The new public personnel and the new public service

The New Public Administration sought a public service whose legitimacy would be based, in part, on its promotion of “social equity.” Since 1968, several personnel changes congruent with the New Public Administration have occurred: traditional managerial authority over public employees has been reduced through collective bargaining and changes in constitutional doctrines; the public service has become more socially representative; establishing a representative bureaucracy has become an important policy goal; more emphasis is now placed on employee participation in the work place; and legal changes regarding public administrators’ liability have promoted an “inner check” on their behavior. At the same time, however, broad systemic changes involving decentralization and the relationship between political officials and career civil servants have tended to undercut the impact of those changes in personnel. The theories of Minnowbrook I, therefore, have proven insufficient as a foundation for a new public service. Grounding the public service's legitimacy in the U.S. Constitution is a more promising alternative and is strongly recommended.

The New Public Administration, like other historical calls for drastic administrative change in the United States, sought to develop a new basis for public administrative legitimacy. Earlier successful movements grounded the legitimacy of the public service in high social standing and leadership, representativeness and close relationship to political parties, or in putative political neutrality and scientific managerial and technical expertise. To these bases, the New Public Administration sought to add “social equity.” As George Frederickson explained, “Administrators are not neutral. They should be committed to both good management and social equity as values, things to be achieved, or rationales. “⁽¹⁾ Social equity was defined as “includ[ing] activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well being of … [disadvantaged] minorities.” It was necessary because “the procedures of representative democracy presently operate in a way that either fails or only very gradually attempts to reverse systematic discrimination against” these groups.⁽²⁾

Like the Federalists, the Jacksonians, and the civil service reformers and progressives before it, the New Public Administration focused upon administrative reform as a means of redistributing political power.⁽³⁾ Also, like these earlier movements, the New Public Administration included a model of a new type of public servant. This article sets forth that new model and considers the extent to which the major changes that have actually taken place in public personnel administration since 1968 are congruent with it. We find that while contemporary public personnel reflects many of the values and concerns advanced by the New Public Administration, substantial changes in the political environment of public administration have frustrated the development of a new public service that would encompass the larger goals and ideals expressed at Minnowbrook I. Building on the trends of the past two decades, this article also speculates about the future. Our conclusion is that ultimately the public service's legitimacy must be grounded in the Constitution. Although its focus is on macro-level political and administrative developments, the broad changes it discusses provide the framework from which many contemporary personnel work-life issues, such as pay equity and flexitime, have emerged.     

The new business environment of latin america and the caribbean

Latin America and the Caribbean Region experienced dramatic changes in the 1990s. Politically, all but one country, are governed by a democratically elected government. Economically, import substitution industrialization policies (ISI) followed in the past, were replaced by liberalization programs aimed at reducing inflationary pressures and creating a competitive environment.

The significant increase in capital flows to Latin America in one single year, 1990, buried the 1980s as the “lost decade,” and the successful implementation of privatization programs region-wide prompted to affirm that the 1990s might constitute the “Latin America's decade.” Where does the euphoria come from? Is there any implicit promise to be derived from such international capital flows? Will the pattern be sustained? Has Latin America begun a new era? Are unfolding events on defiance of fundamentals?

These and many other questions can be raised regarding the spectacular transformation of Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly when analysts still debate about the Mexican crisis of 1994, investors eagerly pursue the agenda of a second privatization wave, experts around the world get fascinated with the high-tech push found in Latin America, bankers apply Latin American lessons to deal with the currency crisis in Asia, and casual observers recognize the value-creation process added by Latin American entrepreneurs who challenge the most adverse circumstances. Indeed, Latin America and the Caribbean is a land full of promises and contrasts, where there exists a head to head competition between globalization and nationalism, the haves and the have-nots, capitalism and communism, literature and high-technology, markets and governments, East and West, North and South, myth and reality, and … “despair and hope.”

There is no question, however, that Latin America and the Caribbean, being she a detached wide-land, is a region of great opportunity. Since the external debt crisis of 1982 and its aftermath, democracy, open markets, economic reform and privatization have blended to offer great expectations and opportunities for business and investment in the region. The new vision strongly questioned the status quo to render a new business environment to open the doors and light up the roads of the upcoming millennium.

It is the purpose of the International Journal of Public Administration to offer to its readers, for the very first time, a special issue devoted entirely to the discussion of the new business environment of Latin America and the Caribbean. We are, therefore, grateful to all the authors who generously are sharing with us the findings from their scholarly research. Given the far reaching consequences of their contributions, we, as guest editors of this special issue, had no other choice but to incorporate the fruits yielded by this symposium of thirty-seven papers in four issues in one single volume. The papers have been sorted according to the following four focal points: Privatization of State Owned Enterprises; Mexico; Economic, Financial and Foreign Investment Issues; and Economic Integration, Trade and Cultural Issues.

Part I of this special issue on “The New Latin American Business Environment” looks at one element of the broad economic strategy followed by most Latin American countries: Privatization of State Owned Enterprises. The role of governments is to provide the framework that will allow the private sector to create wealth. Notwithstanding, this partnership between the public and private sectors must ensure the inclusion of the poorer sections of the population. In many ways, the long-term sustainability of these economic programs will largely depend on this. The ten papers selected for this part, provide insight on how this phenomenon is affecting different Latin American countries.

