Governance and Public Administration - Literature review Example

GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION By: + One major goal of everygovernment especially in the developed countries is to ensure there is a delivery of services to the citizens with little hiccups. Normally, citizens are taxed everywhere to aid the government in delivering these services. For this goal to be realized, governments create the channels through which the delivery will be made, and in an effective way. Often, these channels include legislations and policies, which shape this process. In simple terms, this is called governance, and it is often confused with public administration. In this paper, the purpose is to analyse how the public administration differs from governance. In addition, understanding the challenges facing the public service sector with a major focus on the UK will form the basis of this paper. Finally, the implication the rise of governance for public service has in the delivery of services will be highlighted. As implied above, confusion does arise when trying to understand the two terms where some erroneously classify the two as one. However, according to Peters and Pierre (2013) governance is concerned mainly with the provision of the policies that will be employed in the implementation of various plans. Secondly, it entails monitoring the process the implementing group is following and embracing continuous improvement in a bid to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of services. On the other hand, public administration concerns itself with the implementation of the policies availed by the government (Clarke, 2015). From the above explanation, it is clear the two differ in quite a significant way since one does not make any laws or policies; it implements them. The other one, governance, is tasked with the provision of the laws the public administrators will follow in the implementation. The tricky part and one that tends to slow down the provision of the services comes when the governing body is sluggish in providing the policies to be followed. Saxena (2005) noted that one of the challenges the public administration faces is the lack of speedy provision of policies and laws by the governing body. Consequently, this leaves the public administrators with no options of extending the services to the public since there are no guidelines to follow. Nonetheless, there are cases where the governance and public administration work closely to ensure that the delivery of services is not compromised. To ensure this happens often, Angelini (2011) recommends the governing body to make known the policies to the public administrators to help in reducing the time spent in understanding them. In the UK, this has been witnessed in a number of industries including in the healthcare arena. Currently, any resident in the UK can access health related services without a charge irrespective of their financial capacities save for prescriptions, dental and optical services (NHS, 2015). In this case, the government enacted laws ad provided the policies that would govern the service delivery in this area. As a result, the NHS and other companies, whether public or private, can seamlessly offer these services since the guidelines are well stipulated. Private and public sectors also sometimes tend to work in a way that one might not differentiate if it is the public administration or private at work. A case in point entails some services offered in the UK such as garbage collection and the transport sector. Flynn (2012) noted that even though public buses outside London are private-owned and deregulated, they offer services to the public. When it comes to London, the transport sector is regulated, but still private-owned. Similarly, refuse-collection is a task often taken over by private companies yet the local authority has to be involved in the making of guidelines and the policies, which the private companies have to adhere. In the cases aforementioned above, the private sector might be individual-owned, but when the services offered touch on the public, the governing body comes in. in such a case, the governing body ought to be keen on ensuring that the public administrators, if even they are private, have the legislations spelt out clearly to avoid stalling of service delivery. When the governance rise in such cases, the public sector is somewhat affected because the delivery of services might take a longer time than usual. Sometimes, though, these delays might be a result of a policy-failure where an issue faced is not clearly stipulated in the law thus leaving the two parties, the governing body and the public administrators at crossroads (Parry, 2012). However, worth noting is that when the public administration is conducted by a privately owned entity, the governing body has to scrutinize its activities in a bid to protect the public’s interests (Blomgren, 2007). This is especially the case when the service-provider is private or has no history offering such services. Because adopting measures that are public-oriented, the UK has remained one of the countries where public administration highly rated, albeit with minor challenges and low confidence level by its citizens. In a recent study, NAO (2008) reported that the UK was found to “possesses characteristics of good public administration” (p4). Some of the reasons that catalysed such ratings included transparency, which was found to be pivotal, and was practiced in almost every department. The UK residents can easily access any information pertaining to any service the government and other players offer. Additionally, the availability of effective mechanisms that make accurate and timely data available to the residents was mentioned as another key factor in the UK’s high rating, besides embracing both internal and external audit. In comparison to other countries, the UK’s operational levels were incredibly high, the management systems were outstanding and good leadership was highly ranked (Argyrous, 2012). These assertions can be confirmed by a closer analysis of the many services the country offers its citizens. For instance, the education system in the UK is almost flawless despite having different regions. The policies governing this sector are will stipulated, and even though the UK has other entities as member countries, the education goes on well (Bastida and Benito, 2007). This is a clear demonstration of the earlier assertions that the country’s systems make the delivery of the services effective, thus making the country remain top rated. In addition to these being some of the reasons the UK’s public administration thrived more than it has stalled, is the country’s culture. It was reported that the UK has become one of the countries that instils, “a culture of value for money, and has the processes, systems and culture in place to enable this” (Rutter, 20011 pp. 89). That is to say, the country keenly monitors the spending of resources meant to benefit the public. Where complaints are made, the government through its policies acts mainly to benefit the citizens, and this creates a sense of accountability, transparency and commitment on the public administrators’ part. The end result of such measures and systems is that the people benefit greatly. Surprisingly, despite possessing, the attributes mentioned above and remaining highly ranked by the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank, the confidence level remains low in UK. One of the reasons this was the case in the UK was that the public feels their participation is never sought in many areas (Dugget, 2009). While many of the services the government and other governing bodies come offer are essential and often offered in the best way possible, the lack of involvement of the public leaves them having little trust. Additionally, it was reported that the public can seldom predict what the future will bring to them thus lacking trust in the services the government offers (Smith and OLeary, 2013). In other words, the public’s inability to participate in major policy development leaves them sceptical of the government assurances despite their clarity and reliability. In order to have a clear understanding of the UK’s public administration outlook, one ought to analyse it with the attributes set by the EU and the UN. One trait that renders public administration effective is responsiveness. This is used in understanding how the administrators respond to the need of the public. Clearly, this could explain the low confidence level in the UK because the people still seem dissatisfied despite the services offered seeming highly ranked. Responsiveness leads to the offering of high quality services to the relevant institutions, in this case, the public. In order to succeed, it has to be aided by a culture of performance management (Leslie and Canwell, 2010). In the case of UK, it was noted that delivery strategies often employed by the public administrators contribute to the low confidence levels. Additionally, there are little consultations and this adversely affect the public unlike in countries such as Finland, Australia and Canada. In such countries, the creation of policies does not just consider the needs of the public; the consultations are conducted extensively (NAO, 2008). Public service ethos adds to the list of the values the public administration ought to be characterized by as it leads to continuity and stability. For this to happen, an enabling factor of capacity to change is imperative. One can understand that the low confidence level on public administration in the UK could be attributed to the failure on the last part. When the capacity for change is not evident, there tends to be a disconnection with the public, and this is evidenced by the attitudes by the UK consumers (NAO, 2008). Notwithstanding the good and high rankings the country has, it is vital that the public administrators focus on the involvement of the public. Earlier, it was indicated that the work both the governing bodies and the public administrators is to work closely with a sole aim of providing the services to the citizens. Even though much of this is evident in the case of UK, Gilad (2008) reported that the approach is seldom citizen-centred. In fact, when it comes to focusing on organizational goals whose outcomes will revolve around the benefits of the citizens, the UK lags behind Swede, Australia, Canada, Finland and the US. In order to rectify this scenario Farrell (2005) recommends the involvement of the public as partners to the governance and administration. That is to say, the governing boy ought to consult widely before coming up with the legislations. Similarly, the strategies the public administrations adopt ought to be influenced highly by the public. In terms of availing the budgetary information, the UK is highly rated by various bodies including the World Bank, which ranks it first. Besides availing this information to the public, the UK does it with clarity and in a jargon-free method. Other countries trailing the UK include the US and Germany, which have web, sites as the place where this information is accessible. While providing this information is an important part of the public administration as it helps in boosting confidence in the public, it does affect the delivery of the services as such (James, 2004; Jarvis, 2002). Therefore, though the UK is highly ranked in this area, it does not translate into effective delivery of services. Rather, it is an indication that the openness or transparency is practiced as per the expectations and guidelines of the government bodies. Accountability is another value that every public administration ought to embrace and practice with diligence. Some of the key indicators of this attribute are a public recourse ought to exist, for instance a complaint depart such as the ombudsman office. Secondly, well-stipulated disciplinary processes and the respective consequences for individuals or institutions who might fail in this various duties lack. In other words, accountability is not limited to providing how money was spent, but also the actions to be taken against anybody found to have failed in their duties. The third indicator of an accountable public administration is a department or a regime that scrutinizes the operations. Earlier, it was noted that the governing body ought to monitor how the public administration