Conclusion on coherence and public management in the 21 st century

Bureaucratization is caused in part by the proliferation of rationalized myths. (Meyer

& Rowan, 1977, 347)

This quotation from John Meyer and Brian Rowan in the American Journal of Sociology at the end of the ‘70s captures some basic generalizations and myths that public administration still faces in the 21^st century. One of the basic generalizations is that governmental organizations are blamed for being inefficient. However, big business companies face same kind of inefficiency problems. However, their profitability is more explicated to approve. Business companies have an absolute zero in terms of their profitability, and one can say whether the business is profitable or not. In tax-funded public organizations, there is no absolute zero, and the added value is only theoretical (Meklin, 2009, 45).

Rationalized myths refer to rationalizations in organizations that are not necessarily true but they have become true and common over time. For example, countries use GDP (general domestic product) to measure and compare public economies, but this measure was not used at all a few decades ago. Over time it has become more general and more important in world economics.

What features are incorporated in the real-world, 21^st-century public management and decision making? What makes a difference in the age of performance? Key contextual factors that affect the real-world decisions can be divided into ill-defined problems, an uncertain, dynamic environment, shifting, ill-defined, or competing goals, action and feedback loops, time stress, high stakes, multiple players, and organizational goals and norms (Zsambok & Klein, 1997, 5).

Organizations are characterized by ill-defined and inconsistent objectives. As we found out in the literature review, the causal world in which organizations live is obscure, technologies are unclear, and environments are difficult to interpret (March & Olsen, 1976). The past is important, but the history can be twisted. Individuals also vary in the attention they provide to decisions, and the pattern of participation is uncertain and changing.

The real world is full of uncertainties no matter how much we try to predict and control it. Ambiguity makes social systems difficult to understand and complexity makes them difficult to control. Osman (2010, 32) argued that causality between social systems is actual illusory and there is only a succession in the events we observe in the world.

Policy decisions are events we observe in the world and reach conclusions about. Policy decisions are complex and boundaries on individual rationality can lead to policy choices that are not fully informed. In addition, failures are indispensable in public decision making. Imperfectly informed decision-makers are, however, capable of learning from their errors, developing new understanding, and adopting new strategies in pursuit of their goals (Busenberg, 2001, 175).

The modern public manager should adopt resilience. Resilience implies the ability to recover to normalcy after a deviant event. Resiliency measures how quickly organizations or individuals recover from failure. Fire safety authorities have to be resilient because they face failures several times a year, in fire deaths 80 times in 2010, 107 times in 2009, 107 times in 2008, and 85 times in 2007, and so on. These failures, lost lives, are not the fault of the authorities or society; however, these failures happen and fire safety organizations have to recover and be capable of responding to accidents and calls for aid again. There is a lot to learn from the public management of fire safety authorities.

Is there a coherent decision making and management model in 21^st-century public management? The answer to the question in short is no, there is no coherent decision making model in the political-administrative decision making environment. Reasons for this straight answer are numerous. One of the reasons is the lack of one single management model or style in the public sector. One holistic management model that all organizations and managers in the public sector should use is an illusion. In real-life management there are several applications and management styles.

One theoretical reason for the lack of a management model or style is that there is no one explicit theory of public administration either. The early US writers on public administration constituted the political theory and a theory of democratic governance, and commented on things such as the good life, the criteria by which decisions are made, who should rule, how a separation of powers should be maintained, centralization versus decentralization, and they were actually writing political philosophy (deLeon & Denhardt, 2000, 90).

The performance management model is an ideological model including the aim of performance improvement. In Europe and in Finland this ideology is under the label of

New Public Management including ideas and concepts of what the management should be like (Lähdesmäki, 2003, 16). However, it is not an explicit description of the existing management model in the public administration.

In real life, public management is a messy and a complex system of mixed aims and policies, problems and solutions, in the same disorder, just like garbage in a garbage can in the next corner of the street as you pass by (March, 1976).

At the extreme, one can claim that the governmental system is not even designed to solve problems (Moe, 2005). Moreover, the political-administrative management and decision making system is a forum of different political viewpoints and ideologies.

Politicians represent the state elected by the citizens, and stipulate laws and make decisions on the budget. However, if the politicians were to be asked if they had read the 900-page book called the budget to make decisions and manage the state of Finland, hardly any of them could claim to have done. In addition, it is logical because the budget is not designed to be an instrument to guide and manage the country. It is a plan as to how the tax money is spent each year and the money can be transferred to another year. The budget is a collection of allowance decisions and their transfers from one year to another. The budget is not a strategic management tool. However, strategic management and anticipating have become the short-term management challenges in the Finnish central government (Virtanen & Stenvall, 2011, 67).

