IntroductionAs society has become more democratized and decentralized, citizens have been more willing to participate not only in issues in their community, but also in government work. They are also interested in the improvement of public service delivery to address social problems. Recently, the pattern of public service delivery has changed from a hierarchical system to a governance model, in which public service is provided through a complex form of network building with other nongovernmental entities. This is because government programs and regulatory activities directly affect citizens, and government is well supported by citizens only when it performs its activities and carries out its responsibilities well. Public service can be provided through various systems and devices with the private sector, especially when the nonprofit sector's interest in and criticism of public service is rapidly increasing. That is, collaboration with different participants is one of the critical factors that ought to be considered in planning and processes for government policy making that results in positive outcomes and also addresses social problems in the community.Currently, various nonprofit organizations are immersed in the context of governance and are considered a type of collaborator. This is because a nonprofit organization in the community commits to advancing its social responsibility by managing social business, and the forms of collaboration is through the provision of empowerment to community residents. Citizens in the community take over vital services for the greater benefit of their community. Nonprofit organizations in the community have an autonomous and democratic nature. Additionally, profits from their commercial activities are reinvested into the community, and these activities of nonprofit organizations can serve as strong policy tools for addressing community problems with voluntary cooperation from citizens.While the number of nonprofit organizations in the community has increased, there is no previous empirical study which examines why nonprofit organizations are established more in some local governments than others, although several studies have examined the impact of nonprofit organizations on community conditions. This nonprofit organization's diffusion is meaningful to study because: 1) it leads to competition with other public sector services or businesses, and as a result, service quality can been improved; 2) nonprofit organizations bring positive social impacts to the community and local government through the revitalization of communities and the support of disadvantaged groups; and 3) it improves the community through innovations in the form of service.Nonprofit organizations are more likely to appear when severe community conditions are present, such as high unemployment and poverty rates, because nonprofits are often one of the best alternative solutions for a community. Additionally, they might be varied based on financial conditions in local government because nonprofit organizations rely on governmental grants. This is because nonprofits have suffered from revenue shortages as grant money decreases when governments face economic crises. Alternatively, they are initiated by emulating behavior of other neighborhoods and communities as they learn how they work. Thus, this study attempts to examine why nonprofit organizations are more commonly established based upon the financial condition of county governments. The study not only includes variables such as socioeconomic attributes within a county but also considers emulating behavior from neighboring counties.Literature ReviewCollaboration with Nonprofit Organizations: The necessity for changes to the form of public services leads to changes in the way policy is delivered. The form and direction of public service delivery to citizens has stressed increased cooperation and partnerships among various actors such as the government, the private sector, nonprofit organizations, and even citizens themselves. …
José M. Alonso, Judith Clifton, Daniel Díaz‐Fuentes
The Spanish Agency for the Evaluation of Public Policies (Agenda Estatal de Evaluatión de las Políticas Públicas y la Calidad de los Servicios — AEVAL) was established in 2007. One of the original justifications for creating this agency was to improve public policy evaluation with the end result of improving government’s coordination of public policy implementation in the context of a decentralized Spain. From the 1980s, Spain had been transformed from a highly centralized system to a decentralized territory composed of 17 regional governments, or Autonomous Communities, henceforth, ACs. Improving coordination was not the only reason to establish AEVAL, but it is on this task that this chapter focuses. Other important objectives included: promoting a more rational use of public resources; improving public service quality; and bolstering accountability to citizens. However, in the period leading up to its final creation, the political complexities underlying the urge to improve coordination issues as a result of decentralization became apparent. Today, the AEVAL functions as an evaluator of public policy, but significant issues related to coordination practices between central and regional governments remain. This chapter presents and evaluates AEVAL as regards its creation, organization, functions and performance to date. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Local government is the tier of public authority that citizens first look to solve their immediate social problems. Among all the public institutions at local level, council has a special status and authority as local elected bodies. They are uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership to their local communities. They are able to make things happen on the ground where it really matters. The government of Ethiopia in general and Addis Ababa city administration in particular establishes council at different tiers of government as parliamentary control mechanism to ensure effective policy implementation, promote local democracy and improve service delivery. However, woreda councils in Addis Ababa city administration were not seen playing such role of democracy promotion. Moreover, studies conducted in regional woredas divulged that Woredas council have not yet managed to exercise sufficient local autonomy due to several reasons such as absence of clearly established legal mandate, lack of devolution of power, poor organization of the system and tight control and intervention by higher authorities. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the challenges and prospects that woreda council at Addis Ababa city administration has faced in promoting democracy among grass-root people. It also examines the overall operations of the councils from the viewpoints of democratic government and decentralization In order to pursue the objective of the study the researcher use multi-stage sampling technique and relied on both primary and secondary data source. Primary data collected through questionnaires, interview and observations while secondary data obtained from document analysis like legislation on the issue, minutes and reports complied by counsel's office. It was found that problems prevailed in regional woreda councils are also impeded woreda councils at Addis Ababa City Administration. The internal working system of woreda councils reflected that executive domination is very soaring, and councils are not responsive to the needs of the community and most importantly democratic essence viz. accountability, transparency, participation and autonomy are not adhered principles in the councils conduct. Therefore, councils as they are impeded by the above-mentioned challenges are playing insignificant role in cultivating democratic value and improving the service delivery to the grass root people. Therefore, it is recommended that the internal working system of councils need to be very transparent, responsive, participatory and free from any unnecessary intervention. Councilors must be sensitive to public interest; legal back up from the city administration is also needed in order to make councils strong, autonomous and powerful. The field that councilors operating also should be open to all stakeholders as the democracy promotion works calls for the involvements of different actors
