CC BY-NC-ND
151
ARE EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE PARADIGMS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING THE TOOLS TO RESOLVE THE CONTEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE CRISIS?
Alexey G. Barabashev
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Address: Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The hypothesis of the article is that the basic administrative paradigms (Weberian and neo-Weberian; NPM; New Public Governance) are not capable of providing tools and procedures (sets of administrative mechanisms, attributed to the basic administrative paradigms) for governance which are suitable for overcoming the global administrative crisis. The arguments in support of this hypothesis are outlined according to an analysis of scenarios of using such administrative mechanisms under the conditions of administrative crisis: (a) to use each set of administrative mechanism (or to limit their usage through some “good mechanisms”) in the practice of governance despite their attribution to different basic administrative paradigms; (b) to select the “best” basic administrative paradigm and to only follow this particular vision with recommendations on how to shape the administration and its work.
In the final part of the article the possible principles of a new administrative paradigm that could be relevant to the fast-changing contemporary situation and current instability are discussed.
Keywords: administrative crisis; public administration reform; administrative paradigm; administrative mechanisms; effective state.
Citation: Barabashev, A.G. (2016). Are existing administrative paradigms capable of providing tools to resolve the contemporary administrative crisis? Public Administration Issues, no 5 (Special Issue, electronic edition), pp. 6-25 (in English).
General Introduction into the Subject (administrative crisis and administrative paradigms)
As this article is the second in a series of research papers dedicated to the author’s discovery of a new Effective State paradigm (see the first article: Baraba-
shev, 2016), I would like to start with a brief introductory description, mainly for English speaking readers, of the approach and ideas described in the first article that are used as the foundation for the present research.
Recently, we have witnessed, worldwide, the escalating appearance of different local complexes of innovations which combine scientific, technological, economic, and social entities. Such complexes are increasingly influencing countries’ development. States all over the contemporary world need the creation of new approaches to management in the new, rapidly changing conditions of innovative turmoil. This means that instead of the globalization of governance based on multinational agreements and on the coordination of hierarchical stability, a new governance reality affects every country, without exclusion, in terms of conditions of instability and uncertainty. The last decade has clearly shown that administrative tools and procedures of governance (so-called administrative mechanisms) should be heavily and repeatedly re-shaped and modernized.
The administrative crisis that is a consequence of misbalances produced by innovative development highlights the incapability of national governments to react properly to new kinds of challenges. Mistrust in governments, a lack of many globalist initiatives, economic volatility, the appearance of numerous international conflicts, and the attempts of many countries “to find their own way” are all based on governments losing their grip through their resistance to address administrative crisis.
On the level of public administration theory, as described in the first article, all three basic administrative paradigms, namely, Weberian and neoWeberian (the latter is consistent with the Weberian approach, because both are interpreting state and bureaucracy as a subject), the New Public Management paradigm (with its interpretation of state and bureaucracy as a set of administrative service functions), and the New Public Governance paradigm (which describes the state and civil service as a network of relations with civil society), produce chains of theories and models that purport to elaborate the administrative mechanisms capable of overcoming the recent administrative crisis in the best way. Again, such theories and models respond differently to the modern administrative crisis, which consists of a sequence of rapid and uneven innovative challenges that are impossible to reject and quite difficult to accept.
In order to briefly describe the essence of the basic administrative paradigm approaches to solving the contemporary administrative crisis, it is important to note that these approaches are rather different. The Weberian paradigm proposes administrative mechanisms to reconstruct the system of government bodies based on the explication and division of their responsibilities, and to increase the professional competences of public servants according to their specifics. The Neo-Weberian approach stresses the idea that the ethical essence of professional behavior and the motivation to serve people should be placed at the center of efforts to make governance better. NPM reacts to the crisis with two sorts of proposals: first, from an external perspective, how to specify the functions of government bodies, paying attention mainly to the regulation
(improvement of services delivery), and to control the strengthening of functions, including relations with civil society, and how to outsource functions from the public sector to the private sector. Secondly, from an internal point of view, for public service, NPM proposed mechanisms on how to downsize staff on the basis of its KPI, to reduce the transaction costs of state management. Finally, Good Governance, or New Public Governance, as it is sometimes called, is a paradigm which made advances in increasing the openness and transparency of governments, and on the co-productive relations between the government and its citizens (Bingham, Nabatchi & O’Leary, 2005; Hintea, Profiroiu & Tticlau, 2015).
The introduction to the research questions
(The divergence of the best governance practices
are far beyond the existing basic administrative paradigms)
The potential of the existing administrative paradigms is evident in its reaction to the current administrative crisis. Recently, as an expert group member of the Russian Labor and Social Protection Ministry (ML), I had the chance to see the public authorities’ work. Due to the need for the elaboration of administrative mechanisms that are suitable for the rapidly changing conditions of governance in our country, in circumstances of full-scale economic (and not only economic) turbulence, the ML, which is responsible for civil service management, announced a national competition among the government and municipal bodies. The call for an annual competition, now entering its third year (ML of Russia, competitions, 2016), solicits best practices in governance from state entities in the areas of human resource management, including the search for and selection of personnel, qualification requirements, professional adaptation, professional development, motivation and remuneration, professional culture, anti-corruption techniques, rotation and transfer to other positions, attestation and qualified exams, personnel reserves, information technology for HR management, and other topics formulated by the applicants (entities) themselves. Two cycles of the competition were resulted through the decisions of the expert group regarding which practices are best, and whether they can be replicated by other bodies.
