Book Review: Hashtag War: The Semantics of Public Administration Science?

This is not about the campaign phenomenon in a political year. Nor is it about the struggle for public popularity. This is all about the development of the paradigm of state administration science which is very dynamic in the last few decades which is closely related to the hashtag war.

The hashtag exchange in the science of public administration began with the publication of David Osborne and Ted Gaebler's article entitled "Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector" in 1991. They considered that it was no longer the era for the government or state to have a dominant role in providing public services to the community. The government was considered sufficient to only provide guidance and direction as a guarantee that public services could be truly carried out by the private sector. The less the role of the government, the more efficient the public would receive services. This is because the private sector is considered to have advantages related to the perfect competition market mechanism that can present quality goods and services to consumers. Therefore, the government only needs to act as a catalyst. From these ideas, the jargon emerged steering than rowing, enabling than providing and eight other main ideas regarding New Public Management.

It appears that Osborne and Gaebler base their ideas heavily on market mechanisms. They are very much inspired by Adam Smith with his neoclassical economic views that adhere to the principle laissez-faire and laissez-passer. The government should not intervene in the market as much as possible, let the market mechanism solve all the needs and problems in society by itself.

Other ideas in the book Reinventing Government is the adoption of entrepreneurial principles in the public sectors. The community is more viewed and treated as customer. Likewise, the way government bureaucracy works must be more responsive to the community. The book also laid the foundation for the emergence of the paradigm New Public Management (NPM) in public administration science.

However, with the NPM paradigm, the government or state seems to be run like a business. In fact, it is not appropriate for matters concerning public services in particular to be run using business principles as suggested by Osborn and Gaebler. Denhardt and Denhardt try to criticize the principles of adopting entrepreneurial/private working methods in government bureaucracy. Moreover, not all types of goods are private goods, but there are also public goods, club goods, and communal goods that certainly have special ways of managing them and all of them cannot be managed by the private sector, through market mechanisms.

In the sub-topic of the book New Public Services, it is clear that Denhardt and Denhardt think very dichotomously and clearly oppose all the jargon conveyed by Osborn and Gaebler. In chapter 1, entitled Public Administration and the New Public Management, it is reviewed how important it is to present new behavior and emphasis in a movement to renew the science of state administration which Denhardt and Denhardt call New Public Service (NPS). They emphasize the most significant and valuable thing in public administration is how we serve citizens to realize the common good. Government apparatus has the responsibility to improve public health, maintain public safety, to improve environmental quality and various other tasks. It is not efficiency that is emphasized by Denhardt and Denhardt, but rather a contribution to a better life for all people.

Denhardt and Denhardt's statement on health issues is empirical. When health is viewed as a private good rather than a public good, the private sector plays a greater role in providing these services. Ultimately, the service orientation changes to a business orientation. Profit becomes the main motivation for the private sector in carrying out its business activities. As a result, a price mechanism will be created based on the demand and supply of health services. In aggregate demand, the equilibrium price is reflected in the aggregation of individuals in the health services market. However, if it is drawn at the disaggregate level, not everyone can actually afford health services at the market equilibrium price. What happens then is that not all people who need health services can be handled properly. If price discrimination is then applied by the health service producers, then automatically not all people who get health services at low prices will get the same quality of service as those who can pay at higher prices (example: the application of hospital service classes).

Understanding of Old Public Administration (OPA) is briefly reviewed in chapter 1 of Denhardt and Denhardt's writing. Woodrow Wilson, who is known as the founder of the OPA paradigm, emphasized two important aspects of the development of administrative science. First, the dichotomy of politics and administration in the science of state administration, because public officials who are elected through political mechanisms must be neutral in carrying out administrative functions. Second, the focus of emphasis on the structure to create efficient public organizational work. It is not surprising that Wilson emphasized these two things because at that time the work of public organizations was not structured and tended to be unplanned, and full of electoral political interests. Before then, NPM with its ten main principles, was known as the paradigm that perfected the presence of OPA. At that time, bureaucratic work was considered very rigid and difficult to accept change and innovate for public services.

In chapter 2, the roots of NPS are discussed, which lays a more epistemological foundation on the theory of democracy with a positivistic, interpretive, and critical perspective. The public interest in NPS is seen as the result of a dialogue about shared values, compared to NPM which emphasizes the aggregation of individual interests. While NPS views society as citizen not as customers as in NPM, or clients and constituents in the OPA's perspective. As a result, the government must act as a servant by negotiating and bridging the interests between citizens and community groups in creating shared value. So that NPS builds more coalitions between the public, non-profit actors and private agents to reach a common agreement in fulfilling public needs. In contrast to NPM which sees public problems only being fulfilled through the creation of mechanisms between public and private agents, like a dragon boat race, the government is in front (steering) and private behind (rowing).

Chapter 3 contains a review of hashtags that are very much the opposite of Osborn and Gaebler's writing, namely serve citizens, not customers. Denhardt and Denhardt's emphasis is on the importance of government not exclusively prioritizing the selfish side of the individual (customers) in accessing public services which ultimately emphasizes the logic of "there is money then there are goods", such as services provided by the private sector. The government must also ensure that all citizens must be served without exception whether they are capable or not and whatever their status or class.

Chapter 4 contains the meaning of public interest which is not built on the purpose of finding the right solution based on individual choices but is formed on shared interests and responsibilities. OPA sees public service as a value-free technical process, therefore public interest is considered as a rationalization of the decision-making process as a manifestation of the embodiment of public will. NPM, which was popular in the 1980s to 1990s, saw the government must create a market arena based on individual choices (which are seen as customers) who in making decisions do not consider the interests of others. So, automatically there is no discussion about the public interest in it. NPS in considering the public interest tries to take deliberative steps by placing responsibility on government officials to ensure that the resolution of public problems is carried out based on justice and equality.

In chapter 5, Denhardt and Denhardt try to explore the value citizenship compared with entrepreneurship. The main key in NPS is the embodiment of democratic governance and community involvement in every public policy. Harsh criticism of NPM is clearly conveyed that public interest is better carried out by government officials who have the will to contribute to citizens compared to private managers who act as if public money is theirs.

The next sub-discussion in chapter 6 emphasizes that policies and programs for the public interest are effectively achieved through collective and collaborative action. This emphasizes that NPS tries to use deliberative means and communication to the public to determine shared values and interests. The theoretical debate between NPM and NPS is certainly not just a matter of semantics. NPS emphasizes that policy programs should not only focus on efficiency from a cost-saving perspective, but how to make all parties move together in solving public problems that seem more efficient than just a matter of cost savings in the eyes of NPM.

Chapter 7 then discusses accountability. Denhardt and Denhardt emphasize that understanding accountability in the scope of NPS is not simple, government officials must pay more attention to the market, they must also pay attention to laws and regulations, constitutions, community values, political norms, professional standards and citizen interests. Therefore, accountability is complex because government officials must be responsible to all parties. Meanwhile, according to Denhardt and Denhardt, OPA and NPM are too simple in viewing public accountability which is only based on a series of procedures or prioritizing market actions.

Serve rather than steer is the topic of discussion in chapter 8. Leadership is reviewed in depth in this chapter in realizing excellent public service for the community. There is an agreement that the traditional top-down leadership model as applied to military organizations is no longer relevant in modern society. This is because the dynamics in society are now very high and cooperation between various sectors and creativity are needed in solving public problems. Thus, it takes a public organization that is adaptive and flexible than before. Denhardt and Denhardt demand that government officials develop different leadership related to state administration compared to OPA and NPM. At the very least, the role of public leaders is (1) to help the community and its citizens understand their needs and potential, (2) to integrate and articulate the vision of the community and various organizations active in certain fields, and (3) to act as a trigger or stimulus to act. This reconceptualization of public leadership is described variously as shared leadership, value-based leadership, and leadership street level. Discretion is more needed in NPS public leadership, compared to OPA which is more rigid and structural and NPM where leadership is not inherent in a person but rather the regularity of public services is formed from the incentive system applied.

