Criticisms of the Traditional Model

The traditional model of administration was an outstanding success and widely emulated by governments all round the world. A strict administrative system has some advantages and, for most of its history, nobody questioned its principles and effectiveness or considered alternative means of public organization. Compared to earlier forms that were rife with corruption, it was more efficient and the idea of a professional service was a great improvement on a personal or amateur one.

The hierarchical system meant that everyone knew his or her place and extent of authority₁. Someone was always technically accountable for all actions, from the lowest level to the highest. For the career public servant there was a steady, stable, secure if unspectacular, progress through the hierarchy. The system was also reasonably efficient and effective in a narrow sense and meant instructions were carried out, especially when given clearly. It was also reasonably free from the temptations of diverting public funds₅ for the personal use of the bureaucrat. When tasks were administrative and relatively simple, when the environment was stable, the system worked well.

However, the traditional model was rigid and bureaucratic, narrowly focused and preoccupied with structure and process, although it was better than what existed before. Merit-based appointment, formal bureaucracy and the notion that politics and administration could and should be separated were adequate principles for an administrative system, particularly one operating in a time of stability. However, there are major criticisms of the traditional model; although it was a good model for a long time, its time has passed.

Traditional bureaucracy developed at a particular point of industrial development; its systems and technology were suited to an earlier age. If public servants are considered to be automatons responding to simple stimuli, who cannot be trusted with the scope or responsibility to make decisions and for whom every conceivable contingency₃ must be set out in operating manuals, then the traditional model of administration may be appropriate. However, formal systems of hierarchy are no longer regarded as working very well in the private or public sectors. The traditional model was a great reform in its day, but the world has moved on.

The theoretical pillars of public administration are no longer seen as adequate to analyze the reality of government. The theory of political control was always problematic. Administration means following the instructions of others and, therefore, necessitates an orderly method of giving and receiving instructions. The theory of public administration required a clear separation between those who give instructions and those who carry them out. This was never realistic and became less so with the increase in scale and scope of public services. The other main pillar – the theory of bureaucracy – is no longer considered a particularly efficient or effective form of organization. Bureaucratic organization is no longer seen as the last word in organizational theory or practice. It is not the single best way of organizing and its undesirable aspects – concentration of power₆, reduction of freedom, usurpation₄ of political will – may be thought worse than its desirable features. The traditional model of public administration has increasingly been superseded. While a new model is not fully in place, clearly there is now a greater focus on result rather than process, on responsibility rather than its evasion, and on management rather than on administration.

The basic paradigms₇ for public sector management are those following from Ostrom’s¹ (1989) argument that there are two opposing forms of organization: bureaucracy and markets. The key difference between the two forms of organization is that between choice and compulsion₈; allowing the market to find an agreed result or having it imposed by a bureaucratic hierarchy. At this most fundamental level, bureaucracy and markets are very different; they are based on very different ways of looking at the world. In short, the traditional model of administration is based on bureaucracy; public management is based on markets.

As an OECD² paper argues, ‘this new management paradigm emphasizes results in terms of “value for money”, to be achieved through management by objectives, the use of markets and market-type mechanisms, competition and choice, and devolution₂ to staff through a better matching of authority, responsibility and accountability’(1998).

 

Notes to Text D

 

1. Vincent A. Ostrom - Founding Director, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Arthur F. Bentley Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington

2. OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - Организация экономического сотрудничества и развития, ОЭСР

 

⇐ Предыдущая3456789101112Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: