Collaborative Processes: Government as Catalyst - Admission/Application Essay Example

?Collaborative Processes, Case: Government as a Catalyst s Introduction Debates have been ongoing throughout history on the appropriate scope and role of government. In the previous decades, governments have been acting as catalyst in the process of ushering in new networks and innovations in the society (Stillman, 2010, p.312). For instance, in various countries and nations, the highways, the railways, electricity, public education and telecommunication systems have been established by governments utilizing significant key supports. Many medical advances and high technologies have been outsourced from the basic-research funded by the governments. For instance, U.S government funded the demonstration of the first telegraph and also foresaw the creation of the internet. As a result of the above initiatives, the intervention spearheaded by the government led to essential human and economic growth that resulted in society large scale transformation. Perry in his analysis claims that, public administration is an activity that is constitutional. In that case, a constitution is essential in ensuring that organs and systems of the government are supported by skilful and strong managers. Hence, within a multidimensional approach, public administration endeavours to ensure that government and state roles are perfectly fulfilled. It is also of great significance that citizens together with their governments abide and respect its constitution. In the world of implementation and practice in local authorities and other public spheres, it is advisable for organisations to adopt or consider the latest management fads and fashions. Despite the technical benefits being explicit, the underlying values and assumptions are not always visible making their practically not to have immediate impact. Despite the New Management Practices delivering benefits that are instrumental, they also collectively and individually promote new forms of governance and government which may be or not desirable. As a matter of fact, government interventions are frequently questioned due to the renewed interests in market-based mechanisms that are purely potential, the failure of its initiatives that are government oriented and their fiscal debt. These questions have become increasingly problematic making it difficult for the governments to play the crucial role of being a catalyst in achieving social and technological objectives. As stated by the economic theory, it is appropriate and effective for the governments to intervene when providing services and goods that are considered by everyone as public goods (Jain, et al., 2006, p.9). As such, they are non-excludable and can be accessed by anyone regardless they are paid for or not for the society and their accrued benefits are in a telescopic manner for the society. Therefore, it is unethical or problematic if they are assigned private ownership such as ocean water and air. From the perspective of a producer, it becomes extremely difficult for private producers of goods that are public to be adequately compensated due to the existence of consumers that are non-paying. On the other hand, from the perspective of the consumer, authorizing private business to publicly exploit resources that are publicly owned can result to abuse of public’s rights and the resources. Such traditions may trigger market failure making it appropriate for government to intervene using corrective measures. Furthermore, the availability of externalities that are positive allows rapid growth in terms of consuming such services and goods that have the potential of accelerating an impact on the society (Jain, et al., 2007, p.9). Basing on the above justifications, it is argued that, the access to wireless internet helps in fulfilling the government intervention requirements as it uses the radio frequency spectrum that is publicly owned. In addition to that, it can help in increasing the potential for social benefits and new innovations. This is because, majority of individuals have internet access thus elevating their internet literacy. Despite the government acting as a catalyst, it has its own pitfalls in reference to high-technology areas. Even though government interventions are normally triggered by goals that are lofty such as its desire to enhance social change or reduce disparity, the espousal of a technology by the government or any action related to technology often experiences a lot of problems. Government interventions that are often intended to support the adoption and penetration of various technologies can at times skew the entities playing fields who are involved in the deployment and development of technology. This cases often results to consequences that are intended. The support of government offered to a particular technology may develop conditions that are monopolistic for the new invented technology thereby, triggering resistance to technologies that are new resulting to threatening incumbent technologies. In that case, whatever may be seen as a success may eventually result to problems. That is why there is need for collaboration rather than promoting quasi and monopolistic markets. Collaboration is a process whereby actors that are autonomous interact through informal and formal negotiation. They jointly create structures and rules that govern their relationship and devise ways of acting or deciding on various issues that unites them (Thomson and Perry, 2006, p.20). As such, it’s a process that involves shared norms and interactions that are mutually beneficial. Collaborative action entails five principal components. The five components are categorized into three parts. One comprises of the structural dimension made up of administering and governing, secondly is the social capital dimension consisting of norms and mutuality and lastly we have the agency dimension which focuses on organizational autonomy. It is claimed that, ,public managers can only benefit from the analysis that is careful and systematic of the process involved when partners interact via focusing on the above mentioned dimensions that signifies an action that is collaborative(Thomson and Perry, 2006, p.23). Partners who intend to collaborate must have a clear understanding on how they can jointly make decisions concerning the rules that will govern their relationship and characters. Moreover, they need to develop structures that will help them reach an agreement on goals and activities that are collaborative through shared power commitments. In the light of the above, government as a catalyst contradicts Thomson-Perry arguments. As Thomson-Perry focus on collaborative initiatives, the government as a catalyst promotes monopolistic markets. For instance, it acts as a regulator or rule maker, a consumer of services provided by the internet, a financer and also a developer of infrastructure. As a result there is no sharing of power or decision making between and among various stakeholders. References Jain, A., Mandviwall, M and Banker, R 2007, Can governments create universal internet access? The Philadelphian Municipal wireless network story. Providing Cutting Edge to Government Leaders, pp. 4-39. Stillman, R 2010, Public administration: concepts and cases. Boston, Mass, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Thomson, AM & Perry, J 2006, Collaborative Processes: Inside the black box. Articles on Collaborative Public Management, p.20-32. Read More