Implications for Leadership and Governance

(1)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274341112

EXPLORING INDIGENOUS CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: LEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Article · March 2015

CITATIONS

0

READS

1,840

4 authors:

Ankur Joshi Banasthali University 36PUBLICATIONS 60CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Puneet Bindlish

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 49PUBLICATIONS 246CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Pawan Verma

Management Development Institute Gurgaon 10PUBLICATIONS 18CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Priyanka Dutt Banasthali University 9PUBLICATIONS 53CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

(2)

The first three authors are Research Scholar and Doc- toral Student at Management Development Institute,

Gurgaon, India (MDI).

They may be reached at [email protected], [email protected], dr.pawanverma@out-

look.com respectively.

The fourth author is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Studies at IIS.

She may be reached at [email protected]

EXPLORING INDIGENOUS CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION: LEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP AND

GOVENANCE

Mr. Ankur joshi Mr. Puneet bindlish Dr. Pawan Verma Ms. Priyanka Dutt

Key Words

Kautilya Arthshaastra, Indigenous Research, Public administration, Raj Dharm Neeti

Abstract

The discourses on public management major- ly focus on the managerial approach in public sector organisation and employees. Public governance orientation is also focussed on decentralized institutions. Both are about instill- ing competitiveness and an attempt towards displacing the rule bound and hierarchical concepts of public Administration.

Kincheloe and Steinberg (2008) suggested in their study on indigenous research that scholarship needs to move from binary reductive categories. This implies the need to look the domain from a unified perspective.

For instance, both centralisation as well as decentralisation is needed in any governance structure. There is need to identify the areas where decentralized approach can work; in which area strong leadership skills are desired;

where the state cannot allow decentralization etc. To exploring these kinds of framework or concepts of co-existence of public administration and public management, the Arthshastra of Kautilya provides us deeper insights. The paper attempts to explore for such evidences from Kautilya Arthshaastra and concepts of Raj-Dharm Neeti from Mahabharat.

“ Kincheloe and Steinberg “

(2008) suggested

in their study on

indigenous research

that scholarship needs

to move from binary

reductive categories.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

L

ynn (2006) lists milestones in the history of public management from 4th century BCE (Shen Pu Hai codified principles of administration, China) to current times. The indigenous texts in the Indian context like Kautilya’s Arthshastra, Vidur Neeti and Neeti Shastra are few of the scriptures that are rich in detailing the concepts of Raj Dharm Neeti.

But the skewed the academic literature towards contemporary and western literature has resulted in loss for whole academic community. The ancient wisdom which is rich in its knowledge has not gained attention of scholars and hence scholarship remains deprived of this knowledge. This is a concern for practitioners, academics and public too. Hence for ensuring that the application of the research work benefits the society, the contextual significance needs to be taken into account. This work tries to address this gap and focuses on the conducting indigenous work in the public administration. First, a review of contemporary research in the public administration has been presented with respect to the emerging public management and governance orientations. Then a few concepts from Raj Dharm Neeti have been presented with respect to governance and leadership. The article explored the way an indigenous research can be attempted with unified perspective. For conducting indigenous research in public administration few propositions have been made.

Review of Public Administration Literature The research in public administration has witnessed emerging orientations of public management, new public management, public governance and new public governance. Lynn (2006) raised concern over the lack of definitive conceptualization in all three terms- public administration, public management and public governance. This is also reason why these terms could not be differentiated in the academic or scholarly works. Although as Osborne (2006) remarked that a three-stage model is a simplification. The elements of each stage can often coexist with each other or overlap.

The old public administration’s model of delivery of services considered that state formulates rules and regulations, which are implemented by bu-

reaucracy for delivering services to the public.

Henry (1975) found that the public service move- ment that took place in American universities in the early decades of 20th century was crucial in gaining interest of scholars in public administration studies. Later, the reform movements that grew to offer better services to the citizens took the managerial orientation. The public management then proposed, was concerned with the managerial actions within given policy and institutional settings (Lynn (2006) cites Moore (1995), Toonen and Raadschelders (1997), toonen (1998)).

a review of contemporary research in the public administration has been presented with respect to the emerging public management and governance orientations

REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LITERA- TURE

The research in public administration has witnessed emerging orientations of public management, new public management, public governance and new public governance. Lynn (2006) raised concern over the lack of definitive conceptualization in all three terms- public administration, public management and public governance. This is also reason why these terms could not be differentiated in the academic or scholarly works. Although as Os- borne (2006) remarked that a three-stage model is a simplification. The elements of each stage can often coexist with each other or overlap.

The old public administration’s model of delivery of services considered that state formulates rules and regulations, which are implemented by bureaucracy for delivering services to the public.

Henry (1975) found that the public service move-

“ “

(4)

ment that took place in American universities in the early decades of 20th century was crucial in gaining interest of scholars in public administration studies. Later, the reform movements that grew to offer better services to the citizens took the managerial orientation. The public management then proposed, was concerned with the managerial actions within given policy and institutional settings (Lynn (2006) cites Moore (1995), Toonen and Raadschelders (1997), toonen (1998)).

