Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness in the Public Service - Assignment Example

Have public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators undermined the "ethic" of public service and professionalism? Introduction Ordinarily, scrutiny of the public service by ensuring public accountability, conducting audits and using performance-based indicators to evaluate performance are all expected to enhance the performance of the public sector. Even then, there are many cases where such initiatives are not implemented properly and therefore only end up undermining the “ethic” of the public service and professionalism. This paper argues that while public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are vital for monitoring and enhancing public service performance, poor implementation makes them not only difficult to apply but also ineffective. Based on this analysis, this paper argues that while these tools are necessary for maximizing efficiency and cost effectiveness in the public service, more needs to be done to ensure that the tools reflect the actual performance of the public service. Overview of terms The terms public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are widely used in the public service domain because they determine the “ethic” of the public service and professionalism. It is important to make an attempt to define them so that any further analysis is premised on an understanding of what each term entails. Public accountability: According to Olowu (1993, cited by Odhiambo-Mbai, 2003), public accountability is the obligation that those who hold any public trust should be held accountable for the use of such trust by citizens or their agents. This means that public officials should be accountable for their actions while in office, and this requires them to adhere to certain norms and values (Odhiambo-Mbai, 2003). Audits: An audit refers to the independent, objective appraisal of the fairness of an organization’s representations on performance or the evaluation of management’s systems and practices against a given set of criteria, reported to a principal body or others with similar roles (The Institute of Internal Auditors, 2006). The role of auditing is to ensure that officers in the public service can account to the public for their use and stewardship of resources and reassure the public that the resources have been used effectively to accomplish the public’s intended objectives. Performance-based indicators: Performance-based indicators are used to measure aspects of public service performance such as the effectiveness of the internal work process to deliver services, the productivity of human resources to offer deliver services to those who require them, and client satisfaction towards the services received (Zakaria et al., 2011). It may also be worthwhile to use such indicators to measure the financial aspect or cost implications of the services being delivered by the public sector. Professionalism: Professionalism is defined as the overall value that encompasses all other values that guide the public sector (Ssonko, 2010). Article 21 of the Charter for the Public Service in Africa notes that professionalism manifests itself in the behavior of a public service employee at work and in the employee’s constant attempt to improve, strengthen or update his or her knowledge, improve the skills that are required for performing his or her tasks and augmenting his or her output (Ssonko, 2010). How, public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators relate to the ethic of public service and professionalism Public accountability is critical to effective public service performance. According to Gelb (2000), “accountability and transparency are at the heart of efforts to improve governance” (p. 73). This is because it is only when there is a high level of accountability that vices such as corruption can be alleviated from the public service. When the public sector is accountable, each official will be individually and collectively willing to accept responsibility for their own action or inaction. In this regard, the burden of accountability rests on every individual to act in the interest of the public and in accordance with his or her conscience, with solutions for every matter based on professionalism as well as participation (Ssonko, 2010). What this means is that an accountable public service is that which is willing to deliver services to the public with a high level of professionalism. It also means that systems must be in place which define aims and objectives and which monitor how resources have been used to accomplish them (Doherty & Horne, 2012). Additionally, the public service must show its public accountability by willing to be audited at any given time since this is one of the ways through which public service officials’ professionalism can be discerned. Furthermore, an effective public service should be able to satisfy the requirements of any performance-based indicators that are established to assess it. For instance, the performance indicators should be used to gauge the performance of the public service by answering the following questions: Were the policies implemented suitable for the problems that the public wanted to be solved? Were the policies executed effectively and efficiently? Did the citizens, taxpayers and other users of public services obtain value for money? (Jackson, 1993). When answers to these questions are in the affirmative, this indicates an effective public service. Have these tools undermined the “ethic” of public service and