Public Administration in the Age of Globalization

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Trends
1.1 Privatization
1.2. Downsizing
1.3 Decentralization

2. Challenges

3. Opportunities

4. Implications for Administrative Theory

Conclusion

Bibliography

Books and Journals

Introduction

Globalization has brought about a transformation at virtually all levels of human activity that is unprecedented and cannot even be rivalled by industrialization as the latter took part in only a small part of the world. While there is still disagreement about when exactly globalization began there were two distinctive developments at the beginning of the 1990s which undeniably at least accelerated the process of globalization.

Like maybe no other invention the Internet has become identified with globalization as it perfectly represents the opportunities created by new communication technologies. At least in cyber space the “global village” already exists. The Internet and other vastly improved communication methods have not only made it possible to exchange money and stocks worldwide in a moment’s notice but ideas, opinions and information as well.

The second development contributing to globalization is rather political in nature. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War era which witnessed its final event with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the new unipolar world order there was an increasing pressure to uniformity, i.e. to adopt the Western form of democracy and market capitalism. It was believed that globalization would lead to the emergence of a global culture based on Western values. This was however met with fierce resistance from certain cultural groups leading to prophecies of a future “Clash of Civilizations”.^[1]

While it was initially feared that globalization would “[...] bring in its trail a pathological process of ‘recolonization’ [...]”^[2] because it seemed to benefit mainly the developed countries this assumption has not fully materialized. There are winners and losers in every part of the world and many countries, especially in Asia and South America have catapulted themselves onto the global stage by achieving almost miraculous economic growth. However, globalization has led to a widening gap between rich and poor both among and within countries. Indeed, the process of globalization has been to a large extent shaped by transnational corporations which form alliances with local power elites and therefore attain a considerable influence over the economic, political, and social welfare of many nations.^[3]

Public administration has been amidst these developments as it is responsible for carrying out new policies while at the same time being exposed to the impacts. There is hardly any dispute about the argument that globalization will have profound effects on public administration; yet it is not clear what these effects will be. A rather general account proposes a functional change from “steering to rowing”.^[4] This paper attempts to provide a brief overview on current trends in administrative practice as well as on challenges and opportunities globalization brings about for public administration.

1. Trends

While it may still be too early for a comprehensive account about the effects of globalization on public administration there are a few distinctive trends that have emerged in both administrative practice and theory. It would seem appropriate at this point to take a separate look at public administration in developed and developing countries as obviously their respective tasks are quite distinguishable from each other. It shall be argued here, however, that the developments in public administration are surprisingly similar worldwide. This startling fact becomes a little more explicable when we consider the implications of the Ecological Approach developed by John Gaus and sophisticatedly enhanced by Fred W. Riggs. The Ecological Approach advises us to study public administrations in the context of the environment in which it takes place since both administration and environment are in an interdependent relationship with each other.^[5] It follows from this that because globalization represents a significant part of the environment of virtually all public administrations in the world today its implications should be connatural as well. We shall see, however, whether this assumption can be upheld.

There has been a perplexing variety of prognoses regarding the future of public administration in the age of globalization. Quite a significant number of researchers went as far as to predict the decline or even “the end of public administration”.^[6] While these accounts have proved to be exaggerated it nevertheless has become clear that the role of public administration has undergone substantial changes which can be summarized with the terms privatization, decentralization, and downsizing. It could be argued that these three trends have emerged irrespective of globalization as for instance the New Public Management Approach, which became popular in the 1980s, calls exactly for these kinds of measures in order to make public administration more efficient, dynamic, people- oriented and accountable by introducing private administration methods.^[7] Notwithstanding this fact it is quite obvious that not only the first major features of globalization such as increased international trade or new communication technologies had already appeared by that time but that the pressure especially on administrations in developing countries increased immensely in the 1990s when the process of globalization accelerated and the “global era” began. For the purpose of this paper it is not necessary to distinguish causes and effects of these developments. We may simply conclude that under globalization there has been an enormous pressure on almost all public administrations in the world to privatize, decentralize and downsize.

According to Ali Farazmand, these developments led to a change in the character of public administration from “civil administration to non-civil administration”; i.e. the “balanced administrative state has been replaced by the corporate- coercive state which is characterized by a massively growing coercive bureaucracy in charge of incarcerating millions of citizens considered potential threats to social order”.^[8] It may be added that in developed countries this manifested itself in a withdrawal of the welfare state while in developing countries it meant a redefining of development; i.e. development was reduced to its economic dimension and became and end in itself. In both the developed and the developing word the public sphere has been decreasing leading to less “public spiritedness”^[9].

1.1 Privatization

Privatization takes place in at least two different spheres of public administration: 1) Formerly state- owned companies and enterprises become privatized and 2) public services are delegated to non- state actors.

