From a critical look at new management, it has emerged that it brings with it some actions and decisions that are contrary to the values of the public sector. It is about the absolutization of marketing (the introduction of market mechanisms) and commercialization (the search for profits) in the supply of certain public goods of great social importance.
This, of course, gave rise to a new analysis and reflection on the new modern management, as well as to the overall management of the public sector. A number of scholarly publications have emerged that have fostered ideas for a new paradigm for public sector governance: integrating new management (as an economic approach to the provision of public goods) into a broader concept of better governance. It is a managerial approach that incorporates not only the idea of economic efficiency in the provision of public goods but also the achievement of higher satisfaction of citizens and their organizations with the overall functioning of the state.
Many governments have begun to incorporate ideas of better governance into their policies since the second half of the 1990s. Privatization, marketing and efficiency are no longer the only benchmarks for contemporary public sector development. Along with them, the principles of responsibility, of the involvement of stakeholders in policy-making, predictability, and transparency in the actions of public authorities began to apply. Supporting company’s employees is weakened at the same time.
Public pressure for changes in public sector governance is growing. On the one hand, there are business organizations that want clear rules for business, less bureaucracy, and less state intervention. On the other hand, there are citizens who claim the higher quality of public services. In these circumstances, the state not only needs to manage its resources more efficiently but also to change itself to meet the higher requirements for its development. All this leads to reforms in the public sector, which require a clear definition of the responsibilities of all who manage the supply of public goods along the chain. Taking responsibility is:
- first, a guarantee of well thought out strategic decisions and action plans;
- second, a motivating factor for the fulfillment of commitments and tasks;
- third, a way to eliminate indifference and bureaucracy in the actions of public authorities and individuals who are frequent causes of one or other failure in their activity;
The provision of public services is a process that affects a number of economic and social groups in society. Of course, they have their own interests and point of view on how public goods should be offered and the state itself developed as an organization. may impose its view on solving the socio-economic problems of society.This, to some extent, meets the preferences of the majority of voters because they have cast their votes for the ruling party’s political platform. However, this type of policymaking always raises enough criticism because there are parties and groups that do not share the political platform of the ruling party or coalition. Naturally, such debates are quite natural in parliament, as in society. However, they often inflame political passions and divert society from the agenda of its most important tasks. Reference: Emergency and development of scientific management in the USA
In order to overcome this defect in government, it is recommended that stakeholders are involved in the policy making. It may be possible for them to modify the government’s view on resolving an issue, but any agreed solution is better than a self-imposed one! The reason is that the cooperative (concerted) actions of the participants in a given process always lead to better results for all of them (Nash game theory decision)
Taking into account the interests of all stakeholders in the state’s policy-making guarantees their more effective implementation. Here are some tools to guide this type of policy:
- A) Dialogue with interested organizations in the work of policy-social partners in the face of trade unions and business organizations
- B) dialogue with non-governmental organizations that protect the interests of certain social groups in society
- C) public-private partnerships for the implementation of public activities of great public interest (contract system and concessions)
- D) decentralization of the economic functions of the state through their transfer to local and regional authorities.
The state is the body that creates the rules for conducting business and social life. By adopting a series of laws and other regulations, the state models the behavior of businesses and citizens in society. For example, companies’ investment decisions depend heavily on macroeconomic stability and tax laws. Therefore, the state must provide a clear legislative and regulatory horizon for the actions of businesses and citizens. Any change in laws or regulations or discretionary intervention (at the discretion of the governing bodies) in economic or social processes are indicators of:
– lack of a long-term vision for the development of government;
– the influence of the lobby in policymaking, which satisfies some interests at the expense of others;
– imposing the will of the state at the expense of the interests of businesses and citizens.
The above indicators, in their entirety, reveal a lack of predictability in the government. It generates stronger power for the entitled, a lower degree of legitimacy, uncertainty and uncertainty in the behavior of businessmen and citizens. In other words, predictability in public sector governance is a prerequisite for a better solution to the economic and social problems of society, therefore a condition for achieving greater public well-being.
The existence of the state and the supply of public goods is possible thanks to taxpayers’ money. They are therefore fully entitled to:
- A) to ask for stable and clear procedures for spending their money;
- B) have accurate information on how the budget is spent;
- C) exercise public control over the activities of government agencies.
Naturally, laws and regulations are needed to guarantee the right to clearly and accurately inform taxpayers of the actions of public authorities and individuals. Their adoption is in itself an indicator of the state’s willingness to work in conditions of sufficient transparency and openness to its actions. Is there anything disturbing about this hypothesis? It is only the desire of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as interconnected groups, to fish in murky water, that is, to generate rents for themselves instead of benefits for citizens and society. Obviously, promoting transparency and openness in government actions creates a fair deal: taxes on public services. In this sense, transparency is a better method of managing the public sector than the black box of government.
After all, what is better government? These are a series of actions that include more efficient use of budgetary resources, better quality in the public goods offered, ownership of state decisions and cases, involvement of stakeholders and policy-makers, legality, predictability and transparency. in the behavior of government institutions and their employees.