During the last two decades the structuring and functioning of the public sector has undergone major shifts from a centralized and consolidated public sector to a decentralized, structurally devolved and ‘autonomizing’ public sector, including the disconnection of policy design, implementation and evaluation (OECD 2002; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011; Christensen and Lægreid 2006). Systems of public administration have been disaggregated into a multitude of different kinds of (semi-)autonomous organizations, denoted as ‘agencies’ or ‘quangos’ (Flinders and Smith 1999; Pollitt and Talbot 2004). This disaggregation through ‘agencification’ is the result of a process of vertical and horizontal specialization, based on geography as well as different types of purposes, tasks, customer groups or processes (Christensen et al. 2007; Roness 2007). In this process of agencification and autonomization, the responsibilities and autonomy of public organizations are redefined (structural aspect). Moreover, the way in which they are controlled by government, including the mechanisms of accountability, is redesigned — mostly from ex ante to ex post , and from input-based to result-based rationales (functional aspect). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
New Public Management (NPM) is considered as a global paradigm emerging in response to economic, institutional, political, and ideological changes.Many attempts to define the New Public Management have been made and there are several definitions of this notion, referring to the implementation of management ideas from business and private sector into the public services.Over the past few years, Romania has been facing a great challenge as it has to enhance its public management for achieving the European standards and values of transparency, predictability, accountability, adaptability and efficiency. The necessity of a modern administration at European standards exists both at the level of the citizen, and at the level of institutions delivering public services.According to the provisions of its last stand-by arrangement with IMF, Romania placed emphasis on restoring medium- and long-term sustainability and paved the way for future growth. Structural reforms were a large component of the program, including tax administration, pensions, public wages and employment, and social benefits, improving public sector efficiency, as well as enhancing the business environment. Since 2009 a public financial management structure was introduced for multi-year budgeting while limiting intra-year budget revisions. Fiscal rules were introduced on spending, public debt and primary deficit, and a framework for managing guarantees and other contingent liabilities was approved. Local public finance law was amended to bolster fiscal discipline and limit risks from local governments.Thus, presently, the legal framework envisages the use of new instruments and structures to support local administration authorities to increase their administrative capacity in order to perform in accordance with their new authority and thereby increases the quality of the already decentralized public services.The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) ' the total quality management tool was introduced in Romania, public institutions acknowledging the need for change and improvement, the importance of people'(tm)s involvement within the organization'(tm)s self-assessment process, the importance of measuring the results, objectives prioritization, the need to assume responsibility for the identified improvement actions, as well as the need to share knowledge and experience.Most of the Romanian public institutions apply the diagnosis obtained through CAF implementation as a solid ground to develop and implement their Multi-annual Modernizing Strategies, thus assuring the sustainability of the results accomplished so far.Concluding, we consider that the changes incurred and the significant transformation of Romanian public services include important elements of NPM.
The paper presents the current state of the process of agencification in Croatia, pointing out both the process and the institutional design. The agency model in Croatia consists of several types of more or less autonomous administrative organizations, situated at different distances from the central government. The most evident pressures for agencification come from decentralization, managerial responses and Europeanization. The reversal of the process in recent years has mostly happened because of the need for rationalization of the public administration system, which is also under pressure because of the economic crisis. The key problems of the agency model are over politicization on the one hand, and insufficient and inadequate control on the other. The adequate legal framework for agencies would enhance institutionalization of the agency model, ensuring effectiveness and legal certainty and maintaining a sufficient level of independence.
An analysis is made of agencification reform in the Netherlands from the viewpoint of the management of the complex change process. We will present a processual analysis of the complex change process of agencification reform by means of organization science insights on ‘emergent change’ and administrative science insights on ‘complex networks’. The analysis of the process of change events shows that it is not an example of centrally planned and controlled change. The reform is rather an example of ‘emergent and complex change’. The reform is a complex system of different intertwined change processes with many different decentralized actors, which is ‘managed’ by different central ‘change agents’. The ‘change managers’ themselves form a complex system as well. Points for practitioners One of the important reform trends in Dutch central administration is the ‘agencification’ of executive government organizations, that is, the increase of managerial autonomy of executive parts of ministerial departments. In this article we analyse how this two-decades-long reform process was ‘managed’ by various central actors like Parliament, the National Audit Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Home Affairs, various internal and external advisory committees and supervisory committees. It turned out that the reform can hardly be described as a centrally planned and controlled process. Initiatives for reform, in fact, popped up locally within the various ministries and agencies. The reform process was more a continuous accumulation of local initiatives for agencification. The various central actors tried to exercise some coordinating or supervisory influence, but that was rather indirect, reactive and limited.