At the time of the evaluations it was impossible to recognize any anomalies in the results, especially at the second competition cycle (2015) when over 200 applications from governmental bodies were received. Over time, however, I have recognized that almost all of the selected best practices have some remarkable features. In the 2015 competition we found several unusual aspects (the best practices are presented in their entirety at the: ML of Russia, best practices, 2016):
(1) All of the best practices are connected with dramatic cuts in financing;
(2) Most applications were dedicated to non-standard procedures involving how to find (select) the appropriate personnel capable of finding flexible solutions to problems. Such practices were much appreciated. They are not
intended to improve the legislation, but rather to find mechanisms for the implementation of norms;
(3) Second in number were those best practices showing how to develop the abilities of personnel in order to adapt to rapidly changing conditions of governance, including the ability to undertake continuous education and self-development;
(4) Third in number were best practices on how to evaluate the final outcomes (not outputs) of civil servant activity beyond the existing KPIs;
(5) At the core of almost all the best practices was a strategy of working with personnel, along with the evaluation of the quality of personnel based on the results of the strateg implementation;
(6) To sum up, the administrative mechanisms proposed by government bodies were heterogeneous and in some significant ways went far beyond the tools and procedures proposed by the basic administrative paradigms. Great dissatisfaction with governmental and municipal bodies about “standard” mechanisms is clearly evident.
Remarkably, almost the same situation regarding the variety of practices beyond the NPM framework is mentioned in the workings of other EU countries’ governments (De Vries, Nemec, 2013). Heterogeneity of contexts and tools for strategic planning strongly requires flexibility and a willingness to learn throughout the process (Bryson, 2004) is seen at the local departmental level in the USA (Edvards, 2012). We can conclude that the present practices of governance should be understood from the position of existing basic administrative paradigms: if these paradigms are capable of providing practices of governance with “one-size-fits-all” tools or not.
The research questions (about which administrative mechanisms are better for governance in the current administrative crisis)
Due to the difference in the basic paradigms’ “recipes for practitioners” it is necessary to answer the questions: “Which administrative mechanisms are better to select for the elimination of the governance shortcomings at the time of an administrative crisis, and why?”. Some questions on the usage of the administrative mechanism should be asked, starting with the simplest and then proceeding to the more complicated and theoretically stronger:
Question 1. Is it possible to follow the easiest managerial decision for the contemporary practice of governance: to accept all the administrative mechanisms from different administrative paradigms simultaneously, without paying attention to the theoretical heterogeneity of the proposed instruments? Actually, governments are mostly used to this way of acting (Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2011). However, the problem of accepting the results of such a “theoretically omnivorous” approach is vital: an eclectic application of the mechanisms from different theories in practice, despite their controversial background and disagreements, could entail negative consequences. My hypothesis is that this can’t be a proper decision, because
theoretical unscrupulousness makes the practice of governance weaker, especially under conditions of crisis, when the cost of administrative mistakes is much higher.
Question 2. A more advanced question: is it possible to select the best mechanisms elaborated in different paradigms and to only use the good procedures and tools despite the differences in their theoretical roots? For NPM and Good Governance, as an example, M. De Vries and J. Nemec outlined, that “Nonetheless, many NMP based tools and instruments are still being used and optimized in order to support the process of improvement. Internally, governments are still trying to optimize their internal work. Externally, a shift from emphasizing minimal government (NPM) into trends toward good governance is indeed visible” (De Vries, Nemec, 2013, p. 13). To generalize and re-formulate the question of selective usage: what are the comparative shortcomings of the theories and approaches developed within the framework of the main administrative paradigms of public administration? Which administrative mechanisms should be neglected, and which are better kept in the managerial arsenal? To answer these questions it is necessary to take into account both the theoretical arguments (requirements for completeness, and the theoretical justification of administrative mechanisms), and the disadvantages associated with the practical solutions proposed by such administrative mechanisms. The hypothesis of selecting and simultaneously using essentially the best administrative mechanisms from different paradigms is impossible here because of the strict contradictions in the organizational implementation of such heterogeneous mechanisms.
Question 3. The last and “strongest question” is about the possibility of selecting only those mechanisms that belong to an exclusively administrative paradigm. For example, the neo-Weberian paradigm as the best option was strongly supported by (Drechsler, 2005a). The question is, which paradigm is best (or most suitable) in a practical sense, to choose for the purposes to overcome the present administrative crisis? My thesis here is also negative: to select the best paradigm from the existing list is impossible. All of the basic administrative paradigms at present fail principally because they can’t lead to success toward eliminating the administrative crisis. Moreover, if one pretends to find solutions using only the limited, existing basic administrative paradigms’ approaches, it will lead toward the multiplication of the contemporary problems of governance.
Question 4. Finally, as the last variant of the research question, I would like to ask whether it is possible to find a new administrative paradigm, which will be relevant in its administrative mechanisms to a proper reaction to the crisis of contemporary governance. The thesis (hypothesis) of the article is that this is the only way out of the present administrative crisis. Hence, future research should be committed to the discovery of principles and administrative mechanisms for this hypothetical new paradigm.
Review of approaches (literature)
Discussions on which kind of governance is needed to overcome the current crisis are mainly concentrated around the external context of governance, its public nature. The reasons for paying so much attention to the external context
of governance are simple: governments first of all are inefficient in their relations with citizens. As G. Peters wrote, “the most fundamental paradox has been that while along many dimensions public administration has improved much of its internal performance, it is currently regarded publicity as even more inefficient and ineffective than ever” (Peters, 2013, p. 315). In addition, it is a deep conviction of many researchers that to improve governance, one must change the political and cultural context, not the internal administrative mechanisms, which are secondary and dependent of the context. The significance of the external context for the improvement of governance is expressed clearly by V. Junjan and R. Torenvleid (Junjan & Torenvleid, 2016). They stressed that “Public management reforms (but also public management research on reforms) have put too much emphasis on government control and not enough emphasis on democratic responsiveness. In Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), these imbalances have led to unsustainable reforms, harming the quality of public service delivery and also political stability” (Ibid, p. 321).
