UNIT IV

Basic Understanding of Participative Management

Even though the participative management include only the

employees in the management process for the betterment of

organization, but nowadays the concept of Participative Management

refers to as an open form of management where employees,

stakeholders and people are actively involved in organizations decision

making process.

The concept is applied by the managers who understand the

importance to human intellect and seek a strong relationship with their

employees, stakeholders in some organizations, people or community

are play a decisive role in an organization. They understand that the

employees ,people and other stakeholders are the facilitators who deal

directly with themselves, or the customers and satisfy their needs. To

beat the competition in market and to stay ahead of the competition, to

carry out the community development works, this form of participative

management has been adopted by many public organizations like forest

department. They welcome the innovative ideas, concepts and thoughts

from the employees and involve them in decision making process.

1
In private industrial organization, Participative Management can

also be termed as Industrial Democracy, Co-determination,

Employee Involvement as well as Participative Decision Making.

The concept of employee participation in organizations decision making

is not new. However, the idea couldnt gain that much popularity among

organizations. Studies have shown that only 3-5 percent of organizations

have actually implemented this concept in their daily operations. Though

the theory of participative management is as old as the institution of

employees and employers still it is not applied by a large proportion of

organizations.

The idea behind employee involvement at every stage of decision

making is absolutely straight. Open and honest communication always

produces good results both for organization as well as workers. Freedom

and transparency in companys operations take it to the next level and

strengthens the basis of the organization. On the other hand, there are

several companies that straightway rule out the possibility of participative

decision making process. According to them, employees misuse their

freedom of expression and participation in decision making as it provides

higher status to employees and empowers them.

However, there are many companies who have embraced this

particular style of management and are now getting positive results.

2
Toyota is the best example. The company has been following suggestion

schemes and employee involvement procedures for over a decade now.

The management receives almost 2,000,000 suggestions and ideas

every year and around 95 percent of these are implemented by the

company. Who is not aware of Toyotas success rate? Around five

thousand improvements per year have made Toyota one of the fastest

growing organizations globally. The need is to develop and implement a

comprehensive company policy and everything works well.

British Airways is another great example of participatory

management. During economic downsizing, employees suggestions

helped them cut annual cost of their operations by 4.5 million pounds.

This is just unbelievable. The company would have suffered from huge

losses, had it not adopted employees suggestions. It is right to some

extent that employees can misuse industrial democracy but with a

proper management of HR functions, this problem can be solved and the

operations of organization can be taken to the next level.

Satyam is another great example. It has been implementing company-

wide suggestion scheme, The Idea Junction, since 2001. A real-time

web-based portal is present in Intranet that can be accessed by all its

employees all across the globe to support the entire life cycle of an idea

right from its generation till its implementation. The main idea behind

3
adopting this management style was to create values and bring sense of

belongingness in the employees through ideas, suggestions and

complaints. The whole procedure is backed by a strong and

comprehensive reward policy that encourages employees to perform

better each time.

Employee participation at each level of decision making process is

not at all harmful if managed efficiently. The whole process can be well

coordinated and controlled by the sincere and honest efforts of human

resource managers.

After having read lots of stuff about participative management and its

implementation, lots of questions arise in the mind of the reader. Is participative

management really beneficial? What are the pros and cons? What are the

challenges involved in implementation? What effect does it have upon ROI,

after all change comes at a cost! These and lot more, I am sure. Continue

reading for getting your answers.

Advantages of Participative Management

Undoubtedly participative approach to management increases the stake or

ownership of employees. But there is more to it. The following points elucidate

the same.

4
 Increase in Productivity: An increased say in decision

making means that there is a strong feeling of association

now. The employee now assumes responsibility and takes

charges. There is lesser new or delegation or supervision

from the manager. Working hours may get stretched on

their own without any compulsion or force from the

management. All this leads to increased productivity.

Job Satisfaction: In lots or organizations that employ

participative management, most of the employees are

satisfied with their jobs and the level of satisfaction id very

high. This is specially when people see their suggestions

and recommendations being implemented or put to

practice. Psychologically, this tells the individual employee

that, he too has a say in decision making and that he too

is an integral component of the organization and not a

mere worker.

Motivation: Increased productivity and job satisfaction

cannot exist unless there is a high level of motivation in

the employee. The vice versa also holds true!

5
 Decentralized decision making means that everyone has a

say and everyone is important.

Improved Quality: Since the inputs or feedback comes

from people who are part of the processes at the lowest or

execution level. This means that even the minutest details

are taken care of and reported. No flaw or loophole goes

unreported. Quality control is thus begins and is ensured

at the lowest level.

Reduced Costs: There is a lesser need of supervision and

more emphasis is laid on widening of skills, self

management. This and quality control means that the

costs are controlled automatically.

Disadvantages of Participative Management

There is a flip side to everything; participative management stands no exception

to it. Whereas this style of leadership or decision making leads to better

participation of all the employees, there are undoubtedly some disadvantages

too.

Decision making slows down: Participative

management stands for increased participation and when

there are many people involved in decision making, the

6
 process definitely slows down. Inputs and feedback starts

pouring from each side. It takes time to verify the

accuracy of measurements which means that decision

making will be slowed down.

Security Issue: The security issue in participative

management also arises from the fact that since early

stages too many people are known to lots of facts and

information. This information may transform into critical

information in the later stages. There is thus a greater

apprehension of information being leaked out.

The advantages seem to outnumber the disadvantages. This however is

no assurance that one should blindly adopt it for his/her organization.

Organizations are different and therefore the culture, the human resources. A

deep understanding of both is required in order to ascertain a decision making

style and adopt the same.

PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATION

As we mentined earlier that the modern organization, the word

participative management also involving in welfare functions of public

organizations ,they also want the people or community to participate in

those welfare functions. Then only we can make the people empowered.

7
In many public organization most of the development functions are

carried out only with the participation of local area people or community.

For example,there are number of research study carried out by the

government regarding the feasibility of involving various community

people. For example:for assessing the participation level of fishing

community participation in the policy making process,the government

carry out the research titled

the fishing community participation in policy making process-a study on

rural and urban coastal areas of tamilnadu. Through this research, the

government is indirectly making people to involve the fishing community

in policy making process which deals about the fishery and fishermen

development. Likewise, there were number of inclusive policies

formulated with the similar targeted people who are in the backward

conditions. In sea shore areas of Tamil Nadu there are number of

sustainable ocean development policies and programmes carried out by

the government with the help of local fishermen community. Likewise,

many forest development activities, are also implemented through the

minimum participation of the people

Planning commission

Role and Performance of National

Development Council
8
 Introduction

The National Development Council plays a vital role

in the process of Indian Planning and Development. It provides a

forum in which the Union Ministers and Chief Ministers of States

discuss the plans at important stages in their formulation. Plans

are also approved at its meetings after their completion and

before they are presented to the Parliament and the State

Legislatures. In this way the national character of the Plans is

emphasised. The Council also considers social and economic

policies affecting the country from a social point of view, so that

where necessary uniformity may be secured. In these ways, it

gives a lead to the Country on broad issues of policy and

promotes collective thinking and joint action on matters of

national importance.

The National Development Council held its first meeting in

November 1952. Meetings ordinarily last for two days. The first

meeting concerned the Draft Report on the First Five-Year Plan.

The different stages of the Second Five-Year Plan were examined

9
at four meetings beginning from May 1955, at which the Plan-

frame and tentative framework were considered, and ending

in May 1956, at which the final report was accepted. The Council

considered proposals relating to the Third Five-Year Plan at six

meetings in March, April and September 1960 and January,

March and May 1961. At the earlier meetings, financial

resources, patterns of development and allocations to various

sectors were considered on the basis of papers circulated by the

ommission. The Draft Outline was approved at the meeting of

September 2,1960 and the Report of the Third Plan in May 1961.

Other meetings considered progress report on Plans, agriculture

problems, problems relating to community development, land

reforms, co-operative policy, etc. In view of the importance of

agriculture production and price policy, two special meetings of

National Development Council were held to consider these

questions. The importance of the issues that are placed before

the Council from time to time is thus clear. It may be mentioned

that between 1955 and 1958 for about three years, a standing

committee consisting of 9 to 12 States had been constituted by

10
the National Development Council. This body held together six

meetings. In 1958, the Standing Committee was discontinued as,

under the reorganization of States, the total number of States

had been reduced and there was no need for a smaller body. Five

special committees in important subjects were created by the

National Development Council at its 21st meeting on Oct 27-28,

1964. Which are as follows:

1. Committee on Agriculture and Irrigation

2. Committee on Industry, Power and Transport

3. Committee on Social Services

4. Committee on Development of Hill Areas

5. Committee on Resources

To give final shape to the fourth Five-Year Plan, seven

meetings of National Development Council were held beginning

from 1964-1970. Prof D.R.Gadgil presented the Approach Paper

of fourth Five-Year Plan to National Development Council on May

1968. The Council decided that the this Plan aimed at to step up

the tempo of development activity to the extent compatible with

maintaining stability and progress towards self-reliance. So as

11
decided by the National Development council the main objective

of the fourth Five-Year Plan was a rapid increase in the standards

of living of the people through measures which also promotes

equality and social justice. The National Development Council

had decided at the time of the Fourth Plan that Centrally

Sponsored Schemes would be limited in total value to 1/6th or

1/7th of the quantum of Central Plan assistance to the States.

The Council had also directed that these schemes should

conform to one or other of the following criteria viz.

(a) They should relate to demonstrations, pilot projects survey

and research,

or

(b) They should have a regional or inter-State character, or

(c) They should be such as to require lump sum provisions to be

until

broken down territorially, or

(d) They should have an overall significance from the all-India

angle.

12
 The National Development Council endorsed the proposal

that the Fourth Five Year Plan should cover the period 1969-70

to 1973-74. The Council noted the need for making larger effort

in raising resources. The Planning Commission's suggestion to

merge agriculture income-tax with general income-tax was

discussed. It was decided that the Commission should set up a

ommittee to study the question of mobilisation of additional

resources from the rural sector. The Council also decided to set

up Regional Committees to go into the question of electricity and

water rates. The Council recognised the need for stabilisation of

agricultural prices and the building up of buffer stocks.

Regarding the principles governing the allocation of Central

assistance to States, the Council decided that these questions

will be reviewed after the recommendations from the

Administrative Reforms Commission on these matters were

received. The Council endorsed the proposal to reorganise the

Committee on Plan Projects and its incorporation in a composite

Evaluation Wing of the Planning Commission. The Council

13
considers proposals related to the fifth Five Five-Year Plan in five

meetings from May 30-31, 1972 to February 24-25, 1979. The

council decided that removal of poverty and attainment of self-

reliance will be the main priority areas of fifth Five-Year Plan.

Regarding the centrally Sponsored Schemes, It is

estimated by the National Development Council at its 33rd

meeting that the total cost during the plan period (1978-83) of all

existing Centrally Sponsored Schemes (and Central sector

schemes of a similar nature) in the areas of agriculture and rural

development, education, health, power, transport, housing etc.,

would be about Rs. 6,000 crores. The amount of Central

assistance to the State Plans in the form of block loans/grants

would be approximately Rs. 10,350 crores. Thus in all Rs. 16,350

crores approximately would be made available by the Centre for

plan outlays in the States. A limited number of the present

Centrally-Sponsored / Central-Sector Schemes may continue to

be funded 100% by the Centre. These might include Family

Welfare, Malaria Eradication, inter- State power lines, post-matric

scholarships for the Scheduled Castes and experimental or pilot

14
schemes initiated by the Centre which have not yet established

their utility. 100% Central funding would also be needed in cases

where a scheme is initiated by the Centre after the States' Five-

Year Plans have been finalized. Due importance was given to the

Family Welfare Programme by the National Development Council,

which is being started by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

In its meeting held on February 24-25 1979, the Council stated

that the Family Welfare Programme embraces all the principal

areas of human welfare. It will be wrong to leave it only to the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Centre and their

counterparts in the States. It is essential that all Ministries and

Departments of the Government of India as well as of the States

give due importance to this Programme and work for its

furtherance.

As decided by the National Development Council, the

core of the sixth Five-Year Plan is the revised 20-Point

Programme, which was discussed at 36th meeting of the Council

on March 14, 1982. The National Development Council focused

attention on 20-Point Programme, which included social and

15
economic programmes included in the sixth plan. The Minister of

Planning Shri S.B.Chavan, addressing the National Development

Council stated that while the thrust continued to be on

ameliorating the living conditions of the less privileged sections of

the population, the programme as a whole will aim at all round

development in productivity. So all Union Ministers and Chief

Ministers of the States should provide personal direction and

guidance to ensure that the objectives of programme were

achieved and adequate arrangements made for monitoring its

progress and mobilize required financial resources. Four

meetings of National Development Council from August 30-

31,1980 to July 12-13, 1984 were held with a view to give a final

shape to the sixth Five-Year Plan.The draft of the seventh Five-

Year Plan was presented to National Development Council on

November 8-9, 1985 for approval. Food, work and

Productivity were the three inter-related main objectives of the

Plan. These objectives were set within the framework of growth,

equity, social justice and the pursuit of self reliance. The

provision of productive employment had to be the major objective

16
in the Seventh Plan, combined with a significant reduction in

poverty. This was sought to be achieved through accelerated

growth of agriculture and rural development especially in the

less-developed areas and with particular emphasis on the eastern

region where agricultural productivity was low, and poverty

endemic.

The National Development Council met under the

Chairmanship of the

Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi to consider the document:

National Policy

on Education-1986 - A Presentation prepared by the Ministry of

Human Resource Development, at its 39th meeting held on 29th

April 1986. The Prime Minister observed that having Education

in the Concurrent List, it is the Joint responsibility of the Centre

and State Government to fully involved in the implementation of

the New Education Policy. He stressed that Education cannot

be separated from development.

The draft of the eighth Five-Year Plan was approved at

the 41st meeting of the National Development Council held on

17
june 18-19 1990. National Development Council approved that

the main priority areas of the Plan will be agriculture, human

resource development and promotion of efficiency and higher

productivity. The Plan recognizes Human Development as core

of all developmental efforts.

National Development Council had decided in its 43rd

meeting to set

up five committees which are:

1. Committee on population control,

2. Committee on employment generation,

3. Committee on literacy,

4. Committee on decentalised planning

5. Committee on austerity.

6. Committee on Medical Education

The recommendations of the committees contained useful

recommendations for implementation by the Centre and the

States and thus formrd meaningful inputs for the formulation,

implementation and evaluation of important plan schemes and

programmes. These committees represents a marked

18
improvement in the role and effectiveness of the National

Development Council. Recommendations of the Austerity

Committee on functioning of State Electricity Boards were

critically examined by the National Development Council on April

5, 1993. Since power is essential to all development, National

Development Council agreed that top priority should be given for

pursuing programmes of all round improvement of this sector. It

was accordingly decided to set up a National Development

Council Committee on Power. This Committee will inter-alia

examine measures to make State Electricity Boards economically

viable by recasting tariffs, improving efficiency and considering

delinking of distribution from generation. The Prime Minister

expressed his confidence that the Committee on Power would be

no exception.

The National Development Council approved the

Ninth Five Year Plan 1997-2002 document as placed before the

Council on February 19, 1999 at its forty eighth meeting. The

National Development Council endorsed the recommendations of

the National Development Council Committee on Power and

19
urged the Union and the State Governments to implement these

recommendations on priority. The meeting took note that the

Union Government and the several State Governments had

already started implementing some of the recommendations of

the National Development Council Committee. While

appreciating the concerns surrounding the periodic revision of

administered prices of essential commodities it was felt that

though the interests of the farmers and the consumers,

particularly of poorer sections of the society, must certainly be

the primary concern, yet the macro-economic imperatives of

fiscal stabilization and control of inflation,which hurts the poor

more than others, cannot be ignored. A balance has to be struck

in taking such decisions. The National Development Council

decided to set up a Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of

the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, with members

drawn from Central Ministries and States to go into the criteria

for allocation of funds under major rural poverty alleviation

schemes.