Public Policy and Administration Research
Management and Organizational Studies
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Two broad and interlinking themes have dominated much of the recent literature on local governance1 and participation: the dynamics, spatialities and temporalities of the ‘neoliberalization’ of local governance; and the relationship between local governance and democracy, especially the ‘meanings, potentials and pitfalls of “participation” ’ (Melo and Baiocchi, 2006: 596). Taking the latter first, Beaumont and Nicholls (2008) in identifying new research issues emerging from a symposium have highlighted a range of questions: frictions between representative and participative local democracy; distinctions and overlaps between participation, democratization and social movements in cities; and the tools for deepening democratic engagement with impoverished and marginalized communities in cities of the global North and South. Purcell (2007) argues that there is a need for more and more sustained work on the political as well as the economic dynamics of city regions, and that this means engaging with questions of democracy as well as of citizenship. Melo and Baiocchi suggest there are two key questions: whether deliberative, ‘horizontal’ governance structures favour middle-class and elite interests; and what are the conditions under which participatory arrangements can be both democratic and governance-enhancing. A related issue is the potentially problematic power relationship between elite forms of local governance — for example the influence of unelected local notables in institutions such as local partnerships — and participatory practices (Geddes, 2006). The abundant literature on decentralization initiatives in many Southern states frequently questions the extent to which such initiatives have been able to embed effective and democratically accountable institutions at the subnational level (Stren, 2004; Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). These issues of the politics of local governance — the interplay of participation and partnership, social movements and the representative democracy of political parties and leaders — are central to this symposium. Many, if not all, of the contributors to the above debates position issues of democracy and participation in the context of processes of neoliberalization, and the ‘market democracy’ or ‘market citizenship’ associated with neoliberalism (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). The concept of neoliberalism is complex, diverse and contested, and works on a number of levels. These range from institutionalized cognitive principles —‘a deep, taken-for-granted belief in neoclassical economics’, through consequent normative principles favouring free market solutions to economic problems, to a set of policies implemented during the 1980s and 1990s to promote a lean welfare state, low taxation and flexible labour markets (Dumenil and Levy, 2001: 5). In an important recent contribution, Harvey (2005: 19) argues that neoliberalism should not be understood as a bundle of characteristics, but as a political project, a process of neoliberalization ‘to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites’, and specifically to disembed capital from the constraints of the ‘embedded liberalism’ of social democracy and the Keynesian welfare state (ibid.: 11). When theoretical neoliberal principles clash with the need to restore or sustain capitalist class power, or when such principles lead to tensions and contradictions, ‘then the principles are either abandoned or become so twisted as to be unrecognisable’ (ibid.: 19). He cites the rhetorical commitment of neoconservatives to democracy as an example. Harvey reflects on the important role of urban crisis — such as the New York fiscal crisis of the 1970s — in paving the way for neoliberalism, and also points to neoliberal forms of elite, closed governance such as partnership, which circumscribe both ‘old’ representative and ‘new’ participatory democratic processes (Fuller and Geddes, 2008). In this vein, other key contributions have resonated widely in the recent literature. Jessop (2002: 466) noted how key global neoliberal strategies envisage a growing ‘role for cities in managing the interface between the local economy and global flows, between the potentially conflicting demands of local sustainability and local wellbeing and those of international competitiveness, and between the challenges of social exclusion and global polarization and the continuing demands for liberalization, deregulation, [and] privatization’. Along similar lines, Brenner and Theodore (2002: 369–72) referred to the ‘neoliberalization of urban space’ (or ‘neoliberal localization’) as one of destructive creation in which the old local state apparatus is replaced by new forms of local governance — including ‘networked’ forms of governance based upon public–private partnerships; ‘new public management’ strategies; privatization and competitive contracting of municipal services. In a widely cited formulation, Peck and Tickell (2007) distinguished two phases of neoliberalism in the UK context: roll-back (when a primary objective was to roll back the pre-existing political economy of the social democratic welfare state, via deregulation and public expenditure cuts) and roll-out (the extension and deepening of neoliberal forms such as networked governance, fiscal responsibility and reregulation). Cerny (2008), emphasizing the importance of place in the global evolution of neoliberalism, identifies a ‘social neoliberalism’ in which welfare is not rolled back but restructured and marketized in highly complex ways. Thus: the neoliberal ascendancy of the past three decades has been associated with a series of paradoxical and contradictory ‘double movements’ . . . neoliberalism involves the simultaneous and iterative roll-back of institutional and social forms (especially those associated with Keynesianism) together with the roll-out of restructured institutional and state forms (Peck and Tickell, 2007). While this literature initially focused primarily on the changes encountered by urban institutions across countries and regions in Europe and North America, there is now increasing recognition that the neoliberalization of local governance is a global phenomenon (Leitner et al., 2007). An insistent skein in the increasingly globalized literature has been the call to recognize the diversity of ‘actually existing neoliberalisms’. Larner (2005: 17), for example, is concerned to move beyond neoliberalism as a monolithic hegemonic entity in order to understand its uneven, contested and contingent nature, and recognizes that institutional landscapes are characterized by diverse, ‘contradictory spatialities, socialities and subjectivities’, operating through divergent political, institutional and regulatory strategies that are characterized by contradiction and contestation. It is also important to recognize that policy change can involve a degree of the ‘pragmatic and opportunistic’ (Peck and Tickell, 2007: 30). There are, though, important differences between perspectives which essentially identify variants of neoliberalism, and others which talk in terms of hybrids between neoliberalism and other political projects. In this perspective, many rationalities and approaches are prioritized by the state, which come to form a ‘hybridity of approaches and rationalities’ (Purcell and Nevins, 2005; Raco, 2005: 325), in which there is no assumption of the dominance of neoliberalism (Barnett, 2005). Exploring both the temporal and spatial dynamics of neoliberalization, Geddes (2005) suggests that the transition to a neoliberalized local governance remains highly differentiated. Beyond a neoliberal heartland (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand) there are marked differences between a ‘new Europe’ eager to embrace neoliberalism, a social Europe still as yet with a markedly different vision, and a transitional Europe, itself divided into several trajectories. Beyond Europe, there can be not just mimicry of European/US models, but also very different local governance initiatives, some of which challenge neoliberal prescriptions. Summarizing a symposium on the geographies of neoliberalism in America, (2005: that spatial and . . . processes of state and the of neoliberal landscapes and a but also that is a as well as destructive . . . which for or social emphasizing that such of are at the by neoliberal In and neoliberalization has been associated with the deepening and of market the role of the state and its relationship with its in order to and and 2005; and Farthing, 2006). In no a local been on the social its role has been in with the neoliberal by recent 2008). The spatial and temporal dynamics of neoliberalization can a contested and (Leitner et al., in which of neoliberalism can itself a not as a to neoliberalism, but also of the of neoliberalism by and practices and with (ibid.: 5). that to in terms of neoliberalism are (2005: for example, argues that of neoliberalism to of which are not to neoliberalism and from the not how this While that not is to neoliberalism, in that neoliberalism has the to with such which in the context of phases of symposium with debates local governance, and especially participatory in global from the UK and this to and this and (Geddes, this While and the cities on which of the not of more a of global to issues in a set of very different — including the and different past the global and countries and with both and very different governance and this of by to the literature. In this with the issue of what to the of ‘actually forms of local governance under suggest that such an to two of both of the upon which the process of neoliberalization and other to that of neoliberalization, which are also on local latter in to local governance are processes of with a in contradictory relationship to neoliberalism, as Harvey is one of with in which are in both and in formulation, . . . . . . the of across and when and are In the of this primarily on which to of in local also reflects the that the contributors to the symposium different the extent to which neoliberalization of and the of a of The in the symposium primarily on neoliberalism — that is to in one on the extent to which processes in local governance in very different local not understand a to and the in which both tensions and neoliberalism, and forms of in complex of local governance both and now under — the social and political and and the process — which are in different in the of the The of the state, including the extent — or — of democratic political institutions is a primary local noted Jessop and Brenner and Theodore to the process of the local neoliberal Harvey the neoliberal state is a contested political form a number of and tensions to the between and democracy; in the of the existing social order which neoliberal and extension of between and In to the of and forms of The countries and cities in this symposium such tensions and the local of both and Southern and and and in which the extension of democratic forms markedly different The of the states which the cities are are important in of local governance in at three which are the of the state, the of the local state and its In the UK the countries in the the social democratic state a form of ‘embedded liberalism’ 2005: which the neoliberal has to the extent of this the of the UK state, to the of neoliberalism to on the of social democracy and its in have for neoliberal local state forms and In in the other states — and — the transition neoliberalism has place or state there are also important differences between The states in and very of political in the state to its the was and still is characterized by a level of political and and 2006: The characterized by social that in local political and in the of the of and the of local et al., In in the can be that when with neoliberal to have complex of participation urban In forms of have in the important on local state policy in movements have participatory local institutions by the neoliberal In both and the of neoliberal state forms with the transition from has been a in this still be to In the of argues that in the the transition to a neoliberal urban governance was as was the to be to a new state the of economic and In the of the transition from of its with the of has also with with and as and and is is In neoliberalism in the 1980s in the crisis of an and but the neoliberal with local participatory to its was to the changes of which the neoliberal to the of democratic processes the The a of from those neoliberalism characterized by an of political and has been able to a degree of from its with the transition to democracy, to those its with democracy is and its more It is also as for similar to from political strategies by states with different and in social democratic and have similar participation as of and similar competitive economic The to are in at to the influence of the state in the form of the in neoliberal urban economic and social different social democratic of the countries and cities in the degree of decentralization of political power to the local level governance and in terms of is for example, with the of and based on from across America, of the complex between neoliberalism, democratization and and the that decentralization is associated with either neoliberalism or there is a between the decentralization of power in which has more for local in to the position in the urban has been to with and this local governance in both and is well and In the of local is into the but the to local in in to the of means that the of local governance arrangements is more contested in cities local state is of or are complex and of are much In (Geddes, this local across the in the and constraints have been especially The in the the and of the state at both and local levels. It is also important to recognize the role of state institutions and now an increasingly important role in policy and such as the and its the the of Europe, and international have been important in the of and neoliberal policies different global regions example under the of the which from the neoliberal in and The of governance principles by is for many countries to of the which and to is upon with the neoliberal economic principles which 2007). the key points of have in of what is between and the and in and more participatory forms of democracy and political emphasizing the principles of and local democracy similar with forms of participation, to promote of participation 2007). there is growing recognition of the which frequently between the of participatory institutions and and 2005). The some contributions to for more to how democratically local are and to the issues by Beaumont and Nicholls frictions and distinctions between participation and democratization and the need for deepening democratic engagement of marginalized movements and have been key in local governance, as was the with the in during the and the in one perspective, the of social movements in more recent is a to the of social movements have the political of the by neoliberalism to of the neoliberal state and politics et al., 2007). the of neoliberalism, local strategies have been and social capital to be as a to state and in which and are are in neoliberal local (2005: the is the extent to which social movements have become into a of neoliberal state argues — with many others — that participatory processes such as those in and well more as for the of social as means of that much of the governance literature on a of power an in the power of a in state power, argues that engagement with the literature is the of power beyond a and emphasizing the continuing of in governance is at to that such for participation, be what was on The latter a neoliberal forms of engagement well more social democratic local is also is to such local participatory initiatives the of neoliberalism and neoliberal local In for example, on such initiatives is with that on economic In the context of the UK, the New for across by the New have no on the economic context of economic in one such participatory processes can be as one in a ‘social neoliberalism’ primarily class to social be more to the of state policy in with on the of the neoliberal state, in to which such participatory social are of be from and In this the of the latter for a local state are The of and are also of the way in which social can be local state which are to and by the central state, in a relationship as et is . . . are to to of but are to to neoliberal A very different is in the local social movements of the and are in and at from the assumption that is by the state, to influence local state policy is in a context of social and at the of the local and (2007) the of of and engagement in as to both and the These very different be the for local social movements of a position which is both and the state — in a position in which can influence the state in The challenge to social movements has (2007) to that should to participation in institutions such as local which that such an engagement is — such as participatory in — to have on the of local social movements with a local to and with or in the of from in countries the UK, social demands to be into a and increasingly by the local state there are still