Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public Administration has evolved from a traditional, hierarchical model focused on direct service delivery – often termed ‘Rowing’ – to a more modern approach emphasizing strategic management and market-based principles, known as ‘Steering’. This shift is significantly influenced by the Public Choice Theory, which applies economic principles to political decision-making. Developed by economists like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, Public Choice Theory posits that individuals within the public sector, like those in the private sector, are motivated by self-interest. This fundamentally alters the understanding of administrative efficiency and effectiveness, favoring a reduced role for direct government involvement and a greater emphasis on oversight and performance measurement.
Understanding ‘Rowing’ and ‘Steering’
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, in their seminal work “Reinventing Government” (1992), popularized the concepts of ‘Rowing’ and ‘Steering’. ‘Rowing’ represents the traditional public administration model where the government directly provides services – essentially ‘rowing the boat’ itself. This involves bureaucratic processes, hierarchical control, and a focus on inputs. Conversely, ‘Steering’ involves the government setting policy directions, establishing performance standards, and monitoring outcomes, while allowing other actors (private sector, NGOs, citizens) to deliver services – ‘steering the boat’ while others row.
Public Choice Theory and the Shift to ‘Steering’
Public Choice Theory challenges the assumption of benevolent, public-spirited bureaucrats. It argues that public officials, like individuals in any other sphere, are rational actors motivated by maximizing their own utility – be it power, budget, or job security. This has several implications:
- Agency Problem: Public Choice Theory highlights the agency problem, where the interests of bureaucrats (agents) may diverge from those of the public (principals). This necessitates mechanisms for control and accountability, aligning incentives with public goals.
- Rent-Seeking Behavior: The theory explains how bureaucrats may engage in ‘rent-seeking’ – using their position to secure benefits for themselves or their agencies, rather than focusing on efficient service delivery.
- Bureaucratic Expansion: Public Choice Theory suggests that bureaucracies tend to expand beyond optimal size due to the incentives faced by bureaucrats.
How Public Choice Promotes ‘Steering’
Given these insights, Public Choice Theory advocates for a ‘Steering’ approach to administration. By shifting from direct service provision to contracting out, privatization, and performance-based funding, governments can:
- Reduce Agency Costs: Competition among service providers incentivizes efficiency and responsiveness to public needs.
- Limit Rent-Seeking: Outsourcing reduces the scope for bureaucratic rent-seeking.
- Enhance Accountability: Clear performance metrics and contracts hold service providers accountable for results.
Examples of ‘Steering’ in Practice
Several administrative reforms reflect the influence of Public Choice Theory and the shift towards ‘Steering’:
- Privatization of Public Utilities: The privatization of electricity distribution in the UK (1990s) aimed to improve efficiency and reduce costs by introducing market competition.
- Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): The development of infrastructure projects like highways and airports through PPPs (e.g., in India under the National Highways Authority of India) allows the government to leverage private sector expertise and funding.
- Outcome-Based Budgeting: Shifting from input-based budgeting to outcome-based budgeting (increasingly adopted by state governments in India) focuses on achieving measurable results rather than simply allocating funds.
- Deregulation: Reducing regulatory burdens to promote competition and innovation, as seen in the telecom sector liberalization in India (1991).
Undermining ‘Rowing’
Public Choice Theory directly undermines the rationale for extensive ‘Rowing’. It suggests that direct government provision of services is often less efficient and responsive than alternative arrangements. The inherent limitations of bureaucratic structures, coupled with the self-interest of public officials, make it difficult to achieve optimal outcomes through traditional ‘Rowing’ approaches. This doesn’t imply complete abandonment of direct service delivery, but rather a strategic reassessment of which functions are best performed by the government and which can be outsourced or delegated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Public Choice Theory provides a compelling rationale for the shift from ‘Rowing’ to ‘Steering’ in public administration. By acknowledging the self-interested behavior of individuals within the public sector, it highlights the need for market-based mechanisms, performance measurement, and strategic oversight. While ‘Rowing’ may remain necessary in certain areas, the principles of Public Choice Theory advocate for a more efficient and effective administrative system centered on ‘Steering’ – setting clear goals, monitoring performance, and empowering diverse actors to deliver public value.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.