Responsabilidade cívica e governação moderna

Responsabilidade cívica e governação moderna
Dr. G. G. Candler
University of North Florida
Presented at the
I International Seminar on Public Governance
L‟École Nationale d‟Administration -- Brasil
Florianopolis, Santa Catarina
17-19 November 2010
“The state is by definition the instrument whereby human society collectively
organizes and expresses itself. A sovereign society that fears the state is a
moribund society, unconvinced of the usefulness of its own existence.”
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Vrai (1958).
In this discussion I would like to argue that the greatest unaddressed problem in modern
governance is the lack of civic responsibility. A corollary question to this is what public
administrators can do to encourage responsible civic participation in public affairs.
My interest in this topic has been spurred in part by life in a country that is currently
experiencing a level of irrational anti-government civic irresponsibility that has long been truly
impressive.1 I hesitate to say the most irresponsible in the world, as such parochial chutzpa is far
too common among we „estadounidenses‟.2 So while perhaps not necessarily the world‟s worst
example of civic irresponsibility, to the extent that it prevents American society from addressing
real problems, it is especially notable in that it may contribute to the decline of a society that, by
any objective assessment, has led to one of the most successful societies in human history.
Recent political events have further reinforced my conviction regarding the importance of civic
responsibility. This has been especially evident in France and in the United States. In the former,
a series of strikes have been protesting attempts by the French government to reduce (among
other things) retirement costs. Despite an aging population3 and sluggish economic growth4,
many French are reluctant to accept that the retirement age might need to be raised from 60 to 62
1
As an example, this push to reduce the size of the state in the United States comes despite the libertarian, promarket, anti-government Cato and Fraser Institutes‟ annual Economic Freedom of the World Report showing that
through 2008, the United States had one of the least regulatory governments in the world, and one of the smallest
governments in the rich world. The Cato/Fraser data also report that overall economic freedom has been rising
steadily in the United States: the Clinton era continued the trend of smaller, less intrusive government of the Reagan
era, and while economic freedom declined a bit during the GW Bush era, the US remains one of the least regulated
societies in the world.
2
As a post-election commentary in the Toronto Globe & Mail (Yakabuski 2010) put it: “[Florida Governor-elect
Marco Rubio] speaks endlessly of the United States as „simply the single greatest nation in all of human history,‟ a
phrase that endears him to disciples of American exceptionalism, a sacred doctrine among U.S. conservatives.”
3
World Health Organization data indicates that the percentage of population over the age of 60 is 22% for France,
18% for the United States, and 10% for Brazil. See WHO‟s Global Health Observatory: http://www.who.int/gho/en/
4
The World Bank‟s World Development Report 2010 shows French annual GDP growth of 1.7% from 2000-8, less
than that both of the United States (2.5%) and Brazil (3.6%). See
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-1226014527953/Statistical-Annex.pdf
years. Meanwhile, recent mid-term elections in the United States (a slightly richer country5 with
a considerably younger population and a retirement age approaching 67 years) have seen midterm elections6 in which voters have rejected the party that has been struggling with the
aftermath of the worst economic recession in 80 years, and replaced it with the party whose
deregulatory policies,7 and control of the US government for most of the past 30 years8, caused
the recession. Complaints about the size of government have dominated this discourse.9 As a
„public administrationist‟ who has spent most of his career in political science departments, I
have noticed an at times yawning chasm between the two disciplines in terms of elections
(largely the realm of political science) and governing (more the realm of public administration).
While one can win elections giving the people what they want, however unreasonable; one
cannot govern that way, as financial balance sheets and economic forces, even foreign militant
groups, are immune to populist rhetoric.10
A more important line of thinking that has lead me to conclude that civic responsibility is
important comes out of a series of research papers (and hopefully future book) that I have been
working on. I have presented the ideas of the book in previous trips to Florianopolis and, as it is
only tangentially related to the topic of this discussion, will not discuss it at length. But to
summarize this greatly, as a North American „public administrationist‟ who has researched and
especially taught broadly in the field (teaching especially because I have spent my entire career
in small Masters of Public Administration programs, in which breadth has been necessary), I
have been interested in identifying and so being able to convey to students a comprehensive
understanding of the field. This is especially important because public administration has often
been considered an amorphous, interdisciplinary and so incoherent field (Gow 2010, p. 31);
while at best public administration is seen as an amorphous, interdisciplinary, incoherent but, as
Iain Gow has put it: “est une science empirique par excellence” (1993, p. 87). My good friend
Curt Ventriss put this tension between interdisciplinarity and intellectual coherence as well as
anyone:
5
WDR 2010 data, again, shows French GDP per capita at purchasing power parity of $34,400, compared to $46,970
for the United States.
6
This election saw ballots cast by about 34.6% of the voting age population.
7
By any reasonable assessment. See Roubini and Mihm 2010, Ahamed 2009, Cassidy 2009, Volcker 2008,
Bernanke 2009, and especially Alan Greenspan‟s 23 October 2008 testimony to the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee. Beyond this short term cause of the recession, Republican policies are also likely
to retard long term growth, as an anti-tax, anti-state, almost anarcho-libertarian ideology threatens long term
investment in education, infrastructure and the like, and as another plunge into recession is risked by continued
inadequate regulation of financial markets.
