The Bureaucratic Model - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Public services are the essentials that citizens have a right to access for the enhancement of socio-economic wellbeing in any country. They may be provided directly or through government bodies. In a bid to make the public sector modern and get rid of the inefficiencies of bureaucracies, many governments adopted the new public management, which involved transforming the public sector to maintain cost effectiveness in the government operations. In essence, the reforms that began in the early 1980s generated a marketing aspect in the public sector in the sense that the citizens are viewed as the investors while the recipients of the services are the customers. This paper presents a critique of the bureaucratic model and new public management. It compares and contrasts the two approaches as applied in India, Russia, China, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. The paper also highlights the model that is better for running a state. The Bureaucratic Model Max Weber viewed bureaucracy as a lawful system that was based on reason in the sense that it was focused on the accomplishment of a particular set of goals. The procedures involved in the bureaucracy are intended to maintain the best performance that is possible, with all the components including government departments and levels in the hierarchy contributing to the entire system. Each component in the hierarchy is an integral part in the hierarchy (Owen, 2003). In bureaucracy, authority is distributed through statutes, bureaucratic systems as well as the positions of people in the hierarchy, which are defined by the particular office that the person holds. There are usually rules that govern the conduct of individuals at all levels, which are important in enhancing harmonious relations in the workplace and the maintenance of justice and equality not considering a person’s background. Lynn (1998) observes that consistency is maintained while on the other hand it is possible to avoid and deal with potential risks. People are safe guarded against injustices. Bureaucracy tends to help people to accomplish tasks in a well designed and organized way. In its perfect form, it can lead to efficiency in operations while on the other hand, people respect the rules involved and therefore it is possible to maintain high efficiency with minimal supervision. Farrell & Morris (1999) argue that the system presents people with chances to serve the nation and also to learn ways of coping with challenges. Honesty and reliability are the basis for bureaucracy and the members who are involved in the system are expected to maintain competence and to ensure that their clients’ needs are satisfied. Even though bureaucracy presents a systematized way of delivering services, it is associated with a number of inefficiencies. Seitel (2006) argues that for decisions to be implemented there are certain rigid procedures that have to be adhered to, which leaves no room for improvement. The public administration involves extensive write-ups and documentation, and is prone to hindrances due to red-tapes. Due to the fact that rules have to be followed strictly, there is a tendency of hindrances in regard to response needed in matters of urgency. In many instances the bureaucrats tend to give reasons for their lack of intervention to various issues based on rules, claiming that they are not to do this or that by the law (Metcalfe & Richards, 1992). India is one of the countries where bureaucracy is pronounced. It is known to lead to inefficiencies when citizens are applying for important identification documents such as passports and driving licenses among others. They are faced with the problem of cues and delays as they follow the procedures that have been set, which makes some people to give up applying for the documents or postponing their trips especially when they do not have enough time to spend going through the procedures. Similar to India, bureaucracy in Russia is also known to be manifest and is known to be one of the major hindrances for foreign investment in the country. Government departments are many, meaning that to complete an application for investment takes long since a potential investor has to get through all the offices involved (Kumar, 2007). However, the two countries are unlikely to accomplish its development goals without bureaucracy whereby government departments have control over different functions in public service. However, such bureaucracies are linked to the high level corruption as people try to avoid the procedures involved. New Public Management This is an approach that was developed in the early 1980s with the view of transforming the public service operations in to a market oriented system, which would be significant in enhancing efficiency. Most governments have adopted the system, which is based on the rationale that for the objectives to be accomplished, the public programs need to be holistic by integrating stakeholders as well as other local players (Provan & Milward, 1995). In essence, it is important for the beneficiaries of government programs to be involved in decision making and implementation of activities affecting them. The model applies through appreciating the fact that citizens understand their needs and they are aware that the government is capable of providing for their needs. Imposing projects on the people may not help them and they may also not be supportive, which may lead to failure. Integrating stakeholders is therefore paramount for the success of service provision. The activities of governments are coordinated across various organizations that have interest in public affairs as well as the private sector that is a major contributor of the resources that the government needs to support its programs. The policies are developed based on justifiable reasons that reflect the opinions of the stakeholders and the parties involved in the process (Rhodes, 1996). Inter-organizational partnerships have taken the place of the conventional bureaucratic systems. The government acts as one of the partners in the relationship that is aimed at improving the delivery of services. Each partner has a role to play, but the government is the major player. New public management lacks the political aspects that are evident in governance (Jennings & Ewalt, 1998). The new management tools applied by the government are significant in the enhancement of efficiency, which is focused on the outcome of any venture that the government engages in. Innovativeness is encouraged among the partners who usually have different capacities in terms of production. New Zealand is among the countries that have adopted new public management to enhance effectiveness in the public service. The country has developed superior systems that have helped in suppressing bureaucracy in the public service. These are credited for the nation’s economic development (Aitken, 1997). China is also among the fastest growing economies and foreign investors are finding the country a haven for investment. The strict bureaucracy has been reducing, which has increased capital inflows. Policy reforms have reduced obstacles for business and are mainly focused on productivity (Barzelay, 2001). Other countries that have adopted new public management include Australia, which has adopted new public management after a long period of bureaucratic practices in the public service. For example, there is a global benchmarking exercise that is managed by an advisory group to evaluate the public service of Australia against other developed countries. The reform design that the advisory group will develop and oversee will depend on the results of the evaluation. This is a major advancement towards success in new public management. Performance measurement and reporting has been adopted as the key to a successful public service in the country. The practice has also been adopted in the UK’s public service. Alcock (2004) observes that new public management has helped the labour government to deal with social exclusion and develop strong partnerships and stakeholder participation in enhancing the provision of public services. The Bureaucratic Model vs. New Public Management (NPM) The two approaches have similarities that are fewer than the differences due to the fact that the new public management sought to improve on the existing bureaucratic system. However, not all the aspects of bureaucracy were undesirable and hence the similarities. Both systems are focused towards effective utilization of public resources and there are laws that act as guidelines towards the accomplishment of this objective. According to Peters & Pierre (1998), the expectations of the public are the foundation for development of the two models. On the other hand, there are differences in regard to the key issues that the systems consider as their performance indicators. For example, the bureaucratic model focuses on ensuring that the demands of the public are accomplished. All efforts are geared towards ensuring that matters concerning the people are taken care of. For example, people need to access healthcare, water and other social amenities. In contrast, NPM is mainly focused on the actual gains of the people accomplished after the government’s engagement in ventures aimed at improving their welfare. In other words, it is focused on the significance of the government’s activities to the lives of citizens (Brown et al. 2000). For example, it highlights the quality and quantity produced as well as the procedures through which the citizens access what they desire. Value is of principal importance than the mere presence of a service. As a matter of fact, the bureaucratic model is interested in the material aspect of the products received by the citizens. Hall (2007) argues that bureaucracy can not be eliminated completely because even if governments focused on value and quality alone, it is important to ensure that citizens have access and at the right time, which defines efficiency that bureaucracy tends to maintain. On the other hand, if goods and services were produced for the public good, it would be important to ensure that every member gets an equal share, which is a major aspect of a bureaucracy (Hughes, 1994). In other words, everyone needs to have equal access to the public to public property and services. In essence if valuable and quality public goods are not distributed equitably, there is less meaning in their production. Bureaucracy therefore played a supervisory role while the new public management is highly inventive. Boston et al. (1996) observes that the productivity of a nation is based on the gross national product, which is an indicator of the significance of manufacturing. New public management facilitates production thereby raising a countries GNP. However, for people to be economically empowered, they have to access the products. Bureaucracy tends to control the social arrangements to enhance distribution of goods and services. In contrast, new public management sets standards that need to be met for success to be accomplished in delivering services to the public. People are required to adhere to these standards for them to benefit (Ewen, 1998). It is not like in the bureaucratic system whereby there are no options for compliance since they are convinced to adhere rather than being controlled. The functions of each player, distribution of authority and the organizational structures of governments are highly defined in bureaucracy. In other words, every person plays a major role that is clearly defined regardless of the value he/she generates in the process of provision of public services. Bureaucracies require that there be a person in charge at every level of service provision. Even if the people involved are aware of the processes that take place in all the levels of the organizational hierarchy, no person can take responsibility of a different level. The structures of governance have to be adhered to. On the other hand, NPM involves the identification of the tasks that are likely to generate success as well as the services that the consumers need (Tye, 2002). The outcomes are also evaluated alongside the available resources to ascertain whether the objectives are likely to be accomplished. Questions may arise regarding the efforts of bureaucracies to authenticate the reason behind certain undertakings. For example when costs are incurred in regard to the provision of public services, efforts are made to ensure that every concerned person understands that the expenditures incurred were justified. In other words, bureaucracies have no room for criticism but rather require that the public understands that it was necessary for the government to incur a particular expenditure for their benefits. In contrast, Terry (1998) observes that NPM tends to bring value to the public. People may be getting services from a particular source but the problem persists, meaning that their needs are not met. NPM adds value to these services thereby satisfying all the customer’s requirements. In essence, it is not about making profits, but to generate satisfaction in the public. After delivering the services, NPM tends to demonstrate responsibility and openness in delivering public services. Stakeholders are usually free to raise