important — such as in and — of participation in a range of forms of across local and global which or by the In the of many social movements both in communities and in urban both with a of to the state, has not social movements to but has to form the for of the neoliberal and 2007). governance has the on social movements to to the of partnerships and forms of neoliberal participation, and in so has to the participation of the 1980s in countries such as and beyond 2005; 2007). others 2005; and Farthing, and the not but to forms of and to forms of political participation by the not an neoliberal practices of the of neoliberal institutions by in very different by different or local governance has increasingly the of the has been the of the power and of local and political The of and political parties via local has been by and has been with participative and forms of local democratic The of partnerships has to local to the of one many the primary in local political leaders have been on the one to become more and on the other to new based on the of political and more on or in a In countries such as the UK, local political is increasingly concerned with in the of the different a the and of local political has been as important in and to from of and 2005). local is not to the political leaders in cities in and have also this to power et al., with as and The of and in have local and public to with the creation of new forms of and such as and participation There is much though, of by political leaders in the by and the of which have the of also local of is the local of the literature on local suggests in the context of a neoliberal local politics of governance, should be or the contributions of local leaders from and In some countries has been that local political has to from a to a range of different in a more democratic (Melo and Baiocchi, can also be the that and of old have of in many of America, the of leaders still remains In for example, the of as has the of and that remains between the of political and of a politics in which and in some countries such as the UK, policies have to promote the importance of in one as a way to local democratic and and 2005). the which is one in which local and parties — of both and and in countries — have to of the new of local governance, but in the process different and to governance such as the by of political parties of partnerships in which theoretical of and the and competitive of local this through the example of the in which in the 1980s a more for the of the the city the and as the the that has been to the city and the urban the political of the by the in In America, both and parties have been concerned with and effective While is the that the of has been more in including and social and the that neoliberal can local participatory structures which new to local not be The of the and policies in and how the process of a between the of a a social and the social as well as across and can have for the of local the of a policy or either the or to a different can also a in the of governance of the political in The of the participatory process from to other but also to many cities is the example of how local can the of a governance et al., 2008). and the global urban the important spatial of the economic and social across the by the neoliberal a set of that local that by the the urban of In that the of Europe, North and and the be the and be with and the and the regions the in between and 2007). In the of and These are local governance in an increasingly and has been with urban governance an of the extension and of urban as a of and with the of in strategies to a global competitive are a more competitive and local have to place and new forms of local but have also for new strategies of social and place policies have been by the creation of and and with other cities the and the Southern et al., 2006). cities are the international and are not at the of the global urban but are cities at the level of the that is a dominated by the city of the and important at a level the power of of the global and the initiatives which have been are a continuing of local governance In and in a context of strategies have the a city and of old the for the of 2006). the urban influence the extent to which different cities strategies the local governance in terms of the of institutions and from and beyond and the of and across different the of local governance institutions to to is also by the of the other three which cities have example, of of between the and levels. the of and have as much in with the of as with the in to global changes in and which of and that level cities have and social and are highly in and and have governance the of in and is much in the of urban governance to such is more and some strategies of social by the state — such as participatory participation, partnerships and social — have become to urban social 2004; and many of have been by social movements and forms of other more and also the of the and in cities and of in the the of communities in and 2004; 2004; and increasing in the North are other such as in the UK, which have and spatial on marginalized 2004; this is a that has been associated with and the economic and social The has the role of as a to the of the at the as the has to policies in political in have to institutions and of as a way of a democratic and and this In and political of both and have in the of based on to partnerships and in this symposium are emphasizing the urban is also important to recognize the of In the between the and many of the social movements of should that the is not with social The of movements in in the 1990s and of this have been central to to neoliberalism, and have in structures in urban as a of (Kohl and Farthing, 2006). the of as well as urban local governance the importance of of the of the of has been to a in which very different and urban have been to to a political that and have become of ‘new and the processes change in both how and to local governance in city in and ways. The key between the two cities was the political context in by the transition from the to a democratic that of urban governance, characterized by decentralization and a of participation, was from The on of to two the governance that a of state and and across to a of not a of state that an in participation not an in on and the for local governance of a at the urban those related to issues such as or urban which call and to the on the of the for the urban and the of neoliberalism in the to with the state, a more especially for cities in to a more for In this the importance of as the of public at the subnational and the central place of or in the urban and for In the Geddes suggests that is to the of two of local governance — neoliberal and is not to or the diversity of existing but to to the terms of He reflects on local governance in in the 1980s and 1990s a for the new neoliberal but now a of as a of the recent of the the of the neoliberal on He suggests a of and of neoliberalism is in the tensions and complex temporalities of the between neoliberalism and to in and
Alina Profiroiu, Tudorel Andrei, Marian Nica, Elena Daniela ŞTEFĂNESCU
The reform process of the state and implicitly of the public administration was a priority for the past governments of Romania. During 2004- 2009, within the reform process, the main actors involved in the coordination, implementation and monitoring of reform measures were: the Prime Minister, the Superior Council for Public Administration Reform, Public Policy Coordination and Structural Adjustment, the Ministry of Public Finance, the General Secretariat of Government, Ministry of Administration and Interior (renamed for a short time Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform), the Central Unit for Public Administration Reform, National Institute of Administration, the National Agency of Civil Servants, and the National Modernizers Network. For evaluation of aspects related to the reform process it was designed a selective research within the members of the National Modernizers Network, for assessing their perception of the public administration reform undertaken by the institutions presented above. Evaluating their opinion can be an important point in the revitalization of the area of the administration reform process. Also, the research conducted aimed at assessing the degree of modernizers’ involvement in activities related to important aspects of the reform process: strategic planning, formulating and evaluating public policies, financial management, human resources management, decentralization, introduction of new information and communication technologies and administrative simplification.
