Administration Relationships
The relationships between the public policy-makers and the executors (civil servants) have attracted the attention of many scholars in the public administration, political science, public policy and law. The focus is on the relationship between the government, parliament, and the public service. However, the relationship between the federal bureaucracy and the elected policy-makers is crucial for the government functioning, its professional standards, as well as social credibility. Regardless of the perspective of the government being consistent, its texture, characteristics, operating principles and procedures vary from one public policy sector to another (Guess & Farnham, 2011, p. 315). This part focuses on the relationship between the elected public policy-makers and the bureaucrats (civil service) in the United States.
Relationships
The elected officials such as senators, presidents, and other county officials represent the citizens. On the other hand, civil service officials such as traffic engineers, budget directors, waste management specialist, and government It professionals and others are the experts who make government run. The elected officials are responsible for making policies while the civil servants make these plans into realities. Unlike the elected officials the professionals are not subject to term limits, this means that they have institutional history on how the policies influence the lives of citizens (Miller, 2011, p. 448). This is very crucial in developing the concrete plans for putting public policy into practice. Civil service also has advanced degrees in various fields such as management, finance, engineering, among other technical areas, and therefore they have the ability to advise the legislative officials about the solutions to local problems that enable the formulate and implement appropriate public policies.
How Relationship impacts Rules and Regulations
Regardless of traditional restrictions being imposed in civil servants on how they should engage in political activities to ensure public confidence, civil service professional plays a critical role in implementing rules and regulations. However, officials in the state and craft grades are allowed to engage in politics. Further, the government proposals and regulations are backed by the politician in parliament. The civil service is expected to maintain a good relationship with the politicians who set both the legislature and cabinet, which makes public administration more complicated (Miller, 2011, p. 451). The Cabinet and President put pressure on the government, but the legislative body has its unique management ideas. The mutual relationship between the elected officials and civil service ensure that public administration is more transparent to the citizens enabling them to participate in making federal rules and regulations. The relationship also results to an improved legislative framework that governs civil service. Proper formulation of standards and regulations ensures that there is no disproportionate bureaucratic burden on the public or any complication of the workflow procedures in the federal administrative proceedings.
Tensions
The newly elected officials may have imperfect knowledge about the division of labor between the electorate and civil service professionals. The tensions may arise when the elected representatives set priorities but later ignore them. This creates more tension to the public services who expect the policies to be implemented according to the agreement (Lim, 2006 p. 198). Nevertheless, governors or senators may have their staffs; in most of these situations, they may duplicate the proposals from their bosses without making necessary suggestions. The legislative officials may demoralize the civil servants when they come up with clear evidence-based recommendations regarding public policy implementation, but their plans are thrown out.
The APA and American Political Life
Many scholars surmise that public policy resolutions should be performed through the judicial process. The court may efficiently resolve civil disputes involving private individuals, which are why most people believe that it can be used to settle large-scale public conflicts involving the entire nation. Better public disputes resolution may be reached outside the traditional litigation realm. Utilizing government to resolve public policy disputes leads to the joint problem solving and avoids litigation shortcomings. The process fosters better relations between the progressive parties, leading to more acceptable results for all involved. However, not all public disputes involve countless parties and technical or complex facts (Moloney, 2007, p. 1084). Instantly, some unassisted negotiation may produce excellent results.
Improving Merit System
The process of reforming the bureaucracy is still in progress in America. For instance, since 1980, every presidential election incorporated a debate over the federal government size. The Americans believing in the bureaucracy was becoming numerous, and many politicians demanded the reforms. The federal employees have excessive job security such that they do not have any fear of being fired for incompetence. The merit system ensures that policies are set that ensures that the best-qualified people get government jobs with limited party politics (Lim, 2006 p. 193). The process of acquiring government jobs can be improved through the proper administrative state as well as the local process of resolving issues in the civil service employment sector. The employment sector must ensure that there are transparency and equity in all public recruitment procedures. This can be improved by limiting the appointment to 6-12 years after which the servant will be required to undergo reexamination, and their performance is reviewed for rehire (Keller, 2009, p. 457). The reforms should be implemented in the public policy that makes it difficult to fire civil servants.
Responsiveness of Administrative State to Increasingly Diverse Nation
The American citizens are currently surprised by the state administrative procedures that differ from state to another. However, few days may pass without ordinary individuals in the United States encountering the laws or even actions of the three level of government. Local officials manage some tasks such as zoning, sanitation, traffic control, street repair, educational administrations and other public services under state authority (Center for Effective Government, 2014, n.p). Nevertheless, the state governments control much of the criminal justice, public policy implementation, professional and business regulation, educational policy, among other significant administrative areas. In the United States, the laws of the national government based in Washington, D.C., must be followed to all individuals who live within the borders. On the other hand, legislation in each state applies only to the states’ residents. Under the Constitution, the Congress cannot abolish state laws, while the national government assumes the power of the states.
The relationship between the states and the federal government in the United States can be improved by assessing how federalism has worked, which has not yet been done. The federalism is considered to be a dynamic framework for the government. For over 200 years the division of power and public administration has shifted in various law and practice occasions. Another debate is in the scope of national power. The federalism should set in a manner that it can accommodate all public policy issues and contribute to the democracy through decentralized public policies and politics (Woods, 2009, p. 528). Again, the central government should not interfere with states policies. The United States has many immigrants with different national, ethnic and religious groups bringing distinct moral and cultural values to the political, economic and social issues. The state can, therefore, provide various policies that meet the expectation of each cluster; hence the citizens would be able to live a country where policies respond to their values.
Reference
Center for Effective Government. (2014). How to comment on a rule. Retrieved July 25, 2016, from http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/4059
Guess, G. M., & Farnham, P. G. (2011). Cases in public policy analysis (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Keller, S. A. (2009). Depoliticizing judicial review of agency rulemaking. Washington Law Review, 84(3), 419–489.
Lim, H.-H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204.
Miller, H. T. (2011). Is bureaucracy no longer the technically superior form of organization? Administrative Theory and Praxis, 33(3), 447–452.
Moloney, K. (2007). Comparative bureaucracy: Today as yesterday. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1083–1086.
Woods, N. D. (2009). Promoting participation? An examination of rulemaking notification and access procedures. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 518–530.
