ASSIGNMENT NO.

1
BY
SANA SAEED

Course Code : 9362

Course Name : Public Administration

DEPARTMENT OF PAKISTAN STUDIES

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Q.l Keeping in view the concept of public administration describe the principles of public
administration.

Answer :

Public Administration:
The Public Administration has become a distinct discipline and due to it, this is based on confident
principles. The famous scholars and experts of this field claim so. In 1927, W.F. Willoughboy published a
book entitled “Principles of Public Administration”.The title of this book shows that public administration
is a separate discipline of social science which is based on assured scientific principles. Nicholas Henry
says: Certain scientific principles of administration existed. They could be discovered. In the educational
spheres of USA, the study of public administration availed wide support. A variety of young academics
came towards the research of public administration and towards the end of thirties American Society for
Public Administration was set up while the Public Administration Review was published. Therefore, we
can say that the second phase of the evolution of public administration was really a milestone event. A
number of people with enough knowledge and skill in administration came forward for the development
of the subject. The founding of American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) took an energetic
interest for the development of the subject. A large number of professionals, non-professionals,
businessmen, office-holders and tax-payers have joined the ASPA and dedicated their services to
academic development of the public administration. In 1937, Gulick and Urwick jointly published a book
entitled “Papers on the Science of Administration”. They promoted the seven principles for the well-
organized performance of public administration. They laid down the principles included planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. The 3rd stage of the evolution of
public administration may also be called the Human Relations approach. A group of researchers and
scholars started an experiment in a plant.They called it the Hawthorne Experiments. Many scholars and
professionals started research work at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company. The aim of
the study was to discover the relations between the behaviour of the worker and working conditions. For
this purpose, the Hawthorne Electric factory was selected by the researchers. They also wanted to prove
that the workers would respond like machines to changes in working conditions.

They concluded the following results.

a) The workers are not just like machinery. All the workers have their own values and motives which
guide them.

b) The workers of the Hawthorne Electric Company were under the influence of certain values other than
lighting.

c) The underprivileged working conditions failed to influence them. They were inflexible about their
motive.

d) The workers knew that they were being observed.

e) People changed their behaviour in a positive way.

From the decade of 1960s, the evolution of public administration took a new turn which is remarkable. In
this decade, the people at large scale, especially the universities’ scholars gathered the knowledge of
management or administration and in this way, this subject got encouragement from all over the world.
Herbert Simon and Robert Dahl were the great personalities in the field of public administration; they
recommended positive norms for the subject. Robert Dahl said that the public administration cannot be
disconnected from the human behaviour. Therefore, public administrationist should be able to study
human behaviour vigilantly in order to make some conclusions about the management of any
organization. His observation is relatively applicable and is of special importance.

Any organization whether government is or private is managed by the experts. Their point of views,
methods, approaches and ideas practically guide an organization. It is obviously most important to keep
the human behaviour in view and this is impossible to study the public administration without keeping in
mind the behaviour of the human beings. On the other hand, Herbert Simon was also an important scholar
who recommended some principles for the development of the learning of public administration. Herbert
Simon has criticized various important aspects of the older administration and recommended some
important principles for this subject on the basis of scientific methods. He presented an alternative
approach in this regard and that was famous as rational model of decision making.

The alternative rational model of Simon proposed that several alternative possible courses of action
should be available in any situation while the decision makers have the option to select any one of these.
However, the choice of a particular condition or course or method must be sensible; otherwise the
manager will have to face an unacceptable situation.Moreover, during the selection of a particular course
of action, the decision maker must know about the possible consequences. In Simon’s opinion, taking the
decision of any kind is the most important part performed by the manager. All the organizations depend
on the capacity of decision makers in respect of its success. It was the ideas of Simon which shaped a
permanent impact on theoretical and practical aspects of the public administration as a significance
branch of social science.

Principles of Public Administration:

The study and practice of the public administration was fundamentally sensible and normative rather than
imaginary and value free throughout the 20th century. It may explain that unlike to some other subjects of
social sciences public administration developed without the concerns. “Not until the mid-20th century and
the dissemination of the German sociologist Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy was there much interest
in a theory of public administration. Most subsequent bureaucratic theory, however, was addressed to the
private sector, and there was little effort to relate organizational to political theory. A prominent principle
of public administration has been economy and efficiency–that is, the provision of public services at the
minimum cost. This has usually been the stated objective of administrative reform. Despite growing
concern about other kinds of values– such as responsiveness to public needs, justice and equal treatment,
and citizen involvement in government decisions–efficiency continues to be a major goal. In its concern
with efficiency and improvement, public administration has focused frequently on questions of formal
organization. It is generally held that administrative ills can be at least partly corrected by
reorganization”.

Many organizational principles originated with the military, a few from private business including:

1. Organizing departments, ministries, and agencies on the basis of common or closely related purposes,

2. Grouping like activities in single units,

3. Equating responsibility with authority,

4. Ensuring unity of command (only one supervisor for each group of employees),

5. Limiting the number of subordinates reporting to a single supervisor,

6. Differentiating line (operating or end-purpose) activities from staff (advisory, consultative, or support)
activities,

7. Employing the principle of management by exception (only the unusual problem or case is brought to
the top), and

8. Having a clear-cut chain of command downward and of responsibility upward.

Some of the critics have maintained that the principles of public administration may be useful only as
rough criteria for given organizational situations. They also have the opinion that the organizational issues
may be differ in various situations.

“Public administration has also laid stress upon personnel. In most countries administrative reform has
involved civil service reform. Historically, the direction has been toward “meritocracy” the best
individual for each job, competitive examinations for entry, and selection and promotion on the basis of
merit. Attention has increasingly been given to factors other than intellectual merit, including personal
attitudes, incentives, personality, personal relationships, and collective bargaining. In addition, the budget
has developed as a principal tool in planning future programs, deciding priorities, managing current
programs, linking executive with legislature, and developing control and accountability. The contest for
control over budgets, particularly in the Western world, began centuries ago and at times was the main
relationship between monarchs and their subjects. The modern executive budget system in which the
executive recommends, the legislature appropriates, and the executive oversees expenditures originated in
19th-century Britain. In the United States during the 20th century, the budget became the principal
vehicle for legislative surveillance of administration, executive control of departments, and departmental
control of subordinate programs. It has assumed a similar role in many of the developing countries of the
world”.

“The classical approach to public administration described above probably reached its fullest
development in the United States during the 1930s, although since that time, through educational and
training programs, technical assistance, and the work of international organizations, it has also become
standard doctrine in many countries. However, some of its elements have been resisted by governments
with British or continental-legal perspectives, and even during the 1930s it was being challenged from
several quarters. Since that time study of the subject has greatly developed. The orthodox doctrine rested
on the premise that administration was simply the implementation of public policies determined by
others. According to this view, administrators should seek maximum efficiency but should be otherwise
neutral about values and goals. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, and even more so during World
War II, however, it became increasingly evident that many new policies originated within the
administration, that policy and value judgments were implicit in most significant administrative decisions,
that many administrative officials worked on nothing except policy, and that, insofar as public policies
were controversial, such work inevitably involved administrators in politics. The supposed independence
of administration from policy and politics was seen to be illusory. Since the 1930s there has thus been
increasing concern with policy formation and the development of techniques to improve policy decisions.
Although the concept of a value-free, neutral administration is regarded by many as no longer tenable, no
fully satisfactory substitute has been offered. How to ensure that responsible and responsive policy
decisions are made by career administrators, and how to coordinate their work with the policies of
politically elected or appointive officials, remain key preoccupations, especially in democratic states. It
was with governmental efforts to combat the Depression that new informational devices were introduced,
including national income accounting and the scrutiny of gross national product as a major index of
economic health. The applied techniques of fiscal and monetary policy have become established
specializations of public administration. Economists occupy key posts in the administrations of most
nations, and many other administrators must have at least elementary knowledge of the economic
implications of government operations. France, Sweden and other Scandinavian nations, Great Britain,
and the United States were among the leaders in developing economic planning techniques. Such
planning has become a dominating concern of public administration in many of the developing
countries”.

“As economic and social intervention by governments has increased, the limitations of “incrementalism”
as a public administration practice have become increasingly apparent. Incrementalism is the tendency of
government to tinker with policies rather than to question the value of continuing them. A number of
techniques have been introduced to make decisions more rational. One such technique, widely applied, is
cost–benefit analysis. This involves identifying, quantifying, and comparing the costs and benefits of
alternative proposals. Another, less successful, technique was the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting
System (PPBS), introduced into the U.S. Department of Defense in 1961 and extended to the federal
budget in 1965. According to PPBS, the objectives of government programs were to be identified, and
then alternative means of achieving these objectives were to be compared according to their costs and
benefits”.

