Question and Answer for Public Administration

¶ … solid waste management in impoverished areas versus affluent areas by examining the social, economic, ethical, and political reasons for placement of landfills and other waste removal facilities in poorer neighborhoods. By exploring the background of specific social movements, the first section of the assignment will seek to explore why the government placed landfills in certain locations versus others. The essay will also seek to examine what caused the social movements. As well as why the issue evolved from placement of landfills in poorer neighborhoods to placement of landfills in minority-majority poorer neighborhoods.

The next section will seek to analyze which candidates would be best for a nonprofit. Candidate one is a business-savvy employee wishing to change things by dismissing all the older employees and hiring new ones. Candidate two is a college graduate with experience in the field. By looking at the various perspectives of public administration theory, this section hopes to address why candidate two is the best candidate overall. Additionally, other aspects like diversity will be explored.

Question #1

Solid waste management is an ever growing economic and environmental issue in developing countries. While efforts have been made to increase recycling and reusing of waste material in the last few decades, the growing volume of waste amassed by the population needs a place to be transported to, which means the need to build new landfills. Landfills are often difficult to place due to the problems that arise once a landfill is built. The smell of garbage, the aesthetic value of the adjacent land decreasing, these things often spell encumbrance for those living in a neighborhood with a landfill. This essay will explore the political, social, and ethical aspects of decision-making involved in the placing of a new landfill in an economically impoverished neighborhood versus placing it in a politically connected, economically well-to-do neighborhood.

Those that live in economically impoverished areas have to deal with several big issues. Noise pollution, regular pollution, and crime to just to name a few. Those that can afford to live in nicer areas avoid most of these problems. But is it fair to have one area clean, noise-free, with less crime just because someone can pay a higher price? The concept of environmental justice essentially means the fair treatment of people irrespective of culture, race, or income with respect to the implementation, development, and enforcement of environmental regulations, policies, and laws, as well as their significant involvement in the administrative processes of the government (Zimring & Rathje, 2012, p. 56). While it may seem like the more likely option to place landfills in undesirable areas like impoverished neighborhoods, can it be considered fair to implement such a practice? This is where the ethical aspect of this question comes into play.

Morally speaking, it is wrong to place undesirable spaces like landfills only in poor neighborhoods. In fact, the first cases of environmental justice came from an ethical standpoint when in 1979 and 1982, two cases were brought to the Courts when a choice was made to place a garbage dump within the Northwood Manor in East Houston. Those that were against the place of the garbage dump believed it was racially motivated and violated their civil rights. Another case, Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corporation also saw the placing of a garbage dump as unfair and morally wrong as it would cause irreparable harm to the community (Vanicek, 2007, p. 500).

One of the reasons people from the case felt that way was because the garbage dump would bring a host of problems to the community namely the dump would affect the safety and health of the people that lived nearby. While taking the case to court for these instances did not stop the waste facilities from being built, it shows how placing landfills and garbage dumps in impoverished neighborhoods can be seen as morally wrong, especially when it is believed to be racially motivated. While it is hard to prove intentional discrimination on the part of those placing the waste facilities, these court cases show that there is an awareness of potential discrimination.

There was an increase of such awareness in the late 1970's as well as the early 1980's because many Latinos, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Native Americans saw that communities of color and low-income communities were getting exposed to dangerous chemicals and other health threats thanks to the continual placing of waste facilities in those areas. They saw that while there was a need to have such facilities, by continuously placing them in areas where colored people lived, it showed a potentially moral problem. Whether racially motivated or not, the health effects from exposure to landfills and the ongoing placement of such landfills in certain locations promoted the idea that race equals poverty equals nonchalance of health and safety of a community.

The political aspect of landfill placement is another interesting perspective. One of the reasons why landfills are placed in poor neighborhoods and not in areas without residents is to preserve wildlife. Ever since the 1960's Americans have begun the debate over where national and state officials should place hazardous and toxic waste disposal sites. Wealthy American groups like the Boone and Crockett Club and the National Audubon Society initiated a movement in order to preserve the environment for the purpose of recreation such as sailing, fishing, and hunting (Vanicek, 2007, p. 560). These groups not only had wealth, but also had powerful military and political connections.

They were able to empower the movement along with the middle class and their grassroots efforts so that the government had to preserve wildlife and untouched areas. Along with keeping the government from placing hazardous and toxic waste disposal sites in such areas, they opposed placing such sites inside their neighborhoods. So the government only had one option. They had to place these sites in places that were already developed and had no opposition, low-income neighborhoods that were populated with people of color.

