The Impact of Corruption on the Effectiveness of Public Administration

Issue Number 106 - October 2018

The Impact of Corruption on the Effectiveness of Public Administration
Prepared By: Dr. Dany Ghsoub
Assistant Professor, NDU Co authored Vanessa Khoury Mikael Rebecca Zammar

Introduction

Public administration represents the organizational arrangements, managerial practices, and institutionalized values which officials legislate in the chase of policy implementation and in the endorsement of the will of governments^[1]. This statement echoes the one made Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his famous Social Contract: “the law is the expression of the general will”.

 

Woodrow Wilson states that public administration is the most evident part of government; it is government in action; it is the executive, the operational and the most obvious side of government. In other words, public administration is concerned with politics and policy making; it inclines to be concentrated in the executive branch of the government where the means by which the purposes and goals of government are implemented[2].

Herbert A. Simon and D.W Smithburg also consider public administration an executive tool in the government which performs the functions and the activities of the executive branches of the state, local governments, government corporations and certain other agencies of a specialized character. It is the area of study and practice where law and policy indorsed are carried out. Thus, public administration comprises of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfillment or enforcement of public policy[3].

Similarly, Luther Gulick also added that public administration is that measure of the science of administration which enact with the government, and thus concerns itself predominantly with the executive branch, where the work of government is done. That’s why it is continuously an active business inside the government concerned with carrying out the law as made by legislative bodies and interpreted by courts, through the process of organization and management. Hence, public administration is as much concerned with what government does as it is with how it does it[4].

 

A. The evolution of Public Administration:

The history of public administration is a significant source of understanding of the administrative structure of the present and of the practicable and appropriate directions which its future evolution will or should take[5].

In medieval times, public administrators were as qualified as rulers and the educated elite in terms of abilities to read, write and calculate[6]. Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor from Vienna, is associated with founding the science of Public Administration. He refused to be restricted to the definition that was given to Public Administration in his time as a form of administrative law; he rather showed that Public Administration draws on many pre-set disciplines such as sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance[7].

The earliest scholars who mention the identity of public administration are Woodrow Wilson and Goodnow, which also promote the issue of politic-administration dichotomy. During the early period of 20th century, the government system is reflected to be corrupted with patronages. Therefore, Wilson claimed that there should be a distinct separation between politics and administration, and Goodnow further determined that politics is the representation of people's will and administration is the execution of that will. They foresee a bureaucratic system with hieratical structure and formal rules and regulations, and expert administrators will perform faithfully according to the political system[8].

 

This notion give rise to the debate between Friedrik and Finer, where on one hand, Finer reflects in strict regulation that guard against administrators abuse the power and administrators should only emphasize on the technical issues, while Friedrik was arguing administrators are experts and should actively involve in the policymaking procedure[9]. In addition, such contradiction between politics and administration is also revisited by scholars Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon. Waldo in his Administrative State, points out that the dichotomy is between facts and values, which is impossible and should not be separate in government, since public administration deals with people's perception toward the state, and the study as well as practice of it should be conducted by diverse normative values[10].

Simon on the other hand, in Administrative Behavior, arguing while there is close relation between politics and administration, the purpose of public administration should concentrate on the most effective way to carry out those values. In our modern era, some modern authors define New Public Administration as the process of splitting large bureaucracies into smaller, disunited agencies, encouraging competition between different public agencies, and at the same time, encouraging competition between public agencies and private companies and using economic incentives lines[11]. Nowadays, people expect the government to provide them with jobs, law and order, accessible services, simplicity and corruption-free environment while they carry out their business day after day. In that context, Public Administration is moving away from being an activity performed by a government to being a tool used by a government to realize and implement its political agenda in direct response to meeting the needs of a given society. Development, service delivery, policy formulation and program management, and poverty reduction seem to inhabit the top of the list of analyzed-needs on a wide scale, knowing that realizing these tasks is overwhelming in the complex environment of the countries requiring immediate development especially where there is lack of guidance[12].

 

B. Corruption in Public Administration:

Historically, the institutional culture of public administration has been a system of protection against corruption and prevention efforts within the control of the public administration are often engaged at associating the professional integrity of public officials. That’s why; corruption is regarded as adversative to the purpose of public administration[13].

By definition corruption is a form of an unethical or dishonest conduct performed by a person entrusted with an authority position with the goal of acquiring personal benefits. It is often discussed to as a miscarriage of the institution of the public service and as an unfaithfulness of the necessary professional ethic of the public administrator to serve the public fairly and objectively as representatives of the public interest[14].

