Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Public Management 49
a hierarchy of the managers to the board of directors. At each level assets – whether human,
financial or material – have to be deployed in the manner best calculated to achieve particular
objectives which contribute to the overall policy objectives formulated by the Board.
As Keeling describes it, here the Fulton Report expresses a modern, resultsbased,
view of management similar to the dictionary meanings discussed earlier.
However, later in the report it is argued ‘four aspects … make up the total
management task of the Civil Service: (a) formulation of policy under political
direction; (b) creating the “machinery” for implementation of policy; (c) operation
of the administrative machine; (d) accountability to Parliament and the
Public’. As Keeling pointed out (1972, p. 23), this is really saying that management
is what the public service does, which is not particularly helpful.
Fulton could be described as a start, rather than as a thorough attempt to infuse
management principles into an administrative system. Moreover, Fulton’s
recommendations were not implemented at the time; they were deferred until
a more conducive time. As Flynn argues, ‘no government had much enthusiasm
for the task until the Thatcher administration’ (1997, p. 31). However, it is
interesting that even in 1972 Keeling saw management – defined as ‘the search
for the best use of resources in pursuit of objectives subject to change’ – as the
coming thing (Keeling, 1972; Pollitt, 1993).
In the United States there was also a demand for improved management in
the public sector, at least from the Carter administration onwards. The Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 aimed at giving managers greater responsibility
for results. It included merit pay for middle management and the establishment
of a Senior Executive Service to form an elite group at the top. Although
focused on personnel, it was an attempt to improve management in the public
sector, which seemed to lag behind the private sector.
On setting up the Reid Inquiry into the Australian public service in 1982,
then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser noted: ‘the government believes there is a
question whether the public service, as presently organized, has the management
tools, the flexibility and the capacities to meet the challenges that
presently exist and that lie ahead’ (Australia, 1983, p. 131). A number of
recommendations were made by the inquiry with many of them implemented
by the incoming Hawke Labor government. Despite being from the other side
of the political spectrum, its views on the managerial capacities of the public
service were the same as its predecessor.
There were several reasons for this seeming disenchantment with the skills
and capabilities of public services. First, following the first oil shock of the
1970s, governments experienced severe resource constraints as tax revenues
declined in a relative sense. Practical politics dictated that no cuts be made in
actual service delivery to the public. That in turn meant a squeeze on the public
service in an attempt to manage the same, or even increased functions, with less
money and fewer staff. Secondly, the 1980s saw new governments in Britain
(1979), Canada (1984), New Zealand (1984), Australia (1983), to name but