Many countries in the West as well as in the developing world used to run what they considered to be key industries themselves. In the West these included primarily infrastructural industries such as railways, communications or the energy industry. It was believed that the running of these important industries could not be left to private and market forces. In addition to that many developing countries also controlled industrial sectors deemed essential for development. However, most of the state- owned companies failed to operate efficiently and least of all were able to take profits. This was largely due to their bureaucratic structure and the fact that they possessed a monopoly in their respective sector. In an attempt to improve efficiency and competition these companies were privatized and the industries opened to other private actors. Many states did however retain a significant share in their former possessions or exempted a few companies from privatization all together. While it remains to be seen what the long- term implications of privatization will be it undeniably has had a substantial impact on public administration functions. As a result of privatization public administration is less involved in producing services and goods now but instead has become an “articulator of demand, a purchaser of services, a monitor of performance, and a regulator of markets”. These functions are not entirely new to public administrations, rather they are merely expanded.

What we encounter here is an obviously paradox situation: privatization has not led to a decrease of government and administrative activities, rather the opposite is true. This will become clearer when we take a look at the second sphere of privatization. While the overall functions of administrations have rather increased the “public sphere” has nevertheless shrunk because the expanded functions are less public- oriented. The space created by the state’s retreat has rapidly been occupied by a confusing variety of non- state actors which have substantially proliferated in the course of globalization.^[10] Thus, non- state actors carry out more and more functions which originally belonged to the domain of public administration. Non- state actors assume their new roles of delivering public services in many different ways. A method that has become increasingly popular especially among developed countries is a contract between governments and non- state actors through which the latter are assigned the task to provide specific services. The range of services open to contracting seems to be alarmingly wide as the following example from the United States illustrates. In the US, many state governments rely on non- governmental organizations to provide services granted by the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and in the states of Florida and Texas “many components of welfare programs are now delivered through contracts with private profit and non-profit agencies”.^[11] As we can see, governments do not even shrink away from handing over the responsibilities for core services to profit- oriented organizations.

Another example possibly illustrates even more the way in which state responsibilities have been appropriated by non- state actors. The relief efforts in the wake of the 2004 tsunami which devastated many coastal areas along the Indian Ocean and brought death to an estimated 3,0 lakh of people were largely carried out by non- governmental organizations. As the capabilities of most of these organizations are both structurally and financially limited there is obviously the need to coordinate their activities. Unfortunately, public administrations have so far not been able to adequately adapt to their new functions and in the case of the tsunami this led to an unequal distribution of aid among the affected areas.^[12]

The examples presented here relate to three distinguished types of privatization: divestment of formerly state- run enterprises, delegation of responsibilities through contracting and, finally, displacement, “a somewhat passive process that leads to a government’s being displaced more or less gradually by the private sector...” and “may occur by default, by withdrawal, or by deregulation”.^[13]

1.2. Downsizing

Public administrations and other large organizations are often believed to have an inherent tendency to perpetually expand. This phenomenon has been described first by Cyril Nothcote Parkinson whose findings, although not intended to be taken too seriously, have nevertheless become quite popular. Parkinson had observed that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion” and that “the matters most debated in a deliberative body tend to be the minor ones where everybody understands the issues”.^[14] Based on these observations he formulated his “laws” according to which the number of employees in an organization will steadily increase because any official would prefer to have more subordinates instead of more superiors or rivals and because officials generally would tend to create work for each other.^[15]

It obviously follows from this that an expanding organization or administration would rather sooner than later require an expanding budget as well. Thus, downsizing aims first and foremost at limiting and controlling public finances but there may be other motivations such as ideological ones as well. A specific function or program of an administration could be targeted because it does not benefit certain groups who would likely try to impede the further implementation of that function or program by depriving the administration of its financial and human resources. However, any attempt to downsize an organization should not count on its cooperation but instead prepare for open resistance against or more subtle mitigation of the downsizing effort.^[16]

As most of the public administrators worldwide are protected against dismissal an indirect approach to attain significant downsizing measures seems more likely to succeed. Even then a general societal climate in favour of redefining the role of the state and accepting a diminished role of public administration appears to be a precondition. Public administrations in countries with either a traditionally strong bureaucracy, high popular expectations towards the state, or a combination of both have so far been able to avoid substantial cutback attempts. It should furthermore be emphasized that downsizing administrations of countries with strong centrifugal forces could have serious consequences and eventually lead to disintegration. Downsizing therefore needs to be thoroughly considered, carefully carried out, and should be based on a broad consensus.

[...]

^[1] Huntington 1993, pp. 22-49.

^[2] Bhattacharya 2006, p. 439.

^[3] Steger 2003, pp. 48-51.

^[4] Osborne, David E. and Ted Gaebler cit. in: Farmer 1995, p. 115.

^[5] Bhattacharya 2006, p.303.

^[6] Stillman 1997, pp. 332f.

^[7] Bhattacharya 2006, pp. 395-396.

^[8] Farazmand 1999, p. 509.

^[9] see Frederickson 1997.

^[10] Josselin/ Wallace 2001, pp. 1f.

^[11] Romzek / Johnston 2002, pp. 423f.

^[12] UNDP Bureau for Crisis and Prevention & Recovery. 2005.

^[13] Bhattacharya 2006, p.41.

^[14] Parkinson 1957, p. 12.

^[15] Parkinson 1958, http://www.adstockweb.com/business-lore/Parkinson's_Law.htm

^[16] Lambright 1998, pp. 259ff.