20
 The National Development Council unanimously

approves the Draft Approach Paper to the Tenth Five Year Plan at

its 49th meeting. Further, it directs the Planning Commission to

prepare the Tenth Plan on the basis of the approach that

irrigation, agriculture infrastructure, drinking water,urban

infrastructure, state highways and bridge construction would be

the basic priority areas of the Plan. National Development

Council approved Rs-17,000 crores as Railway Safety Fund to

spent during the Tenth Five-Year Plan. National Development

Council is of the view that revival of the economy is our basic

priority. The Centre and State Government should together take

steps to end the crisis of investment-both public and private.

PLANNING COMMISSION OR NITI

AAYOG
The Planning Commission (Hindi: , Yojana yog) was an

institution in the Government of India, which formulated India's Five-Year

Plans, among other functions.

21
 In his first Independence Day speech in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra

Modi announced his intention to dissolve the Planning Commission. It has

since been replaced by a new institution named NITI Aayog.

After India achieved Independence, a formal model of planning was

adopted, and accordingly the Planning Commission, reporting directly to

the Prime Minister of India, was established on 15 March 1950, with Prime

Minister Jawaharlal Nehru as the Chairman. Authority for creation of the

Planning Commission was not derived from the Constitution of India or

statute; it is an arm of the Central Government of India.

The first Five-Year Plan was launched in 1951, focusing mainly on

development of the agricultural sector. Two subsequent Five-Year Plans were

formulated before 1965, when there was a break because of the Indo-

Pakistan conflict. Two successive years of drought, devaluation of the

currency, a general rise in prices and erosion of resources disrupted the

planning process and after three Annual Plans between 1966 and 1969, the

fourth Five-Year Plan was started in 1969.

The Eighth Plan could not take off in 1990 due to the fast changing political

situation at the Centre, and the years 199091 and 199192 were treated as

Annual Plans. The Eighth Plan was finally launched in 1992 after the initiation

of structural adjustment policies.

For the first eight Plans the emphasis was on a growing public

sector with massive investments in basic and heavy industries, but since the

22
launch of the Ninth Plan in 1997, the emphasis on the public sector has

become less pronounced and the current thinking on planning in the country,

in general, is that it should increasingly be of an indicative nature.

In 2014, Narendra Modi government decided to wind down the

Planning Commission. It was replaced by the newly formed NITI Aayog.

Organisational structure of Planning commission

The composition of the Commission underwent considerable changes

since its initiation. With the Prime Minister as the ex officio Chairman, the

committee had a nominated Deputy Chairman, with the rank of a full Cabinet

Minister. Cabinet Ministers with certain important portfolios acted as ex

officio members of the Commission, while the full-time members were experts

in various fields like economics, industry, science and general administration.

Ex officio members of the Commission included the Finance

Minister, Agriculture Minister, Home Minister, Health Minister, Chemicals and

Fertilisers Minister, Information Technology Minister, Law Minister, Human

Resource Development Minister and Minister of State for Planning.[5]

The Commission worked through its various divisions, of which there

were two kinds:

General Planning Divisions

Programme Administration Divisions

23
The majority of the experts in the Commission were economists, making the

Commission the biggest employer of the Indian Economic Service.

Functions

The Indian Planning Commission's functions as outlined by the Government's

1950 resolution are following:

1. To make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of

the country, including technical personnel, and investigate the

possibilities of augmenting those are related resources which are found

to be deficient in relation to the nation's requirement.

2. To formulate a plan for the most effective and balanced utilisation of

country's resources.

3. To define the stages, on the basis of priority, in which the plan should be

carried out and propose the allocation of resources for the due

completion of each stage.

4. To indicate the factors that tend to retard economic development.

5. To determine the conditions which need to be established for the

successful execution of the plan within the incumbent socio-political

situation of the country.

6. To determine the nature of the machinery required for securing the

successful implementation of each stage of the plan in all its aspects.

24
 7. To appraise from time to time the progress achieved in the execution of

each stage of the plan and also recommend the adjustments of policy

and measures which are deemed important vis-a-vis a successful

implementation of the plan.

8. To make necessary recommendations from time to time regarding those

things which are deemed necessary for facilitating the execution of

these functions. Such recommendations can be related to the prevailing

economic conditions, current policies, measures or development

programmes. They can even be given out in response to some specific

problems referred to the commission by the central or the state

governments.

Social media

In March 2013, Planning Commission launched a massive social media

campaign for spreading Awareness about 12th Five Year Plan. It was followed

by series ofGoogle+ Hangouts and a Plan Hackathon. By September 2013, it

had made a considerable presence on Social Media with over One lakh

follower

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT-MEANING AND NATURE

The term new public management was coined by scholars from UK and Australia (Hood

1991 and Hood and Jackson 1991), who were working in the in the areas of public

administration. Now, the origin of this new term was to propose a new point of view towards the

organizational design in the public sector, however after a decade, the meaning of this term in

25
discussions and debates became many. Some scholars choose to define it as the introduction of

new institutional economics to public management and some used it to refer to pattern changes

in policy making. Before we make an effort to further understand the various aspects of New

Public Management, let us see how it is different from the traditional public administration.

The new public management which emerged in the 1980s represented an attempt to make the

public sector more businesslike and to improve the efficiency of the Government borrowed ideas

and management models from the private sector. It emphasized the centrality of citizens who

were the recipient of the services or customers to the public sector.

New public management system also proposed a more decentralized control of resources and

exploring other service delivery models to achieve better results, including a quasi-market

structure where public and private service providers competed with each other in an attempt to

provide better and faster services. [For e.g. In UK the purchase and provision of healthcare was

split up between National Health Services or NHS and Government funded GP fund holders, this

increased efficiency as the hospitals now needed to provide low cost procedures to win both

patients and funds.)

The core themes for the New Public Management were:

A strong focus on financial control, value for money and increasing efficiency

A command and control mode of functioning, identifying and setting targets and

continuance monitoring of performance, handing over the power to the senior

management

Introducing audits at both financial and professional levels, using transparent means to

review performances, setting benchmarks, using protocols to ameliorate professional

behavior

Greater customer orientation and responsiveness and increasing the scope of roles

played by non public sector providers

26
 Deregulating the labor market, replacing collective agreements to individual rewards

packages at senior levels combined with short term contracts

Discouraging the self regulatory power of the professionals and handing over the power

from individuals to management

Encouraging more entrepreneurial management than beurocracy with high retrospective

accountability requirements upwards

Introducing new forms of corporate governance, introducing a board model of functioning

and concentrating the power to the strategic core of the organization

With changing times newer aspects were included in the NPM model mentioned above as well

and what the scholars term as NPM model 2 was brought in. The critical aspects of this new

model were:

Introduction of a more elaborate and evolved quasi-market system

Creation of more fragmented or loosely contracted public sector organizations at the local

level setting in a change from management of hierarchy to management of contract

Distinguishing between the small strategic core and the large organizational periphery,

market testing and contracting out the non strategic functions

Delayering and downsizing

Introduction of new managerial concepts like Management by Influence, creating network

for of organizations, creating strategic alliances between the organizations

Moving away from standardized service forms to more flexible and varied service forms

Now, as more and more work was done in the areas of Human Resources and Relations and

popular texts which stressed on the need of excellence, the importance of organizational culture,

27
values, vision and the concept of Learning Organization introduced by Peter Senge (1990)

influenced the new public management as well and therefore suitable changed were also

suggested in the theory by the scholars.

In a bottom up form of organization- Organizational development and learning was

gaining importance. Organizational culture was seen as a glue which holds the

organization together, judging the performance by results etc were the new point of views

In the top down form of organization- Securing changes in organizational culture was

cited as important, clarifying and projecting the vision and leadership from top to down

was asked for, private sector emerged as a role model for the neo style public sector,

training, corporate logos, communication strategies, assertive HR and all the other

aspects that are characteristic jargon of private sector were encouraged to be adopted

So, basically the new public management was a radical movement to change not just the

way a public sector functions but also the entire perception about it.

