Using examples and evidence, critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of applying the principles of the traditional model of public administration in the Public Sector in the 21st Century.
The traditional model of public administration stood out to be a leadership scheme under the regulation of political groups. It was fundamentally reliant on strict adherence to bureaucratic hierarchies with permanent leaders, as cited by Hughes (2003). The public only acted as a motivating factor towards the implementation of the policies of the traditional model of public administration. The application of this model still stands out to be vital in the 21st Century though most of its elements are getting phased out over time. This is because of the focus on the process rather than relevant outcomes to the Public Sector in the contemporary world. Dynamics in the 21st-century public administration is coupled up by service provision pluralization and globalization of the advanced economies. These, therefore, help to draw out the imperative strengths and weaknesses of applying the traditional model of public administration principles in today’s public sectors.
Strengths of applying Traditional public administration model principles in the modern public sector
The Golden age was a significant era in the public administration system because it brought about the management of war economies, and the welfare state was developed. This has primarily impacted the contemporary public sector’s administration because economic growth is a determinant of a prosperous country. Employment of policies in the modern society that go in line with the management of war economies such as eradication of corruption and nepotism has formed the basis of the public sector’s administration in the developing nations today (Pearce and Kay, 2003). For example, China has adopted economic and trade reform, which has led to its success across global networks. Inheritance of the traditional model of public administration in China has yielded ambitious goals that target national and global wealth amassed by the country.
The primary concern of the traditional administrative model was to ensure fairness and equity in the achievement of goals that enhanced bureaucracy. This was meant to offer legitimated and centralized control that gave rise to fair employment practices in the public sectors. The application of this model in the 21st Century has proved to contribute to the democratic accountability of the public administration sector. Employment of Weberian bureaucracy in the contemporary public sector’s administration has enhanced the formulation of policies that work towards the achievement of predetermined goals of economic progression. The higher growth rates in China are a result of the adoption of state bureaucracies in the Chinese public sector. In line with this is the provision of career ladders that are highly rewarding to help in rapid economic growth in the Chinese public sector. Application of meritocratic recruitment principles in contemporary China’s administration in public service has also contributed to fighting the economic war, which proves to be a success (Evans and Rauch, 1999, p. 760).
Weaknesses of applying Traditional public administration model principles in the modern public sector
Traditional public administration models lack rational decision-making processes that make it lose its elemental value in the modern public sector. The truth in muddling through procedures put forward by this model is dependent on unrealistic political and cognitive situations of the public administrators. Incrementalism proves to be a failure in the traditional public administration model that makes it lose its value in the Public Sector of the 21st Century. The multiplicity of decision-makers that use this model customarily offer conflicting priorities, which in turn yields to excessive economic growth. As a consequence, values and goals are deemed to be indifferent from the choices made in the public administration in contemporary society. In Texas, United States, the public policy offers trade-offs that make the definition of objectives and goals to be ineffective. For instance, traditional public administration in Texas believes that budget-balancing is enhanced through spending less on education, which is extremely expensive in the current federal administration.
There is laxity in meeting the demands of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy by use of the traditional administrative model in the public sector in the 21st Century (Ferlie et al., 2005). This is because of the dynamics that come up as a result of globalization in the global economies’ public sectors. Implementation of the economic needs is hard because the policymakers who focus on the traditional approach are focused on coming up with decisions coupled up with personal gains. Efficiency and effectiveness in public administration also need to be attended at a different angle to ensure equity in resource distribution and knowledge sharing for the administrators in the public sectors.
Figure 1: 3 E concepts in public administration (Ferlie et al., 2005)
The traditional administrative approach failed to be accountable to the public or the politicians involved in the public service. This makes it lose the grounds in being applied to the public sectors in the 21st Century. Lack of accountability in the public administration is indicative of inefficient and ineffective goals and decision-making processes by the concerned team in the public sectors. This yields resistance in change, especially to processes that result in success in economic growth. The traditional model views the public administrators as the superior personalities who have the right to come up with decisions regardless of their authenticity. This makes it hard to be adopted by the public sectors in the contemporary world whose participants have overall responsibility for the performance of public areas.
Drawing from relevant literature and using examples, critically discuss the role that framing plays in defining public policy problems.
