Denhardt and Denhardt (2007:43) conclude that NPM has signalled a radical shift on the role of public administrators, the nature of the profession and the manner in which tasks are accomplished. The authors further propose NPM as a new Public Service Model which includes the following principles which focus on outcomes and effectiveness:
Serve citizens, not customers;
Seek the public interest;
Value citizenship over entrepreneurship;
Think strategically, act democratically;
Recognise that accountability isn’t simple;
Serve rather than steer; and
Value people, not just productivity.
The above-mentioned principles advocated by the NPM have been translated by the Citizen’s Charter into legislation, based on the South African constitution, to transform service delivery. This advocated approach to public governance can be fast-tracked by the use of strategic communication to achieve its desired end. The use of communication tools to provide transparency, both internally and externally, will assist government achieve the goal of a people-centred service provision. A key challenge, though, is the capacity of officials to encompass and display the expertise required of them to promote the image of government as an efficient organisation. Figure 2.5 illustrates the close-knit relationship between the NPM components of governance, risk and compliance which promote good governance.
Figure 2.5 that follows depicts the integration of the three pillars of good governance.
Good governance is reliant on good risk management initiatives which ensure compliance. Poor risk management would result in poor compliance, indicating poor governance. Communication is a key determinant, amongst others, for good governance, and is a focal point in this study.
Figure 2.5: The Governance-Risk-Compliance (G-R-C) Triangulation
Ho(2014:6)
Whilst the NPM is still relatively new, there are already signs of its becoming side-lined by the advent of e-Governance. The post-NPM era, launched in the early 1990s, resulted in a reform dubbed the ‘whole-of-government’ or WG (Christensen et al. 2011:132). The main concern was the problem of integration of government holistically, and recentralisation and reintegration was deemed necessary for delivering with efficiency at all levels.
The NPM approach, as adopted by government, had intended to maximize ‘profitability’
as gauged by improved service delivery. However, this approach has not proven to be very successful as government delivery cannot be measured as clearly as profit in the private sector. Dreschler (2005:1) understands the NMP model as a “transfer of business and market principles and management from the private into the public sector, symbiotic
with and based on a neo-liberal understanding of state and economy. The goal therefore, is a slim, reduced, minimal state in which any public activity is decreased and, if at all, exercised according to business principles of efficiency.” NPM is thus based on the premise that human behaviour is always motivated by profit-maximisation or self-interest.
Drechsler (2005:2-3) further believes that the NPM is doomed to fail in the public context because of the following reasons:
Reflections on NPM regarding its use in the private sector and the public sector indicate a focus on the differences, not the similarities;
While the state is denoted primarily by its monopoly on power, force and coercion in its quest for orientation towards the public good, the private sector focuses on profit maximisation;
Whilst the business processes of state, particularly a democracy such as South Africa, requires liability, regularity, transparency and due process, the public sector business processes find low costs and speed of service delivery more important;
and
Government operations create quasi-markets with commodity or service monopolies, hence real competition for best value-for-money cannot be achieved, unlike the private sector.
Drechsler (2005:9) explains the demise of the NPM being the direct result of its simply not being workable in that “it does not deliver, that it does not create greater business efficiency, let alone state effectiveness, that it is expensive, disruptive, and in the end useless, that it is heavily ideological, overly simple, diametrically opposed to economic growth and especially development, and politically charged by a specific perspective, that of neo-liberalism – could have the effect that it toppled as a paradigm.” Christensen et al. (2011:131) support this reasoning as NPM does not consider the volatile relationship between citizen as voter and politicians as public custodians, as well as the influence of the citizens on public bodies as clients and consumers interacting with their elected public leaders through the election process. Thompson & Riccucci (cited in Christensen et al.
2011:132) indicate that the lack of consideration of politics on the relationship between
governors and the citizens “may weaken responsibility, commitment, political equality, and accountability even if some aspects of service are improved.”
