Introduction to Public Administration and Governance, PA 201

 

Bureaucracy is the anti creativity [1]

Bureaucracy has an array of meanings and applications. I primarily think of it as the framework to implement and process, directives from policy makers to the public and will use it as such over the next few pages. I have identified several areas of exploration within the framework of bureaucracy. They begin with the creativity involved in policy creation; continue on with the details of bureaucracy, leading to efficiency and a broad overview of some of the positives and negatives in the bureaucracy framework.

Policy making is an incredibly creative process, from idea generation and expression, to persuasion, adaptation and finally ratification those involved are consistently looking for the answer to how to go about what is needed next. Policy makers have a framework they must follow in policy creation however that framework excludes the informal and subtle activities that are necessary for policy ratification, therefore leaving a huge expanse for creativity. Bureaucracy is the anti creativity. The development of the bureaucracy was creative. With a bit of imagination one could even theorize that bureaucracy was developed by political figures as a protective system, designed to protect them from potentially unstable political environments. Bureaucracy and creativity collaborate whenever a new policy is introduced in the system.  After these points of entry creativity on all practical levels is over.

Bureaucracy has developed into an expansive and detailed framework where each person knows there role and the steps they must follow when fulfilling their role. In many countries it is standardized and predictable if not efficient. Bureaucracy is the epitome of a formal organization. Dr. Co, Dean of UP NCPAG said in one of her class lectures that this standard or rule is what makes public administration universally applicable and regarded as a science. Policy implementation has been developing into modern bureaucracy for centuries with early stages visible within the church. The rationale behind this rigid and formal process is that it will enable distribution of authority and tasks, allowing for transparency and large scale administration activities. Distributing authority to appointed or hired personal has raised some questions in democratic societies regarding representation of the people in government. These factors have come together to create a bureaucracy that has eliminated creativity.

With the creativity gone efficiency suffers. In distributing tasks layers have developed within the system creating a bureaucracy that is seen as inefficient and ineffective. I read in an online news source called marketing week that: bureaucracy is; having to wade through pages of complex instructions and processes. The primary objective of, implementing and processing policy, is fulfilled through a detailed step by step formula where each participant has a specific role. Clear participant role formulas, are a business strategy primarily used to reduce or eliminate uncertainty in the environment. This specialization requires numerous people to be involved in every process thus leading to a time delay.  

In many systems specialization has proved to be the most efficient and effective way to deliver a product, think Mc Donald’s. In many bureaucracies’s however the service or product does not pass directly from one person to the next, it is often required to receive review or validation before its next stage. The process of passing becomes disjointed when all officials are not working in a line. Service and products have to pass from one building to another, one office to the next; this requires the use of another medium, a courier, phone call, e-mail or other such source. This added medium increases time and inefficiency.

As specialization has become further cemented in today’s bureaucracy it has increasingly suffered from the restriction of human behavior. Humans are innately creative. Giving those working in a bureaucracy freedom intensifies the previous question of appointed or hired governmental personnel in a representative democracy, simultaneously creating the possibility for the innate human creativity to come into practice. Bureaucracy is not however a lost cause of restriction and specialization.

Benefits of bureaucracy can include job creation, accountability, traceability and academic logic. In many nations government employs close to 1/3 of the work force, a fully flushed out bureaucracy giving many employment options. Clear job roles remove any questions about who was responsible for a specific stage of a process. Any action has a clear path to follow enabling (those who wish to know) tracing of movement.  Many academics have put thought and logic into the creation of the bureaucracy concept providing sound logic and examples of its effectiveness.

Alternately, bureaucracy can result in many ways the opposite of its benefits. Overly large government sectors have resulted in over budget government and unstable economies. Bureaucracy has a lack of accountability. When everyone is involved no one is responsible or accountable for the whole, in some systems resulting in slow delivery, poorly done components and even failure to respond. Academics who have praised bureaucracy are matched by those who critique finding faults not only in the structure but great flaws in practice. Humanity is a difficult aspect to fully predict and understand. When creating a framework that is greatly dependent on human behavior and response many assumptions and risks are involved. Educated measures can be taken however only in practice will the inconsistencies be found. Bureaucracy suffers from numerous human behavior responses, the negatives which I have expanded upon in the preceding paragraphs.

