Public Accountability Has Seen an Erosion Under the Current Mode of Governance - Coursework Example

Do you support the view that public accountability has seen an erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms? Student’s Name: Course code: Lecture’s Name: Date of Submission: 1.0 Introduction Owing to realisations of various shortcomings associated with bureaucratic governments, various countries embarked in reforming their public service through the new public management framework with the hope of reforming how service is delivered in an efficient manner. These reforms heralded adoption of private sector practices such as market-oriented reforms (McInerney & Barrows, 2000, p.1). There has been a divergent discourse on the role of market-oriented reforms and accountability. There are those literatures that supports that it has indeed lead to increased accountability while there are those that refute such claims (Haque, 2000, p.699). Anchored on such contention, the focus of this discussion is to establish if public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms. To undertake the exercise, the paper adopts a two pronged approach of reviewing affirming and refuting viewpoints. Based on the emerging information, the expose weighs and counter weighs the two differing propositions so as to arrive at a standpoint. 2.0 Contextualising the Discussion 2.1 Public Accountability Public accountability domain is rooted on the belief that all public institutions are responsible ultimately to the public directly or indirectly through their representatives as a result of the rationale that these institutions are supported with public funds. In a nutshell, since public entities derive their authority from the people, they have to be answerable in regard to their actions and outcomes to the public as outlined in public law since they are the principal stakeholders. The hallmark of accountability squarely falls within the precincts of tenets of democracy where the public have a say in all processes of public administration and delivery of various utilities (Coats & Passmore, 2008, p.7). Public accountability calls for transparency in all actions of public entities by being able to addresses welfare of the public/ public interest in an equitable manner by not necessarily fronting economic gains at the forefront as that defeats the whole aspirations of public service (Buchanan & Pilgrim, 2004, p.8). For accountability to exist there are critical tenets that have to be attained. It is the existence of these tenets whether in the old approach or under new public management system that is market-oriented that should exhibit at all the time. For instance, Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel (2006, p.447) notes that for accountability to exist there has to be integrity which implies reduced corruption, non existence of conflict of interest, curtailed misuse of organisational resources and limitation of fraud and manipulation. Secondly, it has to be at par with democratic standards. According to Haque (2000, p.601-602), these democratic standards entails parameters such as fairness, recognition of every citizen’s rights to social welfare equity. Such expectations are corroborated by Haque (2000, p.699) who notes that accountability in public service should address equality & justice, ensure equality, guarantee rights and maintain neutrality. 2.2 Market-Oriented Reforms Market-oriented reforms grew as a result of the shortcomings associated with the weberian informing principles that are normally associated with bureaucratic public governance system that is full of red tapes (Buchanan & Pilgrim, 2004, p.3). Equally the economic hardship of 1980s informed the call for public service delivery restructuring through various structural adjustment programmes across countries such as UK, Canada, Australia and Portugal. This later extended to developing economies across the globe. Instead of the bureaucratic approaches to public administration new approach was fronted under the context of new public management system. The premise of new public management system was to adopt various best practices experienced in private sector. The aim was that with the adoption of such best practices, the public service would be an efficient entity that is able to deliver services with minimal operational costs (Loayza & Soto, 2003, p.2). Observers point that such trends depict adoption of procedural economic where, productivity, efficiency, competition and profit maximisation is the order of the day. This saw the introduction of practices such as reduction of workforce size, privatisation, outsourcing and deregulation (Haque, 2001, p.67). 3.0 Perspectives The viewpoints in support of the fact that public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms anchors their affirming position on the realisation that adoption of market-oriented reforms might not imply attainment of outcomes that are socially desirable (Loayza & Soto (2003, p.3). It is appreciated that market-oriented reforms have lead to a significant transforms in public service by leading to improve productivity and efficiency. However, these are done with profitability and competitiveness thereby leading to non attainment of socially desirable outcomes that pertains the welfare of the public (Engida & Bardill, 2013, p.2). This inability to meet the expectations under democratic standards and rights such as representation that makes it be seen as failing in relation to accountability irrespective of achievements in other domains. The stake to such claims is further heightened by the fact that adoption of market-oriented reforms heavily borrows from the concept of private entities leading to a blurred line between public service/ entity and private sector yet the two should be distinct ion terms of their aspirations since most government services are for social welfare as opposed to private sector that is profit driven. The concern therefore is that public entities are now experiencing inculcated culture of risk-taking, independent decision making and urge for higher level of profitability (Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.444; Haque, 2001, p.67). With such drive of focusing on bottom line as opposed to service, the question that emerges is would accountability arise? As opposed to market oriented reforms, the earlier focus of liberal-democratic has been identified for its integral role in attaining accountability despite of its ineffectiveness as a result of bureaucratic tendencies. Haque (2000, p.599) notes that it is significant in delivering accountability in terms of “delivering goods and services, addressing public needs and demands, maintaining neutrality and representation, ascertaining citizens’ entitlements, and guaranteeing equality and justice”. In regard to accountability, this is the shortfall of market-oriented reform as it does not lead to the attainment of the points indentified herewith (Siddique, 2006, p.351-353). One area that accountability has suffered as result of adoption of market oriented reforms is the emergence of corruption and mega scandal involving transactions between government and private entities within the guise of outsourcing, contracting and public private partnership (Siddique, 2006, p.351). The concern relates to how the private entities awarded tenders to transact businesses on behalf of government in the arrangement of principal-agent relationship attained those contracts. Siddique (2006, p.351) notes that most of these contracts are shrouded with secrecy, kickbacks, nepotism and cronyism. Once issues of corruption and nepotism have emerged a system cannot be justified as accountable. A case example of the above