INTRODUCTION
Civic groups have always been involved in the public policy process in the United States. The rights to assemble and petition one's government are protected in the bill of rights for this very purpose. The framers knew the importance and impact that an organized group of citizens, like themselves, could have on public policy and governance. The methods and structures of public administration have changed over time with the advancement of new technologies, and so too has the involvement of civic groups. This paper will discuss the three primary paradigms in which civic group involvement has been viewed in the study of public administration: the New Public Service model as advocated by Denhardt and Dendhardt, the traditional or Wilsonian model, and the New Public Management model as advocated by Goldsmith and Eggers.
The New Public Service model, as discussed by Dendhardt and Dendhardt (2007), focuses on the use of dialogue between public administrators and the public in the development and tailoring of public policies. This model promotes direct interaction with the public in an effort to be more transparent, democratic and representative of citizen needs. The traditional or Wilsonian model, in contrast, tends to discourage direct involvement between public managers and the public. One of the most quoted aspects of Wilson's (1889) theories is the dichotomy that should separate politics from administration. In the Wilsonian viewpoint, the public should speak through their elected representatives who would in turn direct the public managers as to what policies will be implemented and how. The New Public Management viewpoint, according to Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) is more market-oriented, seeing the marketplace as the primary driver of public policy. No one approach is perfect or the end-all solution. This paper will show the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, discuss the differences between the two and show how technology is a factor moving us from the hierarchical, traditional model toward a more fluid and inclusive network model of public administration. This is a natural progression as our world’s boundaries are increasingly torn down via the Internet and other networked technologies.
STRENGTHS
Each of the three models have areas where they perform better than the others. The Denhardt model’s strength lies in its direct connection between public administrators and the public. In the Denhardt’s (2007) point of view, “Government should not be run like a business, it should be run like a democracy (pg.1).” This democratic, not representative republic, approach advocates for a direct line of communication and dialogue between public managers and constituents. This method will provide leaders and managers of agencies access to the raw resource of the people they are serving where they can hear their needs and develop responses accordingly. The Denhardt approach focuses on serving and not steering, moving public managers away from an authoritarian role over the public they work for. It admonishes treating citizens as “customers”, but instead as “owners” that are invested in the long-term performance and outputs of the agency and not just their short-term self-interests (pg. 189). This method also calls for more transparency and allows for public managers to be held more accountable to the public they report to. Ethical practices would also become more pertinent, as Brereton and Temple (1999) have said, “synthesis of public and private ethics... reflects a fundamental shift from concern with process to a concern with outputs (pg. 455).” In the New Public Service model more of a focus is put on the creation of public good and benefit than on cost efficiency - and that is a considerable strength.
Wilson (1887) had a different focus:
It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the upmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy.
(pg. 197)
The Wilsonian or Traditional model of public administration took a more rational, hierarchical and scientific approach to public administration. It focused on process and efficiency using an approach like the theorists Fayol, Taylor and Weber. These theories call for a rigid bureaucratic and authoritarian structure in an organization, with a clear chain-of-command in order to closely control the process and influence the outputs of it. This model differs greatly from the New Public Service model in the way public managers are supposed to interact with the public. Wilson advocated for an administration/politics dichotomy in which the two sides of government would be separated from one another. In this structure, elected representative would speak for the people and tell the administration side what public policies to implement and how. The strengths of the traditional model are in its structure, efficiency and control.
“The era of hierarchical government is coming to an end.” Goldsmith (2004) argues, “Emerging in its place is a fundamentally different model - governing by network - in which government executives redefine their core responsibilities from managing people and programs to coordinating resources for producing public value (pg. 24).” Both the New Public Service model and the New Public Management model are network approaches to governance. In a network model, more and more services traditionally performed by government itself are being contracted out to both private and non-profit organizations. Goldsmith’s model, in contrast to the Denhardts’, focuses more on the markets and individual self-interest as the drivers behind an effective network model of governance. He identifies four main strengths of his model. The first is specialization. Through contracting, government can find field specialists and experts in the market place that can provide top quality work in the desired area. Specialists, in theory, would know more about their subject matter than a public employee would and would be able to provide a higher quality service. Increases in innovation would be another boon to a market-oriented system. Innovation, he argues, “enable[s] government to explore a greater range of alternatives that involve a variety of providers.” and that, “Networks encourage the kind of experimentation so critical to the innovation process (pg. 29-30).” This kind of experimentation would not be as common in the rigid structure of the traditional model. Third is speed and flexibility. A network model would be able to adapt and respond more easily and readily than a highly regimented bureaucratic system. “Networks,” Goldsmith says, “permit more rapid - and usually less politically painful - downsizing and upsizing than does hierarchy (pg. 31).” The fourth strength is cost efficiency, as the bidding process involved in many contracting situations often benefits those that offer the lowest price a loosens the tax-payer burden in return.
