Issues on Public Administrators and Privatization of Public Organizations - Coursework Example

Issues on Public Administrators and Privatization of Public Organizations Introduction In retrospect to the emergence of public administration, government was viewed as a reliable entity that had the capability to address different issues such as industrialization, urbanization, and population growth. In the nineteenth century, public administration proliferated in the United States and Europe because of their belief that society needed government intervention. Recently, the government is perceived as unreliable, incompetent, inefficient, and corrupt. The duty to serve and protect the public became a theory -- not a practice. This paper aims to discuss the issues in public administration: privatization and whether there is a necessity for public administrators to engage in politics or power. Privatization of Public Organizations Many countries have seen privatization as the answer in the pervasive problem of governing public organizations due to its perceived efficiency. The US policy makers included in their agenda and debate whether to pursue privatization or not. Amidst the controversial issue, policy makers viewed privatization as a means of using the private sector to provide goods or services to the public, which involves financing, operations, and quality control (Kosar 3). On the one hand, the simpler definition of privatization refers to changes in the activities of public sector to private organizations. With regard to this issue, privatization is not the answer for effective and efficient public administration. This includes two points: the misconception of policy makers that privatization will eradicate the assumption on its inefficiency and inefficacy; and that private and public organizations require effective management, implementation, and administrators. The literature studies the differences of public and private organizations. Based on the various studies accumulated in the review of Perry and Rainey, government agencies have insubstantial authority; corrupt workforce; low cost of production; ambiguous goals and objectives; impairment of bureaucracy (e.g. red tape); diverse and concentrated federal executives; and dependent on the external forces that influence their decision making. On the other hand, private organizations are profit-oriented, goal-oriented, clear structure and organizational goals, strategic, authoritative, and controlled (186-187). This signifies that the public and private organizations differ in their structure, environment, values, and goals (Boyne). Although they have differences, management of public and private firms or agencies has similar ingredients. The key to efficiency of public sector is not dependent whether it is public or private, but it relies on the human workforce. Letza, Smallman, and Sun assert that “privatized firms are not necessarily efficient” similar with “public sector organizations,” but the inefficacy of operations is caused by avaricious, greedy, and lazy employees. In the case of health care in the United States, government is aiming for privatizing the public health service to achieve its main goals: quality, access, and cost. Through privatization, these goals will be achieved. However, Podgorsak posits that privatization is not the solution to Canada’s health system, but the provision of government’s funding. Currently, Canada allots 10 % of its gross national product to health care, whereas, OECD countries assign 10 percent. Despite the budget allotted by the government, there is a disparity in the distribution of health care services in Canada. The disparity on allocation of resources questioned the management system of US, which prompted politicians to pursue privatization. When scrutinizing the scenario, the real problem is the unequal distribution of health services to Canadian; hence, the government must set focus on equating access to health through increasing funds while preventing corruption. The demands of a person change rapidly that government must cope up. Thus, Letza, Smallman, and Sun suggested that “dynamic management and robust organizational design” are the methods of repressing greed that engulf the public organization. The example above proves that health care system needs creativity and innovation in restructuring public service. The problem on the water system in other parts of America such as New Orleans, Atlanta, and Cochabamba reflects the inefficacy of privatization. It proves that efficiency of a private corporation is a myth because people were complaining that the water system was expensive than public water service. The evidence showed that 86 percent of Americans received public water system was performing effectively compared to the private water system. The failure of private corporations was rooted to corruption because of the questionable payment to a politician. The Food and Water Watch recommended that the answer to their problem is government funding because it was proven that public water system is functioning properly, but it needs funding for its maintenance and improvement. Based on the situation on the US water system, it clearly suggests that privatization is not always the remedy. Fernandez and Smith argue that in order to make an organization works or successful, the pivotal ingredient is effective management (374). Indeed, privatization has a positive outcome, but it does not entirely project that the outcome is the lower cost or excellent service quality as indicated in the water system. Furthermore, the government must consider that private corporations have different goals. Public services aim at the general welfare of individuals while corporations concerned with profit. Thereby, the strategy of efficient management of a private organization is downsizing to reduce labor intensity wherein the employee’s morale is affected. Public Administrator Public administration commenced on the perspective of Wilson that politics must be separated from administration due to the conflict between politicians and administrator (Tahmasebi). Prior to addressing