Governance and Public Policy - Essay Example

?Critically discuss the ways the word ‘governance’ as used by Rhodes (1997: 46-60) with reference Judt and to examples to illustrate your arguments. Introduction Governance can be defined and understood in different ways. Its conceptualization is mostly based on management and political principles and applications, those which seek to manage people, resources, and various elemental needs. For administrators, both in the private and public sector, governance involves a delicate balance between the needs and the resources with efficient governance based on how well such balance is sought and maintained. The conceptualizations of governance are based on numerous interpretations and applications. This paper shall critically discuss the ways the word governance is used by Rhodes (1997), mostly with reference to Judt (2010) and to various examples and conceptualizations. Initially, a discussion of concepts will be established, followed by a critical analysis of these concepts. Body Rhodes (1997) discusses how new applications of governance have emerged. He also evaluates the contributions of actors and institutions outside the central administrators to the general processes of governance. Theoretical contributions impact on conventional applications, which usually picture government to be strong and centralised executives, managing the unified state. Rhodes (1997) also maintains that there is now a specific shift in governance, veering away from hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations to the decentralised authority. To manage these changes, the discussions by Rhodes have focused on various aphorisms and applications (Marinetto, 2003). Much value is indicated on this work from the empirical and theoretical perspective. Analysis has refocused the assessment of governing bodies, establishing sophisticated and theoretical perspectives of the modern state. In Rhodes’ (1997) discussion, he evaluates governance in relation to six applications. First is governance in relation to the minimal state. This applies markets and quasimarkets in order to deliver public services. Governance as corporate governance mostly refers to transparency, integrity, and accountability through the application of control. As new public management, it refers to the introduction of private sector management methods and incentive structures including market competition to the public sector. As good governance, there is a marriage of the new public management with liberal democracy. As a socio-cybernetic system, it refers to the interdependence of socio-political-administrative actors. And finally as a self-organizing network, it refers to networks seeking to establish their own policies and manage their environments (Rhodes, 1997). Other authors emphasize different points relating to governance. Farazmand (2004) highlights the international element of governance, including the fact that effective governance is value-laden. Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) have an actor view of governance with various elements of governance relating to the outcomes of social processes, ensuring that the means by which actors relate to each other is founded on reality. Frederickson and Smith (2003), on the other hand seeks to view governance as an attempt to understand the institutional interactions in administration. All of the definitions support the fact that governance refers to more than the actions which governments do to accomplish their tasks. Governance in other words relates to the interactions between the public sector and the society as a whole in the management of public issues and problems. Rhodes’ (1997) definitions of governance also include other kinds of relations, including hierarchical and market-style relations. Strong arguments against the narrow perspective of governance are made by Schuppert (2007) who argues that a narrow definition makes it difficult to include the generally more successful elements of governance, including hierarchical governing. As pointed out by Wolf (2007), what is more important is to consider the fine-tuning of government processes and applying the wider perspective in order to manage society and the relations between the government, market, civil society, and civilians. Governance must not only focus on relational elements, but also on institutional elements. Government leaders who are major actors in governance work within the government and outside its offices. For Mayntz, a wider angle of governance seems more encompassing (2004). Governance in this case includes the totality of the different elements of collective coordination of problems, from the formal institutions of societal self-regulation to the different areas of cooperation between the public and private actors and then to the official functions of state actors (Mayntz, 2004). Good governance is applied on discussions relating to governing structures in developing states. Rhodes (1996) points out that the World Bank applies the principle of good governance in relation to its lending policies for developing countries. Under such applications, good governance refers to what the World Bank actually needs from these countries in terms of government policy change and reforms (Rhodes, 1996). In other words, good governance has become an important element of new public management as it also helps align with liberal democracies. Minogue and colleagues (1998) also argue that the conceptualization of ideas on how issues in the developing countries can be managed is an initial point for effective governance in these areas. The success of economic goals and the effective cooperation between the state and the market is an important element of governance. As pointed out by Minogue, et.al., (1998), governance has to be supported by accountability between the government and the people. This relates to the