8
Republicans have held the White House for 20 of the 28 years prior to the economic collapse of 2008.
Republicans have controlled the Senate for 11 of the 14 years up to 2009. Republicans controlled the House for 12
of the 14 years prior to 2009. Seven of nine Supreme Court Justices had been appointed by Republicans.
9
As an example, prominent conservative commentator George Will‟s nationally syndicated, Sunday 7 November
2010 column claimed: “This election was a nationwide recoil against the president‟s idea of unlimited government.”
See first footnote 1, above, with its evidence of small government in the U.S. as of 2008. Since then, the Heritage
Foundation, an ultra-conservative partisan thinktank, released its new 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Rather
than „unlimited government‟, this ranks the United States the eighth most free economy in the world.
10
These past two paragraphs are not meant to sound as pro-Democrat, and anti-Republican as they otherwise might.
To use a French source, given l‟ENA connection of this event: Bernard-Henri Lévy (2008) provided an excellent
critique of ideological excesses of the European left that may match those of the North American right. Given the
footnotes 1, 7, 8 and 9 above, though, it has hard to make the case that the United States of (north) America is
suffering from an excess of leftist ideological domination.
It is true that public affairs education is too important to be left to those who are
exclusively trained in public administration or public policy; conversely, it is also too
important to be left to an amalgamation of scholars whose knowledge of public
administration is rudimentary at best. Expressing an interest in the public sector is
simply not enough to provide proper educational glue. A public affairs program is not an
intellectual reservation for those who want to teach -- regardless of their intellectual
perspective -- something about the public sector independent of any knowledge (or
interest) in the field as a whole... Without a substantive connection to the normative
content of the field, an interdisciplinary approach is degraded into a state of babel,
confusion, and bewilderment. (1991, p. 9)
Worse, too often attempts at a comprehensive understanding of the field of public administration
tend to feature searches for the single dominant paradigm or, in contemporary parlance: the
„killer app‟. Though it was essentially a history of the „killer apps‟ in American public
administration over the past century, Nicholas Henry‟s otherwise excellent, 1975 article in
Public Administration Review started my thinking on this topic. My first contribution to this
literature came in a 2008 article in the Australian Journal of Public Administration, which was
limited to tracking some readily identifiable paradigms in the American, Australian, Brazilian
and Canadian academic public administration literatures. This paper made no attempt to track all
such paradigms, as a taxonomy of public administration paradigms seemed incomprehensible at
the time.
Providing such an over-riding framework is precisely what I am currently trying to do, drawing
especially on my reading of a number of national literatures, in (broadly) decreasing intensity:
the US, Brazil, Canada, Australia, France, Portugal, Philippines, India and the United Kingdom.
After reading Henry‟s discussion of paradigms, as well as other North American treatments of
the topic, it quickly became clear to me that these North American, even broader Anglo-phone
discussions, were incomprehensible (reinventing and renaming old paradigms) and especially
parochial, 11 ignoring perspectives on governance that were common elsewhere.
These ruminations led me first to identify a broad, „Pre-modern‟ paradigm of public
administration both to reinforce the revolutionary nature of the „Bureaucratic‟ paradigm, as well
as to provide a way to discuss societies which lacked this bureaucratic revolution of effective,
efficient, and responsive government. From this the Bureaucratic paradigm (of Max Weber,
Henri Fayol, Woodrow Wilson, DASP, and l‟ENA!), with its hierarchy, rules, and emphasis on
technical competence, is rescued from the barbs of contemporary critics.12 If the Bureaucratic
paradigm focuses on how to govern, a second issue of major importance in modern governance
has to be why one governs. Normative questions of these sorts I identify as a second major
paradigm of modern public administration.13
11
On parochialism in Anglophone public administration, see Guerreiro Ramos 1965, Serva 1990, and Candler,
Azevêdo and Albernaz 2010.
12
Wilson Pizza, Jr. (1984), Jacques Chevallier (2004), and Charles Goodsell (2004) are especially worthy of note
for having challenged this perspective.
13
Alberto Guerreiro Ramos (1981), Curtis Ventriss (1989), and Maurício Serva (1997) are three good exemplars of
this approach.
Having identified the how and why of the agency „box‟, my third paradigm of modern public
administration is what I term Networked approaches. The modern governance literature, along
with network theory, systems theory, and a number of others, fall in to this category. The
emphasis here is on the relationships the agency has with, and the obligations the agency has to,
the rest of society.14 From this a sort of symmetrical logic suggested that equally important is the
relationships citizens have with, and obligations citizens have to, public agencies: civic
responsibility.
In especially two recent works, Georgette Dumont and I have discussed civic responsibility at a
broad, theoretical level, first largely in the North American (Candler & Dumont 2010) and
second largely in a Brazilian (Candler and Dumont forthcoming) context. Civic responsibility, at
a conceptual level, might be seen as the inverse of individualistic self interest. This is not to deny
the ability of Adam Smith‟s famous „invisible hand‟ to yield socially beneficial outcomes.
