War and Public Administration War

War and Public Administration War and its Effects on Public Administration This work details the many possible effects that war can have on the public administration of a nation. The discussion spans the breath of affect possibilities with regard to both a national involvement in foreign war and resulting policy change as well as the possible affects that war my produce in a nation that has experienced civil war, which is the contingency where the most change will likely occur in public administration.

Regardless of the fact that war can and often does have a fundamentally profound effect on public administration the melding of these two social phenomena is an area with only limited research focus. This work attempts to raise and discuss questions that need further address in research regarding both the effects of war in the long and short-term and on the research body of public administration in general.

Introduction War is an affective social condition that often, depending on impetus, length, severity and level of violence seriously affects the very fiber of nations engaged in it. There is a clear sense that one of the most foundational aspects of any society democratic or otherwise is that of the public administration. No nation, no matter how large or small can function effectively in growth, recovery or even in decline without the support of the public administration.

Yet, rarely within research do you see these two aspects of society, public administration and war discussed in any but the most basic manner. People often think of public administration as a necessary element in the development of any centralized entity that moves slowly, progressing through necessary changes as the need arises. Given this emphasis it might be difficult to see that during periods of war and during their aftermath public administration is therefore in an unnatural state where rapid and sweeping changes often occur literally over night.

(Mohammed, 1999) When this happens the dynamics are as varied as the reasons and standards of war and change can be mostly positive, such as when public administrative changes occurred in the U.S. And the UK after WWII, (Manning & Shaw, 2000) or wholly degrading to the nation whose backbone has been altered to its very core, such as when South Africa was forced to retain a large portion of its pre-civil war public administration staff after the conflict was over.

(Evans, 1997) War can fundamentally fracture public administration to such a degree that the entire productivity of a nation comes to a screeching halt.

War can pervade public administration in a real way, by allowing civil servants to become pawns in the hands of the enemy (especially when the enemy is within) or it can create long standing social strife over the composition of the public administration when such an administration, after the close of the war is reinstated in part or in whole to allow the nation to heal and redirect itself to peacetime survival or prosperity.

Finally war and a nation's involvement in it can alter the manner in which public administration operates in the future, in both positive and negative ways, depending on the circumstances, possible level of corruption and ultimately on the strength of the system or its policies that predate the war. (Bruck, 1997) It also must be noted here that during periods of war the aspects of the nation which are frequently targeted are those that are specifically under the jurisdiction of the public administration in many nations.

Things like transportation, communication, infrastructure and certain military operations and functions are often governed and administered by bureaucratic departments in both peacetime and war and these areas are often those hardest hit both physically and fiscally. Additionally, public administration in many nations is the main branch of infrastructure of social services, medical care and many other fundamental programs that are not only needed but sorely needed in periods of strife.

With the public administration flailing, as a result of personnel loss/replacement, swift and broad policy changes, lack of security to function or basic and broad civil unrest a nation and its people can be far more affected than can ever be expected not only by the reality of war but by the reality of not having a strong enough infrastructure to maintain it.

(Mohammed, 1999) (Bruck, 1997) When such conflicts also involve civil unrest, such as is the case in civil wars, often the desire of the victor is to clean house, removing all those in public administration that they deem aids of the former administration and this sort of change can create crippling situations of unrest where entire departments that have nothing whatsoever to do with war are rendered incapable of real operations.

These very agencies are often those which are most likely to aid in reconstruction and support of civilians during and after war. Armed conflicts have some cultural impact as they bring about the development of a long-run "culture of violence." Whole generations have grown up in cultures of armed warfare and violence.14 Wars also result in the breakdown of governments, civil societies, and public institutions.

Democratic institutions disappear gradually after prolonged civil wars while neglect to civil and social institutions, deteriorating in human rights and prevalence of corruption in public administration usually follow the outbreak of armed conflicts. (Mohammed, 1999, p.

7) When one seriously thinks about all the possible functions of public administration, from the employment of police and security forces to the administrators of medical and social service care the outcome of sweeping change can be astronomical in nature and yet little research has been done on this very question, outside the very nominal aspect of sweeping statements of possible logical change.

