The twenty-first century should be an era of new forms of Governance different from what we have seen in the past. Due to widespread economic problems and fiscal constraints in the 1980's, governments around the world both rich and poor, concluded that government had become too big, too costly and ineffective. It appeared that the state, once believed to be the prime mover that pushes sluggish economics to progress and provides needed capital, had failed in its noble task. Effects at re-engineering and reinventing governments were also exerted, reflecting new thinking on how governments should work. With powerful global trends such as liberalisation and globalization also influencing economics, displacements added to the pressure for change. Because of the problems encountered when government assumed responsibility for development, the new concept of government, uses new term governance; which is anchored on consensus, collective choice, shared responsibility and on the fundamental solutions accountability, transparency, predictability and participation. Governance encompasses the nature of functioning of states, institutional and structural arrangements, decision-making processes, policy formulation, implementation capacity, information flow, effectiveness of leadership, and the nature of the relationship between ruler and the ruled.
Governance therefore concerns not just with the integrity, efficiency and economy of government but also the effectiveness in terms of the needs to which government organisation and activity is directed. Good governance implies service to the people. Governments, task is to govern in a way that optimises the security and welfare of citizens. Measure of Good governance is how far the government is able to improve the quality of life of people tangibly as well as intangibly. Even if there is good democracy and good constitution but people are hungry, good democracy and good constitution would mean little. Democracies, accountability, honesty, commitment to service are only processes by which good governance is delivered. Good governance must have its own measures based on the overall performance of the state as measured by the improvement in the quality of life of the people. There is an inherent danger in measuring good governance on the basis of process alone. In brief, good governance is defined as the use of political authority and the exercise of control over society and the management of its resources for societal and economic development.
Good government provides a responsive governmental and state administrative framework, facilitating good governance and, while good governance and economic development must be longer-term goals than good government, the former will not be achievable without attaining the latter. Good government in practice would mean: political legitimacy for the government through democratic elections and transfer of power, political opposition and representative government; accountability through the provision of information, separation of powers, effective internal and external audit, low levels of corruption and nepotism; official competency such as having trained public servants, realistic policies and human rights as indicated by freedom of religion and movement, impartial and accessible criminal justice systems and the absence of arbitrary government power'.
Institution Building and Capability
Good governance requires building Institutions for a capable public sector to enhance State effectiveness. Once poor systems are in place, they can be very difficult to dislodge. Strong interests develop in maintaining the status quo, however, inefficient or unfair. Good policies by themselves can improve results, but the benefits are magnified where institutional capability is also higher – where policies and programmes are implemented more efficiently and where citizens have greater certainty about government's future actions. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the institutional arrangements within which the policies have to work. In a democratic set up politicians set goals and broad strategic directions, but sound institutional arrangements can determine whether the vision of political leaders get translated into effective policy priorities or not. The rules and norms embedded in the policy making process should be so designed that it curbs the political pressures that can lead to poor decision making and bad outcomes. Evidence across a range of countries has shown that well-functioning bureaucracies can promote growth and reduce poverty. They can provide sound policy inputs and deliver critical public good and services at least cost. But the problem is that if adequate care is not taken then the best designed policy will achieve little if it is badly implemented. Poor quality, high cost, waste, fraud and corruption will affect the delivery of services. This problem can be traced back to the belief that government ought to be the dominant, if not the sole provider of services. But today with liberalisation and globalisation of the economy this concept is undergoing a change; the state has to play the lead role of not provider but facilitator.
Good governance also implies that goals must be set out as clearly as possible. For whatever policies the government follows goals should be laid out in detail and the steps toward achieving these goals should be measured as clearly as possible. Then government agencies should follow the policies that seem most appropriate to achieve these goals, modifying the policies as necessary terms of the best systematic measures of performance available. When goals are clear, when performance is regularly monitored and measured and when those in the state agencies feel that they have a say in how policies are implemented, the goals are more likely to be achieved, and citizens are more likely to appropriate the roles of the government.
Restructuring Public Services
With the changing role of the State, the public services have been under tremendous pressure, which calls for the very restructuring of the public services itself. Building a more responsive state requires working on mechanisms that increase openness, provide a large number of incentives for participation in public affairs and where appropriate lessening the distance between government and the citizen. To enhance the capacity and capability of the state the crisis administration calls for a redefining the role of the government, its functions and its real focus to serve the public effectively as much as to ensure efficient and cost- effective administration. Governments have to demonstrate a clear vision of the future, based on values that are widely shared in society and leadership qualities. This entails political commitment and continuity, team building for the management of change in government and administration and the setting of priorities as also tangible realistic objectives. Public service reform, if it is to be effectively implemented requires a holistic approach, integrating the multiple human resources, financial, technical and structural factors involved within a demanding environment etc.
New Initiatives in Public Service Reforms
As a result of this during the past few years especially after the introduction of the New Economic Policy in India both the Central and State governments have initiated programmes in public service reforms, as a strategy towards achieving developmental goals. This is also due to the realisation and recognition that there is an urgent need for administrative reforms to increase the capabilities of the administrative systems in carrying out goals for economic and social development. It has also been observed that the deficiencies in the administrative machinery constitute a major obstacle to the effective implementation of development plans. The conference of Chief Secretaries in November 1996 on “An Agenda for an Effective and Responsive Administration" discussed a number of issues which emphasised the need for bringing about a transformation in the public services to make them more efficient, clean, accountable and citizen friendly. The focus of these discussions has been to evolve a concrete Action Plan, for gearing up the government machinery to provide a responsive, transparent and clean administration to the people and to address issues of reform and morale in the civil services. The Action Plan includes initiatives in the following areas:
(i) Making administration accountable and citizen friendly;
(ii) Ensuring transparency and the right to information; and
(iii) Taking measures to cleanse and motivate civil services.
Such reforms involve the conscious intervention in the bureaucracy to introduce changes, infuse dynamism and motivation, and redefine authority and functional relationships of the people as well as structural units in the bureaucracy. It underscores the fact that there are problems or bottlenecks in the administrative system or the system of governance, which impede the performance of the Government. Such reforms have a primary purpose, which is to support the objectives of national development. In the given context, the concept of administrative reform or civil service reform includes either the structural and behavioural changes or institutional and attitudinal changes. Changes in the administrative apparatus generally rest on the assumption that there is always a better alternative to the status quo. Therefore, in the process of implementing deliberate and planned social actions, the established administrative system is transformed to achieve maximum efficiency and organisational effectiveness and responsiveness in the delivery of services to the people. The efforts are aimed at increasing the capability of the administrative system for accelerating the attainment of development goals.
However, before we proceed further on the types of reforms that are needed to achieve the desired effect on the administrative agencies it would be appropriate to clarify that no reform is an end in itself. Reforms in the administration are a continuous process. There is a permanent place for public service reform in the study and practice of public administration. For this reason administrative reform has to be institutionalised. Every public organisation is expected to keep up with the State of the art and to promote innovation. The other important aspect is that administrative reform will not be effective unless there is a strong political and public support for it. The weakest point in the reform cycle is not diagnosis or formulation but implementation. The follow up of reforms is of immense value in the scheme of reforming efforts, if the reforms are not to remain a paper exercise.