The first paper by Shamsul Haque argues that there is a need to analyze the social consequences of privatization programs. Further research is needed to identify the main advocates and beneficiaries of privatization programs. According to the author, “critical economic conditions have not improved significantly after privatization, and in many instances, the conditions have deteriorated.” About fifty percent of Latin America's population of 470 million people live under poverty.

The late Sister Martin Byrne (1) documents in her paper, “Cananea Consolidated Copper Company from Nationalization to Privatization: 1972-1991 ,” the problems of ownership and management faced by La Cananea, a Mexican copper mine. Sister Byrne argues that “The Cananea mines were profitable under entrepreneurial and MNC ownership, but proved to be a financial drain on the government during the paraestatal period.”

The third paper by Garcia and Dyner, examined the reform and regulation of electricity in Columbia. According to the authors, the regulatory framework adopted by the government is going to determine the success of these programs. Furthermore, “the challenge is the change of public intervention in the sector, so that it regulates, supports, and supervises the decentralized activities of the firms, and liberates resources to be invested in other areas.”

Walter and Gonzalez provide interesting philosophical arguments on technology and human resources management derived from the cases of privatized companies in Argentina. The authors consider two variants, “systemic modernization and revamping of existing teams” to invite a reopening of the old debate on technological blending. They argue, however, that “to compete you do not necessarily need to ‘ be on the frontier.’”

Joan B. Anderson examines, the “Privatization, Efficiency and Market Failure: Transforming Ecuador's Public Sector,” privatization in Ecuador through the shift experienced by development theory with respect to the role of the public sector. In this paper the author points out that “while careful privatization can be positive, privatizing monopolies like the electric utility and/or quasi-public goods like highways are likely to be detrimental to long run economic development.”

Doshi identifies the successes and failures of the privatization program in Mexico by analyzing the cases of Mexicana Airlines, Aeromexico and Telmex. The author argues that even though the government was able to sell a number of state owned enterprises, a “successful” privatization program required appropriate macroeconomic policies and defining the role of foreign investment in economic development. One can argue then, that even though the size of the state is shrinking, its role is becoming more important.

The article by Vetter and Zanetta analyze also the case of Argentina. The authors argue that in order to consolidate the economic reforms implemented by the national government, provincial reform has to take place. A number of important lessons were identified.

John M. Kirk and Julia Sagebien present, in “Cuba's Market Rapprochement: Private Sector Reform - Public Sector Style,” the highlights of Cuba's process of transition towards a market economy by analyzing the conditions that lead to a market opening as well as the ends, the means and the actors of the ensuing process of economic reform.

Walter T. Molano contributes a paper, “The Lessons of Privatization,” based on his book The Logic of Privatization: The Case of Telecommunications in the Southern Cone of Latin America by looking at privatization as a process that may end up in varied outcomes as seen from microeconomic-, macroeconomic-, and political perspectives of analysis.

The focal point of Part II is Mexico. It is very clear that since the beginning of the decade, Mexico has made major efforts to transform its economy in order to play a more significant role in the global economy. Different attempts have been undertaken leading to: first, address the aftermath of the debt crisis of 1982; second, modernize and open the economy through a structural change that have included, among other programs, privatization, deregulation, fiscal deficit reduction, and trade liberalization: and third, change the political landscape.

Ephraim Clark models, in his “Agency Conflict and the Signaling Snafu in the Mexican Peso Crisis of 1994,” the conflict as a government held option to default and introduce signaling by assuming that the Mexican government had monopolistic information on the economy's true situation. The author argues that “if steps had been taken in late 1993 and early 1994, the crisis element of the adjustment could probably have been avoided.”

Blaine's article examines the role of foreign capital in economic development. By studying the Mexican case, the author answers a number ofvery important questions: How are once protected markets going to react to a large inflow of foreign capital? How did Mexican authorities deal with these inflows? What are some of the lessons that could be derived from the Mexican experience?

Hazera's paper discusses the history and legal basis of Mexican financial groups. On the basis of various stock market and financial statement data, an examination is also made of the groups’ evolution from 1991 to 1994.

Eugene M. Salorio and Thomas L. Brewer consider, in “Expanding the Levels of Analysis of FDI for Improved Understanding of Policy issues: The Case of Mexico,” both macro-, and micro-level shifts of analysis which mutually complement one another, and yield, for example, a “components profile” of disaggregated national level FDI flows which depends on the type of the project. The authors identify far reaching implications for public policy that may be extrapolated from the case of Mexico to the new business environment faced by the Latin American countries.

Francis A. Lees suggests also, from another angle, that the crisis of December 1994 could have been avoided because the financial disequilibrium was clearly evident by mid-1994 just be looking at Mexico's GDP and balance of payments.

C. Bulent Aybar, Riad A. Ajami, and Marca M. Bear provide a comparative study of the recent experiences of Mexico and Turkey. The authors identify common elements in the development and eruption of the crises to conclude that “under capital mobility strong internal and external shocks may lead to explosive crises … even though overall macroeconomic balances are sound.”

James P. D’Mello shows in “An Analysis of Mergers and Acquisitions in Mexico: 1985-1996,” that the Mexican crisis has led to an escalation of corporate restructuring such as mergers, acquisitions and joint-ventures.