In the EU case, the problems of migration, of political authoritarianism, of Brexit, of the concentration of decision-making at the level of the European Commission, and of the rising indebtedness, have been the most significant issues for governance in recent years1. For China, the one-partisan (in essence) political system and existing (to this day) ideology of communism are estimated both as the foundation of social stability, and as the blocking of the route to administrative reform.
The neo-institutional approach gives a good insight into a better understanding of the external approach toward changes in public administration (Kuhlmann, Wollmann, 2014, p. 44-47). In Russia, several researchers also trace the fundamental problems of governance toward neo-institutional peculiarities of a political system. Neopatrimonialism and cynical behavior of the Russian elite is the main barrier to administrative reform (Gelman, 2015, p. 7). Transitional state crisis related to the indefiniteness of all social processes in the country, which is completely applicable to Russia, is embodied in malfunctions of governance, in tensions within the Russian power institutional design (weak legitimacy of governance, and, as result the orientation of governance not to effectiveness, but to social fairness and to justification; and weak coordination and accountability of bureaucracy (Kupriashin, 2015, p. 5).
However, despite the extrinsic (external) approach toward governance reshaping in the conditions of crisis prevailing, the intrinsic (internal) approach to overcoming administrative crisis also exists. Its position is that no progress in governance is possible unless appropriate administrative mechanisms are elaborated. Moreover, small technical steps in providing progress in administrative mechanisms of governance (the so-called, “theory of small deeds”) are more fruitful than any institutional transformations. This position clearly contradicts to already cited thesis that the administrative mechanisms elaboration is secondary in overcoming a governance crisis.
1 This was M. Potucek’s recent discussant thesis at the Annual Meeting of the International Network for Social Policy Research and Teaching, Milano, October 23-25, 2016.
Internal (intrinsic) re-shaping of governance connects progress in governance with the possibility of existing administrative paradigms to be functional and deliver results. The internal position is embodied in three different variants that are discussed in the course of administrative reform implementation:
1) The transition from NPM paradigm (“audeau, consumers epoch”). The idea is to dismiss NPM tools as outdated at the time of crisis, or to use them together with other tools beyond NPM (Christensen and L^greid, 2007). A review of this position and related sources, traced by researchers (De Vries, Nemec, 2013) back to 1988, and which have become the “motto” today, is resumed by them in the words about present changes in the usage of NPM administrative mechanisms: “Common paradigm (NPM - A.B.) shifts are also visible from emphasizing a short term goal achievement to stressing the need to address long term effectiveness; from an emphasis on efficiency to stressing effectiveness; from emphasizing outputs to outcomes; from input (what is put in) to thinking process (how to do it), et cetera” (ibid., p. 8).
2) The transition toward a neo-Weberian paradigm (“vivat, ethical state”). The roots of this position are embedded in understanding that administrative technique without reflexive behavior has become a kitsch which “can be pre-digested, prepackaged, and sold as a largely unproblematic activity with a barely disguised “how-to” training guide intends” (Samier, 2005, p. 39). Of course, the reflexive position means that we recognize critical thinking and behavior as ethical categories that give soul to the administrative procedure. As Samier wrote “what does it mean to BE an administrator, beyond and underlying the professional duties and technical skills formally prescribed”? (ibid, p. 18). It gives a new birth to the Weberian paradigm as reincarnated into a neo-Weberian ethical shape.
3) The transition toward Good Governance (New Public Governance) paradigm (“welcome, shared governance”). The administrative mechanisms guided by bureaucracy should be replaced by mechanisms, where decision-making is attributed to the participation of civil society. “This model emphasizes relationships between the population, public servants, and other actors (for example nonprofit organizations), and the organizational landscape is characterized by networks, inter-organizational relationships, and multi-actor policy-making” (cited from: Sicilia, Guarini, Sancino, An-dreani, Ruffini, 2016, p. 11), The co-production of public services as voluntary efforts by individuals and groups to enhance the quality of services they use has become the focal point of new public governance (Brandsen, Pest-off, Verschuere, 2012), with the outsourcing of some administrative functions (Obolonsky, Barabashev, 2014). The idea of NPM, that the government should be oriented towards market and business, is replaced by the idea that the population should be a co-producer of a new public value.
Study of the research questions
To answer the research questions raised in the previous section of the article, I would point out that it is not proof in a strong (G.W. Leibniz) sense. Rather,
it is a reasonable argumentation in support of my position, because the subject of research lies in the field of the theory of public administration, and all rationale here is also theoretic: it is reasoning, not calculations.
Reasoning on question 1 (to accept all administrative mechanisms from different administrative paradigms simultaneously)
Let us consider higher administrative personnel management. What might the consequences of simultaneous usage of managerial mechanisms produced by different administrative paradigms be? This has already been done in Russia, and the results can be evaluated as a negative experience.
To describe the sets of different mechanisms, the management of higher personnel can be founded on:
(1) A meritocratic approach toward selection and promotions to higher positions (not for political nominees). It is the Weberian paradigm tool kit, based on the evaluation of the level of professional competencies, on resume analysis (professional education and experience), on the testing of professional skills and abilities to solve the problems, on participation in educational and training programs. Such an approach is most effective in the case of establishing a unified government structure that has the authority to guide the selection and nomination of cadres to positions, the promotion of higher administrative personnel. It should be more or less similar to the functions of Office of Personnel Management in the USA (Wyen, Beeck, Hondeghem, 2013; Mann, 2009; Lobanov, 2006). As for Russia, we can see some elements of such an approach in the merit procedures of recruitment and promotion, of cadres’ reserves, that are fixed in Russian civil service legislation and currently supported by ML.
(2) Another approach toward working with higher administrative personnel can be seen in the NPM paradigm that proposes other kinds of administrative tools. Here the accent is fixed on the evaluation of services effectiveness. It is the mechanisms of processes effectiveness evaluation (via administrative regulation of services, so-called “administrative reglaments”, and job descriptions scrupulous implementation). Citizens, as consumers of public services, are given evaluations priority. Higher administrative personnel should possess full responsibility for the quality of services, and weak indicators should lead toward administrative penalties for state managers. The ML of Russia has elaborated some methodic recommendations for governmental bodies on how to evaluate administrative personnel this way (ML of Russia, evaluation procedures, 2016). Recent transformation of the NPM administrative mechanisms for higher administrative personnel performance measurement have led toward new accents on the evaluation of the strategic activity and the achievement of objectives (Bozhya-Volya, 2009; Rato, Baptista, Ferraz, Rodrigues, 2008); toward the evaluation of flexibility in goals and task setting, and in the achievement of targeted results (Bouckaert, Halligan, 2007). As a consequence, in the context of NPM administrative mechanisms, higher administrative personnel should be in disposal of relevant administrative bodies, and there is no need in a unified center (as OPM in the USA), because neither
professional competencies, nor continuous educational programs are critical for promotions based on specific services delivery, its strategy elaboration and implementation.
(3) The “Open Government” approach that is referred to in New Public Governance administrative mechanisms is the willingness of top civil servants to work in close contact with NGOs and citizens, to share decision-making responsibilities, to accept volunteer assistance, and to become moderators and executors (directors) of publicly produced decisions (Sicilia, Guarini, Sancino, Andreani, Ruffini, 2016), and bearers of a new type of administrative culture of co-production (Alford, 2009). The “mediagenic”, public credibility and charisma, ability to listen to people, to change one’s position and to lead - these are the remarkable features of higher administrative personnel. Such features either exist “naturally”, or are originally absent. It is possible to improve or to weaken them due to inappropriate actions, but not to create them “from zero”. Which is why entering the “administrative elite” outside is possible, and procedures such as standard education training, selection by merit, or by the effectiveness of services delivery are not sufficient here. Also, such charismatic leaders are quite difficult to fire from their positions because of their publicity and peoples’ support. Any personnel managerial structure, or structures, is not capable of growing such leaders, it is a phenomenon of appearance, that they come and become those who they are.
Is it wise to blend all three sets of administrative mechanisms described above, to work with higher administrative personnel? In Russia, such an eclectic attempt is under implementation right now. Hence, we receive such unpleasant results as:
- The programs of training and continuous education for higher personnel that are made “for show”, formally, and their results are not considered to be a reason for promotion;
- Personnel management bodies are not unified, and their responsibilities are intersects (Russia has at least three competing structures- inside the ML of Russia, in the Administration of the President of Russia, and in the Apparatus of the Government of Russia), plus the HR unit also has such responsibilities in each governmental body;
- Cadres’ priorities are unclearly articulated.
The crucial questions here are: How to work with top administrative personnel? Who should be promoted, and why? Which structure will be responsible for top administrative officials, their selection, training, and promotion? Different paradigms answer those questions controversially, and it shows that, at least in Russia, in this particular case, the eclectic consumption of tools from all of the basic administrative paradigms fails. It is remarkable that we can find the same conclusion following on from other arguments. To argue the transition from NPM to neo-Weberian paradigm in Central and Eastern European countries, W. Drechsler writes “Yet, with systems as heterogeneous as NPM and “Weberian” PA, most elements are not functional outside of their context, and might even destroy the mechanics of another system. Too much flexibility in a merit system, for instance, ruins its advantages” (Drechsler, 2005 b, p. 102).
The results of the analysis can be presented as a diagram (Diagram ):
The diagram express the contradictions in administrative mechanisms proposed by the basic administrative paradigms. Actually, the difference of 3 types of selection and promotion shows that to combine them is impossible.
Reasoning on question 2 (to select practically best mechanisms elaborated in different paradigms)
To select some optional (“best”) administrative tools and procedures from basic administrative paradigms, and to combine them, we need to compare theoretical and practical disadvantages of the administrative mechanisms. The idea is to reject the administrative mechanisms that show significant obstacles for their usage in the administrative crisis conditions. It is better to demonstrate such disadvantages in the form of a table (Table).