Q.2 The administration cannot be run without the function of the legal approach.

Answer :

The Legal Approach:

The legal approach is being discussed in the following lines.

Genesis:
The legal approach is systematically formulated approach and traces its history back to the European
tradition of inculcating public administration in law where public administration was considered as a part
of law which concentrated more on legally prescribed structure. Proponents of this approach while
considering it as a part of law; also focus on formal legal structure and organization of public bodies. It is
also called as Jurist approach. The legal approach to public administration has historically been shaded
and covered by managerial approach. But still it has its own very vast and rich tradition and has a strong
capacity and status to define public administration in its domain.

In legal approach, according to its structure and functions; power is the supreme authority. The areas of
concern in this approach are official duties, formal organization of offices, power limitation and authority
of administrators. These all areas are checked and regulated by consulting codes of law, constitution,
records of office manuals of rules and regulations of decisions authorized by judiciary.

This law protects an individual from erroneous, malicious, arbitrary and unconstitutional administrative
action or deprivation of life. Rights for the civil society are protected under this approach. It ensures equal
protection and safety of all individuals of society (according to law). It is the only approach in which
individual is given more preference and also it treats individual in very unique and different perspective.

Values:
The legal approach to public administration is embodied with three main values which are as follows:

a) Procedural due process

b) Equity/ Fairness

c) Fundamental rights of individuals

Procedural Due Process:

The procedures which are especially designed to protect the citizens or individuals from arbitrary, cruel or
unconstitutional harm by the government is considered and dealt in the legal approach.

Equity/ Fairness:

It prevents from any unpleasant treatment or arbitrary functioning with individuals.

Fundamental Rights of Individuals:

The legal approach to public administration grants basic/fundamental rights to individuals. It also protects
constitutional and legal rights of the individual people.

Organizational Structure:
Organizational structure in the legal approach may vary from context to context. The legal approach
advocates the formal legal structure mainly it gives more emphasis on follow up of adversary procedures.
Those administrative agencies which are exercising adjudicatory functions, they often enjoy maximum
degrees of independence from the government as they are more concerned with the application of law.
The legal approach to public administration stresses more on some key functions such as

a) Formal duties of agencies (official duties)

b) Formal duties of administrators (official duties)

c) Discretionary authority of administration with its limitations.

d) Disciplinary actions taken against employees.

e) Employment opportunities to be provided at equal level.

Interrelated Sources of Legal Approach:

There are three interrelated sources of legal approach i.e. administrative law, judicial law and
constitutional law.

Administrative Law:
It determines certain official procedures to be adopted along with the liabilities of state officials. It also
describes the liabilities of private individuals when it when it comes to deal with official procedures and
public officials.

Judicialization of Public Administration:

It shows the judiciary role in public administration. A public official or administrator if engaged in any
adjudication then it becomes a legal matter. Hence judiciary performs its supreme role in the case.

Constitutional Law:
It determines the pure legitimacy of all the actions taken by government. It considers the action of
government as function of public administration. Constitutional law works in both domains include
individual fundamental rights, legal authority of government and abuse of power etc.

Q.3 How can you explain the role of administrative laws and accountability to implement the
policies in administration?

Answer :

Administrative Law:
Administrative law is the body of law that governs the administration and regulation of government
agencies (both federal and state). It is the kind of law which deals with the establishment, duties and
powers of and available remedies against authorized agencies in the executive branch of the government.

‘Administrative law is the by-product of expanding socio-economic functions of the State and increased
powers of the government. It has become immensely important in developed societies since the
relationship of individuals with the authorities has also become complex’. In simple words, we can say
that the administrative law is the branch of public law that commands to the government agencies and
offices that how to work at federal and provincial level. This is commonly judge made law that gives the
proper guidelines for public administration. This is the law which ensuring the welfare and benefits for
the public. It also includes the power of rulemaking of the administrative bodies where the advanced
lawmaking offices delegate their authorities to ensure improved administration and the application of
rules and procedures. Meaning There are various types of law while administrative law is the law which
deals with the affiliation between the citizens and the government of the any county. It controls the
structure of organizations and the power of the management and quasi-judicial bodies to enforce the rule
of law. The quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial body which can interpret the laws. The Administrative
law is basically concerned with governmental and managerial activities. It processes and controls the
mechanism to avoid administrative agencies from spiraling out of control. In short, the administrative law
makes ensure that the power must not be misused by the authorities.

Definition:
The administrative law has been defined by various scholars and jurists. These definitions reveal the
scope and several dimensions of the administrative law. According to Austin administrative law
determines the end and modes to which the sovereign powershall be exercised. According to Austin
“sovereign power should be either exercised directly by the monarch or entrusted to subordinate political
agents holding a position of trust. Holland regards Administrative law as “one of the six divisions of
public law “while Bernard Schawartz has defined it to be the law applicable to those administrative
agencies which possess adjudicatory authority of a delegated legislation. Ivor Jennings defined
Administrative law a “the law relating to administration”. It determines the organization, powers and
duties of administrative authorities.

AV Dicey in the 19th Century provided an expansive and explanatory definition of Administrative law.
He defined it to have the following elements:

1. Portion of a nation’s legal system which determines the legal status and liabilities of all State officials.

2. The rights and liabilities of private individuals vis-à-vis their business with public officials.
3. Specifies the procedure by which rights and liabilities are enforced.

However, over the years this definition has been found to be problematic. It is lacking in the sense that
it’s concerned only with the singular aspect of judicial control of public officials. Dicey’s definition fails
to account for several other administrative authorities such as public corporations which are beyond the
definition of State officials.

Friedman, on the other hand, provides an inclusive definition. In his words Administrative law is the law
concerning the powers and procedures of administrative, especially the law governing judicial review of
administrative action. It includes:

1. Administrative powers of administration.

2. Legislative powers of the administration at both common law and under various statutes.

3. Judicial and quasi-judicial powers.

4. Legal liability of public authorities.

5. Powers of ordinary courts to supervise administrative authorities.

Scope:
The Administrative law controls the organization, powers and duties of administrative authorities. The
importance of Administrative law is on the procedural characteristic of proper adjudication. Its idea was
founded on the following:

1. Principles of natural justice.

2. Rule of law.

3. Power is conferred on the administration by law.

4. No power is absolute or uncontrolled howsoever broad the nature of the same might be.
5. There should be reasonable restrictions on exercise of such powers depending on the solution.
The administrative law it the judge made law and evolves over time. However, the basic principles of this
law remain the similar, the scope of this law is enough to incorporate and add the new rules and
principles, to suit the necessities of time.

Significance:
The growth of Administrative law is an obvious need of the contemporary times. Before 1947, the united
India was a police state, where the British were rulers. Administrative machinery was mainly controlled
by the British. After the independence there was a change in the rules of civil service and the father of
nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared the officers as the real servants of the nation. The
administrative law is in fact an important weapon for bringing harmony between the power and the
justice. It is the Constitution which governs administrators.

The sphere of administration is wide and it embraces several functions:

1. Policymaking.

2. Leadership to legislature.

3. Execution and administration of regulations of the land.

4. Administering both traditional and contemporary functions of the State.

5. Exercising legislative powers by way of a range of byelaws, orders, decrees, orders, etc.

Moreover, the administrative law is the law that directs the administrative activities. It determines the
organization, powers and duties of administrative officers. It comprises law relating to the rule-making
power of the administrative authorities, the quasi-judicial function of administrative agencies, legal
obligations of public authorities and power of the usual courts to manage establishments. It directs the
managerial and guarantees that the executive treats the public honestly. Administrative law is a
subdivision of public law. It deals with the association of individuals with the government. It regulates the
organization and power structure of administrative and quasi-judicial authorities to implement the law.
However, administrative law is not a codified law. It is a judge-made law which evolved over time.

Administrative Justice and Accountability:

Administrative law is associated with the accountability. It is a fact that without the accountability, no
nation can get rid of corruption. Judicial freedom is a fundamental and important part of contemporary
democracy. The constituent elements of judicial liberation are well known in all over the world. They
consist of both protections and restrictions. Protections include tenure of office, legislation prohibiting
reduction in salary, and inability to be authorized apart from elimination in cases of serious misconduct.
Restrictions included the laws or the conventions prohibiting the judges from determining cases in which
they haveor may appear to have. On the other hand, these elements of judicial liberation are well known,
their justification is less understood. Judicial freedom is not a private right of Judges designed to protect
them personally. It is a private right of peoples, who all have a vested interest in having a neutral,
independent court system to protect their essential rights from interference by the state and others.

“Conducting the function of judging in the public eye allows the public to satisfy themselves that this
function is being performed to an acceptable standard. The mere knowledge that one’s decisions will be
open to public scrutiny tends to encourage high level decision making. As Justice Gleeson notes, because
judges are unique amongst decision makers in that they are compelled to give public reasons for every
decision they make, this is an extremely powerful form of accountability. Civil law countries in Europe
have significantly more developed mechanisms for promulgating information about judicial decisions to
the public, to the extent that in some nations, quality control mechanisms and review of substantive
judicial decisions have been adopted as a matter of routine. These are usually in response to specific
constitutional developments or in some cases, a loss of public confidence in the courts. The explanatory
form of accountability appropriate for common law nations does no offence to judicial independence, as it
involves no direct punitive or incentivizing consequences for the individual Judge that might affect their
impartiality. This is not, however, accountability without teeth; though Judges cannot be held directly
accountable to the public in the sense that they can be removed from office, the public may at any time
lose their confidence in the courts as legitimate institution. In a plea to judges to “speak as clearly as
possible to the public”,

Lord Neuberger recently observed: These strong forms of accountability, and accompanying performance
assessment mechanisms, are not aspired to for the New Zealand courts”.

The overall sense of accountability is expected to defend activities or decisions. It is the dictionary
meaning of the accountability. However, in governmental affairs mostly in public administration it has
superior implications and the idea is regarded as a significant part. It implies that the legislatures elected
by the persons must give clarifications of the electorate for all these strategies and activities. It is the most
important part of democracy, mostly in representative form of the government. It is common reason that
an individual by whom he is elected is answerable to him or them.

A sensible definition of the term is: “The requirement for representatives to answer to the represented on
the disposal of their powers and duties and act upon criticisms.” The ministers or the government’s
political official are responsible to the legislature, and the members of the legislature are responsible to
the electorate. It may be explained in another way. It is as simple as the person gets employment in an
institution; he becomes the responsible in lieu of the salary he receives.

“In all state systems-developed, developing and underdeveloped-there is bureaucratic structure.

Bureaucrats are not elected by people and naturally, like ministers and members of legislature, they are
not accountable to the general public. Naturally, they are not bound to give any explanation for their
policy or work, and this has posed serious question as to the concept of balance. One is empowered to
rule but to what extent that satisfies the people that poses an important question.
The greatest shortcoming of Weberian model of bureaucracy is it remains outside the scrutiny of the
general public and ethics of public administration demands that control or scrutiny is indispensable. For
that reason, there arises the idea of the control of bureaucracy. In this connection we quote Ball and
Peters: “The need for controlling bureaucratic discretion and power is apparent in every political system.
In all forms of government-particularly in liberal democracies-need for controlling bureaucracy has been
strongly felt. In such systems there are two types of executives-one is permanent executive-bureaucrat
and the other is temporary executive-that is minister. The ministers perform executive functions for a
fixed period.

Normally the tenure of ministers is tied with the tenure of the legislature. But the bureaucrats enter the job
and continue up to retirement. For some misdemeanor or wrongdoing, they may be removed from service.
The ministers are doubly accountable. They are accountable to the legislature-and again, to the people. If
bureaucracy is the stamina of public administration, it must be accountable to somebody. At the
beginning of the twentieth century Weber invented his model and he thought that administration without
bureaucracy is simply impossibility. If so, it is essential to control it through the process of ensuring
accountability. Some people have suggested that the civil servants must be inculcated that they are
servants of the people or society and their rudimentary duty is to help the amelioration of society through
their services.

They are selected, trained, appointed and paid for their service to the society. Any failure is an up-
pardonable misconduct. This inculcation, through various ways, will make them accountable. In other
words, the bureaucrats must be made conscious of their responsibility to society. It is the duty of the state
to do the job. The common people must be made conscious of their rights and duties to the society. This
type of alertness will make civil servants conscious of their responsibility to the society. But any form of
callousness on their part will make the bureaucrats forgetful of their duty to society. This is possible
through socialization and spread of education among the people.”

In the modern world, in many nations, the administrative justice is obviously complex. It can be difficult
to determine which level of government (federal or provincial) has the responsibility for diverse features
of law. This complication might be one cause why the system can be “unseen, ignored and unloved” by
both policy-makers and the media.Moreover, redress is seen as a one-off communication to resolve a
clash. The wider potential to view disagreements as symptoms rather than causes of unfairness and
disparity can be missed.

Q.4 Highlight the role of bureaucrats as development managers in the bureaucratic system of
Pakistan.

Answer :

Bureaucrats as Development Manager:

The interrelated roles of bureaucrats and politicians in the democratic process are often difficult to isolate
and differentiate. Although executive and official relations are a critical aspect of public policy, they are
not so simply and universally understood. Stuff that involve the challenge of conceiving and generalizing
the manner in which bureaucrats engage with policymakers, including complicated political histories and
complication, the personality basis of political and administrative alignment and multiple forms of
administrative and functional structure. In developing countries, governance systems and institutional
structures are generally weak. Policy breakdown and partisanship, consumer relationships and weak
transparency and public administration affect openness. In such situations, the interface between
politicians and bureaucrats is especially complex. The roles and functions of the government and politics
in developing countries are different from those of the more mature liberal democratic states. In many
colonial-led countries, the particular features and features of public administrations in some contexts
require alternate assessment of factors which determine how executives and politicians in the public
offices work together for the development of policy despite the structural parallels with Westminster's
administrative machinery.

Importance of Bureaucracy:
It is difficult only to justify the actions of government bureaucracies by referring to the fact that they are
bureaucracies. Perhaps the most important difference between government bureaucracies and tended to be
similarly complicated management hierarchies found in large corporations is that the former was
responsible for many constituencies. They are agents with several principals in the terminology of the
economic theory of system design.

Challenges for Bureaucrats:

In government policymaking, policymaking, execution and management as well as evaluation of various
programs and initiatives discuss the problem of state relations. The key objectives are to outline political
leaders and bureaucrats in different ministries, departments and relevant agencies and to set their methods
and principles.

It is also hard for the public to determine who really decides on policy or controls policies. Many
international players and stakeholders, such as Think Tanks, interest groups and media, are uncertain
about the work they do to influence policy decision-makers and bureaucrats. Bureaucrats tend to lead the
political process in certain cases while politicians are on other times the dominant power. The highly fluid
line between politicians and bureaucrats is to be understood and respected as a major challenge. Some
researchers proposed that governmental and administrative arenas cannot be separated by the way they
are interlinked. The emphasis on power hierarchy can be tricky, as the actors involved have various
consequences for different stages of the decision-making process. Furthermore, in political and political
structures, there are significant gaps between governments.

At the central level, the role of national policies, programs and legislation is undertaken by the ministers
and senior bureaucrats in question. While certain policy choices are taken in a single ministry, multiple
ministries or departments cooperate on other policies. Local members of the local authorities and
administrators working at times with a degree of central autonomy at other times under detailed oversight
and control from the center are involved. The central and local variations influence the relationship
between policymakers and administrators as various actors and modes of interaction and cultural factors
are involved.

Roles and Responsibilities of Bureaucrats:

Few organizations have such intense and conflicting reactions as the bureaucracies in the government.
Weber defines “modern officialdom” as an effective organization made up of specially qualified people
who see their work as a profession and vocation, whose expertise is structured by laws and regulations,
and whose responsibilities include specific rules of procedure in particular cases. At the other end, several
officials consider this as arcane, arbitrary, inefficient and sometimes corrupt. Social and economic policy
has multiple facets in any modern society. No politician, whether a democratically elected legislature or a
democratically elected executive, may directly enact policies. The tasks of gathering the necessary
information, implementing the laws, collecting income and payments, initiating and tracking government
program, and so on must be assigned to individuals and organizations with or able to acquire special
expertise in these matters. A bureaucracy for the execution of policies is thus inevitable. There is
sometimes no strong distinction between policymaking and policy execution. It is unusual for the
legislature or the policymaker to define anything in detail. Many of these specifics are left to the
administrative agency and subject to change. And bureaucrats also monitor the details politicians need to
decide.