Corruption in the public sector is said to exist when officials, whether politicians or civil servants, behave unlawfully and misuse the public power entrusted to them in order to satisfy their private interests. It is one of the most unethical practices that challenge the confidence and trust of public officials that can only be reclaimed by forming a reputation of honesty and integrity. Corrupted officials make prejudiced decisions that serve their private interests instead of the public ones – taxpayers swallow the cost. In such a client-centered public administration, resources that are supposed to be reallocated for productive uses are instead devoted to corrupt practices. Corruption leads to unresponsive policies and poor administration[15] (Stapenhurst & Kpundeh, 1998).

Even though corruption has multiple roots, it is usually attributed to the poor design of institutions. The complexity and ambiguity of the contradictory laws and regulations intensifies the discretionary power of officials, and subsequently the risk of having arbitrary self-serving decisions increases. Corruption is dependent on the amount of monopoly and discretionary powers an official is able to exercise. Each one of these is present in different countries based on their development status. Monopoly power is said to exist in highly regulated economies, whereas discretionary power is dominant in developing countries and transitional economies[16].

 

The lack of accountability and transparency nurtures corruption: it is almost impossible to assess the legitimacy of decisions that are made behind closed doors[17].

Clientelism is the most famous definition of “who gets what” in a given society. It is known as the patron-client model of politics which permeated contemporary political systems around the world. It is a complex chain of personal bonds between political patrons and their individual clients/followers. These bonds are founded on mutual material advantage: the patron furnishes excludable resources (money, jobs) to dependents and accomplices in return for their support and cooperation (re-election). Present-day clientelism tends to flourish in insecure political and economic environments and is integral to the politics of survival for both patrons and clients. It is an enduring mechanism of control in society that is identifiable in all times and settings[18]. It is a vicious circle: the “client” asks the political patron for a service; the latter would tend to fulfill his/her request in order to guarantee re-election; the request’s fulfilment would be accomplished by the administrator who was brought to the position by the political patron – loyalty to the “employer” will be exercised regardless of the legality of the request.

On another note, it is also important to mention that nepotism constitutes a major cause for corruption, since incompetent individuals are qualified to perform specialized accomplishments; it is a main driver for conflict of interests[19].

The low public service salaries encourage officials to resort to corruption to supplement their income; and since they are not held accountable for their performance, they have incentives to delay services in order to extract bribes. They would also take advantage of common resources or collective goods since no punishment is applied – no one would abandon the opportunity of being a free rider[20]. The private interest of the public employee might discharge him/her from his/her duties in ways that are not in the best interest of the institution. The conflict of interest reduces the public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of the public functionaries. The inappropriate human resource (HR) policies and practices in the public service aggressively contribute to the malpractices that threaten transparency, ethical behavior and professionalism[21].

Is corruption a natural consequence of any human organization? The question has long been debated and, a fortiori, will still be for the future generations. From a liberal perspective, the State, and consequently the Government, is considered as an evil, but a necessary one nonetheless[22]. One that should be subjected to scrutiny and accountability[23].

 

C. Dysfunctions of Public Administration:

While functions are recognized, and might have positive effects on public administrations, dysfunctions are unrecognized and have negative effects on institutions creating conflicts. Conflicts present incidents provoked by existing deviations between the means, methods and attitudes of actions regarding a phenomenon which represents the object of analysis. Organizational conflicts are can be observed as disputes that occur when values, goals or interests of individuals contradict each other. Even though conflicts are perceived as being negative, they are capable of increasing the organizational productivity and innovativeness, improving thus the organizational performance[24]. Why dysfunctions arise in public administration?

Dysfunctions are accompanied by tension and their consequences consist of animosity, low yield, stress, absenteeism, frustration, aggressiveness, fear, discontent and resentments. In order to sustain a high-performance, leaders and HR managers must keep an eye on the symptoms of dysfunctions arising in organizations, and they treat their root. The symptoms of the dysfunctions are usually attributed to a dictatorial or limited leadership under which the management does not allow disagreements fearing arrogance or insecurity; personal agendas which internally influence promotions and selections; unfair political compensations which are not linked to qualitative performances; inefficient use of resources allocated on the basis of power-centrism and favoritism; empire-building practices through which managers work on promoting themselves; unequal workload distribution where some departments are underused while others are overloaded; and over-management which hinders communication and causes slower execution; fragmented organizational efforts which cause interdepartmental competitions and lead to miscommunication and low productivity[25]. All these attributes lead to a dysfunctional public administration that lacks efficiency and responsiveness.  