accountability aspect as highlighted by Rhodes. More than such accountability however, there is a need for the people to be treated as more than just consumers; there is a need to treat the people as citizens (Cochran and Wartick, 1988). As citizens, they also have the right to seek government accountability for actions and decisions which they do not consider (Minogue, et.al., 1998). Rhodes’ (1997) discussions on accountability are related to control and the imposition of rules, not on accountability to the wider society. Granting that there may be indications for efficiency in the government sector, this must not cause the deterioration of the quality of services. The manner by which citizens can fight against such possibility is to make politicians accountable for their actions (Peters and Pierre, 1998). However, activities in the new public management may make this process difficult. Elements like accountability as well as transparency and participation are mostly therefore significant only in terms of issues on the economy and government efficacy (Minogue, et.al., 1998). The term governance in this case is likely based on the above ideals; however, it would still be difficult to pin down a clear conceptualization of governance based on such ideas. Based on Rhodes’ (1997) discussion on governance being a socio-cybernetic system, other authors make their own considerations on the subject matter. Kooiman (1994) points out that due to the shifting society, different interactions have emerged between the state and the society. Kooiman (1994) discusses that different shifts in the interactions between the public and the private sector would also have to include the growing complexities of the world in general. In effect, the resources which seek to manage social issues in efficient ways would also have to be dynamic and complex structures and resources. Failing to understand the complexities and malfunctions of traditional structures and their impact has long been considered unfortunate, tantamount to serious issues not being taken seriously by society and administrators. Kooiman (1998) however emphasizes that the application of dynamic and complex socio-political systems are founded on socio-political management and resolution of societal issues. In a major way, the improved functions of governance have been assisted by failures in traditional power structures, the relinquishment of these traditions helping pave the way for improved governance. The theoretical underpinnings of socio-political governance are based on governing, governance, and governability (Stokers, 1998). Rhodes (1997) has already emphasized on these elements. It is also important to argue that the society which is complex and dynamic is likely to experience processes which include significant interactions among actors as well as target groups. Governing has shifted more towards coordination and the management of interactions (Stoker, 1998). Traditional forms of governing therefore lost their impact and their power to influence. Governing within a more interactive setting is based on the balance of social elements and interests, allowing actors and citizens to manage and organize their activities (Kooiman, 1994). Socio-political governance would have to be anchored on mutual trust and understanding, including accepting responsibility for political contributions (Bowornwathana, 1997). As a significant element of political governance, formal and autonomous political and societal actors are needed. It would be difficult for single actors to resolve issues or use the best opportunities handed to them (Bowornwathana, 1997). Moreover, single actors cannot be dominant enough to convince individuals to act in a specific way or handle the costs of social problems. Single actors cannot establish patterns of governance and political turmoil, however, various actors contribute to such patterns and turmoil. Governance can be considered as the pattern seen in a socio-political system resulting from the actions and interventions of involved actors (Kooiman, 1994). Governing and governance interact with each other and their patterns impact on those who govern; it also changes them. Governability includes the elements of governing and governance and also the ability of the socio-political system to manage itself within the broader applications and systems for which it exists (Jessop, 1995). Rhodes (1996) points out that governance refers to coordination and the self-organization of networks. Shift from governing to governance has helped to ensure the rise of these networks, which include a mixture of the public, private and the non-governmental organizations. As a result, the divisions between these organizations have become superfluous (Rhodes, 1996). Networks have emerged and have developed a need for tools between actors. Through the exchange of resources among the actors, the realization of goals is a greater possibility, also increasing influence and avoiding dependence on other actors (Richards and Smith, 2002). The relations between members of the political chain and network are often game-like. There may also be some autonomy from the state, however, the state can still indirectly manage and impact on the activities of the different networks. In order to ensure the efficiency of networks, they must also be considered as alternatives to markets and hierarchies in relation to coordination mechanisms (Laffan and Shaw, 2005). Price competition is significant as a central coordination tool in the market; administrative policies are needed within hierarchies, and trust and cooperation helps in the central management of networks (Thompson, et.al., 1991). Moreover, networks as discussed by Rhodes (1996) are self-organizing and autonomous. In effect, integrated networks object to government dictates, preferring to establish their own policies and manage their environments. Similar