the question, it is essential to define the two ‘dichotomies’ of public administration. Administration refers to the responsibility of unelected official to perform the command of the people through “efficient procedures relatively free from political meddling” (Stillman 5). Another definition of the author is the action of the government in “individual and small things” (Stillman10). On the other hand, politics involves the plurality, which the decisions and actions are based. It focuses on the universality or commonality of things. Spicer indicates that politics is an “ongoing struggle among contesting groups, each of them engaged in activities, including talk, that promote their pluralistic interests” (648). The term struggle denotes the exclusion of national interest, public opinion, or democratic will because politicians are engaging in arguments to defend their personal interest. Based on the definition, there is a formed conclusion that politics must be separated from the administration because of its negative implication. That is why Stillman reiterated the importance of public administration because it is concerned with the interest of the general public. The public opinion is heard in the administrative task. The community is skeptic on the federal government because they are working far from them, whereas, public administrators are directly interacting with the concerned public. On the other hand, in the essay of Long, he argues that the belief on the separation of politics and administration is a perfect example of a distorted reality because power is the backbone of administration (Stillman 101+). Public administration is called the science of administration whereby the absence of politics will not educate them on their proper behavior to the established political system. Whether traditional belief on public administration will agree or not, politics is part of their everyday lives. Public administrators need the support of the public, legislative, and the executive branch because they are the source of funding that enables them to implement actions. In the case study provided by Stillman, the accident happened at the Space Shuttle Challenger was an indication that failure was caused of the presence of politics. Although politics is viewed as dirty, political power is essential to establish authority and to influence the public without coercing them. The space shuttle exploded that killed all crew members including the teacher. The explosion was the result of technical failure and the lack of communication and coordination among the government agencies. It resulted to unplanned management due to the dependency of agencies to their decision-making process. Furthermore, the unplanned decision and mismanagement were the results of contradicting opinions, which signified the battle for power. It has found out the leader responsible for administering and directing the organization or agency was busy accumulating funds from the Congress while other agencies act as independent bodies (Stillman). Administrators are also dependent and subject on the authority of the President. In the case of Long’s essay, he has a point in stressing that power is necessary in administration, but the influence of political power resulted to a catastrophe. The NASA decided to fly the space shuttle because they need immediate result to gather favor and funding from the Congress. The government must be accountable of their actions and decision because it is evident that administrators relied on its authority. Goodnow suggests that when the government aimed for a better management of administrative task, politics and administration must be coordinated, but it should have limitations on control. The author recommends that the decision-making process of administrators must be separated from the influence of politics because they must maintain balance in “pursuit of truth, the gathering of information, and maintenance of a strictly impartial attitude toward the individuals” (85). Conclusion The American government is facing different issues including privatization and the separation of politics and administrative power. Privatization is perceived as a necessity for the survival of the government, but it has proven that its success relied on its management. In addition, administrators need power, but they must be coordinated to avoid unfortunate events. Works Cited Boyne, George A. “Public and Private Management: What’s the Difference?” Journal of Management Studies 39.1 (2002): 97- 122. Print. Fernandez, Sergio, and Craig R. Smith. “Looking for Evidence of Public Employee Opposition to Privatization: An Empirical Study with Implications for’ Practice.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 26 (2006): 356-380. Food & Water Watch. Faulty Pipes: Why Public Funding -- Not Privatization -- is the Answer for U.S. Water Systems. Washington, DC: Food & Water Watch, 2006. Print. Goodnow, Frank Johnson. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003. Print. Kosar, Kevin R. Privatization and the Federal Government: An Introduction. USA: Congressional Research Service, 2006. Print. Letza, Steve R., Cleve Smallman, and Xiuping Sun. “Reframing Privatisation: Deconstructing the Myth of Efficiency.” Policy Sciences 37 (2004): 159-183. Print. Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. “The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy.” The Academy of Management Review 13.2 (1988): 182-201. Print. Podgorsak, Ervin B. “Privatization is not an Answer to Health Care Access Problems, Increased Public Funding Is.” Current Oncology 16.2 (2009): 2-3. Print. Spicer, Michael W. “Arthur Bentley and the Narrative of Politics in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 71.4 (2011): 645-649. Print. Stillman, Richard Joseph. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. 9th ed. Boston, Ma: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Tahmasebi, Reza, and Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi. “Politics-Administration Dichotomy: A Century Debate.” Revista Administratie Si Management Public 17 (2011): 130-143. Print. Read More