence. The constraints that the Task Force faced while administering the questionnaire are outlined in the next chapter. Notwithstanding the methodological and technical limitations attendant upon the administration of the research instrument, the initial effort was still able to turn up a few fascinating conclusions about public administration education and training institutions, their programmes, and the measures adopted from time to time to raise and sustain performance standards. These conclusions are reproduced in the chapters that follow. For instance, the next chapter, Chapter Two, describes the challenges facing the Task Force as it set out to design a questionnaire and administer it online. Chapter Three focuses on the ownership and governance structure of the participating institutions, Chapter Four on the institutions’ mandate, programme orientation and clients, and Chapter Five on the public administration curriculum. Chapter Six examines the systems and mechanisms established to ensure that education and training standards are pitched at consistently high levels, while Chapter Seven looks at the place of research in public administration education and training. Chapters Eight and Nine report on the institutions’ perceptions of the role of ethnic/cultural diversity on excellence, and of their own capabilities, respectively. The last chapter (Chapter Ten) pulls together highlights of the preceding

18

chapters to arrive at some fairly specific conclusions and come up with a set of recommendations on public administration education and training standards.

19

Chapter Two SURVEY OF STANDARDS: DESIGN, TESTING AND ADMINISTRATION OF ON-

LINE QUESTIONNAIRE Taking into account the challenges confronting public administration systems in the contemporary world, and based on the outcomes of the various meetings organized and the activities carried out under its auspices, the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force on Standards of Excellence in Public Administration Education designed a questionnaire which was administered online to solicit the views of the various institutions on the effectiveness of systems and practices that have been established in pursuit of quality assurance objectives. The aim is to go beyond the desk studies carried out by Kolisnichenko and Krogt, and weigh the responses of the education and training institutes themselves to specific quality assurance questions, notably, ownership and governance of institutions, programme target group, thematic focus, research interests, and institutional capability. It must be stated from the outset that the on-line survey that was eventually carried out did not conform to strict scientific data gathering and validation rules. For these and other reasons, any conclusions drawn from the responses to the questionnaire would need to be revisited as the research methodology is refined and as additional data become available. Still, and notwithstanding the data gaps that need to be filled, the overall response to the questionnaire provides glimpses to standards of excellence in public administration education and training in different parts of the world, thus paving the way to a sustained and systematic review of progress. The first draft of the questionnaire was prepared as far back as October 2005 and circulated to the Task Force members for comments shortly thereafter. Based on the suggestions received from members, a revised draft was produced in readiness for distribution at upcoming regional conferences, particularly, the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPACee) Annual Conference scheduled to be held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in May 2006, and the IASIA Annual Conference taking place in Warsaw, Poland, in July 2006. The comments received from participants at the latter meeting (the IASIA Regional Conference in Warsaw) eventually led to substantial changes in the questionnaire, with some questions being recast to avoid double interpretation, and with a bank of questions on ethnic and cultural diversity being incorporated in the revised draft.

The final draft of the questionnaire was ready by August 2006, and tested for clarity and consistency in September 2006. At about the same time (August-September 2006), an Internet search of faculties, academies, colleges, schools, institutes of public administration in different regions of the world was carried out to supplement the list received from the Executive Secretariat of IASIA. The assistance of key regional institutions (such as NISPACee, EAPAA, ARADO, AAPAM, CLAD, EROPA, and ASPAA) was also enlisted to ensure full participation of their institutional members in the exercise.

20

Online Survey: the Methodology and its Limitations

Online surveys have many advantages over the conventional methods of reaching potential respondents, but they also pose momentous technical and methodological challenges, as the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force subsequently discovered. Thanks to advances in information and communication technology, survey researchers can, with one click, reach a larger population than was once thought possible. Collating, tabulating, and analysing large amounts of data used to be a dreadful chore. Not any longer. With the development of new software, it is now possible to have real-time results of questionnaires that are administered online.

Buoyed by the limitless technological possibilities, the Task Force embarked on a search for software which would not only enable a vast number of respondents to complete and return the questionnaire, but would also relieve the researchers of the necessity to wade through the responses before tabulating and analysing them. However, due to budget constraints, the Task Force had no software of its own – one that could carry out several different operations at the same time while remaining under the direct control of the Task Force. Fortunately, the Task Force came across a facility provided by a reputable survey research firm, QuestionPro. This facility is made available free of charge on condition that it would be utilized for non-profit purposes. The Task Force would like to take this opportunity to express its deepest gratitude to the QuestionPro for providing this valuable public service. Although the functions carried out by the QuestionPro software are limited, and while some important operations (e.g., dis-aggregation of data by respondents’ main attributes, and cross tabulation of responses) could not be carried out unless the Task Force had access to an upgraded, albeit, expensive, system, the firm deserves to be commended for placing its facility at the disposal of a non-commercial endeavour like the survey of public administration education and training standards. Availing itself of the QuestionPro medium and software, the Task Force contacted all the institutions on the IASIA e-mailing list, and enlisted the support of regional networks such as EAPAA, NISPACee, AAPAM, CLAD, ARADO, and EROPA. Most of the regional networks subsequently brought the questionnaire to the attention of their member-institutions. Besides contacting institutes and schools of public administration in the various regions (particularly, Asia and the Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub Saharan Africa, Western Europe), the Task Force posted the questionnaire on UNPAN. Based on the search carried out on the Internet, the Task Force also compiled an additional list of public administration schools to which it sent links to the questionnaire. This is where the survey ran into the first roadblock. A few e-mail messages sent to the institutes and schools of administration in October 2006 bounced back, indicating that the addresses were either wrong or no longer in use.

21

While a large number of the recipients of the questionnaire attempted to work on it, only a few submitted it duly and fully completed. Of the 375 institutions that started to fill the questionnaire, not more than 141 returned it fully or partly completed as at 17 November 2006, indicating a relatively low completion rate. A few questions were answered by as many as 375 respondents, others by as few as 65. Among the plausible explanations for the high response but low completion rate are the length of the questionnaire (and particularly the inclusion of ethnic diversity questions that some perceive as being marginally relevant to scholastic excellence), and the tendency on the part of institutions handling purely ‘practical’ training programmes to associate ‘excellence’ with academic education and therefore, to consider it to have little bearing on their work. The respondents’ willingness to answer some questions rather than others also depended on what interested them, as well as on the information at their disposal. It is fair to ask what valid conclusions may be drawn from what is to all intents and purposes a very limited response. At any rate, to the extent that a number of institutions voluntarily, and in spite of the design and technical limitations, responded to the questionnaire, to that could the conclusions derived there-from be said to be reliable. While it is premature to draw firm conclusions from the responses so far received, the survey has come up with a few, albeit tentative, findings on approaches to and perceptions of standards of excellence in public administration education and training. Fortunately, in administering the questionnaire, the Task Force endeavoured to reach the relevant target groups in all the world’s regions. The experience acquired during this initial effort would undoubtedly inform the design and administration of follow-up survey instruments. At the very least, the length of the questionnaire would have to be considerably reduced, and opportunities for the application of sophisticated software would have to be explored.

22

Chapter Three

OWNERSHIP, FUNDING, AND GOVERNANCE OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

The first issue to resolve concerns the relevance that questions on ownership, funding and governance of institutions have to standards of excellence in public administration education and training. Does it really matter whether an institution is owned and directly managed by government rather than by an academic body or even by private providers? There is no doubt that ownership determines the content and directions of an education or training programme, or to return to Wooldridge’s analytical framework, the inputs, outputs, process, as well as the outcomes. Institutions that governments establish for the specific purpose of filling perceived capacity gaps would, in designing their curricula, place high premium on “practical”, nuts-and-bolt topics, and would most likely leave out the academic frills. By contrast, institutions managed as academic entities – e.g., university faculties and schools of administration – are apt to see their role as extending the horizon of theoretical knowledge, and would thereby devote a sizeable part of their budget and their curricula to the teaching of topics that do not necessarily respond to the immediate capacity needs of government and the public service. Hybrid institutions, that is, those that answer to government and university policy organs, would be under pressure to serve their two “masters”, or, as the case may be, satisfy their two principal clients’ demands. Institutions that are established for purely commercial reasons would focus on the bottom-line, and, for that reason, tailor their curricula to meet ongoing “customer demands” howsoever defined. Although Kolisnichenko argues in favour of an institutional arrangement which would allow a specific provider to be held accountable for the delivery of pre-entry and career-oriented public administration education and training programmes, and while holding the French ENA as a model of such an arrangement, she does not come out categorically in favour of one specific ownership and management formula. As a matter of fact, she notes that publicly owned institutions frequently compete with their academic and private sector counterparts in providing this service. This is borne out by the result of the UNDESA/IASIA survey. The public administration education and training institutions that participated in the survey belong to different “owners”, with universities and governments between them owning and running the bulk (69.05 percent) of the institutions. Most of the respondent institutions (46.03 percent) are academic units of universities or institutes of higher learning. This is followed by another 23.02 percent that are “fully owned” by government and administered as part of the public service bureaucracy11. A 11 The term “government-owned institutions” needs to be clarified, more so, as many academic institutions fit into the same category. As used in this Report, “government-owned institutions” are those wholly financed by government and run as an integral part of the public service. Academic institutions, in contrast, are relatively autonomous. They may rely largely on government grants and subventions, but they tend to have their own governance structure. University schools and faculties of administration are examples of “academic institutions”, whereas staff colleges and public administration institutes could be described as “government owned”.

23

small proportion (13.49 percent) straddles university and government ownership. Only 17.46 percent of the institutions are autonomous of government and university control, and are presumably run as private entities (See Fig. 1). This result further confirms the observation that institutions handling academic programmes were more likely than their “practical” in-service training counterparts to be energized about the issue of excellence, and therefore, to complete the questionnaire.

Fig. 1: Ownership structure of participating institutions

Governance structure Is there any correlation between the ownership of an institution and its day-to-day governance and management? The response from the participating institutions seems to suggest such a connection. When asked to indicate the highest decision making body that signs off on curriculum planning and development, the highest proportion (31.75 percent) checked “University Senate or a delegate such as an Academic/Faculty Board”; another 22.22 per cent mentioned “an autonomous Board of Directors/Governing Board/Governing Council made up of representatives of Government, Universities, the Private Sector, and Civil Society”. So far, it would appear that universities play a crucial role in deciding what goes into the public administration curriculum. However, the response also highlights the role of government in the curriculum design process. According to 19.05 percent of the respondents, “a Government Ministry/Department” is, for curriculum development and planning purpose, the highest decision making body. If we add another 10.32 percent that mentioned “the Accreditation Unit of the local Ministry of Education”, the proportion of the respondent institutions whose curricula come under government control of one kind or the other rises to 29.37 percent (Fig. 2). It is thus safe to conclude that after universities, government is the second most important player in the field of public administration education curriculum planning and development. Only 5.56 percent of the institutions identified “a Joint Board of Studies (JBS) comprising representatives of the Institution, and a University to which the Institution is,

Academic

Govt

Hybrid

Private

24

for degree-awarding purposes, affiliated” as the highest curriculum decision-making body, while another 11.11 percent checked “Other”, which is interpreted to include the professional public administration associations that Krogt identifies as critical to the curriculum accreditation process.

Fig. 2: Public administration curriculum: Who Decides?

05

101520253035

Univers

ityBoa

rdGov

t

Min Ed JB

SOthe

r

Series1

Funding public administration education and training Apparently, not all the institutions that participated in the survey had ready access to the information they needed to respond adequately to the question on funding sources. This accounts for the relatively high non-response rate (35.09 per cent, overall) to this particular question. Still, for those that responded, funding of public administration education and training programmes comes mostly from government, from internal (within-institute), and, probably, from “other” sources. In contrast, private donations play but only a marginal role in the financing of the programmes. All these sources exclude the fees accruing from tuition and scholarship grants. A careful analysis of the each funding source will support the conclusion that private donations play a small part in the funding of public administration education and training. While a high proportion of the respondent institutions (41.86 percent) believed that government grants and subventions account for less than 50 percent of their funding, a higher proportion (approximately 43 percent) reported that they derive over 50 per cent of their funding from government. Another 15 per cent supplied no information (See Fig. 3).

25

Fig. 3: Proportion of government funding of public administration education and training (Respondent institutions’ estimates)

Percentage contribution

No. of respondents

Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Less than 50 per cent 36 41.86%

2. 50 to 75 per cent 19 22.09%

3. 76-100 per cent 18 20.93%

4. Information not available 13 15.12%

Total 86 100%

Internal sources also play a crucial role in the funding of public administration education and training programmes. As illustrated by Fig. 4 below, only 41.86 percent of the respondents estimate that less than 50 percent of their institutions’ funding comes from internal sources. A higher proportion (43 percent) stated that over 50 per cent of the institutions’ income is internally generated, while 15 per cent supplied no information whatsoever.

26

Fig 4: Proportion of internal (within-institution) contribution to funding (Respondent institutions’ estimates)

Percentage contribution

No. of Respondents

Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Less than 50 per cent 36 41.86%

2. 50 to 75 per cent 19 22.09%

3. 76-100 per cent 18 20.93%

4. Information not available 13 15.12%

Total 86 100%

The crucial role that the respondents believe that government and their own institutions play (in the funding of public administration education and training) stands in sharp contrast to the little importance attached to funding from private donations and endowments. More than half of the respondents (55.88 percent) state that they receive less than 50 percent of their funding from private donations, and only a tiny proportion (12 percent) see their funding coming from this source (Fig. 5). The high rate of non-response to this question (32.35 percent) probably suggests that a valid conclusion would have to wait until information is available.

27

Fig 5: Proportion of funding from private donations/endowments/philanthropies (Respondent institutions’ estimates)

Percentage contribution from private sources

No. of respondents estimating

contribution

Percent of respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Less than 50 per cent 38 55.88%

2. 50 to 75 per cent 3 4.41%

3. 76-100 per cent 5 7.35%

4. Information not available 22 32.35%

Total 68 100%

“Other” would have emerged as another important source of funding of public administration programmes (See Fig. 6) but for the very high non-response rate to the question. A small proportion of the respondents (36.54 percent) estimate that less than 50 percent of their funding is derived from “other” sources, with another 21 percent attributing over 50 percent of their earnings to the unspecified sources. A disturbingly high percentage, 42.31 percent, supplied no information on this subject.

28

Fig. 6: Proportion of funding from other, e.g., external donor, sources (Respondent institutions’ estimates)

Percentage contribution from other sources

No. of respondents estimating

contribution

Percent of respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Less than 50 per cent 19 36.54%

2. 50 to 75 per cent 6 11.54%

3. 76-100 per cent 5 9.62%

4. Information not available 22 42.31%

Total 52 100%

Emerging issues For reasons earlier adduced, no firm conclusions could be drawn at this stage on the link between the existing organizational arrangements and standards of excellence in public administration education and training. Besides, insofar as the respondents were not specifically asked to comment on the merits and demerits of the existing organizational and funding arrangements, it will be ill-advised to present as correlations, what might, to all intents and purposes, be no more than mere coincidences. Still, and without prejudice to what additional light would be shed on the subject when the data hurdles are surmounted, it is reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that academic institutions and governments are playing a crucial role in shaping the curricula of public administration education and training programmes, and in signing off on the quality of, or the “standard of excellence” attainable by, the programmes. The academic institutions exert their influence through structures like the University Senate, the Faculty Academic Board, and the Joint Board of Studies established to oversee programmes managed in partnership with non-academic stakeholders. For their own part, governments put their stamp on the content and quality of public administration programmes by establishing specialized public administration education and training institutions as an integral part of the regular public service. These institutions go under different nomenclatures, e.g., management development institutes, institutes of administration and management, administrative staff colleges, civil service colleges, public administration academies, and ecole nationale d’administration. Privately run public administration programmes are rare, but they do exist to compete with those conducted in university- or government-sponsored institutions.

