CAPAM Symposium on Networked Government: ‘Freedom to manage’, task networks and institutional environment of decentralized service organizations in developing countries
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852305056821 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| Author | George A. Larbi |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘Freedom to manage’, task networks and institutional
environment of decentralized service organizations in
developing countries1
George A. Larbi
Abstract
This article examines the introduction of decentralized management structures in
public health and water services in two developing countries — Ghana and
Zimbabwe. It explores how task networks, organizational interdependence and
institutional environment factors may enable or disable organizational autonomy
and influence performance. It argues that decentralized organizations work
within a task network of other public sector organizations and in institutional and
governance environments that are highly political. The degree of operational
autonomy that decentralized organizations have in practice will depend on the
task network and power relationships, particularly the behaviour of central
principals and other actors within the network. It suggests that decentralized
management has been introduced in varying degrees in the health and water
sectors of both Ghana and Zimbabwe but is constrained by task network diffi-
culties.
Introduction
‘Freedom to manage’ is one of the driving principles of the new public management
(NPM). In practice this has meant decentralizing the management of public services
by creating autonomous and semi-autonomous agencies and delegating manage-
ment responsibility and resources to lower units within the public sector (see Larbi,
1999; Pollitt and Talbot, 2004; Pollitt et al., 2004). Although it may take different
forms, the main appeal of decentralizing management lies in the claim that it helps to
deliver improved performance and empowers managers and employees by giving
George A. Larbi is Senior Lecturer and consultant in public sector management and governance at
the International Development Department, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Copyright © 2005 IIAS, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 71(3):447–462 [DOI:10.1177/0020852305056821]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
them more operational discretion and freedom from political and bureaucratic con-
trols. In return for their new ‘freedom’ and consistent with the shift from input to
output-based accountability, managers will be held accountable for the performance
of their organizations (Hood, 1991; Larbi, 1999; Batley and Larbi, 2004; Dent and
Barry, 2004). However, decentralized organizations work within a task network of
other public organizations characterized by interdependence, and in institutional and
governance environments that can be very constraining. Their operational autonomy
and ability to perform roles assigned to them will partly depend on their own inter-
nal capacity and partly on what other organizations within the task network are able
to do or will permit within the broader public sector environment.
This article examines the introduction of decentralized management structures in
public health and water services in two developing countries — Ghana and
Zimbabwe. It seeks to explore how task networks, organizational interdependence
and institutional environmental factors may either enable or disable operational
autonomy and influence performance of organizations. It argues that public service
reforms need to address task network, interorganizational and institutional issues in
order to enable decentralized organizations to fulfil their role of delivering services to
consumers. In developing countries formal operational autonomy is not as important
as what happens in practice. Governance and institutional contexts therefore matter
in the design, implementation and management of reforms.
It is worth clarifying some methodological issues at this point. The evidence on
Zimbabwe is largely based on analysis of secondary sources and draws on work
undertaken under the Role of Government in Adjusting Economies research pro-
gramme, in particular Batley (1998), Mudege (1997) and Russell et al. (1997). The
evidence on Ghana draws largely on primary research undertaken by the author over
the period 1996–98, using a combination of in-depth interviews with key informants
in the two sectors and documentary analysis. These sources were complemented by
secondary and other sources where possible. Thus the article focuses on organiza-
tional reforms in the public health and water services in the two countries during the
1990s.
Task network and institutional environment framework
Most analyses of the capacity of public sector organizations tend to focus on internal
factors such as skills, finance and organizational structures, management and leader-
ship and information resources. While these elements of capacity are necessary, they
are not sufficient in explaining the capacity of public sector organizations to under-
take their roles. The immediate task network environment, interorganizational
relationships and broader institutional factors often have significant impact on capac-
ity and need to be taken into account. The framework used by this article captures
these internal and external aspects of capacity as summarized in Figure 1. It draws on
Hildebrand and Grindle (1995), Larbi (1998a), Batley and Larbi (2004) and Batley
(1997) (see also Boesen and Therkildsen, 2004). The framework conceptualizes
factors that influence the capacity and performance of public sector organizations at
three levels — internal organizational factors, task network or interorganizational
factors and broader macro-level governance and institutional factors. This article
448 International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial