Public Sector and Government Reforms - Essay Example

? Introduction The nature of the political system undertaken by contemporary western s has undergone significant changes over the last 10-15 years. Previously, the emphasis centred on expanding the political sphere within the society. Presently, the core objective centres on enhancing efficiency within the public service delivery and delivering more customer-attuned services to citizens. Interestingly, one of the radical changes witnessed within the public sphere has been transforming state-centred societies into less-state-centred. Proponents of public reform claim that governments are inherently ineffective, large, inefficient, expensive, highly bureaucratic, unresponsive to public wants and needs, self-serving, invasion into private rights of citizens, and failing within the provision of services rendered to the taxpaying public. The paper explores debates regarding the public sector and government reform during the last two decades. At the centre of this reform has been the drive towards the managerial reform propelled by the notion that the public sector flows from the wrong principles, which, in turn, necessitates reinvention and institutional renewal. These reforms generated all forms of promises including minimal intervention by the government and the decentralization of the government, enhanced efficiency and effectiveness within the public sector, and enhanced accountability and responsiveness of the public service to the citizens, greater choice between the public and private providers of public services, and “entrepreneurial” public sector more willingly and capable of working with business, and better economic performance (Raadschelders 2003, p.235). Discourse on Governance Governance manifests a number of features such as involvement of actors and institutions that surpass the formal government; the blurring of the boundaries and responsibilities for public policy; horizontal power dependence between the diverse institutions; and, the rising importance of autonomous networks, all of which yield enhancing government’s capability to attain results based on indirect instruments other than command or authority. Donor-directed discourse on governance spotlight state structures fashioned at guaranteeing accountability through the process of law, and state market relations. Academic-centred discourse on governance, on the other hand, remains distinctly focused on diverse ways through power and authority relations structured within diverse contexts. Literature on governance presents two lines of argument: the substantive character of governance (which relates to perceiving governance as representing the steering or control of public affairs) and the character of governance in practice (governance relating to performance, action, and results) (OECD 2001, P.149). Good governance essentially applies substantial requirements within the decision-making process, as well as in the formulation of public policy. The concept of “good governance” delineates a set of political requirements embraced within early 1990s by a majority of international development institutions as part of ‘new orthodoxy’ highlighting that ‘most societies typified by open markets, capable administrators and liberal-democratic societies promote growth and development, and also guarantee peace (Peters and Pierre 2012, p.562). Attaining good governance necessitates improvements that touch almost of all aspects relating to the public sector right from the institutions that shape the rules for political and economic interaction, to organizations that control administrative systems and deliver goods and services to citizens. Furthermore, obtaining good governance sometimes relates to effecting changes within the political organization, the representation of interests, and processes critical for public debate and policy decision-making (Kjaer 2004, p.5). This necessitates managing public affairs in an accountable, transparent, participatory, and efficient way, which necessitates the creation of an effective political framework that is favourable to private economic action, a strong civil society that is independent of state, the rule of law, stable regimes, and effective state administration that is alive to the role that governments perform. Public value asserts that public services are distinctive as typified by premises on the rights of citizens to services authorized and funded via some democratic process. Accountability is more than mere periodic elections form which politicians derive their electoral mandate, and public value necessitates that public manager and politicians explain and justify their mandate to the public. Successful public service delivery hinges on a continuous dialogue with the citizens who should be considered as the stakeholders (Kjaer 2004, p.6). Public sector management reforms are a critical feature of economic policy reform programs. The reforms seek to counter the lack of efficiency, absence of accountability, ineffective management practices, and corruption. Debates about public sector and government reform during the past two decades Public sector reforms within the last two decades have been guided by New Public Management (NPM) philosophy of administration linked to neoliberal public sector reforms. Public sector reform has been ongoing within the last fifty