The Intrinsic Features of Modern Public Administration

By: Abdulbari Kabiri

Regardless of ideological stance and political system, modern governments are under a strict obligation to fulfil their duty towards citizens in the provision of effective leadership, maintaining order and smooth running of public services. Nations demand to have a functioning state, the rule of law and greater accountability in managing public wealth. Countries with sound public administrations achieved prosperity through the best use of their resources whilst others failed because they lack effective governance. It is widely acknowledged that open and democratic societies enjoy more stable and responsive administrations than their rivals with authoritarian regimes. This is partially due to the fact that diverse entities are working better in countries ruled by open and accountable administrations and partially because there is less corruption in the said administrations compared to the countries ruled by a single vision and a single party without sound political opposition.

The concept of public administration attracted continued attention in history. Over time, the focus has been shifted to more advanced views about how political power should be used for the well-being of the masses. The classic public administration theory was developed in the nineteenth century where civil service bureaucracies have emerged, advocating professional public services to achieve economic development and to form a modern state (Bresser-Pereira 2005)[i]. The classic model was founded on a number of conventions such as separation of political and professional activities, public service anonymity, political neutrality and compliance (Kernaghan 2002)[ii]. Public administration has further developed since, taking into account more flexibility, the interaction between politics and policies and new forms of accountability to address the complex nature of the society, complex legal frameworks, upholding boundaries between politics and the civil servants…etc. (Bourgon 2007)[iii].

The classic public administration theory was adopted by many countries to suit its political and economic realities and was further developed to the new public management or new public governance. These are more citizen-centric and responsive to the complexity, dynamics and diversity of societies and the interaction of private and public sectors (Lynn 2010)[iv] and are more transparent and effective in the management of the public wealth. The new approach was adopted by many countries worldwide, and even some of the countries with strict authoritarian rules have also tried to develop the contemporary vision of the new public management theory for the well-being of their nations.

In this text, I would like to address three intrinsic features of modern public administration:

• Public Administration Must be Inclusive

Inclusiveness covers two elements: First, fair representation of the society such as according to ethnicity, religion, gender and other elements in the formation of an organisation and management of public administration as a whole. Second, when the government effectively serve and engage with citizens and when institutions are responsive to the people they serve in a way that all segments of the society are included, and certain groups are not marginalised. According to Young (2002),[v] a democratic decision is normatively legitimate only if all those affected by it are included in the process of discussion and decision-making, and this inclusion should be in equal terms. Inclusiveness leads to diversity and better use of resources from all segments of society. In fact, inclusion in public administration worldwide is one of the main agendas for political activists. It is one of the major causes of social unrest and civil wars when marginalised groups further their demands for justice, particularly when the political system fails to be responsive to such demands. The majority of governments in the developing world lack such inclusion as the political elite often distance from the ordinary people, and often, one party rules in such a way that they claim ownership of government institutions.

• Public Administration Must be Impartial

Impartial governments are not new; most modern governments, at least in their moral stance, are impartial during their day-to-day business. Impartiality advocates treating all citizens equally, providing services for all, and addressing issues without being biased in any way. According to Rothstein and Teorell, (2008)[vi] “For an institution to act impartially is to be unmoved by certain sorts of considerations such as relationships and personal preferences; it is to treat people alike irrespective of personal relationships and personal likes and dislikes.”

Governments in western countries are accepted to be impartial and have strict code of conduct of impartiality for civil servants, both to their superiors as elected officials and to the wider public they serve. For instance, civil servants in the United Kingdom must be impartial and must act objectively according to the government policies. The code of practice for civil servants dictates that civil servants must not act in a way that is determined by party political consideration or to use public resources for political purposes or to allow their personal political views to determine their actions. Civil servants, including ministers, must deal equally with every individual or organisation without prejudice or favour. Civil Servants must serve the government in such a way to maintain political impartiality, regardless of their own political beliefs. Civil Servants must comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on their political activities[vii]. It is the duty of the modern public administration that services must be provided objectively without being affected by the status of the person or organisation receiving the service.

The impartial approach of civil servants in advanced countries promoted trust and confidence in the public administration and government officials are seen as trustworthy, respected and symbols of the mighty of the sovereign state. In order to promote impartiality, public organisations must have clear procedures for complaints of unjust treatment and individuals proven to be responsible for the act of prejudice or favours will be held accountable both by organisational procedures and also in some instances by law enforcement agencies.

• Public Administration Must be Accountable

Due to the complex nature of public administration, accountability was given a lot of attention. Accountability advocates that performance should be measured, and the appointed individuals and organisations can be sanctioned or rewarded based on their actions. This is a continuous process to keep the public administration working fairly to the best of its ability in the management of national interests.

