War and Its Effects on Public Administration

Introduction

War is a powerful social condition that often, depending on its impetus, length, severity, and level of violence, seriously affects the very fabric of nations engaged in it. One of the most foundational aspects of any society—democratic or otherwise—is public administration. No nation, no matter how large or small, can function effectively in growth, recovery, or even in decline without the support of its public administration. Yet rarely within the research literature do these two aspects of society—public administration and war—appear discussed in anything but the most basic manner.

People often think of public administration as a necessary but slow-moving element in the development of any centralized entity, progressing through necessary changes as need arises. Given this perception, it might be difficult to recognize that during periods of war and in their aftermath, public administration is placed in an unnatural state where rapid and sweeping changes often occur virtually overnight (Mohammed, 1999). When this happens, the dynamics are as varied as the causes of war itself. Change can be mostly positive—such as when public administrative reforms occurred in the U.S. and the UK after World War II (Manning & Shaw, 2000)—or it can be wholly degrading to a nation whose institutional 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 ended (Evans, 1997).

War can fundamentally fracture public administration to such a degree that the entire productivity of a nation comes to a halt. War can pervade public administration in real ways: by allowing civil servants to become pawns in the hands of the enemy (especially when the enemy is within), or by creating long-standing social strife over the composition of public administration when such an administration is reinstated in part or in whole after a war's close, in order to allow the nation to heal and redirect itself toward 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, the possible level of corruption, and ultimately on the strength of the system or its policies that predate the war (Bruck, 1997).

It must also be noted that during periods of war, the aspects of national life most frequently targeted are those specifically under the jurisdiction of public administration. Transportation, communication, infrastructure, and certain military operations 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 for social services, medical care, and many other fundamental programs that are not only needed under normal conditions but are sorely needed in periods of strife. With public administration faltering—as a result of personnel loss or replacement, swift and broad policy changes, lack of security, or widespread civil unrest—a nation and its people can be far more affected than anyone might expect, not only by the reality of war itself, but by the reality of not having a strong enough infrastructure to maintain operations (Mohammed, 1999; Bruck, 1997).

When conflicts also involve civil unrest, as is the case in civil wars, the desire of the victor is often to "clean house," removing all those in public administration deemed allies of the former regime. This kind of sweeping change can create crippling situations where entire departments that have nothing whatsoever to do with war are rendered incapable of real operations—and yet these very agencies are often those most likely to aid in reconstruction and support of civilians during and after war.

Armed conflicts carry significant cultural consequences, as they can bring about the development of a long-run "culture of violence." Whole generations have grown up in cultures of armed warfare and violence. Wars also result in the breakdown of governments, civil societies, and public institutions. Democratic institutions disappear gradually after prolonged civil wars, while neglect of civil and social institutions, deteriorating human rights, and the prevalence of corruption in public administration typically follow the outbreak of armed conflict (Mohammed, 1999, p. 7).

When one seriously considers all the possible functions of public administration—from the employment of police and security forces to the administration of medical and social services—the consequences of sweeping change can be enormous. And yet, very little research has been done on this precise question, beyond nominal statements about logically expected change.

War's Disruption of Civil Infrastructure and Services

An even higher rate of destruction and erosion was experienced by railway systems, which are visually obvious and politically suitable targets for attacks. Wars also demonstrate a constant, high level of military activity and the subsequent insecurity experienced throughout extended conflicts (Bruck, 1997). Examples abound in which whole economies would grind to a halt if public administration were fundamentally unable to function for any meaningful length of time.

Many nations have only limited privatized services, and therefore alternatives do not exist when public administration is unable to function. This is true of medical care, public utilities, transportation, building support services, and many other essential services that drive progress and movement in a nation. In many countries, the civil service is one of the largest and most stable employers, and this is especially true in nations experiencing unrest. Though public administration may be corrupt at any level, it still serves as one of the largest employers and as a foundational mainstay to life in a given society. When war occurs, public administration develops cracks and fissures that leave many people without some of the most basic services.

As international interventions attempt to exercise political authority during transitions, the front line has proved to be at the level of local administration. Here, the Western-style paradigm of state building—preoccupied with forming a national executive, legislature, and judiciary—confronts resilient traditional structures, socially legitimate powerholders, warlords, and the coping mechanisms that communities rely on under conflict conditions. Options for the establishment or reconstruction of governing institutions appear 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, it is often at the most local level that positive change is really felt, since local administrators have a commitment to local need and, ideally, a demonstrable separation from any corrupting force present in a more centralized control center. Even in situations where the countryside has been hit by war, local administrators are much more likely to function productively, as they are fundamentally closer to the need, have strong community ties, and possess a strong desire for social order and for meeting the local public's needs.

Public Administration Frameworks: Citizenship vs. Consumerism

Within the context of modern governance, there has been a relatively new emphasis on treating every aspect of public service as if it were a true service industry—a business, with all the applications of business terminology and concepts. This trend has created a system in which public administration overlays a template borrowed from a profit-seeking environment, with an emphasis on consumer satisfaction and outcome testing as the final statistical measure. The problem for many observers is that public administration is not a business, profit-seeking is not its mandate, and the people it serves are not customers but invested citizens seeking access to programs and services that, by their very nature, should be considered an inherent right and a shared civic responsibility. Just as it is a citizen's 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, pp. 45–46).

