Public Accountability and Current Mode of Governance - Literature review Example

Public Management Student’s Name: Course Code: Lecture’s Name: Date of Submission: Introduction Public sector is an important aspect in growth and development of a nation as they are crucial in delivery social welfare services, administration and creation of enabling environment for private sector to thrive (Curristine, Lonti & Joumard, 2007, p.4). However, public sector under the traditional Weberian concept of bureaucratic government as compared to private sector has been marred by negative claims such as low productivity, less accountability, bureaucracy and inadequate customer-centred focus (Siddique, 2006, p.339; Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.400; McInerney & Barrows, 2000, p.1). To overcome such challenges in public sector, various governments embarked on a reform mission so as to embrace a new public management system (NPM) where efficiency is the order of the day (De Araújo, 2001, p.916-917). One such approach under the new public management governance is the market-oriented reforms (Soto & Loayza, 2004, p.2). Various countries under differing terms have implemented market-oriented reforms in the public sector so as to align their operations with present global trends anchored on market forces. For instance, we have a major option plan in Portugal, next steps in the United Kingdom, renewal of public service in France and the financial management improvement programme in Australia among others. However, there is contention on whether a market-oriented system has led to increase of decline of public accountability (Haque, 2001, p.65-66). As such, the aim of the paper is to assess whether or not adoption of a market-oriented system in public management has lead to erosion in public accountability. The paper adopts a one sided argument by soliciting for supporting evidence that points towards the argument that public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms. Key terms Market-oriented system falls within the domain of new public management approaches that are aimed at enhancing public sector productivity and inculcate service centric delivery that has been in the private sector through business like reforms (Soto & Loayza, 2004, p.2). Governance framework anchored on market-oriented reforms implies a reduction of government presence in the public sector by encouraging activities of private agents (Loayza & Soto, 2003, p.2). Haque (2001, p.65) notes that market-oriented reforms are demarcated with liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. Market-oriented reform has seen a reduction on what Haque (2001, p.67) refers to us as ‘publicness’ where the approach for service delivery was anchored on accountability, impartiality, citizenship, responsiveness, representation, justice & openness to a new paradigm that is rooted of efficiency, competitiveness, profitability & productivity. The ultimate premise of such engagement is streamlining public operations by ensuring inefficiencies are overcome, limit monopoly, enhance service quality and streamline public expenditures among others. The necessitating experience that has driven public policy toward the market-oriented approach is rooted on the realisation that most countries could not sustain or afford the traditional approach. Moreover, there has been a desire to limit welfare dependency and to overcome the inefficiencies that has been the hallmark of most government processes (Buchanan & Pilgrim, 2004, p.3). Public accountability heavily rests on issues of transparency (Buchanan & Pilgrim, 2004). Mulgan (2000, p.555); Kearns (1994, p.187) notes that various literatures conceptualise accountability in various dimension as the concept has evolved to overcome the initial belief of calling individuals to account. Kearns (1994, p.187) notes that there are numerous definitions, about the same topic, he finds the one by Romzek & Dublick (1987) more encompassing as compared to other ones. According to Romzek & Dublick (1987, p.228 cited in Kearns, 1994, p.187) “accountability involves the means by which agencies and their workers manage the diverse expectations generated within and outside the organisation”. Accountability and transparency within the public domain is mostly driven within the discourse of public law values. In this regard, to attain public accountability within market-oriented reforms, it is imperative to manage outcomes. Within this context the agencies have to explain the rationale for their outcomes. This is mostly done through oversight authorities and public participation. Additionally, accountability rests within the domain of ethics, values and standards of a given nation that widely accepted (Buchanan & Pilgrim, 2004, p.8). Moreover, citizen’s charter forms a critical aspect of accountability as it outlines the rights of citizens in regard to access & complaints. This makes the responsible authorities accountable to taxpayers (Mulgan, 2004, p.7). As such accountability is about meeting public law expectation, oversight and adherence to ethics, values & standards since ‘public service is subject to claims of rights by citizens’ since they the sole financer of public service as compared to the private sector (Coats & Passmore, 2008, p.7). Viewpoints The public administration has had a fair share of bashing result of the red tapes and bureaucratic nature, it has long been associated with (Siddique, 2006, p.339; Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.400; McInerney & Barrows, 2000, p.1). However, lead with countries such as UK, new concepts of public service delivery emerged anchored on public management as opposed to administration. This approach has been candidly referred to various literatures as new public management approach. The belief was that this would result into improved service in a cost effective manner through inculcation of private business practices (Falconer, 1999). The advent of market-oriented reforms have given birth to issues such as deregulation, privatization, performance measurement and outsourcing (Engida & Bardill, 2013, p.2). According to Loayza & Soto (2003, p.3), “that a market-oriented reform that leads to an economic optimum might not necessarily produce a socially desirable outcome, such as the reduction of wealth inequality”. Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel (2006, p.444) notes that adopting of market-oriented reforms does not constitute the answer to the whole equation afflicting public sector in relation to accountability since market-oriented reforms just constitute a half of the equation to the solution since the approach can equally lead to various inequalities. Further, they note that within the context of market-oriented reforms, provision of better quality with reduced cost can be attained. However, this does not imply that the same process can aid in attaining issues critical to accountability such as integrity and ethics. Absence of such parameters which are principal to accountability depict a gap in relation to how market-oriented might not address public accountability. The core argument of those in view that the adoption of market-oriented has led to erosion of accountability anchors the whole argument on the view that such reforms have led to creation of a public entity that is not distinct from private entities (Haque, 2001, p.67). The same argument is corroborated by Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel (2006, p.444) that there is a significant difference between public and private sector and thus, public entities cannot be operated in the same manner as private entities with business/ entrepreneurial aspirations in mind. For instance, such business minded perspective might imply that the government might seek to offer services only to regions that guarantee higher return thus, going contrary to the expectations of public service. The argument on the erosion of accountability as a result of shift to market-oriented reforms are heavily rooted on the informing or motivating factors of market-oriented reforms. The informing bases are risk-taking, profitability, secrecy, positive deviance anchored on willingness of not following rules/ norms of restricting ones action to the specified boundaries. These values are the exact opposite of administrative traditions of the public sector. Public sector calls for democratic accountability openness and participation (Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.445). It is these critical ingredients that if not present in any public management processes, then the concern of erosion of accountability becomes a point of worry as it goes beyond the expectations that public service should address. According to Haque (2000, p.601-602), adoption of market-oriented reforms in public administration signalled a paradigm shift in accountability. In the earlier traditional approach, accountability was anchored on a citizen’s rights, impartiality, social welfare, public governance, poverty eradication, representation, justice and fairness. However, with the adoption of market-oriented reforms, public governance has been significantly been shifted to be accountable for enhancing productivity & efficiency, cost effectiveness, increasing economic-growth, heightened competition and profit maximisation. This implies that procedural economy has taken the centre stage as opposed to substantive public issues. This means that the measures associated with market-oriented reforms is not an indication of accountability as enshrined in democratic standards. Erosion of accountability is exemplified through reduced integrity issues such as corruption, misuse of organisational resources, conflict of interest, fraud, and manipulation of resources (Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.447). The whole debate on the erosion of accountability within this discourse will be anchored subsequently on the inability of market-oriented reforms not to meet democratic standards that are the hallmark of accountability in public administration. In this regard, based on the conceptualisation done by Haque (2000, p.601-602) it is imperative to assess how market-oriented reforms has led to erosion of the tenets of democratic standards such as equality, citizen’s rights, social welfare and fairness to a more to a more monetised public service operated in the guise of efficiency and cost effectiveness. The work by Siddique (2006) using the case example of Malaysia points to the above concern. The turning point of Malaysia in how they administer public service mostly coincided with the 1980 global recession that saw a reduction in exports and demand for the country principal products. This called for a conclusive strategy by the government so as to enhance productivity while cutting the spiralling labour costs. As such, the government resorted to implementation of new public management approaches by embracing its tenets such as reduced government presence through deregulation and privation so as to curtail the huge public wage bill and associated operational expenses. In the whole processes, pro market-oriented tendencies were incorporated such as downsizing of the civil service, service process reengineering, personnel & financial management reforms, client charter & accountability, IT culture & e-government (p.341-347). Siddique (2006, p.351-353) identifies a myriad of issues of accountability that have been compromised on by the new public management approach of market-oriented framework despite of sterling results in other segments associated with the reforms. The issues that arise out of his discourse that are worth examining are loss of control by government; disparity; over focus on bottom-line as opposed to moral expectations; growth of vested interest; conversion of private debts into public debts; and reduced public consultation that is class biased. As such, let examine certain perspectives outlined above further. Siddique (2006, p.351) observes that with drift into market-oriented reforms, the government has not been able to gain adequate control over the private entities that these roles have been delegated to. The government has taken a back seen that is more of a passive role than an active role in issues of economic activities, income distribution, consumption patterns yet it is the ultimate guarantor of all human rights within its jurisdiction. For instance, the government used to bridge the gap that especially existed among the poor who could not afford certain services such as health but, with privatisation the gap between poor and rich