Jiawen Yang joins the current debate on the causes of the recent Mexican financial crisis by arguing that “capital inflows that are not well absorbed by the private sector will cause financial instability under a fixed exchange rate regime.”

Part III of the new business environment of Latin America and the Caribbean includes ten papers on Foreign Investment, Economic and Financial issues which add significantly to the understanding of the overall transformation carried out in recent years by this region of the world.

Christopher Korth and Ajay Samant, and Craig A. Peterson andK. C. O’Shaughnessy recognize, respectively in the following two papers, “American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from Latin America: An Opportunity for American Investors.” and “Financial Investment Via ADRs in Mexico and South America,” the usefulness of ADRs for operationalizing international diversification.

Juan Espana surveys the literature on models and tools currently used to predict exchange rate movements, and aims to suggest market solutions, economic policy measures and institutional arrangements to currency crises. The author analyzes the origin and evolution of the 1994 Mexican Peso crisis, its contagion effects on other Latin American economies, and the measures taken by the affected countries to manage the crisis.

Prakash L. Dheeriya and Mahendra Raj provide, in “An Investigation in Exchange Rate Behavior of Emerging Countries,” insights on the role that exchange rate risk plays by identifying similarities and differences through international comparisons.

Kumar's paper examines the important role of foreign direct investment in promoting economic development. The emphasis here is on the transfer of technology through foreign direct investment.

Neupert and Montoya study the characteristics of’ Japanese foreign investment in Latin America, with a focus on Brazil and Mexico. The authors looked at the preferred modes of entry and the post-entry performance of these subsidiaries.

Thomas M. Fullerton, Jr. shows, in “Currency Movements and International Border Crossings,” through two ARIMAmodels that “northbound bridge traffic to El Paso is nonrandom and follows fairly well defined patterns each year.”

Trevor Campbell makes, in “A Note on the Current and Capital Accounts Compilation of Barbados under the Fourth and Fifth IMFEditions,” a comparison with respect to the composition and structure of the current and capital accounts of Barbados.

Janet Kelly and Alexeis Perera argue, in “Antitrust Policy in a Hostile Environment: Institutional Building in Venezuela's Procompetencia,” that the theories of bureaucracy in Latin America generally stress institutional weakness, political volatility and the politicized nature of government agencies which motivated, in Venezuela, the creation of the anti-monopoly agency called “Procompetencia.”

G. Scott Erickson and Andrea Nhuch recommend in ‘The Latin American Business Environment: Patent Protection Issues” a general hybrid system to deal with patent rights issues.

Finally, Part IV deals with a blend of Trade, Economic Integration and Cultural issues. Since much of the world still tends to view Latin America and the Caribbean in terms of stereotypes, it seems appropriate to end this special issue on the new business environment of the region with a group of papers that revisits the rich mosaic of Latin America, and permits appreciate her new reality.

Isaac Cohen argues, in “Hispanics and Foreign Policy.” that though the primacy of economics in Hemispheric relations provides an opportunity for Hispanic businesses, yet this community will have to act deliberately to benefit from the opportunities that are emerging.

Eva Kras contributes, in “The Viable Future of Mexico and Latin America: A New Business Paradigm,” with a South looking North approach for doing business that challenges the traditional view of business relations.

Guillermo Duenas argues, in “Cultural Aspects in the Integration of the Americas,” that managing cultural integration successfully requires a process of “intercultural learning.”

Andres A. Thompson, Francisco B. Tancredi and Marcos Kisil introduce, in “New Partnerships for Social Development: Business and the Third Sector,” the novel argument that corporate philanthropy can make the difference in social development because grantmaking is still the least frequent used strategy in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Chris Robertson, Pol Herrmann and Kevin Duffy measure, in “Exploring Perceptions of Technology Between the United States and Ecuador,” perceptions of technology on the basis of the typology of motivators and inhibitors of technological growth.

Melissa H. Birch argues, in “Mercosur: The Road to Economic Integration in the Southern Cone,” that Mercosur represents, in contrast to the historical record of economic integration in the region, an adaptation to the contemporary political climate.

Wu and Longley discuss the rationale for extending NAFTA to Chile. Their study examines also how NAFTA negotiators may address issues such as trade and investment rules, intellectual property rights, and labor and environmental standards among other things.

Roger Kashlak and Srinath Beldona identify, in “Partner Reciprocity, Telecommunications Flows and Balance of Trade Patterns Between the United States and Latin America,” partner reciprocity as the issue at the core of the international long-distance industry.

Ines Bustillo extends, in “Overview of Economic-wide NAFTA Models” computable general equilibrium models to the case of NAFTA.

We hope that this special issue is informative and interesting to business-decision makers, regulatory policy makers, and students concerned with gaining an understanding of the ongoing transformation of Latin American and the Caribbean.

Finally, we are again most grateful to the contributors of articles for making this special issue possible. We would also like to thank Jack Rabin, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Public Administration, for trusting us the delicate mission of providing to the readers a fresh view of the new business environment of Latin America and the Caribbean.     

Whatever happened to the new public administration?

The “New Public Administration” advocated the infusion of value preferences into areas of administrative practice. In assessing the historical legacy and contemporary applicability of the movement, the authors examine its objectives in view of changing political and administrative commitments. The article criticizes the extent to which institutionalizing administrative values gives way to “value-shifting” when electoral moods change.     

