PADM 700 Public Administration Ethics, Statesmanship, & Governance 6

From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration

Author(s): Eran Vigoda

Source: Public Administration Review , Sep. - Oct., 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2002), pp. 527-540

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3110014

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3110014?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Eran Vigoda University of Haifa, Israel

From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the

Next Generation of Public Administration

The evolution of the New Public Management movement has increased pressure on state bureau- cracies to become more responsive to citizens as clients. Without a doubt, this is an important advance in contemporary public administration, which finds itself struggling in an ultradynamic

marketplace. However, together with such a welcome change in theory building and in practical

culture reconstruction, modern societies still confront a growth in citizens' passivism; they tend to

favor the easy chair of the customer over the sweat and turmoil of participatory involvement. This

article has two primary goals: First to establish a theoretically and empirically grounded criticism of the current state of new managerialism, which obscures the significance of citizen action and

participation through overstressing the (important) idea of responsiveness. Second, the article proposes some guidelines for the future development of the discipline. This progress is toward enhanced collaboration and partnership among governance and public administration agencies, citizens, and other social players such as the media, academia, and the private and third sectors.

The article concludes that, despite the fact that citizens are formal "owners" of the state, ownership

will remain a symbolic banner for the governance and public administration-citizen relationship

in a representative democracy. The alternative interaction of movement between responsiveness and collaboration is more realistic for the years ahead.

Introduction Modem public administration involves an inherent ten-

sion between better responsiveness to citizens as clients

and effective collaboration with them as partners. This

tension stems from tangible differences between the na-

ture of responsiveness and the essence of collaboration.

While responsiveness is mostly seen as a passive, unidi-

rectional reaction to the people's needs and demands,

collaboration represents a more active, bidirectional act

of participation, involvement, and unification of forces

between two (or more) parties. Moreover, responsiveness is based on the marketplace view of better service for citizens as clients or customers. Answering their needs is seen as vital for government and public administration

(G&PA) systems that seek extensive legitimization and

high performance. On the other hand, collaboration high- lights a moral value of genuine cooperation and team- work between citizens and G&PAs where each party is

neither a pure servant nor the master, but a social player in the theatre of state.

The differences between responsiveness and collabora-

tion/partnership are not merely conceptual or terminologi-

cal. In fact, they represent an intensifying paradox that

emerges in both the theory and the practice of contempo-

rary public-sector management. The paradox increases

because of an ongoing consensus on the necessity of both responsiveness and collaboration for moving G&PA sys-

tems toward future reforms. Thus, it is quite surprising to

Eran Vigoda is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the Univer- sitl' of Haifa, Israel. His research interests include responsiveness of public administration agencies, citizenship behavior inside and outside organiza- tions, organizational politics, and behavior and performance in the public sector. His recent work has been published in Public Administration, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, American Review of Public Administration, Human Relations, International Journal of Public Adminis- tration, Public Productivity and Management Review, and Public Administra- tion Quarterly. Email: [email protected]

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 527 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

find that most of the current theoretical thinking in public

administration deals with these values separately, neglect-

ing the mutual benefit of integrating them in a useful man- ner. An overview of the literature reveals two distinct groups

of studies. One group highlights administrative responsive- ness to citizens' requests as the most important value of

public agencies in a businesslike arena (Chi 1999; Rourke

1992; Stivers 1994; Vigoda 2000). The other group em-

phasizes partnership between the sides as a premise for

cultural revolution in contemporary bureaucracies

(Nalbandian 1999; Thompson, Tancredi, and Kisil 2000;

John et al. 1994; Hart 1997; Callahan and Holzer 1994).

To date, very little literature has consolidated these two

prominent themes to illuminate the theoretical as well as

the empirical merit of their coexistence (Fredrickson 1982).

This article argues that expanding the orientation of

G&PA systems toward responsiveness, as prescribed by

New Public Managerialism, is frequently accompanied by

lower willingness to share, participate, collaborate, and

partner with citizens. This paradox is identified as a theo-

retical as well as a practical rift in the present array of the

New Public Management (NPM) approach. While the ar-

ticle applauds the recent trend in public managerialism

that fosters manager-customer relationships in the public

arena, it also criticizes such leanings for resting solely on

a unidirectional pattern of relationships where citizens are

covertly encouraged to remain passive clients of govern-

ment. The role of "customer" or "client" denotes a pas-

sive orientation of citizens toward another party (G&PA),

which is more active in trying to satisfy the customer/ client's needs. Such a pattern of dependency is likely to

create serious obstacles to reforms in public agencies and

interrupt the emergence of better public service. The para-

dox between serving clients and collaborating with citi-

zens needs to be resolved on the way to creating a high-

performing type of public organization, one that will work

better for societies as well as for individuals in the gen-

erations to come.

To promote understanding of the processes that modern societies require and may undergo, I advance in three

stages. First, several similarities and differences are pre- sented between the ideas of responsiveness and collabora-

tion as they are developed in recent public administration

studies. These discussions make use of various disciplin-

ary sources such as democratic theory, comparative politi- cal science, and political economy, as well as theories of

administrative reforms. Second, I provide my analysis and

view of "one lady with two hats," a metaphor for one con- tinuum connecting two current alternatives of the state of the discipline. In light of this, I finally suggest a discus- sion that redefines the duties and responsibilities of vari- ous players and compares this view and other perceptions

of the next generation of public administration.

528 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

Responsiveness and Collaboration: Two Different Ladies, or One Lady with Two Hats?

Responsiveness to Citizens as Clients

Previous work by Vigoda (2000) identifies two approaches

to understanding public administration's responsiveness.

These approaches can be defined as controversial but also

as complementary. They provide distinct views of respon-

siveness, but, in addition, each approach contains checks

and balances missing in the other. According to one approach,

responsiveness is, at best, a necessary evil that appears to

compromise professional effectiveness and, at worst, an in-

dication of political expediency if not outright corruption

(Rourke 1992). According to this line of research, respon-

siveness contradicts the value of professionalism in G&PA

because it forces public servants to satisfy citizens even when

such actions run counter to the required public interest. In

the name of democracy, professionals are almost obliged to

satisfy a vague public will. Short-term considerations and

popular decisions are put forward, while other long-term

issues receive little and unsatisfactory attention. In addition,

there is a risk that powerful influences of some may ring out

loudly and wrongly pretend to represent the opinions of

many. Such influences can result in an antidemocratic deci-

sion-making pattern and simply may not represent the true

voice of the majority. The other approach to responsiveness

suggests that democracy requires administrators who are re-

sponsive to the popular will, at least through legislatures

and politicians if not directly to the people (Stivers 1994;

Stewart and Ranson 1994). This approach is more alert to

the need to encourage a flexible, sensitive, and dynamic

public sector. It fact, it argues that only by creating a mar-

ket-derived environment can G&PA adopt some necessary

reforms that will improve their performance, effectiveness,

and efficiency.

While responsiveness is occasionally considered prob-

lematic in the public administration literature, it is undoubt-

edly critical for politicians, bureaucrats, and citizens alike.

