Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

212 Public Management and Administration
In this view, agencies are competitors with each other inside the system, but act
as representatives of outside interests. An aggrieved citizen can find the appropriate
part of the bureaucracy, with its attendant interest groups, to be his or her
representative. Goodsell argues that bureaucratic representatives of this kind
can be more accountable than through the political system itself. This is a further
extension of the policy community argument. It does raise some questions
of political accountability in that the main arena for political conflict in the
system as a whole becomes that between different parts of the bureaucracy.
Certainly, agencies compete with each other and do so vigorously. This may be
on behalf of groups, but whether this is more realistic, more representative or
more accountable than normal political representation is a matter for speculation.
Theoretical problems in relying on interest groups
A particular problem is how interest groups and their increased importance to
the political system should be viewed theoretically. More complete accounts of
various theories of interest groups are readily available (Wilson, 1990; Grant,
1989; Dunleavy, 1991; Hrebenar, 1997). For now, it should be enough to mention
particular ways in which these theories pose problems for the making of
policy.
Is group competition beneficial?
The interaction between groups and the bureaucracy’s reliance on them, will
determine whether they are regarded favourably or unfavourably. For pluralists,
competition between groups is beneficial to the policy-making process and
even to outcomes. Policies that have been through the system of competition
will have survived a rigorous process and should now be acceptable.
The main idea in pluralist theory is that government is not itself an active
participant in group processes and competition, but rather acts as a kind of
umpire, allowing rival groups to fight each other. Pluralist theory derived in the
United States, most particularly in the 1950s and 1960s (Bentley, 1967;
Truman, 1951). If an issue arose in the public arena and had a particular interest
group acting in its favour, then those opposing the matter would form their
own interest group. In this theory, there is a fluid relationship between an
agency and the many groups of cost-bearers and beneficiaries in its environment.
No single group has power and any government action results from interest
group competition.
Pluralism is an attractive theory at first glance and, in some circumstances,
pluralist tendencies can be seen to be at work in the interaction between government
and groups or between groups. There are many groups in any developed
society and they are often found on both sides of a particular issue.
However, as an overall explanation pluralism has its problems.