is being conducted. Sadly, when it comes to the UK’s public administration in this regard, some issues remain unresolved despite being highly ranked in terms of accountability. Worth noting is that it is not being implied that the UK’s public administration is unaccountable. As a matter of fact, in a 2008 ranking by the World Bank, only Finland outranked UK in the areas of corruption control (NAO, 2008; Cepiku and Savignon, 2012). The issues occur in three-fold: the independence of the ombudsman office, public’s understanding and utilization of the office, and the efficacy of the systems in regard to the civil servants’ accountability. It was, sadly, noted the UK’s Ombudsman office is not as effective as is the case in Finland for a couple of reasons. First, the independence and systems the office has when it comes to criticizing the offices and the departments it monitors has been questioned often. Secondly, many people in the UK do no utilize this office as the centre for settling grievances. Instead, they resort to either the officially elected persons or the normal court systems. Consequently, this offers little justification for both the existence and effectiveness of the ombudsman office, meaning the citizens’’ grievances might not be addressed adequately especially if the court process stagnates. When a comparison between the UK’s Ombudsman and that of Finland and Sweden is conducted, the pair commands a higher rating in terms effectiveness than the former. For instance, in Finland, this office has both the investigative and extensive oversight powers. In addition, these offices have full access to all government facilities, can demand any document or information relevant to any case, and can trigger a police investigations if need be. Besides, the office in Sweden has prosecutorial powers, and this leads to its recommendations being adopted and implemented with strictness and promptness (NAO, 2008). Because of having such powers, the Finland Ombudsman office normally executes with authority, and the end result sees a majority of the people benefit greatly from these services. While the ombudsman office is indeed pivotal in the administration of the public services in many countries such as Finland, elsewhere the powers are limited yet they still deliver effectively. For instance, in Sweden, the role of the ombudsman is enshrined in the country’s constitution, but the powers are somewhat limited (NAO, 2008). Nonetheless, this variance in terms of power does not translate to inefficiency when it comes to public administration. In other regions such as US and Canada, the ombudsman offices are everywhere; only nine in the case of Canada. In US, the offices are not necessarily called ombudsman, but their roles are precisely identical. These offices are granted the powers to criticize any government agency or official who fall under its jurisdiction as well as providing the necessary recommendations (Santistevan de Noriega, 2012; Henderson, 2004). Public service ethos come as the next valuable quality needed in the public administration without delivery of services might be stalled or remain inefficient. Mainly, two indicators prove a system has such requirements including presence of a “code of civil service conduct” (Lonti and Gregory, 2007pp.469). This one helps the individuals or departments tasked with the delivery of services in the adherence of the stipulated policies. The second one is presence of structures that link individual performances with organisational. In addition, these structures help in determining who gets what reward and the reason for the same (Gregory and Lonti, 2008). Yet again, the UK performs incredibly well on this one, but not the best amongst other countries such as New Zealand, Finland, Australia and Sweden (Duncan, 2005). One could perhaps wonder how the other countries outrank the UK despite its widely known code of civil conduct. However, Abraham (2008) and Glenny (2008) reported that while the UK’s system consistently and tenaciously emphasizes strong values including honesty, integrity and impartiality, the systems is seemingly less advanced in terms of mechanisms, which help in the actual fostering of public service ethos. Evidently, these assertions have been confirmed in the areas of rewarding where it was noted that the UK does not perform well in offering performance-related rewards. Unfortunately, the performance-based rewards have been found to improve public services ethos (Goddard, 2005). That does not necessarily mean that the UK does not collectively employ this approach; the impression is that it is not widely accepted, as is the case in other regions such as Finland and New Zealand. Because of this disparity existing in the case of service ethos, the Finland and New Zealand’s, systems and, “their performance related mechanisms are more sophisticated and more effective“(NAO, 2008 pp.25). Another outcome evident where public administration is well implemented is the availability of high quality services. The key indicators for this include the perception held by the public towards the services. Secondly, existing customer charters and quality standards comes as the other indicator of a public administration systems that offers high quality services. Thirdly, if government services can be accessed online, there are user portal and extension of opening hours as well as one-stop shops, it is said the system is effective (Budd, 2007; Riggs, 2006). Often, the discrepancy that might exist in relation to this value ought not to be seen as a failure on the public administrators. The reason for this that the public sometimes rates the services as per the expectations they have. For instance, in comparison to the UK’s scenario, the Canadian and Australian public’s perception is commensurate with quality of services offered. Conversely, the UK’s perception does not commensurate, and pessimism about the future of public service has been blamed for this occurrence (NAO, 2008; Hawke, 2012; Hughes, 2012). More importantly, the accuracy of the data pertaining to the public perceptions could also affect the reporting. That is to say, the methodologies might not give the actual perceptions of the public. Other