Vigoda (2002:529) views the NPM as being similar to the service rendered by any institution to its client, viz. government meeting the demands of its citizens is equivalent to a service provider satisfying the needs of its customers. This actually implies the belief that the adage of ‘the customer is always right’, or that one should never argue with the client, is a major determining factor in the government-to-citizen relationship. This relationship is not a realistic one in that it does not consider the various political mandates of the elected government which sets the agenda for the administrative arm of government. This lack of fit with environmental factors is supported by Nzimakwe’s (2011:64) belief that it is critical for Public Administrators to understand the notion of public leadership as the NPM is based on the principle and belief that “public administrators/leaders should effectively run government by breaking the grip of bureaucracy through the application of business approaches.”
The onslaught of the global phenomenon of ICT and the digital era is fast-tracking access to information and subsequently breaking down the barriers of the systemic bureaucracy on which the NPM depends. Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler (2005:467) depict the move as “incorporating these new shifts are towards a ‘digital-era governance’ which involves reintegrating functions into the governmental sphere, adopting holistic and needs-oriented structures, and progressing digitalization of administrative processes.”
Strategic communication would thus incorporate e-Governance to ensure that government is construed as being contemporary in its operations and delivery of services.
2.5.4 5C Protocol Theory: a Policy-implementation Perspective
The 5C Protocol Theory emphasises the role of implementation as a key determinant of the policy-making process by highlighting the various factors that impact on the success of the communication policy. Policy-implementation, the subsequent actioning of policy- making or formulation, is an equally important process. Cloete et al. (2006:182) identifies
what has become known as the 5C protocol amongst researchers and scholars of policy implementation, illustrated in Figure 2.6 that follows.
Figure 2.6: 5C Protocol
Cloete, Wissink & de Coning (2006:182)
These five interlinked variables, and their appropriateness to the communication policy, are:
Content: the implementation process includes the policy content in terms of what the communication goals are, what the policy intends to achieve, as well as the methods to be employed to address the identified problems. Lowi (cited in Cloete
& Wissink 2000:179), and again in Brynard (2005:659) characterizes policy as
“either distributive, regulatory or redistributive”;
Context: The communication policy needs to follow due process in terms of the processes of consultation with all key stakeholders and decision-makers involved in the communication process, amended accordingly, ratified and adopted by senior management before it is accepted as the duly recognised policy. Authors Cloete & Wissink (2000:180), also like Brynard (2005:659), believe that the
Implementation Cycle Content
Context
Commitment Capacity
Clients &
Coalitions
‘institutional context which, like the other four variables, will necessarily be shaped by the larger context of social, economic, political and legal realities of the system.”
Commitment: the various responsibility managers entrusted with the actioning of the adopted policy need to be committed to the policy so as to ensure that the desired communication objectives are realized Cloete & Wissink (2000:181) identify two propositions that impact on the key implementation variables:
commitment is important at all levels through which policy passes; and
in keeping with the web-like conception of inter-linkages between the five critical variables, commitment will both influence and be influenced by all four remaining variables.
Capacity: the responsibility managers within the department need to be knowledgeable administratively to deliver on the identified communication responsibilities, especially since they are the key drivers to the communication and information-dissemination process. Cloete & Wissink (2000:181) consider capacity as the “structural, functional and cultural ability to implement the policy objectives of the government,” which refer to the availability and access to tangible resources such as human, financial, technological, logistical, etc, together with the intangible requirements such as leadership, motivation, commitment, willingness and endurance, amongst others; and
Clients and Coalitions: the beneficiaries of the communication policy, viz, the internal and external stakeholders to the department, need to support and engage positively with the communication policy implementation process so as to benefit them, as well as to provide feedback to the department so that the services they enjoy may be enhanced. Such coalitions, interest groups and opinion leaders have a direct bearing on the implementation process of policy.
It can, therefore, be said that Cloete & Wissink (2000:178) believe that “each of the five variables is linked to, and influenced by, the others depending to a varying extent on the specific implementation situation.” Brynard (2005:662) also believes that communication
could be regarded as a variable for implementation, in fact as the sixth C, as South Africa has eleven official languages – a fact that underscores the importance of communication as a variable for policy implementation.