Distinguishing Features of Public Management
Therefore it is the purpose of this paper to examine the undergoing of public management in an endeavor to distinguish It from Its redirectors (TAP). Public management also known as new public management is singled out for its great emphasis on decentralization of authority, downsizing of the public sector through prevarication of state enterprises, strict management of performance in a goal directed and result oriented manner, market-centric management, complex interdependence between politics and administration and adoption of private sector managerial to list but a few.
A sharp cleavage exits when the tenets of (PM) are juxtaposed with (TAP) principles such as bifurcation of politics and administration, overall division of labor, a defined hierarchy of authority, aroma set of rules and procedures and Job security with awarding of pension funds among others will be made lucid in the discussion that follows. Background information Public management Is defined by Polloi (1993;32) as “a vision, an Ideology or a bundle of particular management approaches and techniques borrowed from a private sector… Yet Rococo Martin cited in Hughes (2003;45) is of the view that “it is the craft perspective that caters for decision making, actions outcomes, political skills needed to perform effectively specific management roles…
Need essay sample on "Distinguishing Features of Public Management"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Bonham and Horton (1996; 25) plausibly lamented that TAP on the other hand is “the process where by public officials, employed by state agents, Implement and execute governmental policies determined by political authorities… Where efficient use of resource is of secondary importance. ” Hence a general view generated is that traditional public administrators jack autonomy in their work as they are politically controlled In a central manner. Underpinnings of public management Public management agitates for a radical restructuring of the core public sector to provide more operational flexibility at an agency level.
This Insinuates that management authority is decentralized or hived-off to semi-autonomous service delivery units within this sector either through delegation or departmental Hughes (2003;23)_ In this case. Managers are given budgetary responsibility and autonomy to set their goals that cater for full achievement of results. For example Ministries in Zanzibar formulate their budgets to achieve their desired goals. In vertically integrated monolithic bureaucracies to flatter and responsible ones. This includes the downsizing, delivering and rationalist of the public sector through sub- contracting government entities to the private bodies.
Peters and Pierre (2007; 4) stipulate that “… The hierarchical nature of public organizations which accorded greater autonomy to the front line staff leading to greater efficiency. ” This was put into practice in New Zealand where the state owned enterprise act of 1986 and the State Actor Act of 1988 privatized the country post bank and Telecommunication Corporation which caused the fall in number of civil servants from 66000 to 34500 and some were delegated to public sector ‘executive agents’ (ibid,51).
This entails that public management is distinct in the sense that it ensures accountability, transparency and responsiveness since departments are brought closer to the public for inspection. Furthermore PM calls for public and private sector partnership in delivering goods and services in a manner that places the government in the role of an overseer. The private sector is involved in financing and operation of public project s through contracting that cultivates competition in the provision of goods and services.
There is an argument that government is no longer an autonomous actor in implementing its polices but often depends on the private sector. Under this partnership employment is based on long and short term contracts signed individually by employees and appointment is based on expertise only Peter and Pierre (2007; 22). In South Africa the government privatized Telecoms its major communication company and Eskimo which provides electricity. O the nation. This resulted in contract based employment which did not go well with their trade unions (COSTAL).
Prevarication brought no Job security and old age pension funds enjoyed in the TAP. Hence the private public sector partnership opens a wide market, access to a variety of customer attuned goods and free market choice since competitions force goods and service providers to produce high quality goods in large quantities. Apart from that public management adopts and adheres to private sector styles of management. This includes a strict focus on profitability, result orientation and reference as a determination of salary increment.
In this respect civil servants are thoroughly assessed alongside set targets. This might result in demotion of some employees as a result of poor performance. For example the President was quoted in the Herald of September on the 8th parliamentary session saying “to engender accountability and ensure efficient service delivery to the public, heads of pratfalls and local authorities will be obliged to sign performance appraisals. ” In line with this Peters and Pierre (2007; 41) point that “… He government has adopted several efferent strategies including ‘pay-for performance’ to allocate salary increments… Result oriented performance appraisals. ” These are purely private mechanisms used to motivate workers to increase their productivity in order to channel profits and growth to public organizations. This is accompanied by output controls which restricts adherence to auto-machine and computerizing of documents to cut off the need for human resources that might siphon a lot of resources from the government.