Framing is defined as the inclusion of various stakeholders with diverse knowledge and information in public policing hence easing management in the public sectors. It is an elemental aspect in offering definitions to problems that hinder the formulation of policies in the public set-ups. Framing is, therefore, imperative in decision-making processes to filter the essential need of policing from the least significant preferences. Decision-making processes offered through framing include formal economic, bounded, value-laden, and instrumental rationality (Buchanan and Connell, 2006, p. 32). Formal economic rationality is mostly dependent on identifying the alternatives that best suit the policies that ought to be formulated and implemented in the public sector. This effectively helps to measure success in the economic growth in public sectors that chooses to use the framing concept. The consequences that emanate from the chosen alternatives helps a great deal in modeling comprehensive information that stands out to be an opportunity in public policy formulation. Bounded rationality is deliberate on curbing muddling through problems in the public sector. This aspect of decision making helps in isolation of a targeted problem and using different approaches to control the issues.
As a consequence, public policy formulation is catalyzed, and the best outcome is attained through the adoption of the framing technique. More importantly, framing is vital in facilitating instrumental rationality. This gives an assurance that the targeted goal will be attained, and the policies put forward will serve to work best in the public sector. This makes the policymakers to focus on achieving reproducible outcomes through their determination. In practicing value-laden rationality, farming plays a significant role in putting in place ethical considerations in policy formulation. It enhances equality; democracy and ensures that human rights are considered in policies that are formulated in the public sectors.
Framing is pivotal in ensuring that evidence is present during policy-making processes in the public sectors. Evidence matters because it enhances accountability and promotes the improvement of policies laid out in the public sectors. Framing, in this case, helps a great deal to accrue detailed information about the government’s performance. The channeling of the programs and policies is made easy through well-defined design and delivery protocols that are used in framing. Hierarchy of issues that need to be addressed are recorded, and effective mechanisms used as interventional measures are put in place in the presence of evidence in framing. This is possibly done through conducting pilot studies and involvement of stakeholder’s consultations processes. Evidence is also practical in assessing the quality of policy interventions and the impacts it has on the entire public. This is through the evaluation of stakeholders’ needs in regards to the policy implementation in public sectors. The effectiveness of the framing technique is attained through the focus of the narrow range of social interventions.
Further, the implementation of policies is made easy through the provision of evidence that acts as a reference point in the public sectors and the government. Evidence helps a great in predetermination of possible risks in the public areas and offers platforms for solving such problems. For instance, Tony Blair’s war case in Iraq is not justified because of a lack of evidence (Hunt, 2016). The government and its respective professional bodies are hence well-managed by the policy adopted through framing methodologies.
Figure 2: A well-equipped and organized troop to alleviate war risks (Hunt, 2016)
Framing helps to adequately define the policy’s risk in the public sectors through effective assessment protocols. Risk determination is vital in detecting the performance index of the public sectors. The negative impacts of the determined risks are alleviated, and similar hazards are blocked from recurring in the same institution. The assessment policy gives an assurance that the procedure is transparent, competitive, systematic, and fair. Frames enhance clarity in risk assessment and management hence aiding in offering definitive descriptions and solutions to the risks identified during policy formulation and implementation in the public sectors (Milestone, 2009, p. 630). Risk assessment policies in framing could be interpretative; hence relevant data need to be presented. This includes giving of assumptions and judgments based on the data presented in the systems that are formulated. For example, the use of laboratory rats as models in procedures helps in the laying down of risk assessment policies. Procedural and substantive policies help to effectively deal with the dynamics of risks that occur in the public sectors.
Policy framing takes into account the policy debate structures in the public sectors hence helping in defining public policy problems. In cases of battles between competing institutions in the government, reframing of policies is instrumental. The outcomes should mostly focus on offering transformation to the conflicts that arise due to policy implementation. Contestation is also generated on the whole levels of the stakeholders that choose to adopt framing in their public sectors (Rochefort and Cobb, 1993, p. 65). In this case, the competing bodies are targeting frames that are competitive to attain votes from the public and the relevant stakeholders. The need to consider the hierarchy of needs is pivotal in ensuring that efficient outcomes are achieved through the framing process. Causal relationships are fundamental aspects in framing the public policy issues as they help to offer possible solutions and recommendations on items that are targeted.
References
Buchanan, L., and O Connell, A., 2006. A brief history of decision making. Harvard business review, 84(1), p.32.
Evans, P. and Rauch, J.E., 1999. Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of” Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American sociological review, pp.748-765.
Ferlie, E., Lynn Jr, L.E., Lynn, L.E., Pollitt, C. and Lynn, L.E. eds., 2005. The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hughes, O.E., 2003. Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunt, P., 2016. Chilcot report: Tony Blair’s Iraq War case not justified. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36712735
Millstone, E., 2009. Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance. Research Policy, 38(4), pp.624-636.
Pearce, J. and Kay, A., 2003. Social enterprise in anytown. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Rochefort, D.A. and Cobb, R.W., 1993. Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy studies journal, 21(1), pp.56-71.