based upon the article below, write a brief summary of the information contained in the article. Include details such as the name of the public personnel management program or area and provide an overview of the program. Remember tofully explain everythingin the article.Do notuse any words or terms in this overview that you, the student, do not fully explain. For example, if you note that the personnel management topic was a 1-year cross-sectional study, be sure to explain what a 1-year cross-sectional is. If it is a 5-year longitudinal, quasi-experimental study, be sure to describe it in detail. The final sentence of the summary should note how the article relates to performance management .

Innovation and Change in Public Administration

J. A. Oliveira Rocha¹, Gonalves J. B. Zavale^{2 1}Universidade Lusfona do Porto, Porto, Portugal. ²Universidade Joaquim Chissano, Maputo, Mozambique. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2021.96021 PDF HTML XML 1,530 Downloads 11,658 Views Citations

Abstract

This article defines and examines the concept of innovation, as a radical change in Public Administration that can be defined as translating into new processes, new technologies, creation of new products and introduction of new values in Public Administration. New public management models mean forms of innovation, new paradigms and new forms of management. This discussion examines the characteristics of each model through history, specifically underlining the break introduced by the New Public Management Model which meant a complete change in the public management philosophy. In analyzing the change process and strategy, whose impetus falls to the political power, we will take into account social or economic ruptures and the pressure of citizens. Finally, some instruments and incentives for change are made explicit and we show that change is the responsibility of management; and, once introduced, such change must be "frozen" through legislative instruments.

Keywords

Innovation, Change Public Management and Public Administration

Share and Cite:

FacebookTwitterLinkedInSina WeiboShare

Rocha, J. and Zavale, G. (2021) Innovation and Change in Public Administration. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 285-297. doi: 10.4236/jss.2021.96021.

1. Introduction

In this article, we define innovation and analyze the transformations imposed by the different models of Public Administration and in what sense we can call innovation and not change as already mentioned in this section. Portugal is our main case study. The aim of the study was to understand innovation in public administration, the results of some instruments and incentives for change in public administration. This is a document review study based on the use of the Qualitative or Phenomenological Paradigm, of a descriptive and exploratory nature, developed based on documentary and bibliographic methods. The analysis and treatment of data consisted of the content analysis technique. After the collection of documentary (and bibliographic) data, its analysis was carried out, based on the assumptions of that content analysis technique, as this technique, within the quantitative paradigm, counts the frequency of the occurrence of certain terms, statements/speeches and references that occur in a given text that deserved our analysis.

Finally, in relation to data collection; this took place at the end of 2019 to 2020, with the purpose of conceptualizing innovation, as a radical change that seems to translate into a new procedural, technological approach and new value anchored in the New Public Management. In addition, another objective of the article also aimed to analyze the change process and the strategy based on political power, considering a social, economic rupture and pressure from citizens. Main results: In fact, some instruments and incentives for change are listed. Finally, we present the conclusions of the study.

2. Concept of Innovation

Osborne & Brown (2011) define innovation in public services, as the introduction of new elements in public services in the form of new knowledge, new organizations and new forms of management. Thus, innovation represents a discontinuity with the past. According to other authors, innovation means discontinuous change. Vries, Tummers, & Bekkers (2016) stress that there is no precise definition and accept instead that it is a discontinuity in relation to the past. Such discontinuity may be in the processes, adoption of new technologies, creation of new products and services and introduction of new concepts. The objective is to increase efficiency and effectiveness, while also increasing citizen satisfaction.

When innovation translates into new ways of operating in Public Administration, there is talk of a paradigm shift and the appearance of a new model of public management. These models have an internal logic that translates into new concepts, new ways of operating, new management instruments, new objectives and new values. Therefore, when examining the models, it becomes possible to identify the disruptions and innovations that followed.

Some experts (see, for example, Hartley (2005)), referring to these leaps in innovation, speak of three public management models: Traditional administration, or the classic model, New Public Management (NPM), and Network Governance. We could add another one: the Neo Weberian model.

3. The Classic Model

The traditional, or classical, model for Public Administration dates back to the French Revolution and the theory of the separation of powers where it is up to the Public Administration to implement the policies as defined by the political power. There is, therefore, a separation between politics and administration. Wilson (1887) calls it a dichotomy. Furthermore, civil servants are governed by a statute that was supposed to guarantee their neutrality. In anglophile countries, from the nineteenth century onwards, the admission of civil servants was controlled by a civil service commission, which guaranteed a meritocracy.

This model was characteristic of a liberal state, which did not want to intervene in economic and social life, and where relations between the state and citizens were regulated by administrative law. However, the construction of the welfare state has made this model atypical, not only because of the increase in the number of employees and their technical quality, but also because of the increase in the functions of the state. Since then, politics as become an easy prey for bureaucracy, and in practice the difference between politics and administration has effectively disappeared.