CACOPHONIES IN THE CONTEMPORARY CHORUS ABOUT CHANGE AT PUBLIC WORKSITES,AS CONTRASTED WITH SOME STRAIGHT-TALK FROM A PLANNED CHANGE PERSPECTIVE

The New Public Management (henceforth NPM) has coalesced into a movement in a short period of time, virtually worldwide. Thus, inter alia, we hear about the allegedly-new focus on the “customers” of public services, which are to be provided by “public intrapreneurs” as well as by cadres of employees at all levels who are “empowered.” And so on and on—through the conventional organizational litany including cross-training, total quality, performance measurement, and eventuating in strategic planning. These emphases make for a pleasing, even convincing, organizational libretto.

If the “chorus” proclaiming the NPM libretto is both ubiquitous as well as insistent, however, the chanting is often loosely-coupled, curiously directed, and at times even contradictory—at times so much so as to alert one's native cunning about what forces are really at work. Hence, the reference here to the “chorus” and also the “cacophonies” this essay detects in NPM's ardent vocalizing. This reflects our judgment that, in equal measure, NPM combines ubiquity, too much of some useful things, unreconciled diversities, and issues at sixes-and-sevens.

But this essay also urges that NPM can “walk its talk.” In effect, several emphases will at once help explain how NPM was all-but-predestined to experience serious shortfalls, as well as prescribe how NPM can rise about these limitations. Particular attention gets directed at appropriate guidelines interaction and structural arrangements.

Four emphases relate to these critical-cum-constructive ambitions. In preview, NPM 1. seldom even attempted detailing a useful approach to applications;

2. typically neglected systemic or millieu characteristics within which applications occurred;

3. usually did not specify a useful front-load in designs: i.e., training in values, attitudes, and interaction skills that would facilitate developing a “cultural preparedness” for appropriate applications; and

4. seldom specified supportive structural/managerial arrangements.

This essay proposes to do better.

This essay takes a direct if dual approach to describing the New Public Management “chorus” and its “cacophonies.” To begin, introductory attention goes to NPM as a “liberation” of theory and practice beyond the classic conservatisms of Public Administration. Then, four limitations of this NPM “chorus” will be detailed, and this quartet of “cacophonies” also implies ways to enhance NPM applications, as well as urges a stark warning against overselling.     

Russian Central Government Budgeting and Public Sector Reform Discourses: Paradigms,Hybrids, and a “Third Way”

ABSTRACT

This study explores how public sector reform discourses are reflected in Russian central government budgeting. Through the lenses of institutional logics, Russian central government budgeting is considered to be a social institution that is influenced by rivaling reform paradigms: Public Administration, New Public Management (NPM), the Neo-Weberian State, and New Public Governance. Although NPM has dominated the agenda during the last decade, all four have been presented in “talks” and “decisions” regarding government budgeting. The empirical evidence illustrates that the implementation of management accounting techniques in the Russian public sector has coincided with and contradicted the construction of the Russian version of bureaucratic governance, which is referred to as the vertical of power. Having been accompanied by participatory mechanisms and a re-evaluation of the Soviet legacy, the reforms have created prerequisites for various outcomes at the level of budgeting practices: conflicts, as in the UK, and hybridization, as in Finland.     

Introduction: The Symposium and Its Authors

Abstract

This symposium addresses the question “Has public administration grown up?” as a provocative vehicle for free-ranging inquiry into the state of the field. Its articles originated from a panel of the same name held at the 2003 national conference of the American Society for Public Administration. The authors, each of whom make a quite different response, consist of the panel's original five members plus four participants from the audience who later contributed their ideas in written form.     

Conclusion: exploring the heart of civic darkness

This article is a synthesis of Volume II of Public Policy and Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective and an extension of the arguments found herein. And, it is an application of issues of ethics and morality to this volume. The author calls for a return to civility in public discourse and to Plato's conception of virtue, and particularly public virtue. New versions of civic space are important. The American emphasis on individualism must be tempered by a greater concern for the common good and the public interest. To achieve this public administrators must be both examples and representative citizens.

Cyrano: Perhaps I do exaggerate—a little.

Le Bret: You see!

Cyrano: But for the sake of principle.

Also in practice I have often found Exaggeration works extremely well.

—Edmund Rostand

Cyrano de Bergerac

And sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death.

—James 1:15

“Civic darkness” and “sin” are offputting words. “Offputting” is also an offputting word, but we must do what we can to follow Cyrano's advice to the Count de Guiche and color our discourse as but we can. Actually, sin is quite a useful word, meaning, as it does, transgression of a moral principle. Those whose sensibilities are offended when words such as sin are introduced, or react in anger at remembrances of the excesses of evangelical piety, would do well to revisit the idea of separation from the moral good and the consequences such separatilon has for persons and for societies. Such is the case with what I will call the sin of incivility, which I believe leads us into a civic heart of darkness, which is the deathtrap of American democracy. I will exaggerate—a little.

