<Name>
<Subject>
<Professor>
Based on your reading of the Wilson article and "The Blast in Centralia No.5", how would you justify the need for and importance of a strong and effective public administrative system in society?
It is essential for society to benefit from a robust system of public administration in order for lawful authorities to gain the ability to implement laws that regulate various concerns. James Wilson has consistently argued that bureaucracies, in general face failures due to the inefficiency of carrying out rules. A simple example Wilson cited concerns two scenarios – one that of a government agency and a fast food joint. Wilson duly cited the fast food as one characterized by long lines of customers yet with speedy service coming from service crews. In that manner, customers receive the food they ought to order in the shortest possible time as the service crew delivers tasks routinely. However, the same is not true in the case of the government agency, one cited by Wilson as having long lines of clients and slow responses from the staff body. The foregoing scenarios effectively enabled Wilson to establish that substantial characteristics differentiate service efficiency in the government from that of the private sector (Stillman, 2009).
Wilson noted that the common notion on government agencies revolve around the concepts of heavy bureaucratic control and poorly qualified bureaucrats. Bureaucratic control manifests itself negatively in the form of the so-called “red tape”, in which a particular function of a government agency becomes poorly implemented due to the impracticality brought forth by rigid rules. In other words, red tape points out the rules of a government agency as the main reason why it does not become highly effective in addressing its issues. Rigid rules in a government agency delay the production of viable solutions to problems due to excessive conformity, so much to the extent that it becomes highly impractical. The problem of red tape becomes worse when people lacking qualifications occupy posts in government agencies. Not only do those people lack ideas on service delivery in the government, but also they become susceptible to the perils of red tape and other anomalous acts, such as those leading to corruption (Stillman, 2009).
Government agencies have purposes central to public interest, one that runs opposite to the private interests of the private sector. The aforementioned characteristics provide due explanation as to why government agencies remain ineffective in service delivery. Whereas the private sector has private interests involving profit maximization and business survival as the main sources of motivation for delivering quality service, the same does not apply to government agencies. In light of that, Wilson presents three constraints characterizing ineffective service delivery coming from government agencies. Firstly, there is no profit maximization in government agencies. Government agencies serve the people by means of the available budget for taxation and their income revolves around their various programs for the public. Therefore, there is no motivation for staff of government agencies to maximize profits, since profits come from taxation and used for public programs, leaving them without the same incentives enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector. Secondly, laws preclude staff of government agencies from discretionary resource allocation. Therefore, if an exceptional situation arises, laws would hinder staff of government agencies from doing anything that is outside of coverage, even though the intended response proves highly effective compared to allowed actions. Thirdly, government agencies embody specific goals that may run counter to the virtues of staff bodies. Laws establish the goals of government agencies, hence binding staff bodies to carry out rules without much room for exceptions. The same does not apply to the private sector, wherein staff bodies have the power to influence organizational goals as long as there is fulfillment of profit maximization (Stillman, 2009).
The case of the Centralia 5 mine blast in 1947 stands as a compelling manifestation of the failures characterizing government agencies mentioned above. The whole situation involved a series of safety warnings against the Centralia 5 mine left unattended by red tape involving the state government of Illinois, the national government of the United States (US), and the Centralia Coal Company, the mine operator. If each one of the foregoing agencies did their part to attend to the issued safety warnings against the Centralia 5 mine, then the blast that killed 111 miners would have found substantial prevention. Yet, regulatory capture rendered cooperation between the agencies; after all, the closure of the Centralia 5 mine does not depend on the capabilities of one agency alone. The urgency of supporting the war effort of the US during the Second World War pushed for operations in the Centralia 5 mine to intensify for coal production, notwithstanding the numerous poor safety records it has received. Reluctance from the agencies to address the issues characterizing the Centralia 5 mine led to its deadly explosion (Stillman, 2009).
The discussion of Wilson and the Centralia 5 mine blast both serve as two enlightening proposition on the importance of a robust system of public administration. With a strong and effective system of public administration in place, staff bodies of government agencies would not have a hard time anymore in terms of their incentives. Therefore, government agencies should make it a point to dissociate themselves from ineffective service delivery through the introduction of mechanisms that would maintain the rigidity of governing laws. In other words, it is essential to address the realities of red tape and entry of poorly qualified bureaucrats in order to improve the service delivery of government agencies. Targeting the lack of motivations akin to that of the private sector is one way of addressing the inefficiency of government agencies. Raising the standards of bureaucrats and their motivation to deliver their best performance is one solution government agencies should heavily consider. Verily, the absence of the need to maximize profits as in the case of the private sector should not stop government agencies from creating ways to make public service delivery more effective (Stillman, 2009).
In the case of the Centralia 5 mine, the rigidity of government agencies led to the failure to prevent the explosion of said mine. Despite the presence of numerous safety warnings against the Centralia 5 mine, responsible government agencies failed to carry out their tasks to respond to those promptly. Had the government agencies noted the severity of the situation issued by the numerous safety warnings, the blast at the Centralia 5 mine, which killed hundreds of miners, could have failed to transpire. Therefore, the cause for a stronger system of public administration becomes stronger through the Centralia 5 mine blast. The pattern exhibited by the Centralia 5 mine blast showed that an inefficient system of public administration could lead to destructive effects. Public administration duly serves the welfare of the public through the prevention of certain types of disasters formalized by requests made to responsible authorities delineated by various functions. Therefore, it is crucial to remove the problems of red tape and unqualified bureaucrats in order for actions preventing disasters such as the Centralia 5 mine blast to prosper (Stillman, 2009).
Unlike business where "the bottom line" often guides the determination of success or failure of a CEO, what criteria are used to evaluate Robertson’s success or failure? Why is the work of public officials, like William Robertson, more difficult to assess than the work of officials in the private sector? How does this relate to Gaus’ argument of the vital importance of ecology?
William Robertson has shown remarkable succeed in implementing his style of public administration in his capacity as the director of the Bureau of Street Services of Los Angeles, California. The tasks Robertson has to handle are certainly not very easy ones – he has to ensure the maintenance of public works in Los Angeles. With road building and maintenance being at the core of the designation of Robertson, he requires both the cooperation of the public and related technical expertise. Robertson became successful in establishing himself as a capable person for his designation through a criteria based on the following: responsible use of powers, formation of formidable and objective partnerships with the people, flexibility towards rules to fulfill policy goals and constructive manipulation of people (Stillman, 2009).
Firstly, responsible use of powers stood as an important value Robertson practiced in his designation. Robertson possesses full awareness that he has full exposure to public criticism and pressures. Moreover, Robertson knows very well that other people in the government would seek to alter his position on particular matters. With that, Robertson makes sure that his programs would not find due influence coming from those dictated by external forces. Rather, the programs set by Robertson duly stick to the goals of his organization, which is mainly for the service of the people under his jurisdiction. By staying away from unwanted external influences, Robertson has become fully able to observe integrity in practice under his designation, thus making his leadership a strong one (Stillman, 2009).
Secondly, Robertson reserved external influences to a proper venue, which is in the form of partnerships with people. Robertson is aware that connecting with people is a proper practice for his position, thus he makes it a point to limit it only towards professional matters. Programs under the office of Robertson may stand the tendency of criticism from people under his jurisdiction, thus it is important for him to accommodate their concerns in a highly professional manner that avoids as much conflict as possible. The constructive approach Robertson has employed in connecting with people within his jurisdiction has ensured the success of many of his programs, most of which characterized by wide public support (Stillman, 2009).
Thirdly, Robertson saw the value of becoming more flexible towards dealing with rules in order to achieve the goals of particular policies under his designation. While Robertson recognizes the sanctity of laws governing his designation, he nevertheless saw the fulfillment of attached goals as more important, given that he recognizes that there could be more options to reach those. In other words, Robertson knows that reaching a particular goal mandated for fulfillment by his designation could meet other solutions in the event the conventional one defined by law becomes circumstantially ineffective. In that manner, Robertson enables himself to avoid the occurrence of red tape, given that his focus is on the fulfillment of policy goals under his designation without necessarily binding himself to the rules (Stillman, 2009).
Finally, Robertson finds manipulation of people under his jurisdiction in a constructive manner as a highly effective way of making the programs under his designation work. Verily, collaboration is the key to gaining the support of people towards particular projects Robertson has in line for the public. Robertson does not compromise with public pressure, but instead invites people to engage in constructive discussions towards convincing them of the benefits his programs possess, alongside recommendatory dialogues (Stillman, 2009).
Compared to private sector work, the designation of Robertson in a government agency is one that is more difficult to assess. One has to return simply to the main incentive driving the private sector to improve – profit maximization, in order for one to identify the reason why it is complicated to assess work in government agencies. While the setup of the private sector revolves around the sanctity of profit, government agencies find motivation from the need to serve the public – a fact that may sound as a highly selfless one. Therefore, such kind of motivation does not touch on any personal preferences bureaucrats may have, and public service may falter in the event they start to prefer personal interests. With that, it becomes highly difficult to rate the designation of Robertson, since his evaluation would rely on the quality of public service he renders (Stillman, 2009).
Whereas the success of the private sector lies on the bottom line of effective profit maximization, public satisfactions is at the core of the designation of Robertson. The success of Robertson relies on the four-fold criteria mentioned earlier. However, one could evaluate the designation of Robertson in other ways other than the aforementioned criteria, as long as he gets to fulfill the goals set by his organization. For Robertson, it is more important to fulfill the goals of his organization that waste time following too much rules that may not even work well. Therefore, evaluating the designation of Robertson involves a degree of subjectivity aimed at reaching the goals he ought to address (Stillman, 2009).
The case of Robertson perfectly fits the context of ecology in public administration. John Gaus, the main proponent of ecology in public administration, stated that both the ways of administration and society bind one another. From that argument, one could simply infer that an administrative system effective in an area finds itself compatible with the characteristics of the part of society it affects. Therefore, if an administrative system does not work well within its intended constituents, then it could be fair to infer that there is incompatibility involved (Stillman, 2009).
Taking the argument of ecology in public administration to further heights in the case of Robertson is the fact that he has done so well to adjust to the social climate of his jurisdiction. That fact is highly evident in the way Robertson has administered his four-fold criteria in public service delivery, in which he established himself as a leader by both designation and virtue and the people under his jurisdiction as his main clientele. Verily, Robertson strived not to let his guard down against external influences that may have altered his projects should he have preferred to listen. With that, Robertson was able to preserve himself as a person with an official designation under a government agency, thereby firming his hold in the ecological order. At the same time, Robertson did not deprive people under his jurisdiction of opportunities to make their voices heard. Whereas Robertson tried his best not to become daunted in the face of external influences, he nevertheless strived to give people a proper venue where they could become free to air their grievances and suggest recommendations. Through that, Robertson duly preserves the position of the people he administers in the ecological order (Stillman, 2009).
References
Stillman, R. (2009). Public administration: Concepts and cases (9th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.
