Ethics and communications in public administration implementation

Public Administration

Implementation

On the most basic level, implementation is the action of putting a theory or concept into motion. Implementation involves many elements, including decision-making, communications, politics, budgeting, intergovernmental relations, public administrator's professional expertise, ethics and the general environment. This essay will explore two of these elements, ethics and communications. After some brief comments on the precise definition of "implementation," we will look at the Challenger case in relation to ethics, and we will look at the Bakersfield case in relation to communications.

Defining Implementation

The term implementation is often used to describe activities involved in making theories and concepts into realities. Several steps must be taken before a concept becomes an actuality. First of all, the concept or theory must be approved at the governmental level. Once approval is complete, the concept moves into an authoritative public policy directive. These directives, or mandates, can include statutes, executive orders, and judicial orders. Many people are involved once the policy directive is in place, ranging from private sector and non-profit organizations to clientele and interested citizen groups. These people engage in a variety of activities to make the policy a reality. This stage of the process involves procuring resources, interpreting the policy directive or mandate, planning, communicating and negotiating among implementing organizations and clientele groups (Houston).

Issues

It would be impossible, in this short essay, to cover all of the issues involved in implementation. To demonstrate the complex nature of implementation, we will look at two important issues: ethics and communication. The discussion on ethics will relate to the concept known as the 'zone of acceptance' or the 'zone of indifference,' with specific reference to the Challenger case (McClain).

Ethics/Challenger

Communications/Bakersfield

Question #2: Bureaucracy

Introduction

Bureaucracy is very important to society because it helps maintain efficient task performance. The term is often described as having various elements, including varying degrees of elements of specialization, a hierarchy of offices, rules and regulations, technical competence, impersonality, and formal, written communications (Macionis). This definition, as we will see, is rather simplistic, and is in need of further contextualization. After we discuss the issues involved in defining the term bureaucracy, we will look at some of the ways that bureaucracy is viewed by the general public. We will use the case of the recent budget negotiations in California as an entry into this topic, and we will focus on cases involving public safety and criminal justice.

Defining Bureaucracy

The term "bureaucracy" has origins in the field of sociology. Sociologist Max Weber laid the foundations for modern discussions and understandings of bureaucracy (Hummel).

Public Safety and Criminal Justice

In order to ameliorate the extreme debt, California governmental officials have considered saving money by allotting less spending on prisons. With falling or stabilizing crime rates, declining prison populations, and mounting public support for alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, public officials are able to justify the implementation of such ideas (Schiraldi). Public opinion has shifted in favor of sensible alternatives to incarceration and state budgets have tightened, bureaucratic officials must rethink whether the present American incarceration system is actually working efficiently. In this case, the definition of efficiency might do well to consider public opinion, because a system that cannot run without series and large-scale criticism might not be aptly called efficient. Another argument, however, is more compelling.

The American prison system has fallen victim to bureaucratic inertia. Instead of reforming criminals and enabling them to live functional and rational lives after their prison term is up, the current system actually intensifies criminal behavior (Cole). This is a classic case of an organization that has moved away from its capacity to reach the goals it began with. The American criminal justice system could re-consider its goals, and decide that it actually wants to intensify and encourage behavior, which would eliminate the criticism of bureaucratic inertia. Another, perhaps more sensible, option involves alternative means of reforming criminals. By cutting funding to the prison system of California, the bureaucracy just might be making both an efficient and an ethical decision.

If prisons are eliminated or cut back, there is the concern of public safety (Cole).

Question #3: Organizational Characteristics

Introduction