However, as I have argued in another recently published paper, a first, fundamental flaw of the
narrow advocates of individualism as guiding principle for society is that even Smith identified
limits to markets as producers of the „bem público‟ (Candler 2010, pp. 340-3). A strong stream
of the economics profession, though, has taken Smith‟s invisible hand metaphor well beyond
Smith‟s original meaning. Von Mises especially sought to “convert the theory of market prices
into a general theory of human choice” (Mises 1949, p. 3). Central to this was methodological
individualism (pp. 41-4) with its assumption that “human action is necessarily always rational”
(p. 18) to the individual actor, and so government intervention was less likely to lead to
outcomes that benefit the public than would the aggregated private decisions of citizens
themselves (Hayek, 1944, pp. 75-9). This takes the benefits of economic individualism far from
Smith‟s original justification of his invisible hand as leading to the interest of society (Smith
1776, p. 478).
This individualism is, it is widely recognized, especially prominent in the United States. Dumont
and I trace the development of American individualism, its apogee in the 1920s, decline after the
Great Depression and through to the 1970s, then resurgence to the current day.15
The pathology of individualism
Dumont and I have argued that the problem with individualism has been that many societies
have developed an imbalance between individual initiative and collective responsibility. We
refer to this as „the pathology of individualism‟, with the United States as the paradigmatic
example. Again, this is not to argue that individual initiative is not important. Indeed, Israel‟s
oldest kibbutz recently announced plans to “shed their socialist, utopian aspirations in favor of a
new market system that empowers the individual” (Murphy 2007, p. 11). Rather, Dumont and I
have argued that responsibility to the collectivity has been under-emphasized. What is needed is
14
Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, again, identified these issues in his Theory of Social Systems Delimitation (1981, pp.
121-34), and Jacques Chevallier discusses governance (2003), a current term for this phenomenon. Tânia Fischer
(1997) wrote an early Brazilian article applying network theory,
15
Ana Paula Paes de Paula (2007, pp. 27-71) provides an excellent Brazilian discussion of the development of
economic liberalism, and see also Candler 2010.
a rebalancing along the lines of Mary Parker Follett‟s „new individualism,‟ conscious of its
social context (1919, pp. 73-4).
By way of context, Table 1 presents three indicators of individualism: Geert Hofstede‟s
influential Individualism and Masculinity measures, an economic freedom indicator from the
Fraser/Cato Institutes‟ annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, and an inequality
indicator from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Hofstede‟s Masculinity
measure reflects the (individualistic) elements of assertiveness and competitiveness. Economic
freedom equates with economic individualism, while inequality suggests a lack of collective
empathy within society.
Table 1 – Dimensions of individualism
Hofstede1
Hofstede1 Economic
Individualism Masculinity Freedom2
55
79
7.89
80
52
7.91
71
43
7.43
46
95
7.46
91
62
8.06
76
70
6.95
89
66
7.89
67
66
7.50
27
31
7.19
46
56
6.10
15
21
7.56
12
73
4.33
39
36
6.50
38
49
6.00
13
64
5.81
20
66
6.54
14
46
6.35
48
56
6.45
204
464
6.80
204
464
5.72
Inequality3
Australia
12.5
Canada
9.4
France
9.1
Japan
4.5
15.9
USA
Italy
11.6
UK
13.8
Germany
6.9
Portugal
15.0
Argentina
31.6
Costa Rica
23.4
Venezuela
18.8
Russia
11.0
40.6
Brazil
Colombia
60.4
China
13.2
Indonesia
10.8
India
8.6
Ghana
16.1
Senegal
11.9
Notes:
1
– Hofstede 2009.
2
– Cato 2009.
3
– Ratio of the incomes of the richest 10% of citizens to the poorest 10%. Source: UNDP 2009.
4
– The data is for West Africa.
On many reasonable measures of individualism and/or civic irresponsibility, Brazil shares with
the United States the status as one of the most individualistic countries on earth. While Brazil
scores relatively low on individualism and economic freedom, it scores a bit higher on the
„Masculinity‟ measure. The last column, though, presents a different perspective: despite
dramatic recent improvement, inequality in Brazil has been among the highest in the world.
Many argue that a number of elements of the early political culture of the country – the
settlement of the country by a neo-feudal Portugal, the private (rather than statist) initiative of the
early settlements, the legacy of slavery – made the country non conducive to a broadly defined
collective citizenship (Freyre 1978; Leal 1948; Prado 1928; Sodre 1944).
Citizenship
Especially in the Brazilian context, civic responsibility might best be understood through
reference to discussions of citizenship. My dictionary defines cívico as “relativo aos cidadãos
como membros do Estado.” Responsibilidade cívica, then, refers to the responsibilities, duties
(deveres), and obligations that citizens have as a result of their membership of society. Explicit
in this is a sense of collective identity, rather than a conception of society as composed of
individuals who at best observe some basic rules in their respective pursuit of self-interest.
Citizenship may be taken for granted in mature democracies, while other societies struggle to
expand it. By way of context, Table 2 below presents citizenship indicators, based on the oftencited definition of citizenship as including the three key dimensions of civil, political and social
rights (Vieira, 2001, p. 33; Bresser Pereira, 1997, pp. 289-90; Lavalle, 2003, pp. 76-80).
Australia
Canada
France
Japan
USA
Italy
UK
Germany
Portugal
Argentina
Costa Rica
Venezuela
Russia
Brazil
Colombia
China
Indonesia
India
Ghana
Senegal
Table 2 – Dimensions of citizenship
Civil
Political
HDI2
1
1
liberties
rights
1
1
0.970
1
1
0.966
1
1
0.961
2
1
0.960
1
1
0.956
2
1
0.951
1
1
0.947
1
1
0.947
1
1
0.909
2
2
0.866
1
1
0.854
4
4
0.844
5
6
0.817
2
2
0.813
4
3
0.807
6
7
0.772
3
2
0.734
3
2
0.612
2
1
0.526
3
3
0.464
HDI rank –
GDI rank3
20
14
17
16
-4
11
-1
2
8
13
19
7
-16
4
4
10
10
-6
1
-19
Notes:
1
– Freedom House, 2009. The Freedom House scores range from 1 (free) to 7 (not free).
2
– Human Development Index. Source: UNDP, 2009.
3
– Human Development Index rank minus Gross Domestic Product per capita, and purchasing power parity. Source:
UNDP 2009.
The first two columns in the table come from Freedom House‟s annual Freedom in the World
report and range from 1 to 7, with lower scores indicating more able to exercise these civil and
political rights of citizenship. The two right hand columns use the UNDP‟s Human
Development Index (HDI) – which includes indicators of wealth, health and education -- to
capture the existence of social rights, or at least the concrete realization of those rights. The last
column, especially, helps correct for differences in income. The column subtracts a country‟s
HDI rank from its international rank in terms of GDP per capita, so rich countries in which this
wealth fails to be reflected in „human development‟ produce negative scores; while poorer
countries that achieve higher human development scores get positive scores.
As shown in Table 2, Brazil scores a bit worse than perfect scores for civil and political rights,
though is still rated as „free‟ by Freedom House. The country has moved steadily toward the
realization of these fundamental elements of citizenship, having been rated poorly (on the lower
end of the „partly free‟ category) from the advent of Freedom House‟s data in 1973 through the
mid-1980s, when these scores steadily rose on redemocratization. In terms of social rights of
citizenship, at least as reflected in the gap between income and human development, Brazil
outperforms the United States, but is outperformed by the other Latin American countries in the
table. Still, given economic limitations, Brazil has more recently done fairly well in terms of the
human development of its citizens.
Beyond this, though, Sachs (1998) echoes Amartya Sen (1999 and 2009) in emphasizing the
importance of positive freedoms in citizenship. Similarly, Carvalho implies that rights of
citizenship go beyond legal enshrinement, these rights also need to be implemented. In the
absence of a robust justice system, too many Brazilians suffer from “direitos civis retardatários”
(2002, pp. 209-17).16 Similarly, Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira (1997) and allies argue for direitos
republicanos: “os direitos que cada cidadão tem de que os bens públicos – os bens que são de
todos e para todos – permaneçam públicos, não sejam capturados por indivíduos ou grupos de
interesse” (p. 300).
What has been missing in discussions of citizenship, though, is responsible citizenship. The
rights of citizens increasingly having improved, the duties of citizens can now be emphasized. In
a discussion structured around Heidegger‟s notion of dasein, Fraga and Schultz (2009) do
address responsibility, duties, and the obligation to be a “reflexive e eticamente ativo” (p. 77)
citizen. In Brazil, this lack of emphasis on the responsibilities of citizenship might, perhaps,
have been understandable. Given an existing state that historically failed to extend civil, political
and social rights of citizenship to Brazilians, it would have been hard to convince many
Brazilians that they had obligations to the state, and so the emphasis on attaining these rights
seems reasonable. Still, the lack of a stronger sense of collective identity has been identified by
many as a fundamental problem in the country. In short, Brazil suffers from too much
individualism and too little communitarianism.
What to do?
16
This is supported by Cato/Fraser data, that rates Brazil 84 th in terms of judicial/legal effectiveness; and by
Transparency International‟s Corruption Perceptions Index, which rates Brazil 75 th.
A common solution offered for the ills of modern society is public participation, both at the
organizational (see Faria, 2009) and society-wide level (Paula, 2005). The Denhardts, for
instance, task public managers with “building relationships of trust and collaboration with and
among citizens” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, p. 42), “the creation of shared interests and shared
responsibility” (p. 42), “helping citizens articulate and meet their shared interests” (p. 43), and
operating “processes of collaboration and shared leadership based on respect for all people” (p.
43). Yet this is asking too much of public managers if citizens do not themselves have an
obligation to participate responsibly. Juan Mozzicafreddo also notes the impact of
„particularismo institucional‟ on participation, as “o jogo de pressões e as relações clientelares”
(2001a, p. 16) result in less influence for those less adept at „the game‟, and those without strong
patrons. Central to the problem is differential access and so differential influence in the policy
process (Mozzicafreddo 2003, p. 8-9; Etzioni, 1993, p. 213-25; Bok 2001, pp. 81-94). Derek
Bok notes the occasional failure of political leaders to inspire citizens (2001, p. 95), but he
identifies the public as “among the most important forces, if not the most important” (p. 351)
source of weakness in government. On the one hand the public has unrealistic expectations (p.
366-70; Antunes, 2002, p. 136), on the other too many citizens fail to participate in politics or
policy (Bok, 2001, p. 385-98). In short, Bok blames citizen apathy and disengagement,
concluding “people get the quality of government they deserve” (p. 419).
