Using examples and evidence, critically discuss how governance approaches to the public sector differ from New Public Management (NPM) approaches.
Governance work towards ensuring that quality decision making and improved coordination between organizations are attained. It does so through the involvement of relevant stakeholders in identifying different perceptions of goals that prove to work well for the institutions. Fair and democratic governments declare to offer quality cooperation activities that work towards effective implementation of goals with the public interest. For example, in cases of hygiene and sanitation problems in the city, the government obtains solutions from the people living within the same localities where the problem emanates. It sought root causal agents of the problem and came up with educational programs that bar people from throwing litter in the streets. Such programs also prove to gain success in stigmatizing the litterbugs in the region.
On the other hand, New Public Management looks into improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services to the public domain and, at the same time, quality public organizations ((Bovaird and Loffler, 2003). It does so through the formulation of goals to suit quality delivery protocols to the respective categories of the needy groups. NPM does not offer a long time solution to the problem if it reoccurs because it deals with the issues at the time of occurrence to ensure that the services delivered are efficient. For example, NPM is put in place when garbage collection and street cleaning services are provided when the hygiene and sanitation problem is located in the streets. This is offered through contracts, and employment has performance indicators that need to be met within a specified period before other services are executed.
Governance makes use of network management in running its operations in the public sector. In this case, the government does not work independently but depends on different personalities with varying perceptions and experiences of the matter at hand. The government stands to activate the actors through the provision of platforms through which the stakeholders can effectively implement their quality goals to benefit the entire public. Information obtained from the discussion is placed in order of relevance, and the best is chosen to run the public sectors effectively. For instance, in cases of the breakout of the hygiene-related epidemic, the central government consults with the local governments and the municipal heads as a process that aids in the alleviation of the problem (Arceneaux and Butler, 2015,p. 132).
On the other hand, NPM improves its service delivery needs through the adoption of quality business instruments. These include the provision of strict contracts with relatively high pay to ensure that quick responses are given to the issues affecting the public at the time. Stringent employment needs with reasonable remuneration prove to entice the employees to deliver quality services that are needed by NPM. For example, the use of technologically driven machines to clean out garbage in the city streets is an essential aspect in NPM because quality service delivery is attained.
In governments, there is free interaction between people from different classes and diverse geographies. This eases the goal development protocols as each of them is given a chance to present their needs. Decision making is consequently made in the order of strength and relevance of the requirements that are put forward during the interactive sessions. Every individual, regardless of the position in the government, is given the democratic right to express their views as a representative of the entire public. For example, the area chief and the governor can sit on the same table to discuss the cases of early pregnancy among the school going girls in a chosen locality. This works effectively because the area chief has full details about the problems faced by the public in the area, and the governor has the mandate to channel funds to develop programs that alleviate the problem. Whereas, NPM only uses the chosen officials to come up with goals that aid in service delivery to the public sectors. The agencies responsible for the implementation of the objectives formulated by the elected officials could be unfair hence making the needy societies deteriorate.
In most cases, NPM makes use of educated and well-informed personalities because of the belief that they have an overall say to the public. This leaves some of the wants unattended, and some people will feel discriminated in the region. For example, the need to clean up the streets can be executed through contracting of external personalities to run the process instead of using the locals to eradicate the threat.
Governments have the barometer of embracing complexity in society. They focus on involving the relevant actors to deal with the complex situations affecting the public domains. The government believes that the complex issues can be broken down into simpler terms hence can be solved through a series of consultation with relevant stakeholders. Unceasing meetings and discussions prove to settle complex problems that are presented to the governments. Engagement with people from diverse regions and social classes helps a great deal to ease the issues that come up during the formulation and implementation of goals intended to curb the problems.
On the other hand, NPM tends to distance itself from the complex interactions with stakeholders in society (Levi-Faur, 2012). The elected officials here chose what to attend to and leave if it is far from their reach. Keeping away from problematic situations gives the NPM the leeway to execute the goals that can work best with them to ensure that they deliver quality services.
Table 1: Comparison of NPM and Governance (Levi-Faur, 2012)
Critically discuss the claim that New Public Management (NPM) provides more accountability than Weberian bureaucracy.
Accountability was initially masked by the gullible politicians and head of departments among the Weberian bureaucrats whose target was to consume the public domain’s resources. This proves to be different from how the NPM presents its accountability actions to the public. The issues that create a surge in accountability options in NPM mainly constitutes of the decentralization of the governments, reduced size of the government body, rapid economic growth and great emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency (Ferlie et al., 2005). In this regard, the new public management body proves to be more accountable than the Weberian bureaucracy traditional approach.