29

The academic institutions’ and the governments’ influence on the delivery of public administration education and training programmes is mirrored in the duo’s contributions to the funding of the programmes. The study reveals that the bulk of the resources needed for the implementation of the programmes come from within the academic institutions and from government. Private donations account for the least amount expended on the delivery of public administration education and training programmes, and information on “other” sources is still too scanty to be reliable. The academic as well as the government institutions’ sway on the content and directions of public administration programmes must have some bearing on the standard of excellence attained by the programmes from time to time. The question is precisely what the impact is and how to proceed in measuring it. By their very nature, academic institutions tend to define excellence as a quest for knowledge, mostly of the speculative and theoretical kind. They (the academic institutions) thus train the student’s mind to go beyond sense experience, ponder limitless analytic possibilities, and reconcile paradoxes. By contrast, government-owned institutions are not in the business of hankering after knowledge for its own sake. They instead target the trainee’s strengths and weaknesses, and apply all the training methodologies capable of filling his/her brain with techniques, formulae, skills, and “instant” solutions to problems of the moment. The governments’ preoccupation with the “here and now” informs the attention given to “training needs analysis”, an exercise which would hopefully point to skills that could be immediately deployed on specific assignments to achieve pre-determined objectives. By focusing on the mandate, programmes and clients of the various institutions, the next chapter further explores the relationship between the underlying education and training purposes, on the one hand, and the accepted definition of, and approach to, excellence, on the other.

30

Chapter Four

MANDATE, FOCUS, AND CLIENTS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION AND TRAINING INSTITUTIONS

The previous chapter indicates that academic institutions (like their government-owned counterparts) play a significant role in the design and implementation of public administration education and training programmes. This, however, does not mean that the academic institutions are confined to the delivery of academic programmes to the exclusion of the “practical”, in-service type, or that government-owned institutions have nothing to do with “academic” programmes. Indeed, what is important is not the dichotomy between the “academic” and “practical” orientation of schools and institutes of administration, but, as the Task Force noted, the clarity of vision and the transparency of internal governance processes. The Kennedy School of Government Executive Programmes are undoubtedly meant to enhance the capacities of “appointed, career, and elected officials in government”, as well as those handling public-private partnership issues in the private and NGO sector (Harvard’s John Kennedy School of Government – Course Catalog Pages, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/teachingcentral/exec_pgms_intro.htm, 15/12/2006). In contrast, the Witwatersrand University Graduate School of Public and Development Management launched the Masters of Management in the field of Public and Development Management “with the primary purpose of building short and long-term management capacity for the transformation of the South African government. To achieve the long term goals, the school has focused on enduring management development by designing and offering a range of degrees which enhance the individual knowledge and skills of managers in the public sector”12. The Ukraine Institute of Public Administration and Local Government (currently, National Academy of Public Administration) was established in 1992 with the aim of developing the professional competence of the public service by providing broad-based education and training in the social sciences and public administration to three categories of clientele, viz: senior career officials, individuals on the public service ‘reserve list’ or employment roster, and young persons desirous of working in government or the private sector. The Academy’s curriculum down-plays ideological themes that featured prominently in the education of communist-era public officials, placing special emphasis on Ukraine’s integration into Europe and the global economy. According to Yuriy Polianskiy, the Academy’s underlying objective is to attract as trainees, “public servants

12 The Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management, Programme Guide for MM-PMD 2006 http://pdm.mgmt.wits.ac.za/pdmdeg2.html

31

motivated to obtain knowledge and skills in the broad area of Public Administration,” and ready to apply the knowledge and skills in their leadership positions. The survey carried out by the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force in any case reveals a high degree of role swapping between and among academic and government-owned institutions. As Fig. 7 shows, only 18.35 percent of the respondents reported the conduct of purely academic (graduate and under-graduate) programmes in public administration as their basic mandate, in contrast to 67 percent that mentioned the organization of pre- and post-entry in-service training programmes, as well as the implementation of both academic and practical (in-service) training programmes. The majority of the institutions (55.05 percent) have a dual mandate – that is, extending the boundaries of knowledge, and running programmes tailored to the needs of government and the public service. A tiny proportion (14.68 percent) checked “other” mandate.

Fig. 7: Mandate of Participating Institutions

AcademicPracticalDualOther

The institutions provide the education and training services by organizing the programmes in-situ (that is, in-company or within the requesting department or ministry) or by allowing free subscription by fee-paying students attending classes on a full- or part time basis. Programme Focus While the institutions (academic, government, and private) organize degree and non-degree programmes to meet pre- and post-entry needs of the public servants, it is the latter (non-degree programmes) that the majority (60 percent) of the participants cited as their main preoccupation. Out of the 60 percent that regard this (the conduct of non-degree programmes) as their basic mandate, 38.33 percent believed that priority was given to post-entry training, whereas 21.67 percent felt that the conduct of pre-entry training was what took much of their institutions’ time and resources.

32

Besides the pre- and post-entry non-degree programmes, the institutions organize programmes of a purely academic type – the type that, subject to the fulfilment of basic requirements, frequently ends with the award of graduate and undergraduate degrees or licences and diplomas. These programmes, according to 22.50 percent of the respondents are designed to respond to post-entry needs, with another 17.50 percent mentioning degree programmes organized by their institutions to prepare candidates for public service careers. When it comes to free subscription (that is enrolment by fee-paying, self-sponsored students), it does seem as if the bias is towards degree rather than non-degree public administration programmes. The majority of the respondents (68 percent) identified pre- and post-entry degree programmes as those likely to attract full-time students, in contrast to 32 percent that mentioned non-degree programmes (See Table 1). Although a relatively high percentage of institutions (48 percent) organize non-degree pre- and post-entry programmes for part-time students, the majority of these (part-time) students still gravitate towards degree-awarding programmes (Table 2).

Table 1: Individual enrolment on public administration programmes (Full-time students)

Programme Type No. of institutions running

and reporting on programme

Percentage

Degree (Pre-entry) 39 32.23 Degree (Post-entry) 43 35.54 Non-Degree (Pre-entry) 13 10.74 Non-Degree (Post-entry) TOTAL

26 121

21.49 100.00

Table 2: Individual enrolment on public administration programmes (Part-time students)

Programme Type No. of institutions running

and reporting on programme

Percent

Degree (Pre-entry) 25 21.01 Degree (Post-entry) 37 31.09 Non-Degree (Pre-entry) 25 21.01 Non-Degree (Post-entry) 32 26.89 Total 119 100.00

33

Target Group/Clients While the programmes by public administration institutions target all the conceivable groups (government and public service leaders, the top management cadre of the public service, middle management personnel, new entrants into the public service, undergraduate, and postgraduate students), the middle management group appears as the single largest beneficiary. Of the 373 institutions that responded to the question on target group, only 55 (14.75 percent) mentioned political functionaries as one of their target groups, 65 (17.43 percent) checked top career officials, 77 (20.64 percent) middle management, 59 (15.82 percent) new entrants into the public service, 52 (13.94 percent) undergraduate students, and 65 (17.43 percent) post-graduate students (See Fig. 8). This classification is, however, subject to further interpretation. The groups currently referred to as “leaders” and “top management” may mean one and the same thing under certain conditions.

Fig. 8: Clients of public administration education and training programmes

05

1015

2025

Lead

ers

Top M

gt

M/Mgt

Rookie

s

Underg

rad

Postgr

ad

Series1

Relations with clients Overall, the public administration education and training institutions do not enjoy any special status or have any significant advantage in their relations with their clients. Only 87 of them responded to the question “What special advantage, if any, does your institute/school enjoy in the delivery of programmes to the central government as a whole?” Of this number, 48 (55.17 percent) acknowledged the reality that they had to compete with other institutions, as they (the respondents) enjoyed no preferential status of any kind. A small number, i.e., 16 (18.39 percent) had total monopoly of the education and training products supplied to public administration agencies. A slightly higher number, 23 (or 26.44 percent) claimed to be the “preferred supplier” of such products (See Fig. 9).

34

Fig. 9: Status of Respondent Institutions vis-à-vis their Central Government Clients

A slightly lower number of institutions (86) responded to the question when recast to elicit information about their relations, not with the central government as a whole, but with a specific ministry or department. Only a few of them, 10 (or 12.50 percent) enjoyed a monopoly in the delivery of education and training services to specific agencies. A higher number, 23 (or 28.75 percent) perceived themselves as enjoying the status of preferred supplier, while more than half, 47 (58.75 percent) recognized the fact that they had to compete with others and aggressively market their products. This underscores the need for commitment to quality as well as to efforts directed to meeting client demands and expectations. The institutions’ education and training products appear to find favour with local government authorities. Although only 7 (8.14 percent) had total monopoly of this segment of the public administration education and training market, a relatively high number, 33 (or 38.37 percent) are perceived as preferred supplier, an improvement in status when viewed within the context of the institutions’ relations with central government or any of its agencies. The institutions are far from cornering the local government market, as 46 (or 53.49 percent) of them still have to compete with rival institutions for the delivery of public administration programmes to this level of government. In contrast to central and local government organizations, public or state-owned enterprises are yet to fully avail themselves of the services provided by public administration education institutions – regardless of whether the institutions operate within academic settings or as part of the public service. Of the 80 respondents that commented on their status with public enterprises, only 5 (6.25 percent) believed that they had total monopoly in meeting the enterprises’ education and training needs. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents (or 26.25 percent) perceived themselves as the enterprises’ “preferred suppliers”. A very high number 54 (67.50 percent) did not see themselves enjoying any preferential treatment when it comes to meeting the education and training needs of state-owned enterprises. The institutions either had to convince the

Ordinary

Preferred

MonopolyOrdinary

Monopoly

Preferre

35

enterprises of the superiority of their education and training products, or watch their share of the market taken over by competitors, mostly private consulting firms, other highly specialized and therefore preferred suppliers, or the in-house training units managed by the enterprises themselves. The competitive nature of the market is further reflected in the institutions’ relations with the “other” consumers of their (the institutions’) education and training products and services. Only 79 respondent institutions commented on their status with these “other” consumers (that include international organizations, NGOs, and the non-profit sector). Of this number, only 2 (2.53 percent) perceived themselves as total monopolies; another 21 (26.58 percent) regarded themselves as “preferred suppliers”; while an unusually high number, 56 (70.89 percent) saw themselves merely as any other supplier of these “other” consumers’ education and training products, that is, a supplier without any special advantage or status. Implications for standard of excellence Among the public administration education and training institutions that participated in the survey, some specialize in the design and implementation of purely academic programmes, others set out to meet the practical, capacity needs of government and the public service, while yet others combine both (knowledge dissemination and skills upgrading) functions. According to the respondents to the survey questionnaire, the middle management cadre is the principal beneficiary of the education and training programmes implemented by the institutions. This immediately raises the question whether the institutions could not do more to address the capacity needs of government and public service leadership category. The survey also reveals that rather than monopolize the public administration education and training market, the institutions compete among themselves for the resources set aside for human capacity building by the central government, key central government ministries and departments, local government authorities, public or state-owned enterprises, and other agencies. In other words, the academic institutions compete with one another, with government-owned institutions, with private consulting firms, and possibly, with the in-house training units established by various agencies to meet on-going job-related training needs. In ordinary circumstances, this competitive nature of the market should have far-reaching implications for standards of excellence in public administration education and training. However, depending on how the institutions perceive their status vis-à-vis that of their rivals, they may or may not take proactive measures to design and market products that meet customer demands. The next chapter examines the steps taken by different institutions to address this particular question – that of aligning education and training curricula with the capacity building needs of government and the public service. Overall, and in view of the highly competitive nature of the education and training market, the Task Force strongly recommends that commitment to quality and to

36

“customer care” be accorded high priority in the design, implementation, and improvement of public administration education and training programmes.

37

Chapter Five

TRENDS IN THE PURSUIT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CURRICULA ACROSS INSTITUTIONS

The previous chapter clearly indicates that in anticipation of, or response to, the needs of the public service, nearly all the institutions organize pre- and post-entry education and training programmes of one kind or the other. According to the 109 institutions that responded to the part of the survey questionnaire on duration, the longest-running in-service training programmes that they organize last from less than one week to more than three months. The percentage of institutions that organize programmes lasting 3 months and above (33.94 percent) is higher than those running programmes lasting 1 to 4 weeks (21.10 percent), 5 to 8 weeks (14.68 percent), and 9 to 12 weeks (5.50 percent). A few of the institutions 11 (or 10.09 percent) maintained that they organized no in-service training programmes of any kind. In terms of duration, therefore, programmes lasting three months and above and those lasting from one to four weeks are between them identified by more than half of the respondents (55.05 percent) as the norm. As a matter of fact, the duration of programmes implemented within the same institution is, depending on the level of participants and the themes deemed important, likely to vary. The Kennedy School of Government’s individual Executive Programmes last from 2 days to 7 weeks. Duration of public administration degree programmes The duration of academic programmes in public administration depends on the level at which such programmes are organized. Programmes that are fully accredited and which end with the award of first-level (say, Bachelor’s) degrees last from three to four years, if 42 (or 42.42 percent) of the 99 respondents are right. Degree programmes lasting less than three years are not common and only 23 (or 23.23 percent) of the respondents indicated ever running them. An even smaller number of respondents, 8 (or 8.08 percent) run programmes lasting longer than six years – mostly for part-time students. Approximately one quarter, 26 (or 26.26 percent) checked “not applicable” as they ran no degree programmes in public administration (See Fig 10).

38

Fig. 10: Duration of First Level Degree Programmes in Public Administration

Under 3yr3-4 years5-6 yearsOver 6yrsNot Appl

The duration of the post-graduate (second-level, Masters) degree programmes organized by the institutions also varies. The majority of the institutions, 50 (or 52.08 percent) reported that their Masters degree programmes in public administration lasted between 2 and 3 years, while a few, 15 (15.02 percent) stated that their programmes took less than 2 years to complete. Only a tiny proportion (4.17 percent) organized Masters’ degree programmes lasting 4 to 5 years. No institution reported running second-level degree programmes lasting more than 6 years. More than a quarter of the institutions, 27 (or 28.12 percent) stated that they had nothing to do with masters’ degree programmes. A total of 98 institutions responded to the question on the duration of their doctorate degree programmes. Of this number 38 (38.78 percent) indicated that their programmes lasted between 3 and 4 years, while another 17 (17.36 percent) checked “between 5 and 6 years”. A small fraction, 5.10 percent, claimed that their doctoral programmes in public administration lasted less than 3 years, in contrast to an even smaller proportion (2.04 percent) that mentioned programmes lasting longer than 6 years. A very high percentage (36.73 percent) did not implement any doctoral programmes in public administration. To crosscheck the preceding responses, the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force examined the curricula of a few public administration schools. The Autonomous University of Mexico’s Licenciado en ciensias politicas y administracion publica is awarded to students who successfully complete the prescribed course work after 9 semesters (4.5 years). The Wits University’s Masters in Management and Public Policy takes two years of full-time study to complete. The MPA programme run by the Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration lasts 18 months if done full-time, or up to five years, part-time. Thematic focus and content of training programmes Still, regardless of how long it takes to complete a training or education programme, the time spent would mean nothing unless it actually affords the participant an opportunity to

39

learn some skill or acquire knowledge in a specified field. To find out about the content and focus of the programmes that the various public administration schools and institutes organize, they were requested to indicate which of the topics listed in Box 1 their training programmes covered, and what priority was attached to any of these topics. The response to the question on the content of training programmes clearly indicates that all the topics listed in Box 1 below were deemed relevant, although the attention given to each varied across institutions and depending on the pre-determined training objectives and target groups.

