PUBLIC MANAGEMENT OR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

Abstract: The debate over managerialism has been the most controversial issue in Australian public administration journals in recent years. Although most articles have been critical, there have been responses in favour of the changes by senior public servants. One unfortunate consequence of this debate has been the appearance of a gap between academic public administration and public service practice.
This paper argues that, from several angles, the work now carried out by public services is management rather than administration. It argues that managerialism is a long-overdue reform to a model which has outlived its usefulness. The traditional model of public administration was an irrelevance for many years; it was never efficient or effective and deserved to be replaced. However, public management does not necessarily mean the widespread and uncritical adoption of practices from the private sector. What it should mean is that a distinctive public management needs to be developed. This should take account of the differences between the sectors, but still recognise that the work being done by public servants is now managerial rather than administrative.     

THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND CO-OPERATTVE FEDERALISM

A paper of this type clearly calls for some definition of terms. Although "The Public Services" are usually seen to comprise the State Public Services and the Australian Public Service, in reality of course, government institutionalized services to the public go beyond these seven agencies. All the statutory authorities—Commissions, Corporations, Boards and Trusts—are part of public administration; so also are local government bodies. There are in the various public services some agencies which form part of the public service proper (i.e. a Department defined as such under one or other of the Public Service Acts) whereas in others they have the independence of a corporate entity. In South Australia for instance the whole state water supply and sewerage services are provided by one public service department, the Engineering and Water Supply Department. In the other states those services are provided by more than one agency and these range from government departments and local governing bodies to statutory authorities. A similar division of responsibility exists in the road construction area where some states perform their highway undertakings through the agency of a statutory authority, while others prefer the tighter Ministerial control of a government department.     

THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND THE AUSTRALIAN STATE IN THE 1980s

Abstract: The adoption of the discourse of management by Australian public services in the 1980s can be seen as a cultural revolution. Results-oriented management, subordinated to economic considerations, is the dominant approach. The upper levels of the public services have been remodelled in the form of a technically-oriented elite recruited on merit, defined in terms of higher education credentials, drawing a technical intelligentsia, or "new class", into public employment. Although "people and process" approaches, espoused in particular by women, find a place in the new culture, they are subordinated to the demands of scientific management. While the technical intelligentsia is resistant to traditional forms of bureaucratic authority and open to rational debate and new ideas, its members are not well equipped to take account of the substantive concerns of public policy and service provision. The distinctiveness of public management is submerged by inappropriate private sector models, and issues tend to be reduced to economic ones. The paradox that this culture has risen to prominence under Labor governments is explored and the developments are placed in the context of contemporary demands placed on the Australian state by private capital.     

The Public Service: Independence, Responsibility and Responsiveness

In recent years there has been controversy surrounding the issues of the independence, responsibility and responsiveness of our public services. Critics come from two opposing directions: (i) there have been charges of politicisation of the public service, with the implication that it has lost its independence and become dominated by the government; (ii) Pusey (1991) has accused 'economic rationalists' in the public service of pursuing their own neo-classical agenda and dominating government policy. Both criticisms reveal a misunderstanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of ministers and public servants and the proper relations between them. In our system of democratic government, it is the prerogative of ministers to decide and the role of departments to propose and advise and then implement the decisions of ministers. This contribution begins by considering the respective responsibilities of ministers and officials, before canvassing the charges of politicisation and what should be expected from public servants in contributing to policy development. Finally there is consideration of the ethical values of public servants and what responsibility they might have for the 'public interest'.     

Reinventing government: The Israeli exception: The case of political cultures and public policy-making

In recent years, the institutionalization of norms of policy accountability and planning in the Israeli public administration has preoccupied a series of committees on public service reform and government reorganization. This paper discusses the background of the Israeli policy-making culture and its effect on recommendations for systematic policy planning, analysis, evaluation, and accountability. This account is interesting, partly, because it traces a reaction to institutional arrangements that are in many ways similar to those promoted by advocates of the New Public Management. Ironically, however, it explains the efforts to replace them with something more like traditional bureaucratic arrangements.     

THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE FUTURE

Abstract: State governments in Australia have been regarded essentially as service deliverers, with the result that the specialist heads of public organizations, although technically competent, have rarely questioned the need for their activities. Nor does the argument that such questioning is the responsibility of the politician take account of the inertia of the existing system; an analysis of the activities which the Tasmanian government has undertaken over the past six years—including those of statutory authorities—shows a fair degree of stability. Thus we should consider building into the State's existing organizational arrangements some means of evaluating existing programs and new proposals. Such policy analysis should widen the narrow focus of the advice currently offered by public servants. Although there have been some moves in this direction in Tasmania (particularly in the Premier's Department), it has not been reflected in the structures of the public service generally. A survey of 22 government departments showed that only eight had officers concerned with evaluatory planning, and only three departments were engaged in innovative and initiatory planning. Other directions in which Tasmania's public organizations could move with benefit include an increase in lateral recruitment; breaking down the rigidity of the promotion appeals and classification systems; introducing flexible management and budgeting procedures throughout the service as a whole; and continually reviewing the structure and functions of public organizations. The questions that have been raised by recent inquiries into State and Federal government administration, namely coordination, efficiency, economy, effectiveness, decentralization and participation, have not stressed sufficiently the key issue for the public services of the 1980s, which is the nature of the relationship between the politician, the public service and the community.     

Is There a Dark Side to Government Supportfor Nonprofits?

The relationship between government social spending and private donations to the nonprofit sector is an issue that is relevant to both public administrators and nonprofit managers. Does government funding displace philanthropy, or encourage it? This article introduces the debate into the public administration literature. First, I survey and interpret the empirical work performed to date in this area by economists. Second, I retest this question across four nonprofit subsectors using data on both federal and state/local spending. My survey of the literature shows mixed results, although a broad pattern indicates that “crowding out” tends to dominate, particularly in the areas of social service provision and health. My empirical results are consistent with these findings, although they must be interpreted cautiously from a policy perspective: While results are statistically significant, the degree of crowding out is generally small. On the other hand, the claim that government funding stimulates giving seems to lack both statistical and policy significance.     

Spaceflight and the Separation of Church and State

Instances of religious expression by astronauts aboard NASA spacecraft present a unique encounter between American space policy and legal jurisprudence. The agency must adjudicate between its reticence to restrict astronauts' religious action with its responsibility to protect the constitutional separation between church and state. Though NASA won a suit filed by an atheist activist in 1969, it has not always taken proper consideration of the dangers of astronauts' religious expression. As it seeks a sustained human presence in outer space, NASA should form a policy regarding its responsibility to provide religious accommodation for current and future astronauts.     

THE ROLES OF GOVERNMENT A PARTICIPANT'S PERSECTIVE*

Hasluck is unusual in the lengths he went to the define the responsibilities of the various offices in which he was involved. Many of the functions and processes of government have changed since Hasluck was an active participant in the political process. Interest groups have increasingly influenced political decision-making, organisations external to the public service now play a greater role in influencing the development of public policy, the operation of a number of areas of the public service has become more visible and open to external scrutiny, there has been a constant trend towards political appointments within the public service, and it appears unlikely that the emphasis on public relations and marketing techniques as an integral feature of government communication will diminish. Likewise, the demands on ministers' time have increased and, while it is questionable whether ministers now handle a larger ministerial workload than Hasluck did, it is doubtful whether very many then or since have had his capacity for hard work or for handing the matters which cross their desk without the support of a professional advisory staff. The functions and operations of government evolve and the adaptation of roles and functions may not necessarily weaken the effectiveness of government administration. However, the fundamental tenet of Hasluck's writings on the roles of government remains compelling: the participants in the various areas of government should have an appreciation of the constitutional responsibilities of their position, its relationship to other areas of government and the fundamental principles which are required to maintain the credentials of the office into the future.     

PUBLIC SERVANTS AND THE BRIEFING OF PARTY COMMITTEES

Abstract: Politicians need information. In recent years the practice of public servants briefing party committees has been expanded to help fill that need. In part this was due to the increased influence of caucus committees under the Labor government, but the practice has continued. Public servants provide information and explanations of policy to government and opposition members, although in the latter case public servants have to tread carefully. In December 1976 the Prime Minister tabled guidelines to govern these briefings. This innovation has implications for the doctrines of public service neutrality, for ministerial responsibility and for the capacity of the opposition to develop workable policy. Despite the potential problems that may arise, it is a practice that, if used effectively, can only assist in the improvement of political debate.     

Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy

There is a long-standing debate about the proper application of democratic versus technocratic approaches to decision-making in public policy. This paper seeks to clarify the debate by applying Michael Walzer’s notion of “spheres of justice,” wherein both democracy and technocracy could be seen as distinctive approaches to justice that need to be protected from the domination of the other. The paper shows how the debate on democracy versus technocracy has evolved in both theoretical and applied settings in a manner that reflects the “domination” of one approach by the other. It elaborates the argument through several concrete examples drawn from comparative politics, public policy, and public management. It then explores how the “spheres” approach implies the need for an interpretive mechanism in order to mediate the competing notions of justice in particular policy issues.     

Policy coordination in the European metropolis: A meta-analysis

A major concern of the ongoing metropolitan debate is the growing need for policy coordination in urban areas. By means of a meta-analysis of 17 case studies regarding the integration of urban transport and land use policies in Western Europe, the present article focuses on the institutional conditions for policy coordination in metropolitan areas. For this purpose, hypotheses are derived from the two classic schools of the metropolitan debate: on the one hand the progressive model that stands for direct public service production by centralised and professionalised bureaucracies within consolidated municipalities, and on the other hand the public choice model that stands for a decentralised, non-professional, and politically dependent administration in fragmented urban areas. The results of a Qualitative Comparative Analysis show that well coordinated policy decisions are only implemented in institutional settings that correspond with the progressive model, thus promoting this model rather than the public choice model.     