 

D. Efficiency in Public Administration:

At the beginning of the progressive era reforms, efficiency was sought to rationalize and systematize the public administration’s business. Attaining efficiency justified the centralization of public functions, the existence of bureaucracies, and the presence executive budgeting. Efficiency is sought to promote public responsiveness to the citizen’s demands especially in a democracy. Efficiency is considered as a vital value that supports and undergirds the government’s broader values. Public administration scholars questioned the supremacy of efficiency as they tested the progressive separation of the administration from politics[26]. According to Waldo (1952), this separation did not go with the view that agencies were entangled in political maneuvering as much as they were legislatures. Therefore, if the administrators make decisions effectively, they cannot be considered as choosing the optimal method for policy decisions’ implementation. Furthermore, critiques of efficiency objected on the separation of means and ends: “means are relative to ends”, making thus the administration not an end in itself. Being efficient supposes choosing a handful a value which is at the core of the public agency and pursuing objectives without giving attention to the external influential factors. So, efficiency is about “getting things done”, with low considerations on how they are done. Lowering public service costs and minimizing waste are crucial[27].

 

Efficiency in the public sector is identified through: the leadership (on the national level), the judicial system on the state level), the civil service on the institutional level) and the organizational structure. Corrupt practices involving political and bureaucratic influences, weak organizational structures, incompetent appointments render the public administration inefficient. The lack of checks and balances due to a weak judicial system also contributes to the public sector’s ills[28].

 

In a liberal democratic setting, the Public Administration is designed as an executive tool to serve citizen’s expectations. These expectations are primarily expressed through the voting process based on Agendas. The elected representatives, now officially transformed into policy makers, are expected to demonstrate responsiveness for two major reasons; the first is, to keep their electoral promises and the second, to secure their reelection. They can do this through the executive action by vertically interacting with the Public Administration. The latter can only perform properly and reach a high level of efficiency and effectiveness if it is protected from the negative interference of political bias.

Milton Friedman, from capitalism to freedom, University of Chicago press, 1962. “To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But the regards government is as a mean, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served”. 

Woodrow Wilson, the shady of Administration, Political Science Quarterly, 1887. “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its office”.

 

E. Responsiveness in Public Administration:

Responsiveness refers to the practice of ensuring that clients are served helpfully and responsibly by government agencies and officials. Wilson argued that the most common strategy for dealing with the idea of responsiveness is to treat it as an aspect of responsibility. While Finer made responsibility a subdivision of responsiveness, rather than vice versa. Thus, the agency has to ensure that its services are accessible to clients[29]. Approaches are controversial in understanding responsiveness in public administration. Some scholars refer to responsiveness as a ‘necessary evil’ that seems to conciliate professional effectiveness and a signal to political convenience if not absolute corruption. However, other scholars suggest that democracy would appear to necessitate administrators who are responsive to the people’s will at least through politicians and legislatures if not straight to the population. Dissimilar to the private sector, the public one must take into consideration social equal opportunities, equity, welfare, and just supply of ‘public goods’ to all residents. To examine the performance of governmental activities, the acceptance of the people for the outcome of public administration activities must be tested according to some measures such as the contributiveness, fruitfulness, responsiveness to public needs and equality of the distribution of these activities[30].

Corruption in the political system, the misappropriation of public funds, the bureaucratic rigidity, red tapism weaken the public administration and make it irresponsive to the people’s needs[31].

 

F. Failure of the Democratic Process in Decision-Making:

The values of democracy and the rule of law are both fundamental to the modern administrative state. Democracy enhances the credibility and stability of government and also improves the quality of public policy[32]. Democracy creates the enabling environment for broad based economic growth through markets. The predictability and stability of policies are conducive to markets, and the protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts are best ensured under democratic regimes. Democracy facilitates openness in policy dialogue, free press and respect for human rights and the rule of law, which are crucial for economic growth.