questions and seek clarification regarding issues that they do not understand. Bureaucracies on the other hand tend to be inclined towards ensuring that each person in the system understands his/her responsibilities (Macnamara, 2005). In other words, some times it does not matter whether public servants are accountable for their activities. Rather, they do what the law requires them to do and therefore they need not inquire about the suitability of the procedures. NPM encourages stakeholders to participate in problem solving as well as the constant improvement of the process of service delivery. The system is purely directorial and the people in charge are mandated to implement the guidelines that have been laid out. Stakeholders are offered incentives to encourage their participation in problem solving, monitoring and evaluation of progress. Implementation of the programs is participatory and the results are shared unlike in bureaucracies (Cutlip, 1999). Running a State Running a state is a task that involves a wide range of issues that require the government to attend to. There are usually interested parties whose concern is usually focused what they can gain from the state. Alan et al. (2005) observes that it is important to protect the state from exploitation by few powerful individuals for the sake of the public. The bureaucratic model is based on procedures that have been rationally been set to protect and to ensure that the public resources are shared equitably. Under this arrangement, the possibility of powerful individuals interfering with the operations of the public service is minimal. The procedures for accessing public resources are usually well documented and each public servant plays a particular role for which he/she is answerable when there happens to be a shortage. However, the checks and balances that are meant to ensure that the right services are delivered to the public are insufficient in the bureaucratic model since the hierarchical structure is not very much focused on value but the compliance to the rules that have been set (Newsom, 2003). The NPM is focused on delivering quality services and satisfaction of clients. However, there lacks structures to clearly define the manner in which the products should be distributed to the people. In essence, when highly valued goods and services are produced and do not reach the targeted people, the logic behind their production may not be justifiable. Focusing entirely on the production of goods and leaving out their distribution has less meaning than what is expected for delivery of public services to be accomplished. Dunleavy & Margetts (2006) argue that the NPM fails to define structures for the distribution of the products. The people who were identified as the beneficiaries of the public services may not access them in the absence of clear distribution procedures. However, the new public management is better in managing a state because it is focused on production and improvement of the people’s standards of living. Once the goods and services are produced, methods of distribution can be developed. Conclusion The bureaucratic model and the new public management are significant approaches towards provision of public service. Bureaucracies are mainly interested in adherence to procedures and may not necessarily be interested in the value of the services offered to the public such as in new public management, which was a development that was viewed as a turning point in introducing effectiveness in public service. NPM is better for running a state although there is need to develop strategies to distribute products to the people. Bureaucracies may be efficient in distribution but they may not be in a position to produce or add value to the goods and services. References Aitken, J. 1997. “Managing the New Organization: Some Problems of Institutional Transition - a New Zealand Perspective”. Public Administration and Development Vol. 17, 1 pp 41-48. Alan, A. Cutlip, S. & Broom, G. 2005. Effective Public Relations. 9th ed. Prentice Hall. Alcock, P., 2004. “Targets, indicators and milestones”, Public Management Review, Vol. 6, 2, pp 211-227, Barzelay, M. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, University of California Press. Boston, J. Martin, J. & Walsh, P. 1996. Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press Brown, K, Ryan, N & Parker, R 2000, “New Modes of Service Delivery in the Public Sector: Commercialising Government Services”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13, 3 pp 32-37 Cutlip, S. 1999. Unseen Power: Public Relations as History. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Mahwah, NJ Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, H. 2006. “New public management is dead: Long live digital era governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 19, 2 pp 27-31 Ewen, S. 1998. PR! A Social History of Spin, Basic Books Farrell, C & Morris, J. 1999. “Professional Perceptions of Bureaucratic Change in the Public Sector: GPs, Headteachers and Social Workers”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 19, 4 pp 56-61 Hall, P. 2007. The New PR. Mount Kisco, NY: Larstan Publishing Hughes, O 1994, Public Management and Administration, London: Macmillan Jennings, E. T. & Ewalt, J. 1998. “Inter-organizational Coordination, Administrative Consolidation, and Policy Performance.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 5:417-428 Kumar, M. R. 2007. Assessment of hierarchical tendencies in an Indian bureaucracy, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20, 5 pp 380 - 391 Lynn, L. 1998. “The New Public Management: How to Transform a Theme into a Legacy.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, 3 pp 231-237 Macnamara, J. 2005.  Public Relations Handbook, Melbourne: Archipelago Press Metcalfe, L & Richards, S 1992, Improving Public Management, London: Sage Newsom, D. 2003. This is PR: the Realities of Public Relations. 8th ed., Wadsworth. Owen, H. 2003. Public Management and Administration: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Bassingstoke. UK: Palgrave Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. 1998. “Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, 2 pp 223-243 Provan, K. and H. B. Milward. 1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1 pp 1 - 33 Rhodes, R. 1996. “The New Governance: Governing without Government.” Political Studies, Vol. 6, 44 pp 652-657 Seitel, F. P. 2006. The Practice of Public Relations. 10th ed. Pearson Publishing. Terry, L. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, 3 pp 194-200 Tye, L. 2002. The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. Henry Holt Read More