Box 1: thematic focus of ‘practical’, non-degree, pre- and post-entry training programmes (as listed on UNDESA/IASIA survey questionnaire)

1. Policy analysis and strategic planning

2. General management practices and techniques

3. Budgeting and financial management

4. Human resource management

5. Social science and humanities (methodologies, concepts, and empirical analyses)

6. Procurement and inventory management

7. Ethics, values and public integrity

8. Micro- and/or macro-economics

9. Quantitative techniques and/or statistical analysis

10. Leadership, decision making and change management

11. Administrative and management theory

12. Comparative public administration and governance

13. Regional planning and administration

14. Local government and decentralization

15. E-government and/or application of ICT in the delivery of essential services

16. Research methodology

17. Gender issues

18. Ethnic and cultural diversity issues

It is not only the institutions’ confirmation of the importance of the topics listed in Box 1 that is significant, but also how the topics stand in the institutions’ pecking order. The themes that tend to be ranked very high (that is, 4 or 5) are the following:

• Policy Analysis and strategic planning (ranked 4-5 by 81.01 percent of the respondent institutions);

40

• General management practices and techniques (ranked 4-5 by 81.01 percent); • Leadership, decision making and change management (ranked equally by 74.68

percent); • Budgeting and financial management (ranked 4-5 by 70.89 percent of the

respondent institutions); • Human resource management (ranked by 70.89 percent); • Ethics, values and public integrity (ranked by 69.62 percent); and • Administrative and management theory (ranked 67.09 percent).

Topics that the schools and institutes ranked fairly high (that is, from 3 to 5) in the design of short-duration training programmes are:

• Comparative public administration and governance (ranked 4-5 but by only 60.76 percent of the respondents);

• Local government and decentralization (ranked 4-5 by 58.23 percent); • Regional planning and administration (ranked 4-5 by 55.70 percent); • Quantitative techniques and/or statistical analysis (ranked 3-4 by 55.70 percent); • Procurement and inventory management (ranked 3-4 by 54.43 percent); • Social science and humanities, including methodologies, concepts, and empirical

analyses (ranked 4-5 but by only 53.16 percent of the respondents); • E-government and/or application of ICT in the delivery of essential services

(ranked 3 and 5 by 53.16 percent); and • Micro- and/or macro-economics (ranked 4-5 by 51.90 percent).

From the response, the topics most likely to be ranked very low in the design of training curricula are:

• Research methodology (ranked 3 or 5 by only 49.37 percent of the respondent institutions);

• Gender issues (ranked 3 or 5 by 41.77 percent); and • Ethnic and cultural diversity issues (ranked 4-5 but by only 40.51 percent).

The preceding findings obviously raise a few important questions. There is no doubt that the topics placed in the “first league” by the institutions deserve their ranking. For instance, it is generally accepted that public administration cannot survive without effective and efficient budgeting and financial management systems, capable leadership, and well-streamlined human resources policies and practices. Also at a time when mounting cases of petty and grand corruption dominate public attention and undermine citizen confidence in government, there is a lot to be said for training programmes that inculcate in adult-learners the essence of ethics and public values. Even administrative and management theory serves a purpose, insofar as it opens the trainee’s mind to the whys and wherefores of public, as against private, solutions to society’s problems. However, the relatively low priority that seems to have been given to some topics calls for careful reflection. An example is procurement and inventory management which only

41

54.43 percent of the institutions ranked no higher than 4. In view of the questions frequently raised about the transparency of procurement decisions, and about the waste that accrues from misallocation of procurement resources, the topic would seem to deserve greater attention than it has so far received. It is no surprise that leadership and decision making are rated very high in the curricula of public administration training schools, but leaders that wish to take good decisions will need to have a fair grasp or general appreciation of quantitative and research methods – topics which the respondent institutions placed in the second and third “leagues” respectively. The same can be said for e-government and ICT applications. While not all services could be delivered online, and notwithstanding the fact that the “human touch” is still highly appreciated in the delivery of public services, particularly, in developing countries, a lot of money and time would be saved if some of the existing bureaucratic processes could be re-engineered to take advantage of recent advances in information and communication technologies. This highlights the need for public administration schools and institutes to enhance their capacities to impart knowledge and skills in this area. The downgrading of topics that some consider important (e.g., gender, ethnic and cultural diversity issues) is also unlikely to go down well with the various advocacy groups. A Discussion Panel organized by the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force at the 14th Annual Conference of the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe in May 2006 particularly reflected the depth of feelings on the subject of ethnic and cultural diversity. Commenting on the outline of the questionnaire presented by the Panel, a number of Conference participants strongly advised that a bank of questions on ethnic and cultural diversity be incorporated in the survey instrument. A revised draft tabled at the 2006 Annual Conference of IASIA (held in Warsaw, Poland, from 4 to 8 July 2006) failed to satisfy those who wished to go further in exploring the interface between standards of excellence in public administration, on the one hand, and ethnic and cultural diversity, on the other. It is not as if in drawing up their training curricula, the public administration institutes acted entirely on their own. According to 29.11 percent of the 79 respondent institutions, the in-service training courses that they offer were subject to accreditation of sorts by their Governing Councils/Boards. The Ministry of Education was mentioned by 24.05 percent as the body that accredits courses, while the programme clients were cited by 11.39 percent. Another 11.39 percent of the respondents maintained that their courses were accredited by professional associations, and only 3.80 percent mentioned “another Government Ministry of Department”. A relatively high proportion (20.25 percent) reported that their training courses were not overseen by any one, “as accreditation is not deemed necessary”. In general, it is fair to conclude that the duration of an average ‘practical’ training course is too short to allow the participants the luxury of ruminating on abstract subjects, i.e., on subjects that do not provide a clear, cut-and-dried guide in solving problems of the moment. The question is if the longer-duration, academic degree programmes in public

42

administration have enough space in their curricula to accommodate themes that their task-oriented training counterparts throw out. Focus of Academic Programmes Public administration as a discipline has for long wrestled with an identity crisis. It thus stands to reason that schools and institutes would differ regarding what to insert in, as against what to exclude from, their curricula. The focus of each institution’s teaching (and research) programme will also vary depending on whether public administration is viewed an “art” or a “science”. Also in imparting knowledge and skills within the field, each institution will have to decide whether attention should focus on the “ends” of public administration (that is, “politics” and values) rather than the technical and analytical tools essential to the accomplishment of public purpose (economics, business management, strategic planning, etc). Fully cognizant of the fact that there could not be one single formula that definitively settles the controversies, and to place the responses to the question within the appropriate context, the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force looked at patterns in the design of public administration curricula within and across institutions. In the course of its investigations, it found that the focus and thrusts of public administration programmes are contextual. This is as it should be. While public administration concepts and theories move towards universal aggregates, the problems confronting public administration systems are local, and unique. These conclusions are based not only on the results of the online survey but also on the additional data obtained from secondary sources. The contrast between the ranking of short-duration training courses, on the one hand, and of academic programmes, on the other, is striking. When asked to list in order of importance the courses organized as part of their in-service training programmes, the majority of the institutions mentioned Policy Analysis and Strategic Planning, General Management Practices and Techniques, Leadership, decision making and change management, budgeting and financial management, and human resource management – in that order. However, the rank ordering changed when the focus shifted to academic (degree and diploma) programmes in public administration. As Box 2 indicates, the courses that made it to the top of the respondent institutions’ list in general are:

• Administrative and Management Theory • Policy Analysis and Strategic Planning • General Management Practices and Techniques

It is also significant that ‘submission of a thesis or dissertation on a specialized subject’ is ranked 6th on the list of the themes handled as part of the institutions’ academic programmes. It thus upstages ‘human resource management’ which came 5th on the list of short-duration training courses. ‘Ethics and values’, a topic which was presumed to have been rated low on the training programmes has even fared worse in the academic programmes of public administration schools. It is placed much lower down in the institutions’ ranking of academic courses than it is on the list of training courses. The

43

downgrading of ‘ethics’ in public administration curricula may, however, be more apparent than real, since it could have been taught as part of the course on philosophy (which is captured later in the case illustrations). As Box 2 indicates, procurement and inventory management, gender, ethnic and cultural issues remain at the bottom of the respondent institutions’ list of academic courses. Nonetheless, material from secondary sources affirms the importance of the cultural context of public administration. The curricula of degree and post-graduate degree programmes reproduced towards the end of this section show that some institutions require the student to be knowledgeable about the interface between public administration and society, and about local traditional mores and institutions.

Box 2: Thematic focus of public administration diploma/degree programmes (based on respondents’ ranking)

Course/Topic Percentage that ranked topic High

(i.e., 4-5) Percentage that ranked topic Low (0-3)

1. Administrative and management theory

74.68 25.32

2. Policy analysis and strategic planning

72.15 27.85

3. General management practices and techniques

70.89 29.11

4. Budgeting and financial management

69.72 30.28

5. Leadership, decision making and change management

68.35 31.65

6. Submission of a thesis or dissertation on a specialized subject

67.09 32.91

7. Quantitative techniques and/or statistical analysis

64.56 35.42

8. Human resource management

64.56 35.42

9. Comparative public administration and governance

63.29 46.71

10. Research methodology

60.76 39.22

44

11. Social science and humanities (methodologies, concepts, and empirical analyses)

56.96 43.04

12.

E-government and/or application of ICT in the delivery of essential services

55.70 44.30

13. Micro-and/or macro-economics

54.43 45.57

14. Ethics, values and public integrity

54.43 45.57

15. Procurement and inventory management

46.84 53.16

16. Gender issues 44.30 55.70 17. Ethnic and cultural

diversity issues 43.04 56.96

It is necessary to stress that the academic programmes organized by the public administration schools and institutes went through one form of accreditation or the other. Of the 79 institutions that responded to the question on the accreditation of their degree/diploma courses, the highest number, 31 (39.24 percent) mentioned the Ministry of Education as the accreditation authority, while an additional 8.86 percent cited “another government ministry/department”. For 22.78 per cent of the respondents, the faculty board or University Senate is the body that signs off on academic courses. Professional associations are identified as the accreditation body by 8.86 percent. Since the programme clients were acknowledged as the accreditation body by only 2.53 per cent of the respondents, it is safe to conclude that the clients exert lesser influence on the design of academic programmes than they do on the curricula of ‘practical’, in-service training programmes. According to 17.72 percent of respondents, no-body was designated to oversee the courses as accreditation was not deemed necessary. Other accreditation bodies listed by some of the respondents include national accreditation councils, national university commissions, civil service councils, and secretaria estado administracao publica. Overall, the responses underscore the pan-disciplinary nature of public administration. While the theoretical component of the institutions’ public administration curricula attempts to introduce the student to the whys and wherefores of the ‘field’ and to give it a separate identity, the student’s education is not deemed complete until he/she has imbibed knowledge from other autonomous disciplines. Examples of these disciplines are

45

economics, statistical methods, political science, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and law. The cases reported below indicate that some institutions’ even go to the extent of requiring the student of public administration to be acquainted with issues in the arts and literature. Curriculum content: Case illustrations The conclusion thus far is that in its quest for universal knowledge and for context-specific solutions to problems, public administration has drawn on disciplines outside its immediate boundary – assuming that there is a boundary that is fixed and accepted as such. The examples presented below indicate how the various institutions have perceived the field and, in the process, reaffirmed its multi-disciplinary character. University of Philippines’ BAPA The first of these examples is that of the Bachelors of Arts in Public Administration (BAPA) programme run by the University of Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance (University of Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance, Bachelors of Arts in Public Administration Curriculum, http://up-ncpag.org/bapa/bapa.html, 15/12/2006). The programme takes four years (8 semesters) to complete. In the first year, the student is required to take the following courses:

* General Education (Arts & Humanities) I and II * General Education (Social Science and Philosophy I and II * General Education (Maths, Science and Technology) I and II * Introduction to Public Administration * Contemporary Social Issues * Philippine Administrative Thought and Institutions * College Algebra * Mga Ideya at Estilo (Ideas and Styles)

The second-year courses are:

* GE (Arts and Humanities) III and IV * GE (Social Science and Philosophy III, and IV * GE (Maths, Science and Technology) III and IV * Management of Organizations * Techniques in Personnel Management * Public Personnel Administration * Introduction to Economics * Public Fiscal Administration * Introduction to Financial Accounting

As indicated below, at least three of the second-year courses continue in the third year:

46

* GE (Arts and Humanities) V * GE (Social Science and Philosophy) V * Public Policy and Programme Administration * Office and Systems Management * General Psychology * GE (Maths, Science and Technology (V) * Public Accounting and Budgeting * Administrative Law * Elementary Statistics * Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Philippines Psychology) * Summer Internship

In the fourth and final year, the student is expected to take the following core and elective courses:

* Special Topics in Public Administration * Public Administration and the Economic System * Local Government and Regional Administration * Research Methods in Public Administration I * 3 Electives * Programme and Project Development and Management * Ethics and Accountability in the Public Service * Research Methods in Public Administration II * The Life and Works of Jose Rizal

Autonomous University of Mexico’s Licenciado in Public Admin The Licenciado that the Autonomous University of Mexico awards in the field of public administration is similar in some respects to the Philippines University’s BAPA, but different in others. Like the latter, the former seeks to develop the student’s analytic competencies in the basic socio-economic sciences and humanities. However, whereas BAPA takes a total of 4 years to complete, the Licenciado spans a period of 4.5 years (9 semesters). The breakdown of the courses offered in each semester is as follows: First Semester:

→ Philosophy and Political Theory I → World History → Introduction to Law → Society and State in Mexico I → Introduction to Social Research → Public Administration Theory I → Drafting Methods

47

Second Semester:

→ Philosophy and Political Theory II → World History II → Applied Social Science Methodology → Society and State in Mexico II → Public Administration Theory II → General Theory of the State → ICT I

Third Semester:

→ Constitutional Law → Economic Geography and Politics → Mathematics → Organization Theory → ICT II

Fourth Semester:

→ Political Science → Administrative Law → Statistics → Political Economy → Mexican Political System → Language Translation

Fifth Semester:

→ Development of Public Personnel → Public Finance (Fiscal Policy and Taxation) → Government and Public Affairs → Operational Research → Political Economy II

Sixth Semester:

→ Public Finance (Government Accounting and Budgeting) → Management of Government Resources → Management of Mexican State Economy → Public Policy I → Mexican Governance Process (Federal Level)

Seventh Semester:

→ Public Management (Gerencia Publica) → Public Policy II

48

→ Mexican Governance Process (State Level) → Government Audit System → Elective Course

Eighth Semester:

→ Social Administration (Gerencia Social) → Urban Governance and Administration → Mexican Governance Process (Municipal Level) → 2 electives → Language Translation (Ingles or France)

Ninth Semester:

→ Case Study Laboratory → Practical Study/Assignment → Seminario de Apoyo a la Titulacion → Optional Areas/Electives

• Urban ecology • Political/Judicial (e.g., parliamentary law and administrative management,

governance and human resource legislation in Mexico) • Development area • Technical-Instrumental area (e.g., engineering and reengineering government

process, technologies and public organizations) • General Optional Areas (Political Systems and Comparative Public

Administration) Harvard University’s MPA The courses organized by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard as part of the MPA programme vary from year to year. The curriculum is dynamic for a number of reasons, including, to quote the School’s website, “faculty on parental leave, new administrative responsibilities, etc.” (Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government, KSG Catalog Pages, ,http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/courses/, 15/12/2006). Still, within the 18 months covered by the programme, the student should be able to choose from a wide variety of courses, the principal ones being Analysis of Policies and Institutions, Empirical Methods and Quantitative Analysis, Modelling and Applications, Institutional Analysis and Design, Policy Design Methods and Applications, Historical Analysis, Research Methods, Strategic Management of Public Organizations, Organizational Strategy and Implementation, Political Management (Negotiation and Management of Policy Development), Managing Production (Quality and Innovation, Financial Management (Information Systems and Accountability), Developing and Motivating Human Resources, Political Advocacy and Leadership, Elective Politics and Political Leadership, Business and Government Policy, Crime and Criminal Justice, Environment and Natural Resources, Health Care Policy, Human Resources-Labor and

49

Education, Housing Urban Development and Transportation, International Security and Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, Non-profit Sector, Political and Economic Development, Press-Politics and Public Policy, Science-Technology and Public Policy. University of Witwatersrand’s MPDM The Masters in Public and Development Management degree programme implemented by the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa is awarded to students who either complete the prescribed course work and research project, or submits a dissertation on a relevant topic. At the end of the 2-year Masters programme in Public and Development Management, the University expects the participants to be able to:

(i) apply conceptual and analytical frameworks within the context of their organization;

(ii) work in groups and be able to understand how their outputs relate to the broader working environment;

(iii) write, analyse and communicate in a range of media and forms; (iv) lead, collect information, analyse problems, make judgements,

implement decisions and delegate; (v) develop and maintain a culture supportive of the organization’s

mission; (vi) structure the organization’s resources to facilitate achieving its

mission; (vii) reflect as practitioners on their work processes; (viii) develop their individual capacity and competence in public and

development management, particularly, in the areas of leadership, policy and strategy formulation, re-engineering of service delivery systems, organizational change, and public finance;

(ix) apply specialized knowledge and understanding to particular problems and areas of work.

