Globalism and Comparative Public Administration

Jamil Jreisat

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351565387
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Política

Globalization, rapidly evolving communication and information technology, and the spread of democracy across the world are reshaping public organizations and changing governance. Yet, graduate students and public administration academics have limited resources with which to develop a real-world understanding of the conceptual evolution and the changing contextual relationships in the field.

Helping to fill this void, Globalism and Comparative Public Administration examines comparative public administration from the 1960s to the present—providing an integrated and realistic view of the comparative perspective and its rationale. It explores the development and contributions of the comparative approach and explains how it is essential for developing the depth and breadth needed to transform public administration to a global field of learning and practice.

Building on the success of the 2002 edition, the book covers new topics and offers expanded discussions on globalism, governance, and global ethics. From classic models to novel concepts and practices, this volume provides an exhaustive view of the development of the comparative perspective and its contributions of practical administrative knowledge that are applicable beyond national boundaries.

Chapter 1
Governance and Globalism

I want to rebuild this government. Rebuild it by bringing back competence; rebuild it by bringing back integrity; rebuild it by bringing back performance; by bringing back people of talent; by bringing back people of goodwill; rebuild it by bringing back professionalism and respect.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Inaugural Address, 2010¹

Introduction

To fulfill its professional responsibilities and to serve its authoritative obligations, public administration as a profession continues to evolve and to search for the most appropriate knowledge and competence. Early in the previous century, development of the administrative state within the industrial nations was a major adjustment that changed the structure and the functioning of contemporary governance. As Kettl and Fesler (1991) note, increasing citizens’ demands of government for delivery of public services as well as for securing and protecting the general welfare have led to a multiplicity of administrative agencies, a large number of civil servants, and swelling government budgets to pay for what citizens want, and for developing the administrative capacity to meet such expectations. This brought us into a new phase of governance, characterized as “the administrative state.” Dwight Waldo was one of the earliest to use the term in the title of his seminal work The Administrative State (1948). Since then, extensive literature focused on the administrative state and its profound effect on society, such as Emmette Redford’s Democracy and the Administrative State (1969), Fritz Morstein Marx’s The Administrative State (1957), John Rohr’s To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State (1986), and others.

The Industrial Revolution and subsequent technological advancements revolutionized production with greater use of machines. This created new needs for rationalized organizational management, public or private, through design, planning, measurement, and regularity in production. Two profound changes in the business sector transformed corporate governance, permanently:

1. Professionalizing corporate management, mainly by separating ownership and management. The landmark study by A. Berle and G. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932, revised 1968), has been credited with causing significant developments in legal and economic theory. The study is also credited with changing the U.S. public policy and helping ratification of the law that created the Securities and Exchange Commission.
2. The development of organization and management concepts and frameworks, such as the Scientific Management movement (Taylorism) in the first decade of the last century, was specifically aimed to improve organizational capacities for production and performance in the manufacturing firms.

As critical systems of production and service, organizations inspired many theories and practices seeking to achieve valid and universal approaches to managing complex organizations. In this genre are the theories of Scientific Management, Administrative Management, and the Bureaucratic Model that have been referred to as traditional, classic, rational, or machine models (Jreisat 1997). Afterward, an assortment of concepts grounded in the Human Relations perspective directed research on organization theory and process into areas of human behavior that were not familiar in earlier literature. The end result, organization theory and practice, gained importance in teaching and research, particularly for the growing number of large organizations in society performing key roles and objectives. The wide acknowledgment of the impact of organizations on modern society led to the characterization of “the organization society” (Presthus 1978).

By the end of World War II, the authority of the state had expanded and its legal and administrative powers had increased. This was facilitated by growing resources (financial and human), war, the welfare system, and the need to regulate the market and the production systems to safeguard the common interest. In the United States, the “New Deal” policies and programs of the 1930s exemplify the conceptual and practical shift in governance. The change necessitated adapting and improving public administration capacity, affirming what Woodrow Wilson recognized in the 1880s—that public administration is “the cutting edge of government” and is “government in action.”

Governance

Definition Issue

The considerable effects of governance on society have attracted wide interest in the literature, conveying diverse conceptualizations and definitions (Ahern 2002; Jain 2002; Hyden 2002; Jreisat 2001a; Pierre 2000; Nye and Donahue 2000). Regardless of how governance is perceived, public administration is a component of significance, though with variable levels of capacity and professionalism. The association of politics and administration within governance is intrinsic; each profoundly reflects the image and values of the other. This connection is more real today because conventional jurisdictional boundaries of administration no longer have the same relevance as in the past in explaining what happens with formulation and implementation of policy (Hyden 2002: 14). Public administration is the operational dimension of governance, providing the tools for efficient and effective implementation of policies and decisions. Governance can be powerless without the instruments to carry out its policies. “A strategy paper without a road map is a paper, not a strategy; a decision without implementation is a wish not a decision” (Schiavo-Campo and McFerson 2008: 3).

While one conception of governance refers to empirical manifestation of state adaptation to its external environment, another denotes representation of coordinated social systems and the role of the state in the pursuit of collective interests through traditional, institutional channels (Pierre 2000: 3). Yet another conception focuses on “the extent and form of [governance] intervention and the use of markets and quasi-markets to deliver ‘public’ service” (Rhodes 2000: 55). A distinction is also made between “old governance,” focusing on how and what outcomes are conceivable, and recent or new governance, conceived in terms of comparative politics and whether concepts “can ‘travel’ across a range of political systems and still have substantial meaning and validity” (Peters 2000: 50). “In much of the public and political debate, governance refers to sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutions, corporate interests, civil society, and transnational organizations” (Pierre 2000: 3–4).

Governance is an organizing inclusive function that encompasses, in addition to central government, other players who share the responsibilities such as local authorities, business, interest groups, voluntary organizations, and a variety of civic associations (Klingner 2006). Thus, governance is a system of many dimensions, continually evolving and adapting its complex web of structures, processes, policies, behaviors, traditions, visions, and outcomes. The United Nations Development Program defines governance “as the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels, comprising the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which that authority is directed” (UNDP 2007: 1).

The term governance is derived from the Greek to steer, the process by which a society or an organization steers itself (Rosell 1999: 1). Despite the apparent conceptual amorphousness, it is possible to analyze governance through its constant rudiments of structure, process, and outcome:

• Structure is the standard features and forms of the authority system in practice. Usually, structures reveal specific attributes of the system such as centralized or decentralized authority, type of organizational and institutional setting, specificity of functions performed, and the overall authority pattern that connects all such structural essentials for performance. The capacity of institutional structures to perform the diverse functions of governance is a crucial measure of effectiveness. Also, the structure signifies the extent of representation of the people and the legitimacy of the authority system itself.
• Process defines the rules and operational methods of decision making. In theory, the process promotes fairness and legitimacy of outcomes of public policy and advances the common interests. In reality, however, outcomes of the process often vary from expectations, specially when the process becomes captured by powerful special interests, and serves mainly to accommodate the objectives of organized interest groups. Although basic processes of governance are designated by law or constitution, other factors may have important modifying effects such as tradition and precedent. Still, an open and transparent process indicates real responsiveness to citizens’ preferences and attempt at sound reasoning in decision making. An impartial process raises confidence in the integrity of governance.
• Outcome is the measured quality and quantity of the overall results of governance performance, particularly in serving the collective interest, delivery of public services, managing sustainable development, and improving the effectiveness of a civil society. Outcomes exemplify accountability of public decision making and illustrate the level of commitment to equity in the distribution of benefits and delivery of public services as well as the uniformity in the application of law and justice in the society.

Shifting Role of Governance

Governance has wide-ranging effects on its people; it has major responsibilities of coping with external challenges as well as making decisions that affect the welfare and security of the society. Focus on governance encourages people to think beyond the daily routine or the need for only incremental steps that do not call for change in existing rules. Like strategic management, Hyden (2002: 18) points out, governance becomes a way of looking at a problem in the context of the “big picture” of adapting systems of rules to changes in the environment. Effective leaders, therefore, continually search to find consensual and creative solutions to problems encountered by their constituents.

A system of governance is neither a static nor a preset condition. Invariably, the system, the process, and the outcome of governance change, distinctly rather than uniformly. After examination of administrative reform in fourteen countries, Manning and Parison conclude: “Circumstances dictated action, but leverage available to reformers—the points of entry to comprehensive reform programs—and the malleability of basic public sector institutions varied considerably among countries” (2004: xv). Refinements and realignments of governance structures and functions take place with change of internal conditions such as change of leadership or in response to citizens’ demands. While external pressures and global challenges have also been a source of systemic change in governance, such outside pressures tend to promote value-laden propositions that reflect external values, as those of donor countries, thus generate domestic resistance and contentions.

Mediating issues of change is a prime test and a reliable indicator of the effectiveness and competence of leadership. Leadership, attitudes, values, tradition, and overall political culture influence what and how change in governance is attained. Leadership and political culture are mainly emphasized because of the realization that societies change far more meaningfully through negotiation, reconciliation, and consensus building than through upheaval or external pressures. “A growing body of work suggests that important changes often take place incrementally and through seemingly small adjustments that can, however, cumulate into significant institutional transformation” (Mahoney and Thelen 2010: xi).

Accumulation of incremental adjustments that result in gradual institutional transformation assumes an open and representative system of government with legitimate leadership that enjoys public trust and confidence in its competence and integrity. During the early days of 2011, the world witnessed in the Arab world a forceful public demand for reform. The popular uprisings were against autocratic leaders, rampant corruption, incompetent institutions, and inept public leaders and managers who have mainly been employed and appointed through nepotism and favoritism. Moreover, lack of freedom and economic opportunity pushed previously silent and frustrated young people to press forward for radical change of regime. From Tunisia and Egypt to Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and the rest of the Arab world, voices of massive public protests and acts of discontent forced political leaders out of office in some countries, and threatened others with similar destiny unless the system of governance is fundamentally reformed. Regardless of the wishes of the outside world, the Arab people from the inside of their countries provided the determination to change history.

The past few decades have been demanding for governance everywhere. Vigorous debates, assessments, and evaluations of the domestic and the international roles of governance were encouraged. During the 1980s and shortly after, the power of the state in the industrialized countries and its ability to address societal issues was challenged from within. The rapid ascendance of neoliberal regimes in several advanced democracies, regarded the state not as a source of collective action, or a base for solutions, but rather as a main source of many societal problems (Pierre 2000: 3). The thrust of this political thinking, and the ideological following it generated in various countries, was manifested in determined confidence in a monetarist economic policy supported by deregulation, privatization, drastic reductions of civil service, and the push to “reinvent government” and to manage it “businesslike.” In the United States, an assertive neoconservative extremist group, with their own particular agenda, emerged within this camp pressing with a missionary zeal for minimum state intervention domestically, and a maximum intervention externally (Margolick 2010).

Thus, the private sector, spearheaded by multinational corporations, seemed to have won back at the global level the degree of freedom they had lost at the national level with the advent of the welfare state. At the global level, they did not encounter the equivalent of the state, an entity that can tax them, regulate them, and manage a redistributive process. This resulted in what Richard Falk (1999) refers to as “predatory globalization.” These pressures encouraged the United States to walk away from international agreements at the turn of this century, undermining the concept and the practice of multilateralism, that has been “an underpinning of the global system since the end of World War II” (Prestowitz 2003: 22). In September 2002, the U.S. administratio...