A second problem with participation as a solution to the contemporary malaise is that just as the
political process and its representative democracy can be inegalitarian, so can the policy process
and its participatory democracy. As Schattschneider famously put it, “the flaw in the pluralist
heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with an upper class accent” (1960, p. 35). Socioeconomic status is an especially strong predictor of civic engagement in Brazil (Young, 2006;
Lavalle, 2003; Vidal, 2003; Carvalho, 2002, pp. 228-9). Even nonprofit advocacy groups are no
panacea, as they, too, suffer the risk of elite cooptation (Fernandes, 1994; Ramos, 1994; Silva
and d‟Arc, 1996).
To apply the old saying: public administrators may be able to lead the civic horse to the waters of
responsible participation, but the horse must drink the waters of its own volition. Too often this
responsible citizenship is lacking. In such cases the public administrator has few options, and
Dumont and I argue that graduate professional programs in public administration provide the
administrator with few tools for dealing with such dilemmas. Bill McGregor put the issue
nicely, as “the democratic scheme requires that [public service] careerists cheerfully place
themselves at risk by educating and sustaining an often querulous public” (1984, p. 126). In
other words, what options does the ethical administrator have when faced with a public that is
variously self-interested, obstreperous, uncivil, ill-informed and/or apathetic and disengaged?
Given the limitations of participation; education is also an oft-cited solution to this problem.
Derek Bok calls for education for citizenship (2001, p. 403-10), as does Etzioni (1993, p. 89112). A number of Brazilian observers have similarly suggested that civic education is the only
variable likely to change negative citizen perceptions of the state (Cabral, 2003, pp. 40-1;
Pereira, 1997, p. 292). These proposals suggest that the current emphasis in education on
technical skills (reading, math, science) at the expense of civic education may create people able
to get jobs, but these jobs will be in an increasingly dysfunctional society. John Dewey raised
similar concerns, lamenting the “impersonalization of the human soul”, with this marked by the
“quantification of life, with its attendant disregard of quality; its mechanization and the almost
universal habit of esteeming technique as an end, not as a means, so that organic and intellectual
life is also „rationalized‟” (Dewey, 1932, p. 23-4; see also Guerreiro Ramos 1981, pp. 75-101).
Within academic public administration the educative focus has been a bit less direct. Instead, it
is the responsibility of the administrator to play “an active and positive role… in facilitating
citizen engagement” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, p. 79) to “help citizens articulate and meet
their shared interests” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, p. 553) through “involvement in programs
of civic education” (p. 555; see also Ventriss, 1991, p. 7-8). Perry does explicitly call for the
“renewal of civic education” (2007a, p. 12-13) and “societal learning” (2007b, p. 20-1), while
Bresser Pereira mentions obriagações, deveres, and responsibilidade in his advocacy of the res
publica (1997). Yet while administrators can provide citizens with information, they cannot
make citizens read it and become engaged. This leaves unaddressed the obligation of citizens.
The public manager’s response: communication
What Dumont and I have especially sought to emphasize instead is the importance of
communication. Given the difficulty inherent in trying to facilitate the articulation of shared
interests among a population often at best indifferent to this, at worst hostile to it, the single
major reform to be introduced into public affairs education might involve a more sophisticated
understanding of communication. It has been absent certainly from the English language
literature. By way of illustration, we surveyed a dozen English-language public administration/
management textbooks (Candler and Dumont, 2010) for references to communication, yet found
only two (Stillman, 2000 and Perry, 1996) with chapters on the topic.
Rather than education, McGregor argues that public servants should simply provide the
information that allows citizens to stay informed, in terms of realistic assessments of the
possibilities of public programs, and through
…civic capital formation. Here the goal is to enhance the knowledge base of public
affairs so that citizens can understand how real public affairs operate, how practical
problems affect public affairs, what the action options are, and what the criteria are by
which options can be judged. In general, the goal is to spread the pools of public affairs
knowledge around to enough centers of public affairs discussion that truly experimental
and competing approaches to problem solving can be attempted. (McGregor, 1984, p.
130; see also Antunes, 2002, p. 133-5)
Dumont and I agree, though the responsible public administrator may need to adopt a more
public intellectual role, and proactively push this information out, especially in terms of
challenging the egregious dissemination of misinformation like those which characterized the
recent US midterm elections. To paraphrase the old (English language) saying about trees
falling unheard in forests: if one communicates but no one receives the message, what was the
point?
The importance of communication in relationships between administrators and civil society is
evident in the importance attached to communication in Simon‟s Administrative Behavior, as
“essential to the more complex forms of cooperative behavior” (Simon, 1997, p. 115). Alberto
Guerreiro Ramos agreed, arguing that “a comunicação, não considerado em seu sentido vulgar,
constitui, hoje, capítulo eminente da teoria administrativa” (1966, p. 14). Equally important,
Guerreiro Ramos makes the case for a more sophisticated understanding of the theory of
communication:
No modelo taylorista de fábrica, o instrutor intervinha apenas para exclarecer a
mensagem vinda de cima… Na verdade, mediante fluxos unilaterais de informações, as
organizações tendem a insensibilizar-se para certos imperativos de trabalho e de
produtividade considerados importantes hoje. Concebe-se, assim, a comunicação como
fluxo de mensagens, informações, sinais, não apenas no sentido vertical descendendent,
mas também ascendente, e ainda no sentido horizontal, ou seja, interdepartmental. (p. 15)
Effective public relations tools can increase the likelihood of administrators turning latent
publics into constructive, active publics. Information Communication Technologies (ICTs),
whose utilization is more widely known as e-government in the public sector (Fonseca, 2001,
p.p. 95-100), are one of the newest tools available to public administrators to provide services,
disseminate information, as well as to receive feedback from stakeholders (Pereira, 2003;
Sanchez, 2003, pp. 89-96). However, technology is not a panacea. Along with “digital divide”
issues (or, for Lau, “la fracture numérique” 2004, p. 227-8), Vitalis and Duhaut refer to “le
risqué de déshumanisation” (2004, p. 321) as a result of face-to-face interaction now being
mediated through a machine, while Sanchez notes that ICTs will only open government to
citizens if government chooses to use it for this (2003, pp. 96-117).
