PAD 6060 week two lecture

University of North Florida Master of Public Administration program PAD 6060 Public administration in modern society Fall 2017 Big ? Public manager of the week

Photo credit Margaret Former Prime Minister, and advocate

Lecture goals: Introduce some perspectives on public management. * In this lecture we'll look at some historical context of American public administration, then look at some conceptual perspectives. But we’ll start with some (necessarily crude) definitional differences between public administration/ management/ policy/ affairs:  Political science/politics (as in a Major in Political Science): a focus on human governance from the perspective of political leaders, and their elections.  Public affairs (as in School of Public and Environmental Affairs): a broad focus on the formal organizations, and processes of human governance. This is an umbrella term, including the following: o Public policy (as in the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management): a focus on the processes of (or interactions involved in) human governance. . Public policy also tends to focus on analytical techniques for solving policy problems. . For a discussion of the difference between the MPA and MPP (Master of Public Policy), from the accrediting agency for both, click link. o Public administration (as in the American Society for Public Administration): a focus on the structures of (or organizations involved in) human governance. The focus is especially on managing (‘administering’) government organizations. . Public management (as in the Public Management Research Association): much the same as public administration (focus on structures), save that it purports to take a more pragmatic, how-to-manage-an-organization approach. This public management v. administration distinction is largely an academic one, though. o Nonprofit administration (as in the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organization and Voluntary Action): a focus on the structures and process of non-governmental, non-business organizations.  Business management (as in a College of Business): a focus on the management of for-profit business firms, and the processes of market allocation.

Page 1 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

Clear enough? If so, please explain it to me! It is also worth bearing in mind that the conceptual boundaries between these fields break down in their application, as there is a lot of crossing over. Among other things, I don't think it is possible to understand the structures of public administration without some knowledge of the public policy processes that public agencies are often involved in. Politicians who get elected but have no implementable policies are a disaster; and public managers who are unaware of politics are likely to have a short career.

Big guv’mint! (Or is it?) Table 1 Some pragmatic, good government indicators Corruption Civil Government Legal It is worth keeping in mind that the US federal government is, perceptions freedom effectiveness system in dollar terms, the world's G7+ US 7.1 1 7.86 7.50 largest. Why? Liechtenstein is 8.7 1 8.93 8.31 able to govern itself with a 8.9 1 9.29 8.28 government that costs about France 6.8 1 7.14 7.31 US$1b, while the US federal Germany 7.9 1 7.86 8.17 government alone spent some Italy 3.9 1.5 6.79 5.67 $3,455b (in 2013, source). If Japan 7.8 1.5 8.21 7.49 Liechtenstein can govern itself Sweden 9.2 1 9.64 8.48 for only $1b, why does it cost UK 7.6 1 7.86 8.11 us $3.5t? But of course, the US is much, much larger than BRICs Liechtenstein, hence the much Brazil 3.7 2 7.50 5.25 larger budget of the US. Turns China 3.5 6.5 5.00 6.38 India 3.3 2.5 8.57 5.93 out, as seen in Table 1 in Russia 2.1 5.5 3.21 5.73 Lecture 1, the US is a relatively lightly governed Laggards country, both in terms of the Pakistan 2.3 4.5 5.71 4.04 size, and regulatory reach of its Nigeria 2.4 4.0 3.21 4.20 . This is also Vietnam 2.7 6.0 4.29 6.01 evident in the comparison with Venezuela 2.0 5.0 3.93 2.91 Liechtenstein: even though the Sources: Corruption perceptions is from Transparency International. It is US federal budget is about a 1-10 scale, with 10 = less corrupt. Civil freedom is from Freedom House. It is a 1-7 scale, with 1 = free, 7 = not free. Government 3500 times larger than that of effectiveness and the legal system are from Intelligence Liechtenstein, the population of Unit’s Democracy Index. the US is nearly 9000 times larger (and land area over 50,000 times larger). So we do more with relatively less, providing government for 9000 times as many people, for only 3500 times more money. Say what you will about government in the US: it is more efficient than that of Liechtenstein. You won’t hear that on Fox News (link for example).

Despite 'big ', 'constraint' -- attempts at reducing the size and role of government -- has been a fundamental feature of the US system since the country was founded. Indeed, the country was founded with a ‘separation of powers’ to restrict capricious government activity:  The Executive (identified in Article II of the Constitution)  The Legislature, (identified in Article I of the Constitution) itself split into

Page 2 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

o The House of Representatives, and o The Senate  Judiciary (Article III of the Constitution)  State governments (which preceded the , and guaranteed their rights through the 10th Amendment), themselves featuring An executive; A Legislature, 49 of which have both a House, and a Senate; and a Judiciary

Still, despite this small American government with a light regulatory footprint, extraordinary enjoyment of civil and political liberties (as indicated in Table 1 from the previous page), there is little doubt but that government in the US has grown over the past century. This process has waxed and waned, though, as reflected in Table 2, below.

Table 2 Federal spending (size of government!) in the US over time Year Federal Federal Federal GDP Jobless Highest (Presidential Outlays revenue Balance change (%) marginal budgets) (%GDP) (% GDP) (%GDP) (% annual) tax rate 1920 ------73.0 1930 3.4 4.1 +0.7 -8.6 --- 25.0 1932 6.8 2.8 -4.0 -13.0 --- 63.0 1933 7.9 3.4 -4.5 -1.3 --- 63.0 1935-7 9.3 5.4 -4.0 9.0 --- 73.0 1938 7.6 7.5 -0.1 -3.4 --- 79.0 1939 10.1 7.0 -3.1 8.1 --- 79.0 1943 42.6 13.0 -29.6 16.4 --- 88.0 1944 42.7 20.5 -22.2 8.1 --- 94.0 1945 41.0 19.1 -21.9 -1.1 --- 94.0 1946 24.2 17.1 -7.1 -11.0 --- 86.45 1947-1960 16.3 16.5 0.2 3.4 4.6 89.1 1961-1974 18.9 18.2 -0.7 4.0 4.9 76.0 1975-1981 20.5 17.8 -2.7 3.0 7.1 69.9 1982-1989 (Reagan) 21.6 17.5 -4.1 3.6 7.3 43.1 1990-1993 (Bush I) 21.3 17.2 -4.1 1.9 6.7 32.4 1994-2001 (Clinton) 18.6 18.8 +0.2 3.5 4.9 39.5 2002-2009 (Bush II) 19.9 16.5 -3.4 1.6 5.8 35.5 2009 24.4 14.6 -9.8 -2.8 9.3 35.0 2010 23.4 14.6 -8.7 2.5 9.6 35.0 2011 23.4 15.0 -8.5 1.6 8.9 35.0 2012 22.1 15.3 -6.8 2.2 8.1 35.0 2013 20.9 16.8 -4.1 1.7 7.4 39.6 2014 20.4 17.5 -2.8 2.6 6.2 39.6 2015 20.6 18.2 -2.4 2.9 5.3 39.6 2016 20.9 17.8 -3.2 1.5 4.9 39.6 Sources: Budget data: Office of Management and Budget, Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930-2020. GDP change: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product change from previous period. Jobless: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date. Tax: Tax Policy Center, Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters.

Page 3 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

From the data, three spurts of federal government growth are evident: the 1930s through World War II, the ‘Great Society’ era, then again from the late 70s through the Reagan years. The recent recession then lifted federal spending above even the Reagan years, though with recovery federal spending has decreased back to below Reagan-era levels.

Why this previous growth occurred is due to numerous reasons, but in large part was due to growth and modernization of US society. Richer countries have larger governments (even as a share of their economy), as more complex societies require more coordination, and as richer people demand low crime, good schools, good infrastructure, good health (low incidence of tuberculosis and West Nile virus, etc.), a cleaner environment (mowed street medians, rivers that don’t turn green, etc.), and the like.

Other interesting points from Table 2:  Tax rates dropped through the 1920s, yet economic calamity occurred!  Note the intensity of the . o Only the post WWII slump of 1946 (a one year contraction of 11%!) compares. o By way of comparison with recent recessions: . 1982: one year contraction of 1.9%. . 2008-9: two year contraction of 3.1% . 1930-3: four years of economic contraction totaling over 29% of GDP. 29%  The federal government grew, from about 3% of GDP in 1930 to over 10% in four years. The economy grew, debt did as well, but this was largely paid down.  A long, 1947-74 period of strong growth and generally balanced budgets (with highest marginal tax rates as high as 90%!) ended in the .  Spending (size of government!) and deficits rose through the 1970s, rose more during the Reagan years. Despite ups and downs, economic growth stayed at post-war levels (~3%).  Clinton (and a Republican Congress) cooperated in spending cuts (government shrunk) and tax/revenue increases, resulting in balanced budgets while maintaining growth… … … Damn: what did I just write? Let’s do that again:  A Democratic President and a Republican Congress cooperated in spending cuts (government shrunk) and tax/revenue increases, resulting in balanced budgets while maintaining growth.  GW Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases (federal government grew) returned the country to deficits, though this time with anemic growth, even before the collapse of 2008.

Beyond the US time series data presented in Table 2, this trend (richer countries have larger governments) is also evident in cross-national analysis, as shown in Figure 3, on the next page. The figure uses public consumption (purchases by government agencies) as an indicator of the size of government and, as can be seen, as countries become richer, government grows. (The data, incidentally, comes from an SPSS dataset available here.) This is not to argue that more government = a richer society. Instead an effective, honest, ‘right-sized’ government is required. As the World Bank put it in opening their 1997 World Development Report,

Page 4 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

“An effective state is vital for the provision of the goods and services -- and the rules and institutions -- that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier, happier lives. Without it, sustainable development, both economic and social, is impossible.” (p. 1) By ‘right-sized is meant doing what government needs to do, avoiding those things government isn’t suitable for, though as the equally successful US (smaller government) and Sweden (larger government) illustrate, there is a fair degree of choice within this band of ‘right- sized’ governments. We will come back to this theme in this class.

The roots and development of governance, government, and public administration

Jos Raadschelders is a strong advocate of the importance of history in our understanding of public administration, and this is certainly evident in the course text. These first few chapters just provide a bit of that context. Relevant takeaways for us from chapter 2:

Definitional distinctions!  “Governance refers to all institutional arrangements in society that are created to address challenges that individual effort and capacity cannot resolve.  “Government refers to all organizations that operate within an institutional superstructure in which sovereignty is invested and where its officials have the authority to make binding decisions of all people living in that sovereignty.  “Public administration is the term we reserve when referring to the study of government and governance” (p. 18-19).

Multi-disciplinary. This book also goes well beyond public administration (whether the day-to- day practice or the broader theory of it). Beyond Raadschelders’ interest in history, he and Vigoda-gadot also include perspectives from political science, evolutionary biology, sociobiology, and anthropology. These latter three especially focus on human behavior, and how humans interact in small groups. There is especially a focus in this chapter on the evolution of human society from the band, to the tribe, to the city-state, to the empire, and now to nation- states.

OMG this is all so new!!! In an historical discussion going back at least 10,000 years, he dates the world as we know it to perhaps the last 200 years. Think about it:

Page 5 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

 The modern state is perhaps 200 years old, with its local, regional and national government “closely intertwined within a jurisdiction that is circumscribed by the central level” (p. 34).  Democracy has slowly developed over the past couple of centuries, as democratic structures restricted to elites were slowly expanded to universal suffrage. Centuries, even millennia of previous governance had been characterized by a ruler, to whom the ruled owed obedience. Democracy based on universal suffrage1 is barely a century old, arguably 50 years old (after the Civil Rights movement) in the US. All else equal, the newer something is, the less stable it is.  Mass scale. Woven into Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot’s discussion, as well, was the demise of the local level: “In that process of state making, the local level, so vital to the immediate needs of all people, was absorbed into a national polity” (p. 40). This, too, is very new. Keith (Lynton) Caldwell, writing from a socio-biological perspective, questioned whether the "apparent human tendency to develop large, impersonal, centralized to cope with social needs could be a monumental error compounded by man's misunderstanding of his innate needs and limitations" (p. 1).

