New Public Administration, Essay Example

What is “the new Public Administration”? Should public administrators actively work to advance a social agenda, or should appointed officials obediently follow the directives of their political masters (elected officials) without question? How is the agenda of elected and appointed officials affected by social class, party affiliation, and union membership? (10 points)

The “newpublic administration” school of thought formed as a reaction against the traditional notion of a bureaucracy, most persuasively argued by Max Weber. Indeed, the traditional view of public administration was that of a top-down, monotonic administrative unit that took direct orders from elected officials and implemented them without substantive debate. Policy ideas “bubbling up” from the lower tiers of bureaucracy to the top were not considered: While there was room for debate regarding how the policy might be implemented, there was little room to question the direction or to take an “activist” stance against the policy direction.

The “New Administration” school of thought initially formed as a function of a changing external policy environment. Catalyzed by a quicker transmission of information and ideas via the internet, the traditional bureaucratic structure could not respond to address issues. The concept of a passive bureaucratic unit needed to change. From an organizational perspective, the New Administration school of thought allows for greater flexibility in policy promulgation. While a macro policy direction may be given by elected officials, bureaucrats have more freedom to implement it, including the questioning of policy itself. The New Administration change is also thus the acknowledgement of a more fluid political environment. With the rise of identity politics and wide differences even among those individuals of the same political party, New Administration posits that bureaucrats can question and even advocate policies that were not originally suggested by elected officials. Although this might provide a more “nimble” bureaucracy that is able to better deal with a shifting political landscape, it can also harm the implementation of policy if numerous government officials will not implement it. The New Administration school of thought, while introducing potential avenues for reform, also raises new questions regarding the ultimately loyalty of the bureaucrat: is it to the government itself, or the issues/ identity that the bureaucrat has. This is not an idle question, particularly if the bureaucrat chooses policy options that advance a personal agenda- the issue of conflict of interest under the theory is a thorny issue and one that has not been fully worked out.

References:

Pfiffner, J. (2008). Public Administration versus the New Public Administration: Accountability versus Efficiency.

Shafritz, R and Borick, T. (2013). Introducing Public Administration, 8th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Explain the similarities and differences between incremental budgeting and zero-based budgeting. Which system do you believe is most appropriate for government? Defend your answer. (10 points)

Incremental and zero-based budgeting are two different approaches to draft the annual budget. Incremental budgeting emphasizes continuity: many line items from the previous year may be marginally increased or decreased (particularly if a project ends), but there will not be a radical shift in line items from one year to the next. Zero-based budgeting takes the opposite approach: the budget is constructed from scratch to emphasize annual priorities, while also looking at pervious added areas that may need to be cut. Although my answer may have been different before the financial crisis, I believe that zero-based budgeting is the most appropriate budgeting system for government for two reasons.

First, zero-based budgeting is more sensitive to volatile economic cycles, particularly in an age of greater economic uncertainty. Incremental budgeting likely had numerous advantages during the economic era of the great moderation: when economic growth and revenues were stable, budgeting based on the previous year(s) was good practice. In the age of austerity, however, budgets must be based on the current economic and revenue reality rather than simply an increased percentage from the previous year’s budget. Zero-based budgeting affords the flexibility to “rebuild” a budget based on massive cuts, cut revenue, and the changing priorities that might emerge as a result of the economic recession.

Second, zero-based budgeting also is a useful exercise to ensure that resources are efficiently used. One of the main problems with incremental budgeting is that it embeds budgetary assumptions in resources in certain areas that might be valid only for a certain time period. Zero-based budgeting forces individuals to make new assumptions on an annual basis that will lead to allocation of more resources in a certain area, while resources from other areas will be taken away. This process allows for an honest appraisal of how a department is spending its money and the priorities that should be reflected in the annual budget.

Finally, zero-based budgeting may lead to greater innovation in the budget process. Through the process of questioning what is allocated, individuals may think of innovative new ideas on how to combine departments, make efficient new expenditures, or run the department better.

References:

National Conference of State Legislatures (1985). Fundamentals of Sound Budgeting Practices. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BudgetTax/FundamentalsofSoundStateBudgetingPractices/tabid/12653/Default.aspx.

There is a movement afoot to “de-unionize” many government workforces. What are the costs and benefits of public sector unionization? Do you support the “de-unionization” movement? Explain your answer. (5 points)

In order to understand why there is a movement currently underway to “de-unionize” the government workforce, it may help to understand why government workers chose to unionize in the first place. Government workers were largely independent until the 1950s and 1960s; two main factors catalyzed the unionization movement among them: 1) the perception (correct or not) of an increasing wage differential between jobs in the public and private sector; 2) the political idea that office could be won if the candidate appealed to public workers as a major voting bloc. It is difficult to analyze which of the factors was more important the unionization of the government workforce. Regardless, large swaths of government workers joined the union at the federal, state, and municipal levels in the 1960s and 1970s.

The “deunionization” movement in the public sector has progressed as an extension of the “hollowing out” has progressed in the country, particularly in the private sector. Although the movement in the public sector is somewhat different, many of the issues are similar. At the forefront of the benefits related to the denionization movement, at least from the perspective of some government officials and tax payers, is lower benefit and wage costs. Indeed, with growing pension and benefit costs across the board, many states and municipalities are facing substantive economic difficulty due to previous union promises. Detroit, traditionally a union stronghold, has officially declared bankruptcy; San Jose and other cities in California are also on the edge. Another benefit is related to the objectivity of government workers. With many of the issues on the policy docket related to cost of living and other issues, a deunionization effort could lead to greater objectivity in policy making.

On the other side of the argument, there are many costs to the movement as well including the loss of benefits and the possibility that without a livable wage and benefits many talented workers will not pursue this type of work.

References:

Volscho, T. (2007). Unions, government employment, and the political economy of income distribution in metropolitan areas. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25, 1-12.