For students who choose the course work and research, rather than the dissertation, option the prescribed courses are as listed hereunder: First quarter:

- Governance and Development - Managing Information and Communications

Second quarter:

- Economics and Public Finance - Managing Change

50

Third quarter:

- Public Policy - Managing Service Delivery

Fourth quarter:

- Approaches to Development - Knowledge Management - Strategy and Leadership

Fifth Quarter:

- Policy Management and Evaluation - Managing People and Organizations

Sixth Quarter:

- Research Design and Methods Seventh and Eighth Quarters

- 1 Elective (Organizational and Management Development, Economic Policy and Public Finance, Public Policy and Evaluation, Local Governance and Development, ICT Policy and Development) and

- Research (and submission of Research Report). EBAPE’s Master in International Management The Master in International Management, an 18-month programme organized by Escola Brasileira de Administracao Publica e de Empresas (the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration) comprises five modules designed to develop the candidates’ competencies in international business management (http://www.ebape.fgv.br/min). Details of the modules and the academic courses taught therein are as follows:

• Module 1: Managing complex situations with adaptation skills (including Management of Organizational Change in High Uncertainty Contexts, Management of Planning with Simulations, Price Management in Complex situations, Decision, Adaptation and Cognition Sciences, and Portfolio Management);

• Module 2: Integrated management of multiple participants (Human Resource Management, E-Business Integrated Private Management, Regulation Management and Corporate Law, Multicultural Relations of Consumption, Network Management, Quantitative Method for Multi-dimensional Management and Group Decision making);

51

• Module 3: Innovation management through creative processes (Management of Media and Culture, Technological Innovation, Social and Environmental Responsibility, Innovation with Management of Knowledge, Research Methodology, Innovation and Creative Management);

• Module 4: Global Competitiveness strategies of nations and organizations (Managing Power and the Organization, International Accounting with Comparative Models, Advanced Corporate Thinking and Strategy, Entrepreneurship, Triangular Diplomacy, and Managerial Accounting); and

• Module 5: Internship, Thesis Preparation, Exchange Programme and Graduation. Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration’s MPA Against the backdrop of Ukraine’s desire to join the EU, the MPA programme organized by the Academy of Public Administration is decidedly Euro-centric. The MPA curriculum includes Organizational Theory, Personnel Administration, Budgeting, Management, but it is not limited to the traditional public management fields. The curriculum is based much more broadly on the traditional social science disciplines. In other words, the Academy takes a pan-disciplinary view of public administration. The MPA programme comprises the following modules:

i) Economics and Public Finance, ii) Law and the Legislative Process, iii) Political Science, iv) Public Administration and Management, v) Social and Humanitarian Policy, vi) Special Disciplines, vii) Urban Management, viii) Information Technology, ix) Masters Thesis and Internship, x) Ukrainian and foreign languages, xi) Health Care Management, xii) Modern Methods of Economic and Statistical Analysis, xiii) General Theory of State and Law.

Lessons for the study and practice of public administration In terms of duration as well as thematic focus, the training programmes organized by the public administration schools have greater impact on the practice than on the theoretical study of the discipline. For a start, it takes months and possibly years, of sustained study to acquire in-depth knowledge of any subject – public administration included. While the short-duration training programmes provide an opportunity to learn some specialized skills (like policy analysis and strategic planning, general management practices and techniques, leadership, decision making and change management, budgeting and financial as well as human resource management) it is only on the fairly prolonged academic programmes that the participants’ need for knowledge of the whys and the wherefores of public purpose could, with varying degrees of success, be satisfied.

52

Instead of inculcation of knowledge, an appropriate yardstick for assessing standards of excellence of short-duration – 2-day to 10-week – programmes is relevance to the needs of the various sponsoring organizations. Indeed, the best way to validate practical training courses is to rely on the judgement of the various sponsoring organizations. This is probably why training institutions sometimes devote a lot of time and resources to the conduct of “training needs” analyses. The assumption underlying such analyses is that it is only when the needs of the client are established that the training institutes could confidently design and market the appropriate training “products.” However, it is highly unlikely that many of the training courses organized by the institutes are “demand-driven”. A sizeable proportion of these courses are organized as a matter of routine, others in response to ad-hoc requests, and many others that the trainers deem themselves competent to handle. It will be very useful for training institutes offering courses on similar themes to share experiences as well as ideas on how they have been faring. While public administration schools could get by with lax standards on their task-oriented training programmes, they cannot but apply fairly rigorous standards when organizing academic, degree-awarding programmes. The standards generally cover not just the duration of each programme, but also the content and depth of the courses taught thereon. Obviously, while operating within the same discipline public administration schools are likely to differ regarding the mandatory and the elective courses appearing on their curricula, and the credit hours that students are required to devote to each. Overall, public administration tends to be viewed as a discipline embodying principles that are at once general and universal, and capable of being adapted to local and constantly changing contexts. The Task Force is of the view that besides providing an opportunity to compare the universal perspectives in, with the country-specific approaches to, the study of public administration, the schools will find it enriching sharing their experiences in the area of curriculum design and development.

53

Chapter Six

TRENDS IN THE PURSUIT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS: QUALITY CONTROL STRATEGIES, MECHANISMS, AND PRACTICES

The search for quality in the delivery of public administration training and education begins with the question “what to teach”? This is the question that the previous chapter attempts to answer. Yet there is the related issue of how to ensure that the courses that ultimately make it to the curriculum would be taught or handled within a properly defined quality assurance framework. In interrogating the methods and processes applied within and across institutions in pursuit of this quality assurance objective, the present chapter presents the responses to wide-ranging questions, notably, those concerning the requirements for admission into training and education programmes, conditions for successful completion, the integrity of examinations that might be conducted in fulfillment of the requirements for successful completion, and the certificates or degrees awarded at the end of each programme. Admission requirements of in-service training programmes Admission into the post-entry, in-service training programmes organized by the public administration schools is contingent upon the candidate having some minimum educational qualifications, presumably the qualifications required in the first place for entry into the public service. It is thus not surprising that the majority (76.06 percent) of the 71 institutions responded in the affirmative to the question whether the possession of minimum qualifications was a condition for admission into their training programmes. Only 23.94 percent stated that no qualifications were needed to participate in the task-related, short-duration programmes. Surprisingly, a relatively low proportion (55.22 percent) checked ‘Yes” against the question whether clocking a number of years of experience in the public/private sector was a condition for enrolment on the training programmes, while 44.78 percent answered ‘No.’ Even seniority (over other eligible candidates) was not a major criterion in the selection of those who apply, or are nominated, for training programmes. Only 27.69 percent of the respondents reported that seniority was a factor that their institutions considered before enrolling prospective trainees, in contrast to 72.31 percent that stated that seniority did not count. There is also no room for “affirmative action” as far as enrolment on training programmes is concerned. Only 12.50 percent of the respondents believed that their institutions took the socio-demographic status (gender, membership of ethnic minorities, physical handicap) of the applicants into account in admission decisions, while a very high proportion (87.50 percent) felt that none of this counted when reviewing applications for enrolment on training programmes.

54

Academic programmes: admission standards and criteria As to be expected, enrolment on the academic (certificate, diploma, and degree) programmes in public administration is based on rigorous selection criteria. The first to be screened is the candidate’s educational qualifications. Thus an overwhelming 88.24 percent of the respondents affirmed that entry into their programmes is contingent upon the applicant possessing minimum educational qualifications, while only 11.76, for reasons that are yet to be ascertained, claimed that their academic programmes did not insist on the applicant having any minimum educational qualifications (See Fig 11)

Fig. 11: Are minimum qualifications required for admission into academic programmes?

YesNo

Still the high number of institutions highlighting the significance of educational qualifications is an accurate reflection of the importance attached by public administration schools to this criterion in deciding on the eligibility of candidates for their academic programmes. Admission into Mexico University’s Licenciado in public administration is highly competitive. As is the case with under-graduate programmes in medicine, law, and similar professions, an applicant is unlikely to be considered for entry into the Licenciado unless he/she has a bachelor’s degree in social sciences. As a matter of fact, applicants may follow either of two paths to be admitted into the programme – that is, come with a bachelor’s degree from the Autonomous University of Mexico itself, or from another university. This is how the admission rules are couched in Spanish: Requisitos de Ingreso – Para alumnus de la UNAM (Admission requirements for Mexico University alumni)

• Haber concluido el bachillerato en el Area de las Ciencias Sociales (Must have a bachelor’s degree in the social science field);

• Solicitar la inscripcion de acuerdo a los instructivos que se establezcan (Must apply in accordance with established rules and procedure).

55

Para aspirantes procedentes de otras instituciones (For applicants from other institutions)

• Haber concluido el bachillerato (Must have a bachelor’s degree) • Tener promedio minimo de siete (7) en el bachillerato o su equivalente (Must

attain a minimum grade average of seven [7] in the bachelor’s degree, or its equivalent);

• Aprobar el concurso de seleccion (Must sit for and pass selection examination); and

• Solicitar la inscripcion de acuerdo a los instructivos que se establezcan (Must apply in accordance with established rules and procedure).

The Autonomous University of Mexico’s Licenciado is not alone in requiring applicants to sit for pre-admission examinations. Entry into the University of Philippines’ Bachelor of Public Administration (BAPA) programme is contingent upon the candidates’ passing the UP College Admissions Test (UPCAST). Similarly, all applicants for the University of Witwatersrand’s Masters (by course work and research) are required to sit for an admissions test – either at the Graduate School of Public and Development Management in Johannesburg, or the Graduate Management Admission Test, GMAT, where they live (http://pdm.mgmt.wits.ac.za/pdmdeg2.html, 15/12/2006). As stipulated in the Graduate School’s Rules and Standing Orders (articles 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3), applicants for the Master’s programme must be in possession of:

(a) a bachelor’s degree with honours, or a post-graduate diploma, or equivalent qualification in the field of Public and Development Management or similar cognate disciplines, achieved at a level that gives the applicant a reasonable chance of reaching the specified outcomes;

(b) a least three years’ working experience in an appropriate field; and (c) satisfactory completion of admission tests measuring ability on cognitive,

arithmetic and general reasoning. Admission into the Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration’s MPA programme is also based on competitive entrance examinations (Yuriy Polianskiy). Applicants’ selection depends on the results they attain in the following areas:

• written test on social, economic, legal, political, historical and cultural issues; • composition (or drafting) of an official document; • personal aptitudes test; • interview on current public administration issues (aimed at soliciting information

on the applicant’s experience, analytical and creative abilities, and motivation for public service career).

The Brazilian School of Public Administration’s Master in International Management is designed for “highly motivated individuals looking for a graduate education program that

56

deeply positions them to compete in an emerging market environment”. Accordingly, entry into the programme depends on the applicant:

(a) demonstrating commitment and ability to complete an 18-month academic programme;

(b) holding a bachelor’s degree or equivalent; (c) having the sponsorship and financial support from a

corporate body; and (d) tendering evidence of proficiency in the English language;

and (e) having acceptable GMAT and TOEFL scores.

In addition to completing the necessary application forms and submitting essays, applicants must attach copies of their college diplomas, official transcripts of university grades, and their curriculum vitae. Each application must also contain names of three referees. Experience as an admission criterion The conclusion thus far is that enrolment on the degree-awarding programmes in public administration is conditional upon the applicant having some minimum qualifications, and possibly, passing the prescribed entrance examinations. However, the responses to the survey questionnaire seem to suggest that prior public or private sector experience does not play any major part in the selection process. Whereas 47.54 percent of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ to the question on experience, more than half (52.46 percent) answered the same question in the negative, meaning that experience might be an advantage, but not considered substantial enough to tilt the balance one way or the other. By the same token, seniority (over other eligible candidates) is not a consideration, as only 23.33 percent of the respondents felt that admission into their institutions’ academic programmes was based on it, compared with 76.67 percent that ruled it (seniority) out as an admission requirement. Public administration education and training: Any room for affirmative action? Again, there appears to be no place for affirmative action in the selection of applicants’ for degree programmes in public administration. Only 13.79 percent of the respondents felt that before deciding on eligibility for academic programmes in public administration their institutions took into account each applicant’s disadvantaged position (e.g. as a woman, a member of an ethnic minority, or one with a physical handicap). In contrast, a very high ratio (86.21 percent) believed that an applicant’s socio-historic or demographic status was given no weight in their admission decisions.

57

Criteria for evaluation of students’ performance Besides setting standards that applicants must meet to be admitted into the practical training as well as their academic education programmes, public administration schools and institutes have enacted rules governing the evaluation of their intake’s performance. However, the criteria applied (and the weight attached to each) differed depending on whether the programme is oriented towards imparting practical skills or developing the intellectual faculties of the participants. Whereas academic programmes place high premium on criteria like “performance in formal, and duly invigilated examinations”, and “completion of assigned work, theses and dissertations”, the short-duration, practical training programmes accord “satisfactory completion of individual and/or group assignments” (see Fig. 12) and “attendance at lectures and participation in working group discussions” high priority. With specific reference to the training programmes, the success criteria that the respondent institutions ranked very high are the following:

(i) satisfactory completion of individual and/or group assignments (ranked ‘5’ by 60.75 percent of the respondents, ‘4’ by another 21.52 percent, and ‘3’ by an additional 7.59 percent);

(ii) attendance at lectures and participation in working group discussions (ranked ‘5’ by 51.90 percent, ‘4’ by another 25.32 percent, and ‘3’ by yet another 12.66 percent); and

(iii) performance in examinations (ranked ‘5’ by 55.70 percent, ‘4’ by another 18.99 percent, and ‘3’ by a mere 6.33 percent).