concepts referring to self-organizing networks have been established by Kickert (1997) in what he refers to as public governance. This is a major criticism of the new public management. To apply tools in the public sector that are secured for the private sector is a difficult process, especially as tasks and the public sector environment is very much different from the private sector (Kickert, 1997). Public governance, being an alternative to new public management refers to the increased efficacy of organizations. It also refers to ensuring the legitimacy, as well as the norms and values. The government or state as well as society have often been considered as separate entities, with the state managing the society. Based on public governance, all actors are acting within the same system. In effect, the state must not only consider planned governing of the system, but it must also highlight the function which it can mediate (Kickert, 1997). Actors come from various areas functioning at different levels; not necessarily referring to similar goals. They may also contrast with each other. These actors usually relate to different networks and would likely be less dependent on the actions of other actors; however the state is in a position to compare these actors with each other (Kickert, 1997). The state is also not in a position to impose its perspective on the different actors. The actors are therefore not on equal ground and the hierarchical order is basically superfluous. Kickert (1997) also emphasizes that this is not a normative position, but more of an empirical perspective. It is prudent to bring about the issue of how these networks can be managed and in what way the self-organizing networks can be affected to take a specific direction. These elements provide a foundation for network governance being in a vague area between hierarchy and the marketing system (Kickert, 1997). It would seem easier to feel resigned to the difficulty in securing a common ground for governance. Such common ground can however still be found and established. The above perspectives emphasize change in society, mostly on socio-cybernetic systems and self-organizing networks. Self-organizing networks highlight the empirical elements affecting the theories (Peters and Pierre, 1998). The minimal state and new public management have more normative elements. It is important to emphasize however that governance mostly refers to values, and may not always be normative (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). Governance theory is founded on empirical observations and is not underpinned by hidden agenda based on normative perspectives. This would lead to issues on the minimal state, new public management, and good governance, whether they may actually be considered as differing governance perspectives (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). Nevertheless, these viewpoints do include elements and resources which are often not normative. Rhodes (1996) points out that governance is often applied as a tool for privatization of services. This decision is often based on political rhetoric (Stoker, 1998). New public management also encompasses a specific ideological foundation and in terms of other governance applications, new public management does not have enough traditional support. Good governance shares common elements with new public management (Stoker, 1998). It also has normative elements in its advocacy for new public management in developing countries, especially when it is applied by the World Bank. In relation to a changed society, the state may respond in different ways. It may react abruptly and decrease or abandon its desire to govern, or it may still sustain its governance goals, using other resources or tools (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). Governance refers to the state and its ambitions in governing society and its resources. In effect, the minimal state does not refer to governance especially as the state does not have a desire to govern. The state must therefore have a crucial role in making the governance theory work, regardless of its application. The state is not a corporate actor mostly because corporate governance is very much different from political governance (Richards and Smith, 2002). The state includes ambitions of governance using various means, methods, and resources. Various methods and resources are already mentioned above. New public management is one of these methods which can be applied by the state in governance (Richards and Smith, 2002). These new methods also include new requirements in the management of societal actors. These methods also emphasize that the actors are linked through hierarchies, including other related networks. Governance may also refer to macro level management, except in some cases for corporate governance and new public management (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). As indicated above, corporate governance refers to companies and industries only. Moreover, governance is not end-goal oriented; the outcome may actually be different based on the organizations involved. Governance refers to different types of governing and may lead to organizing. Governance therefore refers to shifts in political processes within static political systems (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). Under these conditions, it would be difficult to pin down specific discussions and concepts applicable to political governance. Judt (2010) has an even more liberal perspective on governance. He discusses how liberals are those who refuse interference in the affairs of others and who are able to tolerate the disagreement of others, including the unconventional actions. Judt (2010) also supports the possibility and the impact of collective actions for the greater good. As a liberal, he emphasizes the eventual progression of taxation for purposes of serving public needs and providing social services to individuals who are unable to provide for themselves. Judt’s (2010) ideas relating to governance were shaped by his life experiences, and his growing disgust with the expanding inequality among social classes in the Western world as well as between the developed and developing countries. Judt (2010) asks the better questions relating to modern politics and governance. These questions include: How should we describe the role of the state without accepting that the state must actually do everything? Judt (2010) supports dissent and veering away from tradition. However there is a certain appeal which can also be attached to the activism supported by current politicians and administrators. Judt seems to have lost faith in these leaders and their ability to support change. It is enlightening also to note that some of the current leaders would be engaged in opening Judt’s book and take notes and learn from it. Governance in this case refers to different aspects of governing, mostly resulting from organising. In effect, governance also refers to shifts in political processes being seen in a generally inactive political system. Grounds for governance theory include macro-level theory, not normative (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). It also refers to the state being full of ambitions towards governance, with the state being an important actor in the process. Governance also refers to the state managing the society using new tools and resources which presents new elements in managing societal actors. Governance therefore includes well actors which are well coordinated, and not necessarily via traditional hierarchies (Bjork and Johansson, 2001). Finally, governance is not necessarily concerned about outcomes alone, but it also includes processes within static and immobile political systems. Conclusion Governance as defined and described by Rhodes refers to various elements, including transparency, accountability, new public management, good governance, socio-cybernetic applications, and self-organizing network. Other discussions on governance are raised by different authors, one being Judt who emphasizes the importance of adopting liberal principles of democracy in securing favourable outcomes in governance. Governance lost its link with the traditional past, mostly because traditions have been considered backward, often holding back development for various states, including third world countries. Governance is also now based on the dynamic relations between the different political actors of the state, using resources which allow for transparency and accountability. The political actors also include the engaged citizenry, working with the state and the governing authorities in order to secure change and shifts in governance. References Bjork, P. and Johansson, H. (2001). Towards governance theory: In search for a common ground [online]. Available at: http://unoacademia.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/mdev/soutienauxcours0809/E721_gouvernance/2.1.Bjork-Johansson_2001.pdf [Accessed 03 June 2013]. Bowornwathana, B. (1997). Transforming bureaucracies for the 21st century: the new democratic governance paradigm, Public Administration Quarterly, 21. Cochran, P. and Wartick, S. (1988). Corporate governance: A review of the literature, financial executives research foundation. Morristown, New Jersey. Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound governance in the age of globalization: A conceptual framework. Sound governance. Policy and administrative innovations, pp. 1-23. Frederickson, H., Smith, K., and Larimer, C. (2003). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Jessop, B. (1995). The regulation approach, governance and post-Fordism: alternative perspectives on economic and political change?. Economy and Society, 24(3). Judt, T. (2010). Ill fares the land: a treatise on our present discontents. London: Penguin. Kickert, W. and Koppenjan, J. (1997). Public management and network management: an overview. In Kickert et al. (editors) (1997): Managing Complex Networks, Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage Publications. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications. Kooiman, J. (1994). Modern governance, new government-society interactions. London: Sage Publications. Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi?organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), pp. 313-333. Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School. Political Studies, 51, pp. 592–608. Mayntz, R. (2004). What is governance? In: Arthur Benz (Hrsg.), Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Minogue, M., Polidano, C. and Hulme, D. (1998). Introduction: The analysis of public management and governance. In Minogue M., Polidano C., Hulme D. (editors) (1998): Beyond the New Public Management, Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Peters, B. and Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2). Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, 44 Rhodes R. (1997). Understanding governance, policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press Rhodes, R. (2000). Transforming British government, volume 2: Changing roles and relationships. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2002). Governance and public policy in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schuppert, G. (2007). What is governance?. Die Verwaltung 40, pp. 461-511 Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions [online]. Available at: http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Governance/Articles/Stoker%20-%20Governance.pdf [Accessed 03 June 2013]. Thompson, G. (1991). Markets, hierarchies & networks: The co-ordination of social life. London: Sage Publications. Wolf, A. (2007). Trends in public administration. London: Sage Publications. Read More