A responsive politician or bureaucrat must be reactive,

sympathetic, sensitive, and capable of feeling the public's needs and opinions. Because the needs and demands of a

heterogeneous society are dynamic, it is vital to develop

systematic approaches to understanding it. Undoubtedly,

this is one of the most important conditions for securing a

fair social contract between citizens and government offi- cials. Hence, scholars and practitioners suggest the elabo- ration of performance indicators based on public opinion. The opinions of service receivers must be considered good indicators of public policy outcomes (Palfrey et al. 1992;

Winkler 1987; National Consumer Council 1986; DHSS 1979). This information can help us to (1) understand and

establish public needs; (2) develop, communicate, and dis-

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

tribute public services; and (3) assess the degree of satis-

faction with services (Palfrey et al. 1992, 128). Conse-

quently, the NPM approach advocates the idea of treating

citizens as clients, customers, and main beneficiaries of

the operation of the public sector that is today more ori- ented toward assessing its performance (Thomas and Pal-

frey 1996). In essence, the motivation to meet the demands

raised by citizens is equivalent to satisfying the needs of a

regular customer in a regular neighborhood supermarket.

According to this view, responsiveness in the public arena

closely complies with business-oriented statements such

as "the customer is always right" and "never argue with

the clients' needs" that every salesperson memorizes from

the first day at work.

But what does responsiveness actually mean? How can

we best define and operationalize it for dependable social

research? In essence, responsiveness generally denotes the

speed and accuracy with which a service provider responds

to a request for action or information. According to this

definition, speed may refer to the waiting time between a

citizen's request for action and the reply of the public

agency or the public servant. Accuracy means the extent

to which the provider's response meets the needs or wishes

of the service user. Yet while speed is a relatively simple

factor to measure, accuracy is more complicated. Beyond

the recent trends of analyzing public arenas in terms that

are appropriate for the marketplace, public-service accu-

racy must take into consideration social welfare, equity,

equal opportunities, and fair distribution of "public goods"

to all citizens (Vigoda 2000). These values are in addition to the efficiency, effectiveness, and service that character-

ize market-driven processes (Rhodes 1987; Palfrey et al.

1992). To test the accuracy of G&PA endeavors, several

methods may be applied:

1. Examining citizens' attitudes and feelings when con-

suming public services; this can be achieved by using satisfaction measures that indicate the outcomes of cer-

tain activities and the acceptance of public administra-

tion actions as fruitful, beneficial, equally shared among

a vast population, effective, fast, and responding well

to public needs.

2. Examining the attitudes and perceptions of others who

take part in the process of planning, producing, deliv- ering, and evaluating public outcomes. These "others" include external private and not-for-profit firms, sup- pliers, manufacturers, and constructors.

3. Comparing objective public outcomes with absolute criteria for speed, quality, and accuracy. The absolute criteria need to be determined in advance within a stra- tegic process of setting performance indicators (Pollitt 1988). Such a comparison is even more effective when

it is conducted over time, populations, cultures, and

geographical areas.

4. Comparing the distribution of services and goods with

moral and ethical criteria set forth by academics and

professionals.

Subject to several restrictions and balances, responsive-

ness has a potentially positive effect on social welfare, and

it improves the process of modernization in the public sec-

tor. Recent managerial positions, such as the NPM ap-

proach, also suggest that, as in the private sector, increas-

ing external outcomes (that is, responsiveness of G&PA to

citizens' demands) will have a profound impact on inter-

nal control mechanisms (Smith 1993). It simply implies

that managers and public servants become more sensitive

to their duties and highly committed to serving the people.

Collaboration with Citizens as Partners

At first glance, collaboration and partnership between

G&PA and citizens seem to contradict the essence of bu-

reaucracy. The ideal type of bureaucracy, as set out by Max

Weber, clearly defines organizational characteristics that

have remained relevant through the years. Public organi-

zations have undergone many changes in the last century,

but they are still based on the Weberian legacy of clear

hierarchical order, concentration of power among senior

officials, formal structures with strict rules and regulations,

limited channels of communication, confined openness to

innovation and change, and noncompliance with the op-

tion of being replaceable. These ideas seem to be substan-

tially different from the nature of collaboration, which

means negotiation, participation, cooperation, free and unlimited flow of information, innovation, agreements

based on compromises and mutual understanding, and a

more equitable distribution and redistribution of power and resources. According to this utopian analysis, collabora-

tion is an indispensable part of democracy. It means part-

nership in which authorities and state administrators ac-

cept the role of leaders who need to run citizen's lives

better-not because they are more powerful or superior,

but because this is a mission to which they are obligated.

They must see themselves as committed to citizens who

have agreed to be led or "governed" on condition that their

lives continuously improve.

In support of the above recognition, Thompson (1983)

states that "democracy does not suffer bureaucracy gladly.

Many of the values we associate with democracy-equal-

ity, participation, and individuality-stand sharply opposed to hierarchy, specialization, and impersonality we ascribe to modern bureaucracy" (235). Bureaucracies, like other

organizations, constitute a work site that is anything but democratic. According to Golembiewski and Vigoda (2000), bureaucracies embody a firm hierarchy of roles

and duties, a vertical flow of orders and reports, account-

ability to highly ranked officers, fear of sanctions and re- strictions, and sometimes even a lack of sufficient account-

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 529 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ability dynamics. All of these signal that the "natural state"

in public administration is authoritarian.

It seems odd to ask for genuine collaboration between

those in power and those who delegate power. In many

respects, growing citizen involvement by interest groups,

political parties, courts, and other democratic institutions

may only bother politicians in office and state adminis-

trators. Too broad an involvement, in the eyes of elected

politicians and appointed public officers, may be per-

ceived as interfering with their administrative work. The

freedom of public voice is thus limited and obscured by

the need of administrators and politicians to govern. Con-

sequently, the public lacks sufficient freedom of voice

and influence. While mechanisms of direct democracy

are designed to show such impediments the door, mod-

ern representative democracy lets them in through the rear

entrance. Representative democracy frequently dimin-

ishes the motives for partnership with governance. Con-

stitutions, legislatures, federal and local structures, as well

as electoral institutions are in slow but significant decline

in many Western societies. They suffer from increasing

alienation, distrust, and cynicism among citizens; they

encourage passivism and raise barriers before original

individual involvement in state affairs (Eisinger 2000;

Berman 1997). Consequently-and as a counterrevolu-

tionary course of action-a swelling current in contem-

porary public administration seeks to revitalize collabo-

ration between citizens and administrative authorities

through various strategies. In fact, such trends are not so new. The need to foster certain levels of cooperation

among political government institutions, professional

agencies of public administration, and citizens as indi-

viduals or groups has been mentioned before and was

advanced in several ways. Among these philosophies and

strategies, one should mainly consider the following: 1. Greater cooperation with the third sector (Thompson,

Tancredi, and Kisil 2000; Gidron, Kramer, and Salamon

1992; Grubbs 2000).

2. Greater collaboration with the private sector and initia-

tion of plans aimed at supporting communities through various services in the fields of internal security, trans-

port, and education (Glaister 1999; Collin 1998; Schneider 1999).

3. Encouragement of state and local municipality initia-

tives that foster values of democratic education, par-

ticipation, and involvement among citizens (for instance, the local democratic club established in Culver City,

CA [http:llwww.culvercityonline.coml]). This pattern also coheres with the idea of a communitarian spirit

that transfers some (but not all) responsibility for civic development from central government to local authori-

ties in states and cities, as well as directly to individual

citizens (Etzioni 1994, 1995).

530 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

4. Innovation by original citizenry involvement through

not-for-profit civic organizations that help to establish

a culture of participation and practice of voice (see the

examples of "citizens conventions" in Denmark and

Israel [http:llwww.zippori.org.illEnglishlindex.html]).

Still, advocates of the NPM approach continue to claim

the main instrument to restore ill-functioning G&PA sys-

tems is better responsiveness to citizens as clients or cus-

tomers. According to this line of thinking, which is rooted

in political-economy rationality and social choice theory

(Kettl and Milward 1996; Hughes 1994), only better com-

pliance with people's wishes can steady the wobbly inter-

face between citizens and rulers in contemporary democ-

racies. But is a market-driven responsiveness really the best

answer to crises in governance, or is it only an oversimpli-

fication of wider problems in modem society?

Customers or Partners? A Quest for Hats and Ladies

What are the advantages of citizens being treated as cli-

ents and customers over their being perceived as equal

partners in the process of governance? A metaphor of la-

dies and hats may prove useful here to examine two com-

peting options: (1) There are two substantially separated

faces of government and public administration (two ladies),

one that adopts the idea of responsiveness and one that

favors collaboration; (2) the discipline of governance and

public administration is more coherent (only one lady) than

we might think, and at most it changes colors over time

(two hats).

Above, I portrayed two themes in current public ad- ministration research as separate and dissimilar perspec-

tives. I argued that responsiveness is the essence of NPM,

and further suggested that NPM seems detached from

the idea of collaboration. Therefore, it may be there are

two different types of public administration: Like two

ladies, one is attired by the supporters of responsiveness,

the other by supporters of collaboration. These two la-

dies differ substantially because, as explained earlier, they

advocate independent views of the roles of G&PA and citizens in the process of running states and societies.

Yet it may in fact be only one lady with two hats. One

hat, an older styled classic, is more oriented toward bu-

reaucratic tyranny and concentration of power in public

agencies. It reflects a situation in which public adminis-

tration is the right hand of politicians and thus must pre- serve power through maximum centralization and con-

trol over decisions and resources. This hat/attitude implies minimal care for either responsiveness or col- laboration because both mean depriving G&PA of its

power. The other hat, however, is newer and more recep-

tive and appreciative of de-concentrated managerial

ideas, such as better responsiveness and improved col-

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

laboration with citizens, that effect a wider process of

modernization. This last hat signals a continuous change

in public administration systems, and, maturing with

time, it implies more citizen participation in the admin-

istrative process. A lady of public administration wear- ing the newer hat is less concerned about bureaucracy

losing power and control, but instead favors sharing re-

sponsibilities and dialogue with citizens, which may lead

to cooperation and partnership on a higher level. In addition, the "two ladies" version is a more classic

approach to the understanding of responsiveness and col-

laboration in public arenas, so it has received wide schol-

arly attention over the years. One group of studies has con-

centrated on the first "lady" of public administration,

namely, the idea of responsiveness (Stivers 1994; Rourke

1992), while the other group has focused on the other lady,

who represents the idea of collaboration and partnership

(John et al. 1994; Thompson, Tancredi, and Kisil 2000;

Nalbandian 1999). In fact, hardly any attempt has been

made to try to integrate these views or to suggest they may

stem from one another. The "two hats for one lady" image

inclines to this integration, but it is also less frequently

developed and needs more extensive explanation and elabo-

ration. According to this image, responsiveness and col-

laboration are inherently related. They designate different

points on a continuum of G&PA-citizen interaction that

are constantly shifting and being reframed with time and

social events. Thus, a framework of interaction with citi-

zens is better presented here by one evolutionary continuum

(one lady) of public administration. Along this continuum,

responsiveness and collaboration are only different "hats"

on one line of symmetry.

Interacting with Citizens: An Evolutionary Continuum

Figure 1 presents an evolutionary continuum of the role

of citizens, G&PA authorities, and their reciprocal inter-

action as it advances with the years. Along this line, citi- zens may be seen as subjects, voters, clients or customers,

partners, or owners. Moving along the continuum, I also

observe G&PA as rulers, trustees, managers, partners, or

subjects. Stemming from these are five types of interac- tions between G&PA and citizens. These profiles circle

through coerciveness, delegation, responsiveness, collabo- ration, and back to coerciveness, but this time it is of a

Figure 1 An Evolutionary Continuum of Public Administration-Citizen Interaction

Continuum 1: The Role of Citizens

Citizens Citizens Citizens C i Citizens a s as as clients! as

subjects voters customers owners

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

Old generation New generation

Continuum 2: The Role of Governance and Public Administration (G&PA)

G&A GUA G&A G&PA as as as 4.as rulers trustees managers subjects

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 Old generation New generation

Continuum 3: Type of Interaction

Coerciveness Delegation Responsiveness Citizenry it> ~coerciveness

11 12 13 14 15 Old generation New generatio

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 531 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

different type, namely, citizenry coerciveness. The profiles

overlap, indicating the progress and development of inter-

actions are frequently characterized by coexistence of pro-

files and a gradual decline of the former before the latter

(Weikert 2001, 362).

Coerciveness

The old generation of public administration treated citi-

zens as subjects, where leaders and administrators held

almost absolute power and control over the people. Citi-

zens, for their part, accepted the unlimited tyranny of the

state and made only a minimal effort to sound their voices

in such an unreceptive environment. The kinds of services

delivered to the people were limited and, in any case, ab- solutely dependent on the government's will and decisions.

This type of coercive interaction existed for ages, until the

mid- or late-eighteenth century (Fredrickson 1997;

Marshall 1950). In many respects, it still predominates in

the "popular democracies" or dictatorial states of the sec-

ond and third world in our era. In both cases, centralized

power in governance is accompanied by rigorous bureau-

cratic structures and is mostly a result of nondemocratic

culture. Such a culture imposes a G&PA monopoly on na-

tional resources through armed force and dominance of

education and socialization systems. The old, orthodox

public administration controlled and monitored many, if

not all, aspects of citizens' daily lives, creating a pattern of

coerciveness in the citizen-ruler relationship.