Accountability in public administration requires a greater level of transparency which obliges the government to share information to enable specific organisations as well as the general population to measure their performance and hold them accountable for their actions. Sharing information can be through proactive methods where the concerned information is published or available for access by the public or can be requested by individuals or organisations. It is generally expected that governments publish data related to services provided, processes, and general details of the budget. With a high degree of published data or accessible information, open governments are more transparent, more effective, and less corrupt.

According to (Boven et ell 2014),[viii] accountability requires that an actor, whether an individual or an organisation, render some account of their action to an independent authority. In democratic societies, accountability often refers to how the relationship between elected politicians and their voters is formed and upon not delivering what was promised, the individual politician or the party will be sanctioned. However, this method of accountability is complex, hard to measure, and the sanctions may not be directly referred to certain conducts. Other mechanisms such as administrative or criminal justice measures can uphold accountability in a more systematic way. For instance, individuals can be held accountable by the hierarchy of their organisation, and organisations can be held accountable by other relevant organisations where the latter has the authority to give judgment and as a result of which the concerned individual or organisation can be sanctioned or rewarded.

Methods of Accountability: different countries have adopted suitable mechanisms for accountability according to the political system they have chosen. The principal accountability mechanism across the globe is administrative hierarchy where civil servants are accountable to their superiors and the organisation as a whole is accountable to the minister, and the minister is accountable to the parliament (Peters 2014)[ix].

Other methods including audit institutions (Posner and Shahan 2014)[x], which are a form of accountability in the public administration where executive institutions are regularly audited by a third party. Audit Institutions have more power and ability to keep public organs accountable. The most effective audit institutions are Legislative Audit offices which are independent from the executive organs and only report to the parliament- this is mainly found in commonwealth countries and presidential systems like the United States.  Many countries have Independent Regulators as professional bodies overseeing the public and private institutions through setting rules and monitoring and enforcing those rules (Scott 2014)[xi]. The latter aim for the smooth running of services both in the public and private arena to accepted standards.

Legislative power control can hold governments accountable in case other measures were not effective. This mechanism is part of the political system where the state functions are divided into three separate bodies (legislature, executive and judiciary). Modern governments as a whole are accountable to the legislative authority or the head of the state such as the Congress in the United States, the House of Representatives in the majority of European Countries or the parliament or the Queen in the United Kingdom or the National People’s Congress in China or the Supreme Leader in Iran. If the government failed to operate in the best interest of the nation, the above mechanism is triggered and the government will get changed or replaced. For instance, if the majority of the Congress of the United States disagrees with the federal government, it can shut the government and the federal administration will have no budget to operate. Furthermore, the Congress can impeach the president and can remove him or her from office. Similarly, if there was a government failure in the United Kingdom, the Queen, politically neutral, can form a new government. However, her power to dissolve the parliament has been recently limited.

States that lack accountability are vulnerable to widespread corruption in public administration, and thus the governments become ineffective in the management of the public interest. Particularly, when a government as a whole is not put accountable for its actions, the political elite gets untouchable and even elected governments can change to dictatorships, the sad reality that many developing countries have recently witnessed.

References and Bibliography

[i] Bresser-Pereira, Luiz-Carlos (2005), The Structural Governance Model of Public Management Reform, Working Paper.

[ii] Kernaghan, Kenneth (2002) East Block and Westminster: Conventions, Values and Public Service, in C. Dunn (ed.) Handbook of Canadian Public Administration, Oxford University Press.

[iii] Jocelyne Bourgon (2007) Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a New Public Administration theory.  SAGE Publications -Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore, Vol. 73(1)

[iv] Laurence E. Lynn JR (2010) The New Public Governance, Routledge, London and New York

[v] IRIS MARION YOUNG(2002) Inclusion and Democracy , Part 7- Oxford University Press, Oxford, England p23

[vi] Rothstein and Teorell (2008) What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions,

An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 21, No. 2, April 2008 (pp. 165–190). © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK. ISSN 0952-1895

[vii] United Kingdom Civil Service – Ethics – Impartiality  available at <civilservant.org.uk> accessed  12/03/21

[viii] Mark Bovens et al (2014): the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

[ix] B. Guys Peters (2014) chapter 13, the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

[x] Paul L. Posner and Asif Shahan (2014) Chapter 30, the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

[xi] Colin Scott (2014) Chapter 29, the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

Chan H. S. and Rosenbloom, D.H. 2010 “Four Challenges to Accountability in Contemporary Public Administration: Lessons from the United States and China.” Administration and Society 42:11-33 Sage Publications

Finer, H. 1940 “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government ” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1: :50-225

Al-Habil W. I. 2011 “The Administrative Ethics Between Professionalism and Individual Conscience” Business and Management Review Vol.1 (10) 33-45