professionalism? To a large extent, the answer to the question of whether public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators have undermined the “ethic” of public service and professionalism is yes. This is because according to Kloot (1999), although governments around the world have invested large sums of money to develop performance measurements, the results of most interventions are mediocre. In addition, although the notion of public sector accountability became very popular in the 1990s, its significance seems to wane in the recent years. Notably, Pollitt [1993, cited by Kloot (1999, p. 565)], argues that notions of accountability in the “new public management” are difficult to determine. This is because it is not easy to determine where accountability lies given the increasingly privatized and contracted out agencies (Kloot, 1999). This is true because today many public service organizations are partly owned by governments and local communities or other shareholders. As such, it is not easy to determine if profits are generated to governments, to the local communities or to the other shareholders (Kloot, 1999). For audits to be effective, they have to be independent and transparent. According to the United States Accounting Office (GAO), there is widespread acceptance of independence as a sine qua non of state audit (Cooper, Funnell & Lee, 2012). Further, independence can be conceived as a relational state, that is, one is independent from someone or something. In regard to the public sector audit, the auditor is meant to be free from the influence and control of the executive (Cooper, Funnell & Lee, 2012). Ironically, in many countries the public bodies which are supposed to play an oversight role are not fully independent from the executive. There are many cases where Ombudsmen, Auditors General, Inspectors General, and Public Accounts Committees (PAC) of parliament complain that they are understaffed or underfunded to effectively discharge their mandates of monitoring the ethical behaviors of public servants (Ssonko, 2010). In addition, there are cases where governments engage in corruption under the guise of secrecy, confidentiality and disinformation (Gildenhuys, 2004). These three types of political corruption offer a cover for domestic spying and other severe crimes against the public. For instance, through such covers, public servants can engage in all kinds of criminal, administrative and political corruption discreetly, which undermines public responsibility and accountability (Gildenhuys, 2004). Paradoxically, even parliament, which is supposed to stem the executive’s unaccountability, may end up condoning malpractices. For example, although the Kenyan parliament has several committees such as the Public Investment Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to oversee the executive’s accountability, the committees do little when the Auditor-General and the Inspector of Corporations present their reports to them (Odhiambo-Mbai, 2003). There are few cases where officers whose accountability is questionable are prosecuted or even arrested. According to Odhiambo-Mbai (2003), this weakness by parliament only persuades public officers to continue misappropriating public resources with impunity. The same situation is reflected in South Africa where the Auditor General complained that delays in preparing internal reports made it difficult to compile sound reports (Mafunisa, 2000). Mafunisa (2000) also argues that a vast amount of state finances can trickle into private hands through top officers when audit functions are disregarded. In a short, public service audits are rendered only as a public gimmick that has no much significance in regard to the “ethic” of public service and professionalism. The same scenario applies to public service performance-based indicators. According to Jackson (1993), public service organizations are extremely complex in that they serve many objectives, they have a diversity of clients, they deliver a wide variety of services and policies, and they exist within complex and unpredictable socio-political environments. The values that drive such organizations, and which must be used as the basis for performance assessment, are also more intricate than the simple commercial market-led productivity (Jackson, 1993). It is difficult for instance to define the origin of the criteria applied in evaluating public services, to determine who sets the criteria, and to answer the question of who is being served by the evaluation (Jackson, 1993). Many types of performance measures can be used to measure the effectiveness of the public sector. For instance, examples in the UK include OFSTED visits of schools, QAA of teaching in universities, police inspections, and so forth (Propper & Wilson, 2003). Several questions that arise in this regard are: What happens after the evaluation? Should those officials perceived to perform better than others be paid higher? What should be done to those perceived to perform poorly? Given the large number of staff involved, how can each individual’s performance be critiqued? Providing answers to these questions is problematic because of the nature of the public sector. Hence, applying performance indicators in areas such as the education sector does not help to improve the level of professionalism. For instance, many educators have argued that performance-based compensation programs promote competition rather than collaboration among teachers. They argue that individual merit is at odds with the friendly character of effective schools and that performance-based