Proceedings

Administration, the Ministries, other bodies of public administrations, other public
authorities, autonomous public institutions, irrespective of their financing sources.
At international level, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS)
use the term of Government Business Enterprise. According to IPSAS 1 Presentation
of Financial Statements, Government Business Enterprise means an entity that has all
the following characteristics:
� Is an entity with the power to contract in its own name;
� Has been assigned the financial and operational authority to carry on a business;
� Sells goods and services, in the normal course of its business, to other entities at
a profit or full cost recovery;
� Is not reliant on continuing government funding to be a going concern (other
than purchases of outputs at arm’s length); and
� Is controlled by a public sector entity.
With reference to the characteristics of the public sector, Fryer et al. (2007) considers
that their main feature is the absence of the goal of profit maximization, unlike private
organizations. In our view, this characteristic does not offer simplicity to the sector,
but complexity, taking into account that the public perceives the performance of the
public sector by reference to the quality of service. Based on the dual comparative
approach (public sector – private sector), but in an exhaustive manner, Sundin &
Tillmar (2008) identify the following characteristics of the public sector entities:
� Are guided by political and social objectives;
� Their main source of funding is the taxes collected, which they allocate based
on equity principles;
� The services delivered by them have a direct impact on the public, but also an
indirect impact on the community;
� Are subject to public scrutiny, their decision making process must be as
transparent as possible and the consensus among interest groups must be
ensured.
In our opinion, involving the public in the control of public sector entities and
ensuring the transparency of the decisional process are characteristics in favour of the
need to ensure a general social responsibility framework in this sector.
From another perspective, Heracleous & Johnston (2009) define public organizations
through the association of two main dysfunctions: bureaucracy and inertia. Authors
consider that this prejudgment is so deeply rooted into the minds of the public
opinion, that businesses which develop bureaucracy and inertia are frequently
classified as businesses with an “almost public sector mentality”. Although the
balance between the invested value for each resource unit from the private sector, on
one hand, and from the public sector, on the other hand, inclines towards the private
sector, the public sector should go beyond this limit by assimilating the experience of
the private sector. Heracleous & Johnston (2009) highlight that the public sector is
constantly encouraged to adopt models and practices which proved successful in the
private sector, so that its performance can be improved. Strategic management
models, change management processes, quality management, performance
measurement are only some examples of such private sector practices.
~ 73 ~