WEAKNESSES
Just as each model has its strengths, they have opportunities for improvement as well. Take for example the Denhardts’ model. The Denhardt model is idealistic and naive in its Utopian idea that by simply letting everyone have their say will make everything work out great. There is a high potential for chaos in allowing direct, unfiltered communication between public managers and the public. There is a potential that only the loudest voices will be heard and that the more civil, quiet voices will be pushed to the side in what I will call a “Tea Party effect”. Just because the public is communicating with public managers, does not mean that the input they are providing is meaningful, educated or legitimate. There could be a high potential for citizen spam that can clog the information gathering system of public administration. The Denhardt model also sacrifices control, and gives itself up to the volatile whims of public opinion. Government should serve its citizens, but part of that service should also be to provide leadership to its people. It would be hard to provide that leadership when their is an imbalance that leans too far toward serving constituent needs.
The biggest problem of Wilson’s model is in the inherent inflexibility, and rigidity of the bureaucratic system. Hierarchical systems, as evident in recent protests against authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, are too rigid to respond to the rising demands of the growing young demographics of their nations. As a result of their inflexibility, the regimes have been toppled. Hierarchical systems provide too little opportunity for citizen involvement, which can contribute to their lack of adaptability and citizen dissatisfaction. This rigidness makes the traditional system ill-equipped to the rapidly changing social conditions of our time. Technology is connecting more and more people across more and more boundaries, changing how we interact with one another. “[I]ncreasingly complex societies,” Goldsmith says, “force public officials to develop new models of governance (pg. 7).” These new models are network models as the inward looking, process and operational focused traditional models are becoming outdated. They are “coldly calculating and inhuman” (Dimock, 1936; a qtd. in Denhardt, p.6) systems that are not keeping up with the changing times.
Goldsmith’s model has its faults too. Some of them arise from the assumption that actors will act in their own self-interests (Denhardt, 2007, pg. 188). This brings to mind problems stemming from the principle-agent model which examines how to keep the agent from taking advantage of the principle for personal gain and the principle’s loss; and vice-versa. Greed, corruption, dishonesty and other unethical practices are possible side effects and risks of any system focusing on self-interest. The Denhardts also raise concerns over the treatment of citizens as “customers” and focusing too much on their short-term, on-the-spot needs and problems rather than their long-term interest in the public good or service (pg. 188). Goldsmith’s focus on the “best deals” in terms of cost; which can backfire in circumstances when a job is not done right and another service provider has to be hired to fix a problem that could have been avoided. This system also relies heavily on market forces, which can be volatile and subject to crashes and failures as witnessed in the market crash of 2008. Supporters of New Public Management tout that it is time for government to “steer, not row”, but the Denhardts raise a good point when they mention that “perhaps we are forgetting who owns the boat (pg. 188).”
RESOLUTIONS
Governance is inevitably moving toward a more network-oriented model. Society's transition toward our more networked technologies and interconnectedness are out-dating more traditional models. A network model is the natural progression government should take as society rapidly evolves. Social networks, the internet and cellphone communication are blurring traditional boundaries and are connecting the citizens of our country with billions of people across the world. These boundaries are becoming more fluid, ideas are being spread farther, and information is dispensed as a rate far greater than in the past. But as we transition to a network model of government, what kind of focus should we take? A service-oriented model, as advocated by the Denhardt’s; a market-oriented model, as advocated by Goldsmith; or a different network model altogether? Should we involve the public in a democratic process and encourage their civic participation as “owners” invested in the system? That seems to be a theme advocated by the youth protesters in Tahrir Square in Egypt. Or should we treat citizens more like“customers”, satisfying their individual needs as they approach? Should we focus on cost-efficiency and the “big deals” to keep government spending under control? Certainly there can be times for both approaches, and different approaches can be used for different tasks.
The Denhardt model has some great ideas, but maybe it is too idealistic and possibly naive. Certainly citizen participation is to be encouraged as people should feel comfortable expressing their concerns to government, but too much participation can slow down the system and hinder it from taking action. Certainly being cost-efficient is not a bad thing either, as long as public managers remain objective and ethical in their dealings. As long as there are measures ensuring ethical and objective practices and a common goal among all actors, using the marketplace as a source to provide service to the people can be successful.
CONCLUSION
We are in a time of transition away from traditional models of governance to a more flexible, network approach. This change is propelled by advances in technology, and the subsequent social changes that are rapidly connecting the world around us that have made traditional boundaries more open and fluid. We have a choice of following many paradigms as we move toward a more network model of governance. We can go the way of the Denhardts toward New Public Service, Goldsmith and New Public Management, or we can find another way that somehow draws of the strengths of both. Neither the Denhardts of Goldsmiths have the answers for everything. Certainly future public managers can draw from the good ideas of both and find a way to meet the increasingly complex challenges of our increasingly complex world. They will have to find a way to allow for more citizen participation, find useful information, find consensus or determine a compromise, translate it into workable policy with elected officials, and remain cost-effective; all at the same time.
WORKS CITED
Brereton, M.& Temple, M. (1999). The new public service ethos: An ethical Environment for governance. Public Administration, 77(3), pg. 455-474Denhardt, J.V. & Dendhardt, R.B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science, 11(2)
Comments
Post a Comment
Comment below.