A criterion of success (for participants on training programmes) that the respondent institutions rated low is “attendance at lectures only” (ranked ‘5’ by only 29.11 percent of the respondents, ‘4’ by 18.99 percent, and ‘3’ by 31.65 percent). The other is “demonstration of leadership skills in class, at boot camps, or in other group settings integrated into the course work.” Important as this yardstick might appear to be, only 25. 32 percent of the respondents ranked it ‘5’, another 29.11 percent rated it ‘4’, while 16.46 percent felt that ‘3’ was about the right score (Fig. 13).

58

Fig. 12: Respondents’ ranking of the importance of individual and group assignments in practical training programmes

Ranking No. of Respondents

Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5 48 60.76%

4 17 21.52%

3 6 7.59%

2 0 0.00%

1 0 0.00%

0 8 10.13%

Total 79 100%

Fig. 13: Respondents’ Ranking of the importance of demonstration of leadership skills on training programmes

Ranking No. of respondents

Percent of respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. 5 20 25.32%

2. 4 23 29.11%

3. 3 13 16.46%

4. 2 5 6.33%

5. 1 5 6.33%

6. 0 13 16.46%

Total 79 100%

Requirements for successful completion of academic programmes For obvious reasons, public administration schools and institutes tend to set higher standards for the successful completion of their academic programmes than they do for the in-service, task-related training courses. Whereas mere attendance will suffice to qualify a trainee for the award of a “certificate” (or a testimonial) students enrolled on diploma, licence, or degree programmes cannot expect to graduate unless they meet some rigorous performance standards and fulfil certain conditions. The University of Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development takes obligations seriously,

59

and will not allow students to graduate “if they are still owing fees, library books, or have outstanding library fines.” That is not all. In order to successfully complete the Masters programme, a student must meet the following requirements:

• Attendance and participation at lecture sessions and in Learning Group work; • Completion of all assignments and coursework for each of the modules; • Achievement of at least 35% in all the examinations; • Achievement of an average mark of at least 50% for all modules; • Successful completion of Research Design and Methods module; and • Submission of a Research Report (that passes the School’s screening tests).

The Wits Graduate School explicitly forbids plagiarism. Under the School’s Standing Orders, any student suspected of copying or plagiarism will be handed back his/her assignment unmarked. The responses to the UNDESA/IASIA online questionnaire confirm the importance attached to students’ performance on academic programmes. The criteria against which students are most likely to be evaluated (in the respondents’ ranking order) are:

(a) Performance at examinations (ranked ‘5’ by 67.09 percent of the respondents, ‘4’ by another 11.39 percent, and ‘3’ by 5.06 per cent);

(b) Satisfactory completion of assigned work, including essays, dissertations, and theses (ranked ‘5 by 64.56 percent, ‘4’ by another 15.19 percent, and ‘3’ by 7.59 percent);

(c) Attendance at lectures and participation in seminars (ranked ‘5’ by 45.57 percent, ‘4’ by 24.05 percent, and ‘3’ by 15.19 percent);

(d) Comments and opinions of external examiners/assessors (ranked ‘5’ by 43.04 percent, ‘4’ by 21.52 percent, and ‘3’ by 13.92 percent); and

(e) Attendance at lectures only (ranked ‘5’ by only 26.58 percent, ‘4’ by 20.25 percent, and ‘3’ by 22.78 percent).

Linkage between evaluation and incentives Public administration schools and institutes have introduced a variety of mechanisms aimed at measuring the progress attained by participants on training and education programmes – that is, progress in reaching consistently high standards of excellence. By rewarding exemplary performance, conferring honours on deserving candidates, and imposing penalties for mediocre performance, these mechanisms also serve to motivate programme participants to reach and, if possible, exceed each institution’s standards. The most popular method of stimulating exemplary performance on in-service training programmes is the award of an “attendance certificate” (Fig. 14). With 53.98 of the respondents mentioning it as what their institutes hand out to mark the successful completion of their training programmes, the attendance certificate tops the list of motivators for participants on short-duration training programmes. It is followed by “a certificate of merit” that 30.09 percent of the respondents identified as what to expect after the successful completion of their training programmes (a certificate of merit is

60

defined as one that a candidate obtains after passing prescribed tests or fulfilling professional requirements, and is recognized as a milestone in the candidate’s educational and/or career advancement). Only a few institutions (7.08 percent) awarded no certificate of any kind. Another small ratio, 3.54 percent, believed that those who successfully complete their training programmes were likely to be rewarded with “instant promotion”, and another 5.31 percent checked “any other recognition of importance attached to participation” (in training programmes). Fig. 14: Rewards for successful completion of training programmes: as checked by

the Respondents

Reward category No. of

Respondents Choosing Reward

Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. No certificate of any kind: 8 7.08%

2. a certificate of attendance: 61 53.98%

3. a certificate of merit (that counts towards promotion/advancement):

34 30.09%

4. instant promotion: 4 3.54%

5. any other recognition of importance attached to participation:

6 5.31%

Total 113 100%

The principal reward for successful completion of academic courses in public administration is not, as in the case of training programmes, an “attendance certificate”, but a certificate of merit – e.g., an admission to an associate or full membership of a professional body, a degree, diploma, or licence, or howsoever designated (See Fig. 15). Students that excel over their colleagues could also expect to receive special recognitions, that is, special awards or citations, first-level degrees with honours, or post-graduate degrees with distinction. The UNDESA/IASIA survey confirmed the importance attached to what are sometimes loosely referred to as “paper qualifications”. In response to the question what a student could expect after successfully completing their academic programmes in public administration, nearly half, that is 47.90 percent, of the respondent institutions mentioned “a degree or diploma”, another 18.49 percent chose “prizes, awards and sundry honours”, while yet another 8.40 checked “a certificate of merit” (which is not much different from a degree or diploma, except possibly in the ranking by local accreditation authorities). Only 15.97 per cent of the respondents identified “a certificate of attendance” as a potential reward for successful completion of degree or diploma programmes. This, in

61

any case, is not unusual. A student who enrols for the University of Witwatersrand’s masters’ degree programme, but is unable to meet the standards for the award of the degree, may at a stage withdraw with a consolation prize, that is, a lesser qualification13. This is how such a contingency is anticipated in article 7.4 of the Rules and Standing Orders of the Graduate School for Public and Development Management: “Students who obtain less than a C average for the core and fundamental courses may be advised to exit with the Diploma in Public and Development Management.” The Rules and Standing Orders further provide that: “A candidate whose weighted average result is between 75% and 100% shall be considered for the award of the MM degree with distinction. A candidate who has failed and successfully repeated any course will not normally be considered for the award of the degree with distinction…. Fig. 15: Rewards for successful completion of academic programmes (as mentioned

by the Respondents)

Reward category

No. of Respondents

choosing Reward

Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. no certificate of any kind: 7 5.88%

2. a certificate of attendance: 19 15.97%

3. a certificate of merit: 10 8.40%

4. a degree or diploma: 57 47.90%

5. Prizes, awards and sundry honours :

22 18.49%

6.

any other recognition of importance attached to participation

4 3.36%

Total 119 100%

13 The Diploma that the University of Witwatersrand awards is less prestigious than its Master’s degree, but this is not to say that university “diplomas” as awarded elsewhere, say in the US, are “inferior” to university degrees as we know them.

62

Some respondents added that those who successfully completed their institutions’ short-duration training programmes were likely to be considered by their employers for other rewards. These other rewards include:

• de facto preference in hiring for top posts; • accumulation of course credits (and accreditation of same for transfer to degree

programmes); • increased job security; • salary increase.

The other rewards that participants on academic programmes could expect after excelling in their courses of study are:

• grants and scholarships (for courses of advanced study); • consideration for short-term student exchange programmes.

Accreditation of education and training programmes As part of the quest for excellence in public administration training and education, the institutions have, along the lines described by Theo van der Krogt, adopted other measures besides those alluded to earlier. Among these are the auditing of courses, inspection of teaching facilities, external vetting of examination questions and answer scripts, benchmarking, comparison of programme goals, and a combination of some or all the preceding quality control mechanisms. Auditing of the practical or academic content of core and elective courses appears as the most frequently applied quality control mechanism. It was checked by 17.76 percent of the respondents in response to the question “What forms does the accreditation of your institute’s training programmes take?” and by 24.82 percent when the question was rephrased to solicit information on the accreditation of academic programmes. While still on academic programmes, another 15.60 percent of the respondents mentioned “all of the above”, meaning that besides auditing of courses, the accreditation of academic programmes included inspection of teaching facilities, external vetting of examination questions and scripts, benchmarking, and comparison of programme missions. From the 141 responses to the question on accreditation, it could be inferred that the accreditation of academic programmes takes the following forms:

• auditing of academic content as well as duration of core courses and electives (24.82 percent of the respondents);

• all of the above (15.60 percent); • inspection of teaching facilities (14.88 per cent); • comparison of programme mission with similar programmes in other institutions

(13.48 percent);

63

• external vetting/screening of examination questions and answer scripts (12.77 percent);

• benchmarking (12.06 percent); and • other methods (6.38 percent).

With regard to training programmes, the preferred accreditation methods (based on the opinions of 152 respondents) are as follows:

• occasional feedback by client organizations on the post-attendance contributions/performance of course participants (17.76 per cent of the respondents);

• auditing of the ‘practical’ content and job-relevance of training programmes (17.76 percent);

• evaluation by the client organizations of the experience of teaching faculty (14.47 percent);

• inspection of teaching material and research facilities (14.47 percent); • auditing of the theoretical/academic content of programmes (14.47 percent); • all of the above (12.50 percent); • benchmarking and standard setting (7.24 percent); • other methods (1.32 per cent).

Setting academic standards for the practical world: UMI and ASCON illustrations At least two institutions have developed a method of setting public administration education standards that relies on inputs from the academic community and from the world of work. The first, the Uganda Management Institute, UMI, organizes a work-based research and study programme leading to the award of a Master’s degree in Management Studies (MMS). The programme is designed for candidates that have worked in the public, private and/or non-profit sector, and who require sound analytical and problem solving skills to advance in their careers (http://www.umi.ac.ug/coursedetail.php?courseId=54, 17/01/2007). Admission into the programme is contingent upon the candidates having the following minimum academic and work-related qualifications:

(a) a good university degree and a UMI postgraduate Diploma with at least 2nd class or its equivalent from a recognized institution;

(b) a minimum of two years working experience; and (c) an acceptable concept paper.

The first phase of the MMS programme comprises study and course work leading to the award of a Postgraduate Diploma in various areas (notably, Public Administration and Management, Human Resources Management, Management, Financial Management, Project Planning and Management, and Urban Governance and Management). The second phase is devoted to sector/work-based research and study. It comprises three elements, i.e.:

(i) a 2-week management research and consultancy workshop;

64

(ii) a 4-week research workshop; (iii) research and dissertation, carried out under two supervisors. One

supervisor must be selected from the UMI faculty, and the other from the sector relevant to the study, that is, the world of work.

As part of its own effort to maintain close ties to the world of work, the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria, ASCON, organizes, in addition to a whole range of work-related training programmes, a post-graduate Diploma in Public Administration and a post-graduate Diploma in Computer Science – both of which are awarded based on performance in duly invigilated examinations. The Diploma programme in Public Administration has a dual objective – that is to develop the participants’ analytical and problem-solving skills and provide an opportunity for matching the theories/principles of public administration with practical situations. Accordingly, theoretical courses are taught in the first semester as a foundation for the applied and practical thrusts of the second semester. Field trips and submission of dissertations on issues of contemporary relevance are integrated into the PGDPA curriculum. Applicants for admission into the PGDPA must have good honours degrees from recognized universities or, as an alternative, possess suitable professional qualifications. A Joint Board of Studies (comprising representatives of the Staff College and a partner university) meets at regular intervals to deliberate on and resolve policy issues, particularly, those concerning admission standards, the conditions that participants must fulfil to be awarded the Diploma with distinction, and the integrity of examination arrangements. Quality assurance and control: observable trends The measures taken within and across institutions clearly indicate that quality assurance and control are taken seriously in the design, implementation, and review of public administration education programmes. Not only do the various institutions pay a lot attention to the content of the programmes, they also from time to time establish minimum standards that participants must meet to be admitted. The search for excellence does not stop with individual enrolment on the programmes. The institutions apply various techniques to gauge the programme participants’ progress, and to motivate them to attain high standards of excellence. Internal and external control mechanisms have in addition been instituted to validate, while at the same time improving on, existing standards. All the same, and in light of the rich experiences that different institutions have in the area of curriculum development and quality assurance, the Task Force recommends that an initiative be launched permitting the sharing of these experiences. Among the critical elements of this initiative are:

• information sharing and networking (including establishment of data bases on accreditation policies and institutions, curriculum content, admission requirements, examination and grading standards, progress reporting methods,

65

and alumni work experiences vis-à-vis the knowledge and skills acquired at public administration schools and institutes);

• faculty and student exchanges; and • organization of thematic workshops, seminars and roundtable conferences.

While the emphasis placed on the content of programmes and on the delivery quality is essential to the success of efforts at promoting excellence in public administration education and training, it is not adequate in attaining this crucial objective. The quest for improved teaching and instructional standards needs to be supplemented with a strong commitment to research. The next chapter looks at how the institutions perceive their role in extending the frontiers of knowledge in the field of public administration.

66

Chapter Seven

THE PLACE OF RESEARCH IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Based on the response from the public administration schools and institutes, it is safe to conclude that research is considered a priority in curriculum design and development. The proportion of the respondents that affirmed its importance is as high as 84.72 percent, with a mere 15.28 percent holding a contrary view - that is, maintaining that research is not a priority. Also, when requested to estimate the weight attached to research and publications in the recruitment of staff, 64.10 percent of the respondents checked “between 41 and 50 percent.” Less than 12 percent of the respondents reported the weight given to research and publications in the recruitment of staff as falling below 10 percent (see Fig. 16). Fig. 16: Respondents’ estimates of the weight given to research and publications in

staff recruitment

% Respondents

Research weight (%)

Participation in external conferences and other academic networking events, according to 93.24 percent of the respondents, is considered essential to the development of the public administration schools’ faculty staff. Only 6.76 percent felt otherwise. Similarly, a very high proportion (90.14 percent) of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ to the question whether faculty members were allowed and/or encouraged to undertake consulting assignments. The remaining 9.86 percent checked ‘No’ to the same question. Affirming the importance of research and academic networking is one thing; taking practical measures to promote these endeavours is another. When requested to indicate

67

roughly the proportion of their staff members submitting material for publication in peer-reviewed journals, less than a quarter (in fact, 23.73 percent) of the respondents checked “20-40%”. Although another 23.73 percent of respondents estimate that between 40 and 60 percent of their colleagues submit material for publication in peer-reviewed journals, the percentage (of respondents) dropped to 15.25 as the proportion of staff making the same contribution to peer-reviewed journals was pitched higher, i.e. at the 80- 100 percent range (See Table 3).