Despite this, the case for a better understanding of the need for communication in public
administration scholarship and teaching has gained little traction (Silva and Oliveira, 2009, p.
210). Garnett and Kouzmin state the problem well:
Despite significant, even revolutionary, changes in the way individuals, organizations,
and nations communicate and despite extensive treatment of political communication,
rhetorical and speech communication, and other branches of communication,
administrative communication has lacked the scholarly and practical attention it deserves.
(1997, p. v)
The citizen’s response: responsible citizenship
By definition, civic responsibility is the responsibility of citizens, not public administrators.
Still, the main point of this paper is that it is surely correct to task the public administrator with
encouraging participation, communicating, and facilitating dialogue to develop shared interests.
However, these efforts will remain futile if public administration theory, and public
administration practice, fail to also incorporate civic responsibility as a fundamental component
of good governance. Yet the issue of civic responsibility has, at best, been recognized in passing
in contemporary public administration teaching and scholarship. Dumont and my survey of a
dozen major textbooks in public affairs mentioned above, for instance, shows that none includes
a substantial discussion of civic responsibility.
The recent public administration literature in Portugal highlights the importance of civic
responsibility. After the revolution of 1974 the country simultaneously adopted elements of
market-based, socio-centric, and state-centric approaches (Mozzicafreddo 2001b, p. 146; see also
2001a, p. 8; Fonseca, 2003, p. 317; and especially Mendes 2006). Yet despite this broad drawing
on major paradigmatic approaches to governance, Portuguese scholars have also called for civic
responsibility. Mozzicafreddo laments a citizenry demanding rights “sem grande consideração
sobre os seus deveres” (2001b, p. 145); while Antunes points to the necessity of “a motivação e
responsibilização das cidadãos” (2002, p. 135; see also Tavares 2003, p. 25; Fonseca 2003, p.
318). It is also worth noting that Eduardo Fonseca attributes a “papel preponderante” to
information communications technologies in the “consolidação e desenvolvimento da
democracia” (2001, p. 91).
In his January 2009 inaugural address, US president Barack Obama challenged Americans that
What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of
every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that
we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is
nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a
difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira identifies, as a key dimension of civic responsibility, the willingness
of citizens to pay for the services they demand (2007, pp. 127-30). The recent riots in French
streets, and the „mid-term‟ elections in the United States, suggest that this challenge has been
roundly rejected, at least by many in these two societies. The French protestors want more
services than they are willing to pay for, and the American „Tea Partiers‟ are unwilling to pay for
the services they receive. Ironically, given the mutual antipathy of the French left and the
American right, the two groups differ little in their civic irresponsibility.
American public administration has done little to combat the tendency of mean-spirited,
uninformed and so irrational populism to trump the challenge of civic responsibility. With the
inauguration of ENA Brasil, I hope Brazil avoids this fate.
References
Ahamed, Liaqut. (2009). “The future of global finance.” New York Times Book Review, 20
September, p. 23.
Antunes, Eugênio. (2002). “Reinventar a governação reforçando a cidadania.” In A reinvenção
da função público. Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Administração.
Bernanke, Ben. (2009). “Regulatory restructuring: Strengthening the financial system.” Address
to the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C., July 24.
Bok, Derek. (2001). The Trouble with Government. Cambridge: Harvard.
Bresser Pereira, Luiz Carlos (1997). “Cidadania e res publica: a emergência dos direitos
republicanos.” Revista de Informação Legislativa, 34(136), pp. 289-313.
Bresser Pereira, Luiz Carlos (2007). Democracy and Public Management Reform. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cabral, Manuel Villaverde (2003). “O Exercício da Cidadania Política em Perspectiva Histórica
(Portugal e Brasil).” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Social, 18(51).
Candler, G.G. (2008). “Epistemic community or Tower of Babel? Theoretical diffusion in
public administration.” Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(3), pp. 294-306.
Candler, G.G. (2010). “Towards a public spirited public management economics: an essay in
honor of John Kenneth Galbraith.” Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(3), pp. 328-48.
Candler, G.G., Ariston Azevêdo and Renata Albernaz (2010). “Toward Global Scholarship in
Public Administration.” Public Administration 88(3), pp. 836-50.
Candler, G.G. and Georgette Dumont (2010). “The price of citizenship: Civic responsibility as
the missing dimension of public administration theory.” G. Candler and Georgette
Dumont, Public Administration Quarterly, 34(2), pp. 166-98, 2010.
