Another Approach on Moral Code
Public choice theory represents another approach which influenced thinking on the moral codes for public servants. It argues that political and administrative action should be guided by the preferences of individuals. It also argues that costs of governments or social action should be minimized. The major role of government should be to maximise the scope for individual choices. The main policy responses which arise from this conception are
(i) privatizing delivery of public services; (ii) identifying and responding to the requirements of government ‘customers’ (or citizens as consumers of public goods); (iii) divesting from government entities and privatizing them; and (iv) arranging negotiations between conflicting private and public interests instead of legislating over such matters.
Publicchoice theorists concede the conflictsthat exist betweenindividual preferences. But they argue that government should not impose its will or suppress opposition in such matters. Instead, government should ‘manage conflict’ between contending groups. The main objective of legislation, organizational design and government operations should be to manage conflict. In this process, government has to minimize its interference with individual liberty and minimize costs.
In this view, government has to find a means of aggregating individual choices of citizens and realizingthem in practice. Ostrom derivesthe following ethic of administrativebehaviour fromthese ideas.
[Public servant] … must be prepared to advance and serve the interests of the individual persons who form his relevantpublic.His service is to individualpersons as users or consumers of publicgoods andservicesand not to political masters. … While he is obliged to respect government authority, [the public official] in a democratic society isnot a neutral and obedient servant to his master’s command. … Each public servant in the American system of democratic administration bears first the burden of being a citizen in a constitutional republic.
Following the above ideas, public administration thinkers have applied theories of free market economics to public organizations. Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing Government exemplifies this
approach. In this work, Osborne and Gaebler argue that features of private sector, like competition and entrepreneurship, need to be introduced in administration. Governments have to pursue efficiency and economy in their operations. It is as if governments were running private commercial enterprises. Government purpose will be determined by consumer choice. In government functioning, mission is to replace rule and results are to replace inputs. The emphasis should move away from emphasis on procedures and rules towards accomplishment of purposes.
This approach implies that the bureaucratic system based on formal structure and control is outdated. Government agencies need to be ‘customer-driven and service-oriented’. They have to be ‘responsive,user-friendly,dynamic, and competitiveprovidersofvaluableservicesto customers’. Osborne and Gaebler point out that the problem is not what governments do but howthey do it. They recommend that public servants should cultivate entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to optimize productivity and results.
The main problem with government agencies is ‘goodpeopletrapped in bad systems’. Bureaucratic thinking is seen as outmoded in a situation of rapidsocial change andglobal competition.The main aim of government management should be to reduce red tape, put customers first, empower government servants and createincentives for them to performbetter.
Criticism of Public Choice Theory
Although this model is the basis for new values for government, it has been criticized on several counts. Treating citizens as consumers shifts attention from involving them in administrative decision- making process. Further, the services which government provides are not available elsewhere; hence the questions of competition and choice become irrelevant.
This model virtually obliterates the idea of public interest or of government and people collaborating in achieving common goals. It empowers public servants, and not citizens. It has a managerial perspective, with emphasis on providing quality public services efficiently without worrying about popular participation.
No attention is given in this approach to educating people about public issues or securing their participation in decision-making. Restoring public confidence in government is seen as a matter of efficiently delivering services of suitable quality to people. Their participatory role in government is ignored. The approach neglects the need for promoting a sense of community and feeling of solidarity among people. Citizens are seen as anonymous units in a market system.