Utilization in public organizations: a case study of dawuro zone finance and economic development department
Download 0.82 Mb. View original pdf
|
| 2.5.4 Assumptive Theory Bairley defined assumptive theory as propositions which articulate root-assumptions about the nature of man and about the tractability of institutions (Bailey, 1968). He described public Administration’s tendency to articulate administrative models and management techniques without due regard for the contexts in which they would be implemented. Although the field has made some progressive in describing institutional inertia and in prescribing organizational change processor, at least the field of organization theory has made such 36 progress, less progress has been made in understanding and characterizing public organizational man Political science and economics tend to de-contextualize public managers. In studies of public resource allocation process, the public manager is cast as another political or economic actors seeking to maximize his or her own self-interest, and this characterization is reinforced the tendency to focus on the national resource allocation process, where it is feasible to approach the agencies in which these managers function as individual political actors. This, the Budget maximizing bureaucrat has become a mainstay of budget theory, despite evidence that public managers will often refuse funds tied to the assumption of duties that may compromise their capacity to pursue their organizations primary missions, and findings that public managers seek to expand only the discretionary portion of the budgets or simply seek to maximize the autonomy they require to function as professional managers. These two caveats indicate the issues on which assumptive theories of public administration should be focused. The budget maximizing bureaucrat is, in part, a default characterization of the public manager in the public resource allocation process, because the field of public administration has developed no alternative. This has left the world of practice open to attack from reformers advocating private sector management techniques or market-based alternatives to public sector provision of core services. The failure of the field to describe public management and managers has meant that they have been described in the negative- as broken private management and as venal or incompetent private managers. The development of assumptive theories in public administration requires that researchers study public managers in the context which they function namely the public 37 organization. The authors have taken some care not to tie this polemic on budget theory to any particular paradigmatic approach to social science research, in part to encourage a dialogue with practitioners, but as assumptive theories require researchers to understand practice from the perspective of practitioners. Positivistic research tends to standardize or randomize contexts and much of the theory practice gap in public administration is due to the dominance and limitations of the positivist paradigm. Furthermore, studies of mans personal and institutional capacity Bailey, (1968) in regard to public administration forces the field to face its elemental question the role of the expert in a democratic society-an issue it has largely sought to escape. Both of these factors have led to an emphasis on the development of de-contextual techniques, rather than the illumination of context. Download 0.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|