|
|
 |
| |
home
> 21st Century Governance:
Public Sector |
| |
21st-Century
Governance: Public Sector
|
|
Since
humanity began experimenting with social organizations larger
than the family, people have tried to properly define ways of
governance. Force, Divine Right, Democracy, Communism, Elitism,
and Church-dominated models such as Latin Christianity, Confucianism,
and Islamic Revolutions are among a few examples.
In the course of Western civilization, the decline of the Catholic Church's
dominance as a unifying force, and the inability to find a successful
model of privately-held armies, led to the creation of the nation-state
system. The nation-state model continued to evolve until Bismarck
invented what we would think of today as the modern welfare
state. The Bismarck model sees as its responsibility the deliverance
of services far beyond truly "public" goods such as
roads and national security. Bismarck's redefinition of the
public sector coupled itself with a more reactive effort to
combat the excesses of the 19th century's runaway private sector.
The Depression and world wars of the twentieth century continued
the movement toward a larger, more dominant public sector in
virtually every nation.
Earlier that same century, Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto
(1848), advocated an even larger role for the public sector.
His ideology of a one-sector society was tried by the Soviet
Union and other experimenters of what we now call communism.
How has the public sector been managed over the ages? After
moving from kings claiming a divine right to rule, to republics
and then back to dictatorships without divinity, the dawn of
the 21st Century finds near global agreement on democracy as
the ideal model for the public sector. But how do you make a
democracy work, especially now, in the days of new communication
tools, broader education and complex issues? The panacea has
not been found; democracy after democracy is struggling to define
a successful model of governance. From Russia to Italy, the
United States to Japan, New Zealand to Canada, the evolved models
are found wanting.
Ross Perot, US Presidential candidate in 1992, and others have
championed a concept of direct participatory democracy. Arguing
that the Internet and other tools of 21st century life will
empower near instantaneous participation, they contend that
most questions can go to the public for rolling decision. They
forget or ignore the consequences of unmediated expressions
of public passion. They overlook John F. Kennedy's artful explanation
of the dual role of courageous legislators who, he contended,
must be both leaders of a republic and followers in a democracy.
Beyond process, looking at substance: What is the proper role
of the public sector? All seem to agree on national defense.
After that, disagreement dominates. European public sectors
deliver numerous social-sector services and have heavy and direct
control over the private-sector. Asian public-sectors, other
than Japan, rely on rapid growth as the solution for most social-sector
challenges while engaging in industrial policy partnerships
with their nearly unfettered private sectors.
Using its unique power of force, some observers have charged,
the state punishes economic success and those who have attained
wealth, while rewarding those less dedicated or capable. While
such behavior by the public sector can be viewed as an attempt
to level the playing field, it might also stifle social mobility
as well as temper innovation and creativity.
Therefore, the debate on the size and role of the public sector
is a debate over the placement of the marker on the continuum
from no public sector to an all-powerful public sector. Because
the public sector has the unique use of force it is the most
dangerous. It has the ability to throttle-back the social sector
or neuter the private sector. When either occurs, society suffers.
|
| |
Back
to Top |
|