Table 3: Respondents’ Estimates of the proportion of staff members submitting material for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Estimate of the proportion of staff submitting material for publication…

No. of respondents with estimates falling within range

% of respondents (with estimates falling within range)

Between 0 and 20% 10 16.95% Between 20 & 40% 14 23.73% Between 40 & 60% 14 23.73% Between 60 & 80% 12 20.34% Between 80 & 100%

9 15.25%

Total 59 100.00% It is, however, significant that up to 32.73 percent of the respondents believe that a good number (between 20 and 40 percent) of their institutions’ staff is frequently cited by scholars in other institutions. The same percentage of respondents (32.73 percent) felt that the proportion of their colleagues frequently cited by other scholars was higher, that is, between 40 and 60 percent. The number of respondents making similar claims dropped to 10.91 percent when the estimate of frequently cited staff members was raised to between 80 and 100 percent. Research and standards of excellence: the way forward In general, the relatively small number of respondents that answered the question on research and publications leads to the conclusion that research is not given the same attention by all institutions. While it is likely to be a priority in public administration schools running academic programmes or in schools located within academic settings (like universities), their counterparts on the ‘practical’ training side would in all probability allocate scarce resources to ends other than research and academic pursuits. Advances in the field of public administration depend to a large extent on the priority that the various institutions give to research. By engaging in research pursuits, faculty staff not only extends the bounds of knowledge but also transmits new knowledge (and possibly skills) to the students and trainees. Where a research project addresses some fundamental questions (such as the linkage between “monetization” of public service

68

benefits and employee morale and integrity, the pace and impact of divestiture, or the challenges posed by the simultaneous quest for demographically ‘representative’ and professionally competent bureaucracy), the results could be fed directly into the policy process, or applied to bring about well-calculated rather than arbitrary transformations in central and local administrative systems. While over half of the respondents believed that a high proportion (roughly 60 percent) of their colleagues were engaged in different kinds of research, it is not clear what impact these efforts have on the quality of public administration education and training, or how they influence the choices made by the community of practice. Hopefully, when the next round of the survey is carried out, explicit questions on the linkage between research, on the one hand, and the study and practice of public administration, on the other, would be raised.

69

Chapter Eight

EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS: DOES ETHNIC/CULTRUAL DIVERSITY MATTER?

It is not clear what weight, if any, is, or should be, attached to ethnic and cultural diversity in decisions pertaining to the conduct of public administration education and training programmes. While academic purists argue that the search for excellence does not permit the admission of ‘extraneous’ factors into the decision process, their post-modernist counterparts maintain that the cause of excellence would not be served unless and until every demographic group has an equal chance of participating in public administration education and training programmes. Without pronouncing on the merit of either argument, the UNDESA/IASIA Task Force included in its questionnaire a few questions aimed at soliciting information on attitudes towards, and practices concerning the place of ethnic or cultural diversity in public administration education and training. An analysis of the responses suggests that ethnic/cultural diversity is not a dominant concern in the design, implementation, review, and upgrading of public administration education and training programmes. Although student enrolment varied from one institution to another, over half (52.94 percent) of the institutions surveyed reported that each trained more than 100 every year14. Another 22.06 percent of the institutions stated that they each trained “about 100” every year, while 16.18 percent answered “about 50”. The institutions turning out less than 20 students per annum each were few (8.82 percent of the total surveyed institutions). Student population: predominance of indigenes The majority of the students are nationals of the countries in which the institutions are located. According to 75 percent of the respondents, foreign students represented no more than 10 percent of their student populations, while another 14.71 percent put the figure at between 10 and 20 percent. The proportion of respondents stating that foreign students accounted for over 20 percent of the total student body is very low. By contrast, a very high percentage (76.56 percent) of the respondents maintained that more than 70 percent of their students were nationals of the countries in which their institutions was located, with only 15.62 percent claiming that indigenous students accounted for a mere 10 percent of the total (see Table 4).

14 The student population (as stated by the respondents) ranged 100, through 500, 2000, to 30,000. Apparently a number of institutions supplied information on the total student population rather than on enrolment on public administration education and training programmes. It is also possible that the responses to the question on ethnic and cultural diversity are in respect of all training and academic programmes, rather than being specific to the field of public administration.

70

Table 4: Respondents’ estimates of the ratio of indigenous to foreign students in

public administration schools and institutes Proportion of indigenous students in PA schools

No. of respondents with estimates falling within range

Percent of respondents (with estimates falling within range)

Between 0 and 10 % 10 15.62% Between 10 and 20% 3 4.69% Between 20 and 30% 2 3.12% Between 30 and 40% 0 0.00% Between 40 and 50% 0 0.00% Between 50 and 60% 0 0.00% Between 60 and 70% 0 0.00% Over 70% 49 76.56% Total 64 100.00% Medium of instruction: mixture of local and foreign languages Although public administration schools draw the bulk of their students from within their countries, they still teach a fair number of their courses in foreign, rather than indigenous, languages. While 59.02 percent of the respondents stated that over 70 percent of their courses were taught in local languages, a relatively high proportion (32.79 percent) reckons that local languages were employed in teaching a mere 10 percent of the courses. To bring clarity to the language issue, the respondents were further requested to estimate the proportion of courses taught in foreign languages. As high as 36.36 percent of the respondents estimated that over 70 percent of their courses were taught in foreign languages while another 15.15 percent checked “10-20” percent (Table 5). The proportion of respondents estimating that foreign languages were employed to teach up to 10 percent of the courses (40.91 percent) is not too different from that reporting the same about the use of local languages (32.79 percent).

Table 5: Respondents’ estimates of the proportion of courses taught in foreign languages

Proportion of courses in

foreign languages No. of respondents with estimates falling within range

Percent of respondents (with estimates falling within range)

0-10% 27 40.91% 10-20% 10 15.15% 20-30% 4 6.06% 30-40% 1 1.52% 40-50% 0 0.00% 50-60% 0 0.00%

71

60-70% 0 0.00% Over 70% 24 36.36%

Ethnic origin and student life Ethnic or cultural diversity was not a consideration in the admission of candidates to education and training programmes in public administration – probably because ethnic minorities were believed to be already represented on each institution’s student body. According to the majority (55.26) of the respondents, less than 10 percent of their students were members of ethnic minorities. A lower ratio (21.05 percent) estimated that between 11 and 20 percent of their students were members of ethnic minorities, 9.21 percent put the estimate at between 21 and 25 percent. An equally small percentage of the respondents 10.53 percent believed that more than 30 percent of their students came from ethnic minorities. Did the public administration schools take any special steps to recruit ethnic minorities as students? The response was clearly in the negative: only 33.33 percent answered ‘Yes’, while the remaining 66.67 percent checked ‘No.’ However, the respondents were evenly split over the question whether any steps were taken to encourage or ensure cultural and linguistic diversity either among students, or in the hiring of academic staff, with 50 percent replying ‘Yes’, the other 50 saying ‘No’. Special courses on how to be effective managers in ethnically or linguistically diverse communities rarely featured on the curriculum of public administration schools and institutes. This is the view of more than half (55.38 percent) of the respondents, as against that of the remaining 44.62 percent that felt that diversity management was part of the public administration curriculum. It was also the view of the majority (59.68 percent) of the respondents that response of public policies to the needs of ethnically diverse communities was not on their institutions’ research agenda. Only 40.32 percent maintained that it was (on the research agenda). Apparently, students’ ethnic origins have no bearing on how they perform on public administration education/training programmes. This is the view of 89.55 percent of the respondents that answered ‘No’ to the question if there were any differences in how ethnic minority students performed on public administration programmes, as against the remaining 10.45 percent that checked ‘Yes’ to the same question. An equally high percentage of the respondents (81.54) affirmed that students from ethnic minority backgrounds completed their courses or degrees at the same time as other students, but the remaining 18.46 percent weighed in with a ‘No’ response. Also, 82.54 percent of the respondents believed that students from ethnic minorities found jobs or advanced their careers in the public service in the same ways as other students, while the other 17.46 percent disagreed.

72

As regards the factors explaining the success or failure of ethnic minority students (relative to other students), the highest number (30.00 percent) of the respondents cited “early access to education and other preparatory facilities”, another 18.89 checked “access to public service jobs, together with within-grade experience”, while only 12.22 percent mentioned “Government set-aside/quota policy”. Another factor identified by the respondents is “a level playing field (where it exists), with no entrenched advantages or disadvantages” (see Table 6).

Table 6: Factors accounting for success/failure of ethnic minority students: respondents’ perceptions

Factor accounting for success or failure of ethnic minority students

No. of respondents citing factor

Percent of respondent (citing factor)

Early access to education and other preparatory facilities

27 30.00%

Access to public service jobs (together with the within-grade experience)

17 18.89%

Government set-aside/quota policy

11 12.22%

A level playing field (with no entrenched advantages or disadvantages)

17 18.89%

Other 18 20.00% Total 90 100.00% Cultural diversity and recruitment of faculty Up to 48.44 percent of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ to the question: “Are any of your faculty staff from ethnic minority groups?” The remaining 51.56 percent answered in the negative. When the respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of their faculty members or trainers that were ethnic minority members, a very high proportion (80.26%) checked “less than 25 percent”, while only a tiny proportion (10.53 percent) picked “above 30 percent” (See Fig. 17).

73

Fig. 17: Respondents’ estimates of proportion of faculty from ethnic minorities

-25%26-30%30+%

On gender distribution, the majority (64.18 percent) of the respondents believed that more women than men were enrolled on their public administration programmes. Only 35.82 percent insisted that women accounted for less than half of their student population. However, the faculty appears on average to be male-dominated. The respondents maintaining that men constituted less than half of their institutions’ teaching staff are in the minority (34.38 percent) that is, relative to the remaining 65.62 percent that felt otherwise. Wither diversity in public administration education and training As to be expected, the majority of students and trainees enrolled on public administration programmes are citizens of the countries in which the programmes are organized. According to the respondents to the UNDESA/IASIA survey questionnaire, foreign students account for between 10 and 20 percent of the total student populations in the public administration schools and institutes. Notwithstanding the fact that the schools draw the bulk of their students from within the countries in which they are operating, they still teach a fair number of their courses in foreign, rather than national, languages. It is of course advisable not to read too much into this. It is in fact possible that a relatively high proportion of the schools employed foreign languages on their education and training programmes because those languages had over time been adopted as the lingua franca. This is likely the case with erstwhile colonial territories that chose on the attainment of independence to keep the languages of the colonizing powers. Whatever connection there is between socio-cultural diversity, on the one hand, and public administration education and training standards on the other, is either not strong enough to be noticed by the respondents or is not perceived as deserving of any sustained corrective attention. The responses to the survey questionnaire clearly indicate that while the institutions recruit the bulk of their students from within their countries, they have not

74

felt it necessary to apply affirmative action measures in the admission of students or the recruitment of faculty staff. As far as the majority of the respondents are concerned, a student’s ethnic origin makes no difference to his/her chances of getting admitted into public administration programmes, to his/her performance on the programme, or to his/her post-qualification career opportunities. Probably for this and other reasons, the institutions have not deemed it necessary to include the subject of ethnic and cultural diversity in the public administration curriculum, or to introduce training modules on diversity management. It is significant that the respondents agreed that minorities were unlikely to be fully represented on the faculty. However, due to no fault of theirs – and since the questionnaire did not ask them to – the respondents did not suggest any measures to remedy the situation. With regard to the issue of gender, the responses have not conveyed any strong message on its (gender’s) impact on public administration education and training standards. The majority of the respondents were of the view that the student population was largely female, while the faculty tended to be male-dominated. Again, in view of the fact that the questionnaire asked for no comments on corrective actions, the respondents said nothing on how to redress the gender imbalances within the student populations and at the faculty level. While diversity and its management remain critical challenges in public administration – and therefore need to continue to engage the attention of scholars and practitioners - their relevance to standards of excellence in public administration education and training is yet to be clearly established. Accordingly, and until an incontrovertible case for the inclusion of diversity questions is made, any future questionnaire should focus exclusively on public administration education and training issues.

75

Chapter Nine

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS’ SELF-ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE

Up to now, attention has focused on the respondent institutions’ perceptions of critical issues in public administration education and training standards. Against the backdrop of the challenges highlighted by the institutions, the questionnaire solicited their views on how well they were doing to uphold high standards in the design and delivery of their programmes. As part of the self-assessment, the institutions were requested to comment on the qualifications, research and publications outputs, and computer literacy of faculty members, as well as their competencies in applying adult-learning techniques. Questions were also raised on the status of electronic connectivity and, in particular, on how far the institutions had gone towards conducting their academic and administrative activities on-line. Educational qualifications of faculty staff With regard to educational qualifications, it is safe to conclude that full time instructors and faculty staff members have first-level college/bachelor’s degree. As indicated in Table 7 this (first-level degree) is the qualification that the majority of the respondents (51.85 percent) associated with between 1 and 20 percent of their colleagues. Does it then mean that only 20 percent of those teaching in public administration schools have a first-level degree? This cannot be the case. First, the fact on the ground does not support the contention that the qualifications of public administration instructors are so modest. Second, the responses to other questions on qualifications clearly show that the majority of the respondents believe that “80-100%” of their colleagues are in possession of higher (that is masters and doctorate) degrees. The discrepancy between the responses to the first-level and the higher-level degrees left the Task Force with a major problem of interpretation. The Task Force was unable to reconcile the fact that approximately half of the respondents found no more than 20 percent of their colleagues to be in possession of first-level degrees with the respondents’ claim that these same colleagues of theirs had post-graduate qualifications. This gives rise to at least two possible interpretations – either the respondents had a low opinion of their colleagues’ educational qualifications, or in some institutions, a first-level degree is not a requirement for appointment to as instructors. Both interpretations are unlikely to be on target. First, the respondents could not at one and the same time find that only 20 percent of their colleagues had first-level degrees as their highest qualifications and a higher percentage with post-graduate qualifications. It is also difficult to accept that in this time and age, one without a first-level degree could be recruited to impart knowledge and skills on students who might be aspiring towards or be in possession of university degrees. If it is any consolation, the responses indicate that as the qualifications threshold is raised beyond the bachelor’s degree (checked by the majority), the expectations of the respondents become less predictable.

76

While the exact percentage of staff with higher degrees could not be determined from the responses, the summary reproduced in Table 7 shows that 47.92 percent of the respondents believed that the highest qualifications of between 40 and 60 percent of their colleagues was the master’s degree. According to 66.67 percent of the respondents, the proportion of staff whose highest degree was a doctorate ranged from 60 to 100 percent, suggesting that overall, a high number of public administration instructors were likely to be in possession of doctorate degrees.

Table 7: Perception of respondents on qualifications of faculty staff Staff whose highest qualification is:

Percent of respondents

that checked

“20% and below”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“20-40%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“40-60%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“60-80%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“80-100%”

First-level college / bachelor degree (check ONE only)

51.85 3.70 18.52 11.11 14.81

Masters degree or equivalent (check ONE only)

14.58 25.00 22.92 12.50 25.00

Doctorate / Ph.D. degree (check ONE only)

15.00 11.67 6.67 31.67 35.00

Research and publications capacity In terms of academic qualifications, therefore, the staff of public administration schools believe that they compare favourably with their counterparts in other disciplines. However, the respondents’ observations on other competencies present mixed results (Table 8).