years with various forms connected to the diverse cultural environments. In a majority of the countries, the public sectors greatly expanded between 1945 and 1980. As the economies in most countries grew the societies became increasingly differentiated and the states’ conventional tasks touching on regulation, allocation and distribution of resources became increasingly complex (Christensen and L?greid 2007, p.43). The registered growth of the public sector was also a function of the form of the societies that various governments endeavoured to promote. In the 1980’s, much of the developing countries encountered development problems linked to what was referred as the “fundamental crisis of governance.” Around the same time, the collapse of the communist regimes towards the end of the 20th century reinforced the neo-liberal theoretical underpinnings asserting that “bureaucratic, non-democratic collectivist systems were incapable of generating sustained economic growth and incapable of changing. The bureaucratic systems bled corruption, inefficiency, economic mismanagement, stagnation and inefficiency, and absence of popular democratic participation (Raadschelders 2003, p.236). Since the 1980s, both developed and developing countries have embarked on public-sector management reforms. In the same way that the role an institutional character of the state has faced questions, the public sector has equally been placed under intense pressure to embrace private sector orientations. In developing countries, for instance, the earlier reforms sought to shape a public administration that could champion national development and grounded in the same institutional peculiarities derived from the colonial period. More recently, there has been a move towards finding alternative ways of organizing and managing the public services and redefining the function of the state with the aim of awarding more prominence to markets and competition, as well as voluntary and private sectors (Brown and Copeland 1985, p.3). The alternative model that has gained prominence in the last two decades centres on issues of efficiency, participation, accountability, and representation propelled by the vision of creating a market that is friendly, decentralized, customer-oriented, and democratic (Kettl 2005, p.8). Since the 1990s, most governments across the world have undergone extensive restructuring, a process that is still ongoing. The restricting witnessed within the public sector has largely centred on organizational and public personnel management on areas such as workplace relations, management and operational practices, remuneration and employment conditions. The reforms have been accompanied by the transfer of business enterprises within the banking, communications, and transport sectors into private hands through deregulation. The reforms undertaken within the public sector have also featured adoption of new and revamped revenue systems, as well as embracing of public scrutiny of administration (Menzel and White 2011, p.4). As a result, there has been a significant change witnessed within the relationships between government and its citizenry accompanied by the establishment of ombudsman posts within all jurisdictions. Globally, the public sector, remain increasingly characterized by profound transformations whose ramifications are yet to be fully interpreted. Numerous countries are still struggling to align with the broad and unexpected results of modernization initiatives, and as the changes start to take shape, governments are increasingly expected to explore fresh reforms. The present globalization movement has fostered unprecedented levels of exchange (propelled by international trade and rapid technological innovations), propelled by high levels of consumer demand. In the 21st century, most countries recognize that globalization manifest a long-term influence on the public sector reform. The transformations witnessed within the public administration in the last two decades (in theory and practice) have transformed the geo-political and socio-economic environment of the globe. Recently, the global financial and economic meltdown has highlighted the significance of maintaining sound public financial management to guarantee effective implementation of well-structured fiscal policies. Globalization has risen to become a dominant force that is shaping a fresh era of interaction among nations, people, and economies. Globalization is increasing the contacts between people by surpassing national boundaries in technology, economy, culture, and governance. Several forces of globalization can be highlighted as reorienting the operation of the public sector, namely: the spread of global markets (especially with regard to financial integration and liberalization); the urge to control budget deficits and restructure public sector; and democratization process (linked to calls for more representation and accountability for the government). The Nordic countries have been considered to the faring well the last decades and have been dominating the top-end of the list. The prominence of the Nordic model has arisen owing to egalitarian distribution of incomes, enhanced levels of employment, exceptionally low rates of poverty, and public sector provision of income and health insurance coupled with high levels of social services. The Nordic countries manifest a