“the public governance or new public governance orientation was about a further decentralized and institutional approach to delivery of services.”

The concepts related to this discussed in the literature were like micro management; the offic- ers in the administrative services were considered as public managers who were expected to adopt managerial approach at their end to deliver the services (Behn, 1995). Then the next variant was termed as new public management (Kaboolian 1998). About the usage of words “management”

and “administration”, Lynn (2006) states that this has an implicit meaning. Citing Dimock (in Thom- as 1978, xvi) it is mentioned that Americans prefer management- the word being dynamic; while Britishers prefer administration it implies princi- pled respect for others and management implies manipulation and self aggrandizing.

The public governance or new public governance orientation was about a further decentralized and institutional approach to delivery of services. Be- fore discussing public governance a section here is needed on conceptual understanding of the term

‘governance’. Although academic literature has not been able to come up with a common understanding and definition of phenomenon called governance. Fukuyama (2013) stated about the usage that the term governance, that it has been applied to international matters in a variety of ways that have

“ “

been at best disorderly and perhaps confusing.

What is governance? An answer to this question has remained challenge for the scholarship. Fin- kelstein (1995) stated: “we say governance be- cause we don’t really know what to call what is going on”. Although Dingwerth & Pattberg (2006) have critiqued the Finkelstein statement and based on their study they argue that various authors have tried to articulate and come with the explanations the definitions. Defining governance Osborne and Gambler (1992) state that it is a mechanism to address to the needs of society and government (or policy makers) as a tool in this process. The collective action could be through stakeholders which includes administrators, people, civil society, en- trepreneurs (for profit, not for profit), media etc.

Fukuyama (2013) defined governance as an ability of government to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services.

Lobel (2004) proposed a governance model with factors like -increased participation of other than state actors, public private collaboration, diversity and competition within market, decentralization, integration of policy domains, non-coerciveness (soft law), adaptability and constant learning and coordination.

Lynn (2006) discussed historical and contemporary structures and practices and institutions of the old and new public management (specifically US, UK, France and Germany). Author remarked that these are so interrelated that answers to the forego- ing questions require an understanding of the paths and patterns of national institutional development.

The rise of modern bureaucratic state was termed as a social invention of Western Europe (Rosen- berg, 1958). Feudalism has been critiqued as it moved towards personal enrichment and dynastic advantage of the princes. Fukuyama (2013) argued that governance can be achieved irrespective of the type of government. An authoritarian regime can be well governed, just as a democracy can be mal-administered. This also signifies the impor- tance of governance, rather than focusing on reductive categorization of type of government. The next section now explores the Bhartiya Raj Dharm Neeti

(5)

REVIEW OF BHARTIYA RAJ DHARM NEETI This section reviews public administration and policy related concepts from Neeti Saar Ank, Kaly- an (Geeta Press, 2002) and Kautilya Arthshastram (Vachaspati Gairola, Chaukhamba Prakashan).

According to the scriptures the main purpose in the life of king (public leader) should be “bhagwad- praapti” (union with the supreme one). The mixed bag of guidelines for kings (public leader) existed along with those for ministers, administrators and common public. These are few shlokas that carry

message-how crucial the role of all the actors of state was considered by Kautilya at that time.

Propositions and Future Research This exploratory study has potential to be carried forward while researching in various dimensions like that of leadership, governance, public administration, indigenous research etc. The most impor- tant implication out of these areas is the learning from indigenous wisdom. In this article attempt was to draw learning for leadership and governance.

There were various takeaways for the management literature as well as practitioners. If the academic community boasts itself of being rational and open minded; it can learn a lot from the ancient wisdom.

S.N. SHLOK MEANING CONCEPT AND LEARNING

1.1

loZ= pksikgkrku~

firsokuqx`âh;krA~

In all the situations governor should treat public like a father.

Taking care of the public

This simple description has huge implications for the relationship that exist between public leader (being a parent) and people.

1.2

iztklq[ks lq[ka jkK%iztkuka p fgrs fgre~A ukRefiz; fgre~ jkK%iztkuka

rq fiz;a fgre~AA fo|kfouksrks jktk gh iztkuke~

fou;s jr%A vuU;ka i`fFkoha HkqDrs loZHkqrfgrs

jr%

Interest of king lies in the interest of public, not in the self interest.

The king who is intelligent remains involved in ensuring the interest of people and makes provisions for education of the people enjoys the kingship for a long period.

The discussions with various Aacharya and Gurujan who still follow the living oral tradition, led to some interesting implications for the public accountability issues in current times. The king in those days collected tax and revenues from the public specifically for performing activities that are for the public only. The salary and other expenses of the king as a person were to be earned by himself by doing some sort of work. The taxes collected from the public could not be used.