In chapter 9, Denhardt and Denhardt discuss the issue of values that in NPS are more important to prioritize than mere productivity as in NPM. Public organizations are considered to be successful in the long run if they are operated through a process of collaboration and shared leadership that upholds respect for all people. OPA uses control to create productivity, while NPM uses incentives to encourage productivity.

Next, the last chapter is the empirical practices of NPS in America which illustrates how it is necessary to rethink the process, structure and rules of the organization to open access and participation to the community in every process of public service governance. The task ahead, Denhardt and Denhardt emphasize how government officials can answer questions such as How will we treat our neighbors? Will we be responsible for our role in democratic governance? Are we willing to listen and try to understand views that are different from our own? Are we willing to forget our personal interests for the sake of others? and Are we willing to change our minds?. NPS is and will continue to be realized both in small moments and large activities, in public conversations and statements, in formal rules and informal behavior. The key to NPS is how to try to improve services and citizen involvement in public issues.

In conclusion, Denhardt and Denhardt have tried to present a theoretical framework that gives full priority to democracy, citizenship and service in the public interest. NPS is presented as an alternative to the traditional approach and the dominant managerial model in managing the public. The recognition and involvement of citizenship are essential for democratic governance in NPS. Citizenship is important because it is not only about personal interests, but also involves values, beliefs and concern for others. Citizens are seen as owners of government and are able to act together in pursuing greater goals.

Apart from Denhardt and Denhardt's writing which criticizes NPM, there is Osborne's (2010) writing about The New Public Governance which is present in completing the NPM idea and sees it as a stepping stone for a new idea called NPG. Although it does not mention NPS at all as a new idea in post-NPM state administration, NPG equally prioritizes deliberative principles. However, the writing on NPG is not as comprehensive in criticizing NPM as NPS because it is only a collection of writings strung together in five main topics regarding, socio-political governance, public policy governance, administrative governance, contract governance, and network governance. NPG views the nature of the state in a pluralistic manner, in contrast to the NPM paradigm which is more of a regulator. In the end, NPG's focus is more on creating an institutional environment that encourages more studies New Institutional Economic rather than NPM which is present in the neo-classical framework as non-institutional theory.

Writing in a book The New Public Service for me it provides a good perspective in fixing the gaps that cannot be answered by the presence of NPM in managing public interests. Although for some parties it seems that the debate that arises in the paradigms of state administration science is nothing more than semantics, but in administrative practice, the writings of Denhardt and Denhardt as well as the writings of Osborn and Gaebler (1992) and Osborne (Ed.) (2010) the differences are very contrasting in terms of practice. This is because the paradigm is built on an empirical basis that occurred in the era of writings regarding the presence of OPA, NPM, NPS and NPG. We cannot view that each of these paradigms eliminates one another. Although Denhardt and Denhardt are very good at explaining the shifts and differences between OPA, NPM and NPS. The key to managing public interests is the effort to contextualize the problems that occur. Of course, military organizations are not suitable for implementing the principles of NPM which are very business-oriented or NPS which emphasizes discretion in the view street-level leadership. Likewise, health management in hospitals cannot be done using the NPM method, which ultimately tends to be discriminatory because it emphasizes... public interest on personal interest, as well as OPA which is very structuralist and anti-discretion. In the end, the hashtag war that occurred between OPA, NPM, NPS and NPG fans was not just a matter of semantics in the science of public administration.

Bibliography

Denhardt, Janet V. and Dehardt, Robert B. 2015. The New Public Service: Serving not Steering 4th Edition. New York: Routledge.
Osborn, David and Gaebler, Ted. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.
Osborne, Stephene P. 2010. The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on The Theory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routeldge.