Thursday, September 3, 2009

My Essay on FNF NPM Phase I

NPM in PA: Reforming Human Resources
by Marlon F. Tagorda

Public administration has always been a dynamic element of the government which incessantly responds to the continuous demands of time.  For the economy to grow, the government must able to comply with the requirements of its people.  This entails various applications of relative techniques to prevent the government and its citizens from suffering its consequent distress. 
            The public often equate public administration with corrupt leaders, provides inadequate information, poor quality services, an extended arm of central powers and violation with existing laws.  Though public administration existed long before the turn of the 19th century with Max Weber’s bureaucracy, the perfection of its application was observed to be of bearish trend.  Think tanks have conceptualized a new approach to better off the general welfare of the people by employing the market-driven mechanisms.  
To maximize efficiency and effectiveness in governance, one technique that emerged was the New Public Management (NPM).  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in a survey conducted concluded that new management techniques and practices involving market-type mechanisms associated with the private sector are being used to bring about changes in the management of public services in countries that have widely varying governance, economic and institutional environments (Larbi, 1999).
The central feature of NPM is the attempt to introduce or simulate, within those sections of the public service that are not privatized, the performance incentives and the disciplines that exist in a market environment.  According to Metcalfe and Richards as cited by Larbi (Ibid.), “the assumption is that there are benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in exposing public sector activities to market pressures and in using markets to serve public purposes, and that government can learn from the private sector despite contextual differences.”  In addition, Larbi quoted Bienefeld and Mukandala (Ibid.) that “a noticeable trend in public sector reforms, in the context of economic crisis and structural adjustment, is that a wider range of administrative functions and the delivery of public services are being subjected to the approach.”
The state may have become leaner and the control of its affairs may be more manageable.  With the NPM, the criticisms of the stereotyped public administration may be offset.  Correspondingly, this innovative approach may appear to be defenseless and may not be the prime methodology of the state if the leaders still remain to be off-tangent with its general objectives.  Vulnerability of tactics depends largely with the values of the leaders of the organization.
            Government, particularly the political-administrative leaders, must possess essential values to ensure the people with equitable benefits.  Twenty-first century leaders must formulate courses of actions to mobilize resources down to the grassroots level and must have profound respect for human rights.
            In the Philippine setting, lots of different flagship of every national administration have been introduced and were cut-off after every turn of new administration.  This is one of the reasons why the country seems not to achieve development.  Cutting shorts every national goals and objectives relative to the foremost leader brought unsound and wobbly administration. 
With the present administration, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has instituted her 10-point agenda that encompasses vision to promote livelihood, infrastructure, decentralization and peace process.  In her most recent State of the Nation Address (SONA), PGMA enumerated several achievements that confer her agenda.  Particularly, she stressed that her administration has invested three times that of three previous administrations combined in technical and skills training.  She even presented one student (Jennifer Silbor) who has acquired medical transcription skills that paved way to her significant income.  On the contrary, similar students as Silbor have reported that one institution which implemented this government training seems to be deflective.  Though PGMA has confidently emphasized the achievement, there were problems encountered.  This may be traced back on the management of this undertaking.  Should there have been efficient implementation and monitoring of every program, there may be no drawbacks.  This may be asserted with the manpower that directly holds the program. 
            Hence, reform must not at all be within the system but more importantly and of the greatest essence, within the human resources of the system.  Economist Toby Monsod presented her research on the Philippine bureaucracy at the Philippine Economic Society 2008 Conference.  The study discussed inequities, position overlapping and the 2004 personnel size of the government that accounted to almost 1.5 million employees.  These data is the main concern of the New Public Management – to make the state lean. 
            In conclusion, reform, primarily in the system, may have a lesser bearing as it tackles only the institutional framework of the government.  Reform within the human resources may be more liberally affective as it fundamentally deals with humans.  As the government desires for a leaner state, the government must take a liberal move to possibly trim down its size.  The government must forgo some of the inequities and position overlapping by reforming the organization of each department and/or agency.  Consequently, the government will be easier to manage, programs will be effectively carried and the expenses relative to the defunct positions can be utilized for other demands of its citizenry.

Sources:
1.    Arroyo, Gloria. 2009. State of the Nation Address (SONA). PIA, Manila, Philippines
2.    Larbi, George. 1999. Discussion Paper No. 112 The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Switzerland
3.    Monsod, Toby. 2008. The Philippine Bureaucracy: Incentive Structures and Implications for Performance. Philippine Economic Society (PES), Philippines

No comments:

Post a Comment