is ever increasing because of associated levies charged on these social amenities. Sevilla (2005); Odhiambo (2003, p.115) observes that lack of control raises a pertinent concern about whether the government is able to crusade for public interest. Under public administration, for accountability to happen or be seen to have happen, government, which is the ultimate representative of the people wishes should have at least a say and control of what is going on within the public domain and is of interest to public as it cannot totally abdicate its duties to other entities as this beats the logic of why citizens have to pay taxes to her. Secondly, with reduced control as the major remaining of government is the facilitation of private service providers, private sector players have become more profit oriented as their concern is the bottom line, outwitting competitors and acquisition of larger market share. Such tendencies pose a direct threat to the welfare programme that public service is known for. Closely related to this is the corruption associated with privatisation in relation to contracting and outsourcing since public oversight authorities are inadequately equipped to counter check these private entities especially in relation to how they were awarded the tender to deliver various services as most especially in developing economies are associated with the ruling class and elites (Siddique, 2006, p.351). For instance, Haque (2000, p.605) notes that countries that have adopted the reforms end up charging for the service at the detriment of the poor within the economy. This locking out of the poor makes them incapable of holding service providers to account (Siddique, 2006, p.353). The other bleak experience relates to massive debts accrued by private entities which later are bailed out by public money. The question that emerges is how public money can be used to bail out private entities, yet they are profit making institutions. Within the context of Malaysia, this is seen as a double blessing since the first experience is the privatisation that they benefit from not anchored on merit, but on political connections and the bail out after incurring private debts. Such corrupt or unfair trends are experienced in employment where the opportunities filled are not based on meritocracy, but on quota that favour native Malay (Siddique, 2006, p.351-352). Such experiences beat the logical of public service that calls on service providers or employees to ever seek justice under law; operate with empathy & compassion; put public interest in front and proper analysis (Kolthoff, Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 2006, p.453). The next concern by Siddique (2006, p.353) is the participation level of the public in these new entities fronted by the reform especially in issues of public charter. He notes that the public are rarely engaged in these processes of formulating service charters. Despite such attempts, all those endeavours are futile since the consumers of such products are not usually involved in designing the deliverables. From the above realisation, the paper argues that adoption of market-oriented approaches in public sector management have resulted into erosion of public accountability. Conclusion The aim of the paper was to establish whether or not public accountability has seen erosion under the current mode of governance and market-oriented reforms. The paper argues that since inception of the concept in various countries, there is stronger evidence in reduction of accountability owing to the shift from substantive public issues such as welfare to procedural economic anchored on the bottom line. Such shift has seen a reduction in parameters of accountability, such as reduced control, corruption and public participation. References Buchanan, R., & Pilgrim, C 2004, 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). Coats, D & Passmore, E 2008, Public value: The next steps in public service reform, Work Foundation. Curristine, T., Lonti, Z & Joumard, I 2007, Improving Public Sector Efficiency: Challenges and Opportunities, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), p. 34-65. De Araújo, J. F. F. E. 2001, Improving public service delivery: the crossroads between NPM and traditional bureaucracy, Public Administration, 79(4), p. 915-932. Engida, T & 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), p. 1-7. Falconer, P 1999, Public Administration and the New Public Management: Lessons from the UK Experience, línea: http://www. vus. uni-lj. si/Anglescina/FALPOR97. doc. Haque, M 2000, Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), p. 599-618. Haque, M 2001, The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance, Public Administration Review, 61(1), p. 65-82. Kearns, K 1994, The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework, Public Administration Review, p. 185-192. Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L & Van den Heuvel, H 2006, The ethics of new public management: is integrity at stake? Public Administration Quarterly, p. 399-439. Loayza, N & Soto, R 2003, Market-Oriented Reforms: Definitions and Measurement. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Economía. McInerney, R & Barrows, D 2000, Management Tools For Creating Government Responsiveness, Retrieved on 8 April, 2014 from http://www.innovation.cc/case- studies/barrows-ed.pdf. Mulgan, R 2000, ‘Accountability’: An Ever‐Expanding Concept? Public administration, 78(3), p. 555-573. Mulgan, R 2004, Public sector reform in New Zealand: issues of public accountability, Available at: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/degrees/pogo/discussion_papers/PDP04-3.pdf. Odhiambo-Mbai, C 2003, Public service accountability and governance in Kenya since independence. Nairobi. Sevilla, J 2005, Accountability and Control of Public Spending in a Decentralised and Delegated Environment, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), p. 23-67. Siddique, A 2006, Public management reform in Malaysia Recent initiatives and experiences. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), p. 339-358. Soto, R & Loayza, N 2004, On the measurement of market-oriented reforms (Vol. 3371). World Bank Publications. Available at: http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-3371. Read More