Perspectives on Public Admin Pt.2

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PRIVATIZATION

Increased Efficiency and Quality
• Privatization can lead to increased efficiency due to the profit motive of private companies.
• Example: In the UK, the privatization of British Telecom led to significant improvements in efficiency and service quality, with increased investment in infrastructure and technology.
Cost Savings
• Governments can save money by outsourcing services to private entities that can often perform at a lower cost.
• Example: The privatization of municipal waste services in many U.S. cities has resulted in cost savings and more efficient waste management.
Innovation and Investment
• Private companies are typically more flexible and can invest in innovative technologies and practices.
• Example: The privatization of water services in France by companies like Veolia and Suez has led to technological advancements in water treatment and distribution.
Improved Service Delivery
• Privatization can lead to improved service delivery due to competition and the need to satisfy customers.
• Example: The privatization of airport management in countries like Australia has led to better customer service and improved airport facilities.

POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES TO PRIVATIZATION

Reduced Public Control
• Privatization can lead to less public accountability and transparency, as private companies are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as government entities.
• Example: Some privatized utilities have faced criticism for prioritizing profits over public interests, leading to inadequate service and high prices.
Social Equity Concerns
• Private sector services may not be universally accessible, potentially leading to disparities in service quality based on income or geography.
• Example: In certain cases, privatization of healthcare services has led to disparities in the quality and accessibility of care.
Short-termism
• Private companies may focus on short-term profits rather than long-term investment and sustainability.
• Example: Privatized transport services may cut corners in maintenance to maximize short-term returns, potentially compromising safety and long-term efficiency.
Job Losses
• Privatization often leads to job cuts and reduced benefits for workers as companies seek to reduce costs and increase efficiency, which can lead to lower quality
services.
• Example: Post-privatization, many public sector employees may lose their jobs or face worse working conditions as new management implements cost-cutting measures.
Hidden Costs
• The actual cost of privatization can sometimes be higher than expected due to contract management, legal fees, and the need to regulate private operators.
• Example: The privatization of prison services has sometimes led to increased costs due to the need for extensive oversight and unfor eseen complexities in service delivery contracts.

HEADLEY AND GARCIA-ZAMOR (2014)

1.Privatization of Prisons
• Current trends: Increasing prison populations and economic pressures driving privatization; privatization as a solution.
• Issue: Can lead to exploiting people in prison, as there is no incentive to rehabilitate; staff and prisoners at risk because of less training and less staff in general; worse treatment of prisoners.
2.Governance in the Era of Privatization
• Governance defined as processes and institutions for public decision-making.
• Transparency and accountability as pillars of good governance.
3.Challenges Posed by Privatization
• Privatization leading to relinquishment of government control over services.
• Concerns about the erosion of governance standards in privatized services.

MALADMINISTRATION IN PRIVATE PRISONS

Vagueness of Contracts
• Lack of detailed performance standards and policies.
• Impact on rehabilitation goals and quality of prison services.
The Agency Problem
• Conflict between private prison interests and public welfare.
• Information asymmetry and self-interest in private prison management.
Lack of Open Access Laws
• Private prisons exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
• Challenges in ensuring transparency and public scrutiny.
Concluding Analysis
• Implications for policy and practice in managing private prisons.

ADMINISTRATIVE EVIL

Conceptualizing Administrative Evil: Administrative evil refers to actions within public administration that, under the guise of normality and technical efficiency, lead to harmful outcomes, often dehumanizing individuals and contradicting ethical norms.
Recognition of the problem: One can be “good” or responsible as an administrator and at the same time commit/aide to considerable acts of administrative evil.
Historical and Modern Relevance: The Holocaust serves as a profound historical example where administrative systems, operating under normal
bureaucratic procedures, facilitated immense harm.

TECHNICAL-RATIONAL DECISION-MAKING IN
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Technical-Rational Tradition's
Influence: This refers to a system
where organizational decisions and
actions are guided by objective,
technical knowledge and expertise,
emphasizing efficiency, predictability,
and rationality in governmental
processes and structures.

Limitations in Addressing Complex
Dilemmas: While this is necessary
for organizational efficiency, it often
falls short in helping individuals
resolve complex moral dilemmas.

CONFLICT BETWEEN PERSONAL ETHICS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY

Technical-Rational Ethics and Personal Conscience: In this framework, personal
conscience is often subordinate to authority structures.
• Contemporary Implications:
• Civil Servant Dilemma: The current administrative structure often discourages
dissent among civil servants, posing ethical challenges.
• Moral Blindness: This environment can lead to 'moral blindness', where individuals
fail to recognize the ethical dimensions of their administrative roles.
• Key Takeaways:
• The Role of Bureaucracy: Bureaucratic structures can inadvertently foster
conditions where harmful actions are normalized or overlooked.
• Importance of Ethical Vigilance: Emphasizes the need for continuous ethical
awareness and critical reflection within public administration.

