PP 5303: PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
January - May 2010
Instructor: Jak Jabes
Office: Li Ka Shing Block, Level 2, Room 02-08
This course focuses on aspects of management important for those working in the public sector. We shall focus on managing people, managing external relations, managing change and reforming the public sector. In that context we shall analyze New Public Management as a reform process and look at the issue of Corruption which has received a lot of attention in the last years. The course will have a behavioral science bias because my personal training is heavily grounded in behavioral sciences.
The public sector is under criticism and managers are asked to do more with less. Reform ideas travel freely from one context to another without the necessary scrutiny about applicability. The aim in this course will be to gauge what may or may not work in public sector settings evaluating frameworks and ideas against the contexts in which you will find yourselves working.
The course presents a practice oriented approach to the problems managers face while emphasizing theories, and methods of contemporary management thought as they apply in public settings. We shall try to bank on the fact that you all have significant work experience and managerial backgrounds, and use this accumulated knowledge to discuss, argue and jointly attempt to resolve issues of interest.
We shall focus on the human processes, social dynamics and planned structures that are evident in public sector organizations. Reform of the public sector, new approaches and current issues will be emphasized.
Enhance your ability to think through about certain problems and issues of public management
Understand and utilize notions of organizational culture and human resource management and their application to public sector management
Identify managerial interventions and activities which can improve management
Appreciate the complexity of reform efforts in terms of likelihood of success, acceptability and sustainability over time in different context
Critically examine New Public Management, corruption, ethics and integrity issues
The course is divided into three broad sections:
Part I: In this section we deal with the management of people, and understanding both individual and group behavior in public settings. Issues of motivation, rewards, and teams are covered here.
Part II: This section covers external actors with whom public managers interact, and specifically will cover relations with politicians and external stakeholders.
Part III: This section focuses on change management. It addresses organizational culture, structure and design, as well as current issues such as NPM, corruption end ethics.
The pedagogical approach includes lectures, discussion, case analyses, and in class exercises. Participants are expected to attend every class and engage actively in all class activities, including interaction in small groups and discussions. You are encouraged to use your own work experiences as a key source of data and information for assignments and discussions.
The course will use case-based discussions in a number of class sessions. This form of pedagogy means several things for students and for the instructor. For students, it means that they must thoroughly prepare the cases for each class. Case-based discussion also means that all students must participate – the learning you take away from this course will be determined in large part by the quality of the classroom discussions. Your learning and what others can learn from you increases to the extent that you participate.
The course materials include conceptual and analytic literature as well as case materials and examples drawn from a variety of sources. The reading list includes two textbooks and a package of articles. It would be best if you try to read as much as you can of the assigned readings prior to coming to class. The readings may look long, sometimes too abstract or theoretical. For many of you English is not your native tongue so you may struggle with this long list of readings. Try to read what you can. The package of textbook and articles is for you to have as a reference. If you are part of a study group, you can divide the readings among yourselves and then go over them together.
The textbooks are:
Florence Heffron, Organization Theory and Public Organizations, 3rd. ed. Prentice Hall,
B. Guy Peters, The Politics of Bureaucracy, 6
Ed. London and N.Y.: Routledge, 2010
The Heffron textbook is somewhat old, but reviews the classic literature on human and organizational aspects of public management. The second is quite a popular book which takes a civil service – bureaucrat approach and looks at public management issues from that perspective. When chapters from these two textbooks are assigned read them first even if you cannot get to the articles which follow.
There are also three books you might want to explore at some point during the course, as they describe Singapore’s governance system in very different and sometimes controversial ways. Given the objectives of this course and time limitations, we will not be making an in-depth study of Singapore’s system of public management itself, but the topic is obviously highly relevant for your attachment paper and broader experience here:
Neo, B.S. and Chen, G. (2007) Dynamic Governance: Embedding Culture, Capabilities and Change in Singapore, World Scientific: Singapore
Ho Khai Leong (2003) Shared responsibilities, unshared power: The politics of policy-making in Singapore, Eastern Universities Press
Worthington, R. (2002) Governance in Singapore, Routledge Curzon
Short Assignements: 40 %
Final Take Home Exam: 30%
Class participation is an important part of the course. Class participation will be evaluated according to attendance, preparation, constructive involvement in class discussion, respect for the contributions of others, and contributions to the learning of the entire class throughout the session.
