The public sector is funded by various sources which include taxes paid by citizens, user fees charged for public services and the government. As mentioned above, the public sector is entitled with providing public goods and services to the public and their goal is to ensure that the public has access to public goods such as good roads, social amenities and good education. Such services do not produce returns and thus cannot be provided by the private sector since its aim is to maximize profits.
As such, funding in the public administration is not directly related to consumer satisfaction. Public funding is also influenced by political actors’ satisfaction. Policies and strategies in the public unit are formulated by directly elected politicians. Funding of the sector is thus directly connected or influenced by the satisfaction of such politicians. Public sector unlike the private sector is funded on an annual basis when the national budget of a country is prepared.
There is a lot of lobbying in the public sector for more funding allocation before the budget is prepared. Apart from government funding, the public sector may also get funding from donors and investment partners from other countries. Donors mostly fund government projects in progress or the ones the government intends to undertake such as road construction (Anderson, n. d). Leadership selection is also another factor which distinguishes the public administration and private administration. The motive of the private sector is to maximize profits through cost reduction.
To carry out this function, the sector requires highly competent individuals and good leadership. Leaders of the private administration are selected based on their talent and experience for accumulating profit. Any non performing leader is usually fired by the owners or the board of directors. In the public sector the scenario is different. Public administration is politically controlled and leadership is based not on experience but in political transient and partisan. For one to be a leader in a public unit, one has to be “politically connected” with the right person.
In the private sector, change of ownership or top leadership does not always lead to changes in organizational policies and structures or goals. However, in public administration, changes in political leadership leads to changes in the leadership of public units as well as the policies. Different leaders implement different policies during their tenure in public administration. Furthermore, an incoming leader is not mandated to build upon what his or her predecessor had already been doing a scenario which is not common with private administration (Stillman, 1983).
Another essential difference between public administration and private management revolves around democratic governance. The purposes of public administration are derived from government purposes. Instead of being instrumental in ensuring clear and democratic governance, the public administration is always trying to get around and cope with politics which are not consistent with democratic governance. Democratic governance embraces and also manages politics as an important expression of participation.
Apart from managing programs, the public sector has the role of managing politics and managing democracy which forms part of its public expression. This is a feature which is not found in the private administration and it is unique for the public administration and which distinguishes these two forms of administration (Davis & West, 1978). As earlier stated, public managers’ involvement in policy making is also a distinguishing feature between private and public sector. Public managers often interact with special interest groups and legislative committees during policy formulation.
The legislative committees together with special interest groups usually lobby the elected representatives forming what is referred to as the iron triangle relationships. The iron triangle relationships also known as the sub-governments are the ones which formulate policies and the policies must meet the different needs of these groups. A compromise is reached during policy making process ensuring that all the parties are in the iron triangle benefit. This is however not the case in private administration (Beldia, n. d). Conclusion The private and public sector are founded on different policies, goals and objectives.
Despite both of them being administrative in nature, political influence on them forms the foundation of their differences. As discussed above, most of their differences are deeply rooted not on the nature of their functions but on the extent politics influence the organization, purposes, leadership and funding of these two sectors. Public sector or administration is highly regulated and influenced by politics, while private sector though it lobbies the government for favorable business policies, its functions and strategies are not highly influenced by politics.
Also due to the different nature of their operations and mission, the public and private sectors adopt different strategies to ensure that their objectives are met. Reference: Anderson, J. (n. d): Public Administration: The Missing Piece. Retrieved on 24th July 2009 from, http://uashome. alaska. edu/~jfanderson/publications1/teach_politics_essay. pdf. Beldia, C. L. (n. d): Public Administration Vs Private Administration. Retrieved on 24th July 2009 from, http://ezinearticles. com/
Public-Administration-Vs-Private-Administration&id=2436668. Davis, C. E. & West, J. P. (1978): Public Vs. Private Administration: An Attitudinal Assessment. College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University Heady, F. (1991): Public administration: a comparative perspective. ISBN 0824784618, M. Dekker Pierre, J. (2003): Handbook of Public Administration. ISBN 0761972242, SAGE Riekert, D. J. C. (1991): The Controversy regarding public administration versus private management. ISBN 0620163690, University of Venda Stillman, R. J. (1983): Public administration: concepts and cases. ISBN 0395343712, Houghton Mifflin