Transforming Public Service in an Era of Change

(October 27– November 03, 2006)
by Warren Patrick Serrano

Warren Patrick Serrano

Changes happen, and when it does we, as citizens, administrators and actors in public service, must be ready.

At this era of rapid innovation, globalization and economic and technological development, people that give value to public service must adapt to the changes brought by these times. There is a need to exchange ideas to evaluate the mode of control and the elements that would enhance public service and the welfare of citizens.

I am honored to be a part of these global exchanges of information, which has greatly been enhanced by innovation, liberal thoughts and generous support from principled institutions.

The international seminar on new public management (NPM) from October 27 to November 3, 2006 was a great learning experience for me, serendipity for a new traveler to Europe. In addition, it was a way to develop a network of friends from various cultural backgrounds who sincerely shared a clear vision. More importantly, it was an honor for me to be given an opportunity to learn and adapt to change.

The venue, the International Academy for Leadership, was in Gummersbach, Germany. The first thing I noticed in the area were the trees, which were practically everywhere. Environmental management is a priority. The place, especially for an Asian like me, was quite cold, with the winter being very unusual. Although the climate was cold, the Academy’s reception of the participants was warm. This was one reason why our rapport and friendship in this relatively short period was also warm. The food was always sumptuous; the coffee overflowing, and although new to me, this was something I would miss.

When the introduction to the Friedrich Naumann Foundation was made, I really felt honored to interact with an institution with good principles. It was an opportunity for me, along with my colleagues from the Philippines, to learn, to share, to exchange and to discuss public management matters that really affected us.

The deficiencies of public administration in this era have been more pronounced and pervasive than ever before. Its manifestations are prevalent and obvious: inefficiency, corruption, long queues and bad service. These were thoroughly discussed in the seminar, in and out of the conference room. Public administration has not been a tool to add value to public service but an end to itself, to its rigidity and to selected groups, not to citizens. Especially for developing countries where resources are scarce, every public good competes for priority, for the meager resources. Thus, a tremendous emphasis on the need for better public management is necessary.

Studying ways to improve public administration is a continuing challenge, and as a citizen, I believe it allows us to claim our right to good governance.

In the seminar, a framework for addressing this challenge was provided. The concept of NPM as a practical approach to improving public service and making citizens first was ably explained by the moderators and the participants as well. Despite having different backgrounds or types of government, economic situations, technological capacities and cultural characteristics, it was apparent that there was unanimity in the importance of the elements and tools of NPM, and that there were possibilities that NPM can be done. As many of the working groups had pointed out, there is always room for improvement, especially in these times where public administration has to adapt itself to the changing times.

An interesting concept was brought up by one of the groups. This is regarding the word “revolution,” which was said by one group to be an important condition for the pursuance of better changes. I thought that this was really meant to emphasize the need to take drastic but reasonable measures. I would have settled for the term “transformation,” which is really a process of manageable steps to effect changes in public service delivery.

Another interesting learning experience I had with the seminar was a real, practical example of using the tools of NPM. One of our guest speakers was no less than the Mayor of Huckeswagen, Uwe Ufer, who spoke candidly about his application of NPM tools which have brought the citizens to the center of the public sphere. This brought optimism to most of the participants, who realized that these tools are actually applied at the level of a local government. In the Philippines, this is especially important because our decentralization policy has brought a great deal of autonomy to the local government units, and it is felt that it is at this level where we can adopt much of this approach.

An important concept which I learned from this global exchange was that this approach does not remove the responsibilities of government, rather it redefines the way that these responsibilities are delegated to functions that would be better managed and served by alternative systems, away from the confusions of bureaucracy, unnecessary interventions by policy makers and unwise rules that do not give value to citizens.

In the discussion and inputs, I also learned that many of the problems our country is facing are also being faced by our host country as well as by other participants’ countries. Problems in finances, unemployment, bureaucratic excesses do exist in developed countries as well. The continuing process of improving public services is always necessary. The difference, I think, is in the way we implement reforms. Our country is too enmeshed in political considerations.

What was also interesting in the seminar was the discussion on benchmarking by a representative from the KGST, an association of municipalities. The institute showed that the local government units were wiling to use research to evaluate themselves, see performance indicators and analyze their financial capacities in the interest of public service at their locale. They are uniting themselves in areas where they can collaborate for the purpose of providing better delivery of service at lower costs and not just for political purposes.

The instruments of NPM as discussed, and as challenged by its opponents, are practical and require common sense. Many of the participants varied in their methods of implementing NPM reforms. Given their backgrounds, some have made headway, some are lagging but want to move forward, and that is important. I feel that given the great challenge of challenging the old ways, one has to start with small manageable steps. It cannot be done overnight.

Three important areas were emphasized in the NPM projects of the working groups: health, education and information. The marketing of an integrated health system that can be applied in most countries is admirable. The stress on education as one of the best chances to empower people is also important. Lastly, the right of the citizens to be informed of what they can expect as a public service and how they can avail of it efficiently is also a good area for reform. It is in these areas where most participants agree that we can actually do the reforms we want using new public management.

NPM is not meant to limit or diminish government’s role in providing public service. Rather, it is an approach, a framework that is doable, practical and adaptable to the changes that is happening in our world. It is hardly just re-engineering human resources or reducing the steps in a process; it is an integrated approach that looks outwardly to add efficiency, effectiveness and to give value to those who deserve public service — the citizens.

When I come home to my country, I will be proud not only of my learning experience, but I will also be thankful to the organizers, moderators, staff and my co-participants — my friends, who from hereon make me part of a network of those who hope and do for a better future.