Abstract
|
Public sector reform has arguably been one of the defining features of the public policy landscape for the past three decades (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). Public organizations are faced with an ever increasing array of problems, are expected to implement and develop strategies necessary to respond in an efficient manner to complex social, economic and political challenges. At the same time, there are numerous instances where they are seen as part or even the source for these problems. Thus, public organizations are a constant subject to rigorous and extensive management reforms (Andrews, Downe, Guarneros-Meza, 2013; Jilke, Van de Walle, 2013).
Strategic Planning is an excellent tool that local governments can (and should) use in order to deal efficiently with change. Positer and Streib (2005) demonstrated the benefits that cities gain when using strategic planning: increasing focus of major stakeholders and political leaders on the mission, goals and priorities of the locality, improving communication between stakeholders, better general management and decision making inside the organization, improved employee professional development and a general improvement of organizational performance. One can argue that these fall into the general category of increasing effectiveness and quality objectives which is a constant of public sector reform (Pollitt, van Thiel and Homburg, 2007). Looking into this direction the most prodigious public sector reform models in the last 30 years are: 1) New Public Management (NPM), has taken the spotlight starting with the 80’s and has had a lot of attention from both scholars and practitioners in the following two decades, with the jury still out on its real impact 2) The Neo-Weberian State (NWS)(Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2004, 2011, Drechsler, 2005) a reinterpretation of Max Webers theory, describing a model that takes the positive elements of NPM and places them on a Weberian foundation as a reaction to concerns with the inadequacies of NPM and overly managerial focused reforms mostly imported from the USA (Dunn, Miller, 2007) 3) New Public Governance (NPG) (Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2004, 2011) that brings the concept of governance at center stage, implying a redefinition of the state’s role (but not necessarily a reduction ), and emphasis on complex organization networks, partnerships, negotiations and mutual adjustments between different actors. We intend to use these three theoretical models in order to frame the strategic planning practices as part of the public sector reform movement.
The current study aims to do a comparative analysis of strategic planning efforts made by local governments in seven states (USA, Russia, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain) and the results of such efforts. The main objective of the study is to identify and analyze the current practice of strategic planning in the local public administration in seven countries by looking at three dimensions of the planning process:
• Purpose: What are the main reasons that determine local public authorities to initiate and implement strategic planning efforts?
• Process: What are the main steps included in the planning process? What are the basic principles guiding this process? What the stakeholders involved and in what stage?
• Outcome: What are the major outputs/outcomes of strategic planning? What are the major benefits and challenges?
Answers to these questions should guide the authors to explore another additional 2 important questions: (1) Are there any links between strategic planning (as a managerial tool) and specific models of public administration reform and (2) what are the specifics of the planning process in each of these seven countries (common characteristics and differences –potential model of planning?)
|