There are 4 short assignments which you will be asked to submit. These are of 1-2 page length and are usually due a couple days before the class in which the topic will be discussed. Some of these assignments will be done in small groups and some individually. Instructions for them are found in the appropriate week in this syllabus.
The following case will be assigned for writing up for diagnosis, analysis and recommendations:
Reclaiming Land from Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour: The Public Demands a Voice
, Due March 17, 2010, weight: 20%
You will find a brief document entitled “Case Analysis” on the IVLE which can help you organize your answers and presentation of the case material.
There will be final exam, which will count for 30 % of your grade.
It will focus on your ability to reflect systematically on the class material and may involve case analysis. It will be open book and open note.
Week 1 (Wednesday, January 13, 9:00 – 12:00): Introduction and Key Issues
B. Guy Peters, Ch. 1 “Public Administration and Governing”
Robert D. Behn, “The Big Questions of Public Management”, Public Administration Review, July/August 1995, 313-324
A. Fung ad E. O. Wright, “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance”, Politics & Society, 29 (1), 2001, 5-41
D. A. Nadler and M. T. Tushman, “A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior”, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1980, 35-51
Assignment Due before class on January 13 latest (5%):
Using no more than one page, outline what were the 3 key public management concerns in the last organization in which you worked?
Why were these issues important?
Come to class ready to discuss them
Week 2 (Wednesday, January 20, 9:00 – 12:00): Providing Meaning
Perception and attribution
S. S. Brehm and S. M. Kassin, “Perceiving Persons” in Barry Staw (Ed.), Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, New York: Macmillan, 1991, 187-207
A de Carufel and J. Jabes, “Perceptual Errors in Organizations: An Attribution Theory Approach”, University of Ottawa Quarterly, 1986, 56 (4), 205-221
J. Jabes, Causal Attributions and Sex-role Stereotypes in the Perceptions of Women Managers, Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 1980, 12, 52-63
Week 3 (Wednesday, January 27, 9:00 – 12:00): Motivation and Rewards
Motivation in the Workplace
Reward and reward regimes
Pay, merit and promotions
Florence Heffron, Chs.* and 9, “Of Individuals, Organizations and Work” and “Motivation”
Peters, Ch. 3 “Recruiting Public Personnel”
D. A. Nadler and E. E. Lawler, “Motivation: A Diagnostic Approach”, in J. R. Hackman, E. E. Lawler and L. W. Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, New York: McGraw
Hill, 1977, 43-53
Charles N. Greene, The Satisfaction-Performance Controversy, Business Horizons, 1972, 15, 31-41
W. Clay Hamner, How to Ruin Motivation with Pay, Compensation Review, 1975, 7 (3), 17-27
J Jabes and D. Zussman, Motivation, Rewards and Satisfaction in the Canadian Federal Public Service, Canadian PublicAdministration, 1988, 31 (2), 204-224
Steven Kerr, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, while Hoping for B”, Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18 (4), 769-783
In Class Case:
Week 4 (Wednesday, February 3, 9:00 – 12:00): Teams
Decision Making in Groups
T. Doherty and T. Horne, Managing public services, Chapter 6 “Managing groups and leading teams in public services”, London: Routledge, 2002, 167-203
Daniel C. Feldman, The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms, Academy of Management Review, 1984, 9 (1), 47-53
Irving Janis, Groupthink, Psychology Today, 1971 (also in Barry Staw (Ed), Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, New York: Macmillan, 1991, 514-522)
Week 5 (Wednesday, February 10, 9:00 -12:00) Power, conflicts, politics
Heffron, C. 6 “Power, Politics and Conflict in Organizations”
G. R. Salancik and J. Pfeffer, “Who Gets Power- and How they Hold on to it: A Strategic Contingency Model of Power”, Organizational Dynamics, 1977, 3 ( 5), 3-21
K. W. Thomas, “Conflict and Conflict Management”, in M. D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, 889-935
Week 6 and 7 (Wednesday, February 24 and March 3, 9:00 – 12:00): Relations with Bureaucrats and External Stakeholders
Relations with politicians
Managing policy processes, managing the centre of government
Communicating with Citizens
Role of NGOs and governance
Peters, Ch. 5 “The Politics of Bureaucracy” and Ch. 6 “The Bureaucracy and Political Institutions”
B. Bowornwathana, “Administrative Reform and the Politician-Bureaucrat Perspective” in H. Wong and H. S. Chan (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in Asia-Pacific
, Marcel Dekker, 1999, Ch. 4, 69-78
C. Brady and P. Catterall, “Managing the Core Executive”, Public Administration, 1997, 75 (3), 509-529
Sheila Coronel, “Recovering the Rage: Media and Public Opinion”, In OECD, No Longer Business as Usual, Paris: OECD, 2000, 215-226
H. U. Derlien, “The Politicization of Bureaucracies in Historical and Comparative Perspective” in G. Peters and B. Rockman (Eds.) Agenda for Excellence, Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers, 1996, 149-162
OECD, Open Government, Paris: OECD, 2003, 9-21
B. Guy Peters, “Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy-making”, in Jan-Erik Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and Public Choice, London: Sage, 1987, 256-282
Assignment for Weeks 6 and 7 (15%):
For weeks 6 and 7, divide yourselves into groups on the basis of nationality and prepare to answer the questions below. Choose one member as spokesperson, and limit your answer to about 15-20 minutes for each country presentation but be ready to provide more information if questioned. Groups can have more than one member making the presentation.
Using Peters’ article “Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy Making” and thinking politico-administrative relations as well as relations with external stakeholders in your country be prepared to explain:
Whether the model describes the politico-administrative relations in your country?
If so, how? If not, how would you then describe them?
What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the center of the government in your country?
What can be done, realistically to improve the weaknesses?
Is there a clear distinction between politics and bureaucracy in your country; in other words between policy-making and policy-implementation?
Do reforms units exist? How are they constituted and how do they work out relations between the political and bureaucratic side?
How would you describe public participation in your country?
What are key national and international CSO’s working in your country?
What is the impact of CSO’s in your country?
What can be done to improve relations with:
Week 8 (Wednesday, March 10, 9:00 – 12:00): Organizational Culture
The culture of public sector organizations
Differences between Public and private sector organizations
Heffron, Ch. 7 “Organizational Culture”
Peters: Ch. 2 “Political Culture and Public Administration”
Nasir Islam, “National Culture, Corruption, and Governance in Pakistan”, in J. Jabbra and O. P. Dwivedi (Eds.) Administrative Culture in a Global Context, Whitby, On.: deSitter Publications, 2005, 154-173.
J. Jabes and D. Zussman, Organizational Culture in Public Bureaucracies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1989, 55 (1), 95-116.
Stephen Ma, “Whither China’s Administrative Culture in the Twenty First Century”, in J. Jabbra and O. P. Dwivedi (Eds.) Administrative Culture in a Global Context, Whitby, On.: deSitter Publications, 2005, 174-188.
Hal G. Rainey, “Building an Effective Organizational Culture”, in James L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of Public Administration, 2
ed., 1996, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 151-166
In Class Case
: The Road to Hell
Week 9 (Wednesday, March 17, 9:00 – 12:00): Organizational architecture
Organizational structure and design contingencies
Heffron: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4,
H. F. Kolodny, “Managing in a Matrix”, Business Horizons, March – April 1981, 17-24
Case Due in Class
Reclaiming Land from Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour: The Public Demands a Voice
Week 10 (Thursday, March 24,, 9:00 – 12:00): Organizational Change and Reform
of change, diagnostic approaches
Reforms in the public sector
Heffron, Ch. 5 “Organizational Change”
V. K. Agruhotri and R. K. Dar, “Governance Reforms in India: Responsible Civil Servants’ View from the Inside”, , in S. Munshi and B. P. Abraham (Eds.) Good Governance, Democratic Societies and Globalisation, New Delhi/London: Sage, 2004, 232-252
Mark G. Popovich (Ed), Creating High-Performance Government Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 11- 46
H. G. Frederickson, Public Administration with an Attitude, ASPA 2005, Book Five “Public Administration as Reform”, pp. 110-136
Robert T. Golembiewski, “Facilitating Organizational Development and Change”, in James L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of PublicAdministration, 2
ed., 1996, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp
Shamsul Haque, “The Changing Nature of Administrative Reform: Cases in Malaysia and Singapore” ,, in H. Wong and H. S. Chan (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in Asia-Pacific Basin, Marcel Dekker, 1999, Ch 3 pp. 47-68
Kuldeep Mathur, “Administrative Reform in India: Policy Prescriptions and Outcomes, in S. Munshi and B. P. Abraham (Eds.) Good Governance, Democratic Societies and Globalisation, New Delhi/London: Sage, 2004, 214-231
Guy Peters, “Government Reorganization: Theory and Practice”, in A Farazmand (Ed) Modern Organizations: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2002, 159-180
M. Temmes, Division of Labour in Administrative Reform Policy: Decentralisation or Centralisation. In
B. Connaughton, G. Sootla, B. G. Peters (Eds.) Politico-Administrative Relations at the Centre - Actors, Structures and Processes supporting the Core Executive, Bratislava: NISPAcee, 2009, 164-174
In Class Case
Municipal decentralization in Buenos Aires: Creating the municipality of Hurlingham
Week 11 (Wednesday, March 31, 9:00 – 12:00) New Public Management and Country Reform Initiatives
Heffron, Ch. 11 “The Good Organization: Measuring Organizational Effectiveness”
Peter Aucoin, “Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums”, Governance, 1990, 3 (2), 115-137
J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh. Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Auckland, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996, Chapter 1
L Deleon and R. Denhardt, “The Political Theory of Reinvention”, Public Administration Review, 60 (2), 2000, 89-97
M. Holmes and D. Shand, “Management Reform: Some Practitioner Perspectives on the Past 10 Years”, Governance, 1995, 4, pp. 551-578
Christopher Hood, “A Public Management for all Seasons”, Public Administration, 1991, 69, 1, pp 3-19
Christopher Hood, “Individualised Contracts for Top Civil Servants”, Governance, 11(4), 1998, pp. 443-462
P. Kemp,”Next Steps for the British Civil Service”, Governance, 1990, 3(2), 186 - 196
G. Peters and D. Savoie, “Civil Service Reform: Misdiagnosing the Patient”, Public Administration Review, 54 (5), 1994, 418-425
L. Terry, “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement”, Public Administration Review, 58 (3), 1998, 194-200
Due: by midnight Monday 29 March
Individually or in a small team of two students of your own country describe a public management reform initiative in the public sector of your country. In no more than two pages briefly:
Outline the problems that necessitated the reform
The constraints and difficulties that were faced
The approach taken to reform
How successful the reform was
What lessons could be drawn from this attempt
Weeks 12 and 13 (Wednesdays, April 7 and 14, 9:00 – 12:00) Corruption and Ethical Issues
Janos Bertok, “Public Sector Ethics: An Infrastructure”, In OECD, No Longer Business as Usual, Paris: OECD, 2000, 113-125
Jean Cartier-Bresson, “The Causes and Consequences of Corruption: Economic Analyses and Lessons Learnt”, In OECD, No Longer Business as Usual, Paris: OECD, 2000, 11-27
S. Fritzen, Beyond ‘political will’: How institutional context shapes the implementation of anti-corruption policies, Policy & Society, 2005, 24 (3), 79-96
R. Klitgaard, “Subverting corruption”, Finance & Development, 2000, 37 (2), 2-5
M. Maor, “Feeling the Heat?: Anticorruption Measures in Comparative Perspective” Governance, 2004, 17 (1), 1-28
W. McCourt, “Sri Lanka: Political Patronage », in The Human Factor in Governance, NY: Palgrave, 2006
Samuel Paul, “Corruption in India: Who will Bell the Cat?” Asian Journal of Political Science, 6 (1), 1998, 1-15
Jon S T Quah, Curbing Corruption in Asia, 2003, Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1-25
Vito Tanzi, “Governance, Corruption, and Public Finance: An Overview” In S Schiavo-Campo (Ed.) Governance, Corruption and Public Financial Management, Manila: ADB, 1999, pp 1-17
Due: by midnight Monday April 12
In no more than two pages describe:
to what extent the organization in which you work is affected by ‘systemic corruption’ or ‘episodic corruption’, or virtually no corruption?
What do you think accounts for this?
How does the corruption issue affect your management work? Have you been a passive bystander or been in the thick of it?
Are there ways by which the corruption you have experienced can be reduced or eliminated?
You can refer to the Klitgaard (2000) reading in doing this assignment.
In Class Case:
Corruption in La Paz: A Mayor Fights City Hall