Ethics is one of the vital components that allow democracy to thrive in any country. Ethics in government is critical to realizing the promises of democracy. In a democracy, a government has an obligation to treat everyone equally and to provide the greatest good to most of citizens. The effective operation of democratic government requires that public officials and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people. Government decisions and policies should be made within the proper structure of government; public office shall not be used for personal interests, and the public has to have confidence in the integrity of its government. Ethical wrongdoings and scandals that occur in a government pose a threat to the democratic principles of the rule of law, equity, and individual rights. Fraud, bribery, and other abuses take the power from people and give it to a few in position of control, which distorts the concept of the equality of all participants of public life[33].

In a democratic society, politicians who get elected on people’s support and vote, are primary concerned with strengthening their constituencies, and thus are keen to dole out benefits to those who are their supporters. With the protective hands of politicians above them and with a temptation of gaining extra benefits, administrators consciously align with their political masters and indulge in corruption.  Ethical wrongdoings and scandals that occur in a government pose a threat to the democratic principles of the rule of law, equity, and individual rights. Fraud, bribery, and other abuses take the power from people and give it to a few in position of control, which distorts the concept of the equality of all participants of public life[34].

 

Consequences:

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. The excessive tolerance of corruption can have grave negative consequences on economic, social and political development. It threatens sustainable economic development, ethical values and justice; it weakens our society and endangers the rule of law. Corruption undermines democracy and good governance by infringing or even undermining formal processes. Corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic feature. Moreover, corruption destabilizes public confidence in government; creates wrong economic choices and constrains government’s ability to implement policies; makes the poor pay the price  and threatens government’s policies of private-sector-oriented growth. Hence, corruption weakens the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance[35].

 

Lack of Trust:

The effects of corruption on the agencies of public administration can be predominantly maleficent. When corruption is believed to be the way the public sector, or one of its agencies, regularly operates the damage goes beyond the loss of misdirected resources, public administration jeopardies losing both its capacity to be effective and the trust of citizens in the fair and impartial application of public resources and authority. In the public realm it turns out to be challenging to guarantee compliance with public standards or respect for the rule of law. A predominantly destructive institutional impact for the public administration is that competent and honest employees can be lost or dissuaded from working for government at all further decreasing its capacity for integrity and effectiveness[36].

Widespread political corruption is commonly seen as creating a severe threat to public trust in political institutions. After all, one of the principles sustaining a democratic political system is the assumption that governments are accountable to citizens. As such, the abuse of the public power entrusted to elected government officials destabilizes these procedures of accountability and corruption systematically erodes democratic principles and the faith of citizens in the political process. As a result, dissatisfied citizens are accountable to withdraw from the electoral process, or they may even resort to less legitimate means of protest as they seek fundamental changes in the system. Therefore, corruption erodes the confidence of the people in the leadership[37].

The absence of trust in government generally creates citizens who do not want to pay taxes, and who do not obey the law and makes necessary an increase in the number of monitoring and enforcement systems. Hence, weak systems of processes of democratic governance, as well as inadequate access to services and economic opportunities, tend to corrode trust in government. In another words, corruption grind down trust in the institutions of state, this in turn weakens the state’s capacity to fight corruption. Corruption in procurement, leads to waste of public resources for often inferior quality products and services, and eventually may prevent honest vendors from doing business with the state[38].

Corruption may dissolve the significant strength of political legitimacy, which most governments seek to preserve and build on. One of the major responsibilities of any regime is the construction of its own legitimacy a resource which will enable it to gain more easily the support and the assistance of the public in connection with development. By abolishing the legitimacy of political structure in the eyes of those who have power to do something about the state of affairs; corruption can lead to instability and likely national collapse[39].

That’s why, increased interaction between public officials and members of the public goes beyond the threat of scrutiny and discouragement to improve the level of trust between public administration and citizens with benefits for both for effectiveness of government and anti-corruption investigations. Better public engagement can develop the general quality of public administration and systems for receiving and managing objections about the public administration have the potential to advance trust and diminish inaccurate perceptions of corruption. A level of public trust is necessary to facilitate reporting corrupt activity, in collaborating with enforcement officials and in individual acquiescence with anti-corruption rules and norms[40].

 

Unpredictability:

Due to corruption and abuse of power, policymakers ultimately fail in their goal to predict events in the long term. From a macroeconomic prospect, the lack of predictability can have some opposite consequences in aid-dependent countries. One of the main consequences of unpredictability is that it makes fiscal planning and implementation of a recipient country’s development agenda enormously difficult. It also makes much more difficult the ownership of development programs by recipient countries since they are depending on uncertain funds. Elsewhere, the lack of predictability increases the likelihood of fiscal and monetary instability. Unpredictability increases output volatility and end up reducing growth[41].