A significant shift from a unidirectional and hierarchical accountability from the Weberian bureaucracy to a collective and mutual accountability of NPM gives a relief to the entire public sector domains. The fact that NPM targets the stakeholder’s personalities to embrace the truth and adopt developmental goals without judgment makes the team more accountable (Bovens, 2007, p. 450). Risks here are attended to a personal level, and the people involved are secluded and dealt with accordingly. This proves to be different from bureaucracy as no one takes personal responsibility for a mistake because of the superiority complex. Bureaucrats can avoid accountability by hiding behind anonymity as the political leaders.
Accountability in NPM is focused on the outputs, and the clients are benefiting from the service. As a result, there is a great emphasis on the quality provision to ensure that the clients’ goals are met, and the entire public rejoices in the success of the undertaking. The adoption of output controls ensures that the relevant stakeholders remain accountable for their options whatsoever. This helps a great deal in the calculation of public services and other powers through which the funds are channeled to by the managers. Notably, this helps to measure the performance of a public sector as the targets are attended to as per the resource allocation. For instance, NPM considers allocating funds to profitable ventures to enhance their accountability profile in the commercial distribution and to meet the targeted goals. This is different from Weberian bureaucracy as the focus here is on the input controls and the processes. These could be coupled up by the selfish gains from the managerial team that is customarily politicians. Attention towards accountability of errors at Weberian bureaucracy s primarily pronounced than the need to accrue positive achievements.
In New Public Management, there is a greater focus on managerial accountability because of the need to fulfill the set goals. The managers in various organizations are responsible for coming up with skills that boost accountability in their categories and also the stakeholders in the lower hierarchical position. The mutuality in the accountable actions between the managers and their respective stakeholders in NPM stands out to be pivotal in the public domains. For example, managerial accountability in NPM is seen during recruitment processes, whereby a highly qualified individual with relevant skills wins over that interview than the other person. The recruitment processes prove to be fair, and quality output is attained at the end (Pierre and Rothstein, 2013, p. 410). This is comparable to Weberian bureaucracy whereby there is a clear indication that political decisions are used to ascertain the job requirement of the civil servant. This is without necessarily focusing on the relevance of the skills in the targeted job specification.
There is more accountability in the New Public Management because of the clarity of the activity specifications. Each of the stakeholders in the team is assigned roles based on their qualifications and experience. As a consequence, the mistake of a particular stakeholder stands out to be their burden without implicating the rest of the people in the public sector. NPM is strict on the quality of job specifications because of the need to save the limited resources and to engage in equitable distribution of human and financial resources to help in goal formulation and implementation. The people are final recipients of the accountable actions facilitate by the NPM hence the need to be well conversant with the correct procedures to implement the goals (Aula, 2010). For instance, an architectural engineer can be assigned a specific building that is under construction and all the relevant details of written down. This is impactful in risk identification, assessment, and effective management because the major participant is known. This is unlike Weberian bureaucracy though which the administrator is anonymous and the specific job specifications are not known to the public. Corruption is consequently made easy as no one comes out to admit misappropriation of funds or loss of resources in the public sector.
Figure 1: Accountability directions (Bovens, 2007)
NPM considers accountability as a stepping ground to improved performance in the public sectors. Delivery of quality service with adequate performance indicators is fundamental proof that accountable stakeholders form part of the paradigm. Performance is measured by the results from the customers’ choices and transparent allocation of resources to run the processes in the public domains (Koppell, 2005, p. 96). Human behavior is also an essential aspect that aids in the propagation of improved performance index in the organization. On the other hand, the bureaucrats only ensure that the process is executed and the inputs are put in place. This is without necessarily providing that the results are profitable to the public domains.
References
Arceneaux, K., and Butler, D.M., 2015. How not to increase participation in local government: The advantages of experiments when testing policy interventions. Public Administration Review, 76(1), pp.131-139.
Aula, P., 2010. Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy & Leadership.
Bovaird, T., Loffler. E., 2003. Public management and governance.Routledge, London
Bovens, M., 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework 1. European law journal, 13(4), pp.447-468.
Ferlie, E., Lynn Jr, L.E., Lynn, L.E., Pollitt, C. and Lynn, L.E. eds., 2005. The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, USA.
Koppell, J.G., 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public administration review, 65(1), pp.94-108.
Levi-Faur, D. ed., 2012. The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J. and Rothstein, B., 2013. Reinventing Weber: The role of institutions in creating social trust. The Ashgate research companion to new public management, pp.405-416.