Rumki Basu Public Administration in The 21st Century A Global South

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN
THE 21ST CENTURY
Public administration has experienced a fundamental rethinking of its basic objectives,

concepts and theories during the 21st century.
This book examines transformations happening in global societies, the economy and in
politics, to trace the trajectory of public administration as an academic discipline as well as being
a focus of social science research. It presents a reassessment of governance in heterogeneous
developing countries that goes beyond the traditional Weberian bureaucratic model, toward
new models of organization and management, informed by their legal, constitutional, economic
and political needs, aspirations and ground realities. This is especially important in relation to the
marginalized sections of society that primarily rely on citizen entitlements through public service
delivery systems. The author looks at widening the range and scope of public administrative
agencies with the gradual cooperation of multiple actors, such as the civil society, people at large
and even the private sector, in a partnering role. The author revisits the discipline to tackle
intellectual dilemmas that current governance theories and practices are confronting, or will have
to confront in future administrative situations.
There will be key discussions on mandates and challenges for the state regarding the rising
South; this book will be indispensable to scholars and researchers of politics, especially
governance and public policy, sociology and development studies. It will also be of interest
to bureaucrats, NGOs and government officials.
Rumki Basu is Professor of Public Administration and former Head of the Department of
Political Science at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. She was also Director of Sarojini
Naidu Centre for Women’s Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. She has published 12 books and 40
journal articles on issues of public policy and governance, international organization and the
political economy of development in India. She has presented papers at the World Congress of
Political Science in Berlin (1994), Seoul (1997), Santiago (2009), Madrid (2012) and Poznan
(2016), in addition to participating in international workshops. She has received the Indian
Council of Social Science Research Teacher Fellowship Award and the Bharat Jyoti Award
(2013) from the India International Friendship Society. Basu’s prominent works include
Economic Liberalization and Poverty Alleviation: Social Sector Expenditures and Centre–State Relations
(2000); Public Administration: Concepts and Theories (2007); Globalization and the Changing Role of
the State (edited, 2008); Governance and Human Capital: The 21st Century Agenda (co-edited,
2011); Democracy and Good Governance: Reinventing the Public Service Delivery System in India (co-
edited, 2014); Public Administration in India: Mandates, Performance and Future Perspectives (2015)
and Governance in South Asia (co-edited, 2016).
This page intentionally left blank
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION IN
THE 21ST CENTURY
A Global South Perspective
Rumki Basu
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
© 2019 Rumki Basu
The right of Rumki Basu to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-05621-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-14009-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-14010-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
To Sankar, in celebration of our forty-year-old friendship
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Preface viii
Acknowledgements xii
1 The changing world of the 21st century: building new

administrative capacities 1
2 The discipline of public administration today 14
3 The public and its policies 30
4 Democracy, the state and the citizen 52
5 Good governance to governing development today:

comparative research studies 65
6 Public administration in the 21st century: dilemmas

and challenges 82
7 Summing up 100
Index 107
PREFACE
The transition from an era of “government” to “governance” has brought

public administration to the forefront of seminal changes in the operational
context of developed and developing countries in the 21st century. Public
administration, as an academic discipline, is changing rapidly due to the impact
of globalization, the changing ideologies of government and the resultant
changes in public agendas and discourses across the globe. Since World War
II, the role and function of governments had witnessed an unprecedented
increase, in both developed and developing societies; this being largely due to
the fact that “development” was considered a state (public sector) activity.
Since the 1980s, the world has seen a reverse swing; with the term globaliza-
tion being created for the paradigmatic shift of emphasis towards a market
driven, private sector led development model, with a basic philosophy to roll
back the “administrative” state by reducing the size of the government and by
streamlining public expenditure.
Changes in public administration in the 20th century was, in large part, a
reflection of the changing nature, function and ideology of governments in
different parts of the globe. Practicing traditional public administration came
under persistent attack from neoliberal economists: the “public choice” school
who have spearheaded philosophical arguments for reducing the size and spend-
ing of the public sector.
In this book, it will be argued that today’s agenda for public administration, as
reflected by the New Public Management (N.P.M.) paradigm, may have to be
reversed or substantially revised in accordance with the needs, aspirations, ground
realities and field practices of developing countries, who want the state to remain
proactive and interventionist on behalf of the marginalized, whilst delivering “devel-
opment” promises, implementing public policies and transferring citizen entitlements
through effective public service delivery systems. This is the unfinished agenda
Preface ix
of public administration in the South, which has to be brought to fruition in the 21st
century.
The rise of the South is one of the concurring narratives (parallel to the grand
narrative of globalization) which will dominate world politics and economies in
the 21st century. The importance of China and India in this context should be
clearly understood; as the 21st century is often referred to as the “Asian Century”.
Today, China and India are strong economic powers, both having withstood the
global economic recession since 2008. Together they account for one-third of the
world population. In the 20th century, global politics was viewed from a North-
centric perspective. New developments in the discipline and practice of public
administration will be influenced by the rise of the South in the 21st century.
Waves of democratization have swept the globe, transforming state-citizen
relations and the way administration functions in the South. Globalization
induced changes in the “what” and “how” of public administration, triggering
administrative reforms which have swept through the public sector over the last
two decades in several countries. N.P.M. introduced the rationale of debureau-
cratization and fiscal prudence in public expenditure. The logic behind it was
accepted by ex-socialist states and the developing world, presuming that “wasteful
and incompetent” bureaucracies had led to the failure of the “socialist” experi-
ment and “development administration” in the Third World in the first place.
However, N.P.M. reforms could only help the South marginally, and not in any
fundamental way.
The developed “South” introduced development through proactive state
intervention in key sectors of the economy, human development and state
sponsored innovations in indigenous technology—an ideal model for others to
follow. “Developmental” states are unlikely to wither away anywhere in the
South, as the concept of “good governance” has been universally accepted.
Although, development is not a rigid concept. Governing development is an
ongoing endeavour in any country. Both developed and developing countries
need to administer development models, plans and strategies so as to successfully
deliver public goods and services to the people. When implementing all of these,
the “state-market divide” will have to be clearly demarcated by political mandates
in all countries.
What does it mean to be an effective public administrator in the 21st century?
Public governance is the art of managing collective goals of society through joint
endeavours in the public sphere: government bureaucracies, private sector admin-
istrations and voluntary sector bodies, involved in the development of the
“commons”, have to work together to provide essential public services to
citizens.
If public administrators have to work in evolving democratic societies, in
direct competition with the private sector and under changing ideological
regimes, they need to radically rethink how they should govern in the modern
age. New modes and procedures have to be learnt; there will be less paperwork,
but digitalized records have to be stored because people (armed with Right to
x Preface
Information laws) will interfere or intrude whenever they want to “know”

more. Previously, the “public” were never really a part of the policy making,
implementation or evaluation process, due to bureaucratic “immunity” and laws
of secrecy. Times have changed, their work will be more open to scrutiny and
social audit. This is a healthy change in the context of Third World bureau-
cracies, who were notoriously non-transparent, unanswerable and non-accoun-
table, in their work or in their behaviour towards the public. Aspiring public
administrators must understand that they have to co-govern, not only with
other stakeholders, whether they are private sector employees in a private-
public partnered project or the beneficiary public target group in a welfare
administration program.
There are numerous textbooks which look at public administration; this
book invites the reader to explore the tasks and mandates of public governance
in the 21st century, whilst keeping in mind the mandates in the developing
world. Public bureaucracies do not need to shrink in size, because from a
“development administration” to a “governing milieu”, through a consensually
agreed Minimum Agenda of Good Governance, public administration will have
to be at a commanding level. This book makes a strong argument for revisiting,
rethinking, reinventing and eventually refounding, public administration from a
South-centric perspective. It is my belief that the principal dilemmas and
challenges of public administration lie in developing countries–where the
philosophy of “doing much more with much less” (N.P.M.) cannot be ratio-
nalized. Governing development will require additional investments (public and
private), and the public will require more accountability and more openness
with the diversification of bureaucratic mandates. Governments cannot be run
like business; the privatization of public services does not necessarily serve the
“public interest”. Not all civil servants are “corrupt” or “incompetent”; bureau-
cratic failures have a much deeper structural meaning in the context of devel-
oping countries.
Drawing on my own experiences in India (the world’s largest democracy), I
have carefully selected the major themes of this book, all the while keeping in
mind the Asian, African or Latin American reader who will empathize with the
effort it takes towards achieving democratization and bringing in a new bureau-
cratic culture of “legality, rationality, citizen centricity, public accountability and
responsiveness” in administration. Readers in the developed world, who have
acquired a basic understanding of the major themes and issues, are more likely to
delve deeper into the dilemmas and challenges involved, and thus become more
engaged in informed debates about the developing world. This is not a conven-
tional textbook about public administration, but an introductory reading which
begins, and seeks, to answer the following questions:
• Is there a need to re-evaluate the role and mandates of government and

public administration in the context of the emerging contradictions of
globalization and the rise of the South?
Preface xi
• How, and for whom, does public administration work in heterogeneous

developing societies?
• What are the new mandates and challenges in the 21st century, especially in
the context of the developing world?
At the advent of the 20th century, emphasis was placed on industrial productivity,
organizational efficiency and strong control mechanisms for the strengthening of the
structural and procedural components of public administration. In the 21st century,
focus has shifted toward human development and broadening people’s choices: these
choices can be infinite and can change over time. We now live in a “knowledge”
economy where “information” can, and will, change societies. E-governance is an
invaluable tool of transparent, accountable citizen centric administration. The
“public” are now truly at the centre of “public administration” like never before.
Public administration has historically reflected the changing socioeconomic
and political concerns of contemporaneous times and its impact on the functions
of government. At present, it faces contradictory ideological and functional
pressures which are pulling it towards an expansionist agenda (the agenda from
the South) and a reductionist agenda (North-centric agenda). The onus rests on
the public administration of every state to re-establish its raison d’être in
accordance with particular legal, constitutional, economic and political needs of
every nation, from time to time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Whilst writing this book I have greatly benefited from the works of eminent
scholars of public administration. I owe a deep sense of gratitude to all of them. I
have acknowledged my intellectual sources and references at the end of each
chapter, not only to acknowledge my indebtedness but to also facilitate further
reading. Regarding facts and data, as far as possible, official documents which are
easily available in the public domain have been relied upon. Finally, I must
confess to have borrowed from my earlier publications (books, book chapters and
journal articles): there are quite a few to be listed here. Special efforts have been
made to make this book student-friendly and easy to comprehend. I am grateful
to Aakash Chakrabarty and Rimina Mohapatra at Routledge (India) for their
encouragement, assistance and patience in getting this book published, despite my
delays and difficulties in meeting deadlines. I would like to express my gratitude
to my daughter Devanjali and my husband Sankar Basu, for their encouragement
and valuable support at all times. I apologize for all errors inadvertently made.
1
THE CHANGING WORLD OF
THE 21ST CENTURY
Building new administrative capacities
As a scholar of public administration, I think it is time to re-evaluate the functions

of government in diverse political settings from a public administration perspec-
tive in the rapidly globalizing and changing world of the 21st century. There are
193 sovereign nations who are members of the United Nations, two-thirds of
them belong to the developing world, while the rest are either underdeveloped
or are part of the developed world.1
What does it mean to be a public administrator in this global age? There are a
few mandatory functions every public administrator will have to perform irre-
spective of the ideology of the political regime, e.g., collection of taxes, main-
tenance of law and order, provision of public goods and utilities, such as roads
and public safety, banking and currency, water and power. These functions are
known as system maintenance functions. The rest are referred to as context-
specific because they vary from government to government across the ideological
spectrum. Theories of public administration offer clues to the diversified and
changing tasks of public administrators. Public administrators help shape and
implement public policies framed by different governments in different state
locales.
What is the environment in which policies are being made in today’s world?
There are images of the emergent new world order in popular discourse, which
have, for example, announced the arrival of a borderless world, the rise of the
South, networked national governance and the emergence of an Asian century.
Such images have been created by the seminal shifts and deep transformations that
have occurred in global politics since the closing decades of the last century—the
end of the Cold war, advancement of globalization and the slow but persistent
rise of the Global South (developing countries) in world affairs. Recurring
regional conflicts, unexpected alignments among states, cross-border migrations
and changing power equations, have surfaced at such a pace that fresh thinking
2 The changing world of the 21st century
regarding the impact of state and non-state actors in relation to political admin-
istrative regimes have become an absolute imperative. Turbulence in the Middle
East, the short lived “Arab Spring” and its “democratizing” effect on the entire
region, the rise of new terror axes in different parts of the world, the “national
interest” compulsions of the U.S.A., Russia and other smaller regional powers to
intervene in troubled waters, have led to serious global ramifications. The gross
violation of human rights in Syria and Iraq have triggered unprecedented situa-
tions in intrastate conflicts and interstate wars. Middle East wars between 2014–
17 have left more people displaced and homeless than any period of 20th century
history.2 Even after World War II the “refugee” crisis did not assume such serious
proportions. These global events did have serious repercussions for the domestic
politics and governance capacities of states hit by civil war or interstate conflicts.
Laws and constitutions work during “normal” periods of civil governance; in
conflict-hit states these norms do not work and citizen rights are never fully
protected. For citizens living in conflict zones or during times of civil war (as
millions of people did and still do), violations, curtailment or suspension of rights
is the norm for both citizens and immigrant populations. The U.N.’s Interna-
tional Migration Report (2017) estimates that there were 258 million migrants in
2017. Between 1990 and 2017, the immigrant population has increased by over
100 million. We now live in a truly “globalized” world where more and more
people are leaving their country of birth for places which have better opportu-
nities and a greater chance of access to higher standards of living. Contrary to
popular belief, that the West hosts the largest immigrant (legal or illegal) popula-
tion, it is developing countries that bear the burden of immigrants worldwide.
Although the U.S. is still home to the greatest number of immigrants in the
world, in 2017, India was the largest source of immigrant populations. In the 21st
century, every state will have to absorb and provide for both citizens and non-
citizens in equal measure, stretching their governance capacities to the limit.
Throughout the greater part of the 20th century, states and public institutions did
not deliver the same package of citizen entitlements, which is universally
recognized today as a Minimum Agenda of good governance: protection of
social, economic and political rights that are required for human beings to flourish
and develop their capabilities. In the 21st century, can we expect less violence
and conflict to lead to a greater protection of human rights for all citizens through
the agencies of the state and instruments of public governance?3 Let’s hope we
can. Although, looking at the world today, it is perhaps not difficult to guess that
inequality will continue to remain the most intractable public policy challenge in
all states, even in the 21st century.
Today, global politics tilts towards multipolarity, the gradual lessening of
violence, “regionalization” of world politics with state and non-state actors,
both of which influence internal policies of states. Religious fundamentalism
raises its ugly head every now and then, terrorism continues, and although
“democratization” is the current buzzword, it will take decades before the world
becomes fully democratic. Across the world, experts lament that democracy is
The changing world of the 21st century 3
eroding, backsliding, withering or buckling under authoritarian pressures. If the

21st century is to be dominated by China and India, there are a number of good
reasons why this may happen. China and India remain the world’s two most
populous countries, home to one third of mankind. The recent upsurge in the
growth rates of these two countries, apparently bucking the trend during the
financial crisis that spread from the U.S.A. in 2007 to most of the developed and
developing world, attracted the attention of scholars to the developmental
trajectories of Asia’s two largest powers. Both are currently undergoing capitalist
transformations from socialist/mixed economy models of growth. China is a
“hard” state, retaining its strong authoritarian one party regime with above
average policy outcomes in most sectors; whereas India’s democratic state
previously under-performed in most developmental sectors, but over the last
two decades it has begun to do much better.
China has many firsts: it is the world’s most populated nuclear state with
the world’s largest armed personnel and police force. China holds a remarkable
record of growth: it is the only country which grew at a rate of 10% for 30
years, enabling the largest number of people to exit poverty (500 million)
between the years 2002–12. It has the second largest economy, with the
highest foreign exchange reserves, and is the second highest remittance receiv-
ing country in the world. Furthermore, it has one of the highest savings and
investment rates in the world. It is also number one in the production of gold
and interestingly, despite its professed ideological stance (socialistic), houses the
highest number of billionaires in any city (Beijing) in the world (Bagchi and
D’Costa 2012).
The rise of the South

The ascendance of the South, which began in the latter half of the 20th century,
has been unprecedented in its pace and outcomes. Never before, in recorded
history, have the living standards of the average masses changed so rapidly in such
a compressed time span. In England, where the Industrial Revolution started, it
took 150 years to double its per capita output, while in the United States, which
industrialized much later, needed about half a century. Both countries had a
population under 10 million when they began to industrialize. In contrast, the
current economic resurgence in China and India started with about a billion
people in each country. Doubling their output per capita in less than two decades
is an economic phenomenon that has made a developmental impact, no less
radical than the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century!
Most developing countries have raised their living standards in the last quarter
century, but some have done particularly well—in what can be called the “rise of
the South”.4 Some of the largest countries have taken impressive strides, notably
China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa. But there have also been
seminal changes in smaller economies, such as Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana, Maur-
itius and Tunisia. By 2050, China, Brazil and India cumulatively, are expected to
account for 40% of world output in purchasing power parity terms (U.N.D.P.
2013).
Over the last two decades, countries from several regions of the world have
been converging towards higher levels of human development, as is evident from
the U.N.D.P. Annual Human Development Index (H.D.I.); a composite measure
of indicators involving three dimensions: life expectancy, educational attainment
and command over the resources needed for a decent living. All groups and
regions around the globe have made notable improvements in relation to H.D.I.
components, with greater progress in countries which are ranked low and
medium in the H.D.I. range. On this basis, it can be surmised that the world is
becoming a better place to live for most people around the globe. However,
national averages often conceal large disparities in living conditions. Disturbing
inequalities remain within, and between, countries of the North and the South;
removing these inequalities will remain the single most difficult challenge of
public governance in the 21st century. Let’s not forget that for centuries inequal-
ity has remained the single most important destabilizing force in society.
The 20th century has witnessed numerous “egalitarian” revolutions, transitions
and changes across several parts of the world. Most of these revolutions, whether
they be socialist, feminist, environmentalist or other kinds of revolutions, furth-
ered the cause, not only of individual rights and liberties, but highlighted issues,
such as sustainable development, equity and gender justice. Also, waves of
democratization swept across the globe from time to time; all of these have
acted as great “levelers” and catalysts of progress and equality in the 20th century.
However, they also necessitated the rise of “administrative” or “developmental-
ist” states, to ensure economic development, gender justice, human development
and environmental protection. Politics willed and administration executed, that seemed
to be the pattern of development everywhere. Even today the developed world leads
the way, because their public management systems provide a sufficient and
efficient infrastructure of public goods and services to citizens (invisibly, impec-
cably and imperceptibly), maintaining roads, communication, public safety and
sanitation, primary education and health care, recreational facilities, banks and
currency; with a public service ethos that makes them very different from private
service operators who serve “clients” in the market with an underlying motive to
be profitable.
Southern countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, through individual or
cumulative efforts, are raising world economic growth, helping each other in
their development efforts, reducing poverty, increasing national income and
persistently trying to promote socioeconomic development by raising living
standards in their own countries. Nonetheless, they still retain the largest percen-
tage of the world’s poor. These countries, in the process of trial and error, have
often demonstrated how indigenously designed policies or “home adopted”
global technologies with a sharp focus on growth and human development, can
bring about the desired turn around in the economy. Each experience is unique
and needs to be studied.
A case study
Take Mauritius, a tiny island state on the southern tip of Africa. It has taken giant
strides in economic growth, due to the strength of its institutions (Subramaniam
2001). It stands as a role model, not only for Africa but for the rest of the world,
for what could be achieved without the classic prerequisites of power: substantive
land or mineral resources, population or nuclear capacity. The total land area of
the country is 2040 km. The people are multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-
lingual. Its Human Development Index is the highest in Africa. Since indepen-
dence from Britain in 1968, Mauritius has developed from a low income,
agriculture-based economy to a middle income diversified economy, based on
tourism, textiles, sugar and financial services. Mauritius ranks highly in terms of
economic competitiveness; a congenial investment climate, delivering “good
governance” with impeccable democratic credentials. Its economic performance
is nothing short of a miracle, having a gross Domestic Product per capita over
U.S.$16,820, one of the highest in Africa.
A well thought out strategy of nation building and development laid the
foundations for sustainable growth in Mauritius. Its model of democracy relies on
multi-culturalism, redistributive economic policies and strong autonomous insti-
tutions, which are critical when it comes to a country’s growth and stability.
Democracy promoted incremental and changeable strategies for public policy
formation and implementation. Education and health services were fully sub-
sidized to encourage employment and inclusive growth. Mauritius is one of
Africa’s least corrupt countries. High levels of public investment in selected
competitive sectors of the economy yielded rich dividends, which could be
further invested for human development.
At the crossroads
For many observers, the world today stands at the proverbial cross roads: a
resurgent South—most notably countries such as China and India, where there
is steady progress in human development, growth appears to remain sustainable,
prospects for poverty reduction are encouraging—and a North in crisis—where
recurring cut backs on “welfare” expenditure and the absence of steady or
spectacular economic growth poses severe hardship to millions of marginalized,
unemployed, poor and growing immigrant populations, as social welfare states
increasingly give way to Right-wing political ones. There are also common
concerns shared by the North and the South: growing intrastate inequalities,
slow pace of recovery from recessionary trends, reduced rate of poverty reduc-
tion, as well as serious threats to the environment.
The world is becoming more connected; during the early years of the 21st
century, the expansion of international trade led to a turnaround in global
production, which, by 2015, accounted for nearly 60% of global output. Between
1980–2010, developing countries expanded their share of world merchandise
trade from 25% to 47%: South–South trade increased from less than 8% of world
trade to more than 26% (U.N.D.P. 2013). Paradoxically, despite being hit the
hardest by the Recession, the U.S. remains the largest economy in the world, in
monetary terms, and will remain so for some time. If the U.S.A.’s recovery gets
delayed and Europe is unable to extricate itself from the doldrums it finds itself in,
there will be a large spillover effect on the economies of the developing world.
Transnational challenges, such as moderating the effects of climate change or
averting communicable diseases, require a certain degree of global cooperation.
While the rise of the South is reshaping global power equations in more than one
way, painstakingly achieved gains in human development will be more difficult to
protect if the North–South dialogue fails and difficult decisions are postponed, as
witnessed in global environmental negotiations after 2000.
Lessons from the South

The developmental trajectories of Brazil, China and India, as well as less recognized
success stories such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and Chile, are reshaping ideas of how
to attain steady economic growth with steady human development. However,
some remarkable lessons are also learnt from the diverse and variegated develop-
ment journeys of many Third World “developmental” states (not necessarily
democratic) that have not been imitative of any one model. Their nation building
efforts are dedicated to human development, openness to trade, technological
innovation, besides concerns of equity and sustainability incorporated in people
centric policies and strategies. Common traits include promoting economic growth
by incentivizing certain sectors, training and using competent bureaucracies,
promoting institutions which plan and implement policies amidst all the odds.
The “legitimacy” of these states is mainly dependent on their record in develop-
ment; e.g. China, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
On the other hand, over a number of decades, democratic countries like India,
Bangladesh, Brazil, South Africa, Chile and Mauritius, have considered pro-poor
patterns of growth as electoral investments. Developmental transformations need
to alter the structure of production and their capacity to create jobs, and the
expansion of opportunities for large sections of people. Democracies have to be
majoritarian and people friendly. They need pragmatic political leadership
wedded to long term development, but have short term gains for the electorate
as well. In “soft” democracies, where the demands of various sectors need to be
balanced, public investments have to be made in both growth and human
development. Since the 1950s, older welfare states, like the Scandinavian democ-
racies, have derived their legitimacy from their welfare policies, state promotion
of industry, institution building and technological research. These advanced
welfare states guaranteed basic public goods and services—food, education,
health and human security to all of its citizens.
In different ways, China and Russia are demonstrating that authoritarianism
may “deliver” a better outcome than democracy. Both countries espouse a model
of state capitalism in which the strengths of the market are balanced against a
strong state, which attempts to reduce the inequities associated with unbridled
capitalism. Authoritarian states are usually in a better position, than democratic
states, to take “hard” decisions. Suggesting that global politics may not entirely
reap the democratic peace dividend, due to the continued coexistence of demo-
cratic and authoritarian states, even in the 21st century.
The unexpected turmoil in several Middle Eastern countries and their declining
petroleum economies after the short lived “Arab Spring” (signified by prodemoc-
racy movements), is a reminder that the educated young put a high premium on
meaningful employment and on their right to expect “democracy” from their
respective governments. A considerable amount of turmoil in Tunisia, Egypt and
Syria, was introduced by the urban, educated, Internet-using young, who were
disillusioned by the lack of civil and political rights within their countries.
Not all developing countries are participating fully in the rise of the South.
The pace of change is slower, for instance, in the majority of the 50 least
developed countries in the world, especially those that are landlocked or distant
from world markets. Although, many of them have begun to benefit from South-
South trade, investment, finance and technology transfer. The developmental
take-off of these least developed countries is a significant challenge for the world
community, as much of it involves moderating the uneven effects of development
in many other developing countries.
By 2025, the annual consumption in “emerging” markets is estimated to rise
to $30 trillion. By then the South will account for three-fifths of the 1 billion
households earning more than $20,000 a year (U.N.D.P. 2013). Despite such
expansion, significant pockets of deprivation, which undermine the sustainability
of progress, will still exist, creating a fertile ground for tension and conflict. There
is more intrastate conflict today (e.g. in Africa and Latin America) than inter-state
conflict, which in itself poses huge challenges for domestic governance.
Challenges for domestic governance

Regarding dividends from “good governance”, the track record of African coun-
tries (with few exceptions) has been disappointing. Most African countries have
faced poverty, inequality, poor infrastructure, capital flight, unemployment, civil
war, famine, crime, ethnic conflict and authoritarian political regimes in the last
century. Ill-informed public policies, mismanagement and misuse of scarce
resources, reluctance to enable human or capital environment for development,
corruption and lack of public accountability, have all been due to poor governance
by ruling elites (Sharma 2007). Exceptions to this include Botswana and Mauritius.
One million children in Africa, including Ethiopia, do not have steady access to
food, largely because of El Nino. The weather phenomenon has helped trigger
droughts in many parts of the world, leaving millions hungry in Africa alone.
Recent media attention in Latin America has focused on the recurring economic
crises in several countries. Public anger erupts from time to time, people take to the
streets and political violence escalates, claiming thousands of lives. Opposition groups
exert pressure on the government through street violence. Faltering economies, a
shortage of the most basic consumer products, high inflation, high levels of corrup-
tion and unemployment, have fuelled riots, lawlessness and crime. Even Brazil, one
of the better governed states, has faced corruption scandals, economic slowdown and
high crime rates in recent years. Reforms meant to put Brazil’s economy on track by
reducing public expenditure have become very unpopular (Bremmer 2018).
It is well documented today, through data based research that inequality is
socially divisive and can have a negative impact on the general wellbeing of
society. There is sufficient comparative data on the effects of all forms of
inequality in different societies, which show how corrosive its effects have been.
New evidence proves that inequality provides the clinching explanation of why,
despite remarkable economic prosperity, some societies remain least integrated
socially; e.g. the U.S.A. has one of the highest homicide rates, the highest
number of teenage pregnancies and the highest rate of imprisonment, something
which is often attributed to the existence of the greatest intra-state income
differences. In contrast, countries like Japan, Sweden and Norway, have smaller
income disparities and do better in regards to all human development parameters.
Violence is more common in more unequal states, not only because inequality
increases status competition, but also because people deprived of the markers of
status (incomes, jobs, houses, cars etc.) are more inclined to crime and violence.
During the next few decades, “green” politics will become dominated by
“inequality” issues. The greatest threat to reducing carbon emissions is consumer-
ism, which has been greatly driven by status competition, again intensified in
significantly unequal societies. Narrowed income differences make us less vulner-
able to these pressures, therefore, greater equality is crucial to achieving environ-
mental sustainability. Despite being vilified as developing markets that guzzle
carbon emitting energy, China, India and Brazil together, consume a fraction
(50%) of what is used by advanced economies. In societies where income
differences have been narrowed, statistics show that community life is stronger
and more people feel they can trust one another. There is also less violence,
including lower homicide rates, higher life expectancy, lower crime rates and
children are better educated. Reducing inequality through conscious public
policy interventions will require ideological commitment from the state and
their executing agencies (Wilkinson 2016).
A proactive democratic state develops policies for both public and private
sectors—based on a long-term vision, shared norms and values, rules that build
trust between the trinity: state, the citizen and the private institutions, while
promoting societal unity, cohesion and sustainable transformation.
Developmental states: divergent approaches