Bureaucracy is greatly intertwined in our society and it is hard to imagine a world without it. That in mind I would support a system that enable greater creativity. Finding a balance of good service delivery, sound business practice, minimization of systematic negatives and creativity is a task that will require concentrated and deliberate effort to achieve.  Bureaucracy is not a lost cause the strength and achievements of the system have created a strong system that will withstand future revisions and developments.

---

[1] Image from Ben Tremblay

Introduction to Public Administration and Governance, PA 201

Promote the highest possible standard of living for a nation

At what point does our history transform from being something that shapes us; to something that we mealy learn about? Or even is there such a point? I believe that there is, the fact that my ancestors were most probably farmers is knowledge I have only by being taught, and it has no translation into what I am today. A hundred years ago my family was able to grow enough food to feed the family and to sell to others; I cannot even grow a small vegetable plot. Similarly how connected are people to their ancestors that operated small independent governing systems?  If at some point in your regions history you were governed in a local and direct way; does that make you skilled at self rule? I often hear the idea that central government is a colonial installation and therefore foreign and unfit for one country or another and while I am not necessarily in favor of a centralized system I question this argument.

The social and potential economic benefits of a decentralized or federalist state have been realized in countries such as Canada and Brazil. The centralized system has found longevity and success in countries such as Denmark and Saudi Arabia.

Take the idea that most citizens of the majority of countries that historically operated in a decentralized system and were formerly colonized are no longer shaped by their historical decentralization. Combing this concept with the idea that both decentralized and centralized systems have found success within differing regions I believe the conversation needs to change from how to restore a decentralized system to; is a decentralized or federalist system going to promote the highest possible standard of living for a nation?

After reading the articles Decentralization Towards Democratization and Development in the Asian Pacific Region By Guzman and Reforma and Decentralization and Local Autonomy: A Framework for Assessing Progress by Ocampo I find that my initial assessment of the potential success and challenges of decentralization are widely apparent in Asia. China, Malaysia and Thailand all centralized to foster development and growth only later to decentralize to varying degrees. Korea and the Philippines have seen the decentralization process paused by military take over and India decentralized under the British rule that local taxation should be linked to local administration and responsibility.

I see an alternative understanding of the historical argument for decentralization. I wonder if it is indeed based on the concept that our ancestors shapes us or if it is based on the idea that a decentralized system worked in the former time and place, why not try it again? This, try it again idea, has much to support its potential repeat success. Many nations have found success under decentralized systems.  Decentralization is a strategy that can be used to foster development and growth. Often decentralization has a policy basis an important tool that when used with other materials, such as a willing and skilled population can create an effective decentralized system. The other side is that places have been and most likely will continue to be impaired by decentralization attempts. These impairments are most easily seen by the increasing power of local elites while the poor continue to suffer corruption grows and the national government becomes weaker.

In the Philippine context decentralization has had mixed effects and appears to be in need of an array of changes. Underlying this imperfect decentralization is the remnants of colonial structures. Political families were installed by the Spanish and Americans who still dominate the offices. The imperfect American system of decentralization for control can still be felt in the country. In order to revitalizes decentralization in the Philippines the island nature of the country must be considered at all stages. For many aspects local control will provide faster service delivery and reflect the unique needs of the group living in a certain area. Other areas need to remain in central control. Keeping central control over areas that are prone to corruption, require stability of pay and personnel or benefit from maintaining national standards would benefit development.  If I were to make policy change recommendations I would keep roads, city healthcare workers and minimal education standards under central control. Keeping some aspects under central control would allow the smaller units to focus on fewer tasks allowing them to develop greater effectiveness. Central control over specified areas and local control over others should help curb the human tendency to centralization based on a desire for ultimate power.

A system closer resembling federalism would create the highest possible standard of living in the Philippines. Each nation as it explores how to evolve will be faced with the complex of how to move forward. Several areas must be examined as the path forward is created. First is recognizing the underlying meaning of the arguments, such as decentralizes because it is what was in place historically or decentralize because it has worked in the past and might work again. Second would be to examine the question of what is needed to foster the highest standard of living for the most people. Finally would be to acknowledged areas where potential problems are most likely to occur and develop safety mechanisms. Decentralized, Federalist and many other systems have the potential to find success if implemented correctly.