BEYOND TRADITIONAL ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Need for New Ethical Perspectives: Recognizing the limitations of traditional ethical frameworks in
preventing administrative evil, there's a need for perspectives that consider collective outcomes and
community impact.
Communitarian Ethics as an Alternative: This approach shifts the focus from individual autonomy
to community. Ethics emerge from the relational context within which people act, emphasizing the
importance of community in ethical decision-making.
Active Citizenship and Democratic Participation: Encourages public administrators to engage in
democratic participation and community-building, viewing these as integral to ethical practice in
public administration. This creates moral obligations and subsequent communal bonds among
individuals.

BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING

1. Formal Rules vs. Bureaucratic Discretion
• Risks of Rigid Adherence: Strict adherence to rules can lead to inefficiency and public dissatisfaction.
2. Discretion in Ethical Dilemmas
• Disregarding Unethical Orders: Ethical bureaucrats may choose to ignore orders that compromise
public safety or integrity.
• Silent Tool for Change: Discretion allows bureaucrats to navigate complex situations and make impactful
decisions.
• Tactical Inaction: Deliberate non-action or delay as a tactic to counteract unethical policies or orders.
3. Dangers of Bureaucratic Discretion
• Abuse of Power and Bias: Risk of corruption and discriminatory decisions influenced by personal biases.
• Inconsistency and Accountability Issues: Challenges in maintaining consistent decision-making and holding bureaucrats accountable, leading to public distrust.
• Policy Distortion and Control Challenges: Difficulty in balancing discretion with policy objectives and control, potentially leading to unpredictability and policy ineffectiveness.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement. If you can’t measure
something, you can’t understand it. If you can’t
understand it, you can’t control it. If you can’t control it, you can’t improve it.
• H. James Harrington, quality and performance improvement consultant
• What might this statement mean? Do you agree or
disagree?

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

• Purpose of Performance Measurement: Critical for enhancing accountability and driving improvements in government operations.
• Key Questions for Measuring Performance:
• Is the organization fulfilling its mission and
achieving its goals and objectives?
• Is the organization producing unintended impacts?
• Is the organization responsive to the people it
serves?
• Does the organization operate within its scope of
authority?
• Is the organization productive and performing well?
• Contributions of Performance Measurement:
• Decision-Making: Provides managers
with essential information for changes to
organizations.
• Performance Assessment: Links
individual and organizational
performance, motivating employees.
• Accountability: Encourages managerial
responsibility.
• Service Delivery: Enhances
performance and service quality.
• Public Participation: Engages citizens
and increases interest in public service
efforts.
• Civic Discourse: Grounds public
discussions in factual data rather than
perceptions or misinformation.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Input Indicators: Reflect the quantity of resources
appropriated to a government organization, service, or program (like budget allocations and staff for a health department).
• Output Indicators: Workload indicators showing the amount of work done or the number of services provided by a government agency (like the number of education
workshops conducted).
• Outcome Indicators: Capture the results or quality of the services provided, essential for establishing whether an organization or program has met its goals and objectives (like changes in students’ test scores from a tutoring
program).
• Efficiency Indicators: Examine how well a public
organization or program performs in relation to the costs of service delivery, referring to the ratio of service provided (like tons of trash collected) to the cost required to deliver that service (wages for workers and fuel for vehicles).

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

• New Public Management (NPM): Emphasizes
efficiency and service quality in the public sector,
drawing from private sector management practices.
• Privatization Role: Shifts certain public services to
private entities to increase competition, reduce
costs, and improve service delivery.
• Performance Measurement: Central to NPM,
focuses on setting clear objectives, measuring
outcomes, and ensuring public accountability.
• Outcome: With performance metrics guiding policy
and management decisions, outcomes are
(hopefully) better, but this is not always the case.

STEPS IN DESIGNING A PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Step 1 - Identifying a Program to Measure: Define clear governmental activities and group them into programs. For instance, street maintenance could include activities like street resurfacing and pothole filling.
• Step 2 - Designing a Purpose Statement: Establish a clear statement of purpose or a mission statement for the program to set the foundation for performance measurement. For example, GASB defines the goal of transportation services as providing safe, dependable, and cost-effective transit for all citizens, including vulnerable groups.
• Step 3 - Classifying Program Indicators: Identify inputs (resources and budget), outputs (workload measures), outcomes (results of efforts), and efficiency indicators (cost-to-output/outcome ratio) for a comprehensive assessment.
• Step 4 - Setting Performance Targets: Determine measurable goals in terms of time, quantity, and quality. For instance, aim for a certain percentage of citizen satisfaction in a street cleanliness program annually.
• Step 5 - Monitoring Performance: Regularly track performance against targets to identify trends and make timely adjustments. Data collection should be frequent and systematic to capture various patterns and ensure it's manageable for the organization.
• Step 6 - Reporting Performance: Share performance data with stakeholders through reports that are clear and
informative.
• Step 7 - Concluding with Analysis and Action: Use the data to pinpoint organizational strengths and areas for improvement.