point of discussion is how politician, technocrats, bureaucrats and elites through access to internal information influence tendering processes so as to favour companies that they have vested interest in or companies that their cronies have interest. These processes of contracting are used to award political loyalty and financiers as a kickback to those who supported leaders political aspirations (Ndikumana, 2013). The second area of contention with the introduction of market-oriented reforms especially privatisation and deregulation is the inability for governments to have a bearing on the operations of these private entities. The question that emerges is how government will be able to exercise oversight over these private entities yet they are not able to exercise control over their activities adequately? Such lacuna is likely to elicit issues of accountability especially within the agency arrangement as the ultimate focus of the private agents is not just to deliver service, but to gain income. In the process aiming at healthy bottom line, private entities are likely to breach accountability parameters such as fairness, equity and public welfare in favour of highest bidders that guarantee higher returns. This is likely to be detrimental to low income earners who might not be able to purchase these services (Siddique, 2006, p.351). A case example that contextualises such discussion is the neglect of various integral sectors in developing economies in sub-Saharan Africa. For instance in health delivery in most countries, the government has lost control to private sector owing to minimal investment. This has seen skyrocketing charges by private health providers yet the government of such countries cannot control the pricing under the guise of free market economy (Robinson & White, 1997, p.8). The next example in line with the above argument is the neglect of mass transit in most sub-Haran economies. Most governments have ceded control of public transit to private providers who are profit oriented and thus, are likely to exploit consumers through hiked prices during peak hours. In this context, Kenyan experience stands out as the public transit is market with poor characteristics that are not in tandem with best trends in public transit such as known route, higher occupancy vehicles and timed routing (Chitere & Kibua, 2004, p.2-4). According to Boehm (2007, p.1-3), private sectors have engaged in wanton corruption through bribery so as to win most government tenders. They note that this is common in most developing economies where accountability is low, especially through public institutions that are mandated to protect public interest. On the contrary, Engida & Bardill (2013, p.3) notes that adoption of market-oriented contributes to attainment of accountability in great depths. One area of their argument is related to adoption of best practices from private sector in the public sector such as performance management. They note that performance management aids in enhancing accountability as result of the fact that it offers an avenue and platform for managers to match target with political priorities. With existence of performance targets it is easier to match output with service charters therefore contributing transparency in service delivery. Major (p.2) corroborates such observation by noting that adoption of new public management approaches such as market-oriented reforms have contributed to accountability. He singles out issues such as adoption of cost accounting system has aided in transparency in Portuguese hospitals in terms of control of public expenditure. Such realisations is critical since most public institutions suffer from financial haemorrhages that if they can be controlled and the public be shown where and how their money is being spent, it is arguable that accountability has been attained. 4.0 Discussion The two paradigms of discussion presents an interesting scenario where on one side there is the belief that adoption of market oriented reforms has lead to reduced accountability and on the other hand there are those who are in the view that it has indeed enhanced accountability. Critically analysing the two viewpoints, the proponents who argue that there is erosion of accountability presents a strong case especially in regard to the loss of control and emergence of corruption (Siddique, 2006). On the other hand, the proponents who support the fact that under market oriented reforms accountability issues has not been affected anchors their argument on the fact that even in the old approach accountability was a bigger issue as compared to the current reforms. Thus they observe that adoption of such reforms have indeed aided in attainment of accountability through modern accounting methods and through performance (Engida & Bardill, 2013). The case presented by those in support that under marker oriented reforms accountability has been eroded presents a more valid argument since under political accountability if a government has lost control they cannot enforce private sector accountability adequately. 5.0 Conclusion The aim of the paper was to establish whether public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms or not. The proponents in view that public accountability has been eroded as a result of the fact that it has heralded new dimension of corruption driven by the private sector and loss of control by the government thereby not being able in certain circumstances to protect public welfare and interest as the concern has shifted to profit margins. On the other hand, those in the view of the fact that accountability has not been eroded posit that the new approach has helped in ensuring accountability through new cost accounting approaches and performance measurement. However, the paper argues that public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms. References Boehm, F. (2007). Anti-corruption strategies as safeguard for public service sector reforms. Anti Corruption Training and Consulting (ACTC) Working Paper. Buchanan, R., & Pilgrim, C. (2004, May). Transparency and Accountability in Government Decision-making: Devolved service delivery. In Conferenz 6 th Annual Public Law Forum: New Zealand. http://www. oag. govt. nz/reports/docs/transparency- accountability-paper-conferenz. pdf Accessed (Vol. 20, No. 10, p. 2008). Chitere, P. O., & Kibua, T. N. (2004). Efforts to improve road safety in Kenya. Nairobi, Institute of Policy and Research. Coats, D., & Passmore, E. (2008). Public value: The next steps in public service reform. Work Foundation. Engida, T. G., & Bardill, J. (2013). Reforms of the public sector in the light of the new public management: A cases of Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 5(1), 1-7. Haque, M. S. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), 599-618. Haque, M. S. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65-82. Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L., & Van den Heuvel, H. (2006). The ethics of new public management: is integrity at stake?. Public Administration Quarterly, 399-439. Loayza, N. V., & Soto, R. (2003). Market-Oriented Reforms: Definitions and Measurement. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Economía. Major, M. Accounting, Accountability and NPM Reforms in Portuguese Public Hospitals. Ndikumana, L. (2013). The Private Sector as Culprit and Victim of Corruption in Africa. PERI Working Paper. Robinson, M., & White, G. (1997). The role of civic organizations in the provision of social services. Research for action, 37. Siddique, A. N. (2006). Public management reform in Malaysia Recent initiatives and experiences. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 339-358. Read More