The word “moral” is also an attenuated word. It tends to conjure personal identity material and prejudgments about the authority, associations, and intent of the preacher or philosopher using the term. Fresh in my memory after twelve years is the aftermath of the publication of my article, “The Problem of Moral Reasoning in American Public Administration: The Case for a Code of Ethics,” in the Public Administration Review of January/February 1983. Of the nineteen letters I received about the article, five came from academic public administrationists wondering why a person of my background should now be joining the Moral Majority. I sent each of them a copy of my work exposing Jerry Falwell's problems with the Federal Trade Commission.

We have before us thirteen papers and twelve responses, each dealing with an important aspect of public policy. Are there common threads running through them? Do they highlight recurring themes in American public administration? Since they were written just before the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989, was there anything prescient about them, or are they just historical artifacts, interesting enough in themselves but now overtaken by events?

There is a common thread, and that is a continuing commitment to the legacy of Mimowbrook I, understood as a post-positivist concern with social values. The most prophetic and, I believe, relevant statements of Minnowbrook I1 extended that understanding to the societal, organizational, and personal dimensions of communicative ethics, including the problem of the alienation of the self. I will elaborate that interest in my discussion of incivility below.

The old controversies were also there: in Willa Bruce's demand that Cynthia McSwain and Orion White translate their exercise in analytic psychology “into a practical application to real world problems,” for example, and in Gary Wamsley's passionate belief that public administrationists should “unmask the norms economists camouflage as science.” Complementarities were there, too, as when real world public administrator, Ray Pethtel, Virginia Commissioner of Transportation, said hurrah for egghead John J. DeIulio, describing him as “a scholar who recognizes the value of the public manager!” A pernicious theme that continued at Minnowbrook II, despite the efforts of conference organizers to diminish it through representation and structured dialogue, was that those who live more contemplative lives do not live in the real world. The truth is that most academic public administrationists are or have been heavily involved in workaday policy formulation and execution and that most civil servants reflect profoundly on what they do. Why, then, do we continue to use the language of separation?

Although there were arguments at Minnowbrook II, and I well remember the tension in the room after Bruce and Wamsley spoke, as on other occasions, we stayed well within the bounds of civility. That is what democracy does. It roughs and tumbles and postures and threatens and in the end stays within the bounds of civility. It finds a way we can live together. Minnowbrook II did not anticipate the degree to which incivility, manifested as displaced anger, separatist politics, and cultural isolation, would come to characterize public discourse in America in the 1990s and threaten the continued existence of democracy itself. Such a development demands careful analysis.

Plato would not have been surprised at any of this, as Dorothy Robyn pointed out in her paper about using cases for teaching public management. Since cases focus on how a process affected substantive policy questions, it is easy to ignore the inherent merits of the policy. Thus induction from fact replaces deduction from theory and leaves a large potential for casuistry and the justification of moral laxity. When discussion of a case begins with the postulate that at least one of the protagonists was unethical, the opportunities for recognizing moral ambiguity in the situation itself are limited. The temptation to reduce moral reasoning to laws and regulations tends to replace the abstraction of the public manager as a political being deducing his or her strategies from whatever ideal is being served. Deontological ethics become the analytical norm.⁽¹⁾

Plato's impatience with deontological ethics means that he is not a popular theorist among democrats today. Yet his critique of democracy remains the most powerful in philosophic literature, and I believe his analysis is particularly relevant for an American political environment of electronic sound bites and bored ignorance about the processes of government. There is a paradoxical way in which Plato's explication can deliver those of us who care too much.

The rhetoricians have their way in a democracy, Plato says. As they pursue their enthusiasms, trying to persuade the inattentive public here and there, misleading the people when necessary, they devise temporary solutions to fundamental problems. They consume as they encourage others to consume, leaving nothing in store. They live transient lives in mortal bodies. The worst thing about rhetoricians such as Gorgias, Plato believes, is that they misuse words. They often invert their meaning. Words are the vehicle of the dialectic that can lead us to transcendent truth, but in the hands of Gorgias, they produce only chaos and discord. In Plato's terms, the rhetoricians

once they have emptied and purged [the good] from the soul of the man whom they are seizing … they proceed to return insolence, anarchy, wastefulness, and shamelessness from exile, in a blaze of light, crowned and accompanied by a numerous chorus, extolling and flattering them by calling insolence good education; anarchy, freedom; wastefulness, magnificence; and shamelessness, courage.⁽²⁾

The deliverance inherent in Plato is the sure knowledge that virtue does not lie finally in what one can achieve in the political world, including the public good served in feeding the poor and bringing social justice to the disinherited. We work to achieve the good, yes; indeed, we may pour out our lives in service to democratic ideals. But virtue is a personal condition of the mind and spirit. In a calculous of inherent worth, prostitutes may be more virtuous than virgins. Virtue may be present in me while I endure any physical or temporal condition, including slavery, the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the trivialization of the Christian Church, or the collapse of the American Republic. Authentic freedom, and whatever wisdom has been given to me, exists in my being and only there. I can enslave myself, of course, and that includes slavery to any appetite, including the passion to be or do good.

Such reasoning is a useful antilogistic ingredient in dealing with the cascading series of manifestos in American public life telling us that we cannot live together; we cannot work together; we are not in this together; we are not Americans who have something in common, but racial, ethnic, gender, or sexually identified groups who demand to be recognized only or exclusively as different. I require that you recognize that we have nothing in common with one another. If goodness or greatness of soul is a capacity that each man and woman has, as Plato argued, then it is also true that each of us has a similar capacity for evil. The theologians of the Middle Ages called that capacity sin and defined it as separation from God, moral principle, and each other.     

Introduction to global OD,I: extending the North American base

As the label “Global OD, I” intends to imply, the symposium is viewed as the first in a continuing series dealing with applications of the values-cum-technology usually called Organization Development or, more conveniently, OD. This action theory has developed a North American base over the past 3 or 4 decades, and extensions beyond this continent have now grown apace. Illustratively, a survey in the early 1980s found 100 research reports about OD applications, and there appears to have been no let-up. This industriousness will at once feed future Global OD symposia, and derive some direction from them.

The motivation for this series of symposia is direct. Such extensions beyond the North American base will help test OD's reach and grasp, while those theoretical developments and applications also seek to be responsive to significant and serious problems/opportunities on Space Ship Earth. We are all internationalists now, albeit with differing reservations about what we are in the midst of getting ourselves into.

“Global OD, I” models what is to come. This first symposium draws contributors from four continents; and it contains contributions that deal with OD in two modes -- as generic, or as rooted in specific non-North American contexts. This complements a series of symposia of long-standing in the Public Administration Quarterly, which have a strong bias toward domestic OD theory and applications in the public sector. Symposium VI of that series appeared in two parts in two 1993 PAQ numbers.

Specifically, this symposium contains ten contributions. Brief introductions follow.     

From reorganizing to reinventing: sixty years and “we still don’t get it”

Sixty years ago the “Brownlow Committee Report” was written by some of the most prominent members of the emerging field of public administration. Its recommendations had serious consequences for the way both our democratic republic and the field of public administration have evolved. In developing principles in which to anchor the recommendations, Luther Gulick, who was both the intellectual and political force behind the committee, contributed to a confusion of the concepts of organizations and the polity and those of management and governance.

Some of the story of how the concepts promoted by Gulick and the Papers on the Science of Administration led to a misconception, which became public administration's living legacy is told in this article. We then discuss the Brownlow Committee Report as something which changed: our very conception of the Constitution; Gulick's rationale for cooperation with Franklin D. Roosevelt; the Report as a misplacement of organizational concepts upon a polity; the dimensions of constitutional change in the report; and the staying power of Gulick's and the Committee's ideas. In conclusion, we contend that if we are to move beyond Gulick's legacy, that the field must learn and act upon the distinctions between organizations and the polity and management and governance.

“The charge that the Brownlow Committee set in train the development of the “imperial presidency” can be advanced only by those who have not read the Committee's report.”

James Fesler, former staff member of the Brownlow Committee Public Administration Review (July/August, 1987)

“How interesting it is historically that we all assumed in the 1930s that all management, especially public management, flowed in a broad, strong stream of value-filled ethical performance. Were we blind or only naive until Nixon came along? Or were we so eager to ‘take politics out of administration’ that we threw the baby out with the bathwater?”

Luther Gulick, member of the Brownlow Committee From Stephen K. Blurnberg, “Seven Decades of Public Administration: A Tribute to Luther Gulick” Public Administration Review (March/April, 1981)

was as old in American politics as it was popular. Yet, before the end of his second term, Roosevelt, with the help of Charles Merriam, Herbert Brownlow, and Luther Gulick, would use such hoary symbolism towards ends that would fundamentally alter our perceptions of the constitutional order, the nature of the presidency, and public administration. How did this come to pass? Barry Karl says that “He (Roosevelt) had continued as President to look at reorganization through the eyes of those who saw in it a means of saving money, balancing the budget, and thereby giving security to the nation's economy.” But Karl adds, “By 1936, this viewpoint had undergone drastic revision.”⁽⁶⁾ The revision in his thinking replaced “saving money” with “managerial control” as the principal aim of reorganization. “Managerial control” by the president would enable him not only to manage New Deal programs but protect them against potential Republican counterattacks, i.e., in short, to strengthen his hand as president.

The impetus for this change apparently came directly from the President's experiences in seeking to administer the government's burgeoning and increasingly chaotic Executive Branch. Roosevelt was a skilled, intuitive, and flexible administrator. But, according to Karl, his experience in seeking to administer the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act with a loose arrangement, quickly dubbed “the five ring circus,” taught the President several lessons. First, “it demonstrated the growing dependence of the President on official staff, other than cabinet members, working exceedingly close to the President's own sphere of daily operation. “⁽⁷⁾ Second, the problems of administering the Act raised questions among the participants themselves as to whether or not the President could “administer and control so complex an operation as federal relief given the inadequate machinery in his possession.”⁽⁸⁾ In other words, the effort was not simply a “five ring circus” because of FDR's famed flexible and informal style, but also because of the inadequacy of the available structures. Karl notes that “despite the problems inherent in the fiscal machinery as it stood, a continued development of governments within governments could only lead to a dangerous chaos over which the President would have no control whatsoever.”⁽⁹⁾ The questions raised suggested to the President that perhaps there was some merit to the position of those urging that emergency agencies be absorbed into the existing framework. This could meet a very practical question by “placing agencies within the purview of budget and accounting procedures already in existence.”⁽¹⁰⁾

According to Gulick, FDR told Brownlow and him at a November 14, 1936, meeting “that, since the election, he had received a great many suggestions that he move for a constitutional convention for the United States” and observed that “with Coughlin and other crackpots about there was no way of keeping such an affair from getting out of hand. But,” he said, “there is more than one way of killing a cat, just as in this job I assigned you.”⁽¹¹⁾ Gulick also quotes FDR as specifically telling the Committee, “We have got to get over the notion that the purpose of reorganization is economy. . . . The reason for reorganization is good management.”⁽¹²⁾ Of course FDR meant management as in “presidential management.”