Koen Verhoest, Paul G. Roness, Bram Verschuere, Kristin Rübecksen · 5 authors
Since the 1980s, the structuring and functioning of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) public sector has undergone major shifts (cf. OECD 2002a; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). One of the most observed trends in public sector organization in OECD states is the shift from a centralized and consolidated public sector to a decentralized, structurally devolved and ‘autonomizing’ public sector, including the disconnection of policy design, implementation and evaluation (Christensen and Lægreid 2001a, 2006). Systems of public administration have been disaggregated into a multitude of different kinds of (semi-)autonomous organizations, denoted as ‘agencies’ or ‘quangos’ (cf. Flinders and Smith 1999; Pollitt and Talbot 2004). This disaggregation through ‘agencification’ is the result of a process of vertical and horizontal specialization, based on geography as well as on different types of purposes, tasks, customer groups or processes (Christensen et al. 2007; Roness 2007). In this process of agencification and autonomization, the responsibilities and autonomy of public organizations are redefined (structural aspect). Moreover, the way that they are controlled by government, including the mechanisms of accountability, are redesigned, mostly from ex ante to ex post , and from input to results based rationals (functional aspect). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
New Public Management (NPM) assumes that task specialization results in efficiency gains (Hood 1991). Following this logic governments have structurally disaggregated major monolithic public sector organizations into smaller parts, with some degree of autonomy. Since the 1980s, this has been visible in the increase in decentralization and devolution, as well as in a clear expansion of the types and numbers of autonomous agencies. Two other changes in the political-administrative system occurred at the same time. First, the split between politics and administration was re-emphasized; secondly, the different phases in the policy cycle, i.e. policy design, policy implementation and policy evaluation, were organizationally split (Bouckaert et al. 2010). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Post-1991 Decentralization reform in Ethiopia reveals that regional governments have technically separate power to self administer their regions, formulate and implement their socio-economic policies and strategies, bear all financial expenditures, raise revenue from specified tax bases, get subsidies from the central government and borrow from internal sources. The implementation of the reform, however, shows sustained central government dominance on expenditure and revenue assignment, continued regional dependence on central subsidy, absence of borrowing, and sustained central government interference in the administrative affair of regions. By conducting detailed field research in three regional governments, this article exposes how public sector management system (public finance and human resource management system) determines decentralization outcomes. It contends that outcomes of decentralization reforms are shaped not only by political and economic factors, as suggested in the decentralization literature, but also by the de facto public sector management system.
Abstract: This article analyses the dynamics of health‐care reforms in Germany, the U.K., Switzerland, France and Italy. In light of the “New Public Management” (NPM) theory, the author discusses governments' attempts at providing better health‐care services for less. Health‐care reforms inspired by NPM meant opening up to competition and revamping service provision to improve organizational performance. These reforms also put the emphasis on outcomes measurements to improve insurers and providers' accountability, demanded greater decentralization of the decision‐making process (e.g., planning, investment and financing of health‐care services), and encouraged contracting‐out of public services and partnerships between the public and the private sector. While most features of the NPM theory were applicable to EU health‐care reforms, NPM was not a panacea: it advanced at different paces across nations, with some aspects of NPM being more appropriate in some countries but less so in others. It led to greater inequity and more bureaucracy in some, but not all, countries. Competition, a major characteristic of the NPM, did not necessarily lead to better health outcomes, and, unlike in other sectors, the application of NPM in health care meant larger providers (e.g., insurers, hospitals) and regulations have remained strong. Sommaire: Le présent article analyse la dynamique des réformes des soins de santé en Allemagne, au Royaume‐Uni, en Suisse, en France et en Italie. À la lumière de la théorie de la « Nouvelle administration publique » (NAP), l'auteur discute des tentatives menées par les gouvernements pour fournir de meilleurs services de soins de santéà un moindre coût. Les réformes des soins de santé inspirées par la NAP ont signifié l'ouverture à la concurrence et la réorganisation de la prestation des services pour améliorer la performance organisationnelle. Ces réformes ont également mis l'accent sur les mesures des résultats afin d'améliorer l'imputabilité des assureurs et des fournisseurs, ont exigé une plus grande décentralisation du processus de prise de décision (p. ex., planification, investissement, et financement des services de soins de santé), et ont encouragé la sous‐traitance des services publics et la formation de partenariats entre les secteurs public et privé. Alors que la plupart des éléments de la théorie de la NAP étaient applicables aux réformes des soins de santé de l'UE, la NAP n'a pas été la panacée : elle a progresséà des rythmes différents suivant les pays, certains aspects de la NAP étant plus appropriés dans certains pays que dans d'autres. Cela a entraîné une plus grande iniquité et plus de bureaucratie dans certains pays. La concurrence, une caractéristique importante de la NAP, n'a pas nécessairement entraîné de meilleurs résultats pour la santé et, à la différence d'autres secteurs, l'application de la NAP aux soins de santé a signifié de plus importants fournisseurs (p. ex., assureurs, hôpitaux) et le maintien de règlements solides.
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Abstract The Canadian province of British Columbia has been widely recognized as the North American leader in employing Design, Build, Finance Operate public–private partnerships to create new public infrastructure. Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world. Provinces exercise considerable autonomy and have powerful revenue raising power at their disposal. Although Canadian local governments are generally seen as substantially inferior to the two senior levels of government, those in British Columbia have in fact managed to achieve quite a bit of autonomy due to non-constitutional factors. Large infrastructure projects, for which municipalities and other local government agencies must look to the province for financial support are among the most controversial of issues within the provincial–local government relationship. The introduction of public–private partnerships represents a classic example of a political entrepreneur changing the rules of the game to favour their desired outcomes. In this case, a government leader determined to pursue an infrastructure program that the province lacked the capital to support and the re-structuring of the state along New Public Management lines. However, even though the rule change favoured the Premier's immediate goals, and allowed him to over-ride much local objection, it can be argued that in the long run neither local governments nor the province have necessarily gained in power by changing the rules of the game. In keeping with the general tenants of the New Public Management, the introduction of public–private partnerships has given precedence to technocratic forms of knowledge, especially those involved with finance and accounting, with the aim of pursuing public goals in the most “economically efficient” manner possible. The flip side is that democratic input is strictly limited to the initial question as to whether or not a project is desirable, not how it can be best achieved or whether, once underway, it still represents a wise move. As a result, if there are any real winners in terms of autonomy, it has been senior public managers at both the provincial and local level and their financial and accounting advisors. These actors have had the range of issues for which they are accountable markedly simplified when it comes to major infrastructure projects, even as the complexity of such projects are increased by the use of public–private partnerships. Evidence is drawn from government documents, news accounts and interviews conducted by the author with senior managers, politicians and appointed board members of local government organizations (a quasi-governmental agency and a regional municipality's transit authority) as well as a provincial ministry, which acts as a control case. By employing three cases within the same province and the same time-frame, many of the contextual factors that can confound a study of this sort have been held constant for the purpose of comparison.
This paper proposes the basis of governmental and fiscal policies for Gyeonggi provincial government. Firstly, the role of Gyeonggi Province should be established under the decentralized governing system. This enhances the provincial autonomous capacity. It is also correspondent with central government’s devolution policy as well. Secondly, the relationship among the different levels of governments(central-province-cityㆍcounty) should be horizontally mutual. There are two major ways to reach the horizontal intergovernmental relationship. One is that central and provincial governments should rearrange their roles and functions. The other is that Gyeonggi province should maintain friendly relations with the cities and counties by switching the direct guidance or supervising to technical advice and cooperation. Thirdly, the provincial government of Gyeonggi needs to carry out policies for the citizens with the new public management tools such as running a flexible organization, engaging official positions openly and executing performance-based management system. Fourthly, the reform and renovation of Gyeonggi Province’s public sector is essential for performing the leading role of the national development. Finally, Gyeonggi Province needs to build collaborative partnership with NGOs for improving the democratic decision-making and civil society.
This study is centered on two concepts of central and local government: cooperation-control, centralization-decentralization. Through the degree on the self autonomy in the Korean Participatory Government, this study analyzed the relationship between central and local government. Viewing from management perspective, especially focused on the ordinance, function, organization, financing, it is revealed that responsible autonomous foundation has not yet been laid out. In order to establish the decentralized cooperative relationship, it is necessary to eliminate the one way control system from central government to local government which is unsuitable to the vision of Participatory Government, and the interdependent horizontal relationship is needed. Also there is no doubt that central and local governments will play a stronger role in our society in the years ahead. On the issue of rebalancing the central-local relations, it is truly time for a change.
Abstract Executive and regulatory agencies are decentralized state organizations that implement policies. When the law clearly defines the policy, we have a state policy; when it leaves the precise definition to the incumbent administration, we have a government policy. Regulatory agencies are supposed to execute state policies and be more autonomous from the administration, whereas executive agencies will be less autonomous politically but equally independent in administrative terms. Policies introduced by executive agencies are supposed to change the moment that the opposition political party or political coalition wins an election and a new administration begins, whereas the policies introduced by regulatory policies do not change so easily. Government policies may be changed either by the parliament or by the executive, whereas state policies may be changed only by the parliament. Executive agencies are supposed to have administrative autonomy, regulatory agencies, decision autonomy, but policies are not or should not be their responsibility.
