Comparative analysis of governance structures' Russian evidence'

1
Comparative analysis of governance structures.
Russian evidence.

• Podkolzina Elena, HSE, LIA
• Pertsovski Oleg, ??? "??? ??????"

2

• "Perhaps there was a time when the term
  "bureaucracy" had a settled meaning and the
  institutions that it defined had a standard
  purpose. If so, this time has passed."
• Considine, M. and J.M. Lewis (1999)

3

• Subject governance type
• Object frontline bureaucrats

4
Main governance types

• Procedural
• Corporate
• Market
• Network

5
Scale items for the procedural bureaucracy

• Rules guide me in all key decisions
• Discretion refer to supervisor in irregular
  situations
• Supervision supervisor know as much as possible
  about day-to-day work
• Technology unified information technology
  system
• Clients all clients receive the same basic
  service
• Outputs no output constraints
• Goals to move the maximum number of clients
• Innovation no responsibility
• Environment ability to choose the right
  procedure

6
Scale items for the corporate bureaucracy

• Rules only few basic rules
• Discretion main object is priority group
• Supervision supervisor doesn't knows much about
  day-to-day work
• Technology usage of unified information
  technology to track priority clients
• Clients belonging to priority group
• Outputs output targets for priority groups
• Goals larger program determines goals
• Innovation sometimes contribute suggestions
• Environment understanding organization goals

7
Scale items for the market bureaucracy

• Rules no fixed rules
• Discretion free to decide what to do with the
  client
• Supervision supervisor doesn't know much at all
  about day-to-day work
• Technology personal records on clients
• Clients differ due to ability to pay
• Outputs generated income
• Goals to get the highest number of payable
  outcomes
• Innovation private knowledge
• Environment to be better than competitor

8
Scale items for the network bureaucracy

• Rules only rule to built relations
• Discretion free to decide what is best for the
  client
• Supervision few illusory supervisors
• Technology feel free to give advice on using job
  system
• Clients to gain the trust of the client
• Outputs joint efforts results in good
  satisfaction of clients needs
• Goals to find a middle ground
• Innovation open discussions on program
  improvement
• Environment good contacts inside and outside

9
Governance Types
10
Countries

• Four OECD countries were selected as
  representative of systems that have sought to
  implement a major new approach to the
  organization of public services
• Australia,
• Britain,
• the Netherlands,
• New Zealand

11
Governance types in reality

• Procedural
• Enterprise
• Network

12
Enterprise state

• Enterprise governance is a mixture of the core
  elements of corporate and market types.
• Target driven
• Related to organizational goals
• Attentive to financial outcomes
• Focused on priority groups

13
Results of confirmatory factor analysis

• Scale items for three governance types

14
Procedural state

• Supervisor knows about work
• Refer supervisor
• Lines of authority is clear
• Competitors know results
• Dont pay attention to income

15
Enterprise state

• Organization has targets
• Computer shows steps
• Remind clients of sanctioning
• Goals set elsewhere
• Maximize financial outcomes
• Shift clients off benefits
• Use IT to track clients
• Generate payable outcomes
• Priority client groups
• Influenced by numerical targets

16
Network state

• Free to decide on clients
• Obtaining assistance important
• Gain trust of client
• Keep own records
• Team effort
• Would help other organization

17
Development

• All federal agencies will delegate,
  decentralize, and empower employees to make
  decisions. This will let frontline staff and
  front-office workers use their creative judgement
  as they offer service to customers to solve
  problems
• (Executive Office 1993, 71)

18
Bibliography

• Considine, M. and J.M. Lewis (2003) Bureaucracy,
  Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of
  Governance in Australia, Britain, the
  Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public
  Administrative review 63 (2), pp. 131-140.
• Considine, M. and J.M. Lewis (1999) Governance at
  Ground Level The Frontline Bureaucrat in the Age
  of Markets and Networks. Public Administrative
  review 59 (6), pp. 467-80.

19
Further research

• To establish the extent to which those who see
  themselves as networkers also behave as such
• Network concept as an ideal type
• Comparative efficiency of governance types
• Theory
• Empiric investigation
• Russian evidence