So it was that President Roosevelt by 1936 was prepared to do something quite beyond “abolishing useless offices” in the words of his 1932 speech--something significantly more constitutional in nature. His other aim was no doubt to strengthen his hand significantly to protect the New Deal programs from Republican counterattack. But whatever his aim, the practical effect was to treat the executive branch as a hierarchical organization headed by a chief executive of corporate or city management conception. In so doing, the delicate constitutional balance among branches was altered. Recommending the reorganization of the executive branch as they did inevitably led to reorganization of the larger whole, the government, which was not an organization, but something qualitatively different.⁽¹³⁾     

Public administration and the constitutional bicentennial: An essay on research

The forthcoming centennial of American Public Administration falls in the same year as the bicentennial of the Constitution. This co-incidence suggests the propriety of examining the constitutional origins of the profession of Public Administration. This article notes the clash between the “two cultures” of administration and constitutionalism, proposes reasons for serious research into the constitutional foundations of contemporary administration, and provides several examples of suitable questions for this research.     

America First? Trump,Crime, and Justice Internationally

ABSTRACT

“America First,” as presented by President Trump, argues for an international strategy that persistently places America’s interests above those of anyone or anything else. Consequently, Trump has reshaped the international perceptions of the United States and has created more difficulties for the U.S. in coordinating of global leaders in resolving complex issues in the world. This essay reflects on how Trump and the United States are viewed internationally, the impacts of Trump’s anti-immigrant and pro-White nationalist rhetoric, Trump’s responses to humanitarian crises around the globe, and the potential impact of Trump’s stance on global climate change. Given these considerations, it is questionable whether “America First” policy has made “America Great Again” in the eyes of the world.     

Administrative Styles in the OECD: Bureaucratic Policy-Making beyond Formal Rules

As we know from comparative public policy, bureaucracies contribute to a considerable degree to the contents and the ways of policy-making. One important driver of administrative policy-making are their specific “styles” or “cultures”. “Administrative styles” are understood here as the standard operating procedures and routines that characterize the behavior and activities of administrative bodies in initiating, drafting and implementing policy. In this article, we convey the concept of Administrative Styles to the level of International Organizations (IOs) and apply it to the Organization for Economic Development and Co-Operation (OECD). The article proceeds in three steps: First, the concept of administrative styles is introduced and refined. Drawing on expert interviews with OECD staff, we secondly show that consideration of OECD administrative styles significantly advances the literature’s understanding of the organization. Finally, we give an outlook on new research avenues and the relevance of our findings for the study of International Public Administrations (IPAs) more generally.     

Public administrators and policy legitimization: Policy analysis,politics and power

This article discusses the factors public administration faculty should incorporate into the curriculum in order to equip students to engage in the policy legitimization process. In order to produce leaders, public administration programs should emphasize the nature of the political system, an understanding of the legitimacy of subgovernments, the importance of coalition building and the psychological factors associated with policy choices.

Integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum requires that students be equipped with an in-depth understanding of both the political environment and the political process. This is true because public administrators are deeply involved in the stages of policy development, adoption, and implementation; activities which reach beyond the narrow confines of program management and into the realm of politics. Consequently, public administrators serve in a variety of capacities: as policy advocates, program champions, or as defenders of client interests. It is in these roles that public administrators move into the political arena. Policy analysis activities provide the discipline with the opportunity to move beyond an emphasis on a narrow concern with simply “managing” government and into the realm of policy choice, policy advocacy, political power and the exercise of leadership.

Public administration as a discipline, and teaching faculty in particular, face the challenge of increasing the relevance of the master's degree to policy leadership. Astrid Merget, past president of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, expressed this need for increased emphasis on policy leadership training quite eloquently in 1991:

“Our vision of the holder of a master's degree in our field is that of a leader, not merely a manager or an analyst. But we have not been marketing that vision.”⁽¹⁾

Merget attributes partial responsibility for the low public esteem of government service to the attitudes, teaching, and research activities of public administration faculty who have failed to link the “lofty” activities of government (environmental protection, health care, the promotion of citizen equality) with public administration. Accordingly, the academic standard of “neutrality” governing teaching and research acts as an obstacle to teaching the fundamentals of the goals of public policy. This professional commitment to neutrality places an emphasis on administrative efficiency at the expense of policy advocacy. The need, according to Merget, is to reestablish the linkage between policy formulation and policy management. Such a teaching strategy will enhance the purposefulness of public administration as a career. Failure to do so will relegate public administration programs to the continued production of governmental managers, not administrative leaders.

The integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum affords the discipline with the opportunity to focus on policy leadership and escape the limitation associated with an emphasis on program management. Teaching policy analysis skills cannot, and should not, be divorced from the study of politics and the exercise of political power. This is true because politics involves the struggle over the allocation of resources, and public policy is a manifestation of the outcome of that political struggle. Public policy choices reflect, to some degree, the political power of the “winners” and the relative lack of power by “losers.” The study of public policy involves the study of conflict and the exercise of power.

Teaching public administration students about the exercise of power cannot be limited to a discussion of partisan political activities. Public administrators serve in an environment steeped in the exercise of partisan and bureaucratic power.⁽²⁾ It is practitioners of public administration who formulate, modify and implement public policy choices. Such bureaucratic activity is appropriate, provided that it is legitimated by the political system. Legitimacy can be provided to public administrators only by political institutions through the political process.

Teaching public administration students about policy analysis and policy advocacy necessitates an understanding of the complexities associated with the concepts of policy legitimacy and policy legitimization.     

The viable future of Mexico and latin America: a new business paradigm

The objective of this special issue of the International Journal of Public Administration I understand is to focus on the shift we see in Latin America toward what is described as free market policies, and political democracy, and how this is coming about through a process of critical thinking about their future and their special role in the world economy. This is a laudable objective and one which hopefully will result in gaining deeper understanding for the highly developed countries of the realities of Latin America as well as their genuine needs for their long term viable development.

This initial article will diverge from the regular format of learned articles in this special issue, as it will summarize some of the main points of a book from which it is extracted. The purpose is to give a perspective which often goes unnoticed, that is, a vision of economic development from the perspective of the countries of South (Latin America) looking North (highly developed countries). This perspective takes into account as well as sociocultural/ecological considerations and exposes a number of long term concerns which the conventional economic approach to development of the North has not as yet been successful in incorporating. The purpose is to provide food for serious thought regarding our present concept of progress and development for Latin America in the long term and to consider how this approach is closely tied to the role of international business and government policy in the region.     

Why we are so bad,and what we can do about it: On the state and civic virtue

The ‘80s were the decade in which scholars in such diverse fields as ethical philosophy, political science, and public administration rediscovered the importance of character in public life: what another generation called civic virtue. The ‘90s, I hope, will be the decade in which this insight passes from academic journals into the legislative and administrative arenas. Why is the subject so urgent? Reason one. As even James Madison, the theorist of “pitting ambition against ambition,” knew and admitted - and as recent ethical disasters in public life have reminded us - it is simply impossible to design an administrative system that will run both justly and efficiently without any need for civic virtue on the part of the people who run it. Reason two. It is one thing to talk about civic virtue; it is another to do something about it. The practical difficulties are enormous, and need to be both deeply studied and widely discussed. After all, civic virtue is a scarce commodity. To what extent can it be cultivated? And to what extent can it be supplemented with such administrative devices as “pitting ambition against ambition” without, in the end, undermining it? This article addresses both questions, but especially the second, giving particular attention to the unanticipated consequences of state intervention in the development of civic virtue.     

Change dynamics and public management: Challenges and opportunities

With the growth of contemporary technology, communications, and transportation, infused with television, computers, and the information highway, all of us are quickly becoming aware of the linked consequences of change. As traditional boundaries are collapsing around us, there is a growing sensitivity to the need for change, along with the belief that we need to plan for it. As such, strategic planning, competitive positioning, and innovative management systems that involve longer-term perspectives, critical trade-offs, and opportunity-driven forecasting are being fashioned here in the United States, and around the world. To grasp the initiative to shape an organizational context that will ensure a competitive, vibrant, healthy, fiscally rigorous and humane decision making environment for the public sector is the analytical foundation on which this symposium is anchored. Public managers have no option but to respond to American and global events, and the accompanying cultural, economic and political developments with courage, innovations, and strategic perspectives. It is clear that a paradigmatic crisis is occurring in American society and in public administration. Therefore, the harbingers of new paradigms are being created and crafted, which provide “hard” methods of inquiry, “real” cases of success; sound “fiscal” measures of performance; and “clearer” professional/leadership redefinitions of responsibility.     

International Collaboration in Local Government Leadership Development: Insights Gained from a U.S. and Ireland Partnership

There is great value in international partnerships when developing leadership potential in local government. This article focuses on the lessons-learned from three innovative annual joint collaboration efforts under the auspices of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Ireland and DePaul University (Chicago). The purpose was to provide an “outside in” perspective of how local government works in different countries. This was illustrated by a recent series of collaborative programs to develop 59 senior individuals in local authorities throughout Ireland. Approaches used included shadowing local government officials, collaborations with community partners, and benchmarking meetings with officials to learn about innovative projects.     

HOW TRADITIONAL ARE THE AMERICAN,FRENCH AND GERMAN TRADITIONS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? A RESEARCH AGENDA

Consistent with the notion of tradition, public administration scholars usually interpret and compare administrative developments in the US, France, and Germany as inheritance, assuming continuity. However, administrative traditions have thus far not been an object of systematic research. The present research agenda aims to address this research gap by introducing the transfer‐of‐ideas approach as a means to examine the empirical substance of national traditions. We claim that for current research, the benefits of this approach are twofold. First, the transfer‐of‐ideas approach contributes to comparative public administration since it reveals in how far intellectual traditions are hybrid instead of distinctively American, French or German developments. Second, the approach may help to address the polysemous meanings of and terminological difficulties within administrative concepts that prevail in Public Administration on both sides of the Atlantic.