Public policy approach

From the early 1970s increasing analysis of the way government policies affected the

public resulted in a concept called the public policy approach to administration. This

examines to what extent each stage in devising and executing a policy affects the overall

shape and impact of the policy. According to the concept, the way a problem is conceived

in the first place influences the range of remedies considered. The nature of the decision-

making process may determine whether a course of action is merely incremental or truly

radical. Indeed, it has been argued that the nature of the decision-making process shapes

the outcome of the decision itself, particularly when the process is dominated by a

powerful interest group. Moreover, the willingness of the government to evaluate

programs, and modify them if necessary, affects the outcome. Many supporters of the

28
 public policy approach regard the concept as an important tool for constructing a body of

knowledge on which recommendations can be based.

Until World War II there was relatively little exchange among nations of ideas about public

administration. As early as 1910, however, a professional organization, which eventually

became the International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS), had been established. At

first its membership consisted principally of scholars and practitioners of administrative law

in the countries of continental Europe. By the late 1980s the IIAS had a membership drawn

from some 70 countries. Its triennial congresses have covered all aspects of the field.

Since World War II international interest in administrative systems has grown,

precipitated by the necessity of cooperation during the war, by the formation of

international organizations, by the occupation of conquered nations and the

administration of economic recovery programs for Europe and the Far East, and by

aid programs for developing countries. One by-product of aid programs was a

renewed appreciation of how crucial effective administration is to national

development. It has also become apparent how parochial and culture-bound styles of

public administration have often remained within individual countries.

Another effect of this international communication and sharing of experiences has

been the realization that development is not exclusive to the so-called underdeveloped

countries. All countries have continued to develop, and public administration has

increasingly been perceived as the administration of planned change in societies that

themselves have undergone rapid change, not all of it planned. Government has no

longer been merely the keeper of the peace and the provider of basic services: in the

postindustrial era government has become a principal innovator, a determinant of

social and economic priorities, and an entrepreneur on a major scale. On virtually

29
 every significant problem or challengefrom unemployment to clean airpeople

have looked to the government for solutions or assistance. The tasks of planning,

organizing, coordinating, managing, and evaluating modern government have

likewise become awesome in both dimension and importance.

National Development Council (India)

National Development Council

Rashtriya Vikas Parishad

Agency overview

Formed Aug 1952; 64 years ago

Agency executive
Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of
India

The National Development Council (NDC) or the Rashtriya Vikas Parishad is the apex

body for decision making and deliberations on development matters in India, presided

over by the Prime Minister. It was set up on 6 August 1952 to strengthen and mobilize

the effort and resources of the nation in support of the Plan, to promote common

economic policies in all vital spheres, and to ensure the balanced and rapid development

of all parts of the country. The Council comprises the Prime Minister, the Union Cabinet

Ministers, Chief Ministers of all States or their substitutes, representatives of the Union

Territories and the members of the Planning Commission.

It is an extra-constitutional and non-statutory body. NDC is the listed as an advisory body

to Planning Commission but it's advice is not binding.

30
History
The first meeting chaired by Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru on 89 November 1952.

So far 57 meetings had been held. The 57th Meeting of National Development Council

was held on 27 December 2012[1] at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi.

Objectives
It has been set up with four objectives

1. to secure cooperation of the states in the execution of

the plan

2. to strengthen and mobilize the effort and resources of

the nation in support of the Plan

3. to promote common economic policies in all vital

spheres and

4. to ensure the balanced and rapid development of all

parts of the country.

Functions[edit]
The functions of the Council are

1. to prescribe guidelines for the formulation of

the National Plan, including the assessment of
resources for the Plan;

2. to consider the National Plan as formulated by

the Planning Commission;

3. to make an assessment of the resources that are

required for implementing the Plan and to suggest
measures for augmenting them.

4. to consider important questions of social and economic

policy affecting national development; and

5. to review the working of the Plan from time to time and

to recommend such measures as are necessary for
achieving the aims and targets set out in the National
Plan.

31
 6. To recommend measures for achievement of the aims
and targets set out in the national Plan.

Composition[edit]
The National Development Council is presided over by the Prime Minister of India and
includes all Union Ministers, Chief Ministers of all the States and Administrators of Union
Territories and Members of the Planning Commission. Ministers of State with
independent charge are also invited to the deliberations of the Council.

The 58th meeting of NDC

Not yet held
The 57th meeting of NDC
Held on 27 December 2012
The 56th meeting of NDC
The 56th meeting of NDC was held on 22 October 2011 to consider the 12th Plan

approach paper. The meeting was presided over by Dr Manmohan Singh Prime Minister

of India. Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the Dy Chairman of Planning Commission, raised

six major issues for consideration at the NDC:

1. Determining the state level five year plans for the Twelfth Plan period early and set

targets for growth and other social indicators. They need to be built into consistent

national targets for the Twelfth Plan. Create an economic environment that would

support the efforts of farmers and entrepreneurs. It will determine much of the outcome

in terms of the flow of investment to the State, and the growth of both output and

employment.

2. Mobilization and allocation of resources for the Plan. Since inclusive growth depends

on the development of rural and urban infrastructure, provision of health services and

extension of education and skill development, adequate provisioning shall be done for

these sectors. Centres Gross Budgetary Support for the Plan as a ratio of GDP shall be

increased while reducing the fiscal deficit. That requires raising of the ratio of tax

revenues to GDP, and cut untargeted subsidies. States have to aim at much better

revenue performance and also exercise progressive control over subsidies. Early

32
implementation of the GST would not only raise more revenue for both the Centre and

the States, it would also create a single market in the country and remove many of the

distortions in the indirect tax system. Both the Centre and the States must explore the

scope for public private partnership, wherever possible to leverage limited public

resources.

3. Agriculture needs more attention and priority at State Government levels (e.g.

exempting horticultural products entirely from the application of the APMC Act.)

4. Management of energy resources will be a major challenge because rapid growth will

require a significant expansion in domestic energy supplies and also a much greater

focus on energy efficiency. The viability of the power sector as a whole depends critically

upon the financial viability of the distribution system. The total losses of the distribution

system, if properly accounted, are probably as high as Rs 70,000 crores. If the States

could cover these losses by subsidies, the system would not be at risk. However, state

budgets cannot provide subsidies on this scale and the losses are effectively being

funded by the banking system. AT&C losses shall be reduced to 15% by the end of the

Twelfth Plan. The electricity tariffs have to be adjusted in line with costs. There is an

urgent need to implement a package of distribution reforms combined with tariff

increases, which will make the distribution companies viable for all additional sales. The

Twelfth Plan version of the Accelerated Power Development Reform Programme should

be tailored to provide resources to States taking credible steps along these lines. New

energy efficient building standards should be made mandatory.

5. Management of water resources - demand for water in the country is outstripping

supply, leading to serious water shortages and unsustainable drawal of ground water in

many parts of the country. Whereas we increase the amount of water that is effectively

available, the real solution lies in increasing the efficiency of water use. At present,

almost 80% of our water is used in agriculture, and it is used very inefficiently. Water use

33
in agriculture can be cut to half with known technology, e.g., by switching from flood

irrigation of paddy to SRI. Water availability can be improved by treating sewage water

before it enters our fresh water system. At present, only about 30% of sewage water is

treated. There are similar problems with industrial effluents. With urbanisation and

industrialisation set to accelerate, these pressures on our fresh water systems will

increase. Corrective action in all these areas lies largely in the domain of state

governments. The Approach paper called for a comprehensive re-examination of water

policy including changes in the laws. It also calls for empowered water regulatory

authorities which can ensure effective allocation of water to different uses and also

different areas. Some States have introduced innovative schemes for rational use of

water by involving farmers actively. Future assistance under AIBP should be linked to

moves which ensure more rational use of water.