PRIVATIZATION AND PUBLIC SECTOR
PERFORMANCE

Efficiency and Effectiveness Scrutiny: Public
organizations are increasingly evaluated on their
performance, which can lead to transferring functions to the private sector.
• Privatization:
• Private entities perform services on behalf of the
government.
• Involves a triadic relationship: the private provider, the service recipients, and government oversight.
• Government maintains control and oversight, ensuring accountability and alignment with public goals.

COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

“Competition has been shown to be useful up to
a certain point and no further, but cooperation,
which is the thing we must strive for today,
begins where competition leaves off.”
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• What does this quote mean to you?

NETWORKED GOVERNANCE

Definition of Network Governance: Network governance refers to the complex process of coordinating and managing interdependent
relationships among various actors (government, business, civil society) to solve societal problems.
• Shift from Government to Governance: This shift signifies a move from a hierarchical, government-centric approach to a more collaborative, horizontal coordination mechanism involving multiple
stakeholders (fuzzier publicness).
• Characteristics of Network Governance:
• Interdependency of Actors: Solutions to complex problems often require resources and efforts from various stakeholders.
• Autonomy and Diversity: Actors in the network maintain their autonomy and have distinct perceptions, interests, and strategies.
• Strategic Complexity: The interplay of different actors' strategies leads to a dynamic and sometimes unpredictable governance process.
• Challenges in Network Governance:
• Navigating the 'wickedness' of policy problems characterized by complex, interdependent, and often conflicting issues.
• Managing diverse and sometimes conflicting interests and perceptions among stakeholders.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Drivers of Network Governance:
• Increased societal complexity and individualization, leading to more decentralized and dispersed forms of governance.
• Advancements in technology and communication, facilitating networked interactions and collaborations.
• Transition in Governance Style:
• Movement towards collaborative policymaking and service delivery.
• Need for public managers to adapt to roles that facilitate and mediate within networks rather than exercising direct control.
• Management of Networks:
• Critical for achieving effective outcomes in governance networks.
• Requires innovative and flexible management strategies to foster collaboration and guide
network processes.
• Impact on Public Administration:
• Shift towards more inclusive, participatory, and integrated approaches to policy-making
and service delivery.
• Demand for new skills and competencies in network facilitation, conflict resolution, and
collaborative leadership.

KEY LESSONS IN NETWORK GOVERNANCE

• Fundamental Dilemma: Public managers must
navigate the delicate balance between advancing
their own agency’s interests and collaborating
towards shared objectives in the absence of a
singular coordinating authority.
• Conflict Complexity: Networks are breeding
grounds for complex conflicts due to varying levels of power, resource availability, and dependencies
among agencies.
• Network Negotiation: The negotiation process
involves focusing on resolving immediate issues
while also establishing a framework for long-term
collaboration.
• Facilitation Dynamics: Network facilitation involves a unique blend of neutral process guidance and representation of an agency's own interests.
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An MOU acts as a foundational tool to define the network’s structure, detailing the purpose, goals, participant roles, resource sharing mechanisms, and
governance procedures. This formal agreement is
crucial for establishing clear expectations, facilitating
joint actions, and ensuring transparency and
accountability among network members.

HOW WILL A NETWORK ANALYSIS HELP?

• Highlight well-connected organizations (central
organizations)
• Identify organizations who lack connections to the
network and encourage their collaboration with
other organizations.
• Evaluate network changes over time 

NETWORK GOVERNANCE

• Agreement Achievement: Success in reaching an agreement often hinges on how effectively the parties involved can balance their individual agency interests with the collective goal of enhanced emergency management. This requires a shared
understanding of common objectives and the necessity of collaboration for broader
community safety.
• Facilitation's Impact: The role of facilitation is pivotal. Effective facilitation helps navigate the complex dynamics of network governance, ensuring that discussions remain constructive and focused on mutual interests, whereas inadequate facilitation
can exacerbate existing tensions and impede progress.
• Balancing Agency Interests with Collective Goals in the MOU: The MOU must
delicately balance the diverse interests of participating agencies while steering them
towards unified objectives.
• Navigating Immediate and Long-term Collaboration Needs: Effective network
governance requires aligning immediate financial allocations with the long-term imperatives of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration.