Main Features of New Public Governance - Assignment Example

Please see the detail (Q4-7) Name Institution Professor Course Date Question 4 4.1 Main features of new public governance There are six major features of new public governance with the first one being the dispersion of power and this means that in addition to the market and the government other organizations that exists in the society also tend to posses the same rights in participating in the management of public affairs and also play an essential role on solving issues being faced by the public. Another other feature stresses on the coordination of the government (Bovaird 2009). In this regard the new public governance aims at turning the government from being paternalism into a coordinator. The other feature is that the new public governance forms a multifaceted network in that it integrates individuals and social organizations so as to come up with a complex network with contained concentration as well as the restriction of power from all facets. The other major element is that the governance network is mainly concerned with exchange resource. In this respect the network formed by the public services and products offers the members with great social resources so as to exchange. The other feature is the network relies on stability and trust of the contract. The last feature is the new public governance values the role of social public organizations in that it pays great attention to the results and output made y the public sectors. 4.2 Why public value governance is different from other models Public value governance is different from the other models such as the traditional public administration and the new public management. This difference is that the new movement acts as a response to the various challenges of a multi-sector, networked, no-one wholly in charge of the world and at the same time deal with the shortcomings of the other models (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg 2014). In this regard, the new approach tends to highlight a number of stances that acts as a response to the old challenges and shortcomings. This includes a great emphasis on public values and public value, a recognition that the government has a role to play as the guarantor of the public values, a belief in the benefits of the public management broadly conceived as well as service or and to the public, and a great emphasis on democratic, citizenship and collaborative governance. Another difference is that the new approach tend to value effectiveness and efficient and most especially the democratic values. Additionally, the emerging approach tends to reemphasize and at the same time brings to the front value related concerns of the previous eras that were present but they were not dominant in the previous approaches (Kelly, Mulgan and Muers 2002). 4.3Why public value governance is attractive to public servants Public value governance is attractive to the public servants in that through their workplaces which are the government agencies they act as the conveners, collaboration and catalysts in that at times they steers., partnering and at times staying out of the way. Additionally, public value governance is also attractive to the public servants in that they tend to be more involved as opposed to the earlier models (Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg 2014). This is evident in that in the traditional public administration, the elected officials made the goals and the implementation of the goals was a task left for the public servants. In the new approach the elected officials still set the goals while the managers manage the inputs as well as the outputs in a responsive and economic way. Thus, the public servant try to create public value and this ensures that what the public cares about are addressed in the most effective manner and also what is good for the general public is pursued. 4.4 Components of digital governance and why it is an emerging model for the public sector Digital governance has three major components and they include reintegration, need-based holism as well as digitalization (Deloitte Access Economics 2015). Reintegration in a way reverses the division of NPM by joining up and at the same time trying to de-silo the processes of the public sectors. The other component which is need-based holism which is seen as the attempt to come up with structures that are client based for the agencies and departments. The concept of digitalization deals with the adaptation of the public sector so as to embrace completely and imbed the electronic delivery at the centre of the government business model (Margetts & Dunleavy 2013). Question 5 5.1 Privatization Privatization in the most general terms can be defined as the transfer of ownership of a business or a property from being a government entity into a privately owned entity (Kerr et al 2008).through the use of privatization the government can to preserve the service level and most especially in instances when the government resources tend to be restrained. Additionally it can be termed as the right wing political attempt that is aimed at shrinking the government services and demolish the political strength holds of the leftwing. 5.2 pros and cons of privatization Privatization is a concept that has been adopted widely by a number of governments. It is crucial to note the benefits as well as the limitations of privatization and this information can be used by government entities if deciding whether to privatilize a government entity or not. Pros A major benefit of privatization is that through it both the both the right and left leaning policy makers can shed the day to day operations of a number of public services. This will go a long way in enabling them to concentrate more on the setting up of goals as well as the overall prioritizing (Pallesen 2011). Another benefit is that privatization is used so as to solve some immediate problems that the government may be experiencing. For example, in this regard, both the right and the left wing policy makers are of the opinion of privatization since it is commonly viewed as a shortcut in spending money on popular purposed that increases the vote and this is done without the pain of raising the money by use of less popular tax increases (Pallesen 2011). Another major benefit of privatization is that in most instances it aims at increasing the efficiency of the public sector. A number of empirical and theoretical studies have investigated the possible efficiency of the private sector versus the state owned enterprises and this is mainly done in terms of the delivery of the services to the public. In reality, the private sectors tend to be more efficient and this is supported by the fact that the main aim of the private sector is to make profits. Thus, they always try to please the customers. Another advantage is that the decisions of the companies are less susceptible to political motives. The involvement of the government in delivery of the services can be a great issue and this is supported by the notion that at times a number party interest at times comes first before the public good (Pallesen 2011). Cons A major disadvantage of privatization is that the government is totally out of the business and this means that if the entity which was privatilized was accumulating some profits for the governments they will cease from receiving such amount of money. This means that the government earning from the business will be reduced since one entity has been privatilized (Pallesen 2011). Another con of privatization is that the private driven services may be incompatible with the welfare of the public. For instance a private health insurance may at all costs avoid insuring people who are at higher risks due to past illnesses, this is contrary to the public service in that it covers everyone. 5.3 Contracting Contracting or outsourcing has over time become standard mode of operating and this is due a number of reasons. A major reason for contracting is that cost saving. When the government contracts out some of their services they save in terms of costs in that they save on some of the internal costs related to development and hiring of employees for either the short term or long term goals. By contracting out, the government is able to do away with the staffing obligations to the employees since these obligations extend even beyond a defined period of the project (Hodge 2004). Additionally, through contracting out the government transfers the risks to the contracting company since risks tend to e higher with the employees resources as opposed to the contracted staff. Another reason why people opt on contracting out is that it tends to have a higher and increased level of efficiency. This is mainly founded in the idea that the contracted company need to provide the deliverables within the right time and in the most effective way. Failure to do so means that they may not receive their payment and thus at all times the contracted party aims at delivering the best at all times and this leads to the high level of efficiency. Another reason for contracting out is that there is an enhancement of the quality of services that are offered. This means that the high quality of services are provided and with a much lower costs and the company contracting out get a value for the money they have paid out (Hodge 2004). 5.4 Partnership There are a number of reasons as to why partnerships tend to offer better results on the design as well as in the delivery of public service as opposed to when the government agencies are working alone. One of the major reason why the partnerships offers better results is anchored on the fact that through partnership there are wide range of resources in terms of time and money and all this is aimed at ensuring that the projects being undertaken are completed within the specified amount of time with the use of the budgeted resources (Yong 2010). Another main reason is that through partnership both the private company and the government are likely to come up with issues that the other party have not noted or cited that may hinder the completion of the project. By doing this, the issues will be deal with beforehand ensuring the projects talks place smoothly. Additionally, better results of public service are ensured since there is adequate application of knowledge from the private and public sectors. 5.5 Why are PPPs Controversial? PPP (public-private partnership) has a number of controversies and this relates to the risks that PPP encounters. Risks in PPP are mainly prevalent due to the uncertainty in regard to the occurrence of a number of events and as well as their consequent impact on projects. This means that putting into consideration the long term nature of most projects there exist a possibility that certain events can occur, for example, a change in government policy, delay when it comes to access to land as well as a noted decline in demand for the required infrastructure. The other critique relates to the idea that the PPPs have over time become increasingly meaningless concept that this includes aspects (Yong 2010). Additionally, the concept is also under-specified and overused by the governments. This means that the government makes use of partnerships even in aspects that they can handle alone and in the most effective way. In response to these, the government needs to decide precisely on what projects that they need entail the partnership and this should be those projects that requires huge financial burden and when the government is experiencing some deficit in their earnings. Another controversy of PPPs relates to the uncritical acceptance of the concept of PPPs as a good thing. The government makes use of this term as a friendlier sounding way to refer to the private funding of the public infrastructure. The government needs to ensure that when the term is used it is taken in the right context since in the long run the government will have to pay for the resources used up by the private sectors. Another controversy is that it is a static arrangement which is in a way fixed in relation to time (Hodge 2004). Question 6 6.1Benefits to citizens and public policy of enhancing public engagement Public engagement tends to benefit the citizens and it also enhances public policy. Through engagement the citizen’s benefits in that they air their most pressing needs and this ensures that their needs are well catered for. This is contrary to when engagement is not involved since the government plans what development they need to make but it may not be the most pressing need to the citizens. For example the citizen’s may be in need of health services while the government may view road construction as the most urgent issue. Engagement also enhances public policy in that the policies that are made are in line with what the public have proposed. Through engagement the citizens will be offered with an opportunity to propose the policies that need to be implemented which are in line with their needs. At the same time the policies will be used to solve the various issues in the community (Bhatnagar et al. 2003). 