rewards would, in effect, suppress reform by setting teachers against each other in search of a more fulfilling salary. That is, teachers do not like a situation where their colleagues get merit increases if they do not. This creates discord at a school (Solmon & Podgursky, n.d.). If such a scenario applies to all aspects of the public sector such as health, agriculture and so on, then it can be said that performance-based indicators cannot be used to advance the “ethic” of public service and professionalism. Are the aforementioned tools necessary for maximizing efficiency and cost effectiveness? Although public organizations are complex in nature, they still have to be monitored to perform effectively and use resources cost-effectively. Hence, public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are necessary to enhance ethics and professionalism in the public service. Public accountability is necessary for transparency and effectiveness; audits are necessary to ensure that resources are used well and that public officials have ethical behavior; and performance measurements are necessary as they promote accountability to stakeholders (Kloot, 1999). What is required is delinking of the various departments of government so that each unit can be appraised independently. For instance, Cooper, Funnell and Lee (2012) suggest a scenario whereby the public sector auditor should have adequate operational autonomy to ensure that the executive is not able to influence the programs of conducting audits and reporting them to parliament. There is also hope that even public institutions can be reformed from a systems perspective as suggested by Goldberg and Cole (2002) based on a study of a school in Brazosport ISD, Texas. Conclusion In conclusion, accountability, audits and performance-based indicators in public service have largely undermined the “ethic” of public service and professionalism because of the complex nature of the public service organizations and because of poor implementation. Nevertheless, these tools are still necessary to enhance transparency and cost-effectiveness, promote ethical behavior and measure performance in the public service. What is needed is an overhaul of systems to increase independence which can then enhance reliable assessment of the various departments in the public service. References Cooper, K., Funnell, W. & Lee, J. (2012). Public sector accounting and accountability in Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney: UNSW Press. Doherty, T. L. & Horne, T. (2012). Managing public services - implementing changes: A thoughtful approach to the practice of management. London: Routledge. Gelb, A. H. (ed) (2000). Can Africa claim the 21st century? Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Gildenhuys, J. S. H. (2004). Ethics and professionalism: The battle against public corruption. Johannesburg: African Sun Media. Goldberg, J. S. & Cole, B. R. (2002). Quality management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance. QMJ, 9(4): 8 – 22. Retrieved 13 March 2013, from http://rube.asq.org/edu/brazosport-isd-texas-success-story.pdf Jackson, P. M. (1993). Public service performance evaluation: A strategic perspective. Public Money & Management, October-December 1993, pp. 9 – 14. Retrieved 13 March 2013, from http://www.fu.uni-lj.si/personal/zdravkop/mvju/clanek17.pdf Kloot, L. (1999). Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(7): 565 – 583. Mafunisa, M. J. (2000). Public service ethics. Johannesburg: Juta and Company Ltd. Odhiambo-Mbai, C. (2003). Public service accountability and governance in Kenya since independence. African Journal of Political Science, 8(1): 113 – 145. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/political%20science/volume8n1/ajps008001006.pdf Propper, C. & Wilson. D. (2003). The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector. CMPO Working Paper Series No. 03/073, May 2003. Retrieved 13 March 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.148.448%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=s39AUfzGMs7UPKS8gcgB&usg=AFQjCNHYO7_Jg8hLgzrLiJEnd7WN6sgOMg&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k Solmon, L. C. & Podgursky, M. (n.d.). The pros and cons of performance-based compensation. Retrieved 13 March 2013, from http://web.missouri.edu/podgurskym/articles/files/Pros_cons.pdf Ssonko, D. K.W. (2010). “Ethics, accountability, transparency, integrity and professionalism in the public service: The case of Uganda”, Paper presented at Capacity Building Workshop for Public Sector Human Resource Managers in Africa on “Strengthening Human Resource Capacities for the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and Africa’s Development” Cotonou, Republic of Benin – 12 to 16 April 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan038789.pdf The Institute of Internal Auditors (2006). The role of auditing in public sector governance. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theiia.org%2Fdownload.cfm%3Ffile%3D3512&ei=Ygs_Ub6xDvKa1AWk_oEQ&usg=AFQjCNF7WGRymABArKjjfi75Wxe3H5bkwA&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k Zakaria, Z., Yaacob, M. A., Yaacob, Z., Noordin, N., Sawal, M. Z. H. M. & Zakaria, Z. (2011). Key performance indicators (KPIs) in the public sector: A study in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 7(7): 2 – 107. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Fass%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F11228%2F7990&ei=IAg_UYe2EOLB7AaO5ICQBg&usg=AFQjCNEGD_Co_tioS7xYwhwxmK8hdkQjaw&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k Read More