Delegation

The first institutional option for citizens' input into the

process of government and society building was through

the installation of the voter electoral system, better de-

fined as democratic G&PA or an interaction of delega-

tion. Without a doubt, democracy has created a more equal,

fair, open, and flexible coexistence of citizens and rulers and has enabled the former to become active in framing

the nature of governance. This is how a citizens as voters style emerged, and it has made a tremendous conceptual

and practical change in the understanding of citizen-gov- ernment relationships. Since the end of the eighteenth

century, and more robustly toward the late nineteenth cen- tury, developing representative democracies of the West-

ern world induced the idea of delegation. In a representa-

tive democracy, it was argued, citizens cannot manage their lives but count on the wisdom, experience, and civic good-

will of their representatives. Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Waldo called for a reform of G&PA and for an emphasis on specialization, professionalism, merit-based appoint- ment and promotion, and the application of management

sciences in local, state, and federal agencies. Following

this, citizens were given the option of voice, but only through representatives and at wide intervals of time (be-

532 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

tween elections), with no sufficient instruments for an ef-

fective in-between influence. Nonetheless, citizens in

America and in Europe initiated self-derived attempts to

become more involved in administrative actions through

interest groups and political parties. Fredrickson (1997)

argues that in the 1950s, "pluralism" emerged as the best

term to describe the indirect connection between citizens

and governments. Yet with the passage of time, it also

became clear that such attempts were too few, too vague,

and too slight in their impact on G&PA. The formal "open

gate" for citizenry involvement did not mean that a wide-

spread atmosphere of original participation by individual

citizens or groups actually matured.

As scientific knowledge has accumulated, the theory of

political participation has clarified that there are people

who are unable or unwilling to participate in government

or political processes, while others are simply not aware

of the importance and contribution of this involvement

(Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). In fact, representa-

tive democracy highly contradicts the promise of vast, spon-

taneous citizenship involvement. Being remote from deci-

sion-making centers, by choice or not, citizens developed

increased cynicism toward government and public admin-

istration systems. As Eisinger (2000) argues, "over the past

decades, scholars, political pundits and elected officials

have professed that cynicism has spiraled up and down ...

to the point that it has become an endemic part of the psyche

in the 1980s [when] a fog of cynicism surrounds Ameri-

can politics, and that the 1990s are a time of unparalleled

public cynicism about politics, which has continued and

accelerated to this day" (55). Hence, this simple delega-

tion type of relationship between rulers and citizens drew

heavy fire from academics, professionals, public servants,

and even politicians. In many respects, the need for an ad-

ditional change in the nature of state-citizen interaction

drove the NPM movement in the following years.

Responsiveness

Citizens as voters was only one step toward the devel-

opment of the citizens as clientslcustomers model. As Rainey (1990) suggests, the 1960s and 1970s were char-

acterized by the initiation of unsuccessful public policies

in Europe and America. Over the years, efforts by govern- ments to create extensive changes in education, welfare

systems, health programs, internal security, and crime con-

trol were widely criticized for being ineffective and low

performing and for misusing public budgets, while respon- siveness to the real needs and demands of citizens was

paltry. The crisis in practical public policy implementa- tion, together with citizens' increased cynicism toward

G&PA, generated rich scholarly activity aimed at creating

useful alternatives for improved policy in various social

fields as well as in the administrative processes in general

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

(Peters 1999). Voters expressed their dissatisfaction with governors and, hand-in-hand with the academic commu-

nity, called for extensive reforms in government. This call

produced a large number of working papers, articles, and

books that portrayed and targeted extensive administrative changes. One of the most inspiring works, Osborne and

Gaebler's Reinventing Government (1992), is frequently

mentioned as the unofficial starting point of such reforms,

later known as NPM. According to Peters (1996), Terry

(1998), and Weikert (2001), NPM is presently increasing

in popularity in North America and across the world, and

many governments are adopting ideas and recommenda-

tions that have proven beneficial in the continuous imple-

mentation of this strategy.

True enough, the NPM approach suggests a different

type of interaction between citizens and rulers in democ-

racies. However, the roots of such interactions can be found

nearly a century ago. For example, Weikert (2001) asserts

that "the ideas behind NPM are not new" and that "NPM

builds on a long history of using business practices in gov-

ernment and reflects a resurgence of old ideas about the

form and functions of government" (362). During the first

years of the twentieth century, reformers and business lead- ers demanded greater accountability in local government,

and many politicians and public officers turned to busi-

ness principles to improve government activities, invigo-

rate performance, and decrease corruption. However, the

vision of NPM is also far different from the old business-

guided governance because it aspires to decrease govern-

ment size and lower its involvement in citizens' lives. NPM

relies on the theory of the marketplace and on a business-

like culture in public organizations. For example, in an

extensive review of NPM literature, Hays and Kearney

(1997) find five core principles of this approach: (1)

downsizing-reducing the size and scope of government; (2) managerialism-using business protocols in govern-

ment; (3) decentralization-moving decision making closer

to the service recipients; (4) debureaucratization-restruc-

turing government to emphasize results rather than pro-

cesses; and (5) privatization-directing the allocation of government goods and services to outside firms (Weikert

2001). All of these principles are mutually related, relying heavily on the theory of the private sector and on business

philosophy, but they are aimed at minimizing the size and scope of government activities. Integrated with ideas rooted in political economy, they became applicable for public- sector institutions (Farnham and Horton 1995).

Stemming from these above principles, a major belief among NPM advocates is that G&PA encourages a view whereby citizens are clients and customers of the public sector, while G&PA is perceived as managers of large bu-

reaucracies. According to this outlook (Aucoin 1995;

Garson and Overman 1983; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000),

the state and its bureaucratic subsystems are equivalent to

a large private organization operating in an economic en-

vironment of supply and demand. In this spirit, a major

goal of government is to satisfy the needs or demands of

citizens, namely, to show higher responsiveness to the pub- lic as clients. In line with this, Savas (1994) argues that

modern states must rely more on private institutions and

less on government to satisfy the societal needs of vast

populations. Hence, the goal of satisfying the needs of citi-

zens became central to NPM legacy.

Nevertheless, NPM may be criticized for not doing

enough to encourage and infuse the idea of collaboration

or partnership between citizens and G&PA and for failing

to apply these themes in modem managerial thinking

(Vigoda and Golembiewski 2001). Unlike traditional pub-

lic administration, the NPM movement focuses on citizens

as sophisticated clients in complex environments. The prin-

ciples of NPM cohere with theories of political economy,

such as regulative policy by governments or the trend of

transferring responsibilities from the state sector to the third

sector. As Farnham and Horton (1995) suggest, "these

ideas, and the governmental policies deriving from them,

challenged the social democratic principles and values"

(3) in Britain, America, and many other Western democra- cies. Public authorities were urged to treat the public well,

not only because of their presumed administrative respon-

sibility for quality in action, but also because of their obli-

gation to marketplace rules and economic demands, and above all because of their fear of losing clients in a in-

creasingly competitive, businesslike arena. In fact, while

NPM has proved an advance over more classic views of

public administration that see citizens as subjects or vot-

ers, it is still very limited in fostering the idea of vital col- laboration between citizens and G&PA, which is in the

essence of democratic civil society.

In line with this, "neo-managerialism" (Terry 1998) places

an additional obstacle before productive partnership that also

must be recognized and isolated. According to Terry, neo-

managerialism fosters the idea that administrative leaders

should assume the role of public entrepreneurs. However,

"public entrepreneurs of the neo-managerialist persuasion are oblivious to other values highly prized in the U.S. con-

stitutional democracy. Values such as fairness, justice, rep-

resentation, or participation are not on the radar screen (and)

this is indeed, troublesome" (200). In many respects, neo- managerialism and NPM encourage passivity among the

citizenry. They impart to citizens the power of exit (which was virtually unavailable in the past), but at the same time they discourage use of the original power of voice by citi- zens, who may have much to contribute to their communi-

ties (Vigoda and Golembiewski 2001). Hirschman (1970)

in fact suggests that exit is an economic choice, while voice

is more of a political selection by individuals in and around

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 533 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

organizational systems. Exit is also classified as a generally

destructive behavior, while voice is a productive one. Ac-

cording to this rationality, NPM restricts and discourages

the productive political voices of the people.

Recent developments in the study of NPM have fo-

cused on the responsibilities of G&PA in its interaction

with citizens, but have paid far less attention to the active

roles of citizens and to their obligations in the commu-

nity. Most of the up-to-date NPM literature favors mas-

sive socialization of business management practices in

the public sector to provide governments with better tools

for policy implementation (Lynn 1998; Pollitt 1988;

Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000; Rosenbloom, Goldman, and

Ingraham 1994). On the other hand, these orientations

and practices so far have not been integrated with an-

other core construct of healthy democracies: genuine col-

laboration and partnership with citizens founded on equal

opportunities for participation and massive involvement

in running public life more effectively (Peters 1999). This

underevaluation of the idea of partnership and collabora-

tion, at the expense of good responding management, may be deemed a flaw in contemporary NPM theory.

Toward Collaboration and Partnership: A Multidimensional Perspective

Between Clients and Partners

As I have indicated, collaboration is founded on re-

sponsiveness. However,

it also reaches decidedly

beyond. Moreover, while

greater collaboration is

not a new idea in public

administration, it has

never fulfilled its prom-

ising potential, partly

due to informal compe-

tition with businesslike

strategies such as NPM.

An economic interac-

tion between managers

and customers carries

some basic deficiencies

for modem states. The

term client, or customer, which is so applicable

in the private sector (that is, rational-choice

theory or agency theory),

contradicts the very ba-

sic notion of belonging, altruism, contribution to

534 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

society, and self-derived participation in citizenry actions.

When someone is defined as a client, he or she is not

actively engaged in social initiatives, but is merely a pas-

sive service (or product) consumer, dependent on the

goodwill and interest of the owner. While direct democ- racy suggests that citizens themselves "own" the state,

representative democracy adds an interface to this own-

ership by politicians and administrators. Citizens run their

lives through representatives only because they also need

a "board of directors" that is professional and capable of

making wise decisions for huge communities. An abso- lute democracy, in which every citizen is equally respon-

sible for every single decision of the state, cannot practi-

cally survive and function in growing, expanding, and

fast-moving societies (as opposed to the limited nature

of the Greeks' polis).

The evolutionary process of G&PA-citizen interactions

must be followed by a rational and applicable level of in-

tegration across all social players. As figure 2 demonstrates,

interrelationships among G&PA, citizens, and other social

players are becoming a strategic goal of modem democra-

cies on their way to a new administrative spirit (Fredrickson

1997). The old, orthodox type of public administration was

characterized by a triple structure of transactions: (1) a le-

gitimacy-services transaction between G&PA and citizens;

(2) a socialization-information and human resources trans-

action between citizens and other social players; and (3)

an authorization-criticism, knowledge, and economic goods

Figure 2 Collaboration among Social Players: An Insight into the Next Generation

Criticsm, Kowledean Authorizatio SoiaiztioensIfrmto

Economic GoodsanHun Resources

-~~ Current S~tatus oia

uTowrden Ft ur Status

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

transaction between G&PA and other social players. The

new, cooperative hat of public administration, however, will

be dominated by higher levels of collaboration and part-

nership that exceed the nature of simple transactions as

presented here. In fact, this is one core challenge for future

generations. G&PA must take a step forward, going be-

yond elementary exchange relationships and responsive-

ness to demands.

This view seeks to expand on future possible trends in

public administration scholarship by renewing the values

of collaboration and partnership. I argue that civic society

is almost unthinkable in purely rational-economic patterns.

Thus, following the dimensions of new governance sug-

gested by John et al. (1994), and somewhat enlarging them

for our purposes, the discussion now elaborates on several

questions: (1) What do collaboration and partnership actu-

ally mean? (2) Where are they located on the continuum of

public administration evolution? (3) Whose responsibility

is it to make the partnership possible? Consequently, (4)

how can this productive collaboration between G&PA and

citizens be achieved?

The answer to the first question is relatively simple.

Three main players are identified. Above all, both G&PA

and citizens have core responsibilities in this process.

Contrary to the perception of responsiveness, in which

G&PA holds almost exclusive power and authority and is

expected to navigate among various public demands, the collaborative approach asks for extensive responsibilities

and involvement on the part of the public. This can take a

form of individual initiatives that seek greater participa-

tion in administrative decisions and actions or, alterna-

tively, various kinds of organized citizenry actions (for instance, as represented by semi-organized groups or

formed by the third sector). Hence, both parties (citizens and G&PA) must be actively engaged in the process of administrative change and reforms, otherwise the very

essence of collaboration is spoiled. Still, in addition to

these two central players there is vast room for the opera-

tion of other social units. Among these, I have chosen to

expand on the role of the media and academia, but other players are relevant here as well (political parties, inter- est groups, constitutional and electoral institutions, and other bodies of the private sector and the third sector). As

will be explained, the role of these institutions is mostly

educative and is directed at enhancing socialization for citizen-G&PA collaboration.

The second question-how this collaboration may be

accomplished-is more complex. It can benefit from a prac- tical method of studying public organizations, as Golem- biewski (1995) suggests. Accordingly, I will try to define and explain various operative goals to be pursued by each accountable party.

The Role of G&PA

The present starting point of G&PA-citizen relation-

ships is not very encouraging. King, Feltey, and Susel

(1998) argue that "although many public administrators

view close relationships with citizens as both necessary

and desirable most of them do not actively seek public in-

volvement. If they do seek it, they do not use public input

in making administrative decisions ... (and) believe that

greater citizen participation increases inefficiency, ... de-

lays, and red tape." Following this, Peters (1999) elabo-

rates on the common belief that public institutions today

are structured to prevent effective participation. Given this,

the implications for collaboration need no further inter-

pretation; they only emphasize the change and challenge

facing modem bureaucracies of our era. In light of this, the prime responsibility of governments

and public administration is to define strategic goals that

can enhance partnership with and empowerment of citi-

zens. This partnership also must conjoin with resources that are available in the private and third sectors, which,

for diverse reasons, become more willing to engage in ac-

tions for the community and for the public. To respond to

the demands for effective participation by the public, these

institutions may engage in future structural and cultural

changes and extensively use the tool of "empowerment"

by which collaboration develops. Empowerment may en-

courage authentic voluntary behavior by citizens that is not manipulated by the state. Governments can only stimu-

late environmental conditions that are necessary to gener-

ate spontaneous behavior by citizens as individuals and

groups or as part of organized institutions. Programs of

involvement and collaboration need to be governed by citi-

zens and administered by practitioners who understand

them. However, public-service practitioners will fulfill their

duties by becoming citizens' honest advisers and helpers

rather than controllers of public organizations (Box 1998,

1999; Rimmerman 1997). As previous studies suggest,

several programs and techniques can be applied to achieve

these goals.

First, volunteer programs in the fields of health, wel-

fare services, education, and security need to receive na-

tional and federal support (Brudney 1990). Adequate train-

ing programs for volunteers as well as volunteer leadership

and management need to be developed and implemented

by professionals. Second, educational efforts that empha- size the importance of individual-level and organized entrepreneurialism may start in the very first years of school

and create awareness in the very young of the high values of citizenship involvement. Without such an extensive edu- cational effort, long-term initiatives will remain limited and incomplete. Governments will also be responsible for co-

ordinating cooperation among different voluntary groups

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 535 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and institutions. This coordination may increase the effi-

ciency of volunteer groups and third-sector organizations

to get more value for effort. However, G&PA's role must

not be coercive, but must remain consultative. Using their

delegated authority, governments can establish public vol-

unteers' committees to coordinate voluntary activity at the

local and national levels. G&PA will maintain its advisory

position, providing citizens with sufficient conditions and

experience to work out their spontaneous ideas.

Public administration may become more active and en-

trepreneurial in the initiation of partnership between pub-

lic servants and citizens. In some countries (Britain, Ger-

many, and Australia), public servants-in contrast to

governments and elected politicians-usually enjoy a less

political image in the eyes of citizens, so they may gain

more public trust and participation than politicians. In other

countries, such as the United States, public trust can be

gained differently, perhaps through higher transparency of G&PA, more involvement of the media, and communal

administrative ventures that bring citizens closer to the daily

administrative process. The focus of New Public Manage-

ment in collaborative spheres will benefit from adjusting

more vigorously to include transformation of "goodwill"

into "effective operations." Public administration, through

its professional cadre, can lead the operative involvement

of citizens by improving the partnership between govern-

ment and citizens. Investment in the spontaneous behavior

of the people is low cost and economical compared with

other reform efforts and thus must be encouraged (Brudney

and Duncombe 1992). Another responsibility of public

administration is the function of evaluation. All programs

of citizens' involvement will benefit from obtaining con-

tinuous evaluation by unbiased professionals. These can

be found in academia or in the private sector.

The Role of Citizens

First, it is important to define who are the citizens that

are requested to join leaderships in taking progressive ini- tiatives for the public good. Box (1998, 73-74) identifies three types of citizens, classified along a continuum of their desire to affect rulers' actions and public policy pro-

cesses. (1) "Freeriders" are considered consumers of public services who receive public goods gratis and let others do the work of citizenship; (2) "activists," by contrast, are

deeply involved in public life and in citizenship actions for the community; and (3) "watchdogs," in the middle of the continuum, are involved only in key issues that are relevant to themselves personally. According to this clas-

sification, Box (1998) further suggests that public admin- istration of our time denotes partnership with citizens. Practically and theoretically, G&PA mostly encourages the freeriders and perhaps some of the watchdogs. They do not, however, elaborate on the significance of activ-

536 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

ists, who are the most natural partners in launching high-

quality administrative endeavors. Nonetheless, activists are

few in modem societies. Even the most optimistic esti-

mates by scholars in the field of participatory democracy

affirm that their proportion is less than 10 percent of the

population (Almond and Verba 1963; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). Still, the political and social influence

of this relatively small group is immense and must not be

underestimated. Practically and ideologically, this van-

guard paves the way for potential social changes, what-

ever these may be. Collaboration of G&PA with these

people, as individuals or as groups, may also lead others

to join. The growing activity of the third sector is perhaps

one positive signal in this direction. According to

O'Connell (1989), voluntary organizations and the third

sector constitute about 10 percent of the economic vol-

ume of all governmental activities in the United States,

and these numbers (including numbers of volunteers) con-

tinue to grow.

Supported by rapidly growing academic interest and practical ventures, the promising potential of reciprocal

linkage and collaboration between G&PA and citizens

can be further developed. In this linkage, citizens have

several roles. The most elementary is active participation

in running their lives and managing their communities.

This role is momentous, so it should not be left solely in

the hands of politicians or even professional public ser-

vants. It can be accomplished on several levels: individual,

group, or institutional (Vigoda and Golembiewski 2001).

Participation in neighborhood associations or voluntary

groups to aid the young, the elderly, or other sections of

the population; active involvement in citizens' commit-

tees; involvement in parents' committees at schools; do-

nating money, time, or effort for charity or equivalent

social goals; development of community services in vari-

ous manners; and encouraging others to take part in such

activities-all are worthy missions that allow continuous

partnership among the people in administrative processes. In addition, citizens have a duty to voice constructive criti-

cism of the public system to encourage a culture of ac-

countability and to provide feedback for politicians and

public servants, thereby increasing their responsiveness

and sense of responsibility. This can be achieved through

original civic journalism, letters to newspapers, public

officials, and politicians, radio and television programs, and use of computerized media to spread knowledge and

attitudes. The educational system has the power to teach

the youngest to become more involved and to use these

methods more extensively. This way, civic involvement may resound when children grow up and become adult

citizens with formal rights and duties. Thus, citizens, like

other social players, serve as socialization agents of part-

nership. They have an educational mission to contribute

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

increased motivation and furnish values of involvement

in future generations. It is well within their power to pro-

mote understanding of shared responsibilities within so-

cial life.

Lastly, it would be naive to seek large-scale political

participation (Almond and Verba 1963; Verba, Schlozman,

and Brady 1995) and vast self-derived mobilization by citi-

zens without creating the necessary conditions for such

involvement. People have a duty to become engaged in

collaborative activities with G&PA but, as mentioned ear-

lier, G&PA has the greater duty to create conditions for

such involvement by all available means. Moreover, the

voyage to increased collaboration between citizens and

G&PA can become calmer and much more effective when

the media and academia join in the effort.

The Role of the Media and Academia

Fox and Miller (1997) suggest that "public policy dis-

course has entered an era of media-driven hyperreality,

becoming detached from the lived experience of the pol-

ity" (64). The media in free democracies bear responsibil-

ity for promoting accountability to citizens. To achieve this

goal, the media seek increased transparency of governmen-

tal institutions. This important task advances a legitimate

debate between citizens and government about how pub-

lic resources are spent and whether responsibilities are

properly shared to increase the public good. Despite its

considerable limitations, the positive elements of "loop

democracy" (Fox and Miller 1995) cannot be realistic with-

out active, independent, and responsible media. However, the media have other roles as well. Their pri-

mary responsibility is to serve as an effective and reliable

communication channel between citizens and governments,

one that promotes collaboration and partnership. The me-

dia are a powerful tool exercising immense influence over

people's attitudes and opinions. This power can be used to

encourage citizen involvement and participation in a vari-

ety of ways, but also to extend administrative willingness

to consult citizens on relevant policy decisions. The pro-

motion of this goal on public television and radio channels

as well as computerized networks is subject to policy mak-

ers' decisions. Citizens who are aware of their power may

demand greater involvement by the public media in cover-

ing entrepreneurial actions and in generating favorable

public opinion about supportive community activities. The media may also encourage public recruitment to collabo- rative activities by means of educational programs. Re- garding private media, newspapers, and computer networks, citizens' power may be aimed directly at the business tele- communication firms, using the collective strength of con-

sumer groups and general public opinion. This is an im-

portant way in which responsiveness can work in the service

of collaboration.

Another important player in these processes is

academia. The contribution of the management and ad-

ministration sciences to G&PA-citizen collaboration and partnership is twofold. First, by pointing out theoretical considerations, conceptual grounding, and practical means

for cooperation, managerial science promotes the under- standing of mutual social efforts. This knowledge is cru-

cial for isolating and cultivating the benefits of partner- ship. It also highlights its advantages over a simple state

of competition, which is a major construct of economics-

based systems or a responsiveness-based interaction. Sec-

ond, when reconfirmed by the power of science, the dis-

cussion on collaboration takes priority over other issues

in social affairs. The public agenda becomes more sensi-

tive to issues of partnership and their growth value. This way, the managerial and administrative sciences also pro-

mote legitimization of cooperation and encourage more individuals to participate in public management enter-

prises. Scientific confirmation of the actual benefits of

collaborative actions fosters their acceptance in the eyes

of both citizens and rulers, which, in the long run, may

establish them more solidly in state culture.

The Next Generation: Collaboration- One Step Beyond Responsiveness

Looking toward the future of G&PA, Ott (1998) argues

that "traditional bureaucracy is not an adequate form of

governmental organization" and that "the questions now

are not whether government bureaucracies should be re-

formed but whether it is possible to govern through tradi- tional bureaucratic government structures, whether tradi-

tional bureaucratic structures can be reformed enough so that we could govern through them and, which of the many alternative models being proposed would be best suited to

governing the United States" (540). This article suggests

that traditional structures of G&PA face reforms that are

based on an evolutionary continuum. Such reforms will

create a different and more flexible model of governing that combines responsiveness, collaboration, and the ideal type of citizens' ownership.

So far, treating citizens as clients of the public system has definitely worked for the benefit of bureaucracies by

illuminating some neglected dimensions in G&PA-citizen

relationships. Among these improvements are (1) the as-

sumption of greater responsibility by G&PA toward citi-

zens; (2) accountability in and transparency of the public- sector operation; (3) the idea that governments' actions must

be continuously monitored to ensure high efficiency, ef- fectiveness, and better economic performance; and (4) rec- ognition that the government's power must depend princi-

pally on citizens' support, voice, and satisfaction with the services they receive.

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 537 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

However, in this article, it is argued that some adjust-

ment must be made in the process of running modem states

by the new generation of public administration. In fact,

this view is much in line with the discourse theory of Fox

and Miller (1995). In their stimulating book Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse, these authors

develop an alternative philosophy for both the institution-

alist/constitutionalist and communitarianism approaches to

G&PA-citizen relationships. Instead, they render a syn-

thetic (not analytic) idea that the public sphere is an en-

ergy field in which mixed interests and explanations of

reality coexist despite deep contradictions. According to

Fox and Miller (1995, 101), the discipline of public ad-

ministration, in theory and in practice, is facing a para-

digm shift from bureaucracy (the orthodox type) to public

energy fields (the future "new" type). The discourse theory

is built on the public energy explanation, which paves the

way for a new model for public administration and policy.

Moreover, while according to Fox and Miller (1995),

representative democracy is neither representative nor

democratic, it is definitely here to stay. In such a system,

citizens cannot and do not want to be in the position of

owners in a citizenry-coerciveness type of interaction.

Citizens give up ownership of G&PA because of restraints

impelled by the structure and culture of modern states. Thus, citizens as owners, defined on my continuum as

"citizenry-coerciveness" interaction, is an "ideal type of

democracy," one that must remain ideal but can never be implemented practically. Citizens are unwilling-perhaps

incapable-of becoming practical owners of the state even if they are the real owners by all democratic and business

criteria. Still, they resist being treated as subjects or even

as simple voters, as is usually accepted in the old, ortho- dox type of G&PA. They generally seek practical flex- ibility between the role of clients and customers and the

position of equal partners. G&PA, at the other extreme, moves between the roles of manager and the proposed

mission as citizens' partners. In the last decade, many

G&PA systems in America and abroad have gladly adopted the role of managing citizens' lives, and they do so from a businesslike standpoint. In the coming decades, they are likely to face citizens' demands to treat them as equal partners. This shift forward is expected to be less readily adopted by G&PA.

The suggestion, then, is that a better definition of the G&PA-citizen relationship must rely on the conception of

collaboration and partnership, if not citizenry ownership and control. Put another way, "government will continue to govern ... but the more authentic the encounters with citizens will be, the less will government be 'they' and the more will it be 'we"' (Fox and Miller 1995, 128). Hence, this article has attempted to fill a conceptual and practical gap between perceptions of responsiveness and the quest

538 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

for productive partnership by citizens, state administrators,

politicians, and other social players such as the media and

academia. I portrayed a normative possible interaction

among these players in an evolving marketplace arena that

will become even more turbulent in the future. The admin-

istrative-democratic turmoil will lead to growing and seri-

ous risks of citizens' alienation, disaffection, skepticism,

and increased cynicism toward governments. Such trends

are already intensifying, and only a high level of coopera-

tion among all parties in society may guard against these

centrifugal forces. Thus, the new generation of public ad-

ministration will need a different spirit, perhaps a combi-

nation of communitarianism, institutionalism, and ener- gism-but in any case, one that successfully fosters mutual

effort. This movement from a "they" spirit to a "we" spirit

is perhaps the most important mission of public adminis-

tration in our era.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank three anonymous reviewers for

their helpful comments and suggestions.

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

References

Almond, Gabriel A., and Sydney Verba. 1963. The Civic Cul-

ture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations: An

Analytic Study. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.

Aucoin, Peter. 1995. The New Public Management: Canada in

Comparative Perspective. Montreal, Quebec: IRPP, Ashgate

Publishing Company.

Berman, Evan M. 1997. Dealing With Cynical Citizens. Public

Administration Review 57(2): 105-12.

Box, Richard C. 1998. Citizen Governance: Leading American

Communities into the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

.1999. Running Governments Like a Business: Implica-

tions for Public Administration Theory and Practice. Ameri-

can Review of Public Administration 29(1): 19-43.

Brudney, Jeffrey L. 1990. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the

Public Sector: Planning, Initiating, and Managing Voluntary

Activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brudney, Jeffrey L., and William D. Duncombe. 1992. An Eco-

nomic Evaluation of Paid, Volunteer, and Mixed Staffing

Options for Public Services. Public Administration Review

52(5): 474-81.

Callahan, Kathe, and Mark Holzer. 1994. Rethinking Govern-

mental Change: New Ideas, New Partnership. Public Produc-

tivity and Management Review 17(3): 201-14.

Chi, Keon S. 1999. Improving Responsiveness. Public Adminis-

tration Review 59(3): 278-80.

Collin, Sven-Olof. 1998. In the Twilight Zone: A Survey of Pub- lic-Private Partnership in Sweden. Public Productivity and

Management Review 21(3): 272-83.

Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS). 1979. Pa-

tients First. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Eisinger, Robert M. 2000. Questioning Cynicism. Society 37(5): 55-60.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1994. The Spirit of Community. New York: Touchstone.

. 1995. New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues

Institutions, and Communities. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia

University Press.

Farnham, David, and Sylvia Horton, eds. 1995. The Political

Economy of Public Sector Change. In Managing the New

Public Services, edited by David Farnham and Sylvia Horton,

3-26. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Fox, Charles J., and Hugh T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern Public

Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

.1997. The Depreciating Public Policy Discourse. Ameri- can Behavioral Scientist 41(1): 64-89.

. 2001. The Epistemic Community. Administration and Society 32(6): 668-85.

Fredrickson, H. George. 1982. The Recovery of Civism in Pub- lic Administration. PublicAdministration Review 42(6): 501- 09.

1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garson, David G., and Samuel E. Overman. 1983. Public Man-

agement Research in the United States. New York: Praeger.

Gidron, Bengamin, Ralph M. Kramer, and Lester M. Salamon,

eds. 1992. Government and the Third Sector. San Francisco,

Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Glaister, Stephen. 1999. Past Abuses and Future Uses of Private Finance and Public-Private Partnership in Transport. Public

Money and Management 19(3): 29-36.

Golembiewski, Robert T. 1995. Practical Public Management.

New York: Marcel Dekker.

Golembiewski, Robert T., and Eran Vigoda. 2000. Organizational

Innovation and the Science/Craft of Management. In Current

Topics in Management, vol. 5, edited M.A. Rahim, R.T.

Golembiewski, and K.D. Mackenzie, 263-80. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Grubbs, Joseph W. 2000. Can Agencies Work Together? Col-

laboration in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Public Ad-

ministration Review 60(3): 275-80.

Hart, David. 1997. A Partnership in Virtue among All Citizens:

The Public Service and the Civic Humanist Tradition. Inter-

national Journal of Public Administration 20(4,5): 967-80.

Hays, Steven W., and Richard C. Kearney. 1997. Riding the Crest

of a Wave: The National Performance Review and Public

Management Reform. International Journal of Public Admin-

istration 20(1): 11-40.

Hirschman, Albert 0. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Hughes, Owen, E. 1994. Public Management and Administra- tion. London: Macmillan.

John, Dewitt, Donald F. Kettl, Barbara Dyer, and Robert W.

Lovan. 1994. What Will New Governance Mean for the Fed-

eral Government? Public Administration Review 54(2): 170-

76.

Kettl, Donald F., and H. Brinton Milward, eds. 1996. The State

of Public Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity Press.

King, Cheryl S., Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget 0. Susel. 1998.

The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Par-

ticipation in Public Administration. Public Administration

Review 58(4): 317-26.

Lynn, Laurence E. 1998. The New Public Management: How to

Transform a Theme into a Legacy. Public Administration

Review 58(3): 231-37.

Marshall, Thomas H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class and

Other Essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nalbandian, John. 1999. Facilitating Community, Enabling De-

mocracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers. Pub- lic Administration Review 59(3): 187-97.

National Consumer Council. 1986. Measuring Up: Consumer Assessment of Local Authority Services. London: National Consumer Council.

O'Connell, Brian. 1989. What Voluntary Activity Can and Can- not Do forAmerica. Public Administration Review 49(5): 486- 91.

From Responsiveness to Collaboration 539 This content downloaded from

������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Govern-

ment. New York: Plume.

Ott, Steven. 1998. Government Reform or Alternatives to Bu-

reaucracy? Thickening, Tides and the Future of Governing.

Public Administration Review 58(6): 540-45.

Palfrey, Colin, C. Phillips, P. Thomas, and D. Edward. 1992.

Policy Evaluation in the Public Sector: Approaches and Meth-

ods. Hants: Avenbury.

Pateman, Carol. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory.

London: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging

Models. Kansas City, KS: University Press of Kansas.

. 1999. American Public Policy: Promise and Perfor-

mance. New York: Seven Bridges.

Pollitt, Christopher. 1988. Bringing Consumers Into Performance

Measurement. Policy and Politics 16(1): 77-87.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2000. Public Man-

agement Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pollitt, Christopher, Xavier Girre, Jeremy Lonsdale, Robert Mul,

Hilkka Summa, and Marit Waerness. 1999. Performance or

Compliance? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rainey, Hal. 1990. Public Management: Recent Development

and Current Prospects. In Public Administration: The State

of the Discipline, edited by Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron

Wildavsky, 157-84. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Rhodes, R.A.W. 1987. Developing the Public Service Orienta-

tion, or Let's Add a Soupcon of Political Theory. Local Gov-

ernment Studies 13(3): 63-73.

Rimmerman, Craig A. 1997. The New Citizenship: Unconven-

tional Politics, Activism, and Service. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Rosenbloom, David H., Deborah D. Goldman, and Patricia W.

Ingraham, eds. 1994. Public Administration. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Rourke, Francis E. 1992. Responsiveness and Neutral Compe-

tence in American Bureaucracy. Public Administration Re-

view 52(6): 539-46.

Savas, Emanuel S. 1994. On Privatization. In Current Issues in Public Administration, edited by F. Lane, 404-13. New York:

St. Martin's Press.

540 Public Administration Review * September/October 2002, Vol. 62, No. 5

Schneider, Anne L. 1999. Public-Private Partnership in the U.S.

Prison System. American Behavioral Scientist 43(1): 192-

208.

Smith, Peter. 1993. Outcome-Related Performance Indicators and

Organizational Control in the Public Sector. British Journal

of Management 4(3): 135-5 1.

Stewart, John, and Stewart Ranson 1994. Management in the

Public Domain. In Public Sector Management, edited by D.

McKevitt and A. Lawton, 54-70. London: Sage Publications.

Stivers, Camilla. 1994. Gender Images in Public Administra-

tion: Legitimacy and theAdministrative State. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Terry, Larry D. 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Mana-

gerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Public

Administration Review 58(3): 194-200.

Thomas, Palfrey, and Colin Palfrey. 1996. Evaluation: Stake-

holder-Focused Criteria. Social Policy and Administration

30(1): 125-42.

Thompson, Andres A., Francisco B. Tancredi, and Marcos Kisil.

2000. New Partnership for Social Development: Business and

the Third Sector. International Journal ofPublic Administra-

tion 23(5-8): 1359-85.

Thompson, Dennis. 1983. Bureaucracy and Democracy. In

Democratic Theory and Practice, edited by Graem Duncan,

235-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995.

Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics.

London: Harvard University Press.

Vigoda, Eran. 2000. Are You Being Served? The Responsive- ness of Public Administration to Citizens' Demands: An

Empirical Examination in Israel. PublicAdministration 78(1):

165-91.

Vigoda, Eran, and Robert T. Golembiewski. 2001. Citizenship Behavior and the Spirit of New Managerialism: A Theoreti-

cal Framework and Challenge for Governance. American

Review of Public Administration 31(3): 273-95.

Weikart, Lynne A. 2001. The Giuliani Administration and the

New Public Management in New York City. Urban Affairs

Review 36(3): 359-81.

Winkler, Fedelma. 1987. Consumerism in Health Care: Beyond the Supermarket Model. Policy and Politics 15(1): 1-8.

This content downloaded from ������������64.150.226.245 on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:18:53 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms