Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and treacherous, and that the rhetorical dimension of public management is substantial, in most countries. At the beginning of their book the movement for public sector reform is described as ‘a pandemic’ which is hardly neutral, scientific language (2000, p. 1): The period since 1980 has witnessed a pandemic of public management reforms, which has swept across much of the OECD world. The working lives of millions of public officials have been substantially altered (and, in some tens of thousands of cases, prematurely terminated). The ways and means of managing vast public budgets have been reshaped. Large claims have been made for ‘savings’ and ‘efficiency gains’ (the inverted commas are deployed here to indicate that such concepts are seldom straightforward and uncontestable). In some countries huge quantities of previously publicly owned assets have been sold to the private sector. The standards attained or aspired to by many service-providing agencies have come under unprecedented scrutiny. They claim the work of Osborne and Gaebler is not scientific or neutral and then argue that ‘we do not think that we are the slaves of any single theory or approach. On the other hand, it would be absurd to claim that we are somehow “totally objective” or “theory-free” ’ (2000, p. 23). In reality, as these statements show, they are as profoundly ideological as those they attack. Other parts of the managerial programme are not notably ideological, unless the word applies to the preference for private sector management theories and techniques. Performance management might be considered new Right ‘neo- Taylorist’ ideology, but it could also reflect an older tradition of ensuring value for scarce public money. Flexibility in personnel practices might be argued to be ideological, but it could also be a realization that traditional administrative employment practices are now irrelevant for other reasons. The ideological argument against the public management is not substantiated. The link between anti-state rhetoric and reform was taken away with Thatcher, but reforms continued. In any case it could be regarded as equally ideological to support the bureaucratic model of administration or a larger role for government in society. The impact on democracy Conclusion 271 One serious criticism of the public management reforms, particularly those of the new public management, is that they are against the precepts of democracy. There are four main points. First, it is argued by some that democracy requires bureaucracy. Secondly, it may be claimed that there is an endemic reduction in political accountability, hence in democratic accountability, as public managers are themselves accountable for results, thereby allowing politicians to avoid accountability. Thirdly, it could be argued that outcomes are not evenly distributed, that equity considerations are of little concern in the reform process. Fourthly, there is a reduction in scale and scope by government. While it could
272 Public Management and Administration be claimed that cuts in government follow from democratic demands for lower taxation, it is possible that the larger scale and scope of government results from political demands as expressed by democratic means. It could be regarded as undemocratic if the scope of politics – by one standard definition, the art of the possible – is reduced to narrower allowable areas of discourse. Does democracy require bureaucracy? The argument has been made that democracy requires bureaucracy, that for a modern society to be democratic it must also be bureaucratic. As Lynn argues ‘Democracy requires the rule of law, the legally sanctioned regulation of markets, the preservation of equity, and competent bureaucracies subject to control by statute and by judicial institutions … Weber viewed a system of bureaucratic rule in the modern state as inescapable’ (2001, pp. 199–200). To Lynn, bureaucracy and democracy go together and to move away from bureaucracy is to wish to set up a new system of government altogether. This is a big claim. Lynn’s citing of Max Weber needs to be investigated further. Weber did see it as inevitable that bureaucracy would become universal as it ‘inevitably accompanies modern mass democracy’ (Gerth and Mills, 1970, p. 224), so this part of Lynn has some backing. But equally, to Weber, democracy ‘inevitably comes into conflict with bureaucratic tendencies’ (p. 226). Weber was actually ambivalent about bureaucracy. Although he saw it as inevitable with the modernization of society, there were clearly aspects that worried him. Bureaucracy is sometimes regarded as abrogating the power of the citizen, or the politician, with its political accountability problematic. However, bureaucracy in the sense of rational–legal authority is unchanged with the public management reforms. Also, there are serious historical problems with the idea that democracy requires bureaucracy, in that an excess of bureaucracy has led to circumstances where democracy was taken away from the citizenry, a circumstance that Weber to some extent predicted. The apparatus of the state is an instrument of power, and can be used for democratic or undemocratic purposes. A related argument to that of Lynn is that bureaucracy is a defence of liberty. Massey argues, ‘in constitutional democracies possessing many generations of political wisdom and experience, a properly ordered bureaucracy is an essential defence of liberty’ (1993, p. 1998). If this means that a bureaucracy considers itself separate from the government of the day it could, in fact, be derogation of democracy. Having a loyalty to the nation above and beyond that of the government of the day was a view held by some senior public administrators in the time of the traditional model of administration. Governments could come and go, but the levers of society – the real power – would be held by the mandarins. By any definition that is profoundly undemocratic. Bureaucracy is only an instrument; the only defence of liberty is in democracy itself. If politicians have reasserted their role as the result of public management
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:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
11 Managing External Constituencies
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
12 Public Management in Developing
Page 229 and 230: 220 Public Management and Administr
Page 245 and 246: 13 Accountability Introduction The
Page 265 and 266: 14 Conclusion: A New Paradigm for P
Page 279: 270 Public Management and Administr
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?