Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the f

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration

Roderick A. W. Rhodes

First published: 08 December 2015

https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1111/puar.12504

Citations: 77

Get It at Liberty

Rhodes Podcast Episode

Sections

PDF

Tools

Share

Abstract

Public sector reform has rarely dropped off the political agenda of Western governments, yet the old craft skills of traditional public administration remain of paramount importance. The pendulum has swung too far toward the new and the fashionable reforms associated with New Public Management and the New Public Governance. It needs to swing back toward bureaucracy and the traditional skills of bureaucrats as part of the repertoire of governing. This article discusses the skills of counseling, stewardship, practical wisdom, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political nous. Although these skills are of wide relevance, the article focuses on their relevance in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. It concludes that the next bout of reforms needs to recover the traditional craft skills. It is not a question of traditional skills versus the new skills of New Public Management or New Public Governance; it is a question of what works, of what skills fit in a particular context.

Practitioner Points

· We need to abandon the public service reform syndrome in which reform succeeds reform, with no time for the intended changes to take place, no evaluation, and no clear evidence of either success or failure, and take stock of where we have come from before embarking on another round of reform.

· The traditional craft skills of public administration remain relevant today because of the primacy of politics in the work of top political-administrators.

· The craft skills include counseling, stewardship, prudence, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political nous.

· It is not a question of traditional skills versus the skills of the New Public Management or the skills needed to manage networks but of the right mix of skills for a specific context.

For the past 40 years, many governments have had an obsessive concern with reforming the public service. We have seen a shift from the New Public Management (NPM) to the New Public Governance (NPG). Reform has succeeded reform, with no time for the intended changes to take effect, no evaluation, and no clear evidence of either success or failure. Rather, we are left with the dilemmas created by the overlapping residues of past reforms. So, we need to take stock of where we have come from. We need to look back to look forward. We need to ask, what is the role of the public servant in the era of NPM and NPG?

Westminster governments were enthusiastic reformers of their public services. Indeed, they are all categorized as “core NPM states” by Pollitt and Bouckaert ( 2011 , 124). An important result of the reforms was to push to one side the traditional craft skills of senior public servants. These skills, however, continue to have much utility. We need to recognize that the old craft skills of traditional public administration remain important. The first section of this article provides a baseline for this discussion by describing the main characteristics of traditional public administration and the reforms associated with NPM and NPG. The next section defines the craft. The following section discusses the craft skills of counseling, stewardship, practical wisdom, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political nous. Finally, the article discusses ways of systematically recovering craft skills and comments on the wider relevance of the notion of craft.

It is not a central aim of this article to criticize either NPM or NPG. It is not a question of traditional skills versus the skills of New Public Management or network governance. Rather, we need to strike a better balance between the old and the new. It is a question of what works, of which skills fit in a particular context. The pendulum has swung too far for too long toward the new and the fashionable. It needs to swing back toward bureaucracy and the traditional skills of bureaucrats as part of the repertoire of governing.

This article focuses on public service reform in Westminster governments, although its relevance is not limited to them. However, it is not possible to cover all Western governments. This group of nations bear a strong family resemblance (Rhodes, Wanna, and Weller 2009 , 9), and they were at the heart of the reforms. They are comparable. The phrase “civil or public servant” refers to public sector employees of national government departments. The phrase “Westminster” refers to Britain and the old dominion countries of the British Commonwealth such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Westminster is a family of ideas including responsible cabinet government, ministerial responsibility to parliament, a professional nonpartisan public service, and the unity of the executive and legislature. A professional, nonpartisan public service is a central notion in any definition of Westminster (see, e.g., Rhodes, Wanna, and Weller 2009 , 10, and citations).

Because the terminology varies among countries, the label “politicians and public servants” has been standardized throughout the article. I focus on senior politicians and public servants. In Britain, the top official is called the permanent secretary; in Australia, the departmental secretary; and in Canada, the deputy minister. For convenience and simplicity, the short form “secretary” is used throughout. Similarly, the term for the politician at the head of the department or agency varies. The term “minister” is used throughout. However, both ministers and secretaries are interdependent with overlapping roles and responsibilities, each role one side of the same coin. So, following Heclo and Wildavsky ( 1974 , 2, 36), they are also referred to as “political administrators” to stress their interdependence.

From Traditional Public Administration to the New Public Governance

Table 1 summarizes the shift from traditional public administration to the New Public Management to the latest wave of reform, the New Public Governance.

Table 1. Public Administration, New Public Management, and New Public Governance Compared

· Sources: Compiled from Osborne ( 2010 ) and Rhodes ( 1998 ). For a similar table showing that this analysis is relevant to the United States, see Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg (2014).

Traditional Public Administration

We turned our backs on traditional public administration; it was seen as the problem, not the solution. Of course, the bureaucracies of yesteryear had their faults, and the reformers had a case (see, e.g., Osborne and Gaebler 1992 ; Pollitt 1993 ). For example, in Britain, the Fulton Committee inaugurated the era of reform with its diagnoses that the civil service “is still fundamentally the product of the nineteenth-century” and that the “structure and practices of the Service have not kept up with the changing tasks” (1968, 9). Most notoriously, it claimed that “the Service is still essentially based on the philosophy of the amateur (or ‘generalist’ or ‘all-rounder’) and that this “cult is obsolete at all levels and in all parts of the Service” (1968, 11). Margaret Thatcher subscribed to this view (Hennessy 1989 , part IV). Yet the defining characteristics of traditional public administration are not red tape, cost, and inefficiency. Rather, the phrase refers to classic bureaucrats working in a hierarchy of authority and conserving the state tradition. In table 1 , their task is to provide policy advice for their political masters and oversee the implementation of the politician's decision. Politicians, political staffers, and even some public servants continue to hold important misconceptions about the past of our public services. They forget that bureaucracy persists because it provides “consistent, stable administration,” “equity in processes,” “expertise,” and “accountability” (Meier and Hill 2005 , 67; see also Goodsell 2004 ).

According to a former head of the British Home Civil Service, Sir Edward Bridges, the generalist has four “skills or qualities.” First, he or she must have “long experience of a particular field.” Second, the individual must have the specialized skills or arts of the administrator, for example, spotting “the strong and weak points in any situation.” Third, the civil servant should “study difficult subjects intensively and objectively, with the same disinterested desire to find the truth at all costs.” Finally, the civil servant must “combine the capacity for taking a somewhat coldly judicial attitude with the warmer qualities essential to managing large numbers of staff” (Bridges 1950, 50, 52, 55–57). Turning to more recent times, Simon James, a former civil servant, summarizes the required skills as “the capacity to absorb detail at speed, to analyze the unfamiliar problem at short notice, to clarify and summarize it, to present options and consequences lucidly, and to tender sound advice in precise and clear papers” (1992, 26; see also Wilson 2003 ). Traditional public administration continues to be characterized as an art and a craft as much as it is a science, and public servants are generalists—that is, a profession based on craft knowledge.

Traditional public administration continues to be characterized as an art and a craft as much as it is a science, and public servants are generalists—that is, a profession based on craft knowledge.

The New Public Management

The past 40 years have seen three waves of NPM reforms (for a more detailed account, see Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011 , chap. 1; Rhodes 2011 , 23–33). As seen in table 1 , the first wave of NPM was managerialism or hands-on professional management, explicit standards and measures of performance, managing by results, and value for money. That was only the beginning. In the second wave, governments embraced marketization or neoliberal beliefs about competition and markets. It introduced ideas about restructuring the incentive structures of public service provision through contracting out and quasi markets. The third wave of NPM focused on service delivery and citizen choice. Nothing has gone away. We have geological strata of reforms. Thus, Hood and Lodge suggest that we have created a “civil service reform syndrome” in which “initiatives come and go, overlap and ignore each other, leaving behind residues of varying size and style” (2007, 59). As one secretary said, “the inoculation theory of reform does not work—you are not immune after one bout.” Although the extent of the reforms varies from country to country, and the Westminster countries were among the most enthusiastic, public service reform is ubiquitous. Pollitt and Bouckaert conclude that NPM “has become a key element in many … countries. It has internationalized… . In short, it has arrived” (2011, 9).

What are the implications for public servants of NPM reform? The search for better management remains at the forefront of civil service reform, and better management means the practices of the private sector. Two examples out of the embarrassing number available will be enough. The U.K. coalition government's Civil Service Reform Plan focused on skills and competencies. The focus was on management—for example, “the Civil Service needs staff with commissioning and contracting skills; and project management capabilities need a serious upgrade” (Her Majesty's Government 2012 , 9). Australia had the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration ( 2010 ) and the Leadership and Core Skills Strategy and Integrated Leadership System (APSC 2014 ). In both countries, leadership is often invoked and refers to managing government departments.

This obsession with NPM has had adverse effects on traditional skills. For example, Pollitt ( 2008 , 173) gives his recipe for losing institutional memory: rotate staff rapidly, change the information technology often, restructure every two years, reward management over other skills, and adopt each new management fad. All three departments in Rhodes's ( 2011 , chap. 7) study of British government met most of these criteria. He found poor record keeping, the annual postings of the best staff, and high staff turnover. Add internal reorganizations, managerial reform, and especially the successive waves of the delivery agenda, and it can be no surprise that ministers complained about the loss of memory. And ministers come and go, rarely lasting more than two years. From her observational fieldwork in the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Wilkinson concludes that corporate memory is the preserve of the bureaucracy; without it, “policymakers lose the knowledge of their constitutional context, departmental history, and awareness of which policies have succeeded and failed in the past” (2009, 14).

The nearer reform gets to the political sphere, the vaguer the discussion. Thus, better policy making boils down to a call for greater “contestability” in policy advice—that is, for advice from competing sources. Under the label “what works,” the government seeks more evidence-based policy making (Her Majesty's Government 2012 , chap. 2). It does not discuss the respective roles of secretaries and ministers. When the Civil Service Plan report touches on the tasks of political-administrators, it can strike a politically naive tone. Thus, upon implementation, it suggests that ministers, who will be in office for two years or less, will delay a policy announcement while it is thought through and civil servants are retrained (2012, 18). The comment “implausible” springs to one's lips unbidden. It is all too easy to hear the impatience in the minister's voice. Indeed, NPM has not had much effect on the behavior of ministers. Pollitt and Bouckaert conclude that “there is an absence of convincing evidence” (2011, 180–81).

The New Public Governance (NPG)

In table 1 , managing networks is at the heart of NPG. For example, both the Dutch school (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997 ) and the Anglo-governance school (Rhodes 1997b ) posit a shift from hands-on to hands-off steering by the state. Hands-off steering refers to working with and through networks or webs of organizations to achieve shared policy objectives. It involves continuously negotiating beliefs and exchanging of resources within agreed rules of the game (see also Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2011 , 60; Torfing et al. 2012 , 14).

The first point to note is that whereas NPM inspired a vast array of management reforms, NPG inspired relatively few reforms in Westminster government. Pollitt and Bouckaert ( 2011 , 198–99, 212) see joining up—integrated service provision through better horizontal and vertical coordination—as one of the main themes of reform. It has “grown in prominence internationally since the turn of the century” (see, e.g., Cabinet Office 1999 ; Management Advisory Committee 2004 ).

What does NPG say about the role of the public service? What are the new skills? Torfing et al. suggest that the traditional role of the public servants is “supplemented” (not replaced) by that of a “meta-governor managing and facilitating interactive governance” (2012, 156–59, chap. 7). Their task is to “balance autonomy of networks with hands-on intervention.” They have various specific ways of carrying out this balancing act. They can “campaign for a policy, deploy policy narratives, act as boundary spanners, and form alliance with politicians.” They become “meta-governors” managing the mix of bureaucracy, markets, and networks (see also Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2011 , xxxii, chap. 8). The meta-governing public servant has to master some specific skills for managing networks. They include integrating agendas; representing both the agency and the network; setting broad rules of the game that leave local action to network members; developing clear roles, expectations, and responsibilities for all players; agreeing on the criteria of success; and sharing the administrative burden (see also Agranoff 2007 ; Denhardt and Denhardt 2000 ; Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 ; Goldsmith and Kettl 2009 ; Klijn and Koppenjan 2016 ; Rhodes 2006 ).

The neutral, competent servants of the political executive must now master the skills for managing the complex, nonroutine issues, policies, and relationships in networks—that is, meta-governing, boundary spanning, and collaborative leadership. The task is to manage the mix of bureaucracy, markets, and networks (Rhodes 1997a ). The public service needs these new skills, but it is a step too far to talk of these new skills requiring “a full blown cultural transformation” (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 , 178). Indeed, part of the problem is this call for transformative cultural change. As Sir Arthur Tange, former secretary of the Australian Department of Defense, commented, the reformers “demolished or at least fractured the symmetry of the Westminster model” (1982, 2). However, they did not replace it with “a coherent structure of ideas to be a guiding light for loyalties and behavioral proprieties in the Federal Public Service.”

The neutral, competent servants of the political executive must now master the skills for managing the complex, nonroutine issues, policies, and relationships in networks—that is, meta-governing, boundary spanning, and collaborative leadership.

Recovering the Craft

Recovering the craft skills is important because reform has been only partially successful. Pollitt and Bouckaert describe the results of reform as a “half empty wineglass” (2011, 155) because we do not have the data about efficiency or outcomes. Reforms have been only partially successful because they have ignored the central role of the minister in running the department. Critics who blame the public service for the slow pace of change should look instead to ministers. They are the main wellspring of change in government, and they are not interested in public service reform. In the eyes of both ministers and secretaries, the job of ministers was not transformed by either NPM or NPG. They continue to live in a world of blurred accountability. As one secretary commented, “the current arrangements are fraught with ambiguities—and remember this suits both sides.” Ministers and top public servants are political-administrators dependent on one another if they are to succeed. Public servants recognize both the dependence and the critical role of ministers. One secretary suggest

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.