Public Administration in the Portuguese Framework, Reforms

¶ … Public Administration

In the Portuguese framework, reforms in public management were shaped by two major events. The first event was the 1974 Revolution characterized by forty years of corporatist and dictatorial regime. The second event was the 1986 European Union member integration. The two regimes entailed a critical transformation from state oriented, closed, oligarchical, and highly controlled society to a citizen oriented, democratic and open society that placed great value on individual initiatives and freedom. As a result, reforms in public management became a realistic movement in Portugal. This was mostly because the modernization procedure continued regardless of party lines and political changes. This suggests that dynamic continuity entails the strength of the modernized Portuguese public administration. Such dynamic continuity refers to the process of reforms based on previous mistakes and experience. This was achieved through balancing actions and using new tools and strategies to adapt to new situations and environments (Cook, 2006).

This perspective resulted in the evolution of reform tactics from an international focus to flexible and selective guidelines. Studies illustrate that the Portuguese strategic shift was characterized by selective realism. Any selective radical strategy focuses efforts of reform on a single area, which if radically transformed it can have a deep impact on all areas and issues. In the end, this creates a chain reaction. In Portuguese, this approach stems from citizen orientation. However, it is impossible to assume that this was a long-term process. It is evident that reforms in public administration are difficult and characterized by challenges. The process of reformation begins commenced with the adoption of the Intercalary Planning and the preparation of the Plan, which orchestrated the development of an administrative reform team with unquestionable integrity (Menzel & White, 2011).

This team dealt with the duty of delegating competencies and proposing new establishments in public administration. It sought to find solutions to the welfare state crisis worsened by the rising costs in the then difficult economic condition. This approach failed in achieving a unified society. On the contrary, only the middle class had the benefits of the welfare state activities. Anti-bureaucrats also rose to condemn this paradigm. Therefore, governance and politics replaced professional administration. The previous bureaucracy failed to implement new public policies. Moreover, the professionals lacked the capacity to execute their responsibilities. As a result, it established an environment suitable for the creation of a new form of public administration (Nagel, 2010).

The managerial models and public choice generated distinct styles and contradictory principles of management. The managerial solutions sought to please professional managers and politicians to be accurate because politicians could blame other groups for the poor functioning of public service. Similarly, the managers could impose their professional interests and values. This led to outcomes, which represented an enormous increase of public costs while the quantity and quality of services remained the same. The implementation of new public management paradigm and administering reforms transformed the administrative state into a managerial nation. At the beginning, the core concern was to generate efficiency within the current public structures. Avoiding the dysfunctional of the model became imperative. In the phase that followed, the concept of market became a strong issue of concept, as it was the base for the managerial Nation. Therefore, the state abandoned execution and planning and transformed into a posteriori regulating the behavior of key actors. This strategy influenced the reforms in the State, including areas of crucial sovereign positions such as prisons, police and justice (Raadschelders, 2008).

The new development in governance and public administration roots from the evolution and adoption of managerial central concepts. In fact, privatizations, downsizing, restructuring, and private-public partnerships have been modern phenomena, which have raised complex and countless ethical doubts. The current modern world is characterized by evident crisis of values. Collections of writers have confirmed this visible, illation in an ephemeral and relative manner of events jeopardizing decisive aspects of everyday life. We live in an era of multi-choice with a broad of dependency and alienation strikingly presenting societal characteristics. Individual recognition is guided by a system of objects, which translates to consumption. It is with no doubt that this image is preferable than the reality (Nagel, 2010).