Discussion Within context of our own government there has been a relatively new emphasis on treating every aspect of service as if it is a true service industry, as if it is a business with all the applications of business terminology and concepts. This trend has created a system where public administration has overlaid a template upon itself that is borrowed from a profit seeking environment, with an emphasis on consumer satisfaction and outcome testing as the final statistical product.

The problem for many is that public administration is not a business, profit seeking is not a demand and the people it serves are not customers but invested citizens seeking access to programs and services which by their very nature should be considered innate, or in a sense a part of their birthright and their birth responsibility. Just as it is their responsibility to vote in a democratic society it is also their responsibility to serve and access services in an environment where civil service is paramount to citizenship.

(Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007, p. 45-46) Yet, this is not the case in all nations as public service is in many places an absolutely essential aspect of the public meeting of needs, with no fundamental agent of change, secondary to the political whim of the given leader, there is no essential focus on quality, beyond the caring of an individual agent and the well meaning of a given policy developer.

In many nations the civil service is one of the largest and most stable employers in the nation, and this is especially true with regard to nations in unrest. Though public administration may be corrupt at any level it still serves as one of the largest employers of people and as a foundational mainstay to life in the given society. When war occurs public administration develops cracks and fissures that leave many without some of the most basic services.

Many nations have only limited privatized services and therefore alternatives do not exist when the public administration is unable to function. This is true of medical care, public utilities, transportation, building support services, transportation services and many other essential services that drive progress and movement in a nation. An even higher rate of destruction and erosion was experienced by the railway system, a visually obvious and politically suitable target for attacks. Table 3 also indicates the constant, high level of military activity and subsequent insecurity experienced throughout the 1980s.

(Bruck, 1997) Examples are rampant where whole economies would grind to a halt if the public administration was fundamentally unable to go to work on Monday morning and for any length of time. The front line for international interventions that exercise any degree of political authority in transition has proved to be at the level of local administration.

Here, the Western-style paradigm of state building, which is preoccupied with forming a national executive, legislature, and judiciary, confronts resilient traditional structures, socially legitimate powerholders, abusive warlords out to win, or coping mechanisms communities rely on under conflict conditions. Options for the establishment or reconstruction of governing institutions seem stark: either reinforce the status quo and build on it, further empowering the already strong; or replace altogether what exists with a new administrative order.

(Chopra & Hohe, 2004) As Chopra and Hohe note in the above work on public administration it is often at the most local level that positive change is really felt, as these players have a commitment to local need as well as, hopefully a demonstrative separation from any corrupting force that may be present in a more centralized control center.

So, even in such situations as when the countryside has also been hit by war, the local administrators are much more likely to be able to function productively as they are fundamentally closer to the need and have strong community ties and possible a strong desire for social order but more importantly for the meeting of the local publics' needs.

The importance of establishing a public administration theoretical framework that prioritizes citizenship over consumerism, in a society where so much of the citizenry relies on public services is foundational to social order and to mitigating the change that has occurred as a result of war. There is no one right answer to all the functional changes to public administration, with regard to war as the many facets of war also create many facets of change in public administration.

The level of degradation to physical and psychological networks must be analyzed and addressed as the foundations of war degrade the perceptions of public administration. One of the most difficult of social phenomena is the fact that public administrators are often seen as the arm of those in power. They are viewed as corrupt, when any aspect of the government has been deemed so.

So, regardless of the good intentions of one or many inside the public administration there is a clear sense that public opinion will ultimately determine if they stay or go or if they change or clean house.

(Chopra & Hohe, 2004) Seeking to understand this relationship between two citizens in service to one another and the common goal the individuals must utilize the concepts of civic social responsibility, so all parties understand that they are not different, that the service provider is not a representative of control and the citizen seeking assistance is not an "other," not crucial to the achievement of service and not privileged to understand the systems in place.

(Jung, 2003) Seeking to create a system where civic responsibility is the common goal, service will likely be improved, those who seek to be in positions of service is likely to increase, in number and the system is more likely to be conducive of group goals as those who seek services and those who seek provide a conduit for the provision of these services may have a greater empathetic relationship.

Again, this is why a measure for positive change, after and even during a war can most logically occur in a local administrative setting, as individuals are often not in fear of limbo, as they are fully aware of the needs of their constituency.

(Chopra & Hohe, 2004) the customer and provider relationship creates a divide, where a practice of mutual citizen servers produces a connect, two or more people in service to the common goal, be it a mythical war on poverty or a demand for a change in public policy to better serve common goals.

In a well placed quote Denhardt & Denhardt point out the words of another civic democratic theorist who said; "The conduct of citizens in a culture of power is basically unvirtuous in that it has little to do with the citizen's main duty as an agent responsible for common participation based on independent points-of-view, eventually fostering the mutual responsibility which alone enriches the commonwealth's life"(1968, 53). (Denhart & Denhardt, 2007, p.

51) This is not to say that service should not be conducted in a manner that is befitting of mutual respect, the concepts of customer service which define it as a semblance of mutual respect and satisfaction as Denhardt & Denhardt also point out. (Denhart & Denhardt, 2007, pp.

57-58) Denhardt & Denhardt demonstrate that the concept of consumerism is valuable but only to a certain degree in relationship to public administration, "…the theory of consumerism can certainly point citizens in the right direction with respect to improving service quality: however, ultimately, as an economic concept, the theory of consumerism cannot address the political question of how power might be more extensively shared between the governors and the governed." (Denhart & Denhardt, 2007, p.

62) the concept of citizenship must be the overriding philosophy that guides public service delivery, as well as public service seeking and yet during periods of war the issue of citizenship can be not only highly charged but highly controversial, as individual seek to realign their fundamental core values regarding the world view of their nation. Without this logical progression the broader demand of public administration would simply become a marketplace, rather than a political body in constant need of fluidity and civic sensibility.

So, from the consumerist mindset the public administrator must take only the parts that apply positively to the system and leave the rest. This is reiterated in passing by Bolman and Deal when they state that; "..The human resource frame views participation as a way to build motivation and commitment." (Boleman & Deal, 2003, p. 199) Bolman and Deal also stress the nature of power relationships as a conflict associated with differing operations of civic service.

If a civic institution, such as a small public school is relegated a position of power that is lower or weaker than that of other counterparts it is put into a position of constantly seeking greater power over scarce resources. "…Schools, for example, have low power with respect to external constituencies and struggle to get resources they need. Small size, powerful competitors, well-organized external constituencies, limited flexibility, and scarcity of resources tend to increase dependence." (Boleman & Deal, 2003, p.

52) This dynamic is repeated perpetually all over the world, and regardless of the essential nature of education, as a recognized factor for the development of greater citizenry these seats of beginning for so many citizens are relegated to a position of almost constant decay, unless diligence and creativity are major personal character traits of those in administration. The very basis of compulsory education all over the world, but more specifically in the United States is civic education.

The responsibility acknowledgement of the government's to teach its citizens how to effectively be citizens is the responsibility given to compulsory education, (Heater, 2003) and yet there is a clear sense that many other things, not the least of which is doctrinal inclusion of winner vs. loser dogma that pervades compulsory education in many nations, and especially those which are susceptible to war and unrest.

This fundamental shift can mean that the dogma of either the winner or the loser in any given conflict will be the underlying dogma of the populous, and it will then depend on which side loses or wins as to how receptive the people will be to the "new" public administration.

This is in and of itself one of the best examples of a power system that can potentially create unvirtuous action on the part of those in power in powerless environments and those seeking examples of how their culture values them as citizens, on a daily basis. Nations may seek to create citizens through good public compulsory education and then repeatedly deny them access to resources based upon an uneven power distribution.

The implications of ethnic pluralism has been a neglected topic in the literature on public administration.(1) Normally, this literature assumes a society of individuals who may be divided by age, gender, region, occupation, or class, but not by ethnicity -- collective racial, cultural, or religious identities. This is equally true of the subfield of development.