The Problem

More documents

Recommendations

Info

paradigmatic mode of inquiry, we must consider these shifts to place our analysis in a proper context. III. A Contextual Shift-From Organizations to Networks The importance of context in public administration cannot be overemphasized. To be sure, while many in the field of public administration have documented a shift from positivistic frames of reference to more relativistic stances, it may be forcefully argued that such a shift is in direct response to how practicing government administrators have changed their ideas concerning the functioning of government agencies over the past three decades (Mosher, 1982; Salamon, 1981; Kettl, 1987). That is, what we believe to be the context of “getting things done” in the public sector has changed. Programs to be implemented today rarely fall within the jurisdiction of a single agency and instead can involve other public agencies (at all levels of government), private sector non-profits, private sector for-profits, special interest groups, and individual citizens. Working in the public sector has become a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sector endeavor. Specifically, it may be stated that the context of action has steadily moved from an organizational setting to a setting more appropriately described as a “network.” In their book Managing Complex Networks, Kickert, et. al. (1997) provide a detailed analysis of public administration’s maturation beyond a traditional “rational central rule” to a multi-actor model to a network concept of governance. The “rational central rule” model of governance is characterized by processes of public policy making and governance that are characterized by the division between politics and administration, where policy consensus is reached by interested political entities, and scientific knowledge is used to design policy measures and a program of implementation, and where decision making is authoritative and implementation is non-political, technical, and potentially programmable (Kickert, et. al., 7). The multi-actor model, in direct response to the hegemonic position of the central rule model, represents a “radical plea for decentralization, self-governance, and privatization,” 6
while at the same time calling for a central government to “give more attention to the problems of local actors to provide them with more resources. Governance is seen as an essentially political process in which local entities barter according to their personal interests and purposes (8). What we have come to today, it is argued, is a consideration of policy making taking place in networks consisting of various actors (individuals, special-interest groups, public organizations, private organizations, etc.), none of whom have the individual power to autonomously determine the strategies of all the other actors. Policy processes are not viewed as the implementation of ex ante formulated goals, but as an interaction process in which actors exchange information about problems, preferences and means, and trade off goals and resources. Figure 1 illustrates conceptually what this means for our purposes with respect to various implementation strategies and approaches to public policy. Within this figure, assessment simply means a contextual understanding of the problem at hand. This does not entail rote problem definition typical of system analysis perspectives, but simply making an effort to understand the various interests involved and the ways these interests interact, cooperate or compete for space in the public policy arena. Focusing entails gaining an understanding of the resources needed for effective implementation. Model I in Figure 1, which places an emphasis on the implementation phase of a program, is most adequately typified by Pressman and Wildavsky’s seminal piece on the subject (1979). However, such an approach is not suitable to the changes currently taking place in contemporary public policy. Given the shift towards a network setting and the changing role of administrators as facilitators, a similar shift in methodological approaches to policy must also take place. Model II, which places a premium upon the assessment stage as the primary arena for effective implementation, is a more suitable approach considering what contemporary public administrators face in their working environments. And without adequate assessment, implementation, as Pressman and Wildavsky found nearly twenty years ago, ultimately fails. 7
Page 1 and 2: Stakeholder Analysis: A Tool for Ne
Page 3 and 4: Stakeholder Analysis - A Tool for N
Page 5: public administrator, however, are
Page 9 and 10: y an “objective” inquirer manda
Page 11 and 12: public. Different constraints are i
Page 13 and 14: which aim to capture the richness o
Page 15 and 16: stakeholders or a manager who is co
Page 17 and 18: perhaps the most dynamic. Because t
Page 19 and 20: implementation process. Snowballing
Page 21 and 22: which is a private sector entity, t
Page 23 and 24: unhelpful. As Melissa Powell notes,
Page 25: Figure 1 - Time, Energy, and the Im
Page 28 and 29: Figure 4 Diagnostic Typology for Pr
Page 30 and 31: Table 1 Who Is A Stakeholder? Sourc
Page 32 and 33: Table 3 Sample Directed Interview I
Page 34 and 35: Goldenberg, Sheldon. 1992. Thinking
Page 36: Timney, M.M. (1996). “Overcoming

The Problem

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?