The financial crisis of the late 1970s forced the adoption of alternative measures to the traditional administrative model and instead consider the model of New Public Management (Hood, 1991).

4. New Public Management

The financial crisis of the "State" in the late seventies has been attributed to the excessive weight of the Public Administration, as well as to its apparent inefficient management.

The first measures basically consisted of the privatization of public companies, assuming that, in this way, citizens pay a cheaper price. We now know this is not true, unless these privatized activities are regulated ensuring competition and transparency in pricing. There are currently 17 regulatory bodies in Portugal, ranging from Banco de Portugal to the Health Regulatory Authority.

The second set of ideas, which represented a revolution in Public Administration and consisted of the introduction of techniques and models of business management, ranging from cost accounting, performance evaluation, emphasis on results to the detriment of formalities, and the fragmentation of large units of administration with an emphasis on their autonomy (see the proliferation of public corporation hospitals and university foundations).

From the point of view of labor relations, the employment contract gave way to the individual labor contract, which is the same or similar to that of the companies.

In practical terms, the New Public Management translated into three dominant dimensions:

Primacy of the Market. The adoption of market mechanisms includes user fees, out-sourcing and vouchers, or their equivalents;

Adoption of agency models with abandonment of hierarchical structures. An agency is defined as an executive unit that provides a service to the state, for which it is financed, but has no administrative tutelage, being evaluated according to the results (see, for example, public corporation hospitals); and

Performance indicators. With insistence on results and not on compliance with legal formalities.

In most OECD countries, these reforms embodied a new paradigm that substituted the juridical paradigm. However, the changes were radical and did not always happen, as was the case in the Southern European countries.

5. Network Governance (NPG)

It is true that the New Public Management model brought benefits to public services, helping to rationalize spending and reduce the number of employees. Despite the improvements with the adoption of the new paradigm, in the mid-nineties there was a crisis in Public Administration, leading to many asking whether it was due to the new management model. In fact, it was found that as governments reduced responsibility for the functioning of public services their administrations became difficult to control; besides that autonomy and competition naturally reduced coordination. These were the contradictions and limitations that led to thinking about changing public management resulting in Network Governance. This was characterized by continuous change, citizen participation, decisions made by different actors, partnerships between the public and the private and the dominant role of the State; and it represented an attempt to overcome the negative consequences of New Public Management, especially in Anglophile countries (Peters, 2008).

The international financial crisis changed this new approach, for many this was a mere reformulation of the New Public Management.

6. The 2008 Financial Crisis and New Public Management Model

The laxity of the State's regulatory role, the indiscriminate adoption of public-private partnerships, the use of high-risk financial instruments, for example, swaps, and the outsourcing of public services were by-products of the poor implementation of the New Public Management model. Therefore, especially in continental and central Europe, although in different circumstances, a new public management paradigm called Neo Weberian was adopted.

In practical terms, the concept contains Weberian elements, identifiable with traditional administration, such as the reaffirmation of the State as a facilitator of solutions; reaffirmation of the importance of Administrative Law; and preserving the idea of public service. The Neo Weberian model also includes elements characteristic of the New Public Management model, such as the importance given to citizens to the detriment of rules and regulations; overcoming representative democracy by including consultation mechanisms; continued insistence on obtaining results; and professionalization of public management, so that the manager is not a mere expert in laws, but is oriented to the needs of their citizens.

In terms of human resource management, the Neo Weberian model translates into greater centralization and coordination, tempering political trust with meritocracy.

In fact, the 2008 crisis accentuated the centralization of the State increasing the flexibility of human resources management and reducing the number of employees.

In the Portuguese case, the Recruitment and Selection Committee for Public Administration (CRESAP) can be understood as a Neo Weberian element, inasmuch as it adopts the choice of public directors and managers based on merit, tempered with a restricted political choice. Political power has the ability to choose from the top three in the case of directors general and deputy directors, or similar; and, in the case of public managers, to oppose the opinion of CRESAP. In this case, it remains in the control of public opinion.

Having defined the models (Table 1), it is now important to analyze how one jumps from one model to another.

However, change does not always happen with a break in traditional processes. In many cases, many of the processes have resisted change, and the change is often merely incremental and not a true innovation. Furthermore, great innovations are often absorbed by each country's culture. Thus, countries of Anglo-Saxon culture have completely changed the traditional administration, insisting on accountability and the proliferation of independent organizations. The Nordic countries imported the instruments of business management in order to save the welfare state. Continental European countries have adjusted the new measures to a Weberian tradition. In turn, in the countries of southern Europe, where Portugal is included, the change has been very slow, given that innovation translates into a legal language that, in fact, prevents change.