The bureaucracy, which is officially responsible only for executing legislation, also makes several policy
decisions and choices in the course of its functions. For conceptual ease, I hold the distinction here, but
it’s literally blurred. Complexity and the multidimensionality of policies contribute to information
asymmetry and control limitations. The partnership between policymakers and implementers is therefore
one of the key actors. Its consequence can never be the idealized first-best of an economist; we must
recognize a minimal optimum. This positions the problems of structure and bureaucracy reforms in the
area of mechanism design economic theory.

Role in Development Management:

The list of directors includes federal and state law-making, executive and judicial branches, labor and
business leaders, bond markets for the organizations to collect their own funds, press, other public fora,
including religious groups, NGOs and other advocacy organizations, etc. And each of these leaders,
particularly the legislatures, may voice opposing interests. These directors should in theory work together,
discuss their interests, and achieve one goal – an acceptable weighted average of their particular
objectives – to be served by the department. The dilemma of the department would undoubtedly continue
with asymmetries and cost monitoring, but the one-dimensional goal would be to make government
bureaucracies more like businesses closer to having one target, usually benefit.

Q.5 Discuss the role of political parties and the public policy in development planning, politics and
administration.

Answer :

Political Parties:
In the contemporary world, two overlapping and contradictory patterns are evident. Firstly, in the last
three decades there was a steady rise in the number of democracies and secondly there was a decrease in
the institution of the party. This extends both to developing and existing democracies. Since the third
wave of democracy in 1974, the number of democracies around the world has grown. In the seventies, the
growth of the democracy in the southern part of Europe started and expanded in the eighties to South
Africa, East, South East and South Asia. The Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and a drive
towards independence in Central America started to develop in the late 1980s. Finally, in the 1990s,
democracy extended to Africa.

The political parties have the opposite pattern in the global confidence relative to the third wave of
democracy. In both current and emerging democracies, total participation and common attachment to
political parties is declining. Elections in Pakistan decreased by 21.6 percent between 1970 and October
2002, apart from the drop in urban voting and the large decrease in political participation. It is worth
noting that Pakistan is not just weak in culture, without ignoring the need to reform Pakistan's political
parties. There is therefore no single high turnover record in 1970, but rather the prevalent patterns of
contact between state and political parties despite the downward trend in voting participation and urban
growth of political parties.

Pakistan became democratic in three spells: first from 1947 to 1958, second from 1971 to 1977, and third
from 1988 to 1999. Therefore, for just 27 years in Pakistan’s 57 years the political parties were in power.
The remaining 30 years of military dominance and quasi democratic dispensation provided political
parties with very limited space. Between 1951 and 1958, the region was expelled from seven prime
ministers, with only two generals and Pakistani chief commander. All five prime ministerial terms from
1985 to 1999 were aborted by the untimely refusal of their governments.

Nine national legislatures have been prematurely disbanded out of the 12 previously formed. The art of
governance cannot be perfected by political parties in such situations unless they remain in power. In
Pakistan's history, however, only one elected government could complete its constitutional term between
1971 and 1977. The majority party and the opposition parties have to take their positions democratically.
However, the political parties in Pakistan, as an anti-system opposition party, were largely beyond their
control, often under conditions of great oppression. The institutional development of Pakistan has been
negatively influenced by political party restrictions.

Factions and community of clients were formed in order to weaken broad parties through national
monitoring and localization by national and all-inclusive policy groups based on beriberi (family and
parenthood), caste and ethnic groups. There are also issues with the internal operation of political parties.
There is a lack of domestic democracy in most parties. There is no mechanism for daily and open internal
party elections. Both parties in Pakistan do not obtain their legal status, as internal training and study are
missing. Parties often have insufficient resources and depend exclusively on the interests of their finance.
Much fundraising takes place at the top, rather than at the local level, contributing to highly organized
organizations. Another question relates to the obsession of civil politicians to establish a single party
structure. Controlled parties therefore appear to deny the opposition legitimate space. In Pakistan,
political opposition activities were outlawed, local opposition governments were suspended, and leaders
of the political and opposition were victimized. It is necessary to change political parties at three levels.
Space should be developed at state level to promote the building of democracy and good governance in
the opposition parties. Political party support can assist parties and organize sleeping groups of mid-class
parties and especially smaller parties to create a reasonable basis. The state should also help to create
party strength. Internal democracy and openness are important at the political party level, reinforcing the
institutions of the local party and respect for ethical standards and discipline. Civil society should play a
major role in the political party monitoring, act as a watchdog for