While low-income communities did not welcome the introduction of these sites into their neighborhoods, they did not oppose often the placements because of several reasons. The first being they did not have the money to lobby against it. The second being they were too busy dealing with other epidemics such as violence, crime, and drugs. At the end, they simply did not have the resources or time to devote to protecting their environment like the middle-class and wealthy communities did.

In fact, those groups fought hard to not have those sites put in their communities without caring where they were placed. The movement was called 'Not in My Backyard'. It then became a 'place a waste site in a community with the least political influence' scenario. Oddly enough, these low-income communities of color even welcomed the garbage dumps at times because it gave them job opportunities.

While it may seem unfair for people to place dump sites in communities of color, politically speaking it seemed like the best option. It helped the government avoid picking battles with white communities with money and political influence. It kept untouched land from being destroyed by those waste sites. It also became a chance for job opportunities for the poor. That is why it makes sense why the poor communities are often the target for waste disposal sites rather than affluent communities.

Minority communities in fact are the site for the biggest hazardous waste landfills in the United States.

In communities with two or more commercial hazardous waste facilities or any of the nation's five largest landfills, the average percentage of minorities in the population was more than three times that of communities without such facilities ... Three out of five of the largest hazardous waste landfills in the U.S. were located in predominantly African-American or Hispanic communities (Hill, 2014, p. 103).

What seems to be clear from the political perspective is, the less rights or political influence a group has, the more likely the government and business will be to place unwelcomed additions to a neighborhood, like landfills. In essence, it requires time (opposition), money (resources), to keep such waste sites from being placed in neighborhoods. Without any money or time to devote to the cause, it simply gets done over and over again until it becomes entirely reasonable to place hazardous waste sites in these kinds of locations.

Similar to the political aspect, the social aspect came from concern for what the placement of landfills had on the environment and on health. Environmental abuse became a significant cause for concern during the 60's. Those that proposed better health conditions and preservation of natural resources created a new social force of environmentalism that expanded their focus onto environmental abuse, growing population, increasing pollution levels, radiation, waste disposal, natural landscapes and habitats, and human impact on animal population. This all culminated through the holding of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Environment.

Why was there such concern then for the environment at that point in time? Socially speaking, people who had enough money could devote their time to caring about other issues like the environment that could otherwise not concern themselves with before. Wealth accumulation was the basic focus for previous generations especially before the World Wars. After the period of prosperity, affluent Americans could turn their attentions to things they felt affected their health and well-being like pollution and so forth. Concern for health of the family and the community became important issues and that raised the need to shift placement of waste disposal facilities to places that did not affect the health and well-being of those people.

Examining the influx of people moving to suburban areas, that shift could also represent a growing need to alter placement of such sites. "As an example, between 1950 and 1969 in the U.S. the population of American suburbs had almost doubled, while the inner city populations had barely increased. By 1970, metropolitan areas had become the home for two-thirds of Americans" (Aston, 1999, p. 120). As suburban areas were expanded due to increased demand, construction and building practices along with the accelerated pace of complementary zoning and development frequently resulted in severe abuse of the land spurring on environmental protection movements.

Construction led to heavy soil run off, forest clearing, and even contributed to flooding and water shortages. So there are two major things that happened. Increased environmental damage caused by people moving to the suburbs and those living in the suburbs wanting to preserve the land and neighborhoods they lived in. These two things caused these environmentally-based social movements to expand and grow, influencing the government to act on their behalf, resulting in placement of landfills in poor areas.

How must a public administrator balance competing interests, so as to make effective decisions that create public value in diverse and dynamic situations? A public administrator has to understand these perspectives: social, political, and ethical in order to get the big picture. While ethically it is wrong to place such landfills in poorer neighborhoods, a public administrator would not really have much of a choice on where else to put it. It then becomes an issue of how to get rid of waste without harming the environment, avoiding the polluting of areas where landfills would be placed. This is because if one looks at the options, a public administrator would not be able to place a landfill anywhere where the land is protected or preserved. he/she cannot put it in a neighborhood where residents who have the money and time will fight back, so where else can the landfill be placed?

It then falls to the only option available. Unfortunately, politically and socially speaking, it would be in the best interest to place these landfills in economically impoverished areas because there will be little resistance. These areas have little to no political influence. As well as in some cases some communities welcome it for the prospect of employment opportunities.

Question 2

The stakeholders in the nonprofit are the federal government because they are the main source of funding for the nonprofit, the other nonprofits, and the child protection agencies. The nonprofits and agencies work with the nonprofit and so will be affected by any actions the nonprofit takes. These are the main stakeholder. In regards to public administration theory, it is important to divide it up into three theories to better understand how the candidates would fare if they were chosen by the organization.

Public administration theory is the combination of social theory, history, organizational theory, political theory and associated studies focused on the structures, meanings, and functions of public service in all its forms. It frequently recounts significant historical foundations for epistemological problems and the study of bureaucracy related with public service as an academic field and profession. In general, there are three various common strategies to understanding public administration. The first is Classical Public Administration Theory. The second is New Public Management theory. The third is Postmodern Public Administration Theory. These three theories offer dissimilar viewpoints of how an administrator applies public administration.

In the case of Classical Public Administration Theory, 'Number One' would appear to be the best candidate. This is because as Woodrow Wilson contended, a bureaucracy ought to be run and managed like a business. By promoting concepts like professionalization and merit-based promotions, following this theory, 'Number One' would seem like the best choice purely based on what the candidate has done in the past. 'Number Two' while having the credentials, education, and experience, has not actually done anything concrete to prove his/her effectiveness. 'Number One' has a record of sales and success that makes that candidate a better choice.

Now if the nonprofit followed the New Public Management Theory, the nonprofit would have to take into considerations freemarket values that have a potential of driving out political values again pointing to candidate 'Number One' being the ideal candidate since the theory has its roots in capitalism and serves the interest of corporate elites, valuing moneymaking potential over quality or effectiveness of management. 'Number Two' seems like a candidate that has no experience nor ability to make more money for the nonprofit while someone like 'Number One' who is a marketing whiz, does.

Following the Postmodern Public Administration Theory, this theory refers to the inner working of almost every government agency/entity in existence and would be the best suited for a government funded nonprofit like this one. Beginning in the 1990's this theory had existed in other disciplines for quite some time only taking root in the last few decades in public administration. While a fairly new theory in use, it addresses big questions of what is considered wrong or right and helps create social order within an organization. 'Number Two' would be the best candidate if the nonprofit utilized this theory, because the candidate seeks to adhere strictly to rules and guidelines, keeping things from getting out of order and creating disharmony within the organization. Since it follows the structure of government agencies, this theory would work best for the nonprofit because it requires as its main source of funding, federal government grants. By having a candidate like 'Number Two' with formal experience and education in the field, he would be logically the candidate that would keep that harmony and order and promote efficiency and effectiveness for the organization.

As it relates to ethics, the clear choice would be 'Number Two'. This is because of 'Number One's harsh decision to rid the nonprofit of older employees and replacing them with younger ones. "The public interest sometimes is used to express an obligation by administrators to future generations, to transmit the most cherished values of the past, without allowing that past to become a dead and ordering framework" (Frederickson, 1994, p. 134). The past is important as it imparts knowledge and wisdom from experience. To rid the organization of older employees simply due to their age is ethically wrong and to some extent illegal. It sounds like the practice of ageism which means discrimination of groups or individuals based on their age. "Cognizant of the economic implications of ageism, governments in Canada and the United States have enacted legislation that enforced existing policies or develop new ones to protect older workers. Some employers, acknowledging the skills and talent lost when older employees retire, are rehiring their older staff members to mentor" (Brownell & Kelly, 2013, p. 3). By removing older employees, the organization could be removing a valuable resource to the nonprofit.

On top of the clear illegal ageism, 'Number One' also wants to seek donors and grants outside of the project mission. Considering the project mission entails child abuse prevention information and collaboration with other nonprofits and child protection agencies, it would make no sense to outside funding sources that demand performing in non-mission-based projects. Furthermore, the nonprofit has a reputation for ethical behavior and would lose that valuable reputation should they make the changes 'Number One' suggests. 'Number Two' however, does not want to change things and instead wants to adhere to strict fiscal standards keeping things running smoothly and efficiently. Candidates like that are not a danger to the ethical reputation of the organization and will improve the processes of the organization, making things more effective and easier to manage.

In terms of best practices in regards to leadership and human resources there needs to be more effectiveness in management of the various processes that often result from recruiting and hiring people. "More sophisticated methods for HR processes as the hiring of teachers, professional development, performance evaluation, results accountability, and school climate improvement are being required" (Norton, 2014, p. 4). In order to avoid hiring unqualified employees, or bringing in changes that would disrupt the flow and productivity the organization, periodic assessments need to be performed. It seems as though someone like 'Number One' would not be capable of that. The candidate wants to hire new people simply because they may be more into social networking than their older counterparts not taking into consideration other skills. 'Number Two' on the other hand just wants to adhere to benchmark processes and provide a smooth overall application of goals versus a turbulent and changing one.