Table 8: Respondents’ Perceptions on Miscellaneous Staff Competencies Percentage of instructors/faculty staff :

Percent of respondents

that checked

“20% and below”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“20-40%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“40-60%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“60-80%”

Percent of respondents

that checked

“80% and above”

Regularly submitting 16.95 23.73 23.73 20.34 15.25

77

material for publication in peer-reviewed journals Frequently cited by other scholars 18.18 32.73 32.73 4.45 10.91

That is basically computer-literate 3.51 7.02 7.02 14.04 68.42

With prior work experience in public and/or private sector

16.07 19.64 21.43 17.86 25.00

With formal training in adult-learning and instructional techniques (or training methodology)

15.25 28.81 16.95 28.81 10.17

Their response to the question on research and publications capacity, for instance, is not categorical. Roughly 47.56 percent of them were of the view that between 30 and 50 percent of their colleagues regularly submitted material for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The percentages of respondents indicating ratios of publishing colleagues falling outside this range are relatively low (See Fig. 18 below).

Fig. 18: Proportion of Respondents and their estimates of percentages of faculty frequently submitting material for publication in peer-reviewed journals

% Respondents

Proportion of staff submitting material for publication (%)

78

Peer recognition of faculty accomplishments The majority (65.65 percent) of the respondents believed that the proportion of their colleagues whose works were frequently cited by other scholars was between 30 and 50 percent (which, as in the case of the proportion submitting material to peer-reviewed journals, is the median range chosen by the majority of the respondents). The number of respondents making similar claims dropped to 10.91 percent when the estimate of frequently cited staff members was raised to between 80 and 100 percent, but rose slightly when the peer recognition threshold was lowered to 20% and below (See Fig. 19). Fig. 19: Proportion of respondents and their estimates of percentages of colleagues

accorded high peer-recognition

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

-20% 20-40% 40.60% 60-80% 80-100%

Series1

Computer literacy and status of electronic connectivity If the respondents are right, instructors in public administration schools are highly up-to-date on ICT applications. Nearly 70 percent of the respondents reckoned that most (between 80 and 100 percent) of their colleagues are computer-literate. However, since no questions were asked on the degree of electronic connectivity attained by the various institutions, the response conceals the digital divide between the developed and the developing countries. At the very least, the response fails to bring out the fact that public administration schools in Europe, North America, the Pacific Rim, and the Middle East, are, as far as ICT information and communication technologies are concerned, ahead of their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa and other less developed regions. The digital divide is probably behind the relatively low estimates provided in respect of processes conducted online. Tables 9 and 10 below show that the proportion of administrative and financial as well as academic processes conducted online in public administration schools is, according to the majority of the respondents, as low as 1 to 20

79

percent. These percentages (which are estimates provided by public administration schools in different parts of the world) cannot be an accurate reflection of the status of electronic connectivity in public administrations operating in the highly wired economies of North America, Europe, and to a certain extent, the Pacific Rim, or of their less developed counterparts. The percentages are averages that were computed after rounding off the figures from the public administration schools at different stages of electronic connectivity. It is possible that when the data is disaggregated, the low rates of electronic connectivity would be associated with public administration schools in the less developed economies, the median rates with those in emerging economies, and the high rates with those in technologically advanced societies.

Table 9: Percentage of administrative and financial processes conducted on-line (Respondents’ estimates)

Estimated proportion of admin. and financial processes conducted on-line

No. of Respondents providing estimates of online processes

Percent of Respondents

1-20 % 22 33.85 per cent 20-40% 12 18.46 per cent 40-60% 20 30.77 per cent 60-80% 5 7.69 per cent 80-100% 6 9.23 per cent Table 10: Percentage of academic processes conducted on-line (Respondents’ estimates) Estimated proportion of academic processes conducted on-line

No. of Respondents providing estimates of online processes

Percent of Respondents

1-20 % 23 35.38 per cent 20-40% 18 27.69 per cent 40-60% 13 20.00 per cent 60-80% 10 15.38 per cent 80-100% 1 1.54 per cent Instructors’ prior work experience It does not appear that prior work experience in the public and/or private sector counts a lot in the recruitment of public administration faculty staff. Less than half of the respondents thought that the proportion of their colleagues with such experience exceeded 40 percent. As indicated in Table 8 above, only 25 percent felt that between 80 and 100 percent of those teaching in public administration schools had practical public service or private sector experience.

80

Faculty staff’s capability to impart knowledge and skills Equally, the respondents differed widely on the proportion of public administration faculty staff with formal training in adult-learning and instructional techniques (or training methodology). While 15.25 percent checked “20% and below%, another 28.1 percent gave the estimate as “20-40%”. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the response to this particular question is that few public administration schools require their faculty staff to be formally trained in adult-learning and instructional methodology. Proficiency in foreign languages Knowledge of or proficiency in foreign languages is apparently a valued asset in public administration schools. Over half (in fact as high as 63.08 percent) of the respondents estimated that the proportion of staff with knowledge of foreign languages exceeded 50 percent. However, this is subject to further interpretation. What constitutes a “foreign language” depends on who is proficient in it. English is not a foreign language in the U.K., the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, but it is in France, Germany, Denmark, Ukraine, and Russian Federation, and the Arab states of the Middle East. However, the line separating the “foreign” from the indigenous gets increasingly blurred as the consideration shifts to places where a supposedly foreign language is the lingua franca. This is the case with the erstwhile British as well as French colonies and trust territories in Africa, Asia, and parts of the Middle East. It is in fact possible that the proportion of teaching staff credited with the knowledge of “foreign languages” was so high for this simple reason – the proportion includes those with their own indigenous languages but were brought up to speak and in think “foreign” tongues. Besides the 63.08 percent of the respondents that credited more than half of their colleagues with proficiency in foreign languages, another 16.92 percent believed that the proportion of staff with such skills was less than 25 percent; another 6.15 percent checked “26-30 per cent”; 12.31 percent chose “31 – 40 percent”; while an insignificant 1.54 percent maintained that as high as “41 – 50 percent” of the faculty staff possessed knowledge of foreign languages. Library and documentation facilities On the face of it, the public administration schools and institutes are not short of reading material. A very high proportion (96.67 percent) of the respondents confirmed that their libraries subscribed to local and regional public administration journals, while the remaining 3.33 percent reported that they did not. In contrast, rate of subscription to international journals is lower, with 80 percent of the respondents answering ‘Yes” to the question on subscription to international journals, and 20 percent checking ‘No.’ Even though a relatively high proportion (91.80%) claimed to have access to online resources, such access is, for the reasons earlier stated, and due to budget constraints, likely to be uneven - with public administration schools in developed countries having an advantage over their counterparts in developing economies.

81

Again, while 91.67 percent of the respondents affirmed that their students and course participants had access to relevant public administration textbooks and current journal articles (as against 8.33 percent whose students had no such access), the chances of public administration schools in developing countries being current on the public administration literature are very slim. The respondents’ modest rating of their research and documentation facilities, in any case, contrasts sharply with the assessments summarized earlier. When asked how they would rate the facilities overall, the percentage checking “adequate” is only 61.02 percent, with 28.81 percent indicating that the facilities were “more than adequate”, and another 10.17 percent considering them “inadequate”. Frequency of application of training methodologies Public administration schools and institutes applied a variety of methodologies on their training programmes. As shown in Table 11, the most popular – one that 64.41 percent of the respondents claimed to apply regularly is “group assignment”. It is followed by “case studies” mentioned by 55.74 percent. The others that are regularly applied but do not appear to enjoy the respondents’ ringing endorsement are “internship” (cited by a mere 34.48 percent) and “field visits/projects” (by 33.90 percent of the respondents). Simulation is by all indications, the least likely to be applied on the training programmes. The highest percent of the respondents identifying with it (37.29 percent) claimed to apply it but only “occasionally”.

Table 11: Respondents’ estimates of the frequency of application of select training methodologies on public administration programmes

Methodology % of

respondents that checked “Regularly”

% that checked “Fairly regularly”

% that checked “Occasionally”

% that checked “Rarely”

% that checked “Never”

Total

Case studies 55.74% 27.87% 13.11% 3.28% 0.00% 100% Simulation 23.73% 25.42% 37.29% 11.86% 1.69% 100 Videos, CDs, etc.

33.33% 21.67% 31.67% 11.67% 1.67% 100

Group assignments

64.41% 23.73% 11.86% 0.00 0.00% 100

Internship 34.48% 27.59% 13.79% 20.69% 3.45% 100 Field visits/projects

33.90% 25.42% 28.81% 10.17% 1.69% 100

82

Integrity of examination arrangements Examinations, as noted in Chapter Six, represent one of the mechanisms applied to monitor and constantly raise education and training standards in public administration schools. The UNDESA/IASIA survey questionnaire therefore sought the views of the respondents on integrity of the examination arrangements. The respondents were, to the surprise of the Task Force, candid in their overall assessment. Only 34.18 percent of them found the arrangements for the conduct of examinations “adequate and totally fool-proof”. The less than half (48.10 percent of the respondents) that deemed the arrangements “adequate” agreed that the arrangements “could be slightly improved”. It is comforting that only a tiny proportion (2.53 per cent) felt that the arrangements were “inadequate and capable of being manipulated” (see Fig. 20).

83

Fig. 20: Respondents’ assessment of the integrity of examination arrangements

Evaluation of exam. Arrangements

No. of respondents

Percent of respondents 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1.

The arrangements for the conduct of examinations are adequate and totally fool-proof

27 34.18%

2.

The arrangements are adequate, though could be slightly improved

38 48.10%

3.

the arrangements are inadequate and capable of being manipulated

2 2.53%

4.

the arrangements are characterized by widespread mal-practices

1 1.27%

5.

Not applicable (as examinations are not part of our training programme)

11 13.92%

Total 79 100%

Respondents’ Perception of Programmes’ Standing with Clients The respondents equally took a realistic view of their institutions’ standing with their clients. When asked to rate the degree of confidence that the students, the sponsoring organizations, and possibly the general public had in the quality of their programmes as well as the integrity of the quality control systems in place, only 30.56 percent of the respondents checked “very high”, with the majority (61.11 percent) settling for a relatively modest “high” rating. Again, a small fraction (2.78 percent) felt that their clients’ level of confidence in their programmes was low. None checked “very low” (See Fig. 21).

84

Fig. 21: Client confidence in the quality of programmes and integrity of quality control system: Respondents’ perceptions how others rate public administration

programmes

Client’s confidence in quality of programmes and integrity of quality control system

Count Percent 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1. Very high 22 30.56%

2. High 44 61.11%

3. Not so high 4 5.56%

4. Low 2 2.78%

5. Very low 0 0.00%

Total 72 100%

Graduation and public service employment chances The public administration schools and institutes seem to be doing well in terms of student turnover. According to 50.77 percent of the respondents, a very high proportion (between 75 and 85 percent) of their final-year students graduate each year. Another 21.54 percent maintained that all (100 percent) of their final year students graduated every year, while yet another 9.23 percent put the figure at between 50 and 75 percent. Only 18.46 percent estimated that less than 50 percent of their students graduated when they were supposed to. Not all those who graduated found ready employment. The highest number of respondents that answered the question on post-graduation employment prospects (33.85 percent) believed that over 70 percent of their graduates found jobs in the public service. The other respondents were less upbeat about their alumni’s employment chances, as the breakdown of responses in Table 12 clearly indicates.

Table 12: Respondents’ estimates of proportion of students finding public service jobs after graduation

Estimates of graduates that find jobs in the public service (percentages)

Percentage of Respondents supplying estimates

Less than 10 per cent 11-20 per cent 21-25 per cent 26-30 per cent 31-40 per cent 41-50 per cent

7.69% 3.08% 10.77% 6.15% 3.08% 9.23%

85

51-60 per cent 61-70 percent Over 70 percent Total

15.38% 10.77% 33.85% 100.00%

Institutional self-assessment: Next Steps While the responses to the questions on the faculty staff’s educational qualifications are puzzling, or at least, subject to various interpretations, the assessment of human and institutional capacities appears overall to be candid. Aside from computer literacy which the majority of the respondents believed that their colleagues had, the research and publications attributes were not described in superlatives. The proportion of staff regularly submitting material for publication in peer-reviewed journals or frequently cited by other scholars is moderate rather than high. The respondents are almost evenly split on the question whether public administration instructors had prior work experience: there is no clear majority that unequivocally answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question. The same applies to response to the question on the instructors’ mastery of adult-learning techniques. The response to the question on the processes conducted online is nonetheless noteworthy. While individual faculty members might be computer literate and ICT-ready, the institutions in which a number of them operate are far from the Information Highway. The proportion of administrative and financial as well as academic processes conducted online, according to approximately one-third of the respondents, is 1-20 percent. This is not necessarily a true reflection of the conditions prevailing in different parts of the world. It is possible that when the data is disaggregated, the low percentage of processes carried out online would be associated with public administration schools in the less developed economies, the median rates of electronic connectivity with those in emerging economies, and the high rates with schools in technologically advanced societies. The preceding findings have momentous implications for technical cooperation in the field of public administration education and training. Besides identifying public administration schools that lag behind in the application of ICT, it is essential that a comprehensive package of assistance be put in place to redress the imbalance. Also while the public administration schools currently employ the basic adult-learning tools and instructional techniques, some schools are likely to be ahead of the others – that is in terms of access to modern teaching resources and the capacity to deploy the resources to maximum advantage. Therefore, as part of the envisaged programme of technical cooperation, efforts should be made to assist the less privileged schools to upgrade their teaching methodology infrastructure. If the proposed technical cooperation programmes is to serve a useful purpose, it should address the underlying concerns in public administration education and training – particularly, the concerns for quality, integrity and credibility. The quality of training programmes is determined to a large extent by the clients’ perception of the impact that

86

training has on on-the-job performance, organizational effectiveness and institutional transformation. However, unless the training institutes have a way of gauging such perceptions (that is, of following up on the post-training experience of their programme participants), they would be unable to monitor the impact they are making or to decide on changes that need to be introduced in the curricula as well as in training methodologies. As regards the quality and standards of public administration education – that is education that is oriented towards the acquisition not only of knowledge but also of meritorious testimonials or other forms of attestations – the practice has been for schools to measure their performance in relation to that of schools in comparable positions. The universalistic quest for validation is what marks public administration education programmes apart from their training counterparts. It explains the attention that public administration schools give to the design of the academic curricula, the accreditation of courses or programmes, the requirements for admission into academic programmes, the qualifications of the faculty staff, the enactment of examination and invigilation rules, and the credibility of sundry quality control mechanisms. Yet, no matter how public administration schools attempt to match their academic and degree-awarding programmes with comparable programmes elsewhere, they cannot ignore local contexts in their curriculum design efforts. Therefore, as far as public administration education standards are concerned, the craving for universal knowledge is conjoined with the pressure for local relevance. How to address these intertwined issues should form an important component of the proposed technical cooperation programme.

