Our understanding of public administration is in transition. At the tradition-bound end of a continuum is the top-down conceptualization of a century ago, where the state is in control and delegates authority and responsibility for the achievement of public ends. At the newest end of the continuum is a flattened hierarchy with broad outreach to the citizenry via collaborative endeavors, and conversely, broad input from all segments of society. New Public Management, the popular wave that introduced contracting, competitive bidding, and marketization of services in the latter twentieth century, is in the middle of the continuum, waning in popularity but leaving remnants in place that emphasize customer service and responsiveness.
The most popular terms being used to discuss governing processes already reveal an emphasis on human relations, but discourse stops short of acknowledging that which should be obvious. Representativeness, governance, collaboration, coproduction, citizen engagement, relational contracting all are terms that connote the co-relating that is required for self-governing to succeed. A holistic approach to the citizenāstate encounter is more useful than the partial approach that is provided by simplistic reliance on benchmarks and outcome measures.
This chapter contrasts the traditional way of understanding public service with the emerging need to focus more on the citizenāstate exchange. The instrumentalist point of view is contrasted with more recent conceptualizations of co-production. Along with this comes more attention to the encounter between citizen and state and the work that goes on within that exchange. We argue that the affective dimension in public service delivery must be elevated so that it is acknowledged and appreciated as much as the cognitive dimension has always been.
Rational Instrumentalism
Traditional discourse on the subject of public administration is framed in notions of rational instrumentalism, framed as a set of levers to be pulled in order to achieve specified ends. For example, those who study the pursuit of public purposes call themselves public management experts, for their focus is on management, per se, as it is exercised in the public sphere. The singular focus on management, with less regard for constitutional context, democratic imperatives, and public policy dynamics, parallels the emphasis on management within the business sphere, where success is measured by outputs and profit margins. Policy experts parse the field by focusing on how the public will is expressed through state action or inaction. Public law scholars focus on the interpretation of constitutional principles insofar as they affect the pursuit of public purposes. Network scholars focus on linkages between policy actors. It is possible to study all these facets of public administration while paying too little attention to the persons being governed. Norms of neutrality and impartiality strip administrators of their human-ness and blind them to the human-ness of citizens and the connectedness that joins them to one another and to the collective, whether it is city or state.
Citizen Engagement
Citizen engagement is as close as contemporary thought comes to acknowledging the role of the citizen. From this perspective, public officials are the mediating agents between state and citizen. That which is overlooked is how citizens feel about their government. This embodies a way of knowing about the state. To wit, if citizens are to invest in the system as a whole, the connections each has to the state must āfeelā good. The overlooked dimension is the citizenāstate relationship.
Representativeness
Representative bureaucracy theory attempts to overcome the shortcomings of public management procedures that deny or overlook the citizenāstate relationship. It does so by prescribing that all constituencies affected by a public program should be included in the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co-ordinating, reporting, and budgeting of it. By having their views and voices expressed in the design and maintenance of programs, the outcome is thought to be a product acceptable to all.
Coproduction, Collaboration, Co-optation
Coproduction and collaboration enter the lexicon of public administration in an effort to denote less direction from the top and more inclusion at the bottom. Coproduction refers to the generation of public goods via willful participation by citizens working together with government. Collaboration connotes various stakeholders working together to achieve common ends. Co-optation of the governed is achieved when they participate in decisions that will affect them. Equally, co-optation of those who govern is achieved when relationships are developed among constituencies such that interactions on a first-name basis are possible (Selznick 1949). These three Cs denote citizens and government working together toward ends that each desire. While useful constructs, each assumes affective connection between citizen and state without actually saying that.
From Hierarchy to Heterarchy
Hierarchy is giving way to heterarchy, with greater and greater emphasis on collaborations across agencies, levels of government, and stakeholder groups (OāLeary 2015). The transition is gradual but inexorable. And the move toward a more relational government (Edlins, in press) is gaining traction. Traditional public administration has focused on actions of those in the executive office, attending to how decisions are made and how priorities are set. As hierarchies flatten, the focal point moves closer to the frontlines of public service delivery. Person-to-person interactions present a focal point for what public administration is or should be. Interactions between government and citizens are more immediate than the rarefied air of the executive suite and allow for the mediation of hard-to-resolve situations by face-to-face interaction.
Outcomes
There has been a transition from focusing on āthingsā that the state does to focusing on the effects that those things produce (Newcomer 2015). For instance, outcome measures have become increasingly important, in contrast to output measures. This transition marks a growing sophistication in regard to understanding that it is not action, itself, that matters. It is whether the action makes a difference. To carry this progression further, outcome measures that ātake the temperatureā of citizens who are affected by a program are an attempt to acknowledge the human impact. Such measures indicate a deeper appreciation for the emotive encounter between citizen and state.
Transparency
Transparency is an essential element of how governing is done in the USA. The requirement that public proceedings, documents, and records be available to anyone who wants them differentiates government from business in significant respects. It requires that public organizations are staffed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, and it requires that storage and retrieval are easily accessible to the public. Non-mission-based values such as the importance of transparency increase the workload and cost of governing but continue because an essential element of constitutional democracy is that citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. Sunshine is thought to be the most efficient means for ensuring honesty. In other words, transparency is about trust: Citizens trust in the actions of government and trust that state action will be in accord with constitutional processes and constraints. Feelings of trust are influential in shaping how citizens view government and how they feel about their safety.
Equity, Efficiency, Economy, and Effectiveness
The four imperatives of public administration are equity, efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. While equity is a relative newcomer to these characteristics, it was added in 2005 to denote the importance of justice and fairness to all constituencies, rather than to only those who hold advantaged status (Norman-Major 2011). This heralds a flattened, broader approach to public action in which the state is held accountable for addressing the needs of everyone rather than only those who are favored. Like transparency, there is not a direct emotive connection between...