However, the budget is the only binding planning instrument the political-administrative decision making system has. The actual targets for the operations are set in the performance contracts, but the resources for the actions are allocated in the budget. Without connecting the actual targets and the resources spent on these targets in the binding planning instruments (budget and performance contracts), this becomes a mechanical process without connections to real-life policy decisions and choices.

One of the major problems concerning the performance management and the planning and budgeting system is the distribution of responsibilities between the state and the municipally organized rescue service regions. The Department for Rescue Services directs and oversees the Finnish rescue services but the regional rescue areas and their operations are funded by the municipalities. The ministry budget for the rescue services is rather limited considering the huge task of preventing fires and saving people from fires. This, and other ambiguities have led to dissatisfaction toward the performance management model. The Ministry of the Interior and the Department for Rescue Services has determined that they cannot fulfill the management model. The rescue services have solved the problem by announcing that they guide and steer their administrative branch in cooperation with the Regional State Administrative Agencies through information control (Rescue Services in Finland, 2012).

Controlling is one part of public politics that helps to guide and steer the public administration after a democratically made policy decision. The information control is not binding and the subject of the control has the freedom to decide not to do anything as

a consequence of that control, or end up with another solution than the one the controller was hoping for. Even in this case, the control had behavioral effects.

For example, the rescue service areas (municipalities) can follow the definitions of the central administration or decide not to follow the definitions. The indirect consequence of the information control exists, however, if the rescue service areas (municipalities) identify the problem or the subject of development (Stenvall & Syväjärvi, 2006, 17). According to Osborne and Gabler (1998), a state using information control is more effective than a state which widens its administration. Information control in this meaning does not refer to traditional bureaucracy but more to entrepreneurial administration (Törrönen, 2004, 17).

However, one cannot totally resign from the management system of the state level government. The ministry has to plan for the most important goals of the administrative branch with indicators measuring these goals anyway. This is done through different instruments such as the multi-annual operating and financial plan (Budget Decree 10§).

However, it could be done through some other procedure as well.

Budget legislation defines that the performance accounting and management system has to report on the most important information on operational effectiveness and the vast societal effectiveness in the annual financial report (Budget Decree 63§). No matter what the management system were, obligations to plan and report on performance during each financial year would have to be fulfilled.

Prime Minister Katainen’s government has introduced new measures for the Government Program monitoring, and has drawn up a strategic plan for the implementation of the Government Program on 5 October 2011. This implementation plan is a resolution focusing on the Government Program’s main objectives, preparation responsibilities, and key measures and projects, turning them into strategic, inter-sectoral, and comprehensive policies. The government has three priority areas: the reduction of poverty, inequality, and social exclusion; the consolidation of public finances; and the strengthening of sustainable economic growth, employment, and competitiveness. The government has identified the reform in local government structures, the social guarantee for young people, and the fight against the shadow economy as its key projects (Finnish Government, 2012).

All these priority areas include social effects, and especially social exclusion and strengthening sustainable economic growth can have effects on the development of fire deaths as well. A positive change in poverty, inequality, social exclusion, sustainable economic growth, and employment can have positive effects on the fire safety problem as well. However, these priority areas are not planned or implemented with the mutual support of different policies in coherence.

The complete cycle of choice by March and Olsen (1976) offers a view of public decision making and management. Individual behavior (members of Parliament, public managers, citizens) is aggregated into collective, organizational actions and choices (Parliament, ministries, and agencies). The outside world responds to these choices in a way that affects individual assessments both in terms of the state of the world and of the

efficacy of the actions (Ministries, National Audit Office, public media). People move in and out of choice situations and involvement in a decision is not attractive for everyone in all relevant choice situations, all the time. Individuals also act in several arenas at the same time. In the case of fire deaths, the cognitions and preferences held by individuals (victims) affected their behavior. Their behavior and choice can affect cognitions and preferences of society, and society can learn and change the standards and cognitions of healthy living in a safe environment. Overall, their behavior and choice affects, in the end, the state of the world through the next generations.

In 1347 when Finland was part of Sweden, the jurisdictional districts were obliged to help victims of fire if the fire was not caused by a lack of care. All residents were obliged to carry out fire aid. Six assessors estimated the damage and if the damage was 20 marks, the whole jurisdictional district was obliged to employ fire aid. If the damage was 10 marks, the aid was divided in half for the district, and if it was five marks, the aid was given from the quarter of the district where the victim lived (Halonen & Nevanlinna, 1983, 11). This medieval joint responsibility system has been replaced by modern taxation and insurance systems in the present-day. However, the solidarity among the residents in neighboring areas should not be replaced. Even though one should not pay jointly for the damage caused by fires, no longer should one be jointly responsible for greeting the neighbors from time to time, and doing the most effective preventive fire safety work.