Abstract
|
ABSTRACT, “TOWARD A THEORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM,” FOR PRESENTATION TO THE WORKING GROUP ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM, 18TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NISPAcee, WARSAW, POLAND, MAY 13-15, 2010 , submitted by Donald E. Fuller, Senior Lecturer, Anglo-American University, Prague, Czech Republic
RESEARCH QUESTION: The paper examines the antecedents for designing a new theory of public administration; considers potential options; and, speculates regarding critical variables not previously emphasized such as perverse incentives, moral hazard and cognitive dissonance.
ISSUES: (1) current PA models coalesce around either New Public Management, or secondly around Weberian, legal rational models; in fact, much of the world suffers from corruptive ascriptive models masquerading as political antidotes to failed bureaucracies. (2) to what extent are public administration models fashioned after historical and epistemological happenings? Are we slaves of Weber, Machiavelli, and Ataturk? (3) Why did we follow the Washington Consensus knowing that it evolved from aid programs in Latin America? (4) Does Best Practice mean anything other than conformance to the mean?
THEORIES: Let us consider normative theories that may, in fact, be more empirical than the status quo: social psychology; moral hazard; perverse incentives; cognitive dissonance.
EVIDENCE: Rule of law, deregulation, price liberalization, free markets, competition, principal/agent, and neo-liberalism may be more normative than empirical. We need to find out. In today’s markets, youth have unemployment rates hovering around 25% in developed countries; in developing countries, the rate is closer to 75%. This is a disaster in the making. Demographically, the developed countries are ageing; the developing countries are youth bound. Yet each has its own problems: youth are favored but don’t have enough work experience; the elderly have severance pay protections and job protection. Yet they are living longer. What will we do about this conundrum? We have assumed that the workers of the world clamor for extrinsic rewards. Yet today’s youth (and many elderly) seek intrinsic rewards. Are we designing public administration to account for this? The world hungers for knowledge societies. Is governance ready to incorporate such thinking? According to principal/agent theory, politicians decide and bureaucrats execute. But, in fact, a synthesis of the two is needed. A good theory can be very practical. Are we exploring new theories, new inputs and outputs, leading to solid outcomes in the public sector?
DISCUSSION: Hierarchical public administration models (and private sector models) produce hierarchical outcomes. Such outcomes seem alienating to youth, democracy, diversity, knowledge society, and improved governance. Best practice can be idiosyncratic and correlative rather than causative. Existing models ontologically speaking seem better patterned toward the 20thcentury. Publics of the world have lost faith and confidence in public administration models that seem unfair, perverse, anti-political and negatively reductionist toward supporting human dignity.
CONCLUSION: The paper is planned as a chapter in the Working Group’s consideration of public administration reform. The purpose of the paper is to discuss critical issues, epistemological antecedents, ontology of various potential theories, and consider existing unintended consequences and failing incentives for current public administration. Its contribution should contribute toward further book chapters seeking to construct research agendas.
|