This is not the case in all nations, however. In many places, public service is an absolutely essential mechanism for meeting public needs, with no fundamental agent of change secondary to the political will of the given leader, and no essential focus on quality beyond the caring of an individual agent and the good intentions of a given policy developer. In many nations, the civil service is one of the largest and most stable employers—and this is especially true in nations experiencing unrest.

The importance of establishing a public administration theoretical framework that prioritizes citizenship over consumerism is foundational to social order and to mitigating the change that has occurred as a result of war. There is no single right answer to all the functional changes war brings to public administration, as the many facets of war also create many facets of institutional change. The level of degradation to physical and psychological networks must be analyzed and addressed, as the conditions of war degrade public perceptions of administrative legitimacy. One of the most difficult social realities is that public administrators are often seen as the arm of those in power—viewed as corrupt whenever any aspect of the government has been deemed so. Regardless of the good intentions of individuals within the public administration, public opinion will ultimately determine whether they stay or go, and whether the system changes or undergoes wholesale reform (Chopra & Hohe, 2004).

Seeking to understand the relationship between citizens in service to one another and a common goal, individuals must utilize the concepts of civic social responsibility, so that all parties understand they are not fundamentally different from one another—that the service provider is not a representative of control, and the citizen seeking assistance is not an "other," unimportant to the achievement of service (Jung, 2003). Creating a system where civic responsibility is the common goal is likely to improve service, increase the number of people seeking positions of service, and make the system more conducive to collective goals, as those who seek services and those who provide them may develop a greater empathetic relationship. This is again why positive change, after and even during a war, can most logically occur in a local administrative setting, where individuals are not left in limbo and are fully aware of the needs of their constituency (Chopra & Hohe, 2004).

The customer-and-provider relationship creates a divide, whereas a practice of mutual civic service creates a connection—two or more people in service to a common goal, whether it be addressing poverty or demanding a change in public policy to better serve shared interests. As Denhardt & Denhardt aptly note, quoting a civic democratic theorist: "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, p. 53; cited in Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007, p. 51).

This is not to say that service should not be conducted with mutual respect. The concepts of customer service that define it as a form of mutual respect and satisfaction have their place, as Denhardt & Denhardt also acknowledge (2007, pp. 57–58). They demonstrate that the concept of consumerism is valuable, but only to a certain degree in relation 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" (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007, p. 62). The concept of citizenship must be the overriding philosophy that guides both public service delivery and public service seeking. During periods of war, however, the issue of citizenship can be not only highly charged but highly controversial, as individuals seek to realign their fundamental core values regarding their nation's worldview. 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.

Bolman and Deal reinforce this point by stressing the nature of power relationships as a source of conflict within differing operations of civic service, and by noting that "the human resource frame views participation as a way to build motivation and commitment" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 199).

Conclusion

Within education and other avenues of public service, there has been a recent and enduring trend to create systems that sponsor active participation and develop coalitions for problem solving. Denhardt & Denhardt state that "in a world of active citizenship, the role of the public servant changes. Public administrators will increasingly play more than a service-delivery role—they will play a conciliating, a mediating, or even an adjudicating role. And they will no longer rely on the skills of management control, but rather on the skills of facilitating, brokering, negotiating and conflict resolution" (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007, p. 84). This statement is perhaps the most telling with regard to the conclusions of this work. Those who are most central to the need for public administration—that is, those at the most local level who are fully aware of the challenges and needs of their community—will be more likely to develop systems that respond well to the challenges that war poses for public administration.

Using education again as an example of the kind of core public administration situation where such changes need to take place, one can see that through community activities there are demands for change that attempt, through the creativity and resourcefulness of the public administrator, to create a system that meets the greatest need. Establishing a sense of connectedness between citizenship and the responsibility of public service is foundationally important, as all citizens must feel in some way the need to set aside self-interest and work toward a collective goal. This is particularly true of education, as the education system is clearly not a consumerist market system—especially at the compulsory level. In many nations, the very things that spark war are the very things taught within education that build distrust of a new or incumbent public administration. Seeking to demonstrate that civic social responsibility must begin early, public servants who administer education as well as other public services need to understand and practice the core values of active participation and teach the same to students by example. Regardless of how idealistic this may seem, genuine social change can begin with public administration—and education is one of its arms in many nations.

War is an area of study that needs to be seriously addressed within the literature of public administration, as the implications of war are absolutely foundational to how public administration functions. There may be a sentiment that because all nations and wars are unique and independent of one another, studying war and public administration as collective concepts is futile. Yet this is clearly not the case, as certain scenarios are interchangeable and certain social issues resurface repeatedly in many different locales. Further dedicated research into this intersection is not only warranted—it is necessary.

References

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bruck, T. (1997). Macroeconomic effects of the war in Mozambique. QEH Working Paper Series QEHWPS11, 1–63.

Chopra, J., & Hohe, T. (2004). Participatory intervention. Global Governance, 10–27.

Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service (Rev. ed.). M.E. Sharpe.

Esman, M. J. (1997). Public administration, ethnic conflict and economic development. Public Administration Review, 16–28.

Evans, I. (1997). Bureaucracy and race: Native administration in South Africa. University of California Press.

Heater, D. (2003). A history of education for citizenship. RoutledgeFalmer.

Jung, D. (2003). Shadow globalization, ethnic conflicts and new wars: A political economy of intra-state wars. Routledge.

Manning, N. P., & Shaw, I. (2000). New risks, new welfare: Signposts for social policy. Blackwell Publishing.

Mohammed, N. A. (1999). Civil wars and military expenditures: A note. World Bank Development Economics Research Group (DECRG), 1–22.