Developing countries rarely follow a uniform trajectory. Many of these ex-colonies
have faced multiple challenges, adopted varying policies to deal with market
regulation, export promotion, industrial development and human development. In

this post globalized era, public policies need to promote entrepreneurship while
providing safety nets to protect the poor from the negative effects of unbridled pro-
market policies. Governments can nurture domestic industries (public value based)
that would not otherwise emerge because of free market competition. This has
enabled several countries of the South to turn loss making industries into early
drivers of export success, as their economies became more open under the leader-
ship of strong authoritarian regimes, e.g. South Korea and Singapore.
Developmental states have experimented with different approaches. However,
some features stand out: for instance, expansion of basic social services, like
health, education with anti-poverty programmes and rapid expansion of employ-
ment opportunities, are critical features of growth that have promoted human
development and created less unequal societies.
For the first time in 150 years, the combined output of the developing
world’s three leading economies—Brazil, China and India—is about to equal
the combined G.D.P. of the long-standing industrial powers of the North—
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.
This represents a dramatic rebalancing of global economic power. In 1950,
Brazil, China and India together, accounted for only 10% of the world
economy, while the six traditional economic leaders of the North accounted
for roughly half. According to successive World Bank Development Reports,
by 2050 Brazil, China and India, will together account for 40% of global
output, surpassing the projected combined production of today’s Group of
Eight (Go8) bloc of economies (the major industrialized countries).
Today, the South as a whole produces about half of the world’s economic
output, which is up by about a third since 1990. The combined G.D.P. of the
eight major developing countries alone—Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indo-
nesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey—now equals the G.D.P. of the United
States, which is still the world’s biggest national economy. As recent as 2005, the
combined economic weight of those eight countries was barely half of that of the
United States (U.N.D.P. 2013). Other development challenges also exist. An
estimated 1.57 billion (mainly in the South) live in multidimensional poverty; a
measure of both the number and the intensity of overlapping human deprivations
in health, education and standards of living in the world today. Between 1990–
2010, the South’s share of the global middle class population expanded from 26%
to 58%. By 2030, more than 80% of the world’s middle class is projected to be
residing in the South and will account for 70% of total consumption
expenditure.5
The 1994 U.N.D.P. Human Development Report argued that the concept of
security must shift from the idea of a militaristic safeguarding of state borders to a
reduction of insecurity in people’s daily lives (or human insecurity) (U.N.D.P.
1994). In every society, human security is undermined by a variety of threats,
including hunger, disease, crime, unemployment, human rights violations and
environmental challenges. Let’s look at what we understand as economic
insecurity. In the countries of the North, there are millions of young, unem-
ployed in these recessionary times, while in the South, millions of farmers have
been unable to earn a decent livelihood from low priced stagnant agriculture.
Closely related is insecurity in food and nutrition. Many developing countries
households face high food prices, and as a result cannot afford two square meals a
day. Another major cause of impoverishment in many countries, rich and poor, is
unequal access to affordable health care. Disease and hospitalization are one of the
most important common causes of destitution. Meagre incomes are lost when
heavy medical expenses are incurred by a household.
Therefore, perspectives regarding security need to shift from an old and
exaggerated emphasis on military strength to a well-rounded, citizen-centric
view. In this context, it is pertinent to state that global military expenditure
exceeded $1.4 trillion in 2015, more than the combined G.D.P. of the 50 poorest
countries in the world, and 20 times more than the total money given annually as
aid to eliminate poverty through multilateral aid.
Concluding observations
The 21st century is witnessing a seminal shift in global power relations and
equations driven by the newly emerging new powers of the developing world.
China has become the world’s second largest economy, lifting hundreds of
millions out of poverty through its planned economy and socialist policies. India
has also made slow but steady progress in poverty reduction, as well as growth
and human development through democratic political regimes.6 Brazil is raising
its living standards and levels of human development through innovative anti-
poverty programmes that are emulated worldwide. However, its growth trajec-
tory has been erratic and less consistent in recent times. Russia, once a
superpower, is now a B.R.I.C.S.7 country, undergoing painful transitions in an
effort to dismantle its huge public sector and move towards the globalization,
liberalization and privatization of its economy. All ex-socialist countries of Eastern
Europe are similarly experiencing painful transitions to embrace globalization.
Bureaucracies have had to adjust from ruling from a commanding height to
sharing power with the private sector and competition from global markets.
However, what is noticeable is that, in differing degrees, developing countries
have built institutional and human capacities in the last three decades.
The South has finally arrived (Zakaria 2009) a fact that needs to be celebrated in world
politics. Indonesia, Thailand, South Africa, Malaysia, Mauritius, Bangladesh,
Rwanda, Ghana and other developing countries, are becoming leading actors on
the world stage. The 2013 U.N.D.P. Human Development Report identifies
more than 40 developing countries that have done better than expected regarding
human development in recent decades, with their progress accelerating markedly
over the last 10 years.
Each country of the “successful” South has its own unique history and as a result
has chosen its own distinct development path for nation building and socio-economic
progress. Nonetheless, they share important characteristics and face many of the same
challenges of public governance. They are also becoming more interconnected and
interdependent. People throughout the developing world are increasingly becoming
visible, vocal and rights conscious, demanding to be heard, as they share ideas through
new communication networks and seek greater accountability from domestic govern-
ments and public administrators. Taking on a wider, more global perspective, the
developing world does encounter challenges when arriving at “consensus” decisions
with the developed world. However, these are some of the common issues they fight
for as a bloc in global fora:
• Advancing the objective of a fair, balanced and development oriented

multilateral trading system for all, for both developed and developing
country members of the W.T.O.
• To contribute to the construction of a new global architecture to bring their
collective voices together on global issues and to forge new areas of
cooperation.
• Promotion of peace, security and development in a multipolar, and increas-
ingly interdependent world.
• The importance of adhering to the principle of common, but differentiated
responsibility, as well as the notion of national policy space.
• All nations should increasingly act not only as national sovereign entities but
also as intermediaries to balance national, regional and global concerns.
The belief that public administration and governance can make a difference has
been amply recorded in several examples in this chapter. True research lies in
looking at the long term and steady trends of the last hundred years. If the world
has become a more liveable and egalitarian place, where standards of living of the
common man have been consistently rising, then credit goes to research in
science and technology and its diffusion in modern societies, both of which
have been due to active “state interventions” in society and the economy. People
are “climbing out” of extreme poverty (every day 1,37,000 people lifted out of
poverty in the past 25 years), fewer children are dying and life expectancy and
literacy rates are going up. Through targeted public health interventions huge
progress has been made against many erstwhile fatal diseases. Women who bore
the brunt of violence, the burden of household work and child rearing, are now
increasingly entering the workforce and empowering themselves with the rights
they had previously been denied.
The Global Gender Gap Report measures performance on conditions necessary
for women’s empowerment through four indices—education, health, economic and
political participation. Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have closed
80% of the gender gap. The U.N.D.P. Human Development Index, over the past
few years, have recorded the human development of 188 states. Norway is ranked
no. 1 in the list, U.S.A. is 13th and India is ranked 130 in the Index. All three are
democracies, the U.S.A. is the world’s richest economy and the latter is the world’s
largest democracy. A country’s global power rating can never be insulated from its
domestic policies and performance; a nation’s true strength lies in the degree to
which it can legitimize its citizens’ claims and entitlements. The nations that can
successfully do this fine act of balancing are, and will be, the nations to watch out for
in the future. In this post globalized era, citizens need to assess the gains of the past
century, and begin setting goals for this century. Setting Millennium Development
Goals and Sustainable Development Goals is one such exercise. More importantly,
any nation from any part of the world, developed or developing, can be a norm setter
or a developmental role model for others to follow. No model can remain iconic
forever.
Science, technology, sound public policy and good governance, can work
wonders for those who are deprived. China and India’s record in poverty reduction
and human development through redistributive public policies, are worthy of
emulation. Liberty, equality and justice were goals worth striving for in the last
century—they are no less relevant now in the 21st century. It is also becoming clearer
that if the Sustainable Development Goals (S.D.G.’s) are to be met by 20308—it will
be largely due to the efforts of the South to build new administrative capacities which
can take us to a much fairer, freer and more egalitarian world than ever before. States
can only translate promises of “good governance” through effective, efficient and
committed public governance systems. Therefore, building “age and country”
appropriate administrative skills and capacities is of paramount importance for all
states (developed or developing) in the 21st century.
Notes
1 F.W. Riggs, well known scholar of comparative public administration, developed a
typology to analyze the administrative systems of different and diverse countries in his
model of fused (underdeveloped), prismatic (developing) and diffracted (developed)
societies. Riggs gave the distinguishing features of each:
Fused Prismatic Diffracted

Particularism Selectivism Universalism
Ascriptive value Attainment Achievement
Functionally diffuse Polyfunctionalism Functional specificity
This author has followed the Riggsian scheme in her definitions of the terms “under-
developed”, “developing” and “developed” countries.
2 65.6 million people count among the displaced in 2018, the highest in 7 decades:
half of them are children. From Syria and Afghanistan, to more recently, DR
Congo and Myanmar, civil wars and inter-state violence have swelled the numbers
of refugee populations worldwide (2016 data, U.N.H.C.R., Source: Times of India,
January 18, 2018).
3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (30 articles) was adopted on December
10, 1948 by the General Assembly as a common standard of achievement in the
promotion and protection of human rights. The Declaration includes individual civil
and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The Declaration
accepts the principle that states can build human rights only for the “just requirements
of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.
4 The term “Global South” refers broadly to the regions of Asia, Africa, Latin America
and Oceania. They refer to ex-colonies, outside Europe and North America, mostly
economically undeveloped low-income countries, often politically marginalized, ideo-
logically “mixed” and clubbed together as the Third World.
5 Middle Class—By Human Development Report calculations based on Brookings
Institution (2012) data, the middle class includes people earning or spending $10–100
a day in 2005 purchasing power parity terms.
6 In October 2016 the World Bank reported that 767 million people live in extreme
poverty: earning less than $1.90 a day. In India, the number of poor fell by 218
million from 2004 to 2013. In China, it fell by more than 320 million from 2002 to
2012. The average person in extreme poverty lives on $1.33 per day. It would take
just $0.57 per day ($159 billion a year) or less than 0.2% of global G.D.P. to end
extreme poverty.
7 The term “B.R.I.C.S.” was coined in 2001 in a report by Goldman Sachs, the
investment bank, to highlight the growing economic might of four large countries on
the world stage—Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa has now been added to
this list. In addition to highlighting a shift in the power balances of the new global
order, with most of the growth in world production coming from developing and
emerging economies, the main intention of this group of countries is to checkmate the
U.S. hegemony in world affairs. I.B.S.A. (India, Brazil and South Africa) is another
platform of major developing countries.
8 Sustainable Development Goals (S.D.G.s) were initiated by the United Nations in 2015
to address key development challenges including climate change, economic inequality,
sustainable consumption, peace and justice. The seventeen goals, to be achieved by
2030, are comprehensive and focus on the five P’s—people, planet, prosperity, peace
and partnership.
References
Bagchi, A.K. and A.P. D’Costa. 2012. Transformation and Development: The Political Economy
of Transition in India and China, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bremmer, I. 2018. Stormy Days for Many Latin American Nations 15th July, New Delhi,
Hindustan Times.
Sharma, C. 2007. “Towards Good Governance in Africa: Critical Dimensions and the
Experience of Botswana” in R.B. Jain (ed.) Governing Development across Cultures, Verlag,
Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Subramaniam, A. 2001. Mauritius: A Case Study. Finance and Development, 38: 4.
U.N.D.P. 1994. United Nations Human Development Report, New Delhi, Oxford University
Press.
U.N.D.P. 2013. Human Development Report, New Delhi, Academic Foundation.
Wilkinson, R. 2016. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Participation,
40(1): 9–11.
Zakaria, F. 2009. The Post American World, New York, W.W. Norton & Co.
2
THE DISCIPLINE OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION TODAY
As a public vocation or practice, public administration has co-existed with every

political regime in every state, as the executing arm of the government for the
fulfilment of its political objectives. The foundational concerns of public administra-
tion, since the beginning of its journey as an academic discipline in 18871, have
revolved around the study of: (a) structures of government and public sector organiza-
tions; (b) formation and implementation processes of public policies; (c) behavioural
patterns of bureaucracy; (d) the ecology of public organizations and (e) state-citizen
interactions. Public administration refers to agencies publicly funded by the state.
Public policies are the articulation of agendas that emerge from consensual or
majoritarian social values through democratic and state-citizen relations, with citizen
entitlements spelt out differently in different political regimes through laws and
constitutions.
Public administration, since its inauguration as a discipline with Woodrow Wilson’s
famous essay “The Study of Public Administration” in 1887 (a call for Politics-Adminis-
tration dichotomy), has been primarily concerned with making public administration
an agency of public interest and a core instrument of public service delivery. Recently,
this mandate has significantly changed under the influence of considerable transforma-
tions in the internal and external “contexts” of public administration.
Over the last decade, a number of factors have combined to bring about
seminal changes in the traditional role of public administration as the pivotal
public policy formulator of a state. The “sovereign” role of national governments
in influencing domestic, economic and social systems, has come under severe
pressure due to the rising citizen and group expectations, as well as unavoidable
pressures from the international capital markets and the influence of supranational
organizations such as the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.).
Today, policy making and its execution are no longer the exclusive preserve of
the “government”, as was the case in the past; this element is shared between the
Discipline of public administration today 15
government, the private sector and civil society actors. The conventional idea of
“government”, as the central controller and regulator of society has given way to
the idea of “governance”—which denotes societal problem solving through a
collective endeavour of the state, the private sector and civil society. This further
implies that public sector responsibilities may be outsourced to other agencies
(private or voluntary) to further the collective goals of society.
In recent decades, political regimes across the ideological spectrum, irrespec-
tive of “developed” or “developing” status, have been subject to continuous
restructuring, rethinking and reform. The primary concern has been to reduce
and simplify the “processes” and rule-orientation of traditional bureaucratic
organizations, making them more oriented towards policy outcomes and custo-
mer needs. The central focus of the reform movements has been to increase
governmental capacity to cope with citizens’ demands and the recent changes in
domestic mandates brought in by “globalization”.
Guy Peters (2001), veteran commentator of public sector reforms, has pointed out
that changes in the environment of governmental policy making has led to two kinds
of responses; First: there is constant pressure to move away from conventional
hierarchical, command and control instruments of government towards the instru-
ments of “New Governance”. This new style of governing reflects continuing moves
towards involving the private sector more directly in governing; characterizing this as
“civic engagement”, “partnership”, “stakeholder democracy” and a host of other
names. The general pattern has been to decentralize, develop and bring the public
sector closer to the “public”. Second: the other change, as Peters observes, is
diametrically opposed to this “new governance”. Governments have been shifting
control downward to lower levels within public organizations, in addition to
stakeholders and autonomous public organizations in order to enhance democracy,
as well as to leverage private resources for delivering public services.2
The classical model

20th century transformations in public administration coupled with contemporary
ones have come about, in part, through changing political ideologies and
concomitant changes in administrative practice (Peters 2002). The discipline of
public administration, which started with the famous Wilsonian (1887) essay on
the Politics-Administration Dichotomy, has undergone seminal changes in its
hundred-year plus history. The Wilsonian dichotomy, which laid down the
operational parameters of the classical model of public administration, is based
on these implicit assumptions:
• Government, a political body stationed at the top of the politico-administrative

pyramid, exercising relative autonomy from the economy and society, is mainly
engaged in formulating public policies and getting them implemented.
• Governmental accountability should be reflected by the bureaucracy’s
answerability to their political masters and those masters to the public,
16 Discipline of public administration today
through their representatives in the legislature. This is the foundational

system of administrative and political accountability of a democratic state.
• The civil service system, based on the Weberian working principle of
“uniformity and neutrality”, necessitated a depoliticized public administra-
tion operating within the political context of changing democratic
regimes.
This traditional concept of public administration has recently undergone a

radical change, due to domestic and global pressures. In this post globalized era,
there are ever increasing demands for what has been called “engaged govern-
ance”, with citizens and pressure groups demanding more representation and
participation in the public policy and governance processes. From the outside,
there is pressure on states to integrate and expose their economies and societies to
the influence of global capital markets and the demands of supranational organi-
zations to open their markets to globalized trade processes.3
New Public Management (N.P.M.) originates from the theories of public
choice and writings in the 1990s and beyond. N.P.M. highlights a shift in value
in public service delivery, pioneering a drive towards privatization, market
orientation and managerialism in government. In the U.S.A., the need for
“reinventing government” started with a book by Osborne and Gaebler (1992).
N.P.M. stands for the transfer of business principles and management techniques
from the private to the public sector, based on a neo-liberal understanding of the
state and the economy. During the last decade of the 20th century, international
bodies like the World Bank, in their efforts to espouse models of development,
brought in new ideas to reform public management. Of these policy enuncia-
tions, the “good governance” framework widened the scope of administrative
reforms to include certain objectives, such as accountability, transparency and
administrative ethics (The World Bank 1994). “Governance” has been character-
ized as a collaborative effort of the public, private and voluntary sectors, to solve
the problems of the community with their respective inputs in public policy
making and implementation. Governments are no longer viewed as autonomous
or authoritative, but are instead made functional through “networks” (Goldsmith
and Eggers 2004).
The focus of New Public Management centres on:
• Restructuring government operations along market lines, with a focus on

efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes.
• Reversing government’s proliferation in terms of size, function and cost;
streamlining government structures and rationalizing public expenditures.
• Distinguishing policy formulation from implementation, the former is essentially
a government task; implementation can be outsourced to non-government
agencies.
• Emphasizing performance evaluation, monitoring product quality and service
delivery.
• Stressing effective service provision and value for money for the citizen/
customer.
Conventional public administration has significant differences with New Public

Management. Old public management relied upon traditional rule bound hier-
archized bureaucracy to deliver; activities were divided, standardized and centrally
controlled. N.P.M. puts emphasis on jobs with a mission mode, improved
efficiency and simplification of procedures for enhanced quality of performance
and service delivery.
Additionally, New Public Management determines that decision-making
authority must be delegated to the executing teams, which implies decentraliza-
tion. On the other hand, traditional management primarily orientes towards
centralization to strengthen top management, which was authorized with the
final role of coordination and accountability in the organization.
Furthermore, traditional management orientation in public administration was
meant to improve public services to serve the citizens. N.P.M. emphasizes
efficiency and improved public service delivery for customer satisfaction.
The old public administration believed in the co-existence of both public and
private sectors in the political economy; whereas New Public Management
favours outsourcing/privatization of service delivery, in an attempt to restrict the
direct provision of services by the bureaucracy.
N.P.M. is a strategy which encompasses a series of techniques that are aimed at
government reforms. In contrast to routine functions and activities, it emphasizes
working towards a mission mode style, with the efficiency of processes relying on
debureaucratization and the delegation of authority as tools. Customer orientation
and satisfaction are the focus of N.P.M.; it is a paradigm shift that views the
government primarily as a provider of public goods and services, instead of a
mere implementer of government rules and regulations.
However, there was a lot of criticism regarding the reforms initiated by N.P.M.
It was feared that the anti-state ideology it pursues could lead to a decline in
basic state capacity to deliver public goods and services, creating a host of
inequities. The reigning themes are “efficiency” and “effectiveness”, but the
issues of social equity, justice, accountability and political participation, are
equally important and must be taken into consideration by any political system.
New Public Management is said to place value on autonomy, personal vision,
secrecy and risk taking, all of which are opposed to the old administrative values
of democratic accountability, openness and political stewardship (Bellone and
Goerl 1992).
Studies indicate that privatization advocated by the New Public Management
in developing countries, do not always produce the desired results. N.P.M.
cannot be a solution for all public sector maladies. In many developing countries,
certain activities have been entrusted to the public sector due to ideological
reasons, as well as based upon a lack of trust in the private sector. Intense and
radical privatization cannot occur without being accompanied by appropriate
conditions like the existence of a level playing field in the economy. Public sector
enterprises, if they are loss making entities, do not attract private buyers, plus,
there is stiff resistance by the labour unions. Developing countries, which are
grappling with unemployment, economic inequalities and are missing developed
capital markets through which funds can be mobilized, often report uneven gains
with privatization initiatives.
The marketization process of the public sector in developing countries can
lead to several associated problems. In developing countries, weak governments
have little bargaining power during their dealings with the resourceful, organized
and highly competent service providers from the private sector, as well as
influential international agencies and multinational corporations. Public service
consumers in developing countries are often in an unenviable position, as they
have to consume sub-standard public services provided by the government
because they are unable to afford qualitatively better, but more expensive, goods
and services from the open market. Privatization always favours citizens with
more purchasing power, whether they are in a developed or developing country.
The N.W.S. model

In numerous countries there have been attempts to retain some of the features of
N.P.M. alongside the old features of traditional bureaucratic organizations. As a
result, a composite concept of the neo-Weberian State (N.W.S.) to amalgamate
the positive elements of N.P.M. whilst retaining the basic Weberian foundations
of public administration has evolved.
The concept of N.W.S. is state-centred, whilst at the same time incorporating
citizens’ needs, civic engagement, external orientation and consultation with stake-
holders. In the context of effective public sector reform, two groups of countries
serve as alternate models: (a) the Anglo-American N.P.M. “marketizers” and (b) the
continental European “modernizers”. The reform model of this latter group, i.e. the
continental group, is what Pollitt and Bouckaert call the Neo-Weberian State.
According to C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert, the following principles characterize
the Neo-Weberian perspective:
a) Centrality of the State

b) Continuation of a Weberian Public Service
c) Representative Democracy
d) Citizen Centric Administration
e) Performance Orientation
f) Civil Servants as Management Professionals
The N.W.S. model is a combination of the instrumental rationality of Weberian

bureaucracy, in terms of the achievement of legal and economic gains, with the
N.P.M. principles of public accountability and “outcomes orientation” to achieve
new efficiencies.
Other developments
The N.W.S. model is not the only response to post-N.P.M. developments. There
are now other valuable additions available in the rich repertoire of public
administration studies, the idea of “Digital Governance”, “Public Value”, “New
Public Service” and “Engaged Governance”, being the most important. With
these wide-ranging, innovative models focussing on public management, it can be
surmised that, in recent decades, public administrative studies have been tirelessly
attempting to break new ground and usher in a new public administration in the
21st century.
Today, public administrators face challenges from both global and domestic
terrains. Rapid industrialization and urbanization, pose difficult challenges too.
Indeed, many of the world’s leading cities are confronting untenable surges in
urban density and unplanned expansion, which existing infrastructure and civic
resources are not prepared for. Rising levels of carbon based industrial pollution,
associated with aggressive industrialization, have led to the frequency and inten-
sity of climate change related natural disasters, leaving millions injured, displaced
or homeless. When faced with hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005, the U.S.
government, at all levels (central, state and local), collapsed; making it one of the
most bungled responses and one of the biggest administrative failures in American
history.
Public sector agencies, across diverse regions of the world, have been trying to
respond to these new challenges with enhanced bureaucratic capacity. Conse-
quently, today’s public administrator is compelled to adopt flexible strategies and
mixed administrative techniques to cope with ever changing social and economic
circumstances. The reforms required could range from working with market like
efficiency, learning to collaborate in private-public partnerships or face more
performance accountability from citizens. Citizen’s access to unlimited sources of
information makes the bureaucrat’s “client” an informed and, therefore, demand-
ing citizen in today’s “knowledge” economy. Without a doubt, the world is
gradually moving towards democratization, whose success depends upon the
success of politico-administrative regimes, to not only make good citizen centric
public policies but to also implement them. Normally, good implementation can
lead to electoral successes and, as a result, sound strategies in democracies.
The key to rethinking public administration’s future centres on increasing
administrative capacity and skills so as to face new challenges that this century
will present. Understanding administrative coordination includes the capacity to
catalyse the public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as the federal, state and
local governments, for the successful execution of developmental goals of the
state. Today, administrative effectiveness must incorporate new approaches
which make large and complex bureaucratic organizations more responsive to
citizen needs, and incorporate the need for linking outlays with outcomes.
Administrative accountability must build upon the notion of making public
administration accountable to micro and macro goals, citizens as tax payers and
to democratic political regimes. The role of the state in these “public” arrange-
ments has become a fundamental question. Should it be monopolistic, regula-
tory or merely user/client oriented? This links us to another key question:
whether efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery is the most suitable
criteria to judge the quality of public bodies, or whether the goals of “inclu-
sion”, “engagement” and “equity” are equally important to judge effectiveness
of public governance?
Concept of public value

Thirty years of experimentation with the N.P.M. paradigm in practice has
exposed its contradictions and fallacies, especially in the developing world.
During the 1990s there was growing interest in what can be termed as a
“Public Value” approach, which was an innovative concept based on the work
of Mark Moore. Moore’s work signals a shift away from the market versus
state debates in public service provisioning (Moore 1995); he asserts that public
services have inherent social values which may not be adequately addressed by
the economic calculus of markets. Moore proposes that the task of a public
sector manager is to create “public value”; this indicates a distinct shift from
the current N.P.M. focus on results and efficient outcomes to reach the
governmental goals of creating public goods and services for citizen satisfaction.
Just like private sector managers must come up with innovative ways to meet
the changeable demands of the market, public managers must also find ways to
accommodate the changing needs of the citizens and their elected representa-
tives. Moore’s concept is derivative of the old Wilsonian idea where elected
representatives of a state are responsible for making public policies and setting
out the administrative agenda public servants are meant to execute. Thus, if
public managers wanted to consult physicians to learn what constitutes desir-
able values of health policy, or discuss with educators what constitutes quality
education they are welcome to do so.
However, some critics say that what constitutes “public value” in a given
sector would always be subjective, open to contestation and there would be
problems measuring what is “valuable”. Moore is convincing when he observes
that the value of governmental agencies lies not in the satisfaction of the clients
they serve at the end of their operations, but in the satisfaction that citizens,
political and judicial overseers believe in during the overall fairness of the
organization’s operations. Moore’s greatest input lies in contributing something
seminal to our evolving notions of how best to create “public value”:
• Evolve professional standards based on public interest.

• Learn new techniques of programme evaluation and cost–benefit analysis.
• Informing politicians about what is both feasible and worth emulating.
• Customer focus, an important way of improving the quality and effectiveness
of government services.
Moore declares that it is “politics” that authoritatively defines what is “publicly

valuable”. This is where the Public Value paradigm differs from the N.P.M.
paradigm, due to an emphasis on collective preferences, which distinguishes it
from the liberal individualist focus of N.P.M.
Moore’s contribution to public administration has been applauded as an inno-
vative approach; although critics point out that it seeks to cut at the very root of the
old classical model of public administration. Public managers, in Moore’s approach,
are seen as explorers who, with others, seek to discover, define and produce
“public value”. During the process they become important agents by helping to
discover and define what would be valuable to sort out in society. If traditional
views of public administration discouraged bureaucrats from questioning the
rationale of particular public policies and prevented them from taking any respon-
sibility for defining them, then an alternative idea about how public managers
should think and act needs to be constructed. This is what Moore attempts in his
book, by working out a concept of how public managers could become an asset to
society by searching out and exploiting opportunities to create “public value”.
Rhodes and Wanna (2007), among many others, have expressed concern at
the way Moore has sought to carve out an autonomous space for the public
manager flouting the known canons of the parliamentary system of government:
It misdiagnoses the function of management in the modern public sector

and invents roles for public servants for which they are not appointed, are
ill-suited, inadequately prepared and, more importantly, are not protected if
things go wrong. It asks public managers to supplant politicians, to become
directly engaged in the political process and become the new Platonic
guardians and arbiters of the public interest. In Westminster systems
ultimately the politicians remain responsible and accountable for whatever
outcomes are attempted, we cannot take the (party) politics out of public
management in Westminster systems—and we should not try.
New public service

Robert and Janet Denhardt (2007) suggest a new role for governments during the
“governance process”. A government’s central role in establishing the overall legal
and political rules in society and the broad principles of governance applicable to all is
conceded. Secondly, governments, in their view, will protect economic interests that
play out amongst the different relationships in multiple sectors and policy net-
works. Most importantly, governments have to guarantee the maintenance of
basic democratic processes and uphold public interest. During the interplay of
multiple functioning networks in a society, governments have to assure the
observance of the basic principles of democracy and social equity.
The maintenance of basic legal and political rules, according to Denhardt and
Denhardt, is reminiscent of traditional public administration. Its sanctity and
continuance needs to be accepted. Regarding economic and market considerations,
the contemporary view of political life assigns a “steering” role to governments—

acting as a catalyst to unleash the forces of the market, therefore creating
mechanisms and incentive structures to achieve policy objectives through private
and non-profit agencies. In terms of accountability, governments have to offer a
choice to the “customers” and respond to their individual preferences. There are
countless names given to this brand of administrative theory, but it is now widely
known as the “New Public Management”.
The third emerging role of governments which focuses on the democratic and
social criteria of “public interest” takes centre stage. Public interest is considered to
be the by-product of a dialogue on mutual or overlapping interests. A govern-
ment’s role is visualized in terms of “brokering interests among citizens and other
groups so as to create shared values”. In this third approach, public servants must
adhere to the law, community values, political norms, professional standards and
citizen interests. Denhardt and Denhardt call this brand of administrative theory
“The New Public Service”.
Robert and Janet Denhardt have postulated seven principles, underpinning the
New Public Service philosophy as:
• Serve rather than steer.

• The public interest is the aim not the by-product.
• Think strategically and democratically.
• Serve citizens, not customers.
• Accountability is multiple and layered.
• Value people, not just productivity.
• Value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship.
Clearly, the model presented by Denhardt and Denhardt is essentially a normative one.
Most of the principles are addressed to the “public servant” who is being exhorted to
go beyond traditional values of public management and imbibe the canons of a new
citizen centric “democratic” administration; placing the concepts of efficiency and
productivity in the larger context of democracy, community and public interest. It
proposes to think strategically and act democratically by serving people not as
customers, but as citizens. Besides, this model believes in the importance of a public
service ethos, and public servants being dedicated to the public good.
Evidently, the New Public Service philosophy seeks to counter the contem-
porary obsession with the tenets of the New Public Management. It attempts to
not only counter the contemporary managerialist trend in public management
thinking, but also offers an important and viable alternative to the traditional and
the now dominant managerialist models.
Post-N.P.M. global initiatives

Post N.P.M. reforms are neither drastically different from the traditional forms,
nor do they intend to transform the existing models. These reforms are measures
of increased state control with network-like coordination, with a continuation of

traditional hierarchical controls. The N.P.M. reforms were dominant in the 1980s
in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, all which have taken a lead in
implementing post-N.P.M. measures.
The Whole of Government (W.o.G.) initiative in the U.K. led to the strengthen-
ing of the Centre’s role, the establishment of strategic units and reviews being
conducted. The phrase “Whole of Government”, denotes the aspiration to achieve
horizontal and vertical coordination in order to eradicate situations in which different
policies undermine one another, make better use of scarce resources, create synergies
by bringing together different stakeholders in a particular policy area and offer
citizens seamless, rather than fragmented, access to services (Pollitt 1993).
There have been horizontal integration trends as well. In Australia and New
Zealand, New Cabinet Committees, Inter-Ministerial/Inter-Agency Collabora-
tive Units, Inter-Governmental Councils etc. were established. A principal
agency approach was introduced to get government units to work together for
better outcomes. To ensure a smooth implementation of W.o.G. activities and
facilitate collaboration, in Australia, the Cabinet, an implementation unit, was
established in 2003. In the U.S.A., the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security was a step towards merging agencies to form a larger unit. In Canada,
horizontal management activities have been undertaken to handle policy issues
such as poverty and climate change. In New Zealand, there has been a renewed
focus on value-based management and ethical standards.
A comparative study of service delivery organizations in the U.K., New
Zealand, Australia and the Netherlands, concludes that bureaucratic models are
being superseded by network governance to cater to the W.o.G. approach
(Considine and Lewis 2003). This renewed focus on fostering values such as
ethics, integrity, accountability, loyalty and probity in organizations, is another
significant step. In various countries, ethical guidelines and their implementation
in public service is being emphasized. The resurgence of public value manage-
ment is heading in the right direction.
Post-N.P.M. aims to:
• Foster cooperation, coordination and integration between the public sector,

market economy and civil society.
• Establish links across the boundaries and administrative levels to achieve
shared goals.
• Coordinate policy making and service delivery.
• Ensure cohesiveness of policy making in the governance system, giving due
space to the voice of all stakeholders.
• Bring in re-regulation and foster re-collaboration, vertically and horizontally,
across organizational and hierarchical boundaries.
• Strengthen the state and its capacity to handle administrative overload, e.g. in
the context of developing countries.
• Enhance public service delivery towards becoming more effective and responsive.
Concurrently, the Weberian principles have shown unusual resilience: the elements of
predictability, accountability and legality are more in demand than ever. From the
developed world to the developing, from old democracies to new-democracies,
from ex-socialist states to mixed economies, everywhere we look we find a
variant of the Weberian model at work, showing that it has truly stood the test of
time. While N.P.M.’s universal applicability is doubtful, in countries with
administrative and democratic deficits, it is believed that the Weberian model
will work much better when fostering and executing administrative reform.
While conflicting ideologies of public governance continue to emerge under
globalization, protagonists of reform ascertain that the imperatives of democratic
administration should never be subordinated to the uncertainties of management-
oriented administration. Therefore, a revival of interest in “administrative respon-
siveness” in a globalizing society which is witnessing intra-and inter-sectoral
collaboration, with competing ethical obligations in the arena of governance, needs
to be mentioned. Lawrence O’Toole (1997) has responded to these new challenges
by suggesting a set of six variants of bureaucratic responsiveness: dictated, abstained,
purposive, entrepreneurial, collaborative and negotiated. O’Toole argues that for the
discipline to be relevant, writers and researchers of public administration need to
consider each of these variants and how they overlap with each other to mould
administrative thought and behaviour, particularly in the “collaborative” and
“networking” context. His arguments have laid the foundations for the revival of the
concept of “responsiveness and accountability” as central concerns in public administration.
The conventional ideas of “responsiveness” and “accountability” have come
under recent pressure, due to two important developments: (i) the dominance of
N.P.M. postulating a degree of “autonomy” for the public manager and (ii) the
crying need for “social” accountability beyond conventional in-house account-
ability concerns. In fact, all contemporary changes in governance, efficiency,
outcomes and customer orientation—have critical implications for public account-
ability and democracy. It is believed that the “democracy concern” of public
governance has its roots in the primacy of politics and public interest within an
overarching democratic framework. Instead of being answerable for social welfare,
citizens’ rights, poverty eradication, impartiality, fairness, representation and jus-
tice, public governance is increasingly being called upon to be accountable for
accelerating economic growth rates, boosting efficiency and productivity, encoura-
ging competition, maximizing profit and enhancing cost effectiveness of public
administration. Thus, under the N.P.M. mode of governance, the standards of
public accountability have become instrumental in nature, especially in terms of an
overemphasis on procedural economic criteria (e.g. efficiency and productivity),
rather than substantive public concerns (e.g. equality and representation).
Teaching public administration