6. Improve implementation of Plan schemes on the ground. Over the past several years,

we have greatly expanded the volume of resources devoted to various flagship

programmes in health, education, clean drinking water, sanitation, area development

programme, etc. The while these schemes focus on the right areas, their implementation

leaves a great deal to be desired. Report of the Chaturvedi Committee made a number

of recommendations on the need for streamlining the centrally sponsored schemes.

Ways of improving governance, promoting innovation, extending e-governance to the

panchayat level, introducing transparency in government programmes and use of the

UID number combined with the benefits of IT become areas of priority. The Aadhar

platform can be used to improve efficiency in many of these programmes. The Central

Plan Scheme Monitoring System will be used to serve as a management information

and decision support system which will enable tracking of the Central government

disbursements under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. There is a need to track funds

34
from the State Governments down through different levels in the state Government to

the final expenditure incurred at the implementing level.

Delegation in Public Administration: Definition and Hindrances

Definition and Nature:
Delegation means to entrust ones own power and responsibility to another person or

group of persons who are lower in rank and power. In public administration a chief executive

transfers his power or part of it to an employee who is in rank lower to him. In other words,

an officer shifts a part of his power to a subordinate. Mooney calls the delegation a

devolution of power and authority. Mooneys definition is stated in the following words. It

means conferring of specified authority by a higher to a lower authority: An executive

transfers some power to his subordinates. The purpose of delegation is to ensure better

management. This transfer of power is also called the devolution of power.

There are three types of delegation

1.one is downward,2. the second is upward, and 3.the third is sideward. A person of

higher authority transfers some of his power to his subordinate person. This is a very

common picture of any organisation. The upward delegation takes place when stockholders

delegate powers to the board of directors. In African tribal areas, tribal chiefs and central

authorities exchange power among themselves.

The term delegation is sometimes misunderstood. It never means it is a permanent

arrangement. That is, powers are not delegated permanently. One critic has said: delegation

of authority means more than simply assigning duties to others in more or less detail. The

essence of delegation is to confer discretion upon others, to use their judgement in meeting

specific problem within the framework of their duties. The concept of delegation has a

practical aspectwhen an executive is unable to bear the burden of work he delegates a

portion to others.

35
What is to be Delegated:

Though delegation is an important principle, it cannot be adopted indiscriminately.

Elements of Delegation

1. Authority - in context of a business organization, authority can be defined as the power

and right of a person to use and allocate the resources efficiently, to take decisions and

to give so as to achieve the organizational objectives. Authority must be well- defined. All

people who have the authority should know what is the scope of their authority is and

they shouldnt misutilize it. Authority is the right to give commands, orders and get the

things done. The top level management has greatest authority.

Authority always flows from top to bottom. It explains how a superior gets work done from

his subordinate by clearly explaining what is expected of him and how he should go

about it. Authority should be accompanied with an equal amount of responsibility.

Delegating the authority to someone else doesnt imply escaping from accountability.

Accountability still rest with the person having the utmost authority.

2. Responsibility - is the duty of the person to complete the task assigned to him. A person

who is given the responsibility should ensure that he accomplishes the tasks assigned to

him. If the tasks for which he was held responsible are not completed, then he should not

give explanations or excuses. Responsibility without adequate authority leads to

discontent and dissatisfaction among the person. Responsibility flows from bottom to top.

The middle level and lower level management holds more responsibility. The person held

responsible for a job is answerable for it. If he performs the tasks assigned as expected,

he is bound for praises. While if he doesnt accomplish tasks assigned as expected, then

also he is answerable for that.

3. Accountability - means giving explanations for any variance in the actual performance

from the expectations set. Accountability can not be delegated. For example, if A is

given a task with sufficient authority, and A delegates this task to B and asks him to

36
 ensure that task is done well, responsibility rest with B, but accountability still rest with

A. The top level management is most accountable. Being accountable means being

innovative as the person will think beyond his scope of job. Accountability, in short,

means being answerable for the end result. Accountability cant be escaped. It arises

from responsibility.

For achieving delegation, a manager has to work in a system and has to perform following

steps : -

1. Assignment of tasks and duties

2. Granting of authority

3. Creating responsibility and accountability

Delegation of authority is the base of superior-subordinate relationship, it involves following

steps:-

1. Assignment of Duties - The delegator first tries to define the task and duties to the

subordinate. He also has to define the result expected from the subordinates. Clarity of

duty as well as result expected has to be the first step in delegation.

2. Granting of authority - Subdivision of authority takes place when a superior divides and

shares his authority with the subordinate. It is for this reason, every subordinate should

be given enough independence to carry the task given to him by his superiors. The

managers at all levels delegate authority and power which is attached to their job

positions. The subdivision of powers is very important to get effective results.

3. Creating Responsibility and Accountability - The delegation process does not end

once powers are granted to the subordinates. They at the same time have to be

obligatory towards the duties assigned to them. Responsibility is said to be the factor or

obligation of an individual to carry out his duties in best of his ability as per the directions

37
 of superior. Responsibility is very important. Therefore, it is that which gives effectiveness

to authority. At the same time, responsibility is absolute and cannot be shifted.

Accountability, on the others hand, is the obligation of the individual to carry out his duties

as per the standards of performance. Therefore, it is said that authority is delegated,

responsibility is created and accountability is imposed. Accountability arises out of

responsibility and responsibility arises out of authority. Therefore, it becomes important

that with every authority position an equal and opposite responsibility should be attached.

Therefore every manager,i.e.,the delegator has to follow a system to finish up the delegation

process. Equally important is the delegatees role which means his responsibility and

accountability is attached with the authority over to here.

Relationship between Authority and Responsibility

Authority is the legal right of person or superior to command his subordinates while accountability

is the obligation of individual to carry out his duties as per standards of performance Authority

flows from the superiors to subordinates,in whichORDERS and instructions are given to

subordinates to complete the task. It is only through authority, a manager exercises control. In a

way through exercising the control the superior is demanding accountability from subordinates. If

the marketing manager directs the sales supervisor for 50 units of sale to be undertaken in a

month. If the above standards are not accomplished, it is the marketing manager who will be

accountable to the chief executive officer. Therefore, we can say that authority flows from top to

bottom and responsibility flows from bottom to top. Accountability is a result of responsibility and

responsibility is result of authority. Therefore, for every authority an equal accountability is

attached.

Differences between Authority and Responsibility

Authority Responsibility

38
It is the legal right of a It is the obligation of subordinate to

person or a superior to perform the work assigned to him.

command his subordinates.

Authority is attached to the Responsibility arises out of superior-

position of a superior in subordinate relationship in which

concern. subordinate agrees to carry out duty

given to him.

Authority can be delegated Responsibility cannot be shifted and is

by a superior to a absolute

subordinate

It flows from top to bottom. It flows from bottom to top.

Coordination: Definition and Classification |Public Administration

Definition and Nature:

In public administration coordination is regarded as a very important principle. It is

also considered as a concept. Dimock and Dimock have defined it in the following

way: Coordination is placing many aspects of an enterprise in proper position relative

to each other and to the programme to which they are a part; it is harmoniously

containing agents and functions towards the achievement of desired goal.

39
Every enterprise or business organisation has various aspects or sections and each

is entrusted with a particular job or responsibility. But this diversification or

balkanisation does not deny the fact that all the sections are crucial to the whole

organisation. Every part of the enterprise aims at the attainment of the general

purpose and, if so, there must exist give-and-take policy among all parts. This is

called coordination. Coordination thus implies that no part of the enterprise is

completely unrelated with other parts.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the light of the above definition we can note certain features of this

principle:

(1) Coordination is an essential aspect of any organisation-big and small. Especially

the large organisation with several departments or sections cannot work satisfactorily

without this.

(2) In every modern public administration control is essential. The departments

cannot function whimsically. They must follow certain regulations and this ensures

coordination. Let us see what Dimock and Dimock say in this regard Control is the

analytical method by which the blend is regularly tested and evaluated: Coordination

and control close the circle in the administrative process Both Dimock and Dimock

say that organisation, control and coordination all must beVIEWED simultaneously.

