The Relationship between Public Administration and Democratic Governance - Essay Example

The Relationship between Public Administration and Democratic Governance Public administration can be said to involve two distinct meanings and this can be attributed to the growing diversity of this field in the modern world. The first of these definitions is that it is concerned with the implementation of those policies, which have been put in place by the government. Secondly, it can be used to refer to the academic discipline, which has been developed for discussing how the government policies are implemented in an attempt to prepare future civil servants for their roles. Public administration can further be defined as an aspect of inquiry with a diverse capacity whose main goal is to ensure that there is advancement in the management of the implementation of government policies so that they can be able to function effectively. In addition, it can be said to be a means of management of public programs so that they can be translated from political rhetoric to the realities that are witnessed by the citizens of a given country in their daily lives. Moreover, it can be said to be the study of the decision making process of the government as well as an analysis of the policies which come up as a result, and the contributions that are needed to ensure that there are alternative policies in place in case the current ones fail. Public administration is directly concerned with the institution of government policies in relation to the behaviour of those officials under whose charge these policies have been put. It can therefore be stated that public administration is normally in the hands of unelected officials who work within departments at all levels of government to ensure that the functions of government are as effective as possible. There are some very pertinent differences between the style of management in the public and private sectors and these differences are mainly derived from the way in which these sectors attempt to reach their goals and objectives. One of the most fundamental differences is based on the fact that public institutions, in their operations, do not always have measured objectives when compared with the private sector, whose operations are often developed to enhance efficiency. An example can be given of a manufacturer in the private sector who is able to clearly set the objectives of the type of product he would like to produce and sell in order to make the maximum profit possible. The same does not apply to the public sector where in most of its organizations, it is not customary to have a straightforward objective, meaning that there is no means of measuring whether particular objectives have been achieved or not (Anderson, 2009). If there were a presidential directive that calls for the reduction of poverty through the reduction of hopelessness and indifference, any measure of success in this initiative would be hard to decipher because its implementation will be too general for it to be identifiable in the long-term. When calculating the measure of success in a private sector initiative, the means that is used in the private sector cannot be applied because to do so would not be feasible. This is mainly because of the fact that the result of the program established by the public sector cannot be easily measured based on one particular factor. Another argument concerning the differences between the management styles of the public and private sectors is based on accountability, where the managers of public institutions tend to be accountable to a larger number of individuals than in the private sector. Because of this, the managers within the public sector tend to be subjected to the influence of the people to who they are accountable and this plays a role in their management style since their administration is often under intense public scrutiny. While attempting to achieve results, it is normal for public managers to placate as many people as possible and because of this; the position of a public manager is often quite complex (Bevir, 2006). In addition, when compared to the private sector, the organizational commitment of the public sector tends to be very weak, and this tends to have an impact on the accountability of the management of a public institution. There have developed new practices in public administration, which have led to a variety of definitions that have been used to express them. In this case, most of these new practices can be defined as having shifted from a bureaucracy that was traditionally hierarchical to one which is mainly based on networks as well as markets. In the traditional system of public administration, it is a fact that bureaucracies were considered a basic part of administration and this was based on the belief that they were accountable to democratic institutions such as the legislature, which are in turn accountable to the public. While these developments have come to take place, one will find that they are no longer a part of democratic governance and because of this, it has been stated by some scholars that there needs to be new policies, which will ensure that networks and markets retain those democratic aspects that were a part of bureaucracies. New mechanisms have to be developed to ensure that the networks and markets, which are slowly taking the place of bureaucracies, remain democratic because to leave the situation as it is means that there will be no accountability to the public. Because of the changes that have been taking place in the sphere of public administration, there has developed the need for a redefinition of the issues that are essential to ensure that democratic governance is retained. It has become necessary for questions concerning democratic governance to be raised because this is a vital factor in the development of public administration not only at a local level, but also at an international level as well. Due to the importance of these issues, some of the leading institutions in the world, such as the World Bank, have added good governance to their administrative agendas and this is to ensure that there is more accountability in their functions (Morgan, Kirwan, Rohr, Rosenbloom & Schaefer, 2010). Good governance in public administration can be said to refer to the liberal democratic practices, which are a basic part of responsible government, which, through the rule of law, is capable of providing essential services without corruption. In addition, it can also be said that good governance in the modern sense tends to be based on the belief that market economies are essential to public administration and that because of this, it is necessary to introduce market mechanism to make sure that there is greater efficiency in the public sector. These ideas seem to be based on the liberal governmental policies, which have come to dominate the modern world as opposed to centrist and leftist ideas, which more often than not support greater control, by the government over the public sector (Koliba & Zia, 2009). The system of public administration, which is currently developing in the world, is one that