Table
Disadvantages of administrative mechanisms proposed by basic administrative paradigms
Paradigm Basic theoretical principles Theoretical disadvantages Practical disadvantages
Ideal Weberian state / Meritocracy Neo-Weberian state /Ethical meritocracy
Structural ideal state Formation of responsible state as procedures for specification of the structure and responsibilities of governmental bodies The structure of governmental bodies cannot be fixed forever, it is flexible Structural reforms of government are not relevant to the administrative crisis; they become outdated too fast. Additionally, the structural reforms lead toward temporary disorganization of governance (for up to a one year period, as it was in Russia in 2004)
Paradigm Basic theoretical principles Theoretical disadvantages Practical disadvantages
Ethical meritocracy Formation of professional ethics of civil service -creation of the ethical infrastructure of governance Professional ethics is not separate from general ethics, it is culturally and socially dependent Unimpeachable professional ethical behavior cannot, by itself, replace the correct and fast reaction on innovative changes (phenomena of ethical, but not effective actions)
Motivational meritocracy Improving motivation of civil servants toward PSM Public interests are impossible to determine without contradictions Motivation is oriented to the stable system of values, but due to innovative processes, the goals and conditions of governance are changing, and it is followed by rapid changing of priorities and of values
Competencies based meritocracy Improvement of professional competencies of civil servants and elaboration of the qualification requirements for job positions Professional competencies is hard to determine, the professional qualifications requirements are too general and conditional At contemporary administrative crisis, all professional competencies are dynamic, and they became outdated rapidly
NPM / effective bureaucracy
State of services Regulation of the functionality of governmental bodies and elaboration of regulatory acts for services delivery Administrative regulation of services delivery does not embrace all functions of governmental bodies. Also, the complete detailed, taking into account all cases of administrative regulation of services is impossible The process of administrative regulation slows decisionmaking. Otherwise, the crisis requires fast and flexible mechanisms of responsiveness
Regulatory state (oversight) and regulatory impact assessment Elaboration of the procedures that can improve an effective oversight, such as inspections, checklists, etc, and to prevent ? unjustified regulation Oversight functions are growing as metastases. Additional corruption risks do exist. Also, the measures of oversight are principally incomplete Transaction costs of oversight are increased at crisis conditions, because the oversight procedures are too awkward
Processes: Effective bureaucracy (KPI and BSC effectiveness of civil servants) Elaboration and improvement of the tools for evaluation of processes of activity of civil servants Outcomes evaluation is replaced by outputs and by processes effectiveness evaluation, it distorts the understanding of which professional activity is successful Working not for real effects, but on “indicators” is dangerous. Also, the initiative of civil servants is oppressed by the introduction of such indicators
Paradigm Basic theoretical principles Theoretical disadvantages Practical disadvantages
Strategic and planning effectiveness of bureaucracy Elaboration of the instruments for evaluation of strategic effectiveness, including SMART and PEST analysis. Elaboration of the instruments for evaluation of the plans of professional activity Strategic effectiveness cannot possibly be introduced, undoubtedly because the strategy is just an optional selection of goals. Also, the strategic effectiveness is not attributed to “line” servants, but just to managerial level servants. Executive staff should not discover their own strategies. The plans constructed “from existed” conditions, they are provisional Strategic effectiveness of civil servants’ activity at the time of administrative crisis is not sustainable: the conditions and goals of governance are changing rapidly. The planning becomes problematic due to the emergence of unpredictable new settings
New Public Governance State / bureaucracy of participation
Participatory governance Elaboration and decision-making in interaction with civil society (governance as the network of communications with structures of civil society and with citizens) Network of communication is hard to formalize and to clearly find the conditions and borders of collective decision-making In practice, the lobbying of private and of some peculiar social groups is not excluded. How are the “pseudo-structures”, that are created just for material profits (distribution of public funds) eliminated? It is especially significant at the time of crisis, when the tensions between different group interests are increasing
State of stratified participation of different social actors, and of co-production Elaboration of decisions in interaction with different social actors (business, state established organizations, NGOs, citizens) Conditions and borders of collective decision-making processes are overcomplicated Manipulation from the state, especially in transitional and developing countries, increase if the social contract does not exist. Also, the set of actors at the time of crisis is changing perpetually
State of outsourcing The transfer of government bodies’ responsibilities (functions) toward external (NGO, business, etc.) organizations The criteria, which responsibilities are needed to be transferred, is difficult to find. Also, how are the bodies’ responsibilities and people’s rights to participate combined? Potential corruption of the transferring of responsibilities from state to other entities
Paradigm Basic theoretical principles Theoretical disadvantages Practical disadvantages
Co-productive bureaucracy (sharing responsibilities for decisionmaking, accepting volunteering by individuals and groups) Network distribution of the responsibilities and duties Unclear, how to formulate the networking (collective) responsibility for decisions Administrative crisis is sharpening the social contradictions, and it is hard to achieve consensus in decisionmaking
It is clear from the list of disadvantages, that practical ones are tightly connected with theoretical disadvantages. To generalize, an administrative crisis which is an aspect of the global crisis of governance due to misbalances of innovative development, sheds the light on the weak aspects of existing administrative mechanisms. It is impossible to avoid some theoretical disadvantages and to just take the “best” practical instruments: every practical implication of the proposed procedures has in reverse, as with a coin, the side of theoretical justification (and disadvantage), and vice versa. In other words, it is not possible to just take some practically “best” tools, and to dismiss their theoretical attribution, exactly as it is impossible to cut off one side of a coin and just use the other side.
The deep reason for such a conclusion is in recognizing the fact that every administrative mechanism has its organizational structure of implementation, period of activation, and consequences of exploring. To use the “best” (practically) mechanisms of different theoretical paradigm origin, they require different organizational support, and will be not correlative in times of action.