87

Chapter Ten

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Notwithstanding the resource constraints facing UNDESA and IASIA, the two institutions carried out a survey that elicited an enthusiastic and impressive response from public administration education and training institutions in different parts of the world. The response to the online questionnaire (administered by the Task Force comprising representatives of both organizations) provides glimpses to standards of excellence in public administration education and training, highlights issues of comparative interest, and identifies possible areas of technical cooperation. Organizational, ownership and governance issues One major conclusion emerging from the online survey is that academic institutions and governments are playing a crucial role in shaping the curricula of public administration education and training programmes, and in signing off on the quality of, or the “standard of excellence” attainable by, the programmes. The academic institutions exert their influence through structures like the University Senate, the Faculty Academic Board, and the Joint Board of Studies established to oversee programmes managed in partnership with non-academic stakeholders. For their own part, governments influence the content and quality of public administration programmes by establishing specialized public administration education and training institutions as an integral part of the regular public service. The institutions under direct government control go by various names, among which are management development institutes (MDIs), institutes of public administration and management (IPAs), administrative staff colleges, civil service colleges, public administration academies, and ecole nationale d’administration (ENA). Privately run public administration programmes are rare, but they do exist to compete with those conducted in university- or government-sponsored institutions. The academic institutions’ and the governments’ influence on the delivery of public administration education and training programmes is further reflected in the pattern of programme funding. The study reveals that the bulk of the resources needed for the implementation of the programmes come from within the academic institutions and from government. Private donations account for the least amount expended on the delivery of public administration education and training programmes, while information on “other” sources is still too scanty to be reliable. The place of theory and practice The academic as well as the government institutions’ control of the content and directions of public administration programmes must have some impact on the standard of excellence attained by the programmes from time to time. The question is precisely what the impact is and how to measure it. It is clear that academic institutions generally define excellence as a quest for knowledge, mostly of the speculative and theoretical kind. They (the academic institutions) thus train the student’s mind to go beyond sense experience,

88

test hypotheses, and grapple with paradoxes in language as well as in logic. By contrast, government-owned institutions are not in the business of mining knowledge for its own sake. They instead target the trainee’s strengths and weaknesses, and apply all the training methodologies capable of filling his/her brain with techniques, formulae, skills, and “instant” solutions to problems of the moment. The governments’ preoccupation with the “here and now” informs the attention given to “training needs analysis”, an exercise which would hopefully point to skills that could be immediately deployed on specific assignments to achieve pre-determined objectives. The response to the UNDESA/IASIA survey did not exactly confirm the dichotomy between “theory” and “practice”. It is true that among the public administration education and training institutions that participated in the survey, some specialize in the design and implementation of purely academic programmes, others set out to meet the practical, capacity needs of government and the public service, while yet others combine both (knowledge dissemination and skills upgrading) functions. However, the survey turned up substantial evidence of role swapping – with academic institutions marketing “practical” programmes, and government-based institutions handling “academic” programmes. According to the respondents to the survey questionnaire, the middle management cadre is the single largest beneficiary of the education and training programmes implemented by the institutions. The competitive nature of public administration education and training The survey also reveals that rather than monopolize the public administration education and training market, the institutions compete among themselves for the resources set aside for human capacity building by the central government, key central government ministries and departments, local government authorities, public or state-owned enterprises, and other agencies. In other words, the academic institutions compete with one another, with government-owned institutions, with private consulting firms, and possibly, with the in-house training units established by various agencies to meet on-going job-related training needs. In ordinary circumstances, this competitive nature of the market should have far-reaching implications for standards of excellence in public administration education and training. However, depending on how the institutions perceive their status vis-à-vis that of their rivals, they may or may not take proactive measures to design and market products that meet customer demands. In terms of duration as well as thematic focus, the training programmes organized by the public administration schools have greater impact on the practice than on the theoretical study of the discipline. For a start, it takes months and possibly years, of sustained study to acquire in-depth knowledge of any subject – public administration included. While the short-duration training programmes provide an opportunity to learn some specialized skills (like policy analysis and strategic planning, general management practices and techniques, leadership, decision making and change management, budgeting and financial as well as human resource management) it is only on the fairly prolonged academic programmes that the participants’ thirst for knowledge of the whys and the wherefores of public purpose could, with varying degrees of success, be satisfied.

89

Instead of inculcation of knowledge, an appropriate yardstick for assessing standards of excellence of short-duration – 2-day to 10-week – programmes is relevance to the needs of the various sponsoring organizations. Indeed, the best way to validate practical training courses is to rely on the judgement of the various sponsoring organizations. This is probably why training institutions sometimes devote a lot of time and resources to the conduct of “training needs” analyses. The assumption underlying such analyses is that it is only when the needs of the client are established that the training institutes could confidently design and market the appropriate training “products.” However, it is highly unlikely that many of the training courses organized by the institutes are “demand-driven”. A sizeable proportion of these courses are organized as a matter of routine, others in response to ad-hoc requests, and many others that the trainers deem themselves competent to handle. It will be very useful for training institutes offering courses on similar themes to share experiences as well as ideas on how they have been faring. Matching universal with local standards of excellence – a perennial challenge Notwithstanding the urge to be competitive and regardless of the fact that they might be active in the same discipline, public administration schools are likely to differ as to what they mean by ‘public administration’. More often than not, the conflicting definitions and perspectives have major curricular implications, and determine what get taught as ‘mandatory’ or core as against ‘elective’ or optional courses, as well as the credit hours that students must log in to qualify for the award of diplomas or degrees. As a counterweight to diversity in curriculum design, public administration schools are, as noted earlier, under pressure to meet some minimum ‘universal’ standards. This is the explanation for the tendency to view public administration as a discipline embodying principles that are general and universal, and at the same time capable of being adapted to local and constantly changing contexts. Overall, therefore, the public administration curriculum is likely to include a few common courses – that is, courses such as public administration/management theory, policy analysis, quantitative techniques, and similar ones taught across cultures and institutions – as well as those that address local concerns. In other words, standards of excellence in public administration could be viewed from two – i.e., the universalistic and the particularistic - angles. This poses a major challenge in the design of the curriculum – that is the challenge of how to balance the need for a detached, objective and ‘scientific’ study of public administration, on the one hand, with, on the other, the cultural sensitivity that makes the field truly alive and relevant. Education and training institutions are becoming increasingly creative in their attempt at meeting ‘customer’ demands, balancing their own budgets, and at the same time, providing for cross-fertilization of ideas between the government and the private sector. Rather than confine themselves to the teaching of pure public administration subjects, they have broadened their horizon by including business management courses on their curricula. A good example is EBAPE’s Master’s Programme in International Management whose curriculum is designed in such a way as to appeal to both public and private sponsoring organizations. Among the ‘core’ business subjects featuring on the

90

curriculum are Price Management in Complex situations, Portfolio Management, E-Business Integrated Private Management, Regulation Management and Corporate Law, Competitiveness strategies of nations and organizations, Managerial Accounting, Advanced Corporate Thinking and Strategy, and Entrepreneurship. The recent advances in information and communication technologies have also influenced the content and direction of public administration education and training programmes in different parts of the world. Indeed, there is hardly any school or training institute that does not design and market varieties of ICT courses – whether it is training on e-procurement, or the application of ICT in the delivery of public services and the management of financial as well as human resources. Quality assurance for excellence: contemporary perspectives The measures taken within and across institutions clearly indicate that quality assurance and control are taken seriously in the design, implementation, and review of public administration education programmes. In an effort to stand out in a crowded field, public administration schools apply fairly rigorous standards, particularly, when organizing academic, degree-awarding programmes. Whether it is the duration of each programme, the content and depth of the courses taught thereon, or the enactment of rules governing the credibility and integrity of examinations, these institutions rarely wish to be perceived as lagging behind their peers. Not only do the various institutions pay a lot attention to the content of the programmes, they also establish minimum standards that participants must meet to be admitted. The search for excellence does not stop with individual enrolment on the programmes. The institutions apply various techniques to evaluate the programme participants’ progress, and to motivate them to attain high standards of excellence. Internal and external control mechanisms have in addition been instituted to validate, while at the same time improving on, existing standards. All the same, and in light of the rich experiences that different institutions have in the area of curriculum development and quality assurance, it is recommended that an initiative be launched permitting the sharing of these experiences. Among the critical elements of this initiative are:

• information sharing and networking (including establishment of data bases on accreditation policies and institutions, curriculum content, admission requirements, examination and grading standards, progress reporting methods, and alumni work experiences vis-à-vis the knowledge and skills acquired at public administration schools and institutes);

• faculty and student exchanges; and • organization of thematic workshops, seminars and roundtable conferences (for

instance, a series of workshops/conferences on the theme “Improving Standards of Excellence in Public Administration and Training”, attention may focus on a comparative review of curriculum planning and development, quality assurance,

91

instructional methodology development, and post-qualification follow-up practices).

Status of research in public administration education and training While the emphasis placed on the content of programmes and on the delivery quality is essential to the success of efforts at promoting excellence in public administration education and training, it is not adequate in attaining this crucial objective. The quest for improved teaching and instructional standards needs to be supplemented with a strong commitment to research. However, the relatively small number of respondents that answered the question on research and publications leads to the conclusion that research is not given the same attention by all institutions. While it is likely to be a priority in public administration schools running academic programmes or in schools located within academic settings (like universities), their counterparts on the ‘practical’ training side would in all probability allocate scarce resources to other activities, particularly those with instant pay-off. While over half of the respondents believed that a high proportion (roughly 60 percent) of their colleagues were engaged in different kinds of research, it is not clear what impact these efforts have on the quality of public administration education and training, or how they influence the choices made by the community of practice. It goes without saying that advances in any field (public administration included) depend to a large extent on the quality of research. By engaging in research pursuits, faculty staff not only extends the boundary of knowledge but also transmits new knowledge (and possibly skills) to the students and trainees. Public policies and the supporting decisions would be greatly enriched if they had been prefaced with analytic and empirical evaluation of costs and benefits. This is particularly the case with choices regarding the privatization of state enterprises, the “monetization” of public service benefits, balancing of growth with equity concerns, and the ‘outsourcing’ of law and order, prisoner rehabilitation, and internal security functions. Indeed, to serve a clear and useful purpose, any future programme of assistance to public administration schools should include a component focusing on the enhancement of the schools’ research, publications, and governmental reinvention or transformation capacities. Ethnic and cultural diversity: implications for excellence Diversity is another issue that the public administration schools may need to address. While ethnic and gender composition of the public service remains a dominant issue – and therefore needs to continue to engage the attention of scholars and practitioners – its relevance to standards of excellence in public administration education and training is yet to be clearly established. Accordingly, and until an incontrovertible case for the inclusion of diversity questions is made, any future questionnaire should focus exclusively on public administration education and training issues. In any case, the responses to the survey questionnaire clearly indicate that while the bulk of students enrolled on public administration programmes were from the countries in

92

which the programmes are conducted, the institutions have not felt it necessary to apply affirmative action measures in the admission of students or the recruitment of faculty staff. As far as the majority of the respondents are concerned, a student’s ethnic origin makes no difference to his/her chances of getting admitted into public administration programmes, to his/her performance on the programme, or to his/her post-qualification career opportunities. Probably for this and other reasons, the institutions have not deemed it necessary to include the subject of ethnic and cultural diversity in the public administration curriculum, or to introduce training modules on diversity management. It is significant that the respondents agreed that minorities were unlikely to be fully represented on the faculty. However, due to no fault of theirs – and since the questionnaire did not ask them to – the respondents did not suggest any measures to remedy the situation. With regard to the issue of gender, the responses have not conveyed any strong message on its (gender’s) impact on public administration education and training standards. The majority of the respondents were of the view that the student population was largely female, while the faculty tended to be male-dominated. Again, in view of the fact that the questionnaire asked for no comments on corrective actions, the respondents said nothing on how to redress the gender imbalances within the student populations and at the faculty level. Capacity building for excellence: current challenges, future choices In contrast to diversity which might be perceived as an extraneous consideration, capacity building is indispensable to the success of any efforts at improving standards of excellence in public administration education and training. While the responses to the questions on the faculty staff’s educational qualifications are puzzling, or at least, subject to various interpretations, the assessment of human and institutional capacities appears overall to be candid. Aside from computer literacy which the majority of the respondents believed that their colleagues possessed, the research and publications achievements were not described in superlatives. The proportion of staff regularly submitting material for publication in peer-reviewed journals or frequently cited by other scholars is moderate rather than high. The respondents are almost evenly split on the question whether public administration instructors had prior work experience in government or the private sector: there is no clear majority that unequivocally answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question. The same applies to response to the question on the instructors’ mastery of adult-learning techniques. The response to the question on the processes conducted online is nonetheless noteworthy. While individual faculty members might be computer literate and ICT-ready, the institutions in which a number of them operate are located far from the Information Highway. The proportion of administrative and financial as well as academic processes conducted online, according to approximately one-third of the respondents, is 1-20 percent. This is not necessarily a true reflection of the conditions prevailing in different parts of the world. It is possible that when the data is disaggregated, the low percentage

93

of processes carried out online would be associated with public administration schools in the less developed economies, the median rates of electronic connectivity with those in emerging economies, and the high rates with schools in technologically advanced societies. These findings have major implications for technical cooperation in the field of public administration education and training. The first step is to identify public administration schools that lag behind in the application of ICT as a basis for the preparation of a comprehensive package of assistance aimed at redressing any perceived imbalance. The programme of assistance should not be limited to ICT or even to the procurement of hard- and software. The training technology should also be targeted. While the public administration schools currently employ the basic adult-learning tools and instructional techniques, some schools are likely to be ahead of the others – that is in terms of access to modern teaching resources and the capacity to deploy the resources to maximum advantage. Therefore, as part of the envisaged programme of technical cooperation, efforts should be made to assist the less privileged schools to upgrade their teaching methodology infrastructure. If the proposed technical cooperation programmes is to serve a useful purpose, it should address the underlying concerns in public administration education and training – particularly, the concerns for quality, integrity and credibility. The quality of training programmes is determined to a large extent by the clients’ perception of the impact that training has on on-the-job performance, organizational effectiveness and institutional transformation. However, unless the training institutes have a way of gauging such perceptions (that is, of following up on the post-training experience of their programme participants), they would be unable to monitor the impact that they are making, or to decide on changes that need to be introduced in the curricula as well as in training methodologies. As regards the quality and standards of public administration education – that is education that is oriented towards the acquisition not only of knowledge but also of meritorious testimonials or other forms of attestations – the practice has been for schools to measure their performance in relation to that of schools in comparable positions. The universalistic quest for validation is what marks public administration education programmes apart from their training counterparts. It explains the attention that public administration schools give to the design of the academic curricula, the accreditation of courses or programmes, the requirements for admission into academic programmes, the qualifications of the faculty staff, the enactment of stringent examination and invigilation rules, and the enhancement of the credibility of sundry quality control mechanisms. Yet, no matter how public administration schools attempt to match their academic and degree-awarding programmes with comparable programmes elsewhere, they cannot ignore the local context in their curriculum design efforts. Therefore, as far as public administration education standards are concerned, the craving for universal knowledge must be conjoined with the pressure for local relevance. How to address these intertwined

94

issues should form an important component of the proposed technical cooperation programme. Lessons for follow-up surveys Overall, and in light of the data gathering constraints attendant on this initial effort, the findings reported in the preceding chapters would need to be constantly revisited and updated. To derive optimum benefit from follow-up online surveys, efforts should be made to imbibe the lessons learnt from the first (that is, the present) exercise. In particular, the questionnaire should be considerably shortened, and should exclude questions that have but marginal bearing on standards of excellence in public administration education and training. Insofar as they are extraneous to the subject of excellence in public administration education and training, questions on ethnic and cultural diversity are among those that ought to be reduced to the minimum. In addition to ensuring that future surveys focus on issues that relate directly to public administration education and training, it is essential that resources be mobilized for the purpose not only of ensuring effective management of the surveys, but also of acquiring a computer programme capable of performing several different functions at the same time. At the very least, there is need for software that besides calculating frequency distributions is able to facilitate dis-aggregation of data by the respondents’ key attributes, cross-tabulation of responses, and analysis of patterns of relationships between or among variables. This has important funding implications, and requires that provisions be made in the budget to allow a full-scale project on standards of excellence in public administration education and training to be launched and sustained over a period.