The predominance of corruption influences on the economic environment through the establishment of significantly higher levels of risk and uncertainty in economic transactions. Uncertainty is existent both in the context of individual economic communications and in terms of intensified fears about future developments in the wider economic environment in question.

For business, it is difficult to flourish in uncertain environment. Uncertainty with regard to domestic politics can diminish motivation for investment directly and through its influences on government institutions[42].

 

State Failure:

Due to corruption in public administration, the state may fail and be powerless of providing even basic services such as public order for the society in any meaningful form. Corruption leads to the failure of the state to deal with fundamental, political, and governance issues such as the public budget and appointment of significant public officials. This phenomenon leads to the failures of political parties and their leaders to conjoin and the failures of organizations within the bureaucracy to collaborate. This type of governance failure may be capable of making and implementing a number of successful individual policies[43].

Also, corrupt governments have less money to spend on their own projects, pushing down the salaries of public employees. In turn, these lower-level staffers will be more likely to extract funds from the public pucker. Government employees in corrupt societies will thus expend more time lining their own pockets than serving the public. In other words, in most corrupted countries, dishonest politicians tend to pick investment projects not on the bases of their fundamental economic means, but on the opportunity for bribes and kickbacks these projects hence contribute to lower levels of economic growth and to ineffective government. In general, it decreases investment and therefore challenges the competitiveness of the country and lowers its GDP[44].

Furthermore, it increases inequality in a country which may contribute to social tensions and instability. The deviation of government expenses and the diminution in the quality of public services due to corruption leads to market inefficiencies, persuading companies to enter the unofficial economy[45].

 

In addition, corruption weakens the legitimacy of political institutions and thus the government is less capable to depend on the cooperation and support of the public. As a result, the government is compelled to resort to force and coercive tactics to uphold order. The resulting violence and political instability deters political development. Corruption, leads to economic inefficiency and waste, because of its consequence on the allocation of funds, on production, and on consumption[46]. Gains achieved through corruption are unlikely to be transferred to the investment area, for example, since illegal money is either used up in exposed consumption or is transferred to foreign bank accounts. Such transfers symbolize a capital outflow to the domestic economy. Furthermore, corruption engenders allocative inefficiency by authorizing the least efficient contractor with the highest ability to bribe to be the recipient of government contracts. In addition, since the cost of bribes is included in the price of the goods produced, demand tends to be reduced, the structure of production becomes biased, and consumption falls below efficiency levels. Thus, corruption lowers the general welfare of the populace[47].

In addition the major impact of corruption on public administration is the failure to make a clear separation between what is public and what is private, therefore a tendency to dissuade public resources for private profit, failure to create a foreseeable framework for law and government behavior that is beneficial to development or arbitrariness rules, regulations, authorizing requirements which hinder the functioning of markets and encouragement of rent seeking; priorities that are inconsistent with development, hence, resulting in misallocation of resources[48].

 

Conclusion

Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain”. In other terms, it is when there is no transparency, no law that emphasizes public access to information, hence allowing decision makers to act without being held accountable. Thus, lack of accountability will erode trust and the reasonable expectation that fellow citizens will act in a manner to encourage the general welfare of others.

Corruption can be measured through many tools. Transparency International has established an annual Corruption Perceptions Index in view of measuring corruption and ranking the countries depending of their score. The CPI aims at giving a general classification of corruption in countries using expert assessments and opinion surveys. Today, more than 150 countries are ranked by the CPI.  The World Bank on the other hand uses six following indicators to measure corruption which includes voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption.

Corruption affects each and every one of our lives; in some cases, it might even cost our lives. It endangers our everyday being, it destroys the country’s economy, hence it reduces the citizen’s personal wealth and it does not contribute to the renewal of the political system, thus removing citizen’s trust in their own nation.

The costs of corruption for economic, political and social development are becoming increasingly evident. On the political level, it constitutes a major barrier to democracy, hindering the emergence of a more responsible political system. The rule of law must be strengthened and the state needs to be invested in so as to increase its authority and credibility and thus helping to reduce corruption. Moreover, on the economic level, high levels of corruption ultimately lead to lower levels of foreign investment. Therefore, it limits the country’s development and reduces national wealth; leaving large segments of the population trapped in misery and poverty. Furthermore, on the social level, corruption traps citizens in a vicious cycle where bribery becomes the norm and accepting it becomes a way of life. Therefore corruption undermines people’s trust in the state and the political system, as well as its institutions and leadership. In addition, on the environmental level, there are no laws and regulations to control the impact of any projects on the environment. As a result, projects that have a negative impact on the environment have been able to proceed; despite the fact that they may be detrimental to the nation at large and ultimately serve the interests of the few individuals who are behind it.

 

References:

- Arthur, E. (2016). Problems and Prospects of Public Administration in Nigeria. Information Guide in Nigeria.

- Blind, P. (2006). Building trust in governmnt in the twenty-first century: Review of Literature and Emerging Issues. Vienna: Austria. Pages: 3- 21. Retrieved from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN025062.pdf

- Claros, A. ( 2014). Nine Reasons why Corruption is a Destroyer of Human Prosperity. World Bank. Retrieved from: http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/nine-reasons-why-corruption-destroyer-human-prosperity

- De Vries, M. S. (1999). Toward a Historical-Comparative Perspective on Bureaucracies. International Review of Public Administration, Vol: 4.

- Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(3),

- Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, USA.

- Finlay, F. (February, 2016). Politics is corrupt, public administration is corrupt, and democracy is dead. Irish Examiner, Retrieved, from: https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/fergus-finlay/politics-is-corrupt-public-administration-is-corrupt-and-democracy-is-dead-380785.html

- Fritzen, S. (2014). Corruption, Trust and their Public Sector Consequences: Introduction to the Special Edition. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Vol. 16, No. 2.

- Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey:

Chatham House Publishers, Inc. page 80 Ryan, M., Mejia, B., and Georgiev, M. (Ed). 2010. AM Gov 2010. McGraw Hill: New York.

- Gould, D. (1987). The Effects of Corruption on Administrative Performance Illustrations from Developing Countries. The Intemational Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, D.C: USA.

- Grandy, C. (2008). The “Efficient” Public Administrator: Pareto and a Well-Rounded Approach to Public Administration. American Society for Public Administration.

- Heldman, C. (2017). Causes and Consequences of Corruption – An overview of Empirical Results. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Koln.

- Henry, N. (1975). Paradigms of Public Administration. Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, Vol. 35.

- Ibrahim. B. (2017). The Impact of Corruption on National Development in Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific Research in Social Sciences & Management Studies. Vol: 2.

- Kangoye, T. (2011).Does Aid Unpredictability Weaken Governance? New Evidence from Developing Countries. African Development Bank. Angle des l’avenue du Ghana et des rues. Retrieved from:
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/
WORKING%20137%20Does%20Aid%20Unpredictability%20Weaken%20Governance%20AS.pdf

- Khan, M. (N.D). Political and administrative corruption, concepts comparative experiences and Bangladesh case. Department of Public Administration University of Dhaka. Retrieved from:

http://juhd.uhd.edu.iq/journals/index.php/v03/n02/2017-06-10-35

- Majcherkiewicz, T. (2002). Political Clientism  in public administration, A case study of institutional changes in the post-communist state of Poland. The Pedagogical University of Cracow Department of Philosophy and Sociology.

- Marume, S. (2016). Meaning of Public Administration. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science. Volume 4.

- Mihaiu, D., Opreana, A.and Cristescu, M. (2010). Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting.

- Mills, A. (May, 2012). Causes of corruption in public sector institutions and its impact on development. UNPAN, Retrieved from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan049589.pdf- Morris, S.D. (1991), Corruption and Politics in Contemporary Mexico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

- Myint, U. (2000). Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Cures. Asia-Pacific Development Journal. Vol: 7 (2).

- Navarro, P. (2014). Does corruption erode trust in government? Evidence from a recent surge of local scandals in Spain. Institut d’Economia de Barcelona.

- Pânzaru, S., Constantinescu, L., & Dragomir, C. (October, 2016). Management of Dysfunctions and conflicts in public administration. The 2nd International Scientific Conference SAMRO,

- Peters, G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration. University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Zeppelin University, Germany. Vol. 30.

- Radhika, D. (February, 2012 ). Ethics in Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, Vol. 4, No. 2,

Šatien, G.t., & Toleikien, R. (2007). A Connection Between Corruption and Unethical Behaviour of Public Officials. Šiauliai University.

- Sangita, S. (December, 2002). Administrative Reforms for Good Governance. The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 63, No. 4,

- Stapenhurst & Kpundeh (1998). Public Participation in the Fight Against Corruption. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 19:3,

- Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: responsiveness in public administration. American Society for Public Administration.

- Sundell, A. (2015). Public Administration and Corruption: How to Get the Institutions that Work. Göteborg Studies in Politics 142, edited by Bo Rothstein, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Vol: 37.

- Vigoda, E. (2000). Are you being Served? The Responsiveness of Public Administration to Citizen’s Demands: An Empirical Examination in Israel. Blackwell Publishers.

- Voskanyan, F. (2000). A Study of the effects of corruption on economic and political development of Armenia. Yerevan: Armenia. Retrieved from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN000533.pdf

- Waldo, D. (1968). Public Administration. The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 30.

- Whitton, H. Implementing effective ethics standards in government and the civil service. Transparency International. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521740.pdf.

- White, L. (1942). Notes on the History of Public Administration Project. Society of American Archivists. The American Archivist, Vol: 5.

- Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political science quarterly, Vol: 2.

تأثير الفساد على قدرات الإدارة العامة

في المجتمعات البدائية، كانت الحاجة إلى الإدارة العامّة محدودة جدًّا إن لم تكن معدومةً أصلًا. عندما كان عدد أفراد القبيلة، والانتشار الجغرافي والموارد محدودة، فكانت إدارة المجموعة تتمحور حول شخص واحد. مع اكتشاف الزراعة والتدجين زادت المحاصيل، وتكاثرت الشعوب ووسّعت انتشارها ونشأت حاجات ومتطلبات جديدة فرضت أجوبةً لطالما كانت متنوّعة حسب الحضارات والحقبات التاريخية. فبذلك وُجِدَت الإدارة العامّة لتستجيب إلى الطلبات المتزايدة والتي لم يعد شخص واحد أو مجموعة من الأشخاص يستطيعون إدارتها بطريقة حصريّة. فبذلك تكون الإدارة العامة قد وُجِدَت كوسيلة وليس كهدف. فإن أتقنّا استعمالها أثمرت وإن أسأنا فهناك كارثة الفساد وتداعياته. فليكون الفساد موجودًا، لا بدّ من تواجد عنصرين: فاسد ومفسد. فليس من الممكن للأوّل الاستمرار دون الثاني والعكس صحيح، أي أنّ القيادة الفاسدة طالما تنبع من بيئة فاسدة، لا بدّ أن تتجاهل القيم الأساسية التي تبنى عليها المجتمعات الراقية. ولذلك، كي لا يصبح المواطن شريكًا في جريمة هو ضحيّتها الأساسيّة، يفترض عليه مساءلة الذين وضعهم في مركز المسؤولية ومحاسبتهم. وإن لم يفعل فسوف ينهار الهيكل على نفسه وعلى من فيه، لأنّ أساسه البنيوي كان هشًّا.

إن لم يفلح المجتمع بوضع حدٍّ للفساد، فالمواطن يفقد الثقة بقاداته، وبمؤسّساته. فيصبح النظام عاجزًا عن تلبية واجباته.وفي ظل اهتراء كهذا ، لا يمكن للمواطن الاتكال على مؤسسات وجدها لخدمته، ولا للنظام الاتكال على المواطن للدفاع عنه فعندها يصبح الوطن عرضةً لمهبّ الريح والمصالح. فتتغلّب العاطفة على المنطق ويصبح مصير المجتمع هو الهلاك. كيف يمكن للمواطن في ظلّ فساد كهذا، احترام مؤسسات أصبحت تعطي أولويّة لتحقيق أهداف ضيّقة، ولا تخدم دورها الذي وضعت من أجله. وفي حين لا يجوز التعميم، فإنّ ولاء قلّة من الموظّفين لمؤسّساتهم لا يضاهي عدد هؤلاء الذين يستعملون المؤسسات لمكاسب شخصيّة.

لذلك، أصبح وضع أطر جديدة يتعاطى من خلالها المواطن مع مؤسساته أصبح حاجةً ماسّة، وتلك الأطر هي أجهزة رقابة ومراقبتها (quis custodiet ipsos custodes) إن كانت تقوم بواجبها أم لا. فعلينا إذًا تبنّي مفاهيم جديدة:  Tax payers logic, public scrutiny, transparency, responsibility….