6.2 Comparisons of two modes of participation There are a number of modes of participation but this question will focus on negotiation panels and citizen panels (Dudley et al. 2015). Of the two modes of participation the most preferable method is citizen panels and this is anchored in the fact that survey research is used so as to get the required information from the citizens in the most appropriate way. In regard to this since no face to face communication is involved the citizens are able to air out their opinions without any kind of bias. This means that the actual opinions of the citizens will be considered and put into considered when making policies and determining what development needs that the community desires at the given time. 6.3 Contribution of co-production Co-production has over time become an important reality in the public services in Australia and other countries all over the globe and in this regard there is evidence of greater involvement of the service users and communities in the public service chain, in the intensity and extent of the engagement. Additionally, the service users tend to be playing a bigger and important role in the public service as opposed to the many professional currently realize (Evans 2013). The concept is not new and indeed it is seen as being inherent in almost all services and founded on these a major characteristic of the services is that consumption and production are inseparable and thus they call for contribution from the service users. The concept has gained great prevalence due to the idea that it aims at improving the public service and this is mainly supported by evidence of the impact as well as of the outcomes and the value of money. Additionally, the concept has a potential social and economic value as well as its popularity. Co-production seems to offer significant advantages for the government agencies and the citizens a major benefit is that co-production is said to improve the outcomes (Edwards et al. 2012). Evidence shows that the interventions that adopt this kind of approach tend to have some impacts in the outcomes. Another benefit is that thorough it use the public are treated as active partners and this means that the public are more involved when the services related in a direct manner to them as well as to their families. Another benefit is that the citizens contribute a significant value. The value and the scale of the resources that the public contribute are huge. This means that the families and communities generate huge amounts of economic values that tend to be unrecognized and unmeasured by the public service. Lastly, co-production tends to improve the value for money. Available evidence shows that the economic benefits associated with co-production tend to outweigh the costs of co-production (Alford 2009). 6.4 Ways in which co-design provide new opportunities for engagement A major way in which co-design offers new opportunities for engagement is that is that co-design acts as a signal for the shift in the thinking of the government. Additionally, co-design offers new opportunities for engagement by taking measures aimed at transforming services and mostly in certain key areas such as in health and this is mainly done through community partnerships. In addition co-design offers new opportunities by setting standards, actively engaging with the customers, staff and partners (Briggs 2011). Question 7 7.1 How relationships between public servants and the political executive have been changing The relationship between the public servants and the political executive has been changing with one of the major change being in regard to the appointment process which is done through the State Sector Act. This means that only one person has the responsibility of offering recommendations to the government in regard to the appointment of the departmental chief executives (MacDermott 2008). Furthermore, the ministers are also able the opportunity to participate actively in the appointment process. They can do so by suggesting names of some candidates as well as encouraging suitable people to apply for fill certain posts. They can also suggest who should serve in the appointment panels. Another change was related to tenure that re-designated the permanent head as the departmental secretaries which was placed on fixed term. This review was implemented with the aim of ensuring constant scrutiny and also with the aim of reinforcing vulnerability (Boston and Halligan 2012). 7.2 How changes in 7.1 are significant for the work of the public servants The above stated changes have been significant for the work of the public servants in that their work eases and they seem more motivated to work since the jobs met their needs and at the same time the most appropriate candidates are selected to fill the posts. As a matter of fact the dynamics of change has progressively tried to redefine the relationship but yet the administration still remains as influential aspects. Another impact of the changes is that it has transformed the public servant in a positive way since the heads are accountable for the performance of their departments. In this regard, the departmental heads aims at ensuring that their departments perform founded on the expectations. 7.3 Forms of accountability The idea of accountability is usually classified according the type of accountability being exercised and or in relation to the person, group or the institution that the public official answers to. The current debate relating to the various forms of accountability are best conceptualized by use of the various opposing forms of accountability. The two major forms of accountability is horizontal and vertical accountability (Kim 2009). The most common view is that institution relating to accountability such as the judiciary and the parliament offers what is commonly termed as horizontal accountability or the ability of a networked autonomous power that can question and also punish improper way that are adopted by individuals when discharging their responsibilities. In other words horizontal accountability is the ability of the state institution to check for abuses conducted by other public agencies as well as branches of government. An alternative to horizontal accountability is vertical accountability which is a means through which the citizens, civil society and mass media seeks to instill good performance in the officials (Halligan 2007). The other common forms of accountability are political and legal accountability. The judiciary and the parliament tend to act as horizontal constitutional checks on the various powers of the executive. The role of the two institutions can be delineated further in that the judiciary holds the executive legally accountable while the parliament has the executive politically accountable. This classification of accountability stem from the notion that the judiciary can only adjudicate on the legal issues while parliament is seen as a political institution. The other forms of accountability are the social and diagonal accountability. The major view of social accountability is that it is seen as an approach that is more enshrined on the building of accountability that relies greatly in the civic engagement. This means that the ordinary citizens as well as the civil society organizations participate either indirectly or directly in exacting the accountability. Diagonal accountability on the other hand entails the vertical accountability actors. This means that this approach to accountability seek to engage the citizens in a direct manner when it comes to the workings of the horizontal accountability institutions (World Bank Accountability in Governance n.d). 