favours a shift from the hierarchies that have dominated administration for many decades to those that involve partnerships and networks within the public sector. It can be said that the mode of governance that is developing is one which, while favouring the continued maintenance of the democratic ideal, is working towards a reduction of the responsibilities of government. Thus, instead of direct intervention and control in matters concerning the public, most public administrations are choosing to take the role of coordinators, changing their roles from the passage of laws and commands and instead working through negotiations and diplomacy with the private sector in an attempt to become more efficient. In this way, there is also the inclusion of non-state actors into the policy making process, as well as the emphasis on more self-governance at a local level, so that there is more public involvement in the decision making process of government. In the new mode of public administration, there has also developed a reliance on a mode of public policy that is both reflexive and reactive, and this involves the virtues of direct involvement, empowerment as well as social inclusion (Mathur & Skelcher, 2007). An argument for network governance that has been raised by those who support is states that it enhances the practice of democracy through the provision of means through which the various stakeholders of the society can be able to make deliberations, decisions and the execution of public policies (Skelcher, Klijn, Kübler, Sørensen & Sullivan, 2011). While this may be the case, however, its further development in public administration has come to be prevented through a lack of political supervision, the lack of democratic capabilities of the new forms of organization, as well as the informality that often accompanies the operations of the various organizations. It is a fact that very little study has been conducted on the performance of governance networks and that because of this; the means of doing so has been inadequately developed. The network governance that has developed in recent decades has also led to the creation of very powerful agencies whose main function has been to ensure the better provision of services by the government (Bevir, 2011). The immense power that they have has led to instances where such agencies, instead of upholding their duties to protect the citizens from being abused by institutions like banks, have come to do the opposite of what they were meant to do. There have developed instances where government agencies have sided with leading private institutions on issues, which they were, in fact, supposed to protect the public from. Among the issues, which have come to see massive interference from some agencies are those, concerning the attempts of states to enact laws whose main purpose has been to protect those who live within these states. The laws, which have been enacted, have tended to be overridden by the financial regulatory agencies in the form of implementing federal laws. The development of new forms and policies in public administration has ensured that both the public and private sectors within it have constructed interactions, which offer an opportunity for the various stakeholders to have an environment where rationales can be shared, and new initiatives concerning matters of public concerns can be developed. The practices that enhance the sustainability of democratic governance, which have been put in place in many countries, have been able to contribute to the long-term success of democratic governance in the public sector. Sustainable development is a factor that has been responsible for the bringing in of some characteristics of the private sector into the public sector and this has ensured its implementation within their wider plans of the future. When democratic governance is integrated together with the mainstream business practices, it leads to the extension of the awareness of individuals in the society concerning the importance of the interaction between the public and private sectors for the purpose of public administration (Eikenberry, 2009). It has been found that any studies concerning the continuation of democratic governance in public administration, has to be done over a specific period in order to note the results of the studies being conducted. Various issues usually emerge that may involve the stakeholders and these may require a response in order to protect the democratic institutions that have an oversight over public functions. In conclusion, it can be said that there is indeed a relationship between the public sector and democratic governance and this has ensured that there is accountability to the public by the government. While this has been the case, there has been widespread criticism concerning the involvement of the private sector in public administration because private enterprises have been able to maximize on the prevailing circumstances to ensure that they have become indispensable to the government in the provision of services. The freedom of action that has been left to these corporations has led them to become even less accountable to the public, hence a lessening of the democratic governance that has been a basic feature of administration. While it is important for the private sector to be involved in some aspects of public administration, there needs to be some control over the operations of private companies so that they can become more accountable to the public for their actions and not their shareholders. References Anderson, J. (2009). Illusions of accountability: Credit and blame sense making in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(3), 322-339. Bevir, M. (2011). Democratic governance: A response to commentaries. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 478-485. Bevir, M. (2006). Democratic governance: Systems and radical perspectives. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 426. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). The present and (normative) future of public administration and implications for ASPA. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1060-1067. Koliba, C., & Zia, A. (2009). Dispelling the myth of the invisible hand: An argument for democratically legitimate interorganizational governance networks. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(3), 417-423. Mathur, N., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Evaluating democratic performance: Methodologies for assessing the relationship between network governance and citizens. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 228-237. Morgan, D. F., Kirwan, K. A., Rohr, J. A., Rosenbloom, D. H., & Schaefer, D. L. (2010). Recovering, restoring, and renewing the foundations of american public administration: The contributions of herbert J. storing. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 621-633. Skelcher, C., Klijn, E., Kübler, D., Sørensen, E., & Sullivan, H. (2011). Explaining the democratic anchorage of governance networks: Evidence from four european countries. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(1), 7-38. Read More