Can We? Administrative Limits Revisited

The idea of administrative limits—in the sense of constraints or bounds on what can be achieved by the activity of administration in general and public administration in particular—is important for a proper understanding of twenty‐first‐century public administration. What are the effective limits of taxable capacity in the modern state, as debt‐ridden governments seek to reduce debt levels and budget deficits after the financial crashes and economic recession of the late 2000s? What are the limits of safety and security that can be realistically achieved by administrative structures and procedures in a so‐called risk society? What are the limits to the achievement of ambitious social engineering to improve the human lot by conventional organizations and bureaucracies? Such issues are not new. Questions of this kind have long been asked by scholars in the intersecting fields of public administration, policy studies, and political science. Nonetheless, the author argues, they address issues that are of continuing, central importance to government and society in today’s world.     

INADEQUACIES IN THE PROCESSES OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Abstract: Policy and policy development have received considerable attention in Australia over the last decade or more. This attention has resulted in many recommendations on policy in the series of major public service inquiries of the 1970s, in a number of books and journal articles on varied aspects of public policy, and in the considerable strengthening of the policy development capacities of many government agencies. This attention has to date been inadequate, because it has in almost all cases concentrated on the questions of where within the bureaucratic structure policy development should occur and what procedural mechanisms are needed to allow ministers or cabinet to choose between alternative policies and to facilitate the coordination of policies. These questions are of course important, but questions of how a well-considered policy option that can be considered by a cabinet or a minister is actually developed appear to have been almost totally ignored. In the public service inquiries, in the published literature, and in public accounts of the work of policy units, there appears to be virtually no analysis of the process of policy development. There is little or no discussion of how the standard formal models of policy development match or fail to match the techniques used in Australia, and although there have been many individual case studies of policy issues, there are no comparative case studies from which general observations might be drawn. Lastly, there are very few positive suggestions as to how policy development in Australia could be improved. Overcoming these inadequacies provides a major challenge to Australian policy workers.     

THE CAREER SERVICE IN THE 1980s: WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

This paper seeks to provide statistics on how the career service has developed within Commonwealth Government administration over the past decade or so. On the basis of trends in these data some speculations are offered on how the career service might look in the 1980s. The views expressed are speculations, not forecasts. In Commonwealth administration, the career service concept has by and large been held to embrace staff employed in the Commonwealth Public Service (CPS) under the Public Service Act, particularly permanent staff. While it is possible to debate the extent of the career service, this paper will confine itself to full-time permanent, temporary and exempt staff of the CPS, employed under the Public Service Act. It thus excludes staff employed under other Acts, although the opportunities for movement of CPS staff to statutory authorities and back again should not be overlooked.     

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE: A PERSPECTIVE*

Abstract: The Australian diplomatic service receives a fair degree of criticism, some misconceived, but some directed constructively at improving its economy and efficiency. The traditional objectives of Australian overseas representation are not questioned; rather the debate centres on the vast range of choice in the ways in which these broad objectives can be met—on such matters as how elaborately the task of overseas representation should be performed, where, and how large, overseas missions should be, how the diplomatic service should be staffed, and whether the pattern of coordination between the diplomatic service and other parts of the public service is appropriate. The complex issues involved in these areas of debate form part of the background against which the everyday work of the diplomatic service is set. This work includes political and economic reporting, the usual consular business, and “one-off” occasions ranging from the preparation of major bilateral treaties to war or revolution. Language and cultural differences make the carrying out of these tasks more difficult. Recruits to the diplomatic service are usually graduates in their mid-twenties with strong university qualifications, which are supplemented by formal training and by experience in different posts abroad and in Australia. The trend to greater specialization of diplomatic staff suggests a need for closer contact between the foreign service and other parts of the Australian Public Service, universities and the private sector. The past few years have been a period of questioning and criticism in all parts of the public sector, including the diplomatic service. At the same time the role played by the diplomatic service has grown more difficult. It is time that discussion focused on the key question—the need for comprehensive representation of Australia overseas—rather than on those who service this representation.     

Leaps of Faith in the Obesity Debate: a Cautionary Note for Policy Note for Policy-makers

The obesity epidemic has become an issue of major public concern in recent years, with dire predictions of its impact on public health budgets and the long-term health of populations in the developed world. Governments are being urged to act to improve our eating habits and make us more active. Policy proposals range from education campaigns to banning junk food advertising to more extreme measures such as 'fat taxes'. Although the debate has included discussion of public policy solutions to the problem, there has been little input from public policy specialists. This article explores some of the leaps of faith that are currently being made in the obesity debate and suggests that policy-makers need to be cautious about how they respond to calls for action. It is suggested that public policy research may provide some useful frameworks for considering the nature of the problem and assessing possible solutions.     

Gender Dimensions of Public Service Motivation

Feminist scholars of public administration have critiqued the dominance of masculine imagery in public administration theory and practice. However, public service motivation is one area of public administration discourse that contains both feminine and masculine imagery. Focusing on Perry's multidimensional public service motivation scale, the authors borrow from a range of social science literatures to contend that compassion is a feminine dimension of public service motivation, whereas attraction to policy making and commitment to public service are masculine dimensions. Data from a survey of public managers in state health and human service agencies reveal that women score higher on Perry's compassion subscale but also on attraction to policy making. No statistically significant gender differences were found on commitment to public service.