For example, to understand the civil service as an object (an essence) according to Weberian and neo-Weberian paradigm, and to apply the standard procedures of merit toward the selection, promotion and stimulating of servants, a lot of problems appear. They are: to struggle with the instability of professional competencies; to accommodate the moral values to innovative social relations; and to introduce the initiative into traditional civil servants legalistic behavior in the dynamic World. Let’s try to improve, for instance, the Weberian tools by the other “best” administrative mechanisms borrowed from NPM and from NPG. Usually, they are attempts to add such components (for improving the civil service) as effectiveness-oriented remuneration (bonuses, or other instruments of stimulation) according to services delivery results, increasing the transparency of professional activity of civil servants (more information on web sites, introduction of feedback procedures from consumers of services, etc.), and anticorruption measures (reports, whistleblowing, etc.). Unfortunately, to blend all those administrative tools and use them simultaneously would create tensions in the systems of contemporary civil service:
- For any ministry of finance, calculating the limits for funding personnel in governmental bodies is much easier if they do not take into account the amount of bonuses. To declare the total amount of funds needed for any specific governmental body’s personnel bonuses is almost impossible to do: everything is changing rapidly. In the present crisis with instability and pri-
orities shifting it looks like it is the voluntaristic and situationally made decisions that are expressing some ranking of bodies’ significance in the representation of political authorities. Additionally, the bonuses are given with a delay, not at the time of the effective actions of servants. Finally, bonuses have the tendency to become part of a regular salary.
- Introduce transparency to civil servants’ professional activity influences heavily on the relationships among civil servants themselves. From an organizational standpoint, the system of orders from managers to the executive staff will be under pressure: all these orders can be discussed openly and evaluated negatively by the public. The unpredictability of such “approval leaks” is obvious. As a result, the hierarchical Weberian organizational system of a civil service (principal theoretical construction for Weber and neo-Weber paradigm) will be damaged.
To conclude, the state and its bureaucracy cannot be fixed by some blended system of administrative tools and procedures, borrowed as the best ones from different administrative paradigms, due to organizational and other reasons that reflect the unstable context of present governance.
Reasoning on question 3 (to only take the mechanisms that belong exclusively to one basic administrative paradigm)
I would like to divide the reasoning on “best paradigm” selection into two parts. The first is about historical progress in paradigms. There is belief that every country should pass, in its administrative development, the stages from Weberian state to services oriented state, and only after that to the state oriented to new public governance. This belief is based on the assumption that it is not possible to wave “at once” the relics of previous systems of state management on the one hand, while, on the other hand, a smooth transition is necessary in the direction of general globalist unification of governance systems. Theoretically, this belief is traced to institutionalism and to the theory of public choice (Norgaard, Winding, 2006, p. 138, 147). However, every administrative paradigm has a set of its own theoretical deficits and practical disadvantages strongly interconnected (as shown before) that has become more and more inappropriate at the time of administrative crisis. Therefore, the transition from one set of administrative paradigm mechanisms to a set that is attributed to another, the “next” paradigm, is not progress at all. One sort of defect is just replaced by another, and the problems are replaced (or not replaced, but rather multiplied) by other problems and are not solved. The quality of governance from changing basic administrative paradigm tools is not necessarily increased: it looks more like a “chase for some theoretical fashion” and the desire to be in line with other countries that have already applied the next generation of models and theories of state and bureaucracy. Such a chase can be destructive for the country because non-critical thinking and the borrowing of new models and social theories is potentially dangerous for the existing social reality inside a country.
Every existing basic administrative paradigm itself does not fit in regards to overcoming the contemporary administrative crisis. Actually, for NPM-un-derstanding of the state and its functions, the complete regulation of services
is theoretically impossible, but more significant is that idea that imposing strong regulations everywhere oppresses flexibility in decision-making. Moreover, the indicators of services effectiveness are not in a condition to take into account the innovative indefiniteness as they replace outcomes by outputs and by “measurement of processes” and cultivate the preparation of bulky and timeconsuming formalization plans of professional activity. Besides, speaking about services, the present administrative crisis is not mainly connected with bad quality public services. It stems from the rapid, revolutionary changes of social life. As a result, good quality but outdated public services can be harmful. Just some examples: the social programs of support for workers in an ecologically dangerous industry help to fix this industry existence; for many services, it is better simply to stop it rather than improve them. Also the maxim “the consumer is always right” is not correct in the times of innovation because a lot of innovations are potentially harmful to the environment. To appease consumers in all their desires means to intensify the crisis of governance, which is already incapable of limiting rampant consumption and the extension of social divergence.
It is the same with the paradigm of New Public Governance administrative mechanisms. Such mechanisms are flawed because at the present time of mis-balanced innovative development and administrative crisis it is not possible to delimit the borders of participation. Contradictions among actors of participation broaden, their interests diverge. The lobbying risks of some social groups increase and consensus requirements start to be imitated rather than imposed, as was clearly visible in the USA election campaign.
The conclusion for the idea of historical progress in administrative paradigms unfortunately is negative. The necessity to move from instruments of a previous paradigm to the instruments of another because of their “better suitability” for contemporary administrative practice is not evident.
Now I will try to go on to explore the second, “softer” optional variant of the “bestparadigm” selection. Instead of the historic progress in administrative paradigms usage in practice of governance, let’s suppose that for different countries the “right governance” looks different (Andrews, 2010). The existence of specific social, economic, and cultural conditions and traditions of regional peculiarities produce a certain “predisposition” of the country and its system of governance toward some particular administrative paradigm.
Supposing, such a choice can be used as the basis for the selection of particular administrative mechanisms of a paradigm that is capable of overcoming an administrative crisis. For example, for those countries with a high level of governance culture, with strong ethical norms in their civil servant “community”, and with a developed civil society structure, the New Public Governance paradigm can be the best choice to orient to. However, technical and social innovations can destroy the balance of interests of social groups and create a crisis of public participation in governance.
For countries with a strong system of bureaucracy and a tradition of supremacy of bureaucracy in social life (imperial tradition), without the mature institutes of civil society, the transition toward New Public Governance calls for creating just a havoc of governance institutes. At the time of innovative
turmoil it could lead toward the destruction of administrative mechanisms (a pause in decision-making procedures). In this case it is better to orient to the Weberian paradigm, and to its contemporary models. In particular, societies in a position of post-soviet transition tend to lean towards the models of ethical meritocracy and the models of public service motivation (and if their elites are not reformed, these models tend to disappear). A characteristic feature of the usage of these models is the training of new professional skills through the formation of ethical standards, by strengthening anti-corruption control and supervision. The public landmark for these countries is the widespread belief that the administrative measures of meritocratic orientation will lead to a new quality of public administration: it will help overcome the incompetence of civil servants and will contribute to a new tradition of professional ethics and motivation towards a public service establishment. However, this aspiration recalls chasing a ghost: innovative development devalues existing professional competencies, they become outdated. Simultaneously, ethical standards and motivational preferences are subject to the destructive influence of innovation, lifestyle changes. They are rapidly evolving over the course of reforms (Belle, Ongaro, 2014).
The countries in which there is significant public distrust of government institutions, and of management functions performing, tend to lean towards the formation of NMP-state oriented services. They pretend to regulate performance processes and to assess the effectiveness of civil servants on the basis of performance. But the regulation of public service functions and process-oriented evaluations of performance are useless and even counter-productive if public services and performances are rapidly changing BD new products are formed constantly.
To conclude, selection of the “best paradigm” and its administrative mechanisms as suitable for overcoming administrative crisis is not possible, neither for any individual country nor for some groups of countries (developed; developing; transitional). The “optimal solution” does not exists: all three basic administrative paradigms can mitigate the effects of an administrative crisis to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the conditions (country, region, cultural features, administrative traditions, etc.), but they are not capable of offering the tools to provide a radical elimination of the crisis “as such”. For African countries, it is brilliantly evident (Andrews, 2012). The administrative paradigms can provide the ammunition (tools) to struggle with an administrative crisis triggered by contemporary innovative development misbalances, but cannot create the tools to overcome it.
The main defect of the existing administrative paradigms is that they are always “one step behind the crisis,” i.e., they offer a design and procedures that respond to the crisis but with a delay. They are based on fundamental principles which, at the same time, are not the fundamental principles of the crisis, its causes and its main parameters. Existing (basic) administrative paradigms come from other epochs, they rest on the theoretical principles suitable for periods of stable development with their predictability and certainty. The contemporary crisis otherwise looks for these paradigms as the “outside call”, the extraor-
dinary and temporary circumstances that make governance more complicated for just a limited period of time, which will be terminated, hopefully soon.
I argue that the administrative theory of governance at present is not able to accommodate the challenges of innovative development. Existing administrative paradigms are inadequate for overcoming the current crisis of governance.
Reasoning on question 4 (to find a new administrative paradigm): Instead of conclusion and of discussion
In a quest for a new administrative paradigm, we need to ask the questions: “What principles should be appropriate for this paradigm?; Do the roots of a new approach exist?” I believe it is possible to point to some research that is going beyond the limits of the existing administrative paradigms yet has a lot in common.
The main principles of a new hypothetic administrative paradigm should reflect the crisis problems in order to be a “translation” of crisis problems into the language of positive actions. Such actions should prevent the development of crisis phenomena at their very onset.
First of all, we need to agree that the role of the state at present has changed radically due to innovative development challenges. The state used to be recognized as a referee, which establishes the rules of fair game in social life. It was a widespread opinion that governance improvement consisted of the enhancement of the rules by the government itself. The misbalances of innovative development and the administrative crisis in its part impose other requirements on the state: we need to evaluate the state as a referee, to set rules for a fair evaluation of the referee, to know how effectively government is handling the crisis and how well it works.
However, such a strong “recipe”, despite its universal applicability for all states, can be dangerous, because its use will inevitably show a complete ineffectiveness of the government systems of some countries to work at a time of crisis. Such countries will come into the situation when they will be forced to acknowledge their administrative disabilities. So the fundamental changes in the political and administrative elite, in patterns of social behavior and the national economy, should be brought in. The whole system of governance should be replaced. It is not easy to accept such a cure, perhaps almost impossible. But it is unclear, which is better to choose: to avoid elaboration and the application of a fair, objective evaluation of the government, and to lag behind, to head towards economic and social degradation, to rely on surviving through the conditions of crisis (social cohesion, patience despite the hardships), or start “to take the pills”, to waive the traditional governance schemes, to move away from the sustainable existence of the elites.
REFERENCES
1. Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public service clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Andrews, M. (2012). The Logical Limits of Best Practice Administrative Solutions in Developing Countries. Public Administration and Development, vol. 32, no 2, pp. 137-154.
3. Andrews, M. (2010). Good Government Means Different Things in Different Countries. Governance, vol. 23, no 1, pp. 7-35.
4. Barabashev, A. (2016). Krizis gosudarstvennogo upravleniya i ego vliyanie na os-novnye administrativnye paradigmy gosudarstva i biurokratii [Crisis of State Governance and its Influence on Basic Administrative Paradigms of State and Bureaucracy]. Public Administration Issues, no 3, pp. 163-194.
5. Belle, N. & Ongaro, E. (2014). NPM, Administrative Reforms and Public Service Motivation: Improving the Dialogue between Research Agendas. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 80, no 2, pp. 382-400.
6. Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T. & O’Leary, R. (2005). The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no 5, pp. 547-558.