Candler, G.G. and Georgette Dumont (forthcoming). “Civic responsibility and human
sustainability.” Invited chapter for a book tentatively titled Planejamento e Gestão de
Organizações Públicas para Sustentabilidade: Novas Racionalidades. Edited by Arlindo
Philippi Junior, Carlos Alberto Cioce Sampaio, and Valdir Fernandes (Brazil).
Carvalho, José Murilo de (2002). Cidadania no Brasil: O longo caminho. Rio de Janeiro:
Civilização Brasileira.
Cassidy, John (2009). How Markets Fail. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Cato Institute (2010). Economic Freedom of the World 2010. Washington.
Chevallier, Jacques (2003). “La Gouvernance, un Nouveau Paradigme Étatique?” Revue
française d‟administration publique, 105/106, pp. 203-17.
Chevallier, Jacques. (2003). “La gouvernance, un nouveau paradigme étatique?” Revue
française d’administration publique, 105/106, 203-17.
Chevallier, Jacques (2004). “L‟État Régulateur.” Revue française d’administration publique
111, pp. 473-82.
Denhardt, Janet and Robert Denhardt (2003). The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering.
Armonck: M.E. Sharpe.
Denhardt, Robert and Janet Denhardt (2000). “The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering.”
Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-59.
Dewey, John. (1932). Individualism Old and New. New York: Capricorn.
Denhardt, Janet and Robert Denhardt (2003). The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering.
Armonck: M.E. Sharpe.
Etzioni, Amitai. (1993). The Spirit of Community. New York: Crown.
Faria, José Henrique de (2009). Gestão Participativa: Relações de Poder e de Trabalho nas
Organizações. São Paulo: Editora Atlas.
Fernandes, Rubém Cesar (1994) Privado Porém Público: O Terceiro Setor na America Latina.
Relome-Damará: Rio de Janeiro.
Fischer, Tânia (1997). “A cidade como teia organizacional: incovações, continuidades e
ressonâncias culturais – Salvador, BA, cidade puzzle.” Revista de Administração Pública
31(3), pp. 74-88.
Follett, Mary Parker (1998). The New State. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Fonseca, Eduardo (2001). “Criação e Implementação de um Portal eGovernment:
Infrasestructura de Suporte à Inovação e Modernização.” Revista de Administração e
Políticas Públicas, 2(2), pp. 90-108.
Fraga, Valderez F., and Joana Ayla Donzelli Schultz (2009). “Velamento da angústia existencial
do cidadão e do homem público e o sentido de um dever ser próprio a ações sérias.”
Revista de Administração Pública, 43(1), pp. 67-91.
Freedom House (2009). Freedom in the World. Available online, at:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15.
Freyre, Gilberto. (1978). Os Donos do Poder. Porto Allegre: Editora Globo.
Garnett, James and Alexander Kouzmin (eds.) (1997). Handbook of Administrative
Communication. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Goodsell, Charles (2004). The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic.
Washington: CQ Press.
Gow, James Iain (1993). “Les problématiques changeantes en administration publique (19651992).” Revue québécoise de science politique, 23, p. 59-105.
Gow, James Iain (2010). “Evolution of disciplinary approaches and paradigms in the study of
public administration in Canada.” In O.P. Dwivedi, Tim Mau and Byron Sheldrick
(eds.), The Evolving Physiology of Government: Canadian Public Administration in
Transition. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press
Greenspan, Alan (2008). Testimony, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 23
October.
Guerriero Ramos, Alberto (1965). A Redução Sociológica. Rio de Janeiro: ISEB.
Guerreiro Ramos, Alberto (1966). Administração e Contexto Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro:
Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
Guerreiro Ramos, Alberto (1981). The New Science of Organizations. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Hayek, Friedrich (1945). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Henry, Nicholas (1975). “Paradigms of public administration.” Public Administration Review
35(4), p. 378-86.
Hofstede, Geert (1980). “Do American Theories Apply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics
9(1), p. 42-63.
Hofstede, Geert (2009). Cultural Dimensions. ITEM International. Available online, at:
http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php.
Keinert, Tânia (2007). Administração Pública no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Annablume.
Lau, Edwin (2004). “Principaux Enjeux de L‟Administration électronique dans les Pays
Membres de L‟OCDE.” Revue française d’administration publique, 110, pp. 225-44.
Lavalle, Adrián Gurza (2003). “Cidadania, Igualdade e Diferença.” Lua Nova, 59, pp. 75-94.
Leal, Victor Nunes (1948). Coronelismo, Enxada e Voto: O Município e o Regime Representivo
no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro.
Lévy, Bernard-Henri (2008). The Left in Dark Times. New York: Random House.
McGregor, Eugene (1984). “The Great Paradox of Democratic Citizenship and Public Personnel
Administration.” Public Administration Review 46(3), 126-132.
Mendes, Joana (2006). “La Réforme du Système Administratif Portugais: New Public
Management ou État Néo-Wébèrien?” Revue française d’administration publique 119,
pp. 533-54.
Mises, Ludwig Von (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Mozzicafreddo, Juan (2001a). “Modernização da Administração Pública e Poder Político.” In
Juan Mozzicafreddo and João Salis Gomes (eds.) A Administração e Politica:
Perspectivas de Reforma da Administração Pública na Europa e nos Estados Unidos,
Oeiras: Celta Editora, pp. 1-33.
