Third world strives to carry out bureaucratic reform

By Raphael Lengesa Nombo

YOGYAKARTA (JP): There is a distinction between bureaucratic systems found in advanced Western countries and those available in developing countries. Although it is viewed that this dichotomy oversimplifies a complex administrative reality, it is asserted that these ideal types are useful for formulating some general observations of how bureaucratic systems operate within various socioeconomic and political environments.

In the contemporary democratic perspective, for instance, bureaucracy is largely reflected as a Weberian rational legal model. The proponents of this model argue that administrative states are rationally structured in the sense of seeking to maximize efficiency in the use of limited resources.

Responsibility and authority are hierarchically arrayed and balanced throughout, with lines of responsibility being clearly defined to avoid the incidence of overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of functions. Rules are specific in content and universal in application. Civil servants are recruited and promoted exclusively on the basis of objective standards of merit or achievement.

Descriptions of the public administrator in this paradigm involve the aspect of civil servants as citizens in the employment of society's government, duty-bound to perform their work in the service of the public. As it would be improper for a politician to sacrifice the country's welfare for personal gain or for a judge to decide a particular case on the basis of personal bias instead of the principle of rule of law, so too would it be improper for the civil servant to sacrifice the public good for service to personal interest in the conduct of official duties.

The reason bureaucrats in modern administrative states are sensitive to legitimate political authorities and to public service is that specialization divides more clearly political from administrative functions and that political institutions are too strong to keep civil servants under control.

Gilbert Siegel in his study (1978) reported that under a system guided by civil service ethics, standardization and of work practices, a legalistic orientation and impersonality are expected when performing the duties of one's position. Public servants similarly are expected to faithfully follow rules and regulations; civil servants are to be "on tap but not on top". They are supposed to be servants of the people. This is an important lesson to our bureaucrats in developing countries.

On the other hand, public bureaucracies in developing countries fall under the prismatic society: transitional societies which are between traditional and modern socioeconomic- cum-political development. These kind of societies have inherited modern administrative states in form but retain elements of traditional social structures. They lack the norms of observing public organizations as impersonal instruments for the accomplishment of tasks. Bureaucrats do not behave as impersonal and politically neutral public servants. They behave in personal and political ways related to their own culture, traditions and expectations.

In reality, many analysts see public bureaucracy in most developing countries as partly constituting a serious stumbling- block to economic growth and development. Such systems of bureaucracy have been explained as separated from the masses, top heavy, elitist, blindly observing absurd regulations, creating redundant organizations, indifferent to efficiency, having more people than needed, betraying trust, multiplying red-tape, blocking each other, retaliating against others, suppressing democracy, cheating superiors as well as subordinates and taking bribes and accumulating personal wealth.

Many weaknesses are commonly identified and encountered in our public administration systems. Such weaknesses are a shortage of skilled manpower, poor incentives, a low level of commitment to achieve planned goals, corruption and many other conditions that pave the way for low standards of living in the society.

Gerald Caiden (1982), who has done extensive research on administrative reform describes bureaucracy in developing countries as too often reflecting the aspect that "public administration is administration of the public, not administration for the public".

Against this background, the belief that bureaucracy contributes to building up a government's ability to formulate, implement development policies and ensure that essential services and facilities are provided dependably and equitably is well understood. Therefore, inefficiencies in the bureaucracy can mean high government deficits and poor quality of public goods and services.

Charges of serious impediments in our bureaucracies are very common and widely reported. One important objective of the bureaucratic reform in developing countries is to bring about change and efficiency in the public sector in delivering public services. While it may be true that developing countries are seriously striving to carry out bureaucratic reforms, it is also necessary to review the historical weaknesses in our bureaucracies.

The writer is currently Postgraduate Student in Public Administration Program at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. He is a civil servant with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation in Tanzania.