Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Accountability 247 A series of managerial changes in the United Kingdom had the express aim of improving accountability. In the late 1960s the Fulton Report argued that accountable management means ‘holding individuals and units responsible for performance measured as objectively as possible’. Its achievement depends upon ‘identifying or establishing accountable units within government departments – units where output can be measured as objectively as possible and where individuals can be held personally responsible for their performance’ (Fulton, 1968, p. 51). Fulton led to no clear improvements in accountability but raised an important issue that was to be revisited. Accountability was a major factor at work in the Thatcher government’s financial changes; specifically, there was ‘the desire of some ministers to get a grip over their own departments: to ensure that the civil servants, for whose activities they were accountable to Parliament were actually accountable to them’ (Carter, Klein and Day, 1992, p. 17). Enhancing accountability was a specific aim of the early move towards managerialism, both in response to the inadequate form of accountability in existence before and to try to emulate the ‘superior’ accountability practices believed to exist in the private sector. Gray et al. argue that promoting accountable management was the ‘guiding ideology’ of the FMI in the United Kingdom where ‘authority and responsibility are delegated as far as possible to middle and junior managers who are made aware of and accountable for meeting their costs and other performance targets’ (1991, p. 47). A managerial view of accountability adds direct accountability to the public. Political accountability still exists, but there is now greater accountability for results to politicians and the public, especially clients. There is less emphasis on the negative sense, which concentrated on the avoidance of mistakes. Management systems are aimed at fulfilling government programme objectives, in which costs are visible and related to outputs. When public servants become involved in setting policy and monitoring progress towards objectives, they are heading towards management rather than administration and need to be responsible for what they do. There is managerial accountability as well as political accountability. While the political leadership certainly has a major role in determining goals and objectives – strategic leadership – the bureaucracy itself is required to meet targets. As Behn argues (2001, pp. 210–11): We need to accept that accountability is not just about finances and fairness, but about finances, fairness, and performance. Traditional hierarchical accountability might make sense for finances and fairness. It might even make some sense when results are something that one person or one unit produces. It does not make sense, however, in a nonhierarchical world of collaboratives. Thus we need a new mental model of accountability; we need to shift from the implicit conception of linear, hierarchical, uni-directional, holder–holdee accountability to an explicit recognition that we need mutual and collective accountability. And we need to do both of these things simultaneously – to shift our accountability emphasis from finances and fairness to finances, fairness, and performance while rethinking what accountability (for all three) might mean.
248 Public Management and Administration Under a managerial system the political leadership still wishes to achieve results but does so with the assistance of advisers and the bureuacracy. There is also a blurred distinction between politicians and the public service itself, a practice that has been followed in the United States for many years. There it is common for politicians to be appointed to administrative positions, or for heads of agencies to become political figures. Providing there is a clear distinction between political and career appointments, such a system may actually improve accountability and is being more widely adopted elsewhere. A client focus Another change to the system of accountability in a managerial model is to improve the relationship with clients. In the old model, the only avenue of accountability was through the political leadership. There are now direct links to the people. These may be consultative, or through interest groups, or simply by the agency realizing it needs the approval of its clients and so institutes changes to improve the relationships with them. Public managers attempt to manage the relationship with clients as part of their normal duties, to see avenues of direct accountability in which the agency is itself responsible for dealing with its clients and improving service to them. The role of clients is increasingly seen as analogous to the role customers play in the private sector. The client focus is aimed at greater responsiveness to improve the quality of interaction between public administrations and their clients. This includes ‘how far the needs of clients can be satisfied within the framework of policy; the comprehensibility and accessibility of administration; the openness of administration to client participation in decision-making; the availability of redress’, and argues that overall economic efficiency depends on how responsively the public sector provides goods and services (OECD, 1991a, p. 7). This is a far more direct form of accountability than that existing under the traditional model. The traditional model was not particularly responsive to clients. It had no real need to be. Concerns about accountability alter this and, in turn, lead to changes in the system of administration. The notion of accountability to clients does challenge some of the fundamental tenets of traditional public administration. Some trade-offs must be made between administrative values such as efficiency, economy, effectiveness and political accountability. New public management aims at measurable results and responsiveness to clients; indeed, it requires individual public managers to focus on client relations as a major part of their activities. The OECD argued that coping with responsiveness ‘will require a new administrative style – public management’ (OECD, 1987, p. 29). As argued earlier (Chapter 11), the traditional model of administration was not equipped to deal with the outside, while a formal model of bureaucracy allows no role
Page 1 and 2:
Public Management and Administratio
Page 3 and 4:
Also by Owen E. Hughes AUSTRALIAN P
Page 5 and 6:
© Owen E. Hughes 1994, 1998, 2003
Page 7 and 8:
Preface Over the past 20 years the
Page 9 and 10:
viii Preface the Colorado link such
Page 11 and 12:
2 Public Management and Administrat
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
10 Public Management and Administra
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
3 Public Management Introduction Th
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
5 Public Enterprise Introduction Pu
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
100 Public Management and Administr
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
7 Strategic Management Introduction
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
10 E-government Introduction In the
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206: 196 Public Management and Administr
Page 211 and 212: 11 Managing External Constituencies
Page 227 and 228: 12 Public Management in Developing
Page 245 and 246: 13 Accountability Introduction The
Page 255: 246 Public Management and Administr
Page 265 and 266: 14 Conclusion: A New Paradigm for P
Page 293 and 294: 284 References Borins, Sandford (19
Page 295 and 296: 286 References Glor, Eleanor D. (20
Page 297 and 298: 288 References Jordan, Grant (1997)
Page 299 and 300: 290 References Monroe, Kristen Renw
Page 301 and 302: 292 References Putt, Allen C. and S
Page 303 and 304: 294 References Wilson, Graham K. (1
Page 305 and 306: 296 Index bureaucracy 1-5, 9, 15-43
Page 307 and 308:
298 Index information and communica
Page 309 and 310:
300 Index ‘one best way’ thinki
Page 311 and 312:
302 Index Ritter, G. 85, 86 role of
show all

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?