7.4 Why ethics is important for functioning of the public service Ethics is of great importance to the proper functioning of the public sectors and this is anchored on the fact that it ensures that all employees comply with the set rules and that they are responsive to the demands. By being responsive the employees are well aware of the stated policies, are sensitive to the direction and intent of the policy and they make use of their professional knowledge and expert and they are also alert of the best practice. Responsiveness call for cooperative and close relationships in the various departments (APS Values and Code of Conduct n.d). Another benefit is that ethics play an essential role in the public sector by enhancing accountability of the employees working in the public sector. When considering ethics the employees aims at ensuring that they accountable for their actions, and in undertaking their delegated authority, their performance. By applying ethical concepts public servants always try to conform to the law since they may be held accountable through the use of the legal system. Additionally, the application of ethics ensures that they comply with the law (Lawton 1998). 7.5 Key ethical issues There are a number of ethical issues and this mainly arises at the social, organization and also at the individual level. The ethical issues includes but are not limited to immoral behavior from the officials, ease of access to saleable commodities, lack of relevant skills that are required for drawing up contracts and also in monitoring performance, lack of effective controls and proximity to the private sector (Lawton 1998). In relation to this issue of immoral behavior it should be noted that in most instances those addressing the ethical issue tend to focus more or deal with certain example as opposed to looking at the underlying cause of the ethical issues. By doing this, the issue will be easier to be eradicated since measures are taken so as to ensure that the issue is addressed from the root cause. In relation to the issue of lack of adequate skills when it comes to drawing up contractors or monitoring the performance of the contract the employees need to be offered with adequate training. This will go a long way in ensuring that the employees have the adequate skills when undertaking the various duties in the organization. Additionally, individuals who are in close proximity with saleable commodities need to ensure that they get approvement from their superiors and the superiors should follow up. This also applies to the ethical issues which come as a result of lack of controls. Additionally, there should be continuous training in ethics awareness and in relation to these employees will always strive to work ethically at all times (Lawton 1998). References Alford, J 2009, Chapter 1 in Engaging public sector clients. From Service Delivery to Co-production, Palgrave Macmillan, NY. APS n.d, APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice, viewed 11 July 2016, http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct-in-practice Bhatnagar, D, Rathore, A, Torres, M & Kanungo, P 2003, Participatory budgeting in Brazil. Empowerment Case Studies, World Bank, Washington, DC. Boston, J & Halligan, J 2012, Political management and the new political governance: Reconciling political responsiveness and neutral competence, From New Public Management to the New Political Governance. Bovaird, T 2009, ‘Chapter 1 Understanding public governance’, in Public Management and Governance Bovaird T and Loffler E (eds), Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom. Briggs, L 2011, ‘Co-design: toward a new service vision for Australia?’, Public Administration Today, no. 25, pp 35-47. Bryson, J, Crosby, B & Bloomberg, L 2014, ‘Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management’, Public Administration Review, vol. 74, no. 4, pp.445-456. Deloitte Access Economics 2015, Digital government transformation, viewed 11 July 2016, http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-digital-government-transformation-230715.pdf Dudley, E, Lin, D-Y, Mancini, M & Ng, J 2015, Implementing a citizen-centric approach, McKinsey and Company, New York. Edwards, M., Halligan, J. Horrigan, B. and Nicolls, G. Public Sector Governance in Australia, 2012, Chapter 7 Participatory Governance, viewed 11 July 2016, http://press.anu.edu.au/titles/australia-and-new-zealand-school-of-government-anzsog-2/public-sector-governance-in-australia-2/pdf-download/ Evans, M 2013, Social participation: lessons from Europe, Ministry of Planning, Brazilia/European Union, ANZSIG, Canberra. Halligan, J 2007, ‘Accountability in Australia: control, paradox, and complexity’, Public Administration Quarterly, pp.453-479. 
 Hodge, G 2004, ‘The risky business of public–private partnerships’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 63, no. 4), pp. 37–49. Kelly, G, Mulgan, G & Muers, S 2002, Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform, discussion paper prepared by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom. Kim, P 2009, Enhancing public accountability for developing countries: Major constraints and strategies’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 68, iss. 1, pp.S89-S100. Lawton, A. 1998, Chapter 2 Ethical Issues, in Ethical Management for the Public Services, McGraw-Hill Education, UK. MacDermott, K 2008, Chapter 1 in Whatever Happened to Frank and Fearless? The impact of new public management on the Australian Public Service, ANU Press, Canberra. 
 Margetts, H & Dunleavy, P 2013, The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20120382. Pallesen, T 2011, ‘Chapter 17 – Privatization’, in Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. eds., 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, Farnham. World Bank n.d, Accountability in Governance, World Bank, viewed 11 July 2016, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pdf Yong, H 2010, Chapter 3 - Background to PPPs in Public-private partnerships policy and practice: a reference guide, Commonwealth Secretariat, London. Read More