(3) The concept of coordination comes from the idea of interdependence of different

branches of the organisation. No organisation of modern world can expect to be a

single unit. Naturally the division of the organisation into sections is indispensable,

so also the coordination.

40
(4) Some well-known public administrationists now-a-days have started to talk about

functional coordination which means that in a big organisation there are number of

sections, but inVIEW of importance, all are not in the same level some are more

important than others. That is why more important departments are put under one

umbrella and the purpose of such step is to achieve functional coordination. In recent

years, this form of coordination has gained immense popularity.

(5) Decentralisation is a related term of coordination. In organisation or a

governments administrative system, powers are decentralised for the purpose of

better management. In the same line of thought the specialists have suggested

about decentralisation. So far as this principle is concerned both are different, but

their purpose is more or less the same. Both must be related with each other. The

decentralised parts must be brought under coordination.

(6) Some experts say that the principle of coordination must always see that the aim

of the organisation is not adversely affected. The coordination must always take it

into account. If it is found that the main purpose of the organisation is going to be

badly affected if coordination is strictly adhered to and in that case the principle of

coordination is to be sacrificed at least temporarily. About this principle the valued

judgement of the experts is caution and farsightedness must be applied before

taking any final decision.

Classification of Coordination:

Peter Self thinks that in modern organisational system decentralisation of power

and functions and coordination among them are not to be treated as last words.

Coordination is handicapped by some notions or practical situations and one such

practical situation is the existence of overhead units. Peter Self defines the term in

41
the following language: The overhead units are not dedicated to the sameVIEW of

social task as the operating agency but are concerned with the application of some

specialised skill to a particular service or with organisational maintenance or policy

coordination. So the fact is that all the organisations are not in a position to divide

the functions into various parts. Some organisations perform peculiar or specialised

tasks and in those cases there is a tendency of centralisation.

Peter Self, however, has divided the coordination into the following categories:

In the first place, there is policy coordination. Some organisations have their

own philosophy or ideal objective and, in this case, when a policy is adopted, it is

implemented in an almost centralised way. Naturally the scope of coordination here

is very limited. Only very few departments are concerned with the making and

execution of the policy. The principle of coordination is confined within a few

departments. Peter Self calls it Policy Coordination. The decision or policymaking

process is limited within a few departments. Hence the scope of coordination is not

wide.

Another type of coordination is resource coordination. For development and planning

purposes resources are to be collected and a particular department cannot do this

task. Several departments of government are involved and for that reason a

coordination among all the departments is indispensable. Peter Self says that

necessary coordination and relationship with the non-governmental organisation are

to be set-up. This requires another type of coordination and this to be studied

with care.

42
Peter Selfs final type of coordination is technical cooperation. In this age of

advanced technology every organisation always tries to adopt most modern

technology and this application of higher technology is spread over a number of

departments. This is inevitable and also inevitable is coordination among various

departments applying technology.

Peter Self calls this technical coordination. He also says that an

organisationDEALS with legal, purchasing medical, statistical, operational research

and many other complicated issues. A coordination is required for all the

departments. For such an organisation coordination is essential.

Peter Self says that the structure and functions of modern organisation are so

complex that division of task and responsibilities does not always work satisfactorily.

Rather, centralisation appears to be satisfactory. For example, data collection and

technical activities cannot be spread over a number of departments.

The aim of the organisation will be better served if these are confined within one

centre or department. The chief executive will not make any attempt for

decentralisation and then coordination. The consequence is centralisation is strongly

favoured. He further observes: The wishes of the public employees for more

equality of treatment over pay-scales and career opportunities strengthens the

centralisation of personnel management these pressures of centralisation run

throughout the administrative system.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

For public administrators or management, accountability functions as a means of

43
monitoring any wrongdoing and to correct the mismanagement or maladministration

and INCREASE the efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness of government.

For lawyers, accountability means an instrument of control to keep the administrators

within the rules, laws, legislation, and other governmental and administrative

regulations.For them, accountability should serve the principle of the rule of law such

as legality, natural justice and fairness, congruency to and consistency with legal

principles, legislative intention and the established system of rights and duties. The

legal consequence for this kind of accountability would be the nullity or void ness of

administrative decision or action, inhibition, injunctions, compensatory damages,

partial enforcement, and imprisonment, if the decisionor action concerned is subject

to criminal code and responsibility.

For politicians, accountability is for maintaining some political values such

as representation, parliamentary or congressional legislation, loyalty to party, political

objectivesand solidarity, public opinions, and some constitutional principles such as

the separation ofpowers. Political consequences of administrative wrongdoing may

vary from budget cutback,political responsibility of the minister concerned, political

and public embarrassment,losing political integrity and trustworthiness, ministerial

resignation, parliamentary questions,facing with parliamentary committees and

public audit offices inquiries. These processesmay finally lead to judicial

proceedings against responsible minister or civil servants.There is also moral

responsibility in the sense that administrators are required to make rightful and good

decisions and follow moral principles and professional codes of conduct.

In this view, they have to justify their decisions and policy in terms of justified moral

principles, justice and fairness, or professional and ethical standards.Therefore,

democratic values such as equality and fairness, participation,

44
responsiveness,representation, the rule of law, and plurality are deeply rooted and

reflected in all these forms of accountability.As far as the accountability of public

administrators is concerned, there are three main issues which should be addressed

here. First, a more detailed analysis of the above administrative, legal and political

accountability and their implications for administrators is undertaken. Secondly, the

issue of the requirements of accountability such as transparency will be explained,

and finally, the issue of limitations on the accountability of administrators will be

discussed.

Sorts of Accountability

Administrators are now accountable to different bodies and institutions. In fact, the

nature of accountability, whether legal, political etc. determines the bodies to whom

they should be responsible such as judges, politicians, parliament, ombudsmen, and

national audit officersetc. Thus, I will try to analyse the first issue regarding the kinds

of accountability.

Public Accountability

This kind of accountability connotes that politicians and administrators, while making

decisions which involve public and peoples rights or interests as stakeholders, have

to explain to the public, in any way, why they have taken such decisions or policies.

On the other hand, for an effective system of control, the public should have access

to some social or political instruments to criticize such decisions and consequently to

complement such process by resorting to other means of political, legal and

administrative accountability. Therefore,public can react to and assess

administrators decisions through the mass media, press, election and ballot box by

replacing political leaders and policies, and pressurizing through the other organized

social, economic or political groups.

45
Accountability to the consumer through the citizens charters regarding sorts of public

products and services, quality and price, and the ways jobs and opportunities,

licences and welfare are distributed equally and fairly are considered as such means

of public accountability. Professionally also, administrators should respond to their

own standards of conducts and administrative rules and procedures. It is on this

basis that citizens are allowed to compensate for products or services that cannot

satisfy or meet their needs and lives.

Administrative Accountability

This sort of accountability is aimed at non-political and non-legal authorities such as

civil servants and top ranking administrators. They are responsible to departmental

ministers,regulators, ombudsmen, public audit officers whose aims are to monitor

and regulate the quality, efficiency, and the enforcement of statutory provisions and

the fair distribution and allocation of public budget and expenditure.Within the

government departments, civil servants are responsible to top administrative officers

and ministers, and outside the departments responsible to bodies such as

parliamentary commissioners, public audit officers, ombudsmen and regulators or

particular administrative agency or board. These agencies have been set up by the

legislature to make inquiries and obtain information and finally to make regulations or

judgments. Although their judgments may lack sufficient legal sanctions, they cause

departmental embarressment and, to a limited extent, governmental changes in

policy and decisions.

However, since the dichotomy of administrative/political is no longer unquestionable,

some other issues of administrative accountability will be dealt with in the section

regarding political accountability.

46
Legal Accountability

From this viewpoint, administrators are accountable to the courts and the judiciary on

the basis of the requirement of the rule of law. As I mentioned earlier, judges in a

democratic government see themselves as the guardian of democratic process and

values such as consultation, rights, equality and justice and liberties of individuals.

Public officials are required to follow legal provisions made either by the legislature

or the courts precedents in their day-to-day decision-making including issuing

licences, collecting taxes, making compulsory purchase orders, dismissals etc.

Otherwise they will face with judicial review of their decisions raised by any

stakeholders or affected parties.

The scope of judicial review depends on the extent of the violations of statutory

provisions or established legal principles or the enfringement on individuals rights

and interests.Compared with the previous concepts of accountability, this concept

has a more extensive legal guarantee and effectiveness. Therefore, public officials

should be aware of the principles of judicial control which are applicable in at least

two aspects of their decisions and conducts: first, through the principle of legality,

meaning that administrators authority are given by parliament or governmental

regulations based on some particular factual and legal circumstances.

Thus, the judges try to ensure that the authority remains within the four corners

or vires of what parliament has intended and expressed.7 The courts see

themselves as the ultimate arbiter in determining the legal meanings and factual

circumstances, contemplated in statutory or regulatory provisions and thus, their

jurisdictions in law prevails over the administrators.The doctrine of ultra vires,

meaning outside jurisdiction and discretion, here is used to curtail administrative

47
powers on the ground that the existence of such authority is only for the attainment

of specific objects and not for any other irrelevant purposes .

3). The legal consequence of an ultra vires act or decision is a nullity meaning that it

has no legal effect.The second ground under which the courts can question

administrative actions and decisions is the principle of natural justice or procedural

fairness in English law, or the due process of law in American law. Natural justice or

procedural fairness mirrors the idea that a public official cannot be the judge of his or

her own cause and that, before to make a final decision affecting a person or groups

rights and interests, a defense of their case and views must always be fairly heard.

In other words, the judiciary tends to judicialize the process of decision-making

powers of administrators through the medium of procedural fairness and adjudicative

process.

Administrative decision-making is a complex procedure that include taking into

account the objectives set by statutory provisions and other governmental

regulations, collectinginformation, evaluating the possible alternative solutions,

determining the best options available, assessing different ways of implementation of

decisions, and appraising of the possible effects on public interests or relevant

parties and individuals. The significance of the principle of procedural fairness is that

it offers a level of protection for those individual and groups who think their rights and

interests have been undermined through these administrative decision-making

processes (Zarei, 1998: 134). If a particular administrative decision has a substantial

effect on the rights and interests of the affected party or individual, it will be unfair

and unreasonable to deprive them of such rights and interests without providing

them with a chance to defend their views (Wade and Forsyth, 1994: 334-35).

Furthermore, with the increasing role of government and its intervention in different

48
aspects of citizens lives, there must be some procedural safeguards against the

arbitrary use of such powers. Thus, this view relies on a right-based theory of

administration requiring a certain level of accuracy and appropriateness of decision-

making process, and as a result, reassures a sufficient level of outcome by

protecting the people against procedural injustice (De Smith and Brazier, 1989: 567-

69).The formula for maintaining such a sufficient level of the accuracy of result is

based on the principle of proportionality between the relative importance of the

interest or rights involved and the level of the accuracy of the method of decision-

making and ultimate objective or value of administration. Therefore, to satisfy the

procedural fairness, a certain mode of participation is required as a significant aspect

of instrumental rationality (Dworkin,1986: 72-104).Accordingly, procedural fairness

allows more participation and participation prevents elements of arbitrariness and

uncertainty. Moreover, participation, per se, would give rise to social and individual

improvement which is the cornerstone of all open government. From this, a sense of

legitimacy is found which justifies administrators decisions in terms of legally and

morally acceptable principles which, in turn, ensures better decisions and outcomes

(Galligan, 1986: 330-33).

From this, two modes of participation can be deduced: first, where

administrative decisions are of individualized nature and where individual rights or

interests are seriously involved. In this situation, procedural fairness requires that

participation should take a modified form of adjudicative procedure. Secondly, where

general interests of a community or groups of people are concerned, the procedural

fairness requires a fair public hearing and consultation (Galligan, 1986: 337).

As a result, the principle of procedural fairness is very consistent with the

underlying values of democratic process such as equal respect and concern for

49
every citizens rights and autonomy embedded in the participatory, deliberative and

liberal theory of democracy.All in all, these values require public administrators, in

deciding matters of public concern, not only to take into account effective use of

resources in terms of a cost-benefit method of analysis, but to deal with some legal

and moral implications of their decisions and policies. In other words, it is the

principle of fairness which effectiveness should comply with.

Political Accountability

Political accountability is a sort of responsibility which a political authority like a

minister owes to other external political institutions such as parliament, parliamentary

committees and president. It is also like the accountability of local authorities to

central government officials.To improve an effective democratic political

accountability, the structure of the political system should be decentralized, the

election system should be reformed, political parties should be recognized and

established, and freedom of information and press ought to be secured (Oliver, 1991:

Chapter 1).Public administrators are not politically accountable. Instead, ministers

are accountable for decisions and actions made on their behalf to parliament,

president, prime minister,ombudsmen, and public audit officers. The understanding

of this political aspect of accountability depends on the relationship between civil

servants and ministers and the recent administrative and civil service reform and its

impacts on the traditional concept of political responsibility (see Appendix 3). In light

of recent reforms, it is assumed that civil servants should be more accountable and

take more responsibility in exercising administrative powers.

In the traditional model, a minister is the head of his or her department, and takes

formally all important decisions based on the advice of department officials. Civil

servants are assumed anonymous, permanent, and politically neutral (Drewry and

50
Butcher, 1991:150-51; Kavanagh, 1996: 332). The minister should take

constitutionally all blame for failure of his or her department officials, and if

necessary to resign, redress and compensate (Turpin, 1994: 109-51). Civil servants

are neither identified nor are they constitutionally answerable to parliament or

parliamentary committees.However, in reality, civil servants are not that neutral and

anonymous. The ministers may be handicapped within the mechanism of

bureaucracy, influenced, manipulated and filtered in determining policy issues

(Drewry and Butcher, 1991: 153; Crewry, 1994: 160).It is now a fiction that a minister

can and would take personally all decisions of any significance.This is supported by

the fact that ministers are confined by lack of time and knowledge.They come to

power usually without prepared and defined policies. They have to rely on their

official advisors and civil servants to transform their broad policy objectives into more

realistic and executable plans and also for implementing such plans.

In this process, they may be controlled by bureaucratic techniques such as

biased initialbriefing, controlled information, mobilization of other departments

against the ministerial policies, and leaking to the press to damage the public

credibility of the ministers policy etc.(Drewry and Butcher, 1991: 157-59).From this

standpoint, it is hard to believe that civil servants are the true alter ego of ministers

within government departments. Moreover, ministerial decisions and policies are,

in fact, products of a long process of interaction between interdepartmental relations

and external chain of reactions.

In addition, a drastic change in the traditional administrative paradigm has been

taking place and a post bureaucratic reform paradigm has been shaping through a

transformation beyond the traditional Weberian model. This Weberian model is said

to have been distilled from the concept of a rational/legal authority which is relied on

51
rule-based hierarchies, the rule of law and the notion of active separation from the

personal interests of individual holding it (Massey, 1995: 23; Drewry, 1994: 158).

Compared to this paradigm, the new paradigm is characterized by being

anticipatory,strategic, result directed, based on executive leadership, market

oriented, customer drivenand entrepreneurial (Overman and Boyd quoted in

Massey, 1995: 16).

The core of this movement lies in the accountability of administration to

laws, rules and regulations, judicial control over the process of administration,

contracts and market forces, to citizens charter and codes of ethics. Therefore, the

exclusive accountability of civil servants to ministers should be restructured in favor

of more accountability of civil servants to citizens, courts and parliament .

Based on democratic process and in the light of these new changes in

administration, the whole machinery of government in all its levels and corners

including civil servants, Nadministrative agencies, and non-departmental public

bodies should equally be accountable to parliament, parliamentary committees,

electorate, the courts, and citizens (Turpin, 1996:35-47).It is now evident that

authority is shared by ministers, senior officials and other public servants, and this

reality must be incorporated into the constitutional system. For this, there has to be a

clarification of departmental structure to determine the extent of which powers is

used by various government officials and in order to frame a meaningful and

reformed accountability (Turpin, 1996: 40).The recent administrative reforms such as

the introduction of the Next Steps Agencies,contracting out of public functions,

privatization of public services and management are also supportive of the doctrine

of enhancing accountability. For instance, regarding the Next Steps Agencies, they

were set up introduce a different way of conducting the business of government,

52
distinguishing between policy issues and operational matters.The central civil service

is a small core engaged in servicing ministers and managing departments

sponsoring for particular government policies and services. On the other hand,there

is a range of agencies employing their own staff, contracting the delivery of special

services based on a division of defined responsibilities between ministerial

departments and

chief executives of such agencies for operational matters (Drewry, 1994: 165).

Such a division of functions reduces the accountability of ministers in relation to the

agencys functions to a sort of explanatory and supervisory with regard to its

efficiency and good financial management, and not for any decision made by the

agency (Freeland, 1996:19-30). It is, thus, suggested that the time the budget and

objective of an agency were set up, MPs can raise questions directly to the chief

executive of the agency and not to the minister concerned. Ministers are only invited

to respond where the answers of the agency are not sufficient and satisfactory

(Kavanagh, 1996: 327-28).As a result, according to these reforms, the traditional

hierarchical structures and procedure or rule-based accountability is moving towards

a managerial and performance-based accountability. Therefore, civil servants are

more accountable for results and controlling inputs and supporting against fraud and

abuse.

Requirements of Democratic Accountability

Based on what were discussed so far, and in respect of the second issue of the

requirements of accountability, i.e., to make public administrators democratically

accountable, some requirements must be satisfied. Some of them are explained

here.

Decentralizing the Government Decision-Making Structure

53
The traditional administrative structure is inconsistent with fragmentation and overlap

of purposes and jurisdictions of administrative units. This traditional model, supports

the simplification, centralization and unification of administrative authority and

objectives, and views decentralization as obstacles to efficiency and accountability

(Oakerson, 1989: 115-16).However, in a theory of democratic administration, there is

no need for an administrative strict hierarchical structure and accountability. Each

administrative agency having a particular objective, is regarded as a unit of

accountability. An executive agency is first given discretion and then is held

responsible for the exercise of such discretion (Oakerson, 1989: 120-123).As stated

before, in a state of fragmented authority, executive agencies are answerable for

certain objectives to government departments.In addition to the decentralization of

decision-making structure, uses of different techniques improve the quality of

decisions such as negotiation, collaboration, competition,and even litigation. These

techniques maintain the element of third party involvement and contribute to the

effective responsiveness and accountability (Oakerson, 1989: 126).

The Flow of Information

Due to the citizens democratic rights to have their views equally incorporated in the

outcome of administrative decisions and policies, and to ensure an effective and

deliberative participation, relevant information must be disseminated. Therefore,

equality of citizens requires free and equal access to relevant information. The

recognition of a range of options for citizens requires as wide information as possible

to secure the equal rights of everyone in setting various available alternatives, in

assessing such various options, in the main process of making decision, and

ultimately, in implementing such decisions (Lyland, 1995: 57-58).

Transparency

54
Transparency can be viewed as a goal itself, meaning that rational decisions and

actions are those whose goals and means of implementation are consistently clear

(Sjoblom, 1999: 16).Thus, transparency is closely related to procedural values and

as such is linked to the democratic process of an open government.For an effective

and enhanced system of accountability, we should take the principle of transparency

seriously. But, transparency in what terms and with regard to what kind of

administrative values? Therefore, transparency and accountability are both

instrumental to values of public administration and such values will determine the

adequate mechanisms of transparency and, in turn, different mechanisms of

transparency require different types of citizens participation.

For instance, efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness can be viewed as

performance measurement and procedural administrative values, compared to

substantive administrative values such as rights, equal respect and dignity and

citizens preferences. On the other hand,to serve administrative accountability

requires the maintenance of efficiency, i.e., minimization of costs and careful

administrative and fiscal use of resources; effectiveness, i.e., the relationship

between planned policy objective and objective achievement; and responsiveness,

i.e., having a receptive mind to the citizens needs, problems and preferences.

Therefore, these three exemplary administrative values represent various principles

of accountability. For the realization of these values and subsequent effective

accountability,different roles of administrators and citizens must be articulated. Thus,

it is suggested that efficiency requires administrators to play the role of an adjuster of

administrative costs and resources in relation to the citizens demand as consumers.

In this respect, the appropriate method of participation is through the determination

of choices concerning a particular public service or product.The value of

55
effectiveness requires public officials to function as reactor to the policy objective and

citizens role as clients. The proper mode of participation is through negotiation

and dialogue having a major impact on the policy-goal formation. On the other, the

value of responsiveness is profoundly rooted in the tradition of participatory

democracy. Transparency in this sense requires the intervention by organized social,

legal and political groups in policy-making process. In this method, citizens not only

influence administrative services,but also participate in the procedure of producing

services and in determining what sort of products or services should be produced .

Challenges to the Accountability of Administrators

The third issue is the question of challenges to and limitations on the principle of

accountability. Some of these issues are addressed here briefly.

The Limitation of Scope

As discussed before, accountability has a procedural and instrumental value, serving

democratic process of an open government.However, some concepts of

accountability that are applicable to administrative decisions and actions are of a

rigid, legalistic approach, searching for the immediate body responsible for the fault,

while maladministration may in fact be attributable to a causal chain of structural

defects, ineffective policies and processes, and other internal and external

pressures.

Therefore, while an effective means of administrative and public accountability can

be an a priori mechanism of control, other concepts of legal and political

accountability are of an a posteriori nature and fault-oriented.

The Question of the Conflicting Viewpoints on Accountability

The external view of lawyers and politicians should be assessed against the internal

view of administrators. Control and accountability has different values and purposes

56
for lawyers,politicians and public administrators.While lawyers are interested in rules,

regulations, individual rights and interest, public administrators are concerned with

policy, discretionary powers to get jobs done, public interests, the use of more

flexible devices such as guidance, codes of conducts, directives,negotiation and

compromise (Harlow and Rawlings, 1984: 127, 129).

There is also a question of the effectiveness of legal and political accountability. It is

argued that these mechanisms of accountability have failed to create administrative

effectiveness in any significant sense. Civil servants are not taught to think like

lawyers and politicians.

Therefore, it is unwise to expect that every judicial or political decision is

automatically assimilated into the administrative process (Rawlings, 1986: 135-45).

As a result, the question is how far administration is able to effectively correspond to

these differing values, principles and expectations.

The Question of Effective and Efficient Accountability

Insisting too much on accountability can be expensive and countereffective, meaning

that it imposes unjustified burdens on public pocket or funds. In other words, as

emphasized in the value of procedural fairness, the question is how far a society and

government would like to spend for maintaining fairness and justice in incorporating

these values in administrative and political decision-making processes.

Governance through participation, negotiation, compromise and intervention is time

and resource-consumptive and needs human efforts which consequently result in

prolonging the process of decision-making and delay in arriving at consensual final

outcomes. Therefore,accountability, like administration is subject to a criterion of

efficiency (Oakerson, 1989:114).

57
However, the ultimate argument revolves around the extent to which a political

systemic inclined to take the value of fairness or cost-efficiency seriously. From a

normative moral point of view, it is the value of fairness and equality which should

prevail, while on autilitarian cost-benefit analysis, it is efficiency which outweighs

fairness and equal rights.Moreover, it seems that there exists a dilemma in the sense

that, on the one hand,accountability requires individuals and groups participation,

and, on the other hand, enhancing citizens participation in setting goals, public

services and products, reduce public administrators accountability in taking the

blame for making certain decisions and conducts.Therefore, the more active citizens

participation, the lesser the degree of accountability of administrators would be,

unless for the way they implement such goals and policies. This situation makes

some concepts of accountability meaningless in their legal and political forms.

[6]

58
59