This study aims at assessing the performance of local government in Palestine in regard to fiscal and administrative decentralization. Data was gathered from the Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Finance and a questionnaire was sent to 12 municipalities' key officials. It was found that the government is organized into the central government headed by the president, the cabinet, the governorates, mayors and village councils. The main functions of the local governments are to provide the necessary needed services. It was found that there is a degree of decentralization in providing the intended services as the functions of each level is clearly defined by the law, even though there is an overlapping amongst these functions due to the current situation instability The study explains several aspects including organization of the local government, decision making process, functional responsibilities, partnership among local government and the performance of these partnerships, employment, training programs, the most urgent issues regarding decentralization process, local government finances, financial standing of municipalities, relationship between central and local governments, and decentralization reforms under preparation, The study ends up with conclusions and recommendations. تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى تقييم أداء الهيئات المحلية في فلسطين فيما يتعلق باللامركزية الإدارية والماليـة. وقد تم جمع البيانات اللازمة للدراسة من وزارة الحكم المحلي ووزارة المالية، إضافة الى استبانة كانت قد أرسلت إلى 12 مسئولاً من مسئولي 12 بلدية. وتبين من البحث أن التنظيم الإداري للحكومة يتكون من الحكومة المركزية والمحافظات والبلديات والمجالس القروية. ووجد أن وظائف الهيئات المحلية تتركز في تقديم الخدمات الأساسية للمواطنين. وتبين أن لدى هذه الهيئات درجة كبيرة من اللامركزية في تقديمها لهذه الخدمات، لأن وظائف هذه الهيئات محددة بشكل واضح في قانون الحكم المحلي الفلسطيني، إلا أن هناك بعض التداخل في بعض الصلاحيات نتيجة للظروف الحالية. وأوضحت الدراسة العديد من القضايا الخاصة باللامركزية المالية والإدارية منها: التنظيم الإداري للهيئات المحلية، وعملية اتخاذ القرارات، والمسئوليات الوظيفية، والتعاون بين الهيئات المحلية في تقديم الخدمات، القوى العاملة في الهيئات المحلية والتدريب والحوافز، والقضايا الملحة فيما يتعلق باللامركزية، وتمويل الهيئات المحلية، والأوضاع المالية لهذه الهيئات وعلاقاتها بالحكومة المركزية، والإصلاحات الجارية الخاصة باللامركزية. وانتهت الدراسة بالخلاصة وعدد من التوصيات.
Taxpayer's suit or citizen suit will be reintroduced in Korea by the end of this year. It is specified in the Korea Local Government Act in accordance with the Decentralization of the Administration Power Act which was enacted in the early 2003. Korea local autonomy system and the monitoring system of the finance and accounting of the local governments are under the stage of transformation. Taxpayer's suit will be functioning as the monitoring system which will make the finance and accounting of the local governments more effectively and transparently. But the newly reintroducing citizen suit covers only the problems of local governments stage, and the execution of the national finance and accounting remains beyond the coverage.
This article analyzes how administrative decentralization can improve the provision of social services in Africa. It uses political, economic, and historical approaches, to investigate the bureaucratic dysfunctions that administrative decentralization may reduce. It argues that administrative decentralization can overcome the all-time challenge for African central governments to broadcast authority over harsh and sparsely inhabited territories. Also, by tackling the use of public employment and wages to leverage distributive politics, it may reduce the distortions affecting the financing of public services, and which particularly undermine the quality of education. Administrative decentralization may also enhance merit-based appointments and promotions of bureaucrats by reducing the propensity to resort to public employment and wages as a means for political officials to reward loyalty and to recruit fellows. Finally, administrative decentralization may leverage effectively civil service reforms seeking to align central bureaucracies with the objective of poverty reduction through enhanced service delivery. Attention is drawn, however, to the conflicts that may arise, as administrative decentralization will come to threaten vested interests. The paper argues that for reformer international institutions, handling situations of political crises and learning how to use them to leverage reform will be critical for the success of administrative decentralization in Africa.
States and municipalities have privatized services in an effort to improve their cost‐effectiveness and quality. Competition provides the logical foundation for an expectation of cost savings and quality improvements, but competition does not exist in many local marketplaces—especially in the social services, where governments contract primarily with nonprofit organizations. As government increases its use of contracting, it simultaneously reduces its own public‐management capacity, imperiling its ability to be a smart buyer of contracted goods and services. This article examines two questions about the privatization of social services based on interviews conducted with public and nonprofit managers in New York state: Does social services contracting exist in a competitive environment? And do county governments have enough public‐management capacity to contract effectively for social services? The findings suggest an absence of competition and public‐management capacity, raising the question of why governments contract when these conditions are not met.
The purpose of this study is to offer a resonable perspective of local government financial autonomy according to the policy decentralization by focusing on the french experience and to seek suggestions for this policy. In order to explain and analyse french local financial system, this article used the analytical framework concerning the variable elements that can be explained local financial autonomy system in France. This study tried to find the basic principes including financial logic of decentralization, and how these principes had application to local finance. A further purpose is to describe the current and emerging factors of local finance structure in France after the policy decentralization. This study finds the following facts: 1) a guaranty the freedom administration local government in law system of unitary nation 2) the prohibition control of local government on the other local government 3) a simultaneous transfer of competences and resources and a integral compensation of charges 4) the rigorous management control on the financial activity in local government.