Public administration theories and claims that are important to be discussed in the context of the development of the public sector in the U.A.E. are associated with privatisation or contracting out and with the improvement of monitoring systems for agencies. Thus, it is relevant to discuss the claims that agencies choose to contract out to shift responsibilities or blame, and the focus on improving monitoring technologies can reduce agency bias. Moreover, it is also important to concentrate on the aspects of the normative theories in the U.A.E. context.
Contracting Out
In the public sector, privatisation is often realised as a process of contracting out which means that agencies provide the specific service, but they can shift the responsibility for producing services to other organisations. Agencies choose to contract out not only to guarantee the provision of high-quality and cost-efficient services but also to share the responsibility or avoid certain problems with the process of production (Pritchett & Woolcock, 2002, p. 26). Contracting out leads to effective competition and efficiency, but the role of the government becomes restricted.
In the U.A.E. context, privatisation and contracting out are actively used approaches because they guarantee the significant reductions in costs associated with the services’ provision. As a result, agencies support the development of the market approach and shift responsibilities to small companies and promote the micro-privatisation because of the necessity to provide high-quality, but cost-efficient services. That is why, contracting out is typical for transportation, education, and health care spheres of the U.A.E., where supportive or market-oriented operations are performed by small firms.
In this case, the practice of contracting out can be discussed as an effective strategy that is used in the public sector of the U.A.E. to improve the quality of production. Moreover, it is important to note that the observed privatisation in the sector is more associated with the financial factors than with the idea of shifting blame.
Monitoring Technology
The governments focus on improving the monitoring technology to reduce agency bias. The problem is in the fact that monitoring is a controversial point, and agencies are inclined to state that the focus on monitoring can both improve the focus on norms and restrict the possibilities for variations and flexibility in agencies, and these factors are the causes of bias in agencies (Werlin, 2003, p. 339). Thus, while improving the approach to monitoring or changing the monitoring technology, it is possible to reduce the level of bias in agencies.
The authorities in the U.A.E. follow directly this approach while implementing the most innovative approaches and technologies to conduct monitoring. In the public sector of Dubai, monitoring and coordination are closely connected. As a result, the improvement of technologies and use of new tools in monitoring leads to reducing the agencies’ opposition to coordination and, consequently, to reducing bias.
The focus on monitoring technologies is important to understand why the public sector in the U.A.E. often utilises the approaches typical for the private sector. Thus, to enhance the competitive development of agencies, it is necessary to use the tools that are typical for the profit organisations. Improved monitoring technologies are an example of such effective tools that contribute to coordination and monitoring in the public sector.
Comments on the Public Administration Normative Theory within the U.A.E Context
The structural-functional theory can be discussed as one of the normative theories associated with the spheres of public administration and governance. According to the structural-functional theory, the main focus is on functions that are performed by certain structures, and the quality of performance and the effectiveness of function distribution determine the efficiency of the whole system’s work. Governmental structures and agencies can perform different functions, including rulemaking and rule application (Werlin, 2003, p. 331).
In the U.A.E., the focus on the principles of the structural-functional theory is observed even though experts can provide different names to theories and approaches that explain the role of functionalism in public administration. For instance, agencies in Abu Dhabi and Dubai are properly structured according to the functions they perform. Thus, public agencies are organised and separated according to a range of functional areas to increase the quality of the work. The functional differentiation can be discussed as an effective approach to minimising uncertainties regarding the decision-making in the public sector.
Although public administration in the U.A.E. has the features of the function-specific approach, it is important to state that the local agencies have enough political responsibilities to follow the local approach to public administration while applying the principles of the centralized control to it. In this context, the area-oriented approach can be discussed as beneficial for the emirates in the U.A.E. because of the possibility to combine the focus on the local approach to organizing agencies and the focus on structuring.
References
Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2002). Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in development. Center for Global Development, 10(1), 1-37.
Werlin, H. (2003). Poor nations, rich nations: A theory of governance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 329-342.