Despite efforts by N.P.M. to push the discipline of public administration
towards management and business studies, from government to governance
studies, the centrality of the role of the state to uphold values such as freedom,
equality, justice and public interest, has never been denied (Basu 2016). The
need to equip students with vocational relevance and job-oriented skills
cannot be questioned either. However, public administration is not like a
professional course—medicine, engineering or accountancy; in these courses
there are specific vocational skills and theoretical knowledge that is translated
into programmes of study. It is essential that public administrators acquire
knowledge that is inter-disciplinary and generalist in nature, not task-specific.
It is also imperative for public administrators to know about politics, constitu-
tions and the law, in order to become good professionals. Therefore, a social
science basis is needed in the educational curriculum of public administration.
Courses should encourage critical reasoning and analytical abilities (much like
other social science subjects), without undergoing vocational training. Impart-
ing task-based specific skills is an essential element of post entry training in the
public sector. The dilemma faced by the discipline of public administration,
since its earliest phase, has been to develop a body of “universal” theory
which should be relevant to the work of public administrators, whose mandate
is constantly evolving with the changing role of the state. Disappointed by the
discipline’s perceived inability to provide “scientific” theory based upon
predictable solutions to problems in the public sector, the discipline has often
turned its attention to other “applied” subjects, such as Management or
Business Studies, for inspiration and solutions.
Public administration teaching must incorporate changing administrative pro-
files in the globalizing era and incorporate them into their syllabi. To fully
understand public governance, a study of the inter-connectedness of the public
and private sectors, federal, state and local governments must be included. To
understand administrative accountability, the course must build upon the notion
of mapping the new relationships among elected officials, and those multiple
agencies that implement the programmes formulated by the government. Admin-
istrative responsiveness must build upon incorporating new approaches to make
large and complex public organizations more responsive to citizens and their
needs. Those teaching the subject should emphasize the need to predict new
problems and evolving solutions for present and future societal and community
issues that require administrative interventions for furtherance of the public
interest.
The ongoing concerns

With changes in the role of governments, especially in the context of the rapidly
changing developing world, public administration is currently engaged in under-
standing the new South and their pressing new needs, as well as the old modified
concerns of the North. Here are some of the ongoing concerns of the developed
West and developing societies:
a) Understanding the inadequacy of the Weberian model of legal-rational

bureaucracy alone to meet the citizen needs of the 21st century in all
organizational contexts.
b) Seeking to assess the relative importance of the market and the state (in
exclusion or in unison) as providers of public goods and services.
c) Stressing democracy, underlining participation and empowerment of people
at the grassroots. Public policy implementation can never be successful
without public involvement at every stage.
d) Organizational pluralism has opened up the concept of governance through
non-bureaucratic agencies, rather than the formal government. Performance
partnership and networked governance are different examples of this idea.
e) Revived interest in the study of ethics in governance—underlining the need
to spell out what values public governance upholds—public interest, equity,
fairness and justice, are just a few examples.
Defining the public service ethos

The role of the public servant (Basu 2016) has been defined and redefined by
changing schools of thought in public administration. The public servant operates
within a particular framework premised by representative democracy, rule of law and
public accountability, although it allows considerable discretionary powers vis-à-vis
the citizen. In the state-citizen relationship, it is the public servant who has to deliver
goods and services to the people. These conditions are part of the requisite public
service ethos, which are not found in the private sector. For private sector employees,
the requirement is technical competence, domain efficiency and effectiveness, in
terms of acquisition of profit as the ultimate goal when conducting business.
The idea of the public service ethos has been challenged from two main
quarters—the champions of Public Choice theory and the New Public Manage-
ment paradigm. Public choice theory (Niskanen 1971) asserts that state officials
will seek to maximize their own interest and position, rather than serve the larger
public interest. Public choice theory has become the leitmotif for many who seek
to reduce the role of state monopolies and offer the public a wider choice of
service providers. According to this theory, competition is the best way to ensure
public service quality and standards.
The other challenge to the idea of the public service ethos is N.P.M. Besides a
shared distrust of the conventional civil servant, N.P.M. calls upon civil servants
to run the government like a private business, in order to achieve efficiency and
cost-effectiveness. Both public choice and public management schools of thought
have sought to re-model the public sector ethos working model based on the
private sector ethos. It was left to Moore and the Denhardt’s to resurrect the idea
of the “public” and spell out a distinct constitutional role for the public servant,
based on a distinct public service ethos. They clearly asserted that it is the task of
public administrators to foster shared citizen interests and create public values
based upon a shared sense of community.
The 21st century will be marked by continuity and change. The dialectics of
globalization, the diversified needs of the poor and non-poor, and growing
governance deficits in countries with weak administrative capacities, is a reality
and a challenge. Public administration is struggling to find a meaningful role in
society, brought in by both internal and external forces, and to do so with a
rationale based on the Wilsonian narrative of politics-administration dichotomy
alone will be extremely difficult. Contrary to the Wilsonian dictum, administration
cannot be separated from politics: it is the critical essence of politics. The mandate of
politics has been defined as the expansion and galvanization of state capacities to
engage and interact collaboratively with other institutions to address society’s
contemporary problems. Administrators will have to learn to work with the
political regime and citizens, without assuming that their problems are solvable
with “theories”. Modern public administration should be viewed as the modern-
day reflection of Aristotle or Marx’s praxis—the interactive relationship of theory
and practice. Professionalism should be seen as part of critical engagement during
practical problem-solving with the community. This problem-solving can be a
tripartite collaboration—involving the public, private or voluntary sectors.
“Democracy” and “good governance” are currently recognized as intrinsically
desirable and stand-alone “ends” of politics and administration. Substantivist
democracy and state capacity need to be strengthened to ensure adequate economic
growth and human development within the structural constraints posed by differ-
ent political systems. Contemporary focus mostly looks at democratic institutions,
and not so much at understanding “administrative” capacity, the absence of which
often undermines the legitimacy of political regimes (Basu 2016).
21st-century public governance will be drastically different from previous eras.
Technology, particularly information and communication technology, has influ-
enced public administration practices in its internal work processes and by
empowering citizens with knowledge to demand entitlements from the state,
thereby arming them with the potential to remove trust deficits between the state
and the citizen. E-governance4 has the ability to transform government’s relations
with citizens, domestic and world markets, and other non-state and global
institutions. Its beneficial effects are now being widely acknowledged in terms
of reduced corruption, increased transparency, greater speed of transaction and
cost reductions in public works. Closely related to corruption and transparency is
the issue of “ethical” governance. Currently, there is a worldwide move to
restore a measure of trust and integrity in public institutions, so as to safeguard
democracy and promote better governance. Due to excessive “management”
concerns about efficiency, cost cutting and quick profits, alarming ethical deficits
have occurred in contemporary governance, in both the developed and develop-
ing world. “Data” science has helped us with knowledge about losses and gains in
administrative delivery everywhere, and comparative data is even more useful in policy
formulation and evaluation. “Internationalization” of policy agendas in the post
globalized era is not necessarily a bad idea either. The Sustainable Development
Goals (S.D.G.s) set by the U.N. for 20305, is a landmark “good governance”
agenda for all governments and their people, because it has been consensually
adopted by all members of the United Nations in 2015. In fact, the adoption of
the Millennium Development Goals (M.D.G.s) at the dawn of the 21st century
seemed a harbinger of good times for our planet. S.D.G.s are impossible to
achieve without a close governance cooperation between the developed and the
developing world. Minnowbrook III6 moves beyond old concerns and instead
focuses on the newer concerns of public administration in the future: contra-
dictions and inequities of globalization, problems of coordination in “collabora-
tive” governance, the need to protect the right to privacy of the citizen in an
increasingly intrusive digitalized governance era, persistence of social deprivations
and class inequities, along with several other issues that will require the strength-
ening of both political and administrative capacities, to be readily equipped to
handle the new challenges of the future.
Notes
1 Historically speaking, Woodrow Wilson, the founding father of the discipline of public
administration in his seminal essay, “The Study of Administration” published in 1887,
called for a politics-administration dichotomy, stressing the need for the development of
an “eminently practical science of administration”. This essay was a pioneering attempt
in delineating administration (government in action) as a field for analytical study and a
symbolic beginning of public administration as a subject of enquiry.
2 This chapter is an expanded and revised version of the article by Rumki Basu (2016)
“The Discipline of Public Administration Today: New Perspectives”, Indian Journal of Public
Administration, vol. 62, no. 1, January–March, 1–8.
3 The traditional model has been challenged by two main groups of critics. First, there are
those who emphasize the importance of “network governance” in explaining how
diffusely the system works. The second group emphasizes the role of the state, the
boundaries between the state and non-state institutions, the relationship between the
state and the wider society to show how administration has become more complex and
the processes involved more permeable. Yet, the old model of public administration has
not been declared obsolete. Other models can be seen to supplement, rather than
supplant it.
4 E-government refers to the use, by government agencies, of various forms of informa-
tion technologies, such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet and Mobile Computing.
These technologies can lead to better service delivery, improved interactions between
government and non-government sectors, citizen empowerment through access to
information and more efficient government outcomes and service performance.
5 Sustainable Development Goals (S.D.G.s) were initiated by the United Nations in 2015
to address key development challenges including climate change, economic inequality,
sustainable consumption, peace and justice. The seventeen goals, to be achieved by
2030, are comprehensive and focus on the five P’s—people, planet, prosperity, peace
and partnership.
6 These points have been argued in Eran Vigoda. “Rethinking the Identity of Public
Administration: Disciplinary Reflections and Thoughts on Managerial Reconstruction”, Public
Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 8(i) 2003. Also, see in this
context, the special issue of Public Administration Review vol 70 December 2010
edited by Rosemary O. Leary, David M. Van Slyke and Soonhee Kim, “The Future
of Public Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective”, Georgetown

University Press, 2011. The first Minnowbrook conference was held in 1968, the
second in 1988 and the third in 2008. The Minnowbrook Conferences, held every
twenty years, have been of considerable historical importance in the discipline of
public administration. At each conference, bold attempts were made to assess the
state of the discipline and to suggest seminal directions to move forward for the
growth of the discipline.
References
Basu, R. 2016. The Discipline of Public Administration Today: New Perspectives. Indian Journal of
Public Administration, 62(1), January–March: 1–8.
Bellone, C.J. and G.F. Goerl. 1992. Reconciling Entrepreneurship and Democracy. Public
Administration Review, 52(2), March/April: 130–34.
Considine, M. and J. Lewis. 2003. Bureaucracy Network or Enterprise? Comparing Models of
Governance in Australia, Britain, Netherlands and New Zealand. Public Administration
Review, 63(2): 131–40.
Denhardt, R. and J. Denhardt. 2007. New Public Service, New York, M.E. Sharpe.
Goldsmith, S. and W.D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public
Sector, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press.
Moore, M.H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Cambridge,
MA, London, Harvard University Press.
Niskanen, W.A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago, IL, Aldine
Alterton.
O’Toole, L.J. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public
Administration. Public Administration Review, 57(i): 45–52.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is
Transforming the Public Sector, New Delhi, Prentice Hall.
Peters, B.G. 2002. The Changing Nature of Public Administration: From Easy Answers to Hard
Questions. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 24(2), December: 10–20.
Pollitt, C. 1993. Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s,
Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Rhodes, R.A.W. and J. Wanna. 2007. The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible
Government from the Platonic Guardians. The Australian Journal of Public Administration,
66(4): 406–21.
Wilson, W. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, June: 197–222.
The World Bank. 1994. Governance and Development, Washington, DC, The World Bank.
3
THE PUBLIC AND ITS POLICIES
Public policy can be broadly defined as an officially enacted and ready-to-

implement course of action by a government to achieve specific objectives or
goals of a ruling political regime in a state. Policies can be ad-hoc, micro,
sectoral or macro, and may constitute part of a government’s professed
ideology or a response to an unanticipated situation. These policies are
developed by governmental actors and agencies, although non-governmental
bodies may also exert direct or indirect influence during the policy making
process. The special characteristics of public policies, as differentiated from
other policies, emanate from the fact that they are formulated by, what David
Easton has termed the, “authorities” in a political system, namely executives,
legislators, judges, administrators, councillors and those in government as part
of the ruling regime.1
Public policy has certain conceptual implications. First of all, purposeful or
result-oriented action rather than random public action, is the hallmark of public
policy. In modern states public policies are not spontaneous or happen suddenly.
Secondly, public policy refers to the action or decisional pattern of public
administrators on a particular issue over a period of time, rather than their
separate, discrete decisions on that matter from time to time. Policies are what
governments actually do, rather than what they intend or proclaim to do.
Furthermore, a public policy may either involve some form of government
action regarding any issue or problem; or it may involve a decision by the
government bureaucracy not to take action on a matter in which governmental
action is called for. Lastly, public policy, is based upon law and is authoritative; it
has a legal sanction behind it which is potentially coercive in nature and is
binding by all citizens. These are the main differences between public policy and
policies of private bodies or institutions which are not backed by public laws or
sanctions.
The public and its policies 31
Why study public policy?

Most countries in the world today (especially the developing), are struggling to
develop their economies, as well as increase the capacity of their political systems
to achieve the major objectives of institution building, economic growth and
human development. Studying public policy enables us to understand this process
a bit more. Public policy is an important mechanism for helping a nation move
from the past to the future.
Public policy is not created in a vacuum, it is conditioned by the past. Policy
studies look at the past, present and future dimensions of existing policies in a
state in a given period. A review of the past, coupled with the needs of the
present and the future are all taken into account when formulating public policy.
Political scientists’ early research scarcely revealed an interest in governmental
outcomes and their impact on society. However, the focus has never really been
on the policies themselves but rather the political processes and institutions of
government. These studies did not explore the linkages between important
institutional designs and the content of public policy. Currently, the focus of
Political Science has shifted to public policy, to the description, analysis and
explanation, of the causes and consequences of government activity on targeted
groups/beneficiaries within a state.
The reasons for studying public policy or engaging in policy analysis may be
both academic and political. A study of the policy formulation processes may help
us to gain greater knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the
interacting social, economic and political processes and their societal impacts.
Policies can be viewed as either a dependent or an independent variable, with
attention being placed on the political and “ecological” factors that help deter-
mine the content of the policy. For example, how does the distribution of power
amongst various targeted beneficiary groups and policy formulating actors affect
the policy outcome in a particular sector, or how do levels of economic growth
help shape the contours and content of specific policies? If public policy is viewed
as an independent variable, the focus shifts to the impact of the policy on the
socio-economic and political systems. Then questions begin to surface, including
what effect does redistributive policies have on social welfare outcomes, or how
are major environmental concerns going to be taken care of through environ-
mental policies? The outcomes of both of these types of policies are certainly not
easy to measure, except over a period of time.
Moreover, factual knowledge about the policy making process and its out-
comes are a prerequisite for recommending how to deal with societal problems
normatively. Many Political Scientists believe that the study of public policy
should be directed towards ensuring that governments adopt appropriate policies,
so as to attain certain desirable social goals. These Political Scientists reject the
notion that policy analysts should strive to be value free, contending that policy
studies should not, and cannot, remain politically neutral or silent on vital
contemporary social, economic or political problems. They want to improve the
32 The public and its policies
quality of public policy in a way which seems desirable, notwithstanding the fact
that substantial disagreement may exist in any society when it comes to what
constitutes “desirable” or “appropriate” goals of policy.
Classic policy types

The development of policy typologies began with Theodore Lowi (1964) laying
out his scheme of classic policy types. Lowi divided policies into three basic
categories: distributive, redistributive and regulatory. Later on, Ripley and Frank-
lin (1991) streamlined these typologies by dividing regulatory policy into two
categories: protective regulatory and competitive regulatory.
There are different categories of policies that are adopted by governments,
from time to time, to intervene in socio-economic systems. Such policies may be
categorized on the basis of their method of control. Government control in the
form of policy can be used through patronage, regulation and redistribution.
Thus, public policies fall into three broad categories: (a) patronage policies, (b)
regulatory policies and (c) redistributive policies.
The first category—patronage policy—takes the form of subsidies, contracts
and licenses. Of these, “subsidy” is the most common instrument. For instance,
when government wants to promote an activity for social welfare, e.g. the
government wants private transport operators to ply their passenger buses on a
route which is initially thought to be a losing concern. The government may
issue a license at a cheaper rate, or may even forego certain taxes to start with,
to encourage the private operators to start the passenger bus service in a loss-
making route initially. Real estate businesses can be encouraged by not initially
levying municipal property tax. Subsidies can be given to the education sector
or the health sector, to promote universal education or universal health care in
developing countries.
The second category—regulatory policy—is generally seen as the most important
policy tool used by governments to “regulate” business or the market. For
instance, by taxing alcoholic drinks, governments may try to reduce alcohol
consumption. Similarly, by imposing “effluent tax”, governments may, in effect,
raise the price of products which come from a polluting company; as a result, the
company may lose part of their share in the market because of the price increase
of their products. In this way, effluent tax may encourage the company to behave
and be vigilant about pollution. The price rise of petroleum products discourages
the purchase of motor vehicles, which are also considered to be polluting the
environment. The study of regulatory policy making has been dominated by two
approaches:
• First of all, regulatory agencies are entrusted with vast discretion and are the
major force in regulatory policy. The agency characteristics that affect policy
outputs are professional values, policy expertise, bureaucratic entrepreneurs
and agency structure.
• Secondly, regulatory agencies are dominated by their environment: interest

groups, legislative committees, economic forces and technological change,
are among the determinants of policy.
A more balanced view is that regulatory policy is a product of both regulatory

bureaucracies and environmental forces.
Following Ripley and Franklin, the two subcategories of regulatory policy
may be defined as the following.
i) Competitive Regulatory Policy refers to policies that are meant to limit the
provision of goods and services to one, or a few, designated service providers
selected from a large number of competing potential agencies. Ripley and
Franklin look at the allocation of radio and television frequencies and the
awarding of cable television rights to many providers in this connection. In
India, for example, Air India used to be the only “Indian” official airline,
now, the aviation sector has competing service providers, given licenses by
the government, who provide the same service.
ii) Protective Regulatory Policy is designed to protect the public at large from the
negative effects of private activity, such as air pollution and unhealthy
product consumption like alcoholic drinks etc.
iii) The third category—redistributive policy—refers to the purposeful macro-man-
agement of the economy as a whole. Usually, redistributive policies take the
form of fiscal (tax) and monetary (money supply) policies. A common policy
instrument is to reduce the income tax burden of the poor and the lower middle
class, and raise the tax burden of the rich and the corporate sector. Monetary
policies involve the regulation of the economy by changing the rate of growth
of money supply at any point or by manipulating interest rates (like banking
loans for housing, car purchase etc.).
Politics and policy

Perhaps it needs to be stated that policy can never be totally apolitical and emerge
from a non-contested domain. Some theoreticians of policy “sciences”, would
like to believe that fact and value can be separated, meaning that policy can be
made neutral and apolitical. However, it cannot be under emphasized that
“politics” is the essence of public policy and much of our discussion in these
pages will demonstrate this.
Political context is moulded by the interests of particular regimes who emerge
through a political process, inevitably compelled to spell out a political agenda. There
are competing groups in society, based on their differing interests with regard to the
allocation of resources, competing for policy attention and who exert power and
authority over the policy making process. These influences affect each stage of the
process, from agenda setting, to the identification of alternatives, assessment of the
options and finally, choosing the most favourable one for legislation.
Policies are often set out as being objective, neutral, value-free and termed in
legal or scientific language, emphasizing its rationality. This way, the political
nature of the policy is hidden by the use of technical language, which is supposed
to symbolize rationality and objectivity. But the technical is always, in some way,
“political”. Bureaucrats are not simply neutral executors of policy; they have their
own personal and political agendas to negotiate. Bureaucratic politics, such as
battles within ministries for control over policy arenas, are a prime example.
Where do we draw the boundary between political and techno-administrative
issues? For instance, governments claim that environmental policy is bound to be
“scientific” based upon the advice of environmentalists, or on the environment
preservation needs of society. Repeatedly framing the issue in this way obscures
more political and power-laden controversial issues, such as those of access, control
and equity over natural resources. Environmentalists have often clashed with
developmentalists, and both have political lobbies to support their claims. Policy
makers often make important policy decisions prior to soliciting expert advice, then
seek to obtain a “scientific” endorsement for those decisions. Recommendations
which were perceived as being based upon objective science were sometimes found
to be tempered by subjective political preferences. Therefore, even a supposedly
sound science-driven policy may conceal an underlying political agenda.
Policy making and implementation are tasks which requires the political
leadership to politically persuade the target group to comply. Policy makers
must carry people with them, especially if their decisions and choices of legisla-
tion are to have the full force of public approval. This is a reality, not only in
liberal democracies, but in most authoritarian systems there are powerful limits to
“authoritative” commands.
Policies constitute a body of plans and proposals, not necessarily a tightly
integrated body of systematic knowledge, more art and craft than genuine
“science” (Wildavsky 1974; Goodsell 1992). Lerner and Lasswell’s pioneering
book The Policy Sciences (1951) endorses the same view.
Policy studies are distinguished from other social science disciplines by its
“applied” orientation; it is organized around questions of what “politics” should
do, rather than just questions of ideal designs for institution building. Political
theory suggests normative bases for our political institutions as the embodiments,
or instruments, of our collective values, but policy studies focus less on institu-
tional structures and more on outcomes. Policy studies reflect a bias towards acts,
outputs and outcomes—a concern with consequences—that contrasts with the
formal-institutional normativism of the rest of political studies.
A feature of democratic theory asserts that adjustment between parties, bureau-
cracies and institutional actors can produce socially optimal results (Lindblom 1959).
What actually occurs during policy making is that administrators, while selecting
policies, do not outline a wide range of possibilities, only a few incremental steps,
which appear to be feasible on the basis of their experience. Lindblom states that
what is selected, to be acted upon, is not essentially the most “optimal” choice, but is
a policy, which has been selected as the most suitable compromise that may satisfy the
targeted groups or expected beneficiaries. This is truly reflective of the policy making
process in democratic states, which chiefly operates by means of “incrementalism”,
and rarely by radical legislation or transformative changes. Early policy scientists
clearly stated as much, recalling Lasswell’s definition of “politics” in terms of “who
gets what, when, how?”
The more consultative polities of Scandinavia and continental Europe have always
favoured more consensual modes of policy making, compared to the majoritarian
polities of the Anglo-American world (Lijphart 1999). The policy development and
implementation process proceeds according to procedures of “sounding out” stake-
holders, rather than majorities pressing things to a vote prematurely (Olson 1971).
Sites of decision-making can be diverse. Policies can be handed down from
superior to subordinates, down the chain of command, but also from the centre
to the sub-national units in a state. More democratic options emerge if one looks
at governing as a multi-layered bottom-up process (Tilly 1999). The locus of
decision making can be the national legislature, the legislatures of the federated
regions, down to local government legislatures. Still, many of the most encoura-
ging examples of new deliberative processes working to democratize the existing
centralized political regimes (e.g. those of the former socialist countries of East
Europe) call for constitutional decentralization as the answer.
There have always been limits to centralized authoritative commands. “Gov-
ernance” theory suggests that governing is less about ruling through hierarchical
authority structures, and more a matter of negotiating through a decentralized
series of “governing networks” (Heclo 1978; Rhodes 1997; Castels 2000). Some
actors are more powerful than others, but even those actors at the central nodes
of networks are not always in a position to command and control. Broad
cooperation from numerous autonomous actors is required in order for any
policy to finally get through enactment.
In fact, during contemporary times, the incapacity of central government to
exercise effective control over what happens on the ground through command
and control within a hierarchy, has also led to the increasing outsourcing of
public services, public-private partnerships and an arm’s length government
(Smith and Lipsky 1993). The image evoked here is one of “steering, not
rowing” (Kaufmann, Majone and Ostrom 1985; Bovens 1990). The idea here
being that by separating themselves from the responsibility of front-line service
delivery, the policy delivering units of government will be in a better position to
focus on strategic policy choice (Osborne and Gaebler 1993). By stipulating
“performance standards” in the terms of the contract and monitoring compliance,
public services are supposedly better delivered by private agencies.
The stages models and alternate frameworks

To reiterate, let’s look at the already existing models of policy formation and
unearth the major new ideas that have enriched the field of policy studies and
have extensively modified the policy process discussion.
Policy making has been conventionally explained as a series of stages in which

proposed policies are compared systematically and sequentially against the back-
drop of ideas and values, with progress being made rationally towards a political
objective (Lerner and Lasswell 1951). As one of the pioneers of the policy studies
approach, Lasswell argued for an improvement in the rationality of the process by
achieving a better integration of authentic information and responsible judge-
ment. This conceptualization has dominated both theory and practice since the
emergence of policy studies as a separate academic discipline. This model believes
that policy making proceeds as a sequence of distinct stages, every policy has a
clear beginning, middle and end, values are treated as exogenous and rationality
comes from using these political values as a basis for choosing the solution that
best fits these values.
The second framework that deserves special mention is the Advocacy Coali-
tion Framework (ACF) of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993), first evolved, in
part, as an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of the stages model. In their
initial version of the ACF, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith emphasized the need to
take a long-term view of policy change and to treat policy sub-systems or
domains as the main unit of analysis. These policy sub-systems are regarded as
coalitions of various “stakeholders”, such as policy researchers, advocates, lobby-
ists, representatives of targeted beneficiary groups and so on, advocating their
own conception of policy problems, explanations of causes and preferred solu-
tions. The ACF has inspired, among others, three major theoretical lines of
inquiry.
• First of all, a theoretical emphasis on coalitions, where questions focus on

why coalitions form, their structure and their stability over time;
• secondly, the need for policy oriented research for application to real life
situations; and
• thirdly, a need to understand the role and behaviour of coalitions in policy
change. This model emphasizes the wide range of players involved in policy
making and the influence of external factors and systemic shocks.
The third model is the discursive approach, which highlights the socially con-
structed nature of knowledge and advocates a more inclusive and democratic
approach to policy making. It clearly states the importance of the political role of
the policy analyst and stresses the need to be aware of one’s values and to employ
them consciously in the policy process. Fischer (2003) presents a comprehensive
critique of what he describes as the rational, technocratic and empiricist notion of
policy making. He sets out an alternative route in post empiricist principles of
constructivism, discursive analysis and participatory deliberative practices. The
policy analyst should not facilitate and bolster bureaucratic governance, but
should provide access and an explanation of data to all parties, so as to empower
the public to understand technical data and promote serious public discourse on
policy issues.
So far, considerable academic efforts have been made to develop a mature and
practically usable policy science. The current state of policy studies is character-
ized by an increasing variety of tools; these range from financial controlling
approaches such as bench marking, performance comparison, best practices and
output-oriented performance indicator systems for public services, to new forms
of participatory inquiry and design, such as citizen surveys, citizen reports and
other feedback techniques from user groups.
The rationale behind new frameworks of enquiry in this discipline is not to
dismiss “rationalism” as an impossibility in policy making, but to understand the
realities of the policy making process and the complexities involved in the
creation of policies in diverse political regimes across the world in the 21st
century, and to truly bring “public” inputs into the public policy making process.
The policy cycle: processes

Four different levels in the policy process may be distinguished: (i) Agenda-
setting; (ii) Decision-making; (iii) Implementation; and (iv) Evaluation.
Policy agenda setting

Policy making cannot be understood separately from the environment in which it
takes place. Demands for policy actions are generated in the environment and
transmitted to the political system; at the same time, the environment places limits
and constraints upon what can be done by policymakers. Factors in the environ-
ment include geographical characteristics such as natural resources, climate and
topography; demographic variables like population, size, age and sex ratio
distribution and spatial location; political culture; social structure and the eco-
nomic system. Also, other nations become an inherent part of the environment
for foreign and defence policy. Here, the discussion will focus on two of these
factors of agenda setting, which political scientists have bestowed great impor-
tance, namely, political culture and socioeconomic variables. In every country
policy formulation is achieved in diverse ways and conditioned by a variety of
factors.
Political culture refers to the widely held values, beliefs and attitudes, con-
cerning governmental policies and actions, along with some of the implications
and significance of this culture for policy formulation.
Differences in public policy and policy making in various countries can be
explained, at least partly, in terms of the variations in their political culture. Social
welfare programmes are older and more widely covered in Western European
(especially the Nordic) countries, than in the United States, because there has
been a greater public demand, and approval, of such programmes in those
countries. Furthermore, government ownership of businesses and industry is
more prevalent in Britain than in the U.S.A., where public opinion is more in
its favour. A political culture which is oriented more towards the past than to the
future may sanctify age-old traditions, customs and social mores, such as India
rather than the United States, a country whose culture may be considered more
future oriented, adaptable and innovative.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba have differentiated between “parochial”,
“subject” and “participant” political cultures. In a parochial political culture,
citizens have little awareness of, or orientation towards, either the political
system as a whole or the citizen as a political participant. It is suggested that
some tribal societies and underdeveloped countries in Africa are illustrative of
parochial political cultures. In a subject political culture, like many developing
democratic countries such as India, the citizen may be politically aware, none-
theless, they are unaware of their own potential to influence public policy. The
citizen may be aware of governmental authority, may have political views, but is
essentially a passive onlooker. While in the participant political culture, such as
the United States, citizens have a high level of political awareness and informa-
tion, having explicit orientations towards the political system as a whole and a
notion of meaningful citizen participation in politics. Included in this orientation
is an understanding of how individuals and groups can influence the decision-
making process in politics and public policy. The implications of these differences
in political culture for agenda setting seem readily apparent in the context of
developed and developing countries, even today.
Citizen participation during policy formation in a parochial political culture is
going to be essentially non-existent, with the government being of little concern
to most citizens. In a subject political culture the individual may believe that they
can do little to influence public policy, which can lead to a passive acceptance of
governmental action that may be rather authoritarian in style. In these types of
cultures, transformative public policies usually come about through popular unrest
or movements, where violence is often restored too. In the participant political
culture, individuals may organize themselves into pressure groups or lobbies, to
influence government action to address their grievances or mobilize for new
policies. Both government and public policy are perceived as controllable by
citizens. Moreover, one can assume that additional demands will be made on the
government in a participant political culture than in the other two types of
cultures, where demands usually remain dormant for some time before they come
out in the open.
Therefore, a study of political culture is important because values, beliefs and
attitudes, inform, guide and constrain the action of both decision-makers and
citizens.
The term “socioeconomic conditions” is used here in the broadest sense
(geographical characteristics and demographic variables being inclusive in “eco-
nomic resources”) because it is often impossible to separate social and economic
factors as they impinge on, or influence, political activity.
Public policies can be seen as emanating from conflicts between different
groups (private and public) who often have opposing interests and attitudes. In
modern societies, the major sources of conflict are economic activity, inequality
and distributive justice issues. There are certainly clashes of interest between big
and small businesses, employers and employees, wholesalers and retailers, con-
sumers and sellers, farmers and landlords, workers and industrialists and so on.
Groups that are underprivileged, dissatisfied, marginalized or threatened adversely
by economic change, very often seek governmental intervention to improve their
economic status. Consequently, in many capitalist countries where people had an
issue with organized labour and were dissatisfied with wages, have often sought
minimum wage legislation from the government. Modernization and industriali-
zation disrupts the equilibrium of many groups in society: feudal landed classes
lose their importance, new classes emerge, like the middle class, a bigger business
class is created and industrial workers want a voice in governmental decisions.
While the poor want free public goods, jobs and subsidies. Therefore, all social
groups want public policies in their favour.
It is a well-recognized fact that a society’s level of economic development will
impose limits on what the government can do when providing public goods and
services to the community. The scarcity of economic resources will, of course, be
more limiting for many developing countries than affluent ones. The biggest
challenge for governments in developing countries, especially in democracies, is
to keep electorates happy through public policies that will procure them electoral
or political dividends.
The ways in which socioeconomic conditions influence or constrain public
policies have been subjected to considerable analysis. Economic development
shapes both political agendas and policy outcomes. Differences in the policy
choices of states with different political systems largely turn out to be a product
of differing socioeconomic levels, rather than a direct product of political
variables. Levels of urbanization, industrialization and human development,
appear to be more influential in shaping policy agendas than purely political
variables, such as voter participation, inter-party rivalry, political party strength
and legislative appointment.
Since democratic governments are representative governments, it is often said
that citizens are, therefore, indirectly represented in all policy making. In an
abstract sense, this is true, but concretely, this aphorism means very little. Citizen
contribution to agenda setting, even in democratic countries, is negligible. The
vast majority of people do not exercise their franchise or engage in party politics;
neither do they join pressure groups, or display any active interest in public
affairs. Even while voting, voters are hardly influenced by policy considerations.
However, despite such political attitudes of a vast majority of citizens, some still
participate directly in decision-making. In some of the American states (like
California) and certain countries (like Switzerland), citizens can, and still, vote
directly in relation to legislation or Constitutional amendments, which are
submitted to the voters for approval. Elections are the major instruments in
democratic countries to gauge public opinion or popular wishes. As Charles
Lindblom summarizes: “The most conspicuous difference between authoritarian-
ism and democratic regimes is that democracies choose their top policy makers in
genuine elections”. Some political scientists speculate that voting in genuine

elections may be an important method of citizen influence on policy, not so
much because it actually permits citizens to choose their officials and, to some
degree, set the agendas of policy making, but because the existence of genuine
elections puts a stamp of approval on citizen participation. Therefore, indirectly,
elections enforce upon proximate policy makers a rule that citizens’ wishes count
when it comes to policy making.
However, it is a truism that no government, however dictatorial, can afford to
go against the desires, wishes, customs or traditions of the people. Even dictators
undertake many popular measures, so as to minimize unrest or discontent against
the regime. One-party systems, like the Soviet Union or China, also seem
concerned about meeting many citizen demands, even as they exclude citizens
from more direct participation in agenda setting for policy formation.
Public decision making

Herbert Simon’s (one of the earliest theorists of decision-making) point of
departure was his emphasis on correct decisions, as well as the right way of
doing things. Efficient decision making is not the ruthless pursuit of mechanical
efficiency by any means, but the choice of alternatives which produce the best
results for the given application of resources. The ideal of perfect rationality was
unattainable, whereby all objectives would be defined and arranged according to
priority; all possible alternative strategies listed together with their consequences
and a comparative evaluation taken of the strategies and their consequences, so
the maximum results would be forthcoming for the resources employed. In
practice, however, a comprehensive range of information was unobtainable, man
was not an exclusively rational being; meaning both the objectives and con-
sequences of public policy were not susceptible to quantitative measurement or
approximate evaluations. Therefore, in practice, we never really have all the
information we need in order to “optimize”; at best, we “satisfice”, set some
standard of what is “good enough” and content ourselves with reaching that
standard (Simon 1955).
Policy making can be innovative, especially when it deliberately engages in
brainstorming and consultation with all stakeholders, rather than just rummaging
around to see what “solutions looking for problems” are lying at the bottom of
the existing “garbage can” of the policy universe (March 1972). Although,
however seminal they may be, policy makers will inevitably fail the “comprehen-
sively rational” model to some greater or lesser degree, because of their unsur-
prisingly limited knowledge of all the possible means by which goals might be
pursued through policies and their likely or unlikely impacts.
The story of policies is also a story about change. Policies change for all sorts
of reasons. The problems change; the environments change; technologies
improve; alliances falter; key staff change; office interests and the needs of the
clientele change, necessitating modification, change or removal of policies.
Due to the rapid spread of democratization across the world, there is another side
to the story: policies can sometimes change because the targeted beneficiaries want
them to change. Also, change can happen with political activity. There is a mass
mobilization of groups pressing for reform—workers pressing for legislation on hours
and wages, racial or religious minorities pressing for civil rights, women pressing for
gender equity, are just a few examples (Cain, Dalton and Scarrow 2003).
Public decision-makers are likely to make mistakes or be susceptible to bias.
They make mistakes when collecting, interpreting, analysing and using informa-
tion, they may also make mistakes during their understanding and prediction of
the expected outcomes of alternative options. However, these sub-optimal policy
decisions affect society at large, or specific target groups, which means they come
under public scrutiny. Public decision-making entails inbuilt accountability
because policies are publicly funded and in turn affect the citizens who pay
those taxes. Given the voluminous number of public decisions taken in every
political system, it is obvious that examples of flawed decisions are easy to find,
thus creating a negative image of public bureaucracies. Public decisions are made
by individuals or agencies, therefore, there will always be human error in any
human activity and public policy making is no exception. However difficult it
may be to achieve perfect rationality, policy studies focus has always been to
strive to achieve optimal outcomes, despite knowing numerous factors may
inhibit the process.
In the late 1950s, Herbert Simon argued that an inherent aspect of decision
making is the notion that decision making cannot be based on full information,
that the “rationality” guiding it is necessarily bounded and that decision makers
are more often “satisfiers” than “optimizers”. Limited comprehensive knowledge
curtails the ability, time and resources available to decision makers, meaning they
are thus constrained in their attempts to make completely rational decisions.
Simon ascertained that instead of seeking to be “comprehensively” informed,
decision makers have to find a way out by comparing—sequentially—a limited
number of alternatives, basing their judgements on a limited number of criteria
and opting for an alternative they judge to be satisficing in that it meets a certain
threshold. Decision makers do not need to search for more optimal solutions
once a satisficing solution has been found (Simon 1955).
In the 1950s, Charles Lindblom continued this line of thinking by arguing that
decisions are embedded within previous decisions, existing practices as well as
cultural and political institutional settings. In Lindblom’s view, these boundary
conditions create decisions which mostly conform to the status quo and mini-
mally deviate from previous policies. Hence, decisions tend to reconfirm existing
arrangements or result in incremental change. Incrementalism—gradual change
dominates the public sector and revolutionary decisions that result in transforma-
tive changes are rare. According to Lindblom, incrementalism is a smart solution
since it allows: flexibility—changes that result from decisions which are so small
that they can be reversed; learning—if there is any change in the outcome, one
knows that the incremental change caused it, since it was the only thing that was
changed; and reduced risk and resistance—since the changes are so small, their
impact will be small, so there will be few objections to them.
In the 1970s, Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) argued that the institutional
setting of policy making is more influential for the kind of decision made, rather
than the rational balancing of the estimated effects of decisions. Their analysis is
more radical than those of Simon and Lindblom; in their perspective, expertise
and information do not influence decision making; at least, much less than
expected. According to them, the research and information gathering, which
precedes the decision making, is mostly symbolic and is only conducted to
indicate that policy making is based on information, which enables decision-
making processes to be viewed positively by experts and the public. Since
decision makers know that optimizing decisional inputs and outcomes are
unattainable, the only alternative is to act as if decisions have been made
rationally. According to Cohen, March and Olsen, people in the public sector
make the decisions they do because they think it is appropriate to make those
decisions, not because of a rational balancing of the effects of such decisions. In
their view, the logic of appropriateness dominates public decision making.
In the late 1980s, March and Olsen specified this kind of decision making in
their classic volume Rediscovering institutions. They argued that decisions in
organizations often emerge randomly as a consequence of anarchical processes,
best described using the metaphor of the garbage can—in which problems,
solutions, opportunities and actors, flow independently and randomly until they
accidentally merge, which results in completely unpredicted decisions.
Predominantly, decisions are based on obligations and responsibility, instead of
being deliberate choices with knowledge of the consequences: this is what March
and Olsen mean by the logic of appropriateness as distinguished from the logic of
consequentiality.
March and Olsen expand upon this even further, by stating that not only
decisions but also perceptions, interpretations and preferences are shaped by
institutions, resulting in a situation where individuals often only see what they
are expected to see, and like what they are expected to like. Kingdon (1995)
developed the most well-known application: the multiple-streams model—using the
same idea of independent flows of problems, solutions and actors, which acciden-
tally merge and create a window of opportunity for decision makers—as a theory
on how public policies come about.
March and Olsen’s approach, which emphasized organizational anarchy in
decision making, has been criticized for not paying enough attention to the role
of power, leadership authority, control, delegation and incentive systems, within
organizations that try to achieve as much congruence and coherence as possible.
The extent to which decision makers are inclined to search for information,
means they fully use the information available to them and strive for optimal
decisions which might also be dependent on characteristics of the decision-making process.
What are the rules and regulations that prescribe the decision-making process? Is the
decision-making process transparent and accountable? In public administration it is
understood that when decision-making procedures are more strictly regulated,

transparent and accountable, stakeholder decision makers will be more inclined to
gather information and make sound analyses based on that information. As a result,
they will be more careful in their decisions, because they are obliged to do so by law,
and fear the consequences of being publicly accused of having made flawed decisions.
Many scholars suggest that the causes of suboptimal public decisions can be
found in societal structures and the role of governmental intervention in the
economy. Two opposing perspectives are the Marxist and the neo-liberal views.
From a Marxist perspective, the class structure of societies with a rich, economic
and politically elite class on the one hand, and a resource-poor, working class on
the other, results in an unequal distribution of power and conflict of interest; this
in turn, results in decisions that are only profitable for the former sector of society
and are disadvantageous to the latter. Public policies always involve conflicts of
interests and those in powerful positions, make or encourage decisions that only
serve their own class interests. Such theories conclude that public decisions mostly
serve the interests of the economically higher classes.
A rather different explanation for suboptimal decisions in public policy
making, is that they are “public” and, therefore, by definition a heterogeneous
mass who cannot handle rational and optimal decisions, a viewpoint which is
often raised by neo-liberals and proponents of a limited government. A govern-
ment’s reluctance to regulate, steer and dominate the economy, is better for
economic development. According to this view, one should always be suspicious
of any attempt, by governments, to propose new laws and regulations which limit
people, industry and commerce, because this is detrimental rather than advanta-
geous for society as a whole. Modern interpretations of this theory conclude that
government should limit itself to protecting private property and maintaining
security, but should not steer or regulate business or wages, as this would distort
the socio-economic development of the country.
An additional contextual factor, is the governmental level at which the decision
is being made. The location of the decision-making power (national, regional or
local), plays a role in determining the possibilities for public participation and
customized decisions, the availability of knowledge and expertise to analyse this
information, individuals skills, who are involved in the process and the extent to
which one can learn from past experiences. When decision making is centralized,
the possibilities for public participation decreases, so do the possibilities for user
friendly decisions. On the other hand, the capacity, knowledge and skills of the
central agency are often greater than they are locally, especially in cases of high
uncertainty and when the origin of such dynamics is outside the local level.
A final contextual factor, is that participants are often representatives of interest
groups, societal organizations, NGOs or governmental agencies. Such “group”
interests can frustrate decision-making processes, as they interfere with the flex-
ibility needed to arrive at optimal decisions; instead, they can result in polarization.
Also, institutional loyalties frustrate the outcomes of the decision-making processes,
because instrumental rationality might dominate the decision-making process and
other types of rationality, or, as mentioned in the previous section, become

subordinate to instrumental rationality.
Therefore, we may conclude this section by saying that decision-making
processes are complex, in which individual biases and errors, institutional bound-
aries and complex societal contexts—especially in relation to conflicting interests
and structural power disparities, blend together and block a comprehensive
rational analysis of information, thus inhibiting the capacity to make optimal
public decisions (de Vries 2016).
Policy implementation
Implementation is the basic task of bureaucracies everywhere in the world; it is the
total process of executing a public policy, executive order or enacted statute. A law
is usually passed in a skeleton form; the power of “delegated” legislation ensures that
the civil service is the prime agency of public service delivery and the chief mediator
between the state (deliverer) and the citizen (beneficiary). In the policy cycle,
“implementation” is the exclusive task of the bureaucracy, which refers to the
totality of appropriate programme directives and structures that provide public goods
and services to the citizens at federal, state or local levels of governance. A law is
passed, but it is during the process of implementation where the changes and
“distortions” (intended or unintended) take place. The policy implementer is the
ultimate interpreter of a law or statute, and rarely is implementation “perfect”,
especially in the context of developing countries where the gaps between a policy
and its implementation have always been sub-optimal.
The first major book of policy analysis which focussed on “implementation”
was Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky’s 1973 study of federal programs in
the city of Oakland, California. The original title “Implementation: How Great
Expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland”, in itself tells a story.
Pressman and Wildavsky, in their land mark book, pointed to the close nexus
between “politics” and implementation; how the interaction between setting
goals and carrying them out, makes the process of execution, fundamentally
“political”. The activities that go on under this banner, shape who gets “what”,
“when” and “how” from the government.
Policy implementation, like policy formulation, involves multiple actors who
try to exert power over programme outcomes. Implementation involves admin-
istrators, interest groups and others who mobilize power, through forming
coalitions and planning strategies to ensure that they also benefit (besides the
legitimate target groups) from the implementation process. This is how, very
often, in developing countries, the “politics of scarcity” leads to the derailment of
a law which may be partially implemented with modifications or not implemen-
ted at all. Several policy reviews of federal flagship programmes in the 29 states of
India, highlight bewildering variations in the process of implementation which
have been reported, inevitably resulting in diverse outcomes. 100% implementa-
tion of government policies has never been reported at any level of public
governance in India. However, suggestions that most administrators have delib-

erately “distorted” the law is a fact that has not been substantiated by the
“outcomes” of the research either. Therefore, one has to understand that the
entire process of policy implementation is inherently “political”, with “sub-
optimal” outcomes as an inevitable result.
Therefore, in order to promote the equal treatment of clients/beneficiaries,
organizations need to develop standard operating procedures which minimize
discretion and greatly facilitate decision making into a routine application of rules.
Successful implementation requires “feasible” directives built into organizational
structures which, translated into implementation language, would mean the sim-
plification of routine procedures and minimal use of discretion in “strategic” cases.
Policy evaluation
Public policy analysis is concerned with the consequences of governmental decisions
on the targeted public. Major government decisions, in all sectors of public concern,
involve some cost to the nation. Apart from taxpayers’ money, almost all govern-
mental policies affect certain citizens, either directly or indirectly. Thus, citizens have
every right to know why particular decisions were taken, how they were arrived at
and what would be their likely consequences. These questions are now being raised
by policy analysts. Since government’s long term policies and plans will greatly
determine the future shape of society, there is now a great need for strengthening the
scientific knowledge of policy making. To help solve the critical problems of society,
Yehezkel Dror (1968) advocates the development of a “policy science”.
Policy science can . . . be partly described as the discipline that searches for policy
knowledge, that seeks general policy issue knowledge and policy making knowledge, and
integrates them into a distinct study.
Policy issue knowledge is knowledge which relates to a sectoral or specific
policy, whereas policy making knowledge concerns itself with the entire spectrum
of policymaking activity—how it operates and how it can be improved. Dror
advocates an optimal approach to policy making and policy analysis. He pleads for
the adoption of the best policy by a judicious evaluation of goals, values, alter-
natives, costs and benefits, based upon the maximum use of all available informa-
tion and scientific technology. He even recommends extra-rational aids to facilitate
effective policy analysis. Intuition, value preferences, extraordinary leadership and
acute reality perceptions, may also be used in policy making and policy analysis.
Currently, policy analysis is emerging as a sub-discipline, focusing on the
following areas:
a) There is a need for a comprehension of policies rather than a recommen-

dation. Emphasis is on understanding the policies and not necessarily
proposing new ones.
b) Efforts to find causal links on policy matters. The causes and consequences of
public policies are now being subjected to scientific enquiry.
c) There is a need for the creation of a body of policy science knowledge. Specific
policy issue studies are being utilized, so as to arrive at broader generalizations.
The evaluation of public policy is an attempt to assess the content and effects of policies
on those for whom it is intended. Policy evaluation often occurs during the policy
process, not at its termination stage. Evaluational activity may restart the policy process
(problem formulation onwards) in order to continue, modify or terminate existing
policy. Generally, there are three recognized methods of policy evaluation, they are:
a) Policy impact evaluation: During an assessment of overall programme impact

and effectiveness, emphasis is on determining the extent to which pro-
grammes are successful in achieving basic objectives and on the comparative
evaluation of programmes.
b) Policy strategy evaluation: This evaluation is an assessment of the relative effec-
tiveness of programme strategies and variables. Emphasis is on determining
which strategies, methods and procedures are most productive or effective.
c) Policy project appraisal: This process is an assessment of individual projects
through site visits and other activities, with emphasis on managerial and
operational efficiency.
While discussing policy evaluation, one must first understand the basic difference
between policy output and policy outcomes.
Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the government which can be
measured in concrete terms, for instance the construction of government offices,
schools, public parks, highways, payment of welfare benefits, operation of hospitals
and prisons. These activities can be measured in concrete terms, but figures reveal
very little about the policy outcomes or the qualitative impact of public policies on the
lives of people. Knowing how much is spent on pupils in a school system, on a per
capita basis, reveals nothing in relation to the effect schooling has on the cognitive,
and other abilities, of students, let alone the social consequences of education.
Broadly, policy evaluation requires knowledge regarding what is to be accom-
plished within a given policy (policy objectives), how to do it (strategy) and what, if
anything, has been accomplished towards the attainment of the objectives (impact
or outcomes). The most useful method of policy evaluation for policy makers and
administrators is the systematic evaluation, as it helps determine the cause and effect
of relationships, and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is, of course, often
impossible to measure quantitatively the impact of public policies, especially social
policies, with any real precision. There are certain barriers that create problems for
policy evaluation.
Uncertainty over policy goals

When policy goals are unclear or diffused, policy evaluation becomes a difficult
task. This situation is often a product of the policy adoption process. Since
support from a majority coalition is often needed to secure the adoption of a

policy, it is usually necessary to appeal to as wide a spectrum of persons and
interests (often conflicting) as possible. Officials in different positions in the policy
system, such as legislators and administrators or national and state officials, may
define goals differently and act accordingly.
Difficulty in determination of causality

Systematic evaluation requires that changes in real life conditions must be
demonstrably caused by policy actions. But the mere fact that action A is taken
and condition B develops, does not necessarily mean that a cause-and-effect
relationship exists; for example, the relationship between crime prevention
measures and the occurrence of crime is not a simple cause-and-effect relation-
ship. The determination of causality between actions, especially in complex social
and economic matters, is a difficult task.
Diffused policy impacts

Policy actions could potentially affect a wide spectrum of people, both in the
target and non-target categories, and have various intended or unintended
consequences. A welfare programme might not only affect the poor but also
others, such as taxpayers, bureaucrats and lower income groups. The effect this
has on those groups may well be symbolic or material, tangible or intangible.
Difficulties in data-acquisition
A shortage of accurate and relevant facts, and statistics, may hinder the work of a
policy evaluator. Thus, mathematical models might predict the effect of a tax cut
on economic activity, but obtaining suitable data to indicate its actual impact on
the economy is much more difficult. Whilst official resistance to provide all types
of relevant data could also prove to be a hindrance. Policy evaluation entails
commenting on the merits and demerits of a policy, that is to say, value
judgements have to be made. Agency and programme officials, bureaucrats and
others, are going to be concerned with the possible political consequences of
evaluation. If the results do not come out in their favour, or show them in a bad
light, this could put their careers in jeopardy. Consequently, government officials
may discourage evaluation studies, refuse access to data, show incomplete records,
or create various hurdles in the researcher’s process of policy evaluation.
Within government, policy evaluation is carried out in a variety of ways and
by a variety of actors. Sometimes it is a systematic activity, at other times it is
rather haphazard or sporadic. In some instances policy evaluation has become
institutionalized, in others it is informal and unstructured. A few official policy
evaluation agencies include the legislatures and their committees, the audit office,
commissions of enquiry and departmental evaluation reports.
Besides, there is a considerable amount of policy evaluation carried out

outside the government. The communications media, university scholars,
private research institutions, pressure groups and public interest organizations,
prepare evaluations of policies that have an effect on public officials, to some
extent. These evaluations also provide the larger public with information,
publicizes policy action or inaction, advocates the enactment or withdrawal of
policies, and often voices the demands of the weaker or underprivileged
sections of the public.
The legislative process

One of the functions of legislatures in democratic countries, is the evaluation of
administration and the execution of laws or policies.
Policy evaluation is implemented through a number of techniques: (a)
questions and debates, (b) various motions in parliaments, for instance, call
attention or no-confidence, (c) committee hearings and investigations and (d)
the budgetary process. In the course of these activities, legislators reach
conclusions regarding the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of particular
programmes and policies. These feedback processes can have serious conse-
quences for the policy process.
The audit process

The auditor’s office, as in India and the U.S.A., has broad statutory authority to
audit the operation and finance activities of government agencies, evaluate their
programmes and report their findings to parliament. In India, two parliament
committees, the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee, have
been specifically empowered to help with effective parliamentary control of the
governmental expenditure. The main purpose of these committees is to see
whether the budgetary appropriations have been economically utilized by the
government for the approved purposes within the framework of the grants.
Secondly, they undertake a detailed examination of the annual budget estimates
of the government, so as to suggest possible economies during the implementa-
tion of plans and programmes.
Administrative agencies
Every government department prepares their internal evaluation reports, which
provides them with an opportunity to appraise the implementation of the pro-
grammes and projects undertaken by the department; for example, the Budget
Division of the Finance Ministry in India, has the power to overview all ministries
and departments while framing the budget estimates for every department. Similarly,
every department, while sending its own demand for grants to the Finance Ministry,
evaluates its annual plans, programs and performance.
Towards optimal decision-making

Public administration scholars have begun researching how to approximate the
ideal of rational decision making—and optimal outcomes—in spite of the
inhibiting factors mentioned in this chapter.
Consultations can be accomplished by broadening the decision-making pro-
cess, in order to encourage decision makers to seek out the opinions of a
multitude of stakeholders and debate alternatives through public participation, so
as to avoid inherent bias in the societal context and by changing the format of
decision-making processes, by making them more transparent. This section
provides a brief overview of the rationale behind these proposals.
At an institutional level, information generating institutions can be established,
such as think tanks and planning agencies, decision-management units within
governmental agencies, political-professional advisory committees and university
researchers. One could institutionalize regular evaluations to provide the neces-
sary information that decision makers are unable to collect themselves, analyse
that information and translate it into building blocks for decision-making.
The phenomenon of think tanks has evolved rapidly since the 1950s, with
think tanks now having proliferated globally. There are over 1,800 think tanks in
the U.S.A. alone. There are over 400 in China, over 250 in the U.K. and India,
with over 150 in France and Germany. In 2013, South Africa had 88 think tanks,
while small countries like Iceland, Gabon, Laos and the Seychelles have multiple
think tanks (de Vries 2016). These numbers are a good indicator of the wide-
spread attempts to rationalize public decision-making.
An alternative approach to improving public decision-making, is by opening up
the process and making it more transparent. In an e-government era, the transpar-
ency of information is becoming more of an issue. For instance, governments are
increasingly able to use information and communication technology (ICT), and as a
result, face an increased demand for an open government. There is a growing
consensus that governments need to provide timely, reliable and accessible informa-
tion to all relevant stakeholders, about economic, social and political data, about its
decisions and actions, and that they make laws and regulations which ensures that
stakeholders have access to that information in order to empower them. An open
government improves risk management, economic performance and bureaucratic
efficiency in governments. In addition, data is important as it exercises one’s
democratic rights. Citizens are better informed about, and engaged in, government.
Studies have shown huge variations within regions. For example, in Africa,
there is a huge difference between the Open Government with Kenya having
relatively high scores, whilst Mali, Nigeria and Zambia have relatively low scores.
The Middle East, Israel and Bahrain vary dramatically from Yemen. In the
Americas, differences between the U.S.A. and Canada are considered to be on
the high side, while Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Jamaica are on the low side.
In Europe, there are differences in the scores for an Open Government between
the U.K. and Sweden, as well as Greece, Turkey and Hungary.
Today, an e-government relates to the vast range of government roles and activities,
shaped by, and making use of, Information Technology. This involves a number of
issues: such technologies require new skills and the capacity development of public
officials; it changes government operations and administrative processes; it impacts
international relations between governments, as governments can influence one
another’s citizens without having to use the previously formal channels; it also changes
the relationship between citizens, as virtual communities are created, no longer limited
by geographical or organizational distances and beyond previous obstructive institu-
tional frameworks.
Governments are expected to become Open Governments, sharing information
and cooperating internally with their citizens, to increase the transparency and
accountability of government functions vis-à-vis civil society and improve and
increase citizens’ participation in public policy making, implementation and
evaluation: enabled by widespread “Access to information” laws in both devel-
oped and developing countries.
Technological solutions seem to lead us away from the basic concept that the
broad aim of policy making is to enhance the quality of public policies, so that
they benefit the targeted public. The four solutions to suboptimal decision-
making—capacity building, building institutions for decision support, increasing
transparency and broadening the decision-making process—attempt to approx-
imate optimal decision-making, or at least try to understand how rational
decision-making is possible despite the limitations.
One of the key themes of public administration, is whether we should strive to
maximize rationality to achieve optimal decision-making outcomes, however
difficult the process, or whether we should be more pragmatic and adopt
decisions that are feasible and satisfactory for the stakeholders—even though
they might be sub-optimal choices.
Some scholars still attempt innovative ways of improving rational decision-making,
while others believe that using such tools are merely symbolic—primarily there to
create an image of rationality for public consumption as the decisions have already
been made and are primarily determined by political factors and changes in the social,
economic or political climate of decision-making. Although no conclusions can be
reached on an issue like this, it would be good to believe in the institutional analysis
pioneered by Elinor Ostrom et al. (2010); that with certain institutional infrastructure
and inputs, it is possible to reach an agreement and simultaneously achieve optimal
outcomes, despite the deficiencies in individual or collective public policy decisions.
Note
1 Some sections of this chapter are revised and adapted from my chapter on “Public
Policy” in the book Public Administration: Concepts and Theories (New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers, 2017).
References
Bovens, M.A.P. 1990. The Social Steering of Complex Organizations. British Journal of Political
Science, 20: 91–117.
Cain, B., R. Dalton and S. Scarrow eds. 2003. Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political
Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, New York, Oxford University Press.
Castels, M. 2000. Materials for an Exploratory Network of the Network Society. British Journal of
Sociology, 51(10): 5–24.
Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational
Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), March: 1–25.
de Vries, M.S. 2016. Understanding Public Administration, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Dror, Y. 1968. Public Policy Reexamined, San Francisco, CA, Chandler.
Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Goodsell, C.T. 1992. The Public Administrator as Artisan. Public Administration Review, 52:
246–53.
Heclo, H. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment” in A. King (ed.) The
New American Political System, Washington, DC, American Enterprise Institute, 82–124.
Kaufman, F.G., G. Majone and V. Ostrom eds. 1985. Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the
Public Sector, Berlin, Wide Grnyter.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York, Longman.
Lerner, D. and H.D. Lasswell, eds. 1951. The Policy Sciences, Stanford, CA, Stanford
University Press.
Lijphart, A. 1999. Pattern of Democracy, New Haven, Yale University Press.
Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19:
79–88.
Lowi Theodore, J. 1964. American Business, Public Policy Case Studies and Political Theory.
World Politics, 16, July: 677–715.
March, J.G. 1972. Model Bias in Social Action. Review of Educational Research, 42: 413–29.
Olson, M. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups,
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing Government, New York, Plume/Penguin.
Ostrom, E. et al. 2010. Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons and Multiple Methods
in Practice, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance and Account-
ability, Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.
Ripley, R. and G. Franklin. 1991. Congress, Bureaucracy and Public Policy, Pacific Grove, CA,
Brooks Cole.
Sabatier, P.A. and H.C. Jenkins-Smith, eds. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO, Westview.
Simon, H.A. 1955. A Behavioural Theory of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
69: 99–118.
Smith, S.R. and M. Lipsky. 1993. Non Profits for Hire: The Welfare State in an Age of
Contracting, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Tilly, C. 1999. Power – Top Down and Bottom Up. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7: 330–52.
Wildavsky, A. 1974. The Private Government of Public Money, London, Macmillan.
4
DEMOCRACY, THE STATE AND
THE CITIZEN
Over the last three decades, if we look at the major discourses of democracy,
specifically in the context of the Third World, one would not fail to notice the
distinction being made between a “procedural” notion of democracy and a
“substantivist” one—wherein the presence of democracy is assessed by the
content of its citizen rights (civil and political) and the functioning of its
constitutional institutions, as well as citizen entitlements in terms of economic
rights and access to public goods and services. These two notions of democracy,
(especially in the context of state-citizen relations), seem an appropriate analytic
framework to discuss democracy, development and issues of public governance,
particularly in the context of developing countries.1
A “procedural democracy” has been defined as a politico-administrative
system that holds regular elections through a system of universal adult franchise
and empowers citizens through a regime of civil and political rights. The
political machinery of the state, and the structure and function of its public
institutions operate within a constitutional legal framework. Whereas a “sub-
stantivist democracy” moves beyond the procedural to translate popular and
legitimate public demands into legislation and then ultimately into effectively
implemented policies to enhance public goods and citizen welfare through
public governance.
Today, public governance is broadly defined as community problem solving
through the trio of state, market and civil society; it is both universal and
country-specific in its agenda and public impacts. Changes in public administra-
tion reflect changing government philosophies in action in every country. Public
administration is always articulated in accordance with its ideological and ecolo-
gical contexts in every state, although attempts to evolve “universal” theories of
its nature, scope and work processes have proliferated, in its one hundred year
plus history, as a discipline.
Democracy, the state and the citizen 53
The need for democracies to continually justify themselves in economic terms

is no longer required in stable democracies, but is inevitable in the context of a
developing country. Political democracies require particular economic and socie-
tal prerequisites for success. Even with the procedures and practices of democracy
put in place, economic failures can derail democracy. Globalization espouses a roll
back of the state, especially in developmental sectors. A regulatory state would
only show a bias in favour of the status quo by cutting back public investments in
the social sectors. Narrowing social disparities to enable economic levelling and
bringing in more beneficiaries of development within its fold, is a continuing
requirement of electoral democracies everywhere. Wherever the state tried to roll
back its welfare benefits or cut down its subsidies for the poor, the state faced
election reversals, mainly in developing democracies.
The good governance agenda

The agenda of “good governance” was first introduced by the World Bank in 1989 in
a document on Sub-Saharan Africa, to elicit more accountability from Third World
countries for money spent. The World Bank (then and now), endorses the role of
governments in (a) the creation and enforcement of rules to make markets work, and
(b) a key role by providing safety nets through a package of public goods like food,
education, health and housing to the poor. In order to provide these public goods, the
state needs to raise revenues and it is these revenues that require accountability,
transparency, clarity about rules and adequate information—the prerequisites of
sound development management. This clearly spells out a regulatory role for the
bureaucracy within a democratic capitalist regime, presided over by a minimalist state.
Central to these arguments is a plea for withdrawal from redistributive commitments,
which are seen as fiscally imprudent and economically unsustainable.
A shift from a procedural view of development (growth = G.D.P.) to a
substantivist thrust came about due to the impact of the Annual U.N.D.P.
Human Development Reports. First published in 1990, these reports initiated an
exercise of a global ranking of states in human development, which were defined
by a composite index measuring the standard of education, health and purchasing
power of citizens in a state. This created a foundational change in the way
development was to be looked at in the 21st century. In the post-globalized era,
the biggest exercise in convergence in the current paradigms of democracy,
development and good governance, can be seen in the explanation of the
Millennium Development goals (which became an acceptable New World
Order project) for all governments by 2015. Never before, in the history of the
post-Second World War era, have 189 countries met at a summit (2000 U.N.
General Assembly) to legitimize goals of good governance at a given point of
time. Later in 2015, these goals, and many more, were pushed forward as a
Minimum Agenda of good governance to be implemented by all signatory States
(all members of the United Nations) by 2030. These goals are now known as
Sustainable Development Goals.
54 Democracy, the state and the citizen
Before we discuss the specificities of good governance, there are a few other
points to be shared. Good governance was and will always, remain contextual and
country specific in its content, since goals are set by political regimes: good
governance is also good politics. It can never be a value free or apolitical project.
Implementation of policies and their outcomes, will always be the result of a
politico-administrative partnership.
Democracy and development both require prerequisites for a “take off”, both
are subject to political agendas of different political regimes. If the discourse on
democracy has moved from procedural to substantivist, so has the discourse on
development after the 1990s. The parameters of good governance may be
politically decided, but ideally the definition of good governance in any society
must be based on the outcome of a political consensus, which can only emerge
from a milieu of democratic politics.
What should governments do?

It is now widely recognized that poverty eradication is not only a development
goal, but also a major human rights challenge of the 21st century. A minimum
standard of living, adequate nutrition, healthcare, education and employment, are
not just development goals, they are also proposed policy goals, for all right
minded governments all over the globe by human rights activists.
The success of development needs to be judged by its impact on the public and
how it improves their standard of living in terms of public goods and utilities
provided to the people. If we want a reformed public governance system these new
questions have to be reinterpreted in practice through changing mandates of the state
in the 21st century, in the developed and developing world. The questions are:
• How do we manage public service delivery in a manner whereby the

declared public policy can be delivered to the target group in the way it
was intended to be? (The policy implementation question).
• How do we ensure organizational and individual service performance standards?
(The standard setting question).
• How do we hold public managers accountable for public mandates? (The audit
and accountability question).
• How do we reward staff for optimal productivity in public agencies? (The
incentivisation question).
• How do we ensure long run organizational sustainability? (The change and
innovation question).
Democracy in the developing world: a case study of India

Demand for democratization was not a mandate of the anti-imperialist
struggle for national independence in India before 1947. As the nationalist
struggle progressed it widened its social base, as greater numbers of people
came within its fold. There was absolute unanimity amongst the constitu-
tion-makers about democracy as a type of political regime for independent
India. Democracy symbolized self-rule for Indians, who had acquired free-
dom from colonial rule.
Democracy, as it is often said, was “imposed” by a constitution in India,
which still happens to be the longest written constitution in the world. Even
operationalizing procedural democracy isn’t easy in a poor, unequal, class-
divided, developing society, with low levels of human development. It took
more than seven decades of political practice to institutionalize the procedural
features (rule of law, free and fair elections, vibrant press, civil and political
rights and dynamic judiciary) and move towards a substantivist model. Non-
governmental agencies, women’s groups, grassroots movements questioning the
existing paradigms of development, the increasing importance of public litiga-
tion cases and judicial intervention in the political economy, became ever
increasing indications of the growing influence of civil society in the public
policy process in India.
Literature focussing on the issue of ungovernability of India began with
Morris-Jones (1989) and continued with Atul Kohli (1991). It is a fear of
constitutional breakdown based on the general rise of a “million mutinies”,
increasing use of violence, criminalization of politics and a rising trend towards
de-institutionalization, scant respect for the rule of law coupled with recurring
subnational movements for greater autonomy. India’s governance problems
originate from the process of institutionalization itself, after independence,
which took years to achieve in every Third World country. Despite all of these
smaller narratives, Indian democracy survived and is more vibrant today than it
ever was before—with an alert press, a sensitive judiciary, grassroots movements
and an increasing number of citizen groups building up a strong “culture of
dissent” within an essentially feudal hierarchical society. When India was able to
sustain democracy in extremely vulnerable conditions (low growth rates till the
1990s, social cleavages, weak fledgling institutions), this signified hope, that with
a changed economic and social environment, Indian democracy would be able to
survive in the future.
Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph see the Indian state (1987) as a polymorphous
creature of manifold forms and orientation. It is a liberal state, a capitalist state and
also a socialist state, depending on whose pressure it yields from time to time.
However, it is now widely accepted that there is a certain amount of autonomy
that the Indian state does exercise, despite the multiple (class caste/region)
pressures to which it is constantly subjected. The foundation of this autonomy is
the democratic political process, where the public policy agenda will ultimately
be geared to the greatest good of the greatest number (an electoral investment),
however, that may be interpreted at a particular point in time by political players.
India is a heterogeneous society, which has led to major social segments
developing their own politics—as demonstrated by the development of political
activity and grassroots movements focusing on the specific demands of women,
lower castes, tribals and minorities in India. In such a scenario there is a need to refocus
on ways to reconnect the state and the citizen by reinventing democratic capacity to serve
citizen needs. In fact, compulsions of electoral politics should force political parties
to broaden their appeal rather than base themselves on constricting religious,
regional, caste or ideological grounds. In a pluralist and diverse society like India,
especially in a democratic context, the basis of one kind of politics (e.g. commu-
nal) gets modified or controlled by other strong contending (e.g. regional/class/
caste-based) issues. No community, caste/class is a monolith in India, they have
regional variations. In a heterogeneous society, power sharing is the only way to
sustain a democracy.
Indian democratic experiment: theoretical inputs

It would be interesting to note if the Indian democratic experience can provide
any theoretical inputs to the changing paradigm of political democracy in the 21st
century. Firstly, India is the only example of a post-colonial country where
democratic political institutions were superimposed by the Constitution, which
have survived, despite the absence of some essential prerequisites: mass literacy,
economic levelling or a full-fledged capitalist economic transformation. Democ-
racy in India did not come about as a response to an absolutist state or as the
realization of an individualist conception of society, and not even as the result of a
Pan-Indian movement. Yet, the Constitution, adopted by Independent India after
a long nationalist struggle for political independence and sovereignty, created a
democratic republic and pledged to secure justice, liberty, equality and fraternity
to all citizens. A liberal democracy was constructed by the political elite in
accordance with its understanding of the modern, liberal, political and democratic
experience of the West.
India has the largest electorate in the world today, having survived a demand
overload, demographic explosion and varied forms of dissent among an extremely
diverse and heterogeneous population, making the Indian democratic experiment
truly unparalleled in 20th century history. The Indian economy has survived ideolo-
gical swings from socialism (1950–1990), to capitalist transformations and resul-
tant adjustments that had to be made with the market (after 1990) and multiple
classes and social groups that constitute India today. Public policies have been
implemented at times, or derailed at other times, due to sheer bureaucratic
inefficiency or pressure of class interests. It is true that democratic politics has
essentially been “accommodative”, e.g. the radical agenda of socialism adopted as
a policy of state by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, was formally
abandoned in 1991 in favour of Structural Adjustment and market policies.
It would perhaps be useful to remember that democracy implies a slow
political movement towards desirable social goals, not radical or swift revolu-
tionary changes. In the current debate about democracy and markets, it is
important to remember that democracy, by its very nature, is inclusionary and
markets are exclusionary. Democracies are elected by majorities of people who
are poor in developing countries; compelling political regimes to implement

redistributive/welfare policies. The state has to mediate to bring the ideals of
economic and political democracy, by trying to reach a compromise between the
economic directions which the market sets on the basis of purchasing power, and
the priorities which a democratic system sets on the basis of the perceived needs
of the electorate.
However, the 21st century will have to see ample economic growth before
economic democracy and entitlements can be ensured for the less advantaged.
The uniqueness of the Indian democratic experiment, has involved learning to
live with one another and sharing power despite gross inequalities, developmental
disparities and regional imbalances, all of which pose grave threats to national
integration. Politics is about power and the forces which influence its distribution
and use; it is essentially about the transformative capacity of governance. Today,
the most important public debate in Indian democracy is the paradox of
differentiated citizen entitlements that exist in a country that makes a constitu-
tional promise of equality and social justice to all.
Even though there is no serious challenge to democracy as a “regime type” in
India, what needs to be outlined is a feasible model of the transformative capacity
of democratic public power in a developing country of continental size and
population, such as India. This also highlights the limits and possibilities of a non-
coercive model of development, like India. In terms of citizen entitlements, the
question often asked is: has India done as much as any democracy could have
done with the human skill, knowledge and resource constraints that it did have?
An evaluation of India’s development is not essentially about growth aggregates,
it is about its distribution to citizens in terms of a package of public goods and
services.
Contrary to popular belief, allocations of development in India have not been meagre at
all, although its implementation may have another story to tell. Herein, the question of
accountability arises: why is it that accountability for public resources sanctioned
and actually spent for that purpose is so rarely debated in the public domain? It is
well known that between allocation and implementation much goes wrong. It would be
interesting to surmise what would have been the state of development in India if
allocated public resources were properly targeted and spent (exactly the way it
was intended to be), through legislators and bureaucrats, down from the village to
the district, state and right up to the centre! Public accountability of public
resources spent is the most serious issue in all democracies, which are usually
“soft” states. This is in contrast to the coercive model of policy implementation
followed in China in a comparable period. In all “outcome” parameters of public
policy, China has a better record.
In developing countries, like India, the people’s representatives are doubly
accountable: both for providing good governance in routine status quo-oriented
administration, in addition to optimizing economic and human development. This
can be achieved through better planning, allocation, targeting and accountability of
public expenditures at all levels of governance. Paucity of resources could be a major
hindrance to its success in developing countries, but the accountability of money

spent is no less important. In recent years, improving accountability mechanisms has
been one of the biggest targets of administrative reform. Data generation by non-
governmental agencies have greatly helped in rating governance; e.g. The Public
Affairs Centre in India prepares an annual Public Affairs Index, which rates
governance through citizen surveys in the 29 sub-national (federal) units of India
through these parameters—education, health, social security, welfare of women and
children, gender equality, law and order, environment, transparency and account-
ability, infrastructure facilities and deliverance of justice. This index is highly rated
for its “authentic” governance ratings, and has greatly increased public awareness
about the parameters of good governance. The 29 states of India are now competing
with each other, not only for public and market resources for development, but also
in terms of their “performance” measured by actual “policy outcomes”. Political
competition is always good for democracies because it is the only way to make
governments aware that good governance is a good electoral investment.
Understanding the Indian model of governance

The greatest tragedy of the Indian state has been that, despite its vibrant democracy,
trained civil service and other potential strengths, it’s under performance has been its
greatest bane. The quality of governance offered by Indian democracy is still
mediocre and “soft”. Democracy has succeeded despite a low-income economy,
widespread poverty, illiteracy and ethnic diversity. Indian democracy has protected
its elite without fully excluding the weaker groups (Kohli 1991). Judged by devel-
oping country standards, India’s greatest asset has been that it has been ruled by
civilian elected governments throughout its post-independent history (since 1947),
with a competent civil service which has always underperformed and has never been
answerable to the public directly. Unlocking India’s potential and enabling it to take
its rightful position in the global stage will require, above all, a strong visionary
political leadership and a world class civil service to manage a country of such
continental proportions in the 21st century. Public management systems are run by
politico-administrative regimes, with every developed state, today, resting on the
strong and able shoulders of a good and efficient civil service which delivers public
goods and services efficiently to the people. Due to the following, India’s public
governance will face huge challenges in the 21st century:
• If India does not respond adequately to climate change, clean up its rivers and
revive its forests, millions of its citizens will be at risk. India, like all other
developing countries, is still groping for an ideal environment development
trade off.
• Human development is the second challenge. India is one of the fastest
growing economies in the world, with a human development ranking (130
out of 188 countries) which is poorer than some of its South Asian
neighbours, and even sub-Saharan Africa.
• The third vital challenge is infrastructure, which is woefully inadequate for a

country like India. India’s public transport, waste management, power and
communication systems are sub-standard, erratic and poor, in comparison to
other developing countries.
• The “soft” state status is its biggest liability. India has one of the largest
administrative systems with one of the poorest public service delivery records in the
world. Yet their salaries constitute 30% of India’s G.D.P.
There is a need to rebuild a relationship of faith and trust between the state and the citizen.
Given India’s practice of democracy over the last seventy years, this can best be realized
through institutionalized statutory citizen entitlements, enabling a demand for reasoned
answers from the bureaucracy.
India’s performance with respect to the Millennium Development Goals (M.D.
G.s)—eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary educa-
tion, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortal-
ity, improving maternal health, combating H.I.V./A.I.D.s, malaria and other
diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership
for development (goals to be reached by 2015), has only been half achieved.
Currently, there has been development in both economic growth and human
development. Globally, India is the fastest growing economy in the world today,
nonetheless, its ranking in human development is 130 out of 188 nations.
Developed countries’ experience today, shows that higher growth is an essential
pre-condition to better equity. With higher growth rates over the last decade, for
the first time in India’s political history, public power may be able to match
public outcomes in human development.
Two prominent economists have recently approached the problem of India’s
continuing struggle with growth from different angles. Jagdish Bhagwati and
Arvind Panagariya (2014) argued that reforms have driven economic growth in
India and has reduced poverty; it can provide a data rich economic story from
which we might address the central development challenge facing the world:
which strategy will lift the greatest number of people out of extreme poverty?
The authors assert that China, India and East Asia’s experiences, demonstrate how
growth is stimulated and sustained within the policy framework that exploits the
opportunities provided by integration into the world economy and relies on a
sophisticated use of market incentives in guiding production and investment.
When China reduced the number of people in poverty by 220 million between
1978 and 2004, it was hailed as the greatest poverty reduction in history. India
has just reduced its number of poor from 407 million to 269 million, a fall of 138
million in the seven years between 2004–05 and 2011–12. This is faster than
China’s poverty reduction rate at a comparable stage of development. This is no
small achievement for a democracy, therefore, Bhagwati and Panagariya are
optimistic about India’s slower but surer growth prospects.
However, in their latest book (2013), Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze lament the
underachievement in health and education, revealed by India’s social indicators,
in spite of years of rapid economic growth. Sen and Dreze argue that only a
market-oriented state can ensure an inclusive democracy by adopting a rights-
based approach to development, where the state reaches out directly to its citizens
by guaranteeing a minimum basket of public goods to all. For all of the real and
impressive strength of India’s private initiatives since 1991 in augmenting India’s
growth, given the scale at which India’s problems have to be tackled and that
solutions must deliver a certain uniformity or universalism of outcome, private
action can’t be a substitute for government action. During India’s hour of need, it needs
to rediscover the necessity of the state and renegotiate the relationship between
the state, markets and society. India is the world’s largest democracy, we need to
make it the most inclusive one too.
Evidence indicates that India has only 1.6 government personnel for every 100
residents (including personnel in the union state and local governments, besides
Public Sector Undertakings), compared to the much higher figures of 3.3 in
South Africa, 3.9 in Mexico, 5.9 in Brazil, 7.2 in Germany, 10.1 in the U.K. and
10.6 government personnel for every 100 residents in Canada (Centre for Budget
and Governance Accountability (India) Report 2014).
Democracy and inequality

From the early 1970s to the first decade of this century, the number of electoral
democracies increased from about 35 to more than 110. Within the international
community, democracy and good governance are widely advocated as intrinsi-
cally desirable and important public goals. The challenge for democracies is not to
simply strengthen electoral accountability so vote-seeking politicians have an
incentive to pay attention to citizen’s needs. It is important to endow the public
governance systems with the capacity, technical skills and resources needed so that
elected leaders can deliver things that most citizens want: food and nutrition,
education, basic health care and sustainable livelihoods. Today’s current growth
rates mean that public power and resources can match effective and efficient
public service delivery systems and citizen entitlements. Therefore, it is impera-
tive to look at the good governance practices initiated by different states in the
developing world in different sectors—infrastructure, education, health, urban
civic services etc., with visible or measureable impacts on the lives of citizens.
It has been more than 70 years since the creation of the Indian democratic
Republic, therefore, it should cease to call itself a nation in “transition”. The first
fifty years witnessed democratic movements for the representation of people’s
diversities in parliament, the government and all major decision making bodies.
That battle is not yet over, but India has now moved beyond procedural
democracy towards implementing a more substantivist vision of democracy. It
has moved beyond the context of representativeness, to looking at the core of
citizen entitlements, i.e. how can a citizen be truly empowered in a democracy?
Unequal citizen access to basic public goods and services is a bane of developing democracies.
It is now well understood that building state capacity to deliver citizen needs and
aspirations, is the primary task of good governance in any democratic state.

Citizens who live in democratic states are asking for more rights and increased
state capacity to implement those rights. The fact that good governance is a
prerequisite for a good substantivist democracy is completely acknowledged in
democratic theory and practice.
The African experience

In Africa, like elsewhere, democracy was understood to mean a political system
where, through regular elections, people could vote and be voted to public office,
choose between different political parties to put a political regime to power and
also change it. To quote Pippa Norris (2016), elections are a barometer of how
well a democracy is functioning. It is clear from democratic practice that
following an election, the political party that wins the majority of seats in the
legislature form the government, while the winning candidates of the non-ruling
party(ies) sit on the “opposition” benches in the legislature. Majoritarian rule is
the acceptable norm for democratic governance, but the “opposition” is also
legitimized. Inclusiveness and the effective representation of all players in government after
an election are also important values for legitimacy, rather than just the sheer
winning by majority (Nyongo 2016). “Dissent” through the legitimization of
opposition parties, with freedom of speech and expression, is another acceptable
norm. Dissent through violence and non-acceptance of the electoral process is the
point of departure. Nelson Mandela, although convinced ahead of the elections in
1994 that the African National Congress (ANC) would get an overwhelming
majority, cautioned against the dangers of this “majority” for the survival and
sustainability of democracy in South Africa. According to Mandela, it was vital
that the ANC gain no more than 67% of the votes in that election, in order to
respect and protect minority rights. The existence of an elected minority as an
“opposition” in the legislature guarantees that “other” voices are being heard.
Even by the standards of qualifying for a free and fair election, in the 2015/16
elections in Africa, this dictum only applied to Mauritius and Nigeria. In 2016 the
outcome saw a slight improvement; of the nine countries which went to the
polls, Benin and Cape Verde were certified to have had free and fair elections by
international observers. The electoral processes in all of the other countries were
marred by malpractices and bias of one sort or the other: stuffed ballot boxes,
intimidation of voters, state instigated violence, intimidation of the media and
disputed electoral outcomes, forced on the electorate by a repressive state
apparatus determined to keep the incumbent regime in power. What appears as
an “acceptance” of the results in most cases, may simply be helpless acquiescence
of the voters.
The euphoria with which “democratic” elections were received in Africa in
the last decade of the 20th century, seem to have received a beating due to the
derailment of electoral procedures in many countries. Should we give up on
elections as part of the democratization process in Africa? Nyongo asserts that
those who consistently refuse to accept the outcome of these undemocratic and
illegitimate elections are perhaps the true friends of democracy. But they will only
remain relevant to the struggle if they offer a new model for electoral democracy
that will be more representative, inclusive and acceptable to the people; creating a
political environment for the qualitative transformation of the lives of millions of
Africans who truly want to believe in democracy, like citizens anywhere else in
the world.
The struggle for democracy as a historical process with many twists, turns and
reversals, is a process that is happening in the South Asian region as well. All of
the countries in this region are now democracies, and are perhaps reaping the
benefits of the “democratic peace” dividend. Interstate wars rarely happen.
Autocracies, where elections are mainly held to legitimize the ruling regimes on
their own terms while undermining the very tenets of democracy, is a phase of
democratic institutionalization which is happening in both South Asia and Africa.
In militarized states, army rulers very often hold “democratic” elections to
“legitimize” their continued stay in office. All of these “aberrations” will continue
in the 21st century, but one is hopeful that the transition from a “procedural” to a
“substantivist democracy” will also happen in the course of this century.
In Uganda, Burundi and Congo, there are democrats bravely leading resistance
movements against democratic reversals in their countries. Such political leaders
understand that democracy is worth fighting for: free and fair elections, demo-
cratic freedoms, political and social inclusiveness, constitutional government,
statutory codification of human rights and a well-managed market economy
promoting social justice, are universally agreed goals, which all states should try
to achieve in the near future.
A democratic regime derives legitimacy from the process by which it comes to
power (procedures) prior to what it does while in power (content). It is elected
into office by citizens, freely and fairly, under the principle of universal adult
suffrage.
Electoral democracy grants all political contestants an equal chance of winning
the election. However, this does not mean that the losing parties lose their right
to participate in, and contribute to, the process of governing after the election.
Democratic ruling regimes only get re-elected when they have delivered on the
promises on which they were elected, including service to those who did not
vote them into power.
One of the electoral promises is, what has largely been referred to as,
development, this includes, among other things, raising the standards of living of
the people through economic growth, employment opportunities and provision
of a large amount of human security for citizens.
As Pippa Norris, in a recent article quoted in The Mail and Guardian Africa,
observes, we may have to revisit and perhaps revise the thesis (Lipset 1959) which
argued that democracies, and by extension, electoral integrity, flourish best in industrialized
and post-industrial societies with widespread literacy and education, an affluent professional
middle class and a pluralistic range of civic associations serving as a buffer between citizens and
the state. Analysis of election data from Africa, by Norris’s Electoral Integrity project
at Harvard University, shows that African countries, which cannot empirically be
regarded as “industrial”, have had convincing “democratic ratings” over the last two
decades, notwithstanding their different levels of economic development measured
in terms of per capita G.D.P. in purchasing power parity. All of these African
countries are different in terms of economic development, with Mauritius perhaps
the most economically developed followed by South Africa, Cape Verde, Namibia,
Botswana and finally Lesotho, in that order. In every election held since 1994 (South
Africa’s liberation from apartheid), most countries have passed the test of holding free
and fair elections with minimal malpractices and substantial integrity. Interestingly,
research studies illustrate factors they have in common: democracy was never
practiced as “majoritarianism”, nor have they criminalized opposition politics. No
matter what happens, the world is finally witnessing the African “revolution of rising
aspirations”—primarily for a democratic transition to take place in their countries,
which they believe (like anywhere else) is the harbinger of “good governance” in all
societies.
Arendt Lijphart (2004) has argued that legitimate democratic governance in
divided societies, such as those found in Africa, should have three elements: a
parliamentary system of government, inclusive representation in the legislature and
inclusive participation in government, where the interests of minorities (such as
women), are adequately taken care of. Lijphart’s earlier theory of consociational
democracy was an approach to democracy that ruled out genuine ideological
competition by political parties offering different alternatives to building demo-
cratic societies. His argument is that a democratic regime is truly perceived as
“unfair” when, after any competitive election, large sections of society feel
“excluded” from the economic, social and political life of a polity in which they
are assumed to be members. Democracy, is generally accepted as the best mode of
governance since people legitimately accept the notion that power is being
exercised in the interest of the general will and not simply the will of the majority.
To craft such a government in divided societies, practices such as power-sharing,
proportional representation and minority representation, are useful instruments
for legitimizing democratic governance.
The trajectory of democracy in the 21st century is witnessing its fair share of ups
and downs in all parts of the globe. Authoritarian countries, led by China and Russia,
have become more assertive, while Iraq, Libya, Syria (Middle East), some Eastern
European countries like Hungary and Poland and some countries of Africa, have
moved towards authoritarianism. In hindsight, 20th century politics seemed to be
defined by ideology based on economic issues, e.g. Left politics was dominated by
welfare and redistributive policies. Right politics espoused a reduction of govern-
ment and the promotion of the private sector. In the 21st century, there has been a
resurgence of “identity politics” represented by race, ethnicity and religion.
Globalization and the subsequent increase in international migration has led to

“localization”, with its growing manifestation of “identity politics” in both democ-
racies and non-democracies (developed or developing). Newly marginalized groups
have come to believe that change threatens their identities (religious, ethnic, sexual),
which are not receiving adequate recognition in national policies. Unless liberal
democracies are able to acquire universal understandings of “human dignity”, 21st
century democracies will not be able to progress into a desirable brand of secular
performance politics (Fukuyama 2018).
Note
1 Some of the arguments presented here on the linkages between democracy, develop-
ment and good governance in theory and practice have been adapted from my
monograph on “Democracy, Development and Good Governance in India”, subse-
quently published as UGC SAP DRS Occasional Paper Series, no. 2, 2012.
References
Bhagwati, J. and A. Panagariya. 2014. Why Growth Matters, U.S. Public Affairs, U.S.A.,
Perseus Book Group.
Fukuyama, F. 2018. The New Tribalism and the Crisis of Democracy. Foreign Affairs, September/
October, 97: 5.
Kohli, A. 1991. Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart, A. 2004. Constitutional Design for Divided Societies. Journal of Democracy, 15(2): 96–109.
Lipset, S.M. 1959. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political
Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1): 69–105.
Morris-Jones, W.H. 1989. The Government and Politics of India, London, Hutchinson & Co.
Norris, P. 2016. Are Poor Societies Stuck with Their Dictators and Failed Elections?
theconversation.com, April 11. https://theconversation.com/are-poor-societies-stuck-
with-dictators-57145.
Nyongo, P.A. 2016. When Elections Fail Twice or More, Can ‘Losers’ Accept the Victors as
Legitimate? Participation, 40(1): 18–20.
Rudolph, L. and S. Rudolph. 1987. In Pursuit of Lakshmi The Political Economy of the Indian
State, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Sen, A. and J. Dreze. 2013. An Uncertain Glory, India and Its Contradictions, London, Penguin.
5
GOOD GOVERNANCE TO
GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT TODAY
Comparative research studies
The 21st-century emphasis on comparative studies in public administration has

rightly expanded the domain of administrative analysis beyond the earlier culture
specific confines of “modernization” (as Westernization) and western democracies
being defined as the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1991). With such cultural and
political preferences, the underlying theoretical framework for comparison was
certainly not free from bias.
The 21st-century upsurge in comparative studies has been termed a “revolu-
tion” by serving the purpose of restructuring theoretical constructs in a more
“scientific” way. Traditional literature of “comparative government” focused on
constitutions, foreign policies, political parties, pressure groups or institutions, in
their formal, structural, functional aspects. Recent studies have critiqued tradi-
tional literature on the ground that: (i) it was culture-bound, i.e. the Western
institutions remained the “ideal” framework wittingly or unwittingly; and (ii) it
was non-comparative in character because, despite the study of several nations
and governments within the same cultural framework, cross-cultural and cross-
temporal analysis and explanations were rare. Recent studies of comparative
public administration regained a respectable status in the academic field, due to
their attempts to evolve more neutral criteria for analysing the societies of
underdeveloped and developing countries. For instance, the Riggsian frame-
work of analysis was pioneering, to a great extent, and is even popular today, in
comparative public administrative research. Presently, there are 193 countries in
the United Nations family of nations. Globalization has not subsumed localization—
both trends run parallel in developing countries. Hence, in the post globalized
era, micro and macro studies can focus on these issues in intra or inter South
comparative studies of administrative structures, behaviour or policy. Besides,
every administration has “stand alone” features. Administration in India is
structured in a Weberian pattern, but the ecology of caste and community
66 Good governance to governing development
influence “rational” bureaucratic outcomes. However, “best practices”

abound, and need to be experimented, in different locales. Ex-socialist
countries are undergoing a transformation which is a challenge to their
bureaucracies. How the public management systems are “behaving”, after
adopting private sector techniques, is a trend that can be studied currently.
There are two factors that make comparative studies significant and relevant in
the 21st century. First of all, generalizations relating to administrative structure
and behaviour in different emerging nations can help formulate theoretical
constructs, which can provide a “scientific basis” to the study of public adminis-
tration, is an old rationale which still holds true.
Secondly, the study of comparative public administration contributes to a
greater understanding of the “stand alone” characteristics of administrative systems
functioning in different nations. Comparative studies also help explain the factors
responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural similarities, as well as differences
between the administrative systems of different states. There are no “pure”
models anywhere. Different “hybrids” exist. Uncovering their successes or fail-
ures, is the responsibility of comparative public administrative studies.
The third important function of comparative public administration relates to its
relevance to real world administrative practices. Through a study of comparative
public administration, administrators, policy makers and academics can examine the
reasons behind the success or failure of particular administrative structures and
patterns in different environmental settings. It is interesting to find out through
comparative analysis, which important environmental factors help in the promotion
of administrative effectiveness and which administrative structures are considered
dysfunctional in what type of environmental setting. Lastly, by learning about various
administrative practices, nations are able to choose which practices they want to
adopt based upon what they feel is appropriate in their ecological settings.
The importance of comparative public administration lies in its academic
utility, in terms of improving the knowledge of other administrative systems so
that appropriate reforms and changes can be brought about in the developed or
developing world. Comparative administrative studies can be conducted at three
analytical levels: macro, middle-range and micro. Macro studies focus on com-
parisons of whole administrative systems in their entire ecological contexts. For
instance, a macro study would involve a comparison of two dissimilar adminis-
trative systems, like China and U.S.A. or two similar ones like India and U.S.A.
(democracies). It will comprise a detailed structural-functional analysis of the
important parts of the administrative systems of two nations. Generally, the
relationship between an administrative system and its external environment are
highlighted in macro level studies. Middle-range studies might focus on certain,
important parts of an administrative system that are sufficiently large in size and
scope for functioning. For instance, a comparison of local government in two
dissimilar countries will form part of a middle-range study.
Micro studies relate to a comparison of an individual organization with its
counterparts in other settings. A micro study might relate to an analysis of a small
Good governance to governing development 67
part of an administrative system, such as the recruitment or training system in two

administrative organizations (e.g. one private and one public). Micro studies are
easier to undertake, with a large number of such studies having been conducted
by scholars of public administration. In the contemporary world, comparative
studies of all three types of research coexist (Basu 2017).
Decolonization and its aftermath

By the end of the 20th century, a large number of nations emerged from colonial
rule as independent sovereign states. There are now 193 member states in the
United Nations, two thirds of them are ex-colonies. During the cold war period,
while the big powers were busy playing their games for hegemony, the entire
developing world was busy planning “modernization” and “development”, the
two biggest challenges for newly independent countries. Public administration
was a critical factor in achieving these objectives. Within the realm of public
administration, bureaucracy has emerged as the most important instrument to
carve policies and deliver public goods. Even today, the role of bureaucracy has
not become redundant, despite the worldwide impact of New Public Manage-
ment, which advocates a reduction in the role of the state and public bureau-
cracies in governance, including the developing world.
The global movement which had the most impact in the 20th century was the
“decolonization” movement: witnessing the emergence of independent states in
Asia, Africa and Latin America from colonial rule. There was a vast difference in
the location, resources, history, culture, political systems and developmental
patterns of these countries, yet they were all deemed as “developing”. Most of
these new self-governing states were caught up in the process of transition, facing
social upheavals, backwardness and administrative chaos. A vast majority of
comparative administration scholars agreed that the two major objectives of all
developmental states were nation building and socio economic progress. The
enormity of the development problems and the urgency of their solution had
thrust upon the bureaucracies of the states (not their fledging private sectors) the
principal burden of accomplishing developmental goals. Despite severe handicaps,
like shortage of capital, skilled manpower and lack of a developmental infrastruc-
ture, Third World governments were confronted with rising expectations from
the people they had to administer. People expected economic miracles from the
government in a short time span. Besides demanding basic utilities, like electri-
city, water supply, drainage, roads and power, the government had to also create
jobs and cater to welfare demands, like the establishment of schools, hospitals,
housing and industrial enterprises.
The importance of administration is almost universally recognized. The private
sector may be induced to fall in line with general public policy, but the majority of
development work would fall on the public sector. Hence, a high degree of
administrative efficiency is vital for nation building and the successful implementation
of development plans, a fact which is universally acknowledged and reflected in the
emergence of a new approach to administration in developing countries (known as

“development administration” in the post-Second World War era).
During the last fifty years, many Third World countries have experienced a
societal transformation and profound changes in their socio-economic and poli-
tical domains. Bureaucracies have had to work with citizens to be able to tackle
their complex developmental problems. In some cases bureaucracy has proved a
pillar of strength during the process of governance; in others it proved to be an
obstacle, due to its innate resistance to change and incapacity to meet a host of
demands. However, in these countries most developmental policies have even-
tually been converted into action through public administration at all levels:
formulation, implementation and evaluation.
Comparative research studies: an emerging sub-discipline

Interest in the study and research of developing countries dates back to the early
1960s, when scholars began to look into common problems in the Third World
(a term made popular by scholars to denote the conglomeration of developing
countries’, which emerged after the end of colonialism), because they had certain
characteristics which were different from either the capitalist (First World) or
socialist (Second World) bloc of countries in which the world seemed to be
divided into at that time.
During the Cold War, in the backdrop, developing countries became the
subject of considerable research by American and West European scholars. Later,
as these countries problems multiplied, Soviet, East European and Afro-Asian
scholars also began to take an interest in these studies. Initially the concentration
of such studies was based upon ideology, politics, economies and social systems,
but later studies began to focus more on policy perspective and public adminis-
tration as an instrument of development.
Three important Third World research perspectives that developed subse-
quently were: (a) empirical studies on economic development and administration
of individual countries, (b) dependency theories regarding underdevelopment and
economic stagnation and (c) theories and empirical studies on comparative and
development administration (Subramaniam 1990). Developing countries could
differ sharply in terms of ethnicity and religion, demography and geography,
political regime and ideology, economic development and international policies,
but there were certain similarities in the structure, function and behavioural
patterns of the bureaucracies, which made them amenable to comparison and
research in public administration.
Research of the 1960s was more focused on the emerging problems in the
movement of Western administrative institutions and processes to underdeve-
loped countries. Bureaucracies were often modelled on the Weberian pattern, but
the outcomes were far from optimal or rational, indicating the true importance of
the environment in which the bureaucracy functioned. Attention, therefore, had
to be focused on the “ecology” of administration of developing countries: the
economic underdevelopment, low levels of industrialization, dependence on

agriculture, centralization of political authority, ethnic disintegration and the
demand overload, which makes the administrator’s job difficult to manage.
However, none of the studies attempted to correlate each of these variables,
either in a comparative framework or with respect to the case studies of
individual countries, with a view to establishing a co-relationship between
bureaucracy, development and governance. In fact, the word “governance” had
not even gained prominence in the literature of comparative studies till the 1980s,
or in the first two decades of the 21st century.
Subramaniam (ibid) opines:
All of these studies focus on the trio of the state, the political and the
intellectual elite, and an urge toward development. Bureaucracy as a group
and public administration as an institution and process receive minimal
attention. This may be partly because the state is treated as inclusive of the
bureaucracy or because the bureaucracy is regarded as merely one of the
instruments of development along with other factors.
(Subramaniam 1990)
Bureaucracy as an instrument of development

More than six decades have passed since the process of decolonization began
and changed the world map, setting the stage for the emergence of the so-
called Third World countries on the world podium. While the pattern of
political change and leadership has differed in each of these states, political
sovereignty has been established in most, though some of these political
regimes often lack effectiveness and internal legitimacy. In these societies, the
image of the state has varied from being one of a strong centralized figure,
modernizing new nations, to a weak state that is virtually helpless, caught
amidst destabilizing forces. However, in all of these countries: Asia, Africa and
Latin America, despite economic and social upheavals, administrative capacities
and resources have grown, while developmental infrastructures have begun to
even out gradually. In some societies, the demands on the state, by different
pressure groups, have grown to such an extent that the state is said to have
become incapable of governing, despite all of the resources and tools that it
may be able to command. The incapacity of most Third World bureaucracies
to respond to the demands of the public, have been deemed the one single
factor responsible for the stereotypical image of the “deviant and dysfunctional
bureaucrat” in practice, in contradistinction to the theory of bureaucratic
“rationality” espoused by Max Weber in the 19th century.
A common feature that has dominated political discourse in Third World
countries, has been the ideology of “development”, incorporating a concept of
socio-economic progress (measured by concrete and quantifiable human wel-
fare goals) without specifying the exact form of the machinery, for either
politics or administrative action, to fulfil its targets. However, with the advent
of the “administrative state” in the 20th century, bureaucracy, as an instrument
of state action, seems to have become the principal vehicle for the accomplish-
ment of development goals in all developing countries. Concerns have been
expressed about bureaucracies possibly straying from their instrumental role to
become the primary power-wielders in societies. The “political” role of bureau-
cracy has become one of the subjects of social science discourse in the developing
world. The legacy of colonialism permeating the newly independent state bureau-
cracies of all ex-colonies in the 20th century, has been regarded with negative
connotations. In addition, Third World states have found themselves deficient in
skilled, technically competent and specialist manpower, necessary for their devel-
opment purposes, resulting in low administrative capacities (Jain 1989). Despite
conflicting views about the role of bureaucracy in modern societies, there is a
general consensus among scholars that it is indispensable; acting as the basic
instrument, not merely of development, but ultimately of good governance, as
defined and discussed later in this chapter.
The policy perspective

In the 1980s and 1990s, studies and research of bureaucracy in developing
countries began to be greatly influenced by the policy perspective. They have
all attempted to study the growing and critical role of public bureaucracies in the
process of nation building, socio-economic development, policy formulation,
implementation and evaluation. Several studies have touched on a variety of
issues concerning the structures of bureaucracy and their interaction with the
political and administrative processes in the developing societies of Asia, Africa
and Latin America. Whilst in some countries, bureaucracy emerged as a source
of strength to the political system; in others, bureaucracies (both civil and
military) had a more overt political role. However, in general, bureaucracies
have been criticized for their tendency towards routinization, their lack of
innovation and irresponsiveness to legitimate public opinion and policy imple-
mentation. Such criticism aside, scholars have hardly focused on the environ-
mental pressures faced by the bureaucracies that make them dysfunctional or
unresponsive. Today, perhaps in hind sight, we can say that the success of public
policies in 21st-century developing societies, lies not only in a rational or new
breed of public service, but, to a large extent, on the complex interplay of a
number of ecological (political and cultural) factors, which must be considered
when attempting to make bureaucracy less dysfunctional, or a more effective
institution of development.
The focus has now shifted to policy studies instead of bureaucracy studies as
the primary instruments of development. Emphasis is now on the importance of
improving public policy making as a major approach, to meet the development
challenge and as the only way of minimizing the widening gap between
industrialized and developing countries.
At the beginning of the 1990s, in an apparent effort to complement and

offload some functions of the state and government agencies, alternative institu-
tions, such as private and nongovernmental organizations, were encouraged to
participate, and take initiatives, during the process of development program
formulation, implementation and evaluation. This redefinition, and rethinking,
of state–society relationships brought some questions to the surface, such as what
role bureaucracy can play in the formulation and implementation of public
policy. Has its erstwhile dominant post-colonial status, as the principal agent of
rapid socio-economic development, become redundant and unnecessary? Can the
state be restricted to its traditional regulatory role in the context of globalizing
economies and politics?
Despite these questions being raised again and again—and more so in the
context of globalization, it is impossible to deny the fact that a major contribution
to the policy process still comes through public bureaucracies. Thus, whatever
may be the future developments in the 21st century (whether the state outsources
its functions or reinvents its role), bureaucracies have not become completely
irrelevant or dispensable. This is more so in developing countries, which are still
struggling to find viable and responsive replacements after opening up various
sectors of the economy to the private sector. There is an urgent need to redefine,
and revisit, the role of bureaucracies in developing societies. The last word on
their so-called “inefficiency” or “ineffectiveness” as a tool of development has not
yet been said.
As “communism”, as a practicing political ideology, begins to decline, a trend
towards “democratization”, as an alternative model of development is being
attempted, not only in the previous Third World but also in the former East
European ex-socialist countries of the Second World. In all of these countries,
politics and administration are crucial concepts for the study and interpretation of
state–society relationships, the nature of public policies, the way policies are
formulated and the strategy of their implementation. During the post-liberal-
ization phase, concern has begun to grow regarding the consequences of the
increasing levels of corruption in the administration of developing countries.
Solutions have been suggested to “clean” administration and bureaucracy, to
make it more transparent, representative and responsive, to ensure “good govern-
ance” in countries which need it most.
Public bureaucracies in developing countries

The outcomes of research, some general features that characterize the functioning
of public bureaucracies in the developing countries, can now be part of the
theory, the ecology and workings of administrative systems of the non-developed
world. The 20th century witnessed the rise of the administrative state every-
where, especially in diverse political regimes. Developing countries sought to
improve their performance, as well as that of their public sector, by expanding the
structure and diversifying the functions of their public bureaucracies. Contrary to
their intentions, this rapid and immense diversification, instead of creating optimal
bureaucratic outcomes, led to a demand overload and bureaucratic in-effectiveness
and deficit. Public sectors were too busy managing gigantic infrastructure projects
such as steel, roads, basic consumer and tourism related industries, to pay adequate
attention to health or education. Therefore, performance in human development
related sectors remained inadequate. Function overload or overstaffing can lead to
an increase in regulations, rules and legal frameworks, but not necessarily more
effective controls. Authority is not essentially proportionate with the responsibility
of a public administrator; higher authorities do not always possess the power of
control, like authoritarian rulers. In the developing world, the public sector is
usually more fragmented by multiple layers of authority. Decentralization can have
long term beneficial effects, but there is increasing evidence to suggest that, in the
short run, it is weakening the capacity of the state to deliver public services
efficiently. Lastly, despite ample opportunities to learn from past experiences,
public organizations, overburdened with repetitious tasks and problems, tend to
repeat the same mistakes (Chaudhry, Reid and Malik 1994).
Problems of research in comparative administration

The body of knowledge that emerges from empirical research is period specific and
not sustainable over a long period, due to frequent changes in data, especially in
transitional societies. This is not always conducive to comparative studies develop-
ment of theory. However, despite these limitations, comparative research has
significance during practice. It enables researchers to develop a set of hypotheses
when testing some of the universal aspects of administrative phenomena, in particular
environmental settings, as well as other cross-national perspectives. A considerable
amount of this type of work, will lead to comparative studies of bureaucratic
behaviour and public policy making, implementation and evaluation. In the context
of a developing country such as India—and I believe in the context of most
developing societies—the findings, regarding the impact of traditional social values
and social structures, such as family, tribe, caste or class on bureaucratic group
dynamics, would be an important dimension when trying to understand the persist-
ing realities of administrative operations in developing societies. However, even
today, knowledge relating to administrative realities in developing societies (close to
150) has largely remained sporadic and limited. For one thing, the elements of reverse
prejudice and “ethnocentrism”, that generally crept in such research, have tended to
make these findings parochial, localized and with limited application.
Scholars, in many developing countries, face the problem of a lack in authentic
data and material for research and analysis—and more so across national frontiers.
The time and costs involved in residing and researching in unfamiliar terrain may
be a deterrent. Moreover, some governments may not allow foreign researchers’
access to confidential, official data. Some variables are simply not capable of being
quantified. General, or cross-national, variables are applicable for comparable
institutions in different countries, but the unique character of some administrative
policies or institutions cannot be hypothesized using general models of compar-

ison. Problems may arise from the interrelationships amongst the norms, struc-
tures and behaviour of administrative systems. Models and theories must take into
account all of these factors. Furthermore, any serious comparative research must
consider the study of societies as a whole, which ideally requires an interdisci-
plinary approach when studying administrative phenomena.
In many developing countries, the study of public administration through an
interdisciplinary approach is still in its early stages. Models are difficult to build,
and researchers have found the comparative method of research more difficult
than the empirical or behavioural approach—techniques that have, to some
extent, been perfected (Jain 1989, 2005, 2007).
Best practices from the South: an Indian example

The most important practical utility of comparative policy research is the opportunity
to learn from the best practices and then apply them in national policy practices. The
Indian public healthcare system is a good example of what others (especially countries
of the South) can learn from (innovations in medical education, patents and
practices), and what India should learn from other developing countries. Health
inequalities in the global South emerge when there is insufficient public health
financing and public health infrastructural facilities. A lack of adequate public
provisioning can result in healthcare being under provided, socially, with large
sections of the poor being denied access to adequate healthcare. In developing
countries equities are also based on location, class, gender and socio-economic status.
In general, the status of public health in India is much worse than other B.R.I.
C.S. countries, despite the fact that India have comparable levels of G.D.P. and
per capita income. India accounts for 21% of the global burden of disease, and is
also home to some of the greatest maternal, new born and child deaths in the
world. Public health expenditure in India is just above 1% of G.D.P. Other low
income countries spend 1.45% G.D.P. on health. With just $16 per capita public
expenditure on health, India ranks amongst the lowest in its own region and
South East Asia. Not surprisingly, India’s life expectancy is lower than Bangla-
desh, Bhutan and North Korea. India also has one of the lowest ratios of public to
private health expenditure amongst the B.R.I.C.S. countries. While healthcare
spending in the U.S. and U.K. are 15% and 8.5% of their overall expenditure
respectively, the corresponding value for B.R.I.C.S. countries hovers around 5%.
Despite the apparent inequities regarding access to healthcare, it is well known
that Indian doctors and the private healthcare infrastructure are amongst the best in
the world. Some of India’s world class corporate hospitals provide healthcare at
almost one third of the cost, compared to Europe and America. Therefore, India is a
great beneficiary of “medical tourism”, whereby people from several countries in the
South come to India to get medical treatment. State of the art medical treatments and
surgeries (at least cost), combined with world class doctors and surgeons have made
India an important medical destination in the developing world.
In public healthcare too, India has taken significant strides. India has been declared
free from polio and smallpox, and has systematically reduced the number of cases of
tuberculosis, malaria and meningitis. India has a good record regarding new innova-
tions and drug patents; e.g. MenAfriVac is a vaccine that was created in India and has
brought meningitis numbers substantially down in Africa. Indians are better nour-
ished today than they were at the time of independence (1947), and they live about
twice as long, on average. From a historical perspective, India has gone through its
own “great escape”, as Deaton (2013) aptly describes the unprecedented improve-
ment of living standards that happened around the world in the second half of the
20th century. While there are indications that the health gap between India and its
neighbours has narrowed in recent years, India has still got a long way to go in
achieving Bangladesh’s immunization rates or Nepal’s levels of sanitation coverage.
However, India’s biggest challenge revolves around putting a functioning
system of universal healthcare (U.H.C.) in place, sometime in the 21st century,
whose basic principle remains that quality healthcare should be guaranteed “to all
members of the community irrespective of their ability to pay”. U.H.C. is now
well accepted in Europe, but not as a policy principle in the U.S.A. A growing
number of developing countries (including Brazil, China, Mexico and Thailand)
have made giant strides towards U.H.C. in the 21st century. In fact, outside Sub-
Saharan Africa, nearly half of the world population lives in a country where the
healthcare system is based on the U.H.C. principle.
In India, debates on the healthcare system have begun. While there is some degree
of consensus that the current moribund public system cannot serve the health needs
of its citizens in the 21st century, there are still major divergences regarding the
solutions offered. One school of thought would like India to continue with the
rapidly growing trend of privatizing current public health institutions; others have
argued that there is a case for strengthening existing public health infrastructure,
coverage and services for the average citizen by raising public healthcare funding to
5% of G.D.P., which is now recognized as the minimum required for low and
middle income countries (Mcintyre, Mehens and Rottingen 2017).
Interestingly, the latest National Health Policy (2017) in India is based upon a
mixture of these two approaches. First of all, strategic purchasing of curative
health services from both the public and private sectors can enable India to
achieve its goal of universal healthcare. Secondly, there is a harmony of purpose
between public and private healthcare delivery systems, which allow the private
sector to be used for achieving public health goals. India hopes to achieve its S.D.G.
Health Goals by 2030 by pursuing this mixed approach outlined in its National
Public Health Policy. We wait for the outcome.
Concept of good governance

After experimenting with different models of bureaucratization to achieve political
goals, today, most developing countries are in the process of devising strategies to
meet the challenges of “good governance”, a concept that has become popular as a
result of the impact of globalization, liberalization and the New Public Management
(N.P.M.) paradigm, since the early 1990s. In addition, the World Bank’s sustained
pressure on governments to introduce governance reforms in their politico-admin-
istrative systems so as to fully benefit from the World Bank’s new developmental
initiatives, triggered political and economic changes in these societies.
The term “governance”, in its earlier interpretation, was used to describe the
procedures of decision-making and the process by which policies are implemen-
ted. However, it has now become a broad concept, defined as the exercise of
governmental power through formal and informal (private or voluntary sectors)
institutions for policy making and implementation in public interest.
In an evolutionary process, the sub-discipline of “development administration”
transcended to a broader framework of “governance”, and then, from the 1990s,
to the philosophy and actions inherent in the concept of “good governance”.
The concept of good governance seems to have first appeared in a 1989 World
Bank report on Africa, which defines the features of good governance to include
“an efficient public service; an independent judicial system and legal framework
to enforce contracts; an independent audit of public funds, respect for the law and
human rights at all levels of government; a pluralistic political structure; and a free
press”. The World Bank reconfirmed this approach in its 1992 statement in
Governance and Development, which treats good governance as “synonymous with
sound development management” (the World Bank 1992).
However, critical views regarding the relationship between democracy, devel-
opment and governance, have not necessarily converged. While some people are
emphatic about democracy, others stress the importance of administration or
administrative development for achieving the goals of development administra-
tion. Whilst others consider the democratic condition neither a necessary or
desirable component of development. However, despite these differences, good
governance has generally been thought of as consisting of three main compo-
nents, or levels, ranging from the most to the least inclusive: systemic, political
and administrative (Leftwich 1993).
From a systemic point of view, “governance” includes both internal and
external political and economic power, as well as the interrelationship between
the two, to indicate the rules by which the productive and distributive life of a
society is governed. From a political point of view, good governance implies a state
which enjoys both legitimacy and authority, derived from a democratic mandate.
This usually involves a pluralist polity with representative government, and a
commitment to protect human rights. According to the narrow perspective of
administration, good governance means an efficient, open, accountable and audited
public service, with the bureaucratic competence to design and implement appro-
priate public policies and an independent judicial system to uphold the law (ibid).
However, since the advent of globalization in the 1980s, the above character-
istics of good governance have undergone further modifications. Good govern-
ance now means a democratic capitalist regime, with minimal intervention in the
market and the economy. This is also the part of the “desirable” governance
paradigm of the New World Order. Translated into administrative terms, it not
only means a diminished role for the state, but also a continuous process of
debureaucratization and a co-existence of the private and public sectors, with an
ever increasing role for the non-state voluntary sector during society’s develop-
ment processes (Jain 2005). Civil society is required to act as a watchdog in the
activation and preservation of “good governance” in all societies.
Democracy, development and good governance

There is a considerable body of literature in the context of developing countries,
looking at whether democracy should precede development or a certain measure
of development is required for the success of democracy. There has been much
debate amongst scholars and policy makers in many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin
America, stating that the imposition of democracy in under-developed and
socially backward societies may actually impede development in its early stages,
when democratic procedures may hamper quick decision making. The hassle of
cutting through red tape is one of the reasons why effective state intervention in
most sectors of the economy is needed for rapid development. Since the early
stages of development require capital accumulation for infrastructure and invest-
ment, democratic systems are unlikely to generate the resources required, as it is
difficult for them to adopt strict financial disciplines. However, other critics argue
that democracy and development are compatible and complementary to one
another. If there was a trade-off between development and democracy, they
claim, that a slightly lower rate of growth is an acceptable price to pay for a
democratic polity, civil liberties and a good human rights record (Leftwich 1993).
Clearly, the empirical literature does not endorse either view, nor does it suggest a
necessary relationship between democracy and development, or regime type and
economic outcomes. The 20th century is a testimony to the, now empirically
proved, fact that both democratic and non-democratic regimes have been able to
generate high levels of economic growth and development. Not one example of
sustained growth in the developing world has occurred under laissez faire economies,
whether democratic or not. From Brazil to China, Botswana to Malaysia, the state has
played an active role in influencing economic behaviour, often intervening in the
economy and the market, using various instruments of control. As a result, it is not the
type of regime, but the kind of state (e.g. hard state versus soft state) and its associated
politics that have been decisive in influencing developmental performance. This brings
us back to the key role of politics, not simply governance, but as a central determinant
of development. Sometimes, democratic politics has been viewed as a struggle between
politics and bureaucracy, which may not always be the case. Developing countries have
usually provided a receptive environment for the development of bureaucratic power,
because trained and capable administrative structures had been bequeathed, by the
colonial powers, to the newly independent countries, in most cases.
The states growing involvement in the direct management of the economy,
the absence of alternative centres of expertise, the colonial legacy of bureaucratic
dominance and the frequent fusion of party and state in single-party systems in
most developing countries, gave rise to concerns about the capacity of political
institutions to control bureaucracies, remain autonomous and fulfil the require-
ments of political democracy and governance. There was a serious dilemma
during the 1960s and 1970s, regarding whether public bureaucracy has any
inherent advantage, looking at its high cost of maintenance and the political
vigilance required to control it. This realization led to a concomitant search for
debureaucratization and alternatives to the administrative state (Asmerom and Jain
1993). This dilemma seems to have been resolved in the late 1980s, in favour of
accepting bureaucracy as an important tool of governance, but not as the
predominant force in the good governance process.
The World Bank’s current model no longer equates “good governance” with
“sound development management”, as denoted in its governance index devel-
oped by Kaufmann and his colleagues (Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi 2003).
According to Kaufmann et.al, there are six essential dimensions when measuring
the governance index of any country: (a) voice and accountability, (b) political
stability, (c) government effectiveness, (d) regulatory quality, (e) rule of law and
(f) control of corruption. This index has achieved worldwide acclaim, and
Kaufmann and his colleagues have usefully operationalized this notion of govern-
ance in a comparative analysis, covering a number of countries.
“Development administration”, “good governance” and

“governing development”
Many scholars, across the world, support the view that a new concept of “sustain-
able development” is becoming a new paradigm in the global study and practice of
public administration. This, by various definitions, refers to the efforts undertaken
to achieve environmental sustainability by governments, people and institutions, in
most countries. A holistic approach to sustainable development requires both
developed and developing nations to be responsible for maintaining a balance
when it comes to the environmental survival and human development of their
citizens. There is a growing understanding that development administration is not
exclusively related to developing nations. Instead, development is a universal phenom-
enon, and all countries, including advanced ones, are engaged in “governing
development” in some way or the other (Farazmand 2001).
Countless things have changed in the last two decades, but elements of
continuity remain. Public administration will remain a challenge when aiming
for a better society and world, just as it was in the past. Rosenbloom and
Kravchuk (2002) state, to improve public administration is to improve civiliza-
tion. While there are numerous challenges to governance in developing coun-
tries, there have been several success stories of sustainable progress made towards
good governance. In their governance survey project, Hyden, Court and Mease
(2004), examine bureaucratic effectiveness in 16 developing countries by using six
indicators: participation, fairness, decency, accountability, transparency and
efficiency. These indicators provide a comparative framework when assessing the

performance of governments across the world.
The researchers’ analysed the governance performance, based on these criteria,
of several countries between 1995 and 2000. Six countries scored highly: India,
Chile, Jordan, Malaysia, Tanzania and Thailand. Apart from India and Chile,
which have been practicing democracies for a long time, the other countries have
more recently shifted towards democratic systems of governance. The major
components of governance reforms clearly evident in this group of countries
are: organization and function reform, personnel and management reform,
capacity-building, local government and regional administration reform, as well
as systematization of public recruitment rules and procedures.
Additionally, the inculcation of the values of effective leadership, standard
setting, productivity, innovativeness, integrity, discipline, accountability and pro-
fessionalism in the public service, highlight the significant similarities. This
includes administrative improvements, measures adopted for developing public-
private partnerships, total quality management and ethics in public management.
The concept of “good governance”, not only incorporates some of these
concerns but provides a valuable message: public administration still remains a critical
factor in governing the development of all nations in the 21st century.
The global concern for good governance will revolutionize the prevalent
hierarchical, bureaucratic governmental structures, not only in developing coun-
tries, but also in the developed world. The movement of policy makers across the
globe, to operationalize reforms seems to be a step in the right direction.
However, the “content” of good governance may be culture and country
specific. In fact, the need to be “inclusive” and context specific, indicates the
changing contours of the sub-discipline of comparative public administration, and
reflects its growing importance in collecting data for the best governance practices
in every part of the world, so as to create better theories.
Having analysed the status of public administration and having identified trends
of its growth in a Status Report, Vidhu Soni (2003) argues that in the 21st century,
the culture of public administration will be more complex; emphasizing perfor-
mance and personal responsibility, operationalized through a more diverse and
flexible civil service. Public governance will have to face various pressures when it
comes to the growth of democratic and human rights consciousness. The inherent
tensions between globalization and localization, the blurring of public-private
divides and increasing global pressures on domestic public policy, will ignite
significant operational innovations now, and in the future.
Reinventing government, new public management and

post-modernism
Some scholars have regarded the movement to “reinvent” government as an example
of postmodern politics. These scholars argue that the work and study of public policy
formulation and implementation occurs in a context so fundamentally different from
the past, that we have crossed over from one era (modernity) to another
(postmodernity).
The transgression from modernity to postmodernity, is associated with the
movement from an industrial to a post-industrial society; from an economy based
primarily on the production of material goods to one being based primarily on
information technologies, services and consumption.
What does this have to do with the reinvention movement in public admin-
istration? Charles J. Fox identifies three issues: downsizing vs. employee morale,
performance measurement and customer service inherent in the reinventing
movement. Fox points out the unsynthesized inconsistencies surrounding these
main building blocks of reinvention (Fox 1996).
Due to the “reinvention” movement, many countries have recently
attempted to limit the role of the state, downsized bureaucracy, reduced
public expenditure, contracted out governmental work to private entrepreneurs
and, in the process, designed a new paradigm of public administration (New
Public Management). What influence, if any, these measures have had on the
morale and effectiveness of public servants needs to be studied in a compara-
tive perspective.
New Public Management has had a huge impact on public-sector manage-
ment and the consumers of public services. N.P.M. focuses on the efficiency and
effectiveness of employees, service standards, replacement of hierarchical struc-
tures with decentralized management, cost-effective policy outcomes, new per-
sonnel management to provide more flexible deployment of staff, new
mechanisms and incentives to improve performance (such as performance con-
tracting) and greater accountability and transparency of public agencies (Shand
1998). N.P.M. activists have vocally maintained that the impacts have generally
been positive.
The need for an active relationship between citizens and administrators is
currently being addressed through a variety of responses. A number of authors
have supported the initiative to redefine public administration so that it can better
comprehend and deal with a responsive and collaborative citizenry. Two books:
Fox and Miller’s Postmodern Public Administration (1995) and David Farmer’s The
Language of Public Administration (1995), are sympathetic to the postmodern
perspective, and both, in different ways, advocate a citizen-oriented public
administration. While Fox and Miller call for a public administration grounded
in dialogue, Farmer’s idea entails an “anti-administrator” approach, whose pri-
mary point of reference is the other, with the client or citizen being served
(McSwite 1997).
As already noted, the strength of the sub-field lies in its continuing and
growing concern for the welfare and progress of almost two-thirds of United
Nations members. The journey from severe governance deficits to “good
governance”, has been challenging, traumatic and, at times, transformative for

developing nations. It has had its ups and downs, in terms of political and
administrative decay and development. These have arisen in different dimen-
sions and varied forms in various developing countries. The concept of good
governance is also undergoing seminal changes, in line with the changing
times. Citizens are demanding to know why basic economic rights, public
goods and services, that have been the continuing responsibility of the state,
have still not been put in place. Why does poverty, hunger, education and
health deprivations still occur in large parts of the world? In the 21st century,
citizens have a right to ask for more—the concept of “human security” covers
all of these dimensions.
Could the changing concept of good governance respond to these challenges?
The answer to some of these questions will depend on the extent to which the
state functionaries are able to enhance their bureaucratic and administrative
“capacities” in every situation. Whether in a developed or developing country,
“governing development” is the new challenge of our times. 193 countries of the
United Nations have pledged to operationalize the collectively framed Sustainable
Development Goals by 2030—S.D.G.s have rightly begun to acquire the status of
a Minimum Agenda of Good Governance.
Based on what has been discussed before, we can conclude that understanding
and interpreting the concept of “good governance” and reaching a consensus on
its precise meaning, is a complex phenomenon and a complicated task—not only
in developing societies, but in advanced countries as well. Unless a consolidated
effort is made to use different approaches and methods of data collection and
analysis, contextual interpretations, case studies of significant administrative and
policy processes, using comparative techniques which will help to understand the
long-term impact of the phenomena of “bad and good governance”, viable and
authentic comparative administrative studies will not be available in the public
domain.
As students of public administration, we must codify the results of representa-
tive, cooperative and collective research, to enable us to comprehend emerging
administrative “peculiarities” more perceptively in different ecological settings.
This may act as a catalyst in our quest for a theoretical framework, and an
acceptable paradigm for the study of public administration in developing societies.
This, in turn, may enable us to theorize not only the concepts of “development
administration” and “good governance”, but eventually lead us to an overarching
general theory of “public administration”, which has so far eluded scholars all
over the world.
References
Asmerom, H.K. and R.B. Jain, eds. 1993. Politics, Administration and Public Policy in Developing
Countries: Examples from Africa, Asia and Latin America, Amsterdam, VU University Press.
Basu, R. 2017. Public Administration Concepts and Theories, New Delhi, Sterling.
Chaudhry, S.A., G.J. Reid and W.H. Malik, eds. 1994. Civil Service Reform in Latin America
and the Caribbean, The World Bank Technical paper No. 258. Washington, DC, The
World Bank, 22–5.
Deaton, A. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth and the Origins of Inequality, Princeton, NJ,
Princeton University Press.
Farazmand, A. 2001. “Comparative and Development Public Administration: Past, Present,
and Future” in A. Farazmand (ed.) Handbook of Comparative and Development Public
Administration, New York, Marcel Dekker.
Fox, C.J. 1996. Reinventing Government as Postmodern Symbolic Politics. Public Administration
Review, 56(3) (May–June): 256–62.
Fukuyama, F. 1991. The End of History and the Last Man, London, Hamish Hamilton.
Hyden, G., J. Court and K. Mease. 2004. Making Sense of Governance; Empirical Evidence from
16 Developing Countries, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.
Jain, R.B., ed 1989. Bureaucratic Politics in the Third World, New Delhi, Gitanjali.
Jain, R.B., ed 2005. Globalization and Good Governance; Pressures for Constructive Reforms, New
Delhi, Deep and Deep.
Jain, R.B., ed. 2007. Governing Development across Cultures, Germany, Barbara Budrich
Publishers.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi. 2003. Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators
for 1996–2002. http://info.Worldbank.org/governance/kkz2002/sc_chart.asp (accessed
April 26, 2004, and November 2, 2005).
Leftwich, A. 1993. Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World. Third World
Quarterly, 14(3): 605–24.
Mcintyre, D., F. Mehens and J.A. Rottingen. 2017. What Level of Domestic Government Health
Expenditure Should We Aspire to for Universal Health Expenditure Should We Aspire to for
Universal Health Coverage? Health Economics, Policy and Law, 12: 125–37.
McSwite, O.C. 1997. Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis, Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Rosenbloom, D.H. and R.S. Kravchuk. 2002. Public Administration: Understanding, Manage-
ment, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector, New York, McGraw Hill.
Shand, D. 1998. New Public Management: Challenges and Issues in an International Perspective.
Indian Journal of Public Administration, 44(3) July–September: 714–21.
Soni, V. 2003. Public Administration and Governance in Developing Countries in the Last Quarter
Century: A Status Report. Paper prepared for IPSA Political Science Development 2000
project.
Subramaniam, V. 1990. “Introduction” in V. Subramaniam (ed.) Public Administration in the
Third World: An International Handbook, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1–13.
The World Bank. 1992. Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, Washington,
DC, The World Bank.
6
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE
21ST CENTURY
Dilemmas and challenges
At its core, public administration refers to the wide range of mandates and
functions that are carried out by public officials and agencies involved in public
governance. Governance collectively constitutes laws, rules and administrative
practices that are formulated by political regimes to provide public goods and
entitlements to the citizens of a state. Public administration includes work
processes, routine patterns of behaviour and discretionary decisions that public
bureaucrats at all levels—from the highest to the lowest—exercise on a daily
basis. Public policies are made by political regimes, involving authoritative
actions; implementation, however, is undertaken by public officials in a series
of decisions—sometimes following precedents, at other times exercising discre-
tion. Public bureaucracies work in areas related to planning, budgeting, law
enforcement and social services, ranging from education and healthcare to
environmental protection.
The interaction and sharing of power and authority among public authorities
and agencies involved in the governing process is highly complex. In most
administrative systems authority is divided between higher and lower units; for
instance, the American national government shares governing responsibility and
authority with fifty state governments and numerous other units operating at
county, municipal and district levels. Britain possesses a relatively centralized
system in which the central government delegates specific functions and mandates
to various “sub-national” units. Local administration in Britain is dispersed over
300 districts, which are overseen by mayors and district councils, covering public
transport and housing to public health and education, these agencies provide basic
services. In every state, politics and administration are intertwined. Each level of
governance derives its powers from the constitution, or from acts of Parliament.
In India, the power of all three levels of government—national, state and local—
are constitutionally derived, which also defines the functions (sectors of work)
Public administration in the 21st century 83
given to each level. India’s bureaucracy is subsequent to China’s, but only in size.
The public governance sector, at a national level, constitutes approximately 800
politicians (The Council of Ministers and the members of Parliament), 6000 in
the 29 states, in addition to the 19 million employees (approx.) of Central and
State governments. There are nearly 3 million representatives elected to govern at
local level. About 1.87% of Indians govern 1.3 billion people.
Government and business

Since the 1990s, under the world-wide influence of New Public Management
and right wing political demands for cutbacks in public expenditure, public
agencies were forced to take on reduced mandates and tasks, in the face of
diminishing public funds and resources. Since then, public agencies, at all levels,
are being forced to “offload”: do more with less. The trend for “leaner and
trimmer” forms of government has compelled policy makers and public sector
managers across national, sub-national and local units, to shift their emphasis from
procedure-based expansionary practices to cost effective efficient outcomes. Since
the last decades of the 20th century, public administrators have been confronted
with the notion of changing the way they do things, in order to meet quantita-
tively measured targets and performance-based benchmarks. We are witnessing,
everywhere, an ongoing tension between the democratic values of “equity and
equality”, and the market values of “profit and efficiency”.
It is important to repeat an axiom—the state and the market are essential for a
well-functioning society. However, applying the business logic of efficiency and
profitability to the public sector overlooks a simple fact: the purpose and function
of each of these two sectors are distinct and should be kept so. The public sector
exists so as to provide “public goods”, or those services society as a whole pays
for and from which no one can be excluded from. This includes utilities such as,
public roads and transport, schools, hospitals and bridges. On the other hand, the
private sector, provides goods and services that are privately sold to consumers at
the market place. Both sectors provide goods and services to the public; private
goods are purchased by the public as consumers, the public goods are given away
free (or at subsidized rates), as part of the tax payers’ entitlement from the state.
When questioning the appropriateness of applying business rationales to the
public sector, many economists have argued that many privately sold and
consumed items may be highly expensive in the market but they provide little
“public value” in contributing to a well-functioning society. On the other hand,
necessities such as defence, public safety, universal education and healthcare, often
provide enormous social value. These goods are given as “entitlements” to all
citizens, equally to the tax-paying public, as well as the non-tax paying public.
The non-excludability and universalistic elements of public goods are two
qualities that distinguish them from private goods, which can never be given
away, free of cost, except for charitable purposes by private individuals. The
notion of the “modern state” and its well established means and methods of
84 Public administration in the 21st century
providing public services, are presently being redefined. New forms of public–
private “collaborative” partnerships are being created, while governance is
becoming increasingly networked. As a result of this, public officials must be
groomed with new skill sets if they are to lead their agencies through ever-
shifting challenges—both domestic and global.
As a dynamic discipline, public administration is gradually changing and
adapting, in response to the ever-changing practices of the real world of govern-
ance. The catalytic agents of change are the information and communication
revolution, globalization, movements for democratization and the advent of the
knowledge economy. Some of the contemporaneous changes that have led to
these new ways of “governing” are (a) the advent of New Public Management,
(b) the co-optation of multiple actors, like the private sector and civil society into
the policy making, implementing and evaluation processes and (c) opening up
public administration to more ethical and accountability concerns.
Over the past half century or more, the discourse on the role of the state in
the economic sphere has substantially changed from an omnipotent state in the
50s, 60s and 70s, to a minimalist state in the 1980s, to a new understanding today,
of the importance of both the state and the market. We have come a long way
and so has the state of the discipline. The entire discourse has revolved around
what the state should do and how it should “perform” its mandates. This in turn
has led to paradigm shifts in theory—from public administration to New Public
Management, to the current, popular concept of governance. What is needed is a
rationale for an effective, efficient, responsive, transparent and accountable public
service wedded to the public interest.
Today, there is a fair consensus among public administration observers about
the core capabilities that government agencies would have to develop in order to
be successful in the present era. Besides emphasizing public–private partnerships
and co-governance with citizens to develop capabilities of responsive governance,
public organizations should become increasingly interconnected and transparent.
Emphasizing a system-oriented leadership over a traditional task-focused manage-
ment; public sector leaders have to learn to articulate a new vision for their
agencies. Citizen-oriented service should always remain the highest public sector
priority. In a globalized era, government efforts should be focussed on client
satisfaction, both internal and external. Public administrators should be encour-
aged to work in partnership with the citizens they serve, so as to identify civic
problems and devise focused innovative remedies to solve these problems. Citizen
surveys have become important feedback tools—the ratings should be taken
seriously, as bureaucracies are able to understand and empathize with the majority
of stakeholders, clients, consumers and user groups. For instance, citizen surveys
carried out by the Public Affairs Centre on various aspects of urban governance in
India, have vastly helped improve the appalling state of civic services in Banga-
lore, one of the fastest growing cites of India.
Surveys in other countries have also revealed that citizens, in general, expect
to see significant improvements in the way public services are administered in
today’s gradually democratizing world. Besides demanding greater personalized

services, citizen demands for increased “transparency” and “accountability” in
governance have been growing steadily.
The culture of growing expectations from political leaders and bureaucracies is
itself a “growing” phenomenon. Today, the educated young, in all countries of
the developing world, are internet users and followers, impatient and extremely
demanding of rights, entitlements and services from the government, as taxpayers.
When it comes to the private sector they demand accountability for products and
services bought from the market; e.g. India has the largest 25–45 age group
population in the world. They are an informed citizenry, with skill sets ready for
jobs, both in the private and public sector. Poverty alleviation, subsidized social
sector services and employment generation, are regarded the government’s busi-
ness. If the private sector doesn’t deliver, they will be disappointed; if the public
sector doesn’t deliver, they are angry. In developing and under developed
countries, the state citizen relationship is still one of complete dependence of the
latter on the former. The public sector has delivered in India, in terms of food
security, agricultural and industrial production, infrastructure like roads, bridges,
power and communication networks, schools, colleges and hospitals. Public
investments on development has increased manifold times since India gained
independence; yet nothing is ever “enough” for the world’s largest youth
population. The “million mutinies” that unfold every day in the world’s largest
democracy in some corner of India, is not because the Indian government and
public bureaucracies are amongst the most corrupt, ineffective and inefficient in
the world. It is because administrative capacities are still not readily equipped to
meet the demand overload and the revolution of rising expectations. Also,
resources are not really the crux of the problem, administrative deficits are the
problem. In the Indian context, bureaucracy is understaffed and under motivated
to handle the work load and the stress.
Under the guise of creating “leaner and more efficient” forms of government,
Right wing political movements in parts of Europe and America have been
waging repeated assaults on the public sector. Still, as we have seen, in a number
of welfare states (e.g. the Nordic countries) in the developed world, questions
related to the changing role of the public bureaucracies tend to be less con-
troversial, or at least much less partisan, than in others. Despite relentless N.P.M.
attacks on the “big government”, the role of the public sector has not signifi-
cantly diminished in any part of the world. Indeed, recent data confirms that
public sector spending continues to steadily increase. In the U.S., for example,
public expenditure now accounts for 42% of G.D.P., compared to only 28% in
1960. While there was a slight decrease from 2009 to 2014, the years immediately
following the global financial crisis, the overall trend indicates that government
spending will continue to grow. Also, it is important to note, government
revenues in the U.S. (the world’s richest economy) have declined. This, in turn,
has placed unprecedented strain on public agencies and administrators. Challenges
relating to global immigration, climate change, public health hazards, inter-state
regional conflicts thrive. The burden on public administrators can only be

expected to increase with a more interconnected globalized world; e.g. the
Spillover effects of the refugee crisis in Europe, due to the Middle East wars
from 2014–17, is an example of a “crisis” that can come to any state from across
the borders.
The world’s population is now estimated at over seven billion and continues
to grow. Increases in life expectancy rates, changes to family structure and
growing levels of unemployment, have compelled policy makers, everywhere in
the world, to respond with a host of new public services and additional levels of
welfare support for its citizens. Therefore, winding up essential public services
and programmes, as is the case in many European countries, can have disturbing
consequences. The social safety net provided through pensions, public healthcare
services, public education and social insurance, cannot be retracted without
disturbing the legitimacy of democratic governments in Europe. The demand
for welfare states have, in fact, been revived in many parts of the developed
world, like never before.
There is no question that the future will usher in new challenges for the
nation-state and its public administrative structures. Some argue that these
challenges are placing public servants in difficult positions. Others, however,
claim that they are creating historic opportunities for public administrators to
create meaningful and positive change. If administrative change is being largely
triggered in competition with the private sector, then administrative reforms
should not be intimidating to citizens. Competition can bring welcome changes
to public bureaucracies. Previously, administrative reforms were designed in
accordance with each nation’s unique social structure, institutional configurations
and different political regimes. However, in recent years, we have witnessed rapid
global, economic and social changes, that are challenging traditional administra-
tive norms and practices to follow universal, ethical norms and practices. The
acceptance of S.D.G.s as a set of implementable development goals by 2030, has
been a great affirmation of what should be the standard of good governance, in
any part of the world.
Instead of blaming the public sector for everything that goes wrong and
punishing civil servants by discontinuing or downsizing the pension system, it is
time to be proud of what the public sector has accomplished in terms of public
order and safety, health care, education and equity, and handling these problems
in very difficult conditions, like those of developing countries soon after inde-
pendence. Public administration has pursued these accomplishments in spite of
conditions, where rational decision making was extremely difficult. It is easy to
criticize the public sector without even trying to comprehend the complexities
involved in trying to resolve collective problems through collective action.
Besides, public administration is constantly under public scrutiny as it undertakes
collective action. Administrations make public policies and try to ground them in
laws and regulations. Citizens might depict these laws, rules and regulations as
administrative burdens, but they are, in fact, primarily established in order to
prevent bureaucratic nepotism, abuse of power or arbitrariness in decision

making.
Ethics in governance
Civil service conduct rules, in most countries, require politicians and government
officials to uphold four virtues in the public interest: accountability, legality,
integrity and responsiveness (Makridimitris 2002). Accountability, is a fundamen-
tal principle of representative democracies. In recent years, the accountability of
elected representatives and the public has been increased through the implemen-
tation of reforms, bringing about greater transparency and a more “open”
government. This includes freedom of information laws, together with improving
the “scrutiny” functions of public servants.
Legality demands that those who hold public office must respect and obey the
laws passed by elected legislatures, as well as the ethical principles that underpin
these laws. The most notable among these is that of equity: the need to treat like
cases alike and unlike cases differently (Lucas 1967). This depends on the
acknowledgement of the validity of the laws passed by Parliament, as well as
public servants’ acceptance of their obligations to respect and obey the laws
imposed on them.
Police officers must not use undue force while controlling public demonstra-
tions. Citizens must pay the taxes they owe and tax collectors must enforce the
laws and regulations concerned firmly and fairly, without favouritism or any other
type of discrimination. Recently, there have been major lapses by both citizens
and officials in observing the requirements of legality; for instance, the police
have very often used violence to curb public demonstrators or rioters, who may
have indulged in street violence as a mode of protest. In anti-state demonstra-
tions, maintaining civil order and collecting taxes are regulatory functions of the
state, as much as it is the duty of the citizen to pay taxes and not indulge in
criminal activities or street violence. Humanizing and sensitizing the police is a
major demand of citizens in all states, whether they are authoritarian or
democratic.
The third virtue, integrity, is often undervalued by public choice theorists’
fundamental assumption that men, including civil servants and politicians, can
only be selfish rational maximizers who cannot, and will not, act altruistically in
the public service (Niskanen 1973; Downs 1977). These virtues were subsumed
in the Weberian model of bureaucracy and practiced by most states who accepted
the model in practice, but, unfortunately, they have been severely weakened
since 1979, due to political leaders who believed that encouraging enterprise and
attracting business talents to public services was more important than sustaining
these virtues. Integrity must be restored by the re-imposition of strict limits on
what public servants can and cannot do in office; “corruption” has to be defined
and redefined in the age of globalization and at every age. The restoration of
integrity requires the renewed inculcation of “ethics” in the training of public
servants, which has been largely neglected because of the extensive transfer of
much of this training to management and business schools.
Makridimitris’s final virtue, responsiveness, is not to be equated with “market
ethics”, although it has resulted in a weakening of the concept of citizenship, as a
result of undue stress being placed on the need for efficient provisioning of
“customer services” by civil servants. The public are not merely customers
seeking to “purchase” services; they are also citizens with rights and duties. This
under valuing of citizenship was particularly apparent in the development of the
“Citizen’s Charter” in the 1990s (Chandler 1996), which almost equated the
meaning of the word “citizen”, with “customer” and “consumer”, in order to
promote market processes and remedies. This was at the expense of the citizen’s
rights and duties, to participate in making decisions about the terms on which
public services are provided, as well as controlling the behaviour and activities of
the public servants who provide them, bypassing the collective responsibility of
citizens to participate in the processes of public policy formation and
implementation.
Lastly, the means and modes of holding the government and its officials
accountable, especially those that are available to citizens must be maintained,
and if possible enhanced. The public must be informed about all modes of citizen
grievance redressal mechanisms available, in the event that they suffer damage or
injustice at the hands of public servants. Today, there are numerous means
available to seek redress, including the courts, administrative tribunals and
ombudsmen, as well as access to elected representatives.
The major issues to be addressed are recruitment, corruption and secrecy
(Chapman 1988). The execution of administrative reforms should essentially
bring about the restoration of a due regard for “public interest” and the ideals of
public service, but this also requires leaders in government to set an example.
While the benefits gained from having more entrepreneurial and effective public
officials through the adoption of private sector attitudes is not to be denied, the
requirement to maintain a distinctive public service ethos must be equally
recognized, especially in public life.
How will the administrative ethics of the 21st century be different from those
of the 20th century? The answer can be found in the increasing convergence of
ethical concerns at a cross-national level. Globalization of the economic order is
likely to pave the way for the globalization of governance issues. With nations
converging for goals, philosophy and strategies of governance; ethical concerns
are likely to transcend international boundaries. Currently, e-governance, citi-
zens’ charters, grievance redressal systems, Right to Information laws and Public
Service Delivery legislations are making a positive difference. They reflect the
classical concerns of public administration, including efficiency, responsibility,
accountability and integrity, along with the crucial values of equity, justice,
openness, compassion, responsiveness, human rights and human dignity. Hope-
fully, we shall witness the blossoming of a “new citizenship”, committed to the
sustenance of administrative morality. To nurture such a positive notion of
citizenship, public administrative institutions will have to act as facilitators and

educators. Maintaining ethical standards in public services will be the biggest
challenge for administrative systems in the future.
Human well-being and human security

A balanced perspective on life, is the ability to look beyond the short term events
to the long term trends, and then take a realistic judgement on human life across
generations. Mobility today is much better than it was, with improved public
safety, people now have the option to exit extreme poverty and hunger. With
improvements in public health and sanitation, life expectancy has increased and
fewer infant deaths occur. The average man on the street has a chance to live a
better life than ever before. Changes to upward, economic mobility are improv-
ing with every generation.
With the passage of the war torn 20th century behind us, big wars are
much less frequent, although small scale violence still occurs. Socially sanc-
tioned violence—torture, humiliation, lynching, capital punishment—once
common, is now rare and is deemed as repulsive and condemnable as human
rights violations. Crime rates have even dropped, in both the developed and
the developing world. Deaths from terror, or other kinds of mass violence, is
sporadic.
Despite the occasional insecurity in everybody’s lives, it cannot be denied that
the quality of our lives is far better than those of previous generations. Higher
living standards, once accessible only by the elite, is rising with every generation.
Our children are eating more nutritional food, with vaccinations having saved
their lives. The quality and access to basic, public goods has improved over the
last few decades, with governments, the private and the voluntary sectors, also
joining forces to give the public greater access.
Through successful interventions by the state, we have made significant
progress with deaths from “curable” diseases like diarrhoea, malaria and other
vector-borne diseases. In 1900, life expectancy in the U.S. was 41 years—now, it
is over 71, globally.
Anyone can see that, generationally, a considerable amount of progress has
been made in human development over the years. Education, once the preroga-
tive of the elite, is now within the reach of the masses. Most adults in the
developing world may still be illiterate, but the young can now read and write,
which means that they can make informed decisions and participate more fully in
the economy and the politics of a nation.
Women, who bore the brunt of “home making”, are slowly realizing their full
potential by entering the work force. In education, health, family choices, asset
ownership, work and leadership, women are determined to keep up the progress.
Gender gaps are gradually being reduced by policy interventions across the world.
Nordic countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland, have
bridged 80% of the gap already. We are more empathetic and compassionate to
the minorities and the marginalized, giving them constitutional, legal and welfare
protection like never before.
Science, human intervention and public governance, have changed human
lives. First there was electricity, then there was the discovery of digital
connectivity and then the discovery of the smart phone. Science, human
ingenuity, public policy and collective leadership, are doing their best to
make the world a better place. However, science and technology is a double
edged sword, medicine has its side effects, the climate can get out of control
and an accidental nuclear war can destroy the planet. But let’s not forget that
events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened again, not even a Third
World War by accident!
Perspectives on security
The 1994 Human Development Report argued that the concept of security must
change from a coercive safeguarding of state borders to the lessening of insecurity
in people’s daily lives (or human insecurity). In every society, human security is
undermined by a variety of threats, including hunger, disease, crime, unemploy-
ment, human rights violations and environmental challenges. Today, human
security remains a universal quest for freedom from want, fear, ignorance,
poverty, disease and unemployment.
Perspectives on security have now decisively shifted from an over emphasis on
defence preparedness, to a people-centric view. Since the end of the Cold War,
there has been no overall increase in military expenditure as a proportion of G.D.P.,
partly because of the changing threats to national security. While interstate conflicts
appear to have been declining since the early 1990s; the number of intrastate
conflicts has increased since the mid-20th century. At present, the majority of
security threats do not come from other countries, but from insurgencies, terrorism
and civil wars. Conflicts in the post-Cold War era have claimed millions of lives,
95% of them civilians. For example, in South Asia, all nine countries have
experienced internal conflicts during the last two decades, with the resulting deaths
having outnumbered those deaths which arose from interstate conflicts in the
region. Since 2001, most conflicts have occurred in underdeveloped regions than
anywhere else in the world.
In 2010, military spending for the 104 countries whose data was available, was
more than $1.4 trillion, or 2.6% of world G.D.P. Most of the expenditure came
from countries with low levels of human development. Between 1990 and 2010,
military spending tripled in medium H.D.I. countries, while nearly doubling in
low H.D.I. countries and increasing by 22% in very high H.D.I. countries.
Nonetheless, while the total military expenditure grew in these three H.D.I.
groups, it grew at a much slower rate than G.D.P. growth. These totals hide
considerable diversity: Europe and Central Asia saw a decrease of 69% in military
spending between 1990 and 2010, while South Asia, East Asia, the Pacific and the
Arab states witnessed a rise in military spending (U.N.D.P. 2013).
Globally, around 20 territorially small countries of the South have tiny, or

non-existent, armed forces. Many of them rely on “aligned” powers for national
security. India is a large country of the South, and has shown that while policing
has to be used for curbing violence in the short term, redistributive policies and
building an equitable and inclusive architecture of development are better
strategies to help prevent and contain internal unrest in the long term.
New institutions and mechanisms for South–South cooperation

The rise of the South is fraught with opportunities for development dialogues,
partnerships and new approaches to development policy, both globally and in
certain regions. Rising foreign exchange reserves affected the leading economies
of the South, which could be used effectively for development financing in
developing countries, or in those countries that need it the most. New mechan-
isms for aid, trade and technology exchange within regions of the developing
world, can continue with the existing arrangements. Today, the mantle of
development lies with the countries of the South. These countries must initiate
leadership roles in the global policy dialogue; categorize the most urgent global
development needs and then frame viable strategies to meet these challenges in
the future.
Ambitious targets have been called for raising the Human Development Index
(H.D.I.) value across all regions by 2050, through a series of government
initiatives. The leading consensus building exercise was the signing of the S.D.G.s
in 2015, whereby the developed and the developing world agreed to meet certain
targets concerning poverty alleviation, education, healthcare, removal of gender
gaps and environmental protection, all of which was supposed to create sustainable
development and raise human development levels in all countries by 2030. The
largest projected increase in H.D.I. in this scenario was to be in Sub-Saharan Africa
(65%) and South Asia (47%). Currently, the average public investment in Sub-
Saharan Africa and South Asia is around 7.7% of G.D.P.
B.R.I.C.S.: South–South cooperation

B.R.I.C.S., a diverse group of nations with varying power and growth trajec-
tories, claims to have the potential to transform global governance structures.
China, which constitutes two-thirds of the economic power of B.R.I.C.S., has
major difficulties with India, the group’s second largest economy. Russia remains
entangled with the United States about many global flashpoints, while Brazil and
South Africa are preoccupied with their own regional and domestic problems.
No doubt the rapid rise in intra-B.R.I.C.S. trade from $29 billion in 2000 to
$319 billion in 2010 (when South Africa joined) and then to $744 billion,
illustrates B.R.I.C.S.’ expanding partnerships. China’s foreign trade during
2000–2017, rose from $47 billion to $4.1 trillion, which is much higher when
compared to the rise in intra-B.R.I.C.S. trade.
Regarding its contribution to creating alternative global governance structures,

even as the New Development Bank and its regional centre in Johannesburg have
emerged as efficient institutions and the currency reserve pool has evolved as
expected, the B.R.I.C.S. Credit Rating Agency remains mired in undesirable
debates.
A more credible argument to underline B.R.I.C.S.’ potency, would be to high-
light the multi-pronged innovative strategies in strengthening B.R.I.C.S.’ constitu-
encies at home and credibility worldwide. This will be the source of B.R.I.C.S.’
enduring success by emerging as a force to be reckoned with, in trying to overtake
the G7 grouping of industrialized countries by 2035.
For B.R.I.C.S., the governance challenge will be to operationalize socially
responsible investment, define suitable benchmarks and make funds easier to
access for investments, with a high human development impact within the
developing group of countries.
The rise of the South: some pointers

The rise of the South has, to some extent, surpassed the expectations of the
North. It was assumed that developing countries would steadily rise, grow and
develop in the 21st century, but industrialized countries would always remain
ahead. The fact is that the rise of the South is slow, average growth and human
development rates and rankings are substantially lower in many countries of the
South than they are in the North. However, with rising growth rates and the
levels of human development improving, the countries of the South are now
asserting their might on the global stage, with the financial resources and political
weightage (individually and collectively) to make their voices heard and be
counted in international fora.
The situation came into sharper focus after 2008, following the banking crisis
and subsequent economic shocks in the U.S., and later in Europe, that pushed
some of the richer countries into recession and threatened the survival of the
Dollar and the Euro: two of the strongest currencies in the world. Now, the
countries of the North are looking to those of the South to keep the global
economies trade and markets vibrant and constantly progressing. In reality, each
group of countries needs the other more than ever before. The North needs the
South to market their goods and services, especially as a number of their own
economies and societies are weakened by huge cuts in public investments; while
the South needs the North for patents and innovative technologies.
The rise of the South demonstrates that ideological hegemonies have ceased to
exist and that the North no longer has patented monopolistic models of devel-
opment. Every “successful” model becomes a role model for others. Developing
countries are looking to their peers in the South for appropriate development
models. This is a huge shift in terms of perceptions. Rather than seeing fixed
ideological options, they can examine what has worked, under what circumstances, and
choose the most workable and appropriate model. There are programmes and policies
that have worked in improving human development in the emerging economies

of the South; from investments in public health and education to conditional cash
transfer programmes. Such examples can inspire similar policies in other coun-
tries, with the specific national conditions, institutions and needs being taken into
consideration. Good practices, indigenous solutions and technologies from the
South, may be more viable, and indeed workable, in the ecology of developing
countries, rather than fixed and closed models from the North.
Countries of the South have therefore been using their own ideas and
intuition to create a new momentum for human development. However, in a
complex global political, economic and social environment, this dynamism may
not necessarily yield immediate sustainable outcomes. Inequality and rising
expectations may still lead to conflict, civil war and strife. There are serious
concerns that over-exploitation of global resources combined with the effects of
climate change, could wreck the earth for future generations. The North went
through its own trajectories of development with subsequent contradictions,
which are there for everyone to see. The South will also have to face the
challenges and contradictions of their own indigenous, or transplanted growth
and development models. Management of these, pose serious problems for public
governance in developing economies.
What is needed is to ensure that economic growth and human development proceeds in a
way that is both productive and sustainable. This includes measures aimed at enhan-
cing equity, enabling participation, confronting environmental pressures and
managing demographic change through difficult times of transition.
South–South cooperation and technology transfer, possess incredible potential
for the future development of underdeveloped countries. Technology transfers
from the North involve costly adaptation costs, due to differences in the
ecological milieu; but technological transfers within the South are unlikely to
need serious adjustment and absorption time and costs. Growing markets in
developing countries provide companies in the South with an opportunity to
mass market innovative and affordable versions of their best practices and standard
products: for example, note the presence of Chinese, Japanese and South Korean
electronic products from Third World markets everywhere.
The developing countries of the South (e.g. India) have chosen their own
distinct development pathways, which have subsequently changed according to
the needs of the time. Yet, they share important characteristics, including vision-
ary and missionary leadership, engagement with the world economy on their
terms and innovative social policies addressing domestic human development
needs. They face similar problems, from social inequities to environmental
hazards. They have developed their own autonomous policies for their own
national interests, without the constraints of enforced conditionality or imposed
“external models”.
The South’s progress is propelled by inter-connections with the North and
increasing ones with the South. In fact, economic exchanges are expanding faster
“horizontally”—on a South-South axis—than on the traditional North-South
one. Citizens are sharing ideas about living standards through new communica-
tion channels, and are seeking greater accountability from governments and
international institutions alike. The South, as a whole, is driving global economic
growth and development for the first time since the second half of the 20th
century, a trend that continues today.
Models of governance
Changing governmental practices have led public administration to constantly
reinvent its nature and scope. Woodrow Wilson, in his seminal article “The study
of public administration” (1887), heralded a new era by pioneering the study of
public administration as an academic discipline. While delineating the boundaries
of the discipline, Wilson pioneered the concept of “politics-administration
dichotomy”, a clarion call to separate politics from administration. Establishing
collective ends of society was the duty of political institutions, while administra-
tion was the state’s instrument for carrying out these objectives.
The classical model of public administration, advocated by writers such as
Woodrow Wilson, Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber and others, only
gave way to other models towards the middle of the 20th century. The traditional
model professed political neutrality as a behavioural imperative of hierarchical
bureaucracies, which called for the routinization of office work according to
codified rules and opted for efficiency (as opposed to responsiveness) as the
primary criterion for evaluating the work of public agencies, which were looked
upon as “closed” organizational systems.
The first major challenge to this model came from the New Public
Management (N.P.M.) paradigm, which began to unfold during the last two
decades of the 20th century; presenting itself as an alternative to the classical
model. According to N.P.M. theorists, the government should only be the
monopoly service provider in areas which cannot be privatized or contracted
out, and all other services should be provided to citizens by private or
voluntary agencies regulated by the government. This enables greater competi-
tion amongst delivery systems, meaning citizens can be guaranteed a greater
choice. New Public Management (N.P.M.) suggests that public managers
“steer, rather than row”, and are given greater freedom to improve efficiency
and productivity, providing that they remain responsive and accountable to
public needs and demands.
The rise of N.P.M. to pre-eminence, coincides with changes in society and
the economy, a shift from “government” to “governance”, from coordinated,
hierarchical structures and processes, to a network-based process of market
exchange and negotiation. N.P.M. is, therefore, a paradigmatic change in public
administration: primarily, the traditional rule oriented emphasis now includes
performance indicators; secondly, the “client” replaces the “citizen”; and lastly,
there is a clear shift from “rationality” in administration to efficient management,
with outcome effectiveness being imperative.
Public administration as “governance”, articulates the necessity of the trio:

state, market and civil society. Discontent with government performance com-
bined with recent technological advances in communication, has mandated
reforms in public administration to radically improve public sector effectiveness.
Drawing on the “public choice” perspective, public administration views govern-
ment from the standpoint of the markets and customer-choices, dominated by
self-interest. Central to this phenomenon, commonly defined as “reinventing
government”, is the empowerment of individual citizens, who are supposed to
make their own private choices in a competitive market, thereby heralding the
breakdown of the bureaucratic service provider monopoly.
In contrast to the two mainstream models discussed so far, both of which are
rooted in the idea of “rational choice”, an alternative model of public adminis-
tration has been advocated by Janet V. Denhardt and Robert B. Denhardt in their
book The New Public Service (2007). First of all, Denhardt and Denhardt trace the
intellectual heritage of the new public service and then outline the main tenets of
the normative model.
Among these tenets the following are significant:
• Seek the public interest: public interest is the result of a dialogue about
shared values, rather than the aggregation of individual self-interests. There-
fore, public servants do not merely respond to the demands of “customers”,
but rather focus on building relationships of trust and collaboration among
citizens.
• Value citizenship over entrepreneurship: public interest is more progressive
when public servants and citizens are committed to making a meaningful
contribution to society, rather than allowing entrepreneurial managers to act
as if public money was their own.
• Recognize that accountability is not simple: public servants should be aware
of much more than just the market; they should also attend to statutory and
constitutional law, community values, political norms, professional standards
and citizen interests.
• Serve rather than steer: it is increasingly important for public servants to use
shared and value-based leadership when helping citizens articulate and meet
their shared interests, rather than attempting to control or steer society in a
new direction. Value people, not just productivity.
Consequently, the Denhardtian paradigm presents an alternative framework

that gives full priority to democracy, citizenship and service in the public interest.
They forcefully argue that governments shouldn’t be run like a business but
should be run like a democracy. Public interest and democratic citizenship should
be the hallmark of an accountable government. In governments where the sense
of service and community expands, public employees acquire better self-estima-
tion and a sense of dignity. In fact, it makes them become reconnected with the
citizens. When public servants invite citizens to participate in the governance
process, there will be a new culture of “co-governance” emerging, with admin-

istrators and citizens working together for the common good of society.
Cost of governance today: the Indian case

India has one of the largest government sectors in the world today. The cost of
governance of India, for the roughly 800 politicians at the national level, 6000 in
the 29 states and the 18.7 million employees of the central and state governments
cost the country about 1800 crore a day. This excludes the 3 million representa-
tives at local government level. About 1.87% of Indians govern 1000 million
people. This comes to about U.S.$138 billion, or nearly 30% of India’s G.D.P.
The Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore, surveyed 37,000 Indian households in
24 states, focusing on the Five Basic Services which the Indian government has
invested thousands of crores into, including drinking water, health and sanitation,
education and child care, the public distribution system and road transport. Their
findings are listed below:
• Only 13% of users are satisfied with the public health system.
• Less than 10% are content with the public distribution system.
• Barely 16% are satisfied with the teachers in government schools.
• Just 5% are satisfied with public sanitation in public places.
• Only 20% are satisfied with the public transport system.
(Samuel Paul et al. 2006)
Criteria of successful administration

Governments today, and in the future, will undergo enormous social and
economic transformations, profoundly affecting the work of public administration
and agencies. Innovative ways of steering society will require us to consider new
standards when assessing administrative performance, not only including the
traditional legal and political standards, but also the market and economic criteria,
as well as the democratic and social criteria associated with the proposed New
Public Service of the Denhardtian paradigm.
At the moment, public administration relates to the whole of society and to
the changed political economy after the advent of globalization. Thus, assuming
its overwhelming importance, the pertinent question should now be: in today’s
rapidly changing world, what is the criterion for successful administration?
The norms of an administrative system are both old and new. Traditional
norms such as efficacy, economy and public interest, are well established measures
of judging the success of any administrative system. Whilst, continuing socio-
economic progress, maintenance of good delivery systems, economic regulation
and striving for equity and justice, can also be added as universal values relevant
to all political systems that want to promote people centric or citizen friendly
administrations.
Public administration, especially in developing societies, will have to face a

host of challenges and pressures that will put its adaptability and performance
capacity to the test. If man is to survive in the face of nuclear threats,
overpopulation, environmental pollution, rapidly changing technology,
coupled with increasing societal turbulence, public administration will have
to learn to decentralize, democratize and humanize, in addition to reinventing
itself.
The crux of the Denhardtian paradigm is to get the “public” back to centre stage
in the activity and discipline of public administration. The paradigm reminds us that
administration must go beyond technical efficiency, economy and “good govern-
ance” goals; the challenge is to recognize the centrality (in terms of end recipients, goal
setting and decision making) of the citizen or the “public” in public administration.
Citizens should be actively associated with policy formation, and it is in their
interest that any democracy should espouse a minimum rights (as entitlements)
package for its citizens. By equalizing opportunities and substantive empower-
ment, citizens have the potential to become equal stakeholders in the democratic
project.
Despite existing globalizing ground realities, in terms of the withdrawal of the
state, and ardent advocacy of the market model of governance by neo-liberals in
India and elsewhere, I firmly believe that the Denhardtian paradigm, which
emphasises co-governance (state-citizen partnership), is best suited to handle the needs
of the post-globalized world.
Currently, many civil society activists have called for a war against corruption,
poverty, disease and deprivation. “Good governance” has almost become a
buzzword for the entire world, in both developed and developing countries.
Some elements of good governance are universally recognized, whilst some have
only been accepted in certain countries. Those which have been accepted
universally, include public accountability and transparency in administration, rule
of law, participative governance, predictability in decision making, citizen-centric
administration and respect for human rights.
Let’s look at some of the core principles of good governance:
• Rule of law requires that there are constraints on governmental power; those
who govern and those who are governed are bound by the same laws.
• Accountability at each level of the administrative hierarchy.
• Minimization of unfettered discretionary powers to the bureaucracy.
• “Putting the citizen first”, as a mandatory principle of administration.
• Government to be built on a strong ethical foundation.
The World Justice Project’s Rule of law Index 2017–18, which studied 113
countries regarding 44 indicators, found that the rule of law scores fell (in
just a year) in a third of the countries surveyed, with fundamental rights
being hit the hardest, along with more governments exercising indiscriminate
power. Whilst, 64 countries “constraints on government power” decreased,
which measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by the law
and the robustness of democratic institutions. The top three ranked nations
(Rule of Law Index 2017) are: Denmark, Norway and Finland, with the
three lowest ranked countries being: Afghanistan, Cambodia and Venezuela.
India, despite a 70 year track record of having maintained its democracy
(perhaps the only Third World country to have done so), ranks 62 in the list.
It is not surprising that Denmark, Norway and Finland have excellent
rankings in the Human Development Index and in the Gender Inequality
index (they have closed almost 80% of the gender gap) as well. All three
countries are democratic welfare states of the developed world (World Justice
Project Index 2017).
It is often said that in the 21st-century China is troubled with a democratic
deficit, while India struggles with a governance deficit! To assume that globaliza-
tion in India will imply “outsourcing” most of the functions of bureaucracy to
private agencies is wishful thinking. In fact, an emphasis on increased public
expenditures on social sectors such as food security, education, health care and
rural development, will mean a substantial expansion of the mandates of bureau-
cracy. Bureaucracy cannot really be curtailed in the years to come. It remains a
pivotal institution in the implementation of public policies. It has not yet adjusted
to the new paradigm of governance and continues to slowly reform in the
developing world.
However, one can look at the issue of reform with a little more optimism
now. The single most important catalyst of administrative reform, globally, has
been the liberalization of economies, unbundling of government monopolies and
the opening up of the public sector to competition in the market. Right to
Information Laws, e-governance, computerization of government records, Citi-
zen Charters, Service Guarantee Acts and increasing judicial activism, will change
the face of governments in the years to come. It is encouraging to see that states
are competing with each other to increase their rates of growth, bringing out
Human Development Reports and publicizing their initiatives on good govern-
ance. Clearly, it is imperative that an index of good governance should be
compiled, which will enable interstate comparisons on the performance of
different states.
Good governance means good politics everywhere. The Global Index of
Good Governance should include the rate of growth of state domestic product,
the rate of reduction in poverty, implementation of important social sector
schemes, health attainment indicators, school dropout rates, communal violence,
human rights violations and the openness of governmental decision making. If
this seems like an Index which is Third World centric, then you are mistaken.
Balancing economic growth with human development is the biggest challenge of
public governance everywhere.
Recognition of this Global Good Governance Index (for interstate compar-
ison) should act as a precursor to “good governance” being recognised as a fundamental
right of every citizen in the world.
References
Chandler, J.A. 1996. The Citizen’s Charter, Aldershot, UK, Dartmouth Press.
Chapman, R.A. 1988. Ethics in the Civil Service, London, Routledge.
Downs, A. 1977. An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row.
Lucas, J.R. 1967. The Principles of Politics, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Makridimitris, A. 2002. Dealing with ethical dilemmas in public administration: the ALIR imperatives
of ethical reasoning. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2): 251–66.
Niskanen, W. 1973. Bureaucracy: Servant or Master? London, Institute of Economic Affairs.
Paul, S. et al. 2006. Who benefits from India’s Public Services, New Delhi, Academic Foundation.
U.N.D.P. 2013. Human Development Report, New Delhi, Academic Foundation.
7
SUMMING UP
The provision of public goods is, in a classic sense, the raison d’être of the
government, and is one of the key themes of public administration. Through
collectively binding decisions, governments produce public goods to which all
citizens are expected to contribute too, as tax payers, and from which all citizens
are beneficiaries (without exclusion).
The inherent dilemma is the wavering support for the public sector to provide
these goods and services over time. Until the 1970s there was a strong belief,
especially in developed countries, that by expanding the welfare state, the
government was essentially guaranteeing the good life, from a citizen’s birth to
their death. The provision of governmental public services would enable those
individuals with few opportunities (the under privileged and the marginalized) to
enjoy the same level of access to a good life, as the privileged. During the 1980s it
was believed that public goods had to be transformed into semi-public goods that
required individual contributions, or preferably, into private goods that removed
them completely from the public sector. Privatization emerged in health care,
public transport and sanitation, maintenance of the “commons”, recreational
facilities, education and traditional police tasks, such as traffic control.
The anti-public sector political agendas of the British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher and the U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s, the budget
deficits that many governments faced, the publication of Reinventing Government
by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in 1992 and journal articles by Christopher
Hood in 1991 and 1995, served as catalysts for the worldwide acceptance of the
principles of, what came to be known as, New Public Management (N.P.M.).
Robert Denhardt and Janet Denhardt summarized the American version of
N.P.M. in ten principles: government should be a catalyst (steering rather than
rowing); community owned (empowering rather than serving); competitive by
injecting competition into service delivery; mission driven instead of rule driven;
Summing up 101
results oriented; customer driven; enterprising; anticipatory; decentralized and

market oriented. Action undertaken by any actor, other than central government,
was preferred in the provision of public services. Other actors included custo-
mers, civilians, businesses or local governments. The American version of N.P.M.
especially criticized the idea, emphasising that such a thing as public services
needed to exist and that they needed to be provided by the public sector.
The European version of N.P.M. was less radical. Christopher Hood argued for
an improvement of public service delivery by introducing performance quantifica-
tion, an emphasis on output and controls, the introduction and disaggregation of
competition in the public sector and emulating private sector management styles.
According to this European viewpoint, public service delivery needed to improve
its management and act more like a business. The European version of N.P.M. was
intended to solve inefficiencies in the provision of public goods.
While the success of these reforms varied, both in terms of improving govern-
mental service delivery and involving private partners in service delivery, N.P.M. ideas
continued to dominate public sector reforms in the late 1990s and early 21st century.
However, N.P.M. practices gradually began to be criticized for viewing
individuals only as customers and not as citizens; for suggesting solutions that
did not create efficiency or that took care of individual interests and instead
neglected the public interest, and ignored the ethical, public norms and values
that resulted in inherent corruption in privatized services and agencies.
The question of how to overcome the problems that N.P.M. sought to remedy without
returning to a monopolising provision of public goods by the public sector, is the new research
question for 21st-century scholars questioning alternative service delivery mechanisms. While
some services were better managed by the private sector and some in the public
sector, the most important issue was the ever increasing number of actors involved,
citizens, non-profit organizations, international organizations, charities and so on,
in the arena of service delivery. There are multiple combinations of actors and these
combinations depend on the context and the policy area, therefore, the issues
relating to financing, implementation, coordination and control, are crucial vari-
ables in the success or failure of administrative policies and programmes.
The search for effective and efficient alternative modes of service delivery continues to be one of
the key concerns in public administration, ranging from full privatization to public–private
partnerships, contracting out, co-production, transforming collective goods into
semi-collective goods, and so on. Furthermore, the role of the government in these
arrangements has become a crucial question. Should it be monopolistic, facilitating,
regulating, steering, rowing or serving the citizens/clients/customers/user groups?
Recently the debate was broadened, by bringing to the forefront the efficiency
and effectiveness of service delivery as the most important criteria when judging
the quality of public services, or whether there are even more important criteria
such as inclusion, citizenship and equity. With such prominence placed on
“value-governance”, the public sector, together with empowered citizens, are
expected to not only create public value but to also identify normative values and
unifying elements crucial for public governance.
102 Summing up
The countries of the North (developed countries) are now stable state bureau-
cracies which follow certain standard “rational” patterns that cater to legality,
objectivity, value neutrality and universalism, during their dealings with clients.
Developing countries of the South are still adjusting their bureaucracies to the
changing norms and standards, due to changes being triggered by rapid socio-
economic transformations. The least developed countries are still looking for
models of workable politico-administrative relationships which will deliver
“development” to their backward societies, economies and polities. Their transi-
tion to the “developing” category will be an occasion to celebrate.
International events of great convergence are happening in the 21st century.
The Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals are
such exercises. None of these goals will meet their deadlines without North–
South or even South–South Cooperation. Good governance holds the key to all
of these big societal transformations in the 21st century. The state–citizen
relationship, in terms of what the citizen can expect (rights and public goods)
from the state, has to be clearly defined and the task of good public governance is
to see, among other things, that the state’s promises to citizens are honoured.
I believe that today’s agenda for public administration, as reflected by the New
Public Management paradigm, may have to be reversed or substantially revised by
the needs, aspirations, ground realities and field practices of developing countries,
who want the state to remain proactive and interventionist on behalf of the poor
and marginalized, and deliver “development” promises by implementing public
policies and transferring citizen entitlements through effective public service
delivery systems. This is the unfinished agenda of public administration in the
South which has to be brought to fruition in the 21st century.
Democratization has swept across the globe, transforming state–citizen rela-
tions and the way administration works in the South. Globalization induced
changes in the “what” and “how” of public administration, triggering adminis-
trative reforms which swept through the public sector in the last two decades, in
several countries. N.P.M. reiterated the rationale of debureaucratization and fiscal
prudence in public expenditure. The logic was accepted by ex-socialist states and
the developing world, presuming that “wasteful and incompetent” bureaucracies
had led to the failure of “socialism” and “development administration” in the first
place. Unfortunately, N.P.M. reforms do not help the South.
The developed “South” instigated development through proactive state interven-
tion in key sectors of the economy, human development and state sponsored
innovations in indigenous technology—a model for others to follow. “Develop-
mental” states are not likely to wither away anywhere in the South. The concept of
“good governance” has been universally accepted. Development is not a rigid
concept. “Governing” development is an ongoing endeavour in all countries. Both
developed and developing countries, need to administer their development models,
plans and strategies, to deliver public goods and services to the people. In considera-
tion, the “state-market divide” will have to be clearly demarcated by political
mandates in all countries.
Summing up 103
If public administrators have to work in evolving democratic societies, in

competition with the private sector and changing ideological regimes, they need
to radically rethink how they should be governing in the modern age. New models
and procedures have to be learnt, there will be less paperwork but digitalized
records have to be stored because people (armed with Right to Information laws)
will interfere or intrude whenever they want to “know” more. The “public” were
never truly a part of policy making, implementation or evaluation, due to bureau-
cratic “immunity” and laws of secrecy. But times have changed, meaning their
work will be more open to scrutiny and social audit. This can be seen as a healthy
change in the context of Third World bureaucracies, who were notoriously non-
transparent, non-answerable and non-accountable, in their work or in their
behaviour towards the public. Aspiring public administrators must understand that
they have to co-govern and not only with other stakeholders, whether they be
private sector employees in a private public partnered project or the beneficiary
public target group in a welfare administration program.
Public bureaucracies do not need to reduce in size; from “development
administration” to “governing development”, through a consensually agreed
Minimum Agenda of Good Governance, public administration will have to
remain at a commanding height. There is a need to revisit, rethink, reinvent and
eventually refound public administration from a South-centric perspective. I
strongly believe that the biggest dilemmas and challenges to public administration
lie in developing countries—where the philosophy of “doing much more with
much less” (N.P.M.) cannot be rationalized. Governing development will require
more investment (public and private), and the public will require more account-
ability and more openness with the diversification of bureaucratic mandates.
Governments cannot be run like a business; the privatization of public services
do not necessarily serve the “public interest”. Not all civil servants are “corrupt”
or “incompetent”; bureaucratic failures have much deeper, structural reasons in
the context of the developing countries.
The following questions need to be asked:
• Is there a need to revisit the role and mandates of government and public
administration in the context of globalization and the rise of the South?
• How, and for whom, does public administration work in heterogeneous
developing societies?
• What are the new mandates and challenges in the 21st century, especially in
the context of the developing world?
Towards a Neo-Weberian state

Some government and public administration mandates are common in all
countries, while others are context specific: the least developed, the developing
and the developed, have to structure their public governance systems in accor-
dance with the dictates of what is politically decided as their “public interest”, at a
104 Summing up
given point of time. There are no static or universal models of politico-administrative

systems to be followed at all times. The rising South will dominate the political
discourse globally, due to their collective command over world outputs and
markets in the 21st century. These best practices are, in their own way,
“unique” but there are commonalities in their approach to growth and human
development which can be emulated within the South.
The state, the market and the citizen; there is a need to revisit this trio and
their respective roles in the context of “collaborative” governance structures in
the post-globalized societies of the 21st century. Although there is no unilinear
movement towards democracy, it is emerging as the preferred mode of govern-
ance in most states. The transition process from some form of “authoritarianism”
to some form of “democracy” may not be easy, in any state. Democracies in the
South will have to strengthen their administrative capabilities if they are to deliver
“development”. “Governing development” will be a challenge for both the
North and the South in the coming decades. North–South and intra South
collaborations will need political and administrative innovations.
Institutionalizing change through good governance in the South is a huge
challenge. Public policy making and implementation should be increasingly
digitalized as all states will inevitably move towards a “knowledge economy”.
Public policy making will be a trade-off between individual and collective welfare
and a compromise between different consumption lobbies, which will drive
public governance, in every country around the world, towards “success” or
“failure”.
The biggest challenge for 21st-century governance is still the concept of
inequality and the practices of inequity in both the North and the South. For
the rising South this will always be a recurring challenge of public policy—to
balance growth with equity. It is this connection where I have often cited India
and China as prime examples: two Asian powers who constitute one third of
mankind. India was the first non-Western underdeveloped country in the world
to commit itself to a democratic way of governance with constitutionally
embedded procedural features of democracy-periodic elections, subordination of
the military to the civilian government, independence of the judiciary, protection
of minority rights and freedom of speech. After seventy years, India’s practices
towards a substantivist notion of democracy can only be called a “success” if its
public governance system can deliver on all of the S.D.G. targets by 2030.
Let us briefly examine the growth vs equity discourse in the Indian context.
India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world today (8%
averaging growth annually), which enabled India to move 270 million out of
poverty in the decade since 2005–6, with the poverty rate in the country
having nearly halved during the same period according to the U.N.D.P.
Global Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (2018). On the one hand, as per
the International Labour Organisation’s India Wage Report (2018), legislators,
senior government servants and corporate sector managers had seen their real
wages go up by 98% on average; professionals saw a 90% jump in their salaries
Summing up 105
during the period 1993–94 to 2011–12. Across occupational categories, the

average rise in real daily wages was 93%. The lowest skilled occupation in
India receives a salary that is nearly 60% of the average earnings, while
medium skilled jobs receive wages varying from 0.7 to 1.8 times the average
earnings. High skilled occupations receive wages which are 1.9 to 4.3 times
higher than average earnings. However, the average daily wages of women is
only 69%–75% of men’s daily wages. The figures above have been cited, not
merely to describe income differences in India but to highlight the fact that
they exist amidst gross inequities, where at least a quarter of the population
lack the basic requirements of dignified living—food, shelter, clothing, sanita-
tion, healthcare and education. On a comparative note, it can be suggested
that China’s economic inequality is no less than India’s, but poorer Chinese do
not necessarily lack the basic essentials of life in the same way that poor
Indians do.
Erosion of state power is a world phenomenon plaguing all governance systems
today. In developed countries, control and coordination of different stakeholders in
policy implementation (state, private and voluntary) is one of the major challenges
of “collaborative” or “networked” governance. In the developing world, bureau-
cracies can do little to stop the rising global empires of social media, global finance
and technology; these empires strengthen and reinforce each other eroding
“national” power. The writ of the state is eroding, even in matters like job creation
and citizens’ rights. At present, most formal jobs come from the private sector into a
new form called “gig economy”. These jobs are not only uncounted, they are
unaccountable in every developing country. Governments are clueless about their
numbers and employment conditions, therefore, governments are unable to coordi-
nate and control their working conditions, as they are made up of workers from the
unorganized sector of their own countries. The state’s erosion of power can be
slowed down if that power is again rededicated to serving the “public interest”. In
fact, technology is a double edged sword—it can be used to undermine or enhance
its role and authority in serving the citizen.
It’s entirely feasible, and desirable, in developing countries to build a national
online “good governance index” that tracks annual improvements; for instance,
people can obtain important government certificates, services in government
schools and hospitals, or track the status of roads, water and power supply—
with people’s feedback and complaints. Deadlines for the completion of public
projects should be put online, along with the phone numbers of the agencies
who are responsible for meeting those deadlines. Why shouldn’t a deadline be
mandated in all states, for instance, in trial cases in courts for the speedy disposal
of justice?
Simplification of laws, e-governance and public service guarantee acts (e.g. in
India) have been a good starting point. In least developed countries, state power is
the only authority for nation building and development, therefore, rededicating the
state authority for the public good, comprehensively, urgently and transparently, is an
urgent reform. Thankfully the obsession with N.P.M. has now abated. Bureaucracy
106 Summing up
is an indispensable element of state power and cannot be run like a business,

anywhere in the world—North or South. To my mind, new ideas for models of
state, such as that of the Neo-Weberian state, can be re-evaluated in the context of
the developing world: to re-affirm the crucial role of governments as the main
facilitator of solutions to new problems. The two irreducible features of the Neo-
Weberian state model should be: the embeddedness of the Rule of Law in govern-
ance and a public service ethos suited to the New Age. The Neo-Weberian state
needs to consult and co-govern with citizens, focus on outcomes rather than
procedure and modernize and professionalize its cadre. There cannot be any replace-
ment of public bureaucracies’ service delivery mechanisms, which can only supple-
ment its efforts. Bureaucracy should remain a central actor in public administration in
the 21st century in both the North and the South.
At the beginning of the 20th century, greater emphasis was on industrial produc-
tivity, operational efficiency and strong control mechanisms, for the strengthening of
the structural and procedural components of public administration. In the 21st
century, the focus has shifted towards human development and broadening citizen’s
choices. These choices can be infinite and can change over time. We now live in a
“knowledge” economy where “information” will change societies. E-governance is a
great tool of transparent and accountable citizen centric administration.
Historically, public administration has reflected the changing socio-economic
and political concerns of contemporaneous times, and its impact on government
functions. At present, it faces contradictory ideological and functional pressures
which are alternately pulling it towards an expansionist agenda (the agenda from
the South) and a reductionist one (North-centric agenda). In the 21st century
onus rests on the public administration of every state to refound its raison d’être
according to the particular constitutional, societal economic and political needs of
every nation.
INDEX
accountability 15–16, 19–20, 22, 24, 41, data acquisition 47–8, 72–3
57–8, 85, 87, 88, 95, 97 Deaton, A. 74
administrative agencies 48 decentralization 17, 72
administrative responsiveness 24 decision making 37, 40–4
Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) 36 decolonization 67
Africa 61–2 democracy: consociational 63; developing
African National Congress (ANC) 61 countries and 76–7; erosion of 2–3; in
agenda setting 37–40 India 54–60; inequality and 60–1;
Almond, G. 38 procedural versus substantivist 52–3, 60;
anti-poverty programmes 9 transition to 104
Arab Spring 2, 7 Denhardt, J. 21–2, 26, 95, 97, 100–1
audit process 48 Denhardt, R. 21–2, 26, 95, 97, 100–1
authoritarianism 3, 6–7, 34, 39–40, 63, 104 development, ideology of 69–70
developmental states, divergent approaches
Bhagwati, J. 59 of 8–10
Bouckaert, G. 18 discursive approach 36
bureaucracy: in developing countries 71–2; distributive policies 32
as instrument of development 69–70; role domestic governance, challenges for 7–8
of 67, 68, 71 Dreze, J. 59–60
business, government and 83–7 Dror, Y. 45–6
causality 47 Easton, D. 30
China, economy of 3 e-governance 27, 49–50, 105
citizen participation 39–40 elections 39, 53, 61–3
citizen surveys 84–5 Electoral Integrity project 63
co-governance 96, 97 employment opportunities,
Cohen, M.D. 42 expansion of 9
comparative research studies: challenges for engaged governance 16
72–3; as emerging sub-discipline 68–9; ethics 23, 26, 27, 87–9
overview of 65–7 evaluation 37, 45–8
competitive regulatory policies 32–3
consociational democracy 63 Farmer, D. 79
Court, J. 77 Fayol, H. 94
108 Index
Fischer, F. 36 integrity 87–8

Fox, C.J. 78–9 International Labour Organisation 104–5
Franklin, G. 32–3 International Migration Report (U.N.) 2
Gaebler, T. 16, 100 Jenkins-Smith, H.C. 36

garbage can metaphor 42
G.D.P., in South versus in North 9 Kaufmann, D. 77
Gender Inequality index 98 Kholi, A. 55
gig economy 105 Kingdon, J.W. 42
Global Gender Gap Report 11 Kravchuk, R.S. 77
Global Index of Good Governance 98
Global Multi-Dimensional Poverty Language of Public Administration, The
Index 104 (Farmer) 79
global production levels 5–6 Lasswell, H.D. 34, 35, 36
good governance: concept of 74–6, 80; Latin America 7–8
developing countries and 77–8; legality 87
framework of 16, 28 legislative process 48
good governance agenda 53–4 Lerner, D. 34
governance: cost of 96; models of Lijphart, A. 63
94–6 Lindblom, C. 34–5, 39–40, 41
governance index 77 logic of appropriateness 42
“governing development” 77 logic of consequentiality 42
governing networks 35 Lowi, T. 32
group interests 43–4
growth versus equity discourse 104–5 maintenance functions 1
Mandela, N. 61
Hood, C. 100, 101 March, J.G. 42
Human Development Index (H.D.I) 4, Marxist perspective 43
11–12, 91, 98 Mauritius 5
Human Development Report (U.N.D.P.) Mease, K. 77
9, 10, 53, 90, 98 medical tourism 73
human security 89–90 military expenditures 10, 90
human well-being 89–90 Millennium Development Goals 12, 28, 53,
hurricane Katrina 19 59, 102
Hyden, G. 77 Miller 78–9
Minimum Agenda of good governance 2,
identity politics 63–4 53, 80, 103
immigration 2 Minnowbrook III 28
impacts, diffused 47 mobility 89
implementation 37, 44–5 Moore, M. 20–1, 26
“Implementation: How Great Morris-Jones, W.H. 55
Expectations in Washington are multiple-streams model 42
dashed in Oakland” (Pressman and
Wildavsky) 44 neo-liberal perspective 43
incrementalism 35, 41–2 Neo-Weberian State 18, 103–6
India: cost of governance in 96; democracy New Governance, move towards 15
in 54–60; growth versus equity discourse New Public Management (N.P.M.)
and 104–5; public healthcare in 16–18, 20–2, 24, 26, 67, 78–9, 83, 94,
73–4 100–1
India Wage Report (ILO) 104–5 New Public Service 22
Industrial Policy Resolution (1956) 56 New Public Service, The (Denhardt and
inequality 4, 8, 60–1, 104 Denhardt) 95
insecurity: types of 9–10; see also Norris, P. 61, 62–3
security Nyongo, P.A. 61–2
Index 109
Olsen, J.P. 42 public service: ethos of 26; new 21–2

Osborne, D. 16, 100 public value, concept of 20–1
Ostrom, E. 50
O’Toole, L. 24 Reagan, R. 100
Rediscovering institutions (March and Olsen) 42
Panagariya, A. 59 redistributive policies 32–3
parochial political culture 38 regulatory policies 32–3
participant political culture 38 reinventing government 78–9, 95
patronage policies 32 Reinventing Government (Osborne and
Peters, G. 15 Gaebler) 100
policy agenda setting 37–40 responsiveness 24, 87
policy cycle 37 Rhodes, R.A.W. 21
policy evaluation 45–8 Riggsian framework 65
policy goals 46–7 Ripley, R. 32–3
policy impact evaluation 46 Rosenbloom, D.H. 77
policy implementation 44–5 Rudolph, L. 55
policy issue knowledge 45–6 Rudolph, S. 55
policy output versus outcomes 46 Rule of law Index (World Justice Project)
policy perspective 70–1 97–8
policy project appraisal 46
policy science 45–6 Sabatier, P.A. 36
Policy Sciences, The (Lerner and Lasswell) 34 security: human 89–90; perspectives on
policy strategy evaluation 46 90–1; see also insecurity
political culture 37–8 Sen, A. 59–60
politics-administration dichotomy 94 Simon, H. 40, 41
Pollitt, C. 18 social services, expansion of 9
post-modernism 78–9 Soni, V. 78
Postmodern Public Administration (Fox and South: lessons from 6–7; rise of 3–4,
Miller) 79 92–4
post-N.P.M. initiatives 22–4 South–South cooperation 91–2, 102
poverty eradication 54 stages model 35–7
poverty reduction 59 “Study of Public Administration, The”
Pressman, J. 44 (Wilson) 14, 15, 94
private sector 71 subject political culture 38
privatization 17–18 Subramaniam, V. 69
procedural democracy 52–3, 60 subsidies 32
productive regulatory policies 32–3 substantivist democracy 52–3, 60–1, 104
public administration: in 21st century successful administration, criteria of 96–8
82–98; classical model of 15–18; current sustainable development 77
state of 14–28; summary regarding Sustainable Development Goals 12, 28, 53,
100–60; teaching 24–5 74, 80, 86, 102
Public Affairs Index 58
Public Choice theory 26 taxation 32, 33
public decision making 40–4 Taylor, F. 94
public goods: access to 60–1; business and technology transfers 93
83–4; economic development and 39; Thatcher, M. 100
policy implementation and 44; role of think tanks 49
government and 17, 20, 26, 53, 54, transparency 49–50, 85
100–1; welfare states and 6
public healthcare 73–4 universal healthcare (U.H.C.) 74
public interest 22
public policy: optimal decision-making and value-governance 101
49–50; overview of 30; politics and Verba, S. 38
33–48; study of 31–2; types of 32–3 violence, inequality and 8
110 Index
Wanna, J. 21 Wildavsky, A. 44
Weber, M. 69, 94 Wilson, W. 14, 15, 94
Westminster systems 21 World Justice Project 97–8
Whole of Government (W.o.G.)
initiative 23

Rumki Basu Public Administration in The 21st Century A Global South

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rumki Basu Public Administration in The 21st Century A Global South

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN

THE 21ST CENTURY

Public administration has experienced a fundamental rethinking of its basic objectives,

ISBN: 978-1-138-05621-3 (hbk)

1 The changing world of the 21st century: building new

2 The discipline of public administration today 14

3 The public and its policies 30

4 Democracy, the state and the citizen 52

5 Good governance to governing development today:

6 Public administration in the 21st century: dilemmas

The transition from an era of “government” to “governance” has brought

Information laws) will interfere or intrude whenever they want to “know”

• Is there a need to re-evaluate the role and mandates of government and

• How, and for whom, does public administration work in heterogeneous

As a scholar of public administration, I think it is time to re-evaluate the functions

eroding, backsliding, withering or buckling under authoritarian pressures. If the

The rise of the South

Lessons from the South

Challenges for domestic governance

Developmental states: divergent approaches

regulation, export promotion, industrial development and human development. In

• Advancing the objective of a fair, balanced and development oriented

Fused Prismatic Diﬀracted

As a public vocation or practice, public administration has co-existed with every

The classical model

• Government, a political body stationed at the top of the politico-administrative

through their representatives in the legislature. This is the foundational

This traditional concept of public administration has recently undergone a

• Restructuring government operations along market lines, with a focus on

Conventional public administration has signiﬁcant diﬀerences with New Public

The N.W.S. model

a) Centrality of the State

The N.W.S. model is a combination of the instrumental rationality of Weberian

Concept of public value

• Evolve professional standards based on public interest.

Moore declares that it is “politics” that authoritatively deﬁnes what is “publicly

It misdiagnoses the function of management in the modern public sector

New public service

the contemporary view of political life assigns a “steering” role to governments—

• Serve rather than steer.

Post-N.P.M. global initiatives

of increased state control with network-like coordination, with a continuation of

• Foster cooperation, coordination and integration between the public sector,

Teaching public administration

The ongoing concerns

a) Understanding the inadequacy of the Weberian model of legal-rational

Deﬁning the public service ethos

of Public Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective”, Georgetown

Public policy can be broadly deﬁned as an oﬃcially enacted and ready-to-

Why study public policy?

Classic policy types

• Secondly, regulatory agencies are dominated by their environment: interest

A more balanced view is that regulatory policy is a product of both regulatory

Politics and policy

The stages models and alternate frameworks

Policy making has been conventionally explained as a series of stages in which

• First of all, a theoretical emphasis on coalitions, where questions focus on

The policy cycle: processes

Policy agenda setting

genuine elections”. Some political scientists speculate that voting in genuine

Public decision making

understood that when decision-making procedures are more strictly regulated,

other types of rationality, or, as mentioned in the previous section, become