Public Value Governance - Assignment Example

Type of assignment: Problem-Solving Customer Inserts Name: Date; 4.1 Outline the main features of new public governance and discuss why it has become regarded as an alternative to earlier models. The new public management paradigm came to transform the manner in which public management was being managed in the past. Traditionally, public management thrived in a relatively more stable environment that was easily predictable. Thus, the model was inflexible and not tailored to handle new challenges. However, with the ever emerging changes, there was a need to come up with a more flexible method of managing the public sector because of the ever emerging challenges that were brought about by the adoption of technology and globalization. The new paradigm ought to be more dynamic in addressing the unpredictable changes emerging everyday. This need resulted to the adoption of new public administration strategy that is objective as well as performance based. It employs market mechanisms that entail competition and choice, rather than the use of centralized command and control regulations that was common with the traditional method (Aberbach, Joel & Rockman 1994). The new approach of public administration guarantees appropriate matching of authority, responsibility and accountability. The new alternative guaranteed supplementation instead of replacement where the role of representative democracy is embraced which ensures consultation and direct representation of citizens’ views. In addition, ensures better management of government resources where more emphasis is given to achievement of results rather than following set out instructions that were predominant with the old method. In addition, the new method brought about professionalization of the public service where the leader does not only become a bureaucratic expert of law, but also a good manager that meets the needs of the citizens (Aberbach, Joel & Rockman 1994). 4.2 Indicate why public value governance is different in key respects from other models. Public value governance is engraved on claiming the rights of citizens to services that are democratically funded and authorized. This model makes public managers reflect what is most valued to the services they render to the citizens and how management can enhance the quality of these services. This type of governance is unique as it appreciates the role of citizens in evaluating the services offered. In this type of governance, the managers ought to be accountable as well as have clear specified assessment criterion to evaluate their performances. This is important because managers are supposed to give the citizens an update on the progress of the projects they are undertaking. Unlike other models, where the public is handily participated in decision making, in public value governance, the views of the public are seriously considered in strategic decision making (Aberbach, Joel & Rockman 1994). 4.3 Why might public value governance be attractive to public servants? Public value governance is attractive to public servants because this type of governance embraces the views of the public more than the other types of governance that focuses on the competence and opinions of the managers in making important decisions that affects the public. Public value governance is engraved on claiming the rights of citizens to services that are democratically funded and authorized (Bovart and Loffler 2009). This model makes public managers reflect what is most valued to the services they render to the citizens and how management can enhance the quality of these services. This type of governance is unique as it appreciates the role of citizens in evaluating the services offered. In public value governance, managers actively involve citizens by collecting their views before implementations of important changes. This is a sure indication that public value governance regards citizens as important stakeholders (Bhatnagar, Rathore, Torres and Kanungo, P2003). 4.4 Digital governance is claimed to be the emerging model for the public sector. In examining the components, also consider why this might be the case. Digital governance is a type of governance that uses the emerging technology and digital information to transform how government relates with its internal and external stakeholders. The use of modern technologies such as the internet enables citizens carry out what they like. Participating in what they enjoy makes them become more creative which enhances efficiency. The driving forces behind the high adoption of the emerging technology by government agencies are; to cut administrative costs and enhance efficiency. The government has successfully managed to improve the efficiency of the services its offering by embracing new technologies and by doing so it has greatly reduced the costs for offering these services (Margaret and Dunleavy 2015). The use of technology has also greatly enhanced transparency in public sector. Nowadays, managers in government agencies are publishing important data online, which is considered as an important step in winning public trusts. Interested stakeholders can vet these data and ask for explanations to how their money is being spent. The need to improve transparency, improve communication, reduce costs as well as enhance innovations is some of the reasons that drive public governance to embrace the new technologies (Moore 2007). 