The guardian state is predominantly concerned with law and order. In fact, the regulatory function of government is characteristic of the guardian state whose fundamental objective is the protection of its citizenry. In this regard, the regulatory policies “involve the imposition of restrictions or limitations on the behaviour of individuals and groups . . . the most extensive variety of regulatory policies, however, is that which deals with criminal behaviour against persons and property” (Anderson 1990:12). However, regulatory policies should go beyond this and include some civil rights policies in order to protect public interests. Such policies would inevitably encompass “constraints, duties and obligations on citizens and institutions” (Denhardt 1993:79). Being concerned with law and order, it would appear plausible to infer that from the guardian state’s point of view the public sector’s objectives are primarily accountability and legality.
2.3.1.1 Accountability
Accountability is one of the essential principles or normative factors that obtain in the public sector and indeed a prominent feature of the contemporary public administration. This is particularly so because the contemporary public is not docile and, more importantly, is to a large extent, aware of its rights and vocal about the same. Accountability is defined by Banki in Hanekom, Rowland and Bain (2004:178) as “a personal obligation, liability, or answerability of an official or employee to give his supervisor a desired report of the quantity and quality of action and decision in the performance of responsibilities, especially delegated.” This definition captures at least two essential points. First, accountability in the public sector connotes a personal obligation to ensure that public resources are used efficiently and effectively to serve the public
interests. Secondly, accountability connotes answerability for one’s actions or behaviour to higher authority, say the public. However, it may also be added that accountability could also refer to the extent to which a sense of duty is upheld by elected and appointed officials particularly those at the helm of public organisations. The concept should also apply to those entities which deliver public services on behalf of government. In this regard, “accountability is also a moral, professional, and ethical construct that results when public officials and contractors serve with a commitment to do the right things” (Osborne 2002:215). Those who serve the public should invariably take cognizance of the supremacy of its interest and that in the course of public service delivery there should be no room for personal interest at the expense of the public. In particular, actions and behaviour of those who perform public duty should be beyond reproach and clearly demonstrate a concern for the general welfare of the populace (Gildenhuys 1997:59). What needs to be understood is that public service is delivered at a cost which can be expressed in terms of financial expenditure from public funds. In this regard, accountability normally refers to the extent to which public funds have been expended on activities for which they were voted. However, this view is characteristic of the traditional approach to public administration, with emphasis on rules and predetermined goals, which has the propensity to stifle initiative and creativity in public service delivery.
Public service delivery should have a greater scope for creativity and initiative on the part of public managers. In such a case, it would be plausible to suggest that accountability should be viewed in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the activities of public service delivery. This view is related to that of Miller in Popovich (1998:131) when he argued that “the proper stewardship of public funds must emphasise the rigorous evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and of the highest quality end product possible.” The virtue of this view is that it focuses on the outcomes more than it does on means or procedures. To the public, however, what matters most are the outcomes i.e. the actual service provided. For example, if the best education can be provided at the least possible cost, the public will be happy regardless
of who actually delivered the service and how it was delivered. The kernel of accountability should therefore be efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery but, of course, the delivery should not be in violation of the moral values of the public. The emphasis is therefore on both ethical behaviour and professional competence. To some extent this suggests that actions of elected and appointed officials should be legal. However, as stated earlier, legality is another objective of the guardian state and it is elucidated below, albeit in brief.
2.3.1.2 Legality
Legality is another fundamental requirement in the operations of the entire society and the economy and it connotes adherences to the laws of the country or ramifications thereof. The laws of a country are primarily designed to, amongst others, protect the rights of individuals or collectivities thereof by regulating their behaviour. As a result, “legality is emphasised by groups who seek to protect collective rights by means of public policy” (Osborne 2002: 20). Adherence to laws and policies of a particular country enhances the scope of protection of the people. For example if people could stop stealing and killing each other, the public could feel safer and better protected. Legality therefore is a requirement that ensures that public functionaries operate within the parameters of public policy. It is of critical importance to respect the rule of law for the effective functioning of the society and economy because “the rule of law ensures that all institutions of the nation are subjected to the laws of the country, strict code of conduct, accountability and transparent procedures” (Agere 2000:95). However, the rule of law alone may not be adequate if both the law enforcement and the judiciary are suspect. In fact, these are of critical importance if both the society and the economy are to function effectively. It is commonly said that where crime is rife foreign investors are reluctant to invest their resources in the country in which case economic development could be compromised. It can be worse if the government is unpredictable and does not respect the rule of law. According to Reuters in Mmegi (22 December 2004) Zimbabwe’s Minister of Finance Hebert Murerwa has appealed to local
private and foreign investors to help in the form of joint ventures with the Government to fund some $4 billion in infrastructure project. The appeal was motivated by the fact that “Government on its own cannot meet the increasing requirements for critical capital projects due to resource constraints and the growing demand for social services on the budget.” This is quite in line with the problem stated in paragraph 1.3 above. Given the current state of the economy of Zimbabwe, the local private investors may not have such huge sums of money. Even if they have such resources they, together with the foreign investors, may be apprehensive about the security of their investment given the Government of Zimbabwe’s seizure of white owned farms to settle the landless blacks in 2000. In particular, public-private partnerships can hardly be effective where the law enforcement, the judiciary and the government are unpredictable. The success of the private sector should depend to a great extent on the protection of property rights by the public sector which is a sine quo non for effective functioning of the market system.
2.3.2 Redistributive state
The redistributive states’ fundamental objective is equity and its primary concern is poverty relief and/or prevention that is articulated in terms of transfer payments. It offers some form of social security in pursuit of social justice because the intent is “to redress to some degree the inequalities in wealth and income between citizens” (Hughes 1998:86). Social justice according to Rawl’s theory is an approach “where the least well-off group in the society should be made as well-off as possible” (Young 1994:10). The redistributive process is therefore an attempt by the state to intervene on the side of the poor and the downtrodden with a view to enhancing their well- being and to create some alternatives for them. So the distributive policies are aimed at equity amongst the citizens of a country.
2.3.2.1 Equity
is applied in a variety of situations using different measures. Young (1994: XII) has observed that “equity is a complex idea that resists simple formulations. It is strongly shaped by cultured values, by precedent, and by specific types of goods and burdens being distributed.” This view seems to be predicated on the fact that every society has its own written or unwritten rules for sharing goods and burdens. In this context, equity denotes the extent to which the outcome of a distributive process in a society is in conformity with the legitimate expectations of the stakeholders. In a redistributive state, equity as noted earlier signifies redistribution that aims to reduce inequalities of income and wealth. However, the contemporary view of this concept should be broader than this to include a proper distribution of rights, opportunities, duties and obligations in a community. In this regard, Black’s Law Dictionary in Gildenhuys (1997:224) has observed that “equity denotes the spirit and the habit of fairness and justice and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men - the rule of doing to all others as we desire them to do to us.” This clearly defines the locus and focus of the concept which is very relevant to the contemporary society which has become more politicised and less patient with any form of inequality. Anecdotal evidence abounds to suggest that the public in Botswana is increasingly becoming aware of its rights and for example, people will demand similar pay for similar work, affirmative action, equal opportunities, education and other social amenities. All this is closely allied to the observation Young (1994: XII) made namely, that “equity is concerned with the proper distribution of resources, rights, duties, opportunities, and obligations in society at large.” To conclude this section, it needs to be pointed out that government, as the custodian of collective rights and interests, engages in redistributive processes in an attempt to free the poor and the downtrodden members of the society from the shackles of deprivation and conditions of perpetual economic marginality. This is the kernel of the redistributive state which is complementary to the productive state discussed below.
2.3.3 Productive state
The productive state’s primary concern is the provision of infrastructure and delivery of other goods and services. In Botswana, the productive state currently manifests itself in the form of quasi-governmental institutions or public enterprises such as the Botswana Power Corporation, Botswana Telecommunication Corporation, Botswana Railways, Water Utilities, and Air Botswana. Goods and services provided by these organisations are, by and large, private in nature and therefore “are sold to consumers and use is precluded if consumers are unwilling to pay” (Hughes 1998:88). In most cases use is also precluded if consumers are willing to pay but unable to do so. For example most, if not all, people would like to have electricity in their homes and they wish they could pay for it but because they do not have enough money they don’t have power in their homes. Public enterprises are government-owned organisations or production units that sell their products, goods and/or services, to the public and therefore being involved in the market processes. In many developing countries public enterprises were first established by colonial powers with a view to facilitating economic development (Turner & Hulme 1997:176; Hughes 1998:113). However, anecdotal evidence suggests that in Botswana these enterprises are still subjected to the whims and fancies of the political authority of the country. As a result, the management of these enterprises is not entirely at liberty to decide on the nature and scope of their activities. Being engaged in activities of a business nature, public enterprises’ fundamental objective is efficiency in their productive activities.
2.3.3.1 Efficiency
This concept focuses on how actions are performed or carried out in organisations. In particular, efficiency is a measure of the extent to which the expected output is achieved with the least possible inputs (Chase, Jacobs & Aquillano 2004:8). An organisation can be said to be efficient and effective if it successfully meets the needs of its clientele at the least possible cost (Robbins
et al, 2001:15). Suffice it to state that effectiveness, which is a necessary complement of efficiency, is a measure of the success of an organisation in meeting the needs of its clientele. Public organisations should invariably aim at both efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public services.
There are certain philosophies of public service delivery and it might be instructive to present an analysis of the two competing philosophies.
2.4 TWO COMPETING PHILOSOPHIES OF PUBLIC SERVICE PROVISION
There are various philosophies of public service provision. However, for the purposes of this thesis two competing philosophies are briefly discussed, namely the theory of the public interest of the welfare-maximising state and the competitive theory of private markets and public organisations. The choice of these two theories derives from the fact that the public sector in Botswana seems to be more inclined towards the former whilst the theme of this thesis advocates a shift towards the latter.
2.4.1 Public interest of the welfare-maximising state
The redistributive state has been briefly analysed above. However, the theory of the welfare-maximising state is a bigger picture that evolved from the redistributive process. Whereas the focus of the redistributive state is to reduce inequality in income and wealth by addressing the identified needs of the relatively indigent members of the society, the welfare state encompasses the entire society in various ways. It would appear that the welfare state is premised on the ideas of redistribution. According to Lane (2000:47), “a welfare state is a politico-economic regime where the state is active in the economy in various ways though without extensive ownership, which results in a mixed economy instead of a system of decentralized capitalism where markets prevail and there is less income distribution. The welfare state is active in public resource allocation, transfer payments and policies that
promote full employment.” As implied above, the genesis of the welfare state was the need to enhance the well-being of the economically weak social groups such as the unemployed and those with low incomes by providing them with specific goods and services. However, all this ultimately covered everybody including the affluent members of the society. These goods and services relate to “income security, health, social housing, education, and the personal social services” (Lund 2002:1). For example, in Botswana education is currently free for all citizens from primary schools to senior secondary schools and this includes meals in schools, books and stationery regardless of whether parents are able to pay for all this or not. Medical care is provided at a nominal fee in all government health centres. Old pension fund is for all citizens who have reached the age of 65 years regardless of their economic status. Anecdotal evidence for these facts abounds. These services are, by and large, paid for by the state and therefore the market forces play a minimal role if any as far as the provision of these services is concerned. The virtue of providing these goods and services by the Government of Botswana is that social cohesion is likely to be enhanced. In line with this view, Lund (2002:124) argued that the welfare state was an integrative mechanism through which “all men should be able to live a life of dignity and culture with certain goods and services planned as far as possible to emphasise and strengthen not the class differences which divide but the common humanity which unites them.” It would therefore appear that the intent is not only to reduce income and wealth inequalities but also inequality of status which could, at times, be more important than the latter because people want to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their economic circumstances.
The theory of the public interest of the welfare-maximising state is also premised on the democratic election mechanism for government and the concomitant comprehensive mandate of the ruling party. Aspiring political parties promise the electorate that if elected into power, they will deal with various aspects of human life with a view to improving their standards of living. Once a political party has received the mandate to rule then the politically determined targets are internalised and pursued by public organisations
(Naschold & Otter 1996:14). Through the democratic election mechanism, it is quite possible to expand the scope of state activity because experience has shown that in Botswana political parties promise the electorate more and more services in their campaign. In a welfare state “the government accepts the responsibility for supplying more public services and means by which the minimum economic and social requirements for existence are guaranteed” (Gildenhuys 1997:10). In the next chapters, the extent of this responsibility on government for providing the ever expanding public services is questioned in preference for public-private partnerships in public service delivery.
It does appear that from the stand point of the receiving populace the welfare state is a welcome politico-economic regime whilst from the macro-economic point of view the cost of the welfare state can be colossal and in some economies it may not be sustainable in the long run. Lane (2000:48) observed that in the welfare state the public sector is predominantly “driven by equity considerations which can only be effectuated with a cost in terms of total output.” However, it might be instructive to now briefly consider the theory that is more inclined towards market mechanism, namely the competitive theory of private markets and public organisations.