comparative perspective in creating a trade-off between social equality and economic efficiency. The changes witnessed in the economic sphere draws from the transition to knowledge intensive, deregulated markets, ICT-drive production, and the rising globalization. Much of the literature on public sector policy reform within the Nordic Countries highlights continuity instead of radical change. The pace of decision making has frequently been slow, and decisions are relatively consensual with the bulk of the reforms involving radical change along with numerous reforms. Propelled by the urge to gain economy, effectiveness, and efficiency of the public sector management, the bulk of public sector reforms have centred on (1) disaggregating or splitting up public organizations into oversight and service delivery, and functional units, (2) heralding competition into the public through direct or via quasi-market mechanisms with an aim of enhancing efficiency and use choice; (3) enhancing the utilization of incentives within the public sector management (Borins 2008, p.5). Strengths and Limits of public sector and government reform during the past two decades Public sector management reforms have faced several challenges that have constrained the scope, quality, and speed of services rendered. Other challenges encompass multiple accountability, and insufficient resource utilization and institutional capacity. In the last two decades, the world has witnessed significant and critical geo-political events, socio-political trends, and technological developments, which in turn, has impacted on the terms of ideological references and broadly shared political views. The reforms witnessed within the public sector, and government reform signal a trend towards liberal ideologies, slowly driving governments away from the welfare state and pushing the public domain within the private sphere. Overtime, most citizens and socio-economic agents have been rooting for a public sector that is less bureaucratic, highly transparent, productive, and cost-efficient (Eakin, Eriksen, Eikeland and Oyen 2011, p.338). Roughly, this translates to a case of making a fundamental choice between a privatised government (where the bulk of the issues is dealt with as per the commercial relationships and principles with most services been paid for by clients) and public governments (where the bulk of the services deemed to be of public interest are availed to citizens and businesses as per diverse criteria not essentially linked to commercial considerations). The move towards this end has not been easy given that it touches on the very nature of the government. In the last two decades, e-Government policies have grown as a sub-set and a driver of government and public reform. However, their implementation raises or augments several political issues within a wider number of areas. At the centre on this debate has been the implementation of the current transnational e-government agenda that raises critical political issues including the wider privatization of the public sphere, and the shifting role of the government. Furthermore, conflicting policy elements within the agenda augment the urge for more public debate regarding the desired outcomes of e-Government (Baptista 2005, p.167). E-Government agenda raises critical high-level political and policy issues in a number of areas: government and governance (through ideology, strategy, and policy, and further privatization of the public sphere, and the shifting role of the government) and public administration reform (dwelling on the delivery, take-up, and the re-structuring of the public administration). The transnational e-government agenda roots for enhanced utilization of private sector intermediaries within the delivery of public services, in alignment of the ongoing trend towards outsourcing of conventional government functions and the privatization of public services. The private sector is increasingly playing a critical role in the march towards public sphere reform (Curtin and Dekker 2005, p.79). Researchers have highlighted that the trend towards private intermediation is expected to increase owing to political and economic options, as well as the rising technological complexity. The possible roles that the new platforms such e-government could play include contributing towards the creation of public value through enhanced accountability and bridging the partnership with the public sector (Baptista 2005, p.168). It is only through the establishment and management of knowledge among policy-makers and public service employees that is likely to manage a contemporary state and economy. In numerous countries, the design and implementation of e-Government strategies communicate a fresh vision for the whole public sector. One of the frequently cited strengths of e-Government is that e-Government possess the capability to transform governance and the relationships between the state, businesses, and citizens. Nevertheless, despite the massive amounts of public funds invested in e-Government projects, the results of their implementation with regard to value for money, overall contribution to good governance, and public value remain unclear. Most importantly, the strategic goals of e-government are frequently blurred by the hype and catch-all terms such as modernization. Potential tensions exist between New Public Management (NPM) philosophy and the adaptive capacity building. The public sector reforms undertaken within the last two decades has influenced governance and the adaptive capacity, as well as the institutional fit of the objectives of NPM, as well as the requirements for managing evolving change risks. Attaining greater efficiency within the public-service provision and the administration has heralded some unintended and unanticipated consequences such as eroding the accountability within public agencies. This also centres on whether the government loses moral credibility within the social-environmental interactions owing to the high priority awarded to economic efficiency (Wollmann 2003, p.169). Although, NPM reformers root for decentralization of decisions and minimizing bureaucratic obstacles during decision making, some observers highlight a centralization of authority and influence in certain quarters of the government. This centralization may be detrimental to public participation as a result of emulating private businesses practices and incentive structures. Despite the massive reforms that have been undertaken within the public sector, the public sector still suffers from significant weaknesses, whereby, in some areas, it cannot sufficiently support the proper management of state matters. The weaknesses results from several processes: lessened sphere of responsibility; loss of professionalism and diminish of knowledge (the disintegration of deliberating and planning bodies and the minimization in operations carried out directly by public service employees have yielded to the steady erosion of state employee’s professional authority within the realms for which they are responsible) (Wollmann 2003, p.170). The other weakness centres on loss of significance placed on prevailing public administration’s mechanisms for the administration, supervision, evaluation, and feedback on public service delivery. The privatization of the public sphere The on-going reforms witnessed within the public sector, and the re-definition of the function of the government has dwelled on changes effected in government functions and multiplied the number and form of entities engaged in the management and delivery of public services. Hence, the conventional role of government as a manager of public affairs is gradually evolving into a coordination role, which mirrors the liberal trend towards less direct state participation within the economic system. As a result, the gradual transformation of the public sphere (as manifested by the evident transformation of the service provision functions previously managed by the government) through progressive privatization has yielded to questioning of the majority of the aspects of the welfare state embraced as a fact by most societies. The employment of information and communication technologies (ICT) by various governments is presently driven by several goals: transforming public administrations (by enhancing the efficiency of public administration, minimizing their size, and cutting costs); putting services online (delivering government services)’ enhancing the image of government (by enhancing the transparency of the public sector and generating an open, participative decision-making processes); enhancing government control over society (by reinforcing control over business, citizens, and taking action against perceived security threats); and, availing a symbolic direction for the society (so as it appears to be modern and progressive). However, despite the massive reforms that have been undertaken within the public sector such as minimizing the role of the public sector, there is a broad agreement regarding the urge to enhance the capacity of the state in which re-engineering/invigorating the public institutions is necessitated (OECD 2003, p.108).  The linkage between policy changes institutional changes should be evident as countries march towards public sector reform. Multi-level governance represents negotiated, non-bureaucratic exchanges between institutions at the local, regional, national, and transnational levels. As such, this relates to the relationships between governance processes at the various levels. The development from a legalistic towards a highly negotiated, contextually defined system of institutional exchange alters, to some extent, the zero-sum nature of intergovernmental relationship (Peters and Pierre 2001, p.131). The emergence of multi-level governance challenges comes as a surprise to the traditional understanding of how the state operates, what determines the state capacities, what determines the state’s contingencies, and the organization of a democratic and accountable government. In the contemporary society, political power and institutional capacity is less derived from the formal constitutional powers accorded to the state, but rather from the capacity to wield and coordinate resources based on the public and private sector actors and interests. Indonesian Case Indonesia has undergone a great deal of public sector reform and capacity building initiatives in areas such as organizational and human resource management reform, networks (the development of effective coalitions between the diverse stakeholders), business process reform, sub-national public service delivery, and whole-of-government approaches. The other reform has centred on the institutionalization process of an accrual accounting system within the public sector. The internalization processes were driven by legal enforcement as local governments pursued mobilization and allocation of resources (Mcleod and Maclntyre 2007, p.4). Although the Indonesian government has placed a lot of emphasis on the need to reform the public sector and be at par with other countries, a lot needs to be done as successful implementation of public reforms has been limited. The Indonesian central government should be aware of the limited capacity of local authorities, especially in the execution of policies and programs and should avail suitable incentives to attain full uptake of the reforms. The lack of competencies has rendered successful implementation of public reforms difficult, and us likely to lead to amplify frustration and propel active resistance. In alignment with the political demands for enhanced accountability in availing better services to the citizens, and efficiency in the management of public resources, public sector auditing has increasingly become a necessity, which roots for accountability, transparency, accountability, prevention of corruption and excessive expenditure, efficiency, openness, and effectiveness. The outlined factors provide a platform for attaining good governance. Conclusion Overtime, there has been a sustained debate about aspects such as the function of the government, the place of good governance in the running of countries, the goal of public services and their connection with the private sector, and the general policy priorities. Consequently, improved efficiency has risen to become the overriding aim within the public sector reforms in the majority of the countries. It is perceived that the capability of the state to foster and undertake collective action efficiently is overextended; hence, reductions and refocusing of the State activities are necessitated to enhance macroeconomic stability, as well as the implementation of stronger incentives, directed at enhancing performance. Moreover, enhanced competition within service provision, either within the private sector or in the public sector, has necessitated public sector reforms so as to increase efficiency. Consequently, governments have opted for less on direct interaction and in allowing others to be productive by availing “core” functions such as safeguarding law and order, safeguarding property rights, managing the macro economy to foster and control the market, provide a buffer for the vulnerable and destitute, and avail basic social services and infrastructure. References List Baptista, M. (2005). E-Government and state reform: Policy dilemmas for Europe, Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3 (4), pp.167-174. Besley, T. & Ghatak, M. (2007). Reformoing public service delivery, Journal of African Economies, 16 (1), pp.127-156. Borins, S. F. (2008). Innovations in government research, recognition, and replication. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press. Pp.5 Brown, R. E. & Copeland, R. M., (1985). Current issues and developmentsin governmental accounting and auditing: impact on public policy, Public Budgeting & Finance, 5(2): 3-8. Christensen, T., & L?greid, P. (2007). Transcending new public management: the transformation of public sector reforms. Aldershot, Ashgate. Pp.43. Curtin, D. & Dekker, I., (2005). Good governance: the concept and its application by European Union', in D.M. Curtin and R.A. Wessel (ed.), Good Governance and the European Union: reflections on concepts, institutions and substance, Intersentia, New York.Durrant, R.F., 2000. 'Whither the neo administrative state? Toward a polity centered theory of administrative reform', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (1): 79-109. Eakin, H. Eriksen, S., Eikeland, P. & Oyen, C. (2011). Public sector reform and governance for adaptation: Implications fo new public management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway. Environ Manage., 47 (3), pp.338-351. Kettl, D. F. (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution a Report on the Transference of Governance. Washington, Brookings Institution Press. Pp.8. Kjaer, A.M. (2004). Governance, Cambridge, Polity press. Pp.5-6. Mcleod, R.H. & Maclntyre, A. J. (2007). Democracy and the promise of good governance, institute of Southern Asian Studies, Singapore. Pp.4. Menzel, D. C., & White, H. L. (2011). The state of public administration: issues, challenges, and opportunities. Armonk, NY, M.E. Sharpe. Pp.4. Organisation de Coope?ration et de De?veloppement E?conomiques. (2003). Norway preparing for the future now. Paris, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pp.108-109. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/OECD (2001). Government of the future. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pp.149-150. Peters, G. & Pierre, J. (2001). Developments in intergovernmental relations: Towards multi-level governance. The Policy Press, 29 (2): 131-5. Peters, G. & Pierre, J. (2012). The SAGE Handbook of public admnistration. London, SAGE. Pp.562. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2003). Government: a public administration perspective. Armonk, M.E. Sharpe. Pp.235-236. Wollmann, H. (2003). Evaluation in public-sector reform: concepts and practice in international perspective. Cheltenham, Elgar. Pp.169-171. Read More