factors that might affect the how the public view the quality of services include political affiliation. The public’s perception toward politicians, civil servants and the government at large does blur the public’s ability to rate services. In conclusion, the UK public administration and governance could be said to be working in perfect harmony with each other. The problem occurs in the way administration is implemented. Throughout the paper, it has been highlighted that there are areas that the UK has performed quite well. For instance, there is undeniable and indisputable accountability in the UK’s public administration. Nonetheless, it is not extended to rewarding individuals and departments as per respective performances. Overall, one could conclude that governance and public administration in the UK require some improvement to play in the same leagues as Sweden, Australia, US, Canada and the other countries aforementioned. Bibliography Abraham, A. (2008). The Ombudsman as Part of the UK Constitution: A Contested Role?. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(1), pp.206-215. Angelini, E. (2011). Globalization and Public Administration: A Complex Relationship. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(1-2), pp.4-6. Argyrous, G. (2012). Evidence Based Policy: Principles of Transparency and Accountability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(4), pp.457-460. Bastida, F. and Benito, B. (2007). Central Government Budget Practices and Transparency: An International Comparison. Public Administration, 85(3), pp.667-716. Blomgren, M. (2007). The Drive for Transparency: Organizational Field Transformations in Swedish Healthcare. Public Administration, 85(1), pp.67-70. Budd, L (2007) "Post‐bureaucracy and reanimating public governance: A discourse and practice of continuity?", International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20 (6), pp.531 - 547 Cepiku, D., Savignon, A. (2012) "Governing cutback management: is there a global strategy for public administrations?", International Journal of Public Sector Management, (25) 6/7, pp.428 – 436 Clarke , R., (2015) "Beyond landscape designation: Innovative funding, delivery and governance and the UK protected area system", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, (26) Iss: 2, pp.172 - 194 Duggett, M. (2009). The State of UK Governance: Whitehall -- Structures and Functions under Brown. Public Policy and Administration, 24(1), pp.103-111. Duncan, J. (2005). Performance-based building: lessons from implementation in New Zealand. Building Research & Information, 33(2), pp.120-124. Farrell, C. (2005). Governance in the UK Public Sector: the Involvement of the Governing Board. Public Administration, 83(1), pp.89-90. Flynn, N. (2012). Public sector management. London ; Thousand Oaks, California National Audit Office, (2008). An International Comparison of the United Kingdom’s Public Administration. [online] Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/0809123_Accenture_report.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2015]. Glenny, L., (2008) "Perspectives of communication in the Australian public sector", Journal of Communication Management, 12 (2), pp.152 – 155 Gregory, R. and Lonti, Z. (2008). Chasing Shadows? Performance Measurement of Policy Advice In New Zealand Government Departments. Public Administration, 86(3), pp.837-839. Gilad, S. (2008). Juggling Conflicting Demands: The Case of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), pp.661-680. Goddard, A. (2005) "Reform as regulation – accounting, governance and accountability in UK Local government", Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 1(1), pp.27 - 44 Henderson, K., (2004) "Characterizing American public administration: The concept of administrative culture", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 3, pp.234 - 250 Hawke, L., (2012) "Australian public sector performance management: success or stagnation?", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(3) pp.310 - 312 Hughes, O.E (2012), Chapter 8 Public Sector Trends in Australia, in John Diamond, Joyce Liddle (ed.) Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity (Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1) pp.173 - 175 Jarvis, R. (2002). The UK experience of public administration reform: [current good practices and new developments in public service management]. London, Commonwealth Secretariat. James, O. (2004). The UK Core Executives Use of Public Service Agreements as a Tool of Governance. Public Administration, 82(2), pp.397-401 K.B.C. Saxena, (2005) "Towards excellence in e‐governance", International Journal of Public Sector Management, (18) 6, pp.498 - 99 Leslie, K. and Canwell, A. (2010). Leadership at all levels: Leading public sector organisations in an age of austerity. European Management Journal, 28(4), pp.297-305. Lonti, Z. and Gregory, R. (2007). Accountability or Countability? Performance Measurement in the New Zealand Public Service, 1992–2002. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), pp.468-484. National Health Service, (2015). About the National Health Service (NHS) in England - NHS Choices. [online] Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx [Accessed 2 May 2015]. Parry, R. (2012). What can UK public administration learn from the devolved nations?. Public Policy and Administration, 27(3), pp.248-264. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2013). The SAGE handbook of public administration. LA: Sage Riggs, FW (2006), Conclusion: Impact of Globalization on the Study and Practice of Public Administration, in Eric E. Otenyo, Nancy S. Lind (ed.) Comparative Public Administration (Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, 15) pp.917 – 967 Rutter, J. (2011). The State of UK Governance. Public Policy and Administration, 27(1), pp.89- 90. Santistevan de Noriega, J. (2012). Should the Office of Ombudsman for Democracy Be Created in the Inter-American System?. Latin American Policy, 3(1), pp.102-110. Smith, R. and OLeary, M. (2013). New Public Management in an age of austerity: knowledge and experience in further education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(3), pp.244-245 Read More