Introduction to Public Administration and Governance, PA 201

Start with policy and build

After reading and reflecting on Mark Turners book “Government, administration and development: making the state work” chapter 3 on the policy process: Politics and techniques I have an enhanced belief that solid policy is a universally vital component of growth. Turner writes that policy is power. As a student and future practitioner of policy it will be critical for me to understand national or community strategy as a policy. Policy in its purest sense is a tool to bridge the conflicts between social classes. I must remember that policy includes as well as excludes certain groups; examples would be that in Latin America the military traditionally receives greater benefit and control of policies than other groups. In most of the world masculine characteristics are believed necessary for politics, a system that will exclude women from involvement in politics as well as benefit from policy creation. This situation will begin to be recertified only when policies change, giving more female or gender neutral characteristics as necessary for politics.  Policies that are inclusive instead of exclusive foster greater stability and peace in an area by giving rise to greater access to official channels of participation reducing the desire to participate in a non democratic method.

Mark Turner in his book “Government, administration and development: making the state work” presents “the notorious nine implementation problems” faced by USAID. Mr. Turner poses the question to his readers of what solutions they could suggest. I would like to offer my thoughts on them. I suggest that each of these problems could be reduced or eliminated utilizing policy as a tool.

1.      Political, economic and environmental constraints- the policies governing and directing these three areas of a system are critical to understand and work within when engaging in a project in the community. Dedicating time and resources to understanding the policies of these areas should be of primary importance and occur before or at the very least at the begging of project planning.

2.      Institutional realities - When primarily identifying your local institutional collaborators it is important to understand the policies that they are operating under. Each institution has individual contexts in which they operate within. If your project is working with an agency that has policies reflective of your project objectives it is than necessary to examine their capacities in regards to areas where you will be working together.

3.      Host country personnel limitations – Projects should be designed to equip and train local persons with the appropriate technical and administrative skills necessary for the project completion. Working with local policy makers to create a point of entry for these independently trained and funded personnel to support and strengthen the host countries personnel. Training new persons is preferable over continuing education of those currently engaged since those currently engaged are often overworked.

4.      Technical assistance shortcomings – Technical assistance should come in the form of education, any direct assistance will be un-sustainable and will create a system where the project has project only impact. Starting at the legal base, examining policy and revising when necessary is critical for the education to be of practical use.

5.      Decentralization and participation - Participation is of unquestionable importance. Without participation projects would have little real value. When developing policies to implement programs in developing areas it is useful to remember that in south and SE Asia women are accepted as behaving appropriately in politics when they are perceived as fulfilling a political void created by the death or imprisonment of male family member. One can further generalize that female politicians come from privileged social classes where domestic work is performed by servants and that their primary loyalty is to the class or family interests. As a policy developer creating an inclusive as possible system, will facilitate participation.

6.      Timing – Project policy can develop a time line that facilitates a continuous flow of activity. Improving the time between project identification and the actually start of the project can be perused through efficient and clear role definition as well as adequately trained staff.

7.      Information systems - Information suffers from a dramatic disconnect. Project designers, researchers, and implementers are all participants in producing, gathering, introducing and collecting information.  Each type of activity (producing, gathering, introducing and collecting) suffers from its own failures resulting in an ineffective information system delivery. Understanding each actor and activity prior to creating a framework and directives is a good policy decision, creating opportunity for effective use of information systems.

8.      Differing agendas – Projects should be developed to reflect the agenda of the community they are designed to serve. A large number of communities have a policy based agenda, either national, sub national or local. Examining these policies and discovering where donor projects coincide with community policies will alleviate this situation, while allowing the host community to examine, understand and perhaps even further define what their strategy actually is, a key component of effective public policy.

9.      The bottom line: sustain the projects – Many of the aspects for sustain a project are outside of the control of the implementing organization. Even the best made policies can falter if dramatic changes occur in the host countries political, environmental or economic arenas. Projects can have a higher rate of sustainability if local persons are trained to fulfill all aspects of the project. Another key element is to create a policy that will allow the project to adapt over time, including the possibility to create funds when necessary.

In these nine problems each of them can be improved utilizing policy. As discussed in the beginning, policy includes and excludes different members of a community. Remembering the impact that policy has both beneficial and detrimental will allow policy makers to create policies that support their end objectives.