2.1

lalkj vfuR;

World is mortal Public leader should be aware of this could a

philosophical guideline 2.2

fo|kfou;gsrqfjfUnt;t%

dkedzzzzks/kyksHke;k uengzÔZa R;kxkRdk;Z

Control over senses, which is moti- vated by training in the sciences, should be secured by giving up lust, anger, greed, pride, arro- gance and foolhardiness.

Control over senses. There is mention of public leader being indriyajay (person who was won control over senses)

“according to the scriptures the main purpose in the life of king (public leader) should be “bhagwad-praapti”

(union with the supreme one).”

“ “

(6)

2.3

d.kZRoxf{k ftOgk?kzk.ksfUnz;.kka

’kCn Li’kZ

:Ik jl xU?ksJfo izfrifÙkfjfUnzt;t%

Absence of improper indulgence in the

pleasures of sound, touch, colour, taste and smell by senses of hear- ing, touch and sight, the tongue and the sense of smell, means control over senses.

Answering the question- what is indriyjay

2.4

lcU/kqjkVªk jktkuks fous’kqj ftrsfUnz;k%AA

’k=qÔM~oxZ eqRlqt; tkenUx;ks ftrsfUnz;%A

vEcjhÔzJoukHkkxkqHkqtkrsfpja egheAA

These and many other kings, giving themselves up to the group of six enemies, perished with their kinsmen and kingdoms, without control over senses

Casting out the group of six enemies, Jamadagnya, who had full control over his senes, as

well as Ambarisa, the son of Nabhaga, enjoyed the kingship for long time.

Reference for impact of being indriyajay

2.5

jktk vkRenzO; izd`fr laiUuksu

;L;kf/k ÔBku fothxhÔq

The king, endowed with personal excellences and those of his mate- rial constituents, the seat of good policy, is the would-be conqueror.

Summing up

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

S.N. SHLOK MEANING CONCEPT AND LEARN-

ING

3.1

fu;qDrq%deZlq O;;

fo’kq/n eqn;a n’kZ;sr~

When assigned the work, courtier is expected to show income cleared of expenses.

Role of courtier

3.2

ckg;ekH;Ruja pk;a

fo|k}ÔZ’krnkfiA rFkk i`ÔBks u lT;rs O;;’ksÔa p n’kZ;srAA

Associate is expected to be ready with receipts (incoming and outgoing) of 100 years, so that when- ever asked those could be on fingertips.

Motivation for administration and expectation from them

3.3

lgk; lk?;a jktRoa pd~esda u orZrsA

dqohZr lfpoka~ LrLek ÙksÔka p Jq.kq;kUereAA~

State can successfully run with help of associates.

One wheel does turn alone; similarly, ruler should appoint associates and listen to their feedbacks / suggestions /opinions.

Collective work (mix of cen- tralization and decentralization (advice for public leader)

3.4

loZekR;f;d

dk;Za Jq.kq;kfUUrikr;sr~ A d`PN~ lk?;efrd~kUrelk?oka ok

fotk;r AAs

All the urgent matters be heard at once and not linger on. Once the work has been deferred, it be- comes very difficult or even impossible to settle.

Setting the advice for public leader, Kautilya has aptly put the urgency of doing works.

How the work priority could be decided by public leader PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION OF THE PUBLIC LEADER

(7)

REFERENCES

1. Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3(2), 115-137.

2. Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public administration review, 313-324.

3. Bertelli, A. M., & Lynn, L. E. (2003). Manageri- al responsibility. Public administration review, 63(3), 259-268.

4. Davy, T. J. (1962). Public administration as a field of study in the United States. Internation- al Review of Administrative Sciences, 28(1), 63-78.

5. Finkelstein, L. S. (1995). What is global governance? Global governance, 1, 367.

6. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What Is Governance?

Governance.

7. Gaebler, T., & Osborne, D. (1992). Reinvent- ing government: An agenda for the 1990s.

Public Management, 74, 4-8.

8. Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Cre- ating a government that works better and costs

less: Report of the national performance review. DIANE Publishing.

9. Henry N. (1975). Paradigms of Public Admin- istration. Public Administration Review, Vol.

35, No. 4. pp. 378-386

10. Kaboolian, L. (1998). The new publicmanage- ment: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Ad- ministration Review, 58(3), 189-193.

11. Kautilya Arthshaastram, Vachaspati Gairola, Chaukhamba Publication, Varanasi.

12. Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (2008).

Indigenous knowledge in education: Com- plexities, dangers, and profound benefits.

Handbook of critical and indigenous method- ologies, 135-156.

13. Lynn Jr, L. E. (2006). Public management: old and new. Routledge.

14. Neeti-saar-ank (2002). Geeta Press, Gorakh- pur

15. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Gov- ernance Editorial Note.

16. Rosenberg, H. (1958). Bureaucracy, aristoc- racy, and autocracy: The Prussian experience, 1660-1815 (Vol. 34). Harvard University Press