To examine the strategies in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, EIU (2005) has found the variable responses on how the strategies can be anticipated in 2010. The figure 1 below illustrates the findings: Source: Economic Intelligence Unit survey, 2005 It is evident that the local levels of governmental organizations are socially-aware on the major changes in public administration, from which the challenge to reform the delivery of services are indicated by their strategic program of actions in expanding and improving the quality of services.
Likewise, EIU has cited the relevance of “creating a business framework” of most surveyed LGE’s in Asia-Pacific which belongs from developing countries, wherein the local chief executives acts like a project manager in administering their functions, and thus overly-conscious in carrying out the reform in public administration (EIU, 2005). Analyzing differences: role of business administration in public vs. private sector
Flynn and Tannenbaum (1993) have earlier theorized that what differentiates the role of business administration between public and private sector is the commitment towards work achievement, quoting that “job classification demonstrates firmer relationship among managers from the private sector”. As explained, commitment has an extensive correlation on the organizational characteristic of the private sector that is attributed by the behavior of an individual, based on indicated clinical studies (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; in Flynn and Tannenbaum, 1993).
The works of Pakistani Auditor General Iram Khan (2006) has argued that “superiority issue” on the roles of public and private sector in administration must be understood in both ways; efficiency and effectiveness. To cite, the societal perspectives of “neoliberal ideology” critically considers the popular interest of the state or government to competently identify the needs of a society, therefore people in the government are “rational economic actor” to optimize or maximize the state resources within the interaction of administrative sanctions and functions (Taylor, 1983; in Martin, 1993; in Khan, 2006).
Khan (2006) pointed out that administration in public versus private is impressively predisposed by a “public choice theory”, in which the administration of the public sector is competing for substantial project funds, competent personnel, significant policies and other resources. The competition therefore equates the understanding that public sector is obtaining the rationale of performance (Khan, 2006).
It may be perceived that the “competition” between the public and private sectors is central to the attainment of qualitative organizational performance, but the common public presumption excludes the competitive ideals, marginalizing the “idealist thinking” that the public sector has a policy-standards to comply in order to precisely organize and mobilize the organizational performance. Parallel to the policy-standards of administrative operations in public sector is the bureaucracy ruling.
Meaning, the structured operating procedures outlines the “tight” accountability of the public servant (Atkinson, 1989; in Khan 2006). The public accountability quantifies and qualifies the “means” of service delivery, from which accountability has two-pronged results; for the organization and the constituent-beneficiary (Pollitt & Smith, 2001; in Khan, 2006). The public accountability can be also exemplified by government’s contracting of services from the private sector.
The general rule retains the organizational accountability of the public sector in privatizing the services, wherein evaluating the consequential effect of privatization is considerably complicated due the definition of “welfare” which is facilitated by the contracted private entity on behalf of the private sector program implementation. It was analyzed to lessen the impact to the constituents since the private sector is the one that facilitates the welfare program of the government, diminishing the positive results in terms of constituents’ responsiveness and sensitivity on the work of the public sector (Galal et al. , 1994; in Jones et al. , 1998; in Pollitt & Smith, 2001; in Khan, 2006).
However, a study has concluded that some affirmative impact on welfare is causal to the occurrence of competition instead of privatization Serra, 2001; in Khan, 2006). Khan (2006) concluded in his findings that the primary differences on the role of business administration in the public versus the private sector should be addressed on the basis of long-term economic and political well-being of the state, in which the division of policy is apparently differentiating the roles of public and private sectors.
The state policy that structures the administration in a bureaucratic system can be greatly considered, like for instance allowing superiority of the private sector with regard to cost-efficient measures that do not need the “regulators of establishing competitive market”. However, the public sector has built-in operation for continuing efficiency and equity.