5.1 Define privatization in its more general and specific forms. Privatization can generally be referred as sale of government owned enterprise or contracting government owned services. There are many benefits that accompany privatization that entail; Improved efficiency: private companies possess a profit incentive to cut down costs and become more profit efficient. They achieve this by down sizing, recruiting more skilled and experienced workers as well as embracing more efficient mechanisms of delivering services such as technologies. In government institutions, managers do not share in profits realized, however, in private owned companies managers as well as other personnel share gains resulting from their extra performances which makes them motivated and more efficient (Pallesen 2007). 5.2 What are the pros and cons of privatization? Advantages of Privatizations Lack of profit interference: it is considered that most government managers make the worst economic managers because they most are mainly guided by the old public management governance that is bureaucratic in nature. They are mainly motivated in rewarding their political appointees rather than economical gains of the organizations they manage. In some instances, a state owned enterprise may employ surplus workers and be reluctant to down size for fear of the publicity involved. Thus, state owned enterprises employ too many employees which are increasing inefficiency (Moore 2007). Private companies have long term goals: unlike the government which have short term goals that are guided by the next election, private companies are willing to invest in long term projects and technology that transform the companies to greater extents rather than focusing on quick gains. The executives in private owned enterprises are under pressure from the shareholders to deliver results or quit, unlike the managers in state owned companies who do not have this pressure and are likely to be inefficient .Increased competition: it is viewed that privatization is accompanied by deregulation where policies are enacted to allow more firms to enter the market boosting competition and efficiency. Lastly, the government raises substantial revenue to meet its budget which it can use to offer important services to the citizens. However, it looses subsequent divided in future (Moore 2007). Disadvantages of Privatization The following are the shortcomings that accompany privatization process; A natural monopoly occurs when the most efficient number of companies is one. In some cases privatization has resulted in creation of a private monopoly that may set to fix higher prices that exploits the consumer. It is believed that a public monopoly is better than a private one which is more likely to exploit the consumer financially by raising prices. Compromised public service: sectors that perform very essential public services such as health care and education should not be privatized. This is because in such sectors profits should not be their primarily motive rather than good services. Therefore, privatizing these industries may result to more emphasis be given to profits rather than the services given offered. Privatization brings the problem of regulating private monopolies. Private monopoly need been regulated to avert abuse of monopoly power. Thus, it brings in the need for government regulation that is present in state owned companies. Some private companies may focus on short term goals rather than been guided by long term achievements. For example, some executives in an attempt to please the shareholders may avoid investing in long term projects and use existing infrastructures that may compromise efficiency in the long run (Feeley 2002). 5.3 Contracting (or outsourcing) has become a standard mode of operating for what reasons Outsourcing entails contracting out a business process to another party. In many instances multinational firms from west outsource some of their process to Asian as well as African nations to enable them concentrate on core functions. Outsourcing may entail foreign as well as domestic contracting and in some instances may encompass offshoring which is relocation of some business functions to a distant country or nearshoring which is relocating them to a nearby country. Reducing administrative costs is one reason why companies opt to outsource. Research has shown that companies that outsource reduce their administrative costs by 3.5 points a year after doing so. In addition, because of difference in wages between western and Asian nations, the same job can be done in Asian at a lower price than it can be done in western countries. It is noted that a company will save 60% by outsourcing its work to India and also get a higher quality work. A company mainly outsources its services to a party that has much specialization in that field which results to increased efficiency. Because of their greater experience and knowledge, the company does the job better that lead to enhanced productivity and efficiency in the process that boosts to the bottom-line of the company. Outsourcing helps a company to concentrate on its core areas. This is possible because the company frees its energies and is in more position to focus on brand building, invest in research and development as well as focus on offering higher value added services. In addition, outsourcing helps the company save money meant for investing in infrastructure and technology as the outsourcing partner undertakes the task. This means that the company has more resources to inject into research and development for new inventions (Stigler 1971). Outsourcing helps companies not to invest in recruiting and training expenses. The company gets high quality services from the company that they have outsourced to as it have highly experienced employees who have vast experience in serving many customers globally. The time zone advantage also is important as it gives the company the opportunity of round-the-clock business activities as its jobs are still done when they have closed for the day. Faster and better service is a guarantee. Companies that outsource their services will be in a better position to have their services faster with high quality deliverables. The high skills and vast experiences of the employees in these companies helps in minimizing the lead times that is required for the products to come to the marketplace. This helps the companies in converting their ideas into products s well as achieving the value added proposition. Outsourcing of customer services results to higher customer retention rates. It is believed that every customer interaction results in an experience shared and a chance to increase customer satisfaction and brand royalty. 5.4 What are the main reasons why partnerships may provide better results in the design and delivery of public services than public agencies working alone? Cross-sectoral collaborations are in the increase nowadays. The reason behind this partnership is the need to solve the social problems present in contemporary societies. It is noted that the rationale for the collaboration is because the private, non profit organization as well as public agencies have distinctive advantages that can increase effectiveness, efficiency as well as the equity of public agencies. Public services are nowadays characterized with hybrid forms of organizations that are regarded as partnerships, networks, alliances or collaborations. The reason why such collaborations are emerging is the presumption that complexity and specialization make it sensible for public agencies to contract some of their functions to other organizations that are more qualified. Collaboration makes it possible for different people or entities to assists each other by leveraging, combining as well as capitalizing on their corresponding strengths and capabilities. The PPP involves a case where the private party offers public services and assumes a substantial technical, financial as well as operational risk. The PPP is important because the public sector gets an opportunity to receive expert and efficiency of the private sector in the delivery of specific facilities and services traditionally done by the public sector. In addition, the collaboration helps in making sure the public sector does not incur any borrowing for any capital investment it intends to make but the private party undertaking the project incurs the borrowing. In summary, important features of PPP is the benefit associated with transfer of risks to the private sector, enhanced project scoping and risk evaluation by the government as well as the overall benefit that result from engraving maintenance services into the contracts (Stigler 1971). 5.5 Discuss the main issues that may make PPPs controversial? It is noted that collaboration among the private, nonprofit organization as well as public agencies have distinctive advantages that can increase effectiveness, efficiency as well as the equity of public agencies. Public services are nowadays characterized with hybrid forms of organizations that are regarded as partnerships, networks, alliances or collaborations. This has resulted to improved performance in public sector because of the synergy that accompanies this collaboration (Hodge, and Duffield 2007). However, the aforementioned advantages are also accompanied with controversial challenges arising from their high transaction costs as well as the financing costs that arise with the use of private finance. For the model to last, it should continue to give better value for money for government compared to any substitute model. 6.1 Assess the benefits to citizens and public policy of enhancing public engagement. How likely is this to occur in practice? Enhanced citizen participation is engraved in the perception that an engaged citizen is a better one than a passive one. Participating citizen makes sure that the formulated policies reflects the will and views of the majority and are regarded to be more realistic. Through, this manner the public may become more tolerant of the tough decisions that government administrators are forced to make. Subsequently, citizens are less likely to become disruptive and combative. Thus, a public that is easy to govern and regulate. The process of citizen participation is seen as a transformative tool for social change that is aimed at producing superior decisions that result into more efficient benefits to the overall decisions. Public participation is regarded to be a cost-effective process as it minimizes the chances of litigation. Although public participation is regarded as time consuming as a result of the delays and stalled negotiations and breakdowns , it eliminates the likelihood of disgruntled stakeholders walking out of the process and filing litigations which will be time consuming and expensive. It is also noted that citizen participation in policy formulation helps in informing regulators the areas of contention as well as winning the sympathy of a few influential citizens in areas where opposition is strongest (Hood and Guy 2004). 6.2 Compare at least two modes of participation in terms of their potential to have an impact. Which is the most promising and why? Instrumental justification regards public participation as important in bringing something that is beneficial. Studies have shown that public participation is important in increasing trust and confidence in public organizations. Studies have shown a decline in government trust since world war two. Therefore enhanced participation of the public in policy making can be seen as a sure solution in the loss of faith in government institutions. In addition, public participation can be used to resolve sensitive issues faced by public administrators such as climate change, water as well as energy conservation. Public participation therefore, acts in enlightening the technocrats of consequences of differing alternatives and can help in reducing uncertainty and risk. Equally, public participation can be used in leveraging resources by creating a chance for getting partners who can aid in the implementation of the policy solutions. On the other hand, normative justification considers public participation as a better approach for citizen and government engagement. It is advocates for early involvement of citizens in the policy making that brings a wider option for the policy options and solutions, minimizes the risks that can crop with new initiatives and translates into government policies that are more effective and legitimate. The main element for normative justification is that public interventions should be tailored in bringing positive social economical result for the citizen. Public value should be determined through deliberation of all important stakeholders that include elected, appointed as well as the public. Although both models advocates public participation in bringing policies that are legitimate affective, the normative approach can be regarded as a more effective approach in public participation as it can be regarded as a proactive rather than a reactive strategy (Aberbach, Bert & Rockman 1994). Public administration is continually improving and emphasizing on placing the public at the center of policy makers. The main objective of public participation is to formulate relevant and effective policies that address the needs of the public. The co-production is importance because it enables the government to come up with relevant policies that addresses the needs of the citizens. In addition, participation of the public in policy formulations enables the government to come up with policies that reflects the views and wills of the public and thus generally accepted. This reduces the likelihood of enacting policies that may face litigation which will make the process time consuming and an expensive endeavor (Stigler 1971). 6.3 Examine the contribution of co-production, and whether it offers significant advantages for both citizens and government agencies. Co-design that is sometimes referred to as participatory or cooperative design is a process through which various experts gather to cooperate creatively. The method has a political dimension of public empowerment and is considered as an enhancement of democracy (Hood, Oliver & Scott 2000). Public participation is an important aspect in giving the citizens an opportunity to participate in decision making process. It gives stakeholders who comprise of elected, appointed as well as the public a platform to deliberate and formulate effective and legitimate policies (Hood, Oliver & Scott 2000). 6.4 In what ways does co-design provide new opportunities for engagement? Illustrate with examples. Co-design that is which is taken as a cooperative design is a process through which various experts gather to cooperate creatively. These experts may be politicians, professionals, private partners or the citizens. The gathering of various experts to deliberate on important issues affecting the citizen is an important strategy in arriving at an informed decision (Hodge 2004). For example the politicians, local government, non-governmental organization as well as members of the public may converge to deliberate on a significant project or issue and recommend appropriate measures which may even call for formulation of appropriate policy. This is important as it results into a more superior decision that is accepted across the board (Lenihan, and Briggs 2011). 7. 1 Examine how relationships between public servants and the political executive have been changing. The relationship between the public servants and political executives has been changing over time. The existing traditional and bureaucratic relationship has impeded quality decisions and policy formulations that is nowadays been replaced by a more responsive public service. There has been seen a deliberate strengthening of the ministerial control over the resources by participation ministerial advisors more in the allocation processes. In addition, there has been the weakening of the public servants position. This has been realized by the reduction in the context and exclusivity of the public servants major roles. In addition, there has been a great change in the tenure of senior public servants. Nowadays senior public positions such as those of secretaries of state have been made contractual and highly competitive with good remunerations. Nowadays, the ministerial positions were expanded in order to give alternatives to avert politicization. Political appointments are nowadays interposed in-between the bureaucracy and politicians. The ministerial staffs are these days undertaking responsibilities that were previously done by public servants. They are also involved in departmental activities and ministerial advisers have become an organ of the government (Heclo & Hugh 1977). 7.2 How significant are the changes in 7.1 for the work of public servants? The relationship between the public servants and political executives has been changing over time. The change is seen as very significant as it has transformed positively the governance in public offices. The resulting effect was an important potential for formulation of effective policies, program control and increased accountability for the cabinet, public servants and executive politicians. In addition, making the position of the secretary of state more competitive and highly remunerated was an important step to attract highly qualified professionals and minimize instances of corruption. 7.3 Define different forms of accountability. Which are more important, and why? Accountability in public sector entails ensuring that public servants are answerable for their decisions and actions. It also makes sure that there is redress when duties and commitments are not undertaken. Accountability is categorized into three distinct forms, horizontal, vertical and diagonal. Success of government officials is realized when the officials are in a position to combine the various forms rather than the use of one approach. Horizontal accountability occurs in formal relations within state organs where one party has the authority to demand for explanation or impose penalties to the other. Its main objective is internal checks and balances. It happens when executive agencies are required to offer explanations for the decisions to legislators and often overrule or sanctions where procedures have been violated. In vertical accountability, the public and their associations take the responsibility of holding the leaders into account (Halligan 2007). Elections are the means that are employed to put the leaders into account. In addition, the public can also put leaders into account vertically through informal means through associations in a position to lobby government agencies and private service providers demanding explanations as well as threatening less formal sanctions such as negative publicity. Diagonal accountability operates in between the vertical and horizontal accountability. It entails direct public engagement with horizontal accountability institutions when demanding for enhanced oversight of state actions. Through this method the public compromises formal accountability and engages in policy making, expenditure tracking as well as budgeting process (Hood, Christopher, Oliver & Scott 2000). 7.4 Why is ethics important for the functioning of the public service? Ethics addresses how various personnel are supposed to conduct themselves. It mainly deals with moral issues or ethical conduct. Professionals in fields such as teaching, law and medicine ought to carry themselves in a certain manner. Likewise leaders in public office are supposed to behave in a specified manner. They are required not be biased and are transparent in their dealings (Lawton 1998). Ethics is important in public services as it guides the activities of the government as well as the association with people it governs. Since government officials serves the public by managing their resources, there is an expectation from the citizens on how they are ought to behave. These officials are supposed to operate in an open atmosphere to make sure they are working within what the public perceives as right (Wieland 2001). 7.5 What are the key ethical issues and how might they be addressed? Ethics in public services deals with issues such as honesty and transparency in government undertakings. Matters such as of political corruption, bribery, conflict of interest, legislative as well as regulatory ethics are important features in government ethics .Regulatory ethics is the law that governs civil servants and the members of regulatory agents. It addresses issues such as bribery as well as the relationship of civil servants and the businesses they regulate. They address transparency; conflict of interest as well as freedom of information. On the other hand public ethics is concerned with ethics of officials in public sector. There are mainly elected as well as appointed servants who work within the public sector. Apart from addressing the moral issues of bribery and corruption, public administration ethics goes further to handle relations among politicians, elected public servants, individuals, public sector servant and the media (Wieland 2001). List of References Aberbach, T., Bert A. & Rockman, J., 1994. Civil Servants and Policymakers: Neutral or Responsive Competence? Governance. 7. 461-9 Bhatnagar, D., Rathore, A., Torres, M., and Kanungo, P.,2003. Participatory budgeting in Brazil. Empowerment Case Studies. Washington, DC: World. Bovart, T., and Loffler, E. 2009. Understanding Public Management and Governance. London: University of Birmingham. Feeley, M., 2002. Entrepreneurs of Punishment: The Legacy of Privatization. Punishment and Society 4 (3): 321-344 Halligan, J., 2007. Accountability in Australia: Control, Paradox and Complexity. Public Administration Quarterly. 34(4). Heclo, Hugh. 1977. A Government of Strangers. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Hodge, G. A., 2004. The risky business of public–private partnerships. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 63(4), 37–49. Hodge, G.A., and Duffield, C.F., 2007. The Australian PPP experience: observation and reflections. New York: Prentice Hall. Hood, C., Oliver, J. & Scott, C., 2000. Regulation inside Government: Has It Increased, Is It Increasing, Should It Be Diminished. Public Administration 78. 283-304. Hood, C., & Guy, P., 2004. The Middle-Ageing of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 14(3). 267-82. Lawton. 1998. Ethical Issues: Ethical management of the public services. London: University of Birmingham. Lenihan, D.and Briggs, L., 2011. Co-Design: Toward A New Service Vision For Australia? Co-Design. Toward A New Service Vision for Australia.5, 35-47. Margaret, H., and Dunleavy, P. 2015. The second wave of digital-era governance: a Quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Oxford: University of Oxford. Moore, P., 2007. Pros and Cons of Privatization. Oxford University: London Pallesen, T., 2007., Privatization: The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Oslo: University of Oslo. Segal, G. & Moore, A., 2002. Weighing the Watchman: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Outsourcing Correctional Services, Part I: Employing a Best-value Approach to Procurement. New York: Prentice hall. Stigler, G., 1971. The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3: 3-18. Wieland, J., 2001. Corporate Governance: The Ethics of Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly. 213(4):78-89. Read More