Some conceptual ‘paradigms’

Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot’s chapter two also provide a useful segue into this section of the week’s ‘lecture’ by identifying four types of “coordination structures: bureaucratic, associational, market, and clientelist” (p. 25). As we will see, the first three of these map closely onto three key elements of my perspective on (not to mention my attempts to make sense of) public administration.

A broad understanding of public administration can be difficult for a number of reasons:

Lack of respect. As Iain Gow puts it, “the field has a hard time getting respect from academic colleagues in the social sciences” (2009, p. 24). This has especially been the case relative to political science, which has often criticized public administration for being atheoretical: focused on applied empirical research meant to improve governance.

Parochial, ahistorical. Discussions of approaches within the field tend to be parochial and ahistorical, often as not rediscovering and renaming old paradigms.

Academic and political tribalism! Both politicians and scholars tend to pick an approach much like they do a sports team, supporting this approach (“Yeah markets!” “Go guv’mint!” “Go get ‘em nonprofits!”) to the exclusion of all others.

Old wine in new bottles. The names of these paradigms have more recently demonstrated a lack of flair that makes understanding them incomprehensible to all but specialists in the discipline. For instance, In a popular recent book, Robert and Janet Denhardt offer the New Public Service (subtitle: “respecting public service ideals” 2006, p. 163-7) as new dominant paradigm in public

1 …and if democracy means ‘people rule’, it is hard to image a democracy worthy of the name that does not allow the vote to all of the people.

Page 6 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture administration, and as an antidote to a second paradigm: the New Public Management (“using incentives to achieve efficiency,” p. 163), which itself they present as having arisen as a cure for the perceived maladies of the Old Public Administration (“using control to achieve efficiency,” p. 162). So we have three paradigms, or approaches to understanding the management of public organizations, the three identified by R & V-G above: government (“bureaucratic”), nonprofits (“associational”), and markets. But it gets confusing:

The New Public Service . One of the ‘roots’ of the New Public Service is the New Public Administration: “essentially the public administration counterpart to the late sixties/early seventies radical movements in society generally and in other social science disciplines” (p. 38). Other ‘roots’ of the new public service are Democratic Citizenship, Publicness, and Post-modernism. . The New Public Service is further confused by Paul Light (1999) and Jim Perry (2007) also using the phrase to describe different phenomena.

The New Public Management . Macdonald has argued “the New Public Management is neither new, nor public, nor even about management” (2005, p. 60). Hello? . Sanford Borins refers to the same paradigm as “the new public administration paradigm” (2002, p. 14), or as “this new paradigm in public administration” (p. 4), . A Brazilian researcher translated the New Public Management as nova administração pública – new public administration (Seabra 2001) -- and this translation remains a common one in that country (be careful when you’re there…). . The New Public Management also has its roots in Public Choice, with which it is still confused (Gow 1993), and is also referred to as Reinventing Government (Frederickson 1996), managerialism (Lynn 1997, p. 112), neo-, and no doubt other things.

Bureaucratic public administration . ‘Old’ (ouch!) for the Denhardts. It is also referred to as the Traditional Paradigm, and its fundamental logic derives from the Administrative Science movement.

An attempt at an integrated, international taxonomy: and keep in mind that these work together. Modern good governance isn’t about choosing one paradigm, but about figuring out which approach is more likely to produce good policy outcomes in a specific policy arena. Below I’ll offer an attempt at an integrated taxonomy. This is illustrated in the table 4, on the next page. The terms I use are on the top, horizontal row. What follows is other terms used by other authors to describe the same thing:

Page 7 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

Table 4 Various approaches to paradigms of public administration GC  Pre- The modern paradigms modern Bureaucracy Normative Networks Civic Market Dialogue respons. Pollitt & Neo- New public New public ? Bouckaert Weberian management governance state Stillman Bold state Pre-state? No-state ? & Pro-state Gow Pragmatic New public Governance ? instit’lism management Denhardts Old public New public New public ? (2003) admin. management service Henry (2012) ‘The passim Political Governance ? beginning’ science Lynn (1996) P.A. as P.A. as art ? science Raadschelders How? Why? Who? ? (1999)

Pre-Modern Public Administration -- characterized by cronyism, patronage and lack of popular control. Unfortunately, what Americans criticize in public bureaucracy has typically been treated as a caricature and held for abuse. This has especially been so from conservative politicians. , on the eve of the Conservative Party’s 1979 general election victory, warned of “the slither and slide to the socialist state” (Thatcher 1979), while former US President argued in his 1981 inaugural address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” (Reagan 1981).2 It is also worth noting that this broader anti-government perspective is not restricted to the political right. Long-time leftist political activist Ralph Nader echoed Reagan’s anti-government dirge in a 2004 interview shortly after announcing his candidacy for President of the United States: "Washington is now a corporate-occupied territory. There's a "For Sale" sign on almost every door of agencies and departments where these corporations dominate and they put their appointments in high office." (Nader 2004) Yet despite these criticisms, 'bureaucracy' was (and remains!) a reformist, even radical reformist movement. The common failure to recognize this may be because both many American citizens, and even contemporary American scholars of government, have little experience of administration in the absence of modern bureaucracy. Rather than over large and ineffective, the

2 For the record, especially regarding the claims of Thatcher and Reagan: Fraser/Cato ratings show a relatively large British state in 1980 (the year after Thatcher’s assumption of office as Prime Minister), but little evidence of the dictatorial economic coercion implied in the statement above: the UK was the 12th least regulated economy in the world (out of 153 analysed), ranked fifth in freedom of international trade, ranked a respectable 19th in the integrity of its legal structure and security of property rights, and ranked 17th in terms of economic freedom overall. The impeccably conservative Cato/Fraser index similarly ranked the US as the third most free economy on the eve of the Reagan administration.

Page 8 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

US is one of the best governed societies in the history of our species. I’ll repeat that for emphasis: Rather than over large and ineffective, the US is one of the best governed societies in the history of our species.

Bureaucracy (the 'how' of administration) -- Also referred to as administrative science,3 this has been around at least since Wilson’s call for “a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike” (1887, p. 201).4 Chevallier similarly points to earlier roots of administrative science (1986, p. 12-19), specifically with reference to the long historical battle against the undemocratic cronyism and patronage of ‘pre-modern’ administration.

Henry describes this science of administration as having received a substantial boost in the 1920s and 1930s, with Willoughby’s Principles of Administration, followed a decade later by Gulick and Urwick’s POSDCORB (Henry 2007, p. 28-30). The influence of the more recent ‘public management’ movement (Henry 2007, p. 34-5) on the discipline of public administration has seen an understanding of the science and technique of public administration strengthened. Even much of the ‘new’ public management movement, with its emphasis on improved management techniques (Hood 1991, p. 4-5; Bresser Pereira 1998, p. 18-20, 52-58), is consistent with the of this venerable, and still prominent (Candler 2008) administrative science paradigm.

Finally, another approach to the relevance of ‘old’, ‘traditional’ bureaucratic administration, this from Portugal (my translation, and I’ll provide context): “Relative to the organization form of public administration, and despite the justifiable criticisms of the model and the functioning of bureaucracy, it is necessary to point out that at least in the Portuguese case, one of the reasons for its limited public responsibility and for the limitations in its efficiency and efficacy lie precisely in insufficient bureaucracy. The bureaucratic model of organization, in the sense postulated by the classics of the theory of organization – Weber, Fayol, Taylor and more recently, Mintzberg and Friedberg --, justly underline that, to limit the dysfunctionalities of an administration that is unprofessional and arbitrary, administration should conduct itself through [POSDCORB friendly reforms]… One of the reasons for the evident dysfunctionalities results from the non-observance of the so-called bureaucratic model of organization” (Mozzicafreddo 2001, p. 14).

Normative approaches (the 'why' of administration) -- If the Bureaucratic paradigm focuses on how to govern, a second major stream of thought in public administration theory within modern societies is that which addresses the questions of why one governs. As academic public administration developed, at least from Dwight Waldo’s The Administrative State American public administration shifted some of its focus from the means of science and technique to the ends of this process, or what Waldo referred to as the pursuit of “the heavenly city” (1948, p. 66). More recently interest in ‘publicness’ (Henry 2007, p. 35-7; Ventriss 1989) and the new public administration movement (Henry 2007, p. 38-9; Frederickson 1980) saw further

3 This is also what Raadshcelders and Vigoda-Gadot refer to as the ‘bureaucratic’ type of coordination structure. 4 With regards to the just-mentioned criticisms of this ‘old’, ‘bureaucratic’ approach to governance, see also the Larry Lynn article that is an assigned reading this week. He makes a strong case that criticisms of Woodrow Wilson and the bureaucratic approach to public administration are woefully naïve.

Page 9 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture discussion of the purposes of governance. As indicated above, I also like to point out that the purposes of administration in the United States are legally set by a Constitution that enjoins us to work to 'promote the general welfare' (see both the Preamble, and Article I, Section 8), as well as broader Judeo-Christian values which charge us to 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' (see, for instance, Matthew 25:40).

Finally, the ‘normative’ approach to public administration also includes a large ethical component: honest, open government, and all that. Again, Table 1 provides some indicators regarding the relative performance of the US in terms of the integrity of its government, and America rocks.

Network approaches: multi-sectoral civic engagement -- A third meta-paradigm of public administration includes perspectives that focus on relationships with other social actors.5 There are at least two streams to this:  Market-mediated6 – This stream focuses on , marketization, contracting out, etc. As Henry (2007) notes, these network approaches subsume a good portion of the New Public Management, especially that portion that sees government ‘steer’ rather than ‘row’ (Osborne and Gaebler 1992, p. 35; Chevallier 2003, p. 211-2). Indeed, Denhardt and Denhardt identify public choice, the NPM precursor movement, as a networked perspective (2006, p. 177-8).  Dialogue-mediated7 – This stream focuses on interaction between government agencies and civic groups, and is more consistent with the 'new public service' of Denhardt and Denhardt (2000). The approach is largely a reassertion of a number of previous approaches, including principles of democratic citizenship, new public administration concerns with citizen participation, questions about 'publicness', and with a dollop of post-modernism thrown in.

Civic responsibility -- The central point of the Network Paradigm is to get the public manager to acknowledge a world outside of the public agency box, not least a world to which the agency manager needs to work with, and account to. This is all fine and good, but I doubt that government is possible if it is all about what government can do for the people, and so the role of citizens becomes that of the infant, screaming and banging her/his rattle, demanding more, and refusing to help at all (like, to overdo the metaphor, cleaning up her/his own room). Instead, public administration needs a responsible citizenry, well stated by John Fitzgerald Kennedy: "...ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" (Inaugural speech, January 20, 1961).

The civic participation of the Networked Paradigm will be difficult if administrators are tasked with creating consensus among the public, but the public isn't equally tasked with responsible citizenship. Responsible citizenship has been grossly under-emphasized, both in terms of asserting the importance of this to citizens, and in training the public manager what to do in the face of an irresponsible citizenry. This will also be a recurring theme of this course.

5 This, again, is not new: ‘Systems Theory’ of the 1950s also saw organizations as part of complex networks. 6 This is Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot’s ‘market’ coordination structure, and... 7 … this is Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot’s ‘associational’ coordination structure.

Page 10 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

While dialogue-mediated networks are harder to measure (and I do not have a measure of civic responsibility), Table 5 gives an indication of the relative role of government (bureaucratic), market- and dialogue-mediated networks in human governance.

Table 5 ‘Paradigm’ indicators Bureaucracy Dialogue networks Normative approaches Markets Public Corruption Democracyc Civil Civic Economic servicesa perceptionsb freedomd engagemente freedomf G7+ US 7.3 7.1 8.18 1 60 7.96 Australia 8.2 8.7 9.22 1 59 7.90 Canada 8.1 8.9 9.08 1 54 7.95 France 8.1 6.8 7.77 1 31 7.32 Germany 8.0 7.9 8.38 1 43 7.46 Italy 7.2 3.9 7.83 1.5 26 6.90 Japan 8.3 7.8 8.08 1.5 26 7.46 Sweden 8.5 9.2 9.50 1 39 7.28 UK 7.8 7.6 8.16 1 57 7.81

BRICs Brazil 4.2 3.7 7.12 2 29 6.18 China 3.4 3.5 3.14 6.5 21 6.65 India 2.8 3.3 7.28 2.5 28 6.51 Russia 4.7 2.1 4.26 5.5 22 6.62 Sources: a) Failed State Index Public Services Quality subscore. The index is reported with higher scores meaning more likely to contribute to a failed state, so I have turned these around (subtracted from 10) to make higher = better public services. b) Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index. Higher scores indicate less perception of corruption. c) Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index 2010. The data is on a 1010 scale, with higher scores more democratic. d) Freedom House’s 2011 Freedom in the World Report. Freedom House rates countries in terms of civil and political freedom, on a 1 (free) to 7 (unfree) scale. The number presented here is the average of these two scores. e) Gallup’s Civic Engagement Index. This is a 0-100 scale. f) Fraser Institute and Cato Institute’s 2010 Economic Freedom of the World Report. The data is on a 1-10 scale, with 10 equal to more economic freedom (i.e. less government ‘meddling’). The data are for 2008.

The central dichotomy among these approaches in contemporary American political debate is, though, between government and markets, or my ‘market-mediated networks’ and bureaucracy. It might be thought of as indicated in Figure 6, on the next page. I’ll explain.

Figure 6 Models of governance in terms of government v. markets

N. Korea Sweden U.S.A. Somalia

------ All No government government

Page 11 of 12

PAD 6060 week two lecture

* Summary: guv'mint is da' bomb!

References Borins, Sanford (2002). Transformation of the Public Sector: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” In Christopher Dunn (ed.) Handbook of Canadian Public Administration. Toronto: Oxford. p. 3-17. Boulding, Kenneth (1956). “General Systems theory – The Skeleton of Science.” Management Science, 2(3): 197-208. Caldwell, Lynton (1980). "Biology and behavior: the coming confrontation." Public Administration Review 40(1), p. 1-12. JSTOR link Denhardt, Robert and Janet Denhardt (2006). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Belmont, CA: Thomson. Frederickson, H. George (1996). “Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 56(3), p. 263-70. Gow, James Iain (1993). “Les problématiques changeantes en administration publique (1965- 1992).” Revue québécoise de science politique, 23, p. 59-105. Gow, James Iain (2009). “Evolution of disciplinary approaches and paradigms in the study of public administration in Canada.” Draft, forthcoming in Canadian Public Administration in Transition: From Administration to Management to Governance. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press Light, Paul (1999). The New Public Service. Washington: Brookings. Lynn, Larry (1997). “The New Public Management as International Phenomenon: A skeptical view.” In Lawrence Jones, Kuno Schedler and Stephen Wade (eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management. Greenwich, C: JAL Press. Macdonald, H. Ian (2005). “The State of the New Public Management in a Globalizing World.” African Journal of Public Administration & Management 16(1), p. 60-6. Mozzicafreddo, Juan (2001). “Modernização da Administração Pública e Poder Político.” In Juan Mozzicafreddo and João Salis Gomes (eds.) A Administração e Politica: Perspectivas de Reforma da Administração Pública na Europa e nos Estados Unidos, Oeiras: Celta Editora, pp. 1-33. Perry, James (2007). “Democracy and the New Public Service,” American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), p. 3-16. Seabra, S. N. (2001). A nova administração pública e mudanças organizacionais. Revista de Administração Pública, 35, 19-43.

Page 12 of 12