The Disappearance of the Public Sector?

Document

Cited in

Author	Beryl A. Radin
DOI	http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12773
Published date	01 May 2017
Date	01 May 2017

The Disappearance of the Public Sector? 325

Public Administration Review,

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12773.

Beryl A. Radin is a member of the

faculty of the McCourt School of Public

Policy at Georgetown University and editor

of the Georgetown University Press book

series

Public Management and Change

Her work has spanned a range of public

management and public policy issues. Her

recent work has emphasized issues that

limit performance measurement efforts.

E-mail: berylradin@verizon.net

Perspective

A s a result of the 2016 election, many

Americans are examining the very core of

the American democracy and attempting to

determine the vulnerability of the U.S. institutional

structure to radical change. For many citizens, the

deconstruction of constitutional democracy that has

emerged from the Trump administration suggests a

real attack on this structure. It is difficult to make

such an assessment without recognizing that the

responsibility for this set of developments may have

emerged from different quarters from those who

orchestrate Trump ’ s agenda. Indeed, there may be a

large group of citizens who have argued for changes

that have made our democracy more vulnerable.

One of the contradictions built into the American system

involves the relationship between the values of the public

sector and those of the private sector. This relationship

was an important part of the concept of American

exceptionalism. The founders of the American democracy

were always skeptical of concentrated power in

government (such as that which emerged in monarchies,

religious orders, or other non-democratic systems).

We know that our complex shared power system was

designed to keep any part of the shared power structure

from destroying the autonomy of another part. Another

important part of that design was an acknowledgment

that there is a difference between the values tied to the

public role and those tied to the private sector. Public

sector values emphasize social justice, fairness, equity,

and the quality of public services. Private sector values

emerge from a desire to run government like a business,

focusing on efficiency and the profit motive. In

addition, the public sector operates more openly with

unclear boundaries about its participants’ authority.

The appropriate balance between public and private has

always been under dispute. Economist Albert Hirschman

provided a creative approach to this issue by defining the

balance not as a clear sorting out of the roles of the two

sectors but as a dynamic process. Calling this process

“Shifting Involvements,” he focused on the changes in

technological, social, or economic conditions that cause

a shift in the balance between public and private. He

describes this process as “disappointment”—one that

occurs because citizens find that their expectations have

not been met and thus they swing from one sector to the

other. This dynamic is often caused by external events

(such as economic crises, wars, revolutions) and seems to

explain the changes that have occurred within the United

States. And it explains the contradictions that always

seem to be present in the American society.

For more than 25 years, the swing in the United States has

been toward a predominance of values that emerge from

the private sector. Today—in contrast to the dynamics of

the 1930s—economic conditions and fiscal scarcity have

pushed efficiency values to the top of the list, overpowering

both equity and effectiveness values. The problems created

by the Wall Street crash did not generate increased reliance

on the public sector. It is assumed—although not always

understood—that the experience of the private sector is

directly transferable to the public domain.

This pattern is expressed directly in interesting ways.

Public sector employees use the term “company” to

describe their public sector organizations. Analysts

assume that quantitative data that mirrors the concept

of profit margins is the way to determine whether

public sector policies are effective. And perhaps

most importantly, they assume that contracting

out formerly public sector–provided services will

adequately address public sector roles. Private sector

contractors expect that their views about proprietary

information carry over to their government contracts.

At times, even nonprofit organizations have a hard

time competing with for-profit contractors.

We are now in the midst of what is perhaps the

strongest belief that the private sector can be the way

to deconstruct the public sector. It is time to confront

this set of assumptions. Public administration scholars

and practitioners owe the public some hard truths