7. Bouckaert, G. & Halligan, J. (2007). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. New York: Routledge.
8. Bozhya-Volya, A. (2009). Otsenka rezultativnosty gosudarstvennykh slyzhaschikh rukovodyaschego sostava: mezhdunarodnyj opyt i rossiyskiye perspektivy [Managerial Civil Servants Performance Evaluation: International Experience and Russian Perspectives]. Public Administration Issues, no 2, pp. 84-103.
9. Brandsen,T., Pestoff, V. & Verschuere, B. (2012). Co-production as a maturing concept. In: Brandsen,T., Pestoff, V., Verschuere, B. (Eds). New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-production. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 1-9.
10. Brown, G. (2011). Bringing the State Back into Cosmopolitanism: The Idea of Responsible Cosmopolitan States. Political Studies Review, vol. 9, no 1, pp. 53-66.
11. Bryson, J. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12. Christensen, T. & Lsgreid, P. (2007). Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. New York, NY: Aldershot.
13. De Vries, M. & Nemec, J. (2013). Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 26, no 1, pp. 4-16.
14. Drechsler, W. (2005a). The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management. Postautistic Economics Review, vol. 14, no 33, pp. 7-28.
15. Drechsler, W. (2005b). The Re-Emergence of “Weberian” Public Administration after the Fall of New Public Management: The Central and Eastern European Perspective. Halduskultuur, pp. 94-108.
16. Edwards, L. (2012). Strategic Planning in Local Government: Is the Promise of Performance a Reality? Available: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1037&context=pmap_diss (accessed: October 28, 2016).
17. Gelman, V. (2015). Modernizatsiya, instituty, and “porochnyj krug” postsovetskogo neopatrimonialisma [Modernization, Institutes, and “Vicious Circle” of Post-Soviet Neopatrimonialism]. St. Petersburg: European University Publ. House.
18. Hintea, C., Profiroiu, M. & Ticlau, T. (2015). Strategic Planning And Public Management Reform: The Case of Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Special Issue (electronic edition), pp. 30-44.
19. Jensen, C. & Seeberg, H. (2015). The Power of Talk and the Welfare State: Evidence from 23 Countries on an Asymmetric Opposition-Government Response Mechanism. Socio-Economic Review, vol. 13, no 2, pp. 215-233.
20. Junjan, V. (2016). PAR in Academic and Professional Literature: A Comparison of the Recent EU Accession Waves, p. 51-59. Europeization in Public Administration Reforms. Ed. By J.Nemec. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.
21. Junjan, V. & Torenvleid, R. (2016). - Roundtable: Is Public Management Neglecting the State? // Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 29, no 3, pp. 311-334. doi:10.1111/gove.12201
22. Kuhlmann, S. & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Administrative System and Reforms in Europe. Edward Elgar Publ.
23. Kupriashin, G. (2015). Krizisy gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: neoinstitutsionalnyj podhod [The Crisis of State Governance: Neo-Institutional Approach]. Gosudarst-vennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyj vestnik (Elertronnyj zhurnal), no 51, pp. 56-84. Availavle: http://e-journal.spa.msu.ru/vestnik/vipusk/51_2015.htm (accessed: October 28, 2016).
24. Lobanov, V. (2006). Rabota s vyshim administrativnympersonalom v SSHA i drugikh zarubezhnykh stranah [Work with High Administrative Personnel in the USA and in Other Countries]. Moscow: RAGS Publ. (in Russian).
25. Mann, S. (2009). Beyond a Government of Strangers: How Career Executives and Political Appointees Can Turn Conflict to Cooperation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 29, no 2, pp. 197-199.
26. ML Of Russia, Competitions (2016). Available: http://www.rosmintrud.ru/ministry/ programms/gossluzhba/17 (in Russian), (accessed: October 28, 2016).
27. ML of Russia, Best Practices (2016). Available: http://www.rosmintrud.ru/ministry/ programms/gossluzhba/14 (in Russian), (accessed: October 28, 2016).
28. ML of Russia, Evaluation Procedures (2016). Available: http://www.rosmintrud.ru/ ministry/programms/gossluzhba/16/4/2 (accessed: October 28, 2016).
29. Norgaard, O. & Winding, S. (2006). The Impact of Administrative Traditions on Public Administration Reform: The Baltic Case. Politico-administrative Dilemma: Traditional Problems and New Solutions. Ed. by G.Peters, G.Sootla, B. Connaughton. NISPAcee Press, pp. 137-163.
30. Obolonsky, A. & Barabashev, A. (2014). How to Clean Out the Augean Stable of Our Bureaucracy. Two Views. Russian Politics and Law, vol. 52, no 2, pp. 77-94.
31. Peters, G. (2013). Dilemmas and Contradictions in the Future of Public Administration. In: The Past, Present, and the Future of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press, pp. 315-321.
32. Peters G., Pierre J. & Randma-Liiv T. (2011). Global Financial Crisis, Public Administration and Governance: Do New Problems Require New Solutions? Public Administration Review, March. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-010-0148-x (date of request -December 8, 2016).
33. Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Rato, H., Baptista, C., Ferraz, D. & Rodrigues, M. (2008). MANFOR GUIDE. Training Needs Assessment.
35. Samier, E. (2005). Toward Public Administration as a Humanities Discipline. A Humanistic Manifesto. Halduskultuur, pp. 6-59.
36. Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M. & Ruffini, R. (2016). Public Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 82, no 1, pp. 9-27.
37. Wyen, J., Beeck, S. & Hondeghem, A. (2013). Interorganizational Mobility within the U.S. Federal Government: Examining the Effect of Individual and Organizational Factors. Public Administration Review, vol. 73, no 6, pp. 869-881.