Mozzicafreddo, Juan (2001b). “Cidadania e Administração Pública em Portugal.” In Juan
Mozzicafreddo and João Salis Gomes (eds.) A Administração e Politica: Perspectivas de
Reforma da Administração Pública na Europa e nos Estados Unidos, Oeiras: Celta
Editora, pp. 145-57.
Mozzicafreddo, J. (2003). “A responsibilidade e a cidadania na administração pública.” In Juan
Mozzicafreddo and João Batista (eds.), Ética e Administração: Como Modernizar os
Serviços Públicos, Oieras, Celta Editora.
Murphy, John (2007). “Oldest kibbutz caves in to free market.” Baltimore Sun, 11 March.
Obama, Barack (2009). President Barack Obama‟s Inaugural address. The White House Blog.
Available online, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/. Accessed 15
December 2009.
Paula, Ana Paula Paes de (2005). Para Uma Nova Gestão Pública. Rio de Janeiro: Editora
FGV.
Pereira, Luis (2003). “A Administração Pública e a Sociedade da Informação.” In Juan
Mozzicafreddo, João Salis Gomes, and João S. Batista, Ética e Administração, Oeiras:
Celta Editora, pp. 353-73.
Perry, James (ed.) 1996. Handbook of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, James (2007a). “Democracy and the New Public Service.” American Review of Public
Administration. 37(3), 3-16.
Perry, James (2007b). “Democracy and the New Public Service: Model and Some Questions.”
ASPA, Washington, DC, 27 March.
Pizza Junior, Wilson. (1984). Burocracia(s) e desburocratização. Reviste de Administração
Pública, 18, 4-17.
Prado, Paulo (1928). Retrato do Brasil: Ensaio Sobre a Tristeza Brasileira. São Paulo: DupratMayença.
Ramos, M.H.R. (1994). “Para a crítica do paradigma dos movimentos sociais urbanos.” Serviço
Social e Sociedade, 44, pp. 43-60.
Roubini, Nouriel and Stephen Mihm (2010). Crisis Economics. New York: Penguin.
Saes, Décio Azevedo Marques de (2001). “A questão da evolução da cidadania política no
Brasil.” Estudos Avançados, 15(42), pp. 379-410.
Sanchez, Oscar Adolfo (2003). “O Poder Burocrático e o Controle da Informação.” Lua Nova,
58, pp. 89-119.
Schattschneider E.E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor.
Sen, Amartya (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Serva, Maurício (1990). “Contribuições para uma Teoria Organizacional Brasileira.” Revista de
Administração Pública 24(2), pp. 10-21.
Serva, Maurício (1997). “Abordagem substantiva e ação comunicativa: uma complementaridade
proveitosa para a teoria das organizações.” Revista de Administração Pública 31(2), pp.
108-34.
Silva, José Roberto Gomes da and Maria do Carmo Leite de Oliveira (2009). “Comunicação
Organizacional: Oportunidades para uma Abordagem de Pesquisa Interdisciplinar Entre a
Administração e a Área de Estudos da Linguagem.” Organizações e Sociedade, 16(49),
pp. 207-23.
Silva, P.R.G. da and H.R. d‟Arc (1996). “Participação Social: Instrumento de gestão public?
Elementos para um debate sobre a gestão de cidades brasileiras. Quais as perspectivas
nos anos 90?” Revista de Administração Pública, 30(2), pp. 44-70.
Simon, Herbert (1997). Administrative Behavior. The Free Press.
Smith, Adam (1776). The Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sodre, Nelson Werneck (1944). Formação da Sociedade Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria
José Olympio Editora.
Stillman, Richard 2000. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Tavares, José (2003). “Gestão pública, cidadania e cultura da responsibilidade.” In Juan
Mozzicafreddo and João Batista (eds.), Ética e Administração: Como Modernizar os
Serviços Públicos, Oieras, Celta Editora, pp. 17-30.
United Nations Development Program (2009). Human Development Report. New York.
Ventriss, Curtis (1989). “Toward a Public Philosophy of Public Administration: A Civic
Perspective of the Public.” Public Administration Review 49(2), pp. 173-9.
Ventriss, Curtis (1991). “Contemporary Issues in American Public Administration Education:
The Search for an Educational Focus.” Public Administration Review 51(1), 4-14.
Vidal, Dominique (2003). „A Linguagem do respeito. A Experiênica Brasileira e o Sentido da
Cidadania nas Democracias Modernas.” Dados 46(2), pp. 265-87.
Vieira, Liszt (2001). Os argonautas da cidadania: A sociedade civil na globalização. Rio de
Janeiro: Editora Record.
Vitalis, André and Nicolas Duhaut (2004). “NTIC et Relation Administrative: de la Relation de
Guichet ã la Relation de Réseau.” Revue française d’administration publique, 110, pp.
315-26.
Volcker, P. (2008). “Rethinking the bright new world of global finance.” International Finance
11(1), pp. 101-7.
Will, George (2010). “Democrats fail to face reality.” The Times-Union 7 November, p. B-7.
Yakabuski, Konrad (2010). “Is Rubio the Republican Obama?” Globe & Mail, 5 November.
Available online at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/isrubio-the-republican-obama/article1788176/
Young, Iris Marion (2006). “Representação Política, Identidade e Minorias.” Lua Nova, 67, pp.
140-91.