Moreover public management is hinged on the expertise or know-how, temperament of managers and interdependence of politics and management. This is adumbrated by Frederick and Finer (2007, 3) “polices are implemented when they are formulated and politicians act entrepreneurs who are disposed to take risk and work hand in hand to achieve the goals of the government. PM views administration and politics as inseparable core variants that together I unity usher good governance.
For instance the parliament of Zanzibar initiated a setting up of the Anti-Corruption Commission to monitor and eradicate corrupt tendencies with the public sector. This enables great discipline, parsimony in resource allocation, transparency and accountability. A comparison of TAP and PM Traditional Public Administration dissects politics from administration. This is illustrated in the Wilson politics administration dichotomy. Hughes (2003; 19) indicates that TAP stipulates that politicians craft policies whilst administrators implement them.
However this perspective has been castigated for trailblazing expertise capacities of managers and PM provides an alternative of the amalgamation of the two and devolving of managerial authorities from higher level politicians to managers at agency levels to discretionary execute their own policies. As a result PM and TAP take divergent routes in management approach. Furthermore TAP is built on Marx Weeper’s bureaucratic theory which calls for hierarchical organization of authority.
This means control over government agencies emanate from the superiors who are elected officials and channels of communication follow a top down authoritarian model and no room is given to other employees to air their views in regard to decisions made. Mayo (1992; 22) argues that this tall and closed form of organization deprives civil servants much needed self-actualization ND it is crippled by plasticization and distortion of information as it sails along a huge bureaucracy.
PM differs from this type of organizational structure due to its strict inclination to downsizing of the public service and hiving-off authority. Foxed tall (1991 ;22) postulate that PM cooperates with its environment and management involves consultation with subordinates in order to gather much information necessary for attainment of set targets hence one is made to conclude that public management breaks the hierarchy or one would even argue to say it rather distorts it.
In addition TAP separated administrative functions into different ministries with clearly stated areas of specialization. Thus Farm and Horton (1996; 23) indicate that specialization and division of labor is currently challenged by Ann.’s introduction of general managers who cut across departments with general controlling authority. However one wonders whether this generalization of function is reasonably applicable in present circumstances with the rapid population growth and existence of government ministries that are separated according to functions and services handled.
Nevertheless the distinction theoretically remains. TAP management is based on written documents, the file’ that is preserved for precedence. This entails that administrators adhered to the rules of the thumb and made incremental decisions based on past organizational records Fox e tall (1991). This approach is contradicted by PM that calls for rationalization of the public sector which forces managers to be intuitive and critical in arriving at a particular course of action.
PM considers changes in the environment and strives for adoption of policies that accommodates changes fashion, taste and technology. As a result TAP thrives hard under this era of technology and files are now causing poor service Home Affairs where the recurrent reports on the disappearance of birth certificate records. PM is accommodative to information technology which has basically replaced the Hibernia way of keeping records Hughes 92003; 46).
However digitization which is articulated by chief proponents of PM is s implantable in economically stable countries that can afford purchasing of the machineries for data storage. Apart from that TAP emphasizes Job security, old age pension funds and appointment based on seniority this means bosses are those with working experience rather than high level of education. This is however different with PM as appointment is based on competence, performance and level of education Farm and Horton (1996; 52).
In PM managers are experts and this account for efficiency in management. However this notion is debatable since most politicians are not that much educated but still modify policies made by experts at a managerial level. This dilemma is responsible for patronage and nepotism rampant in both TAP and PM employees are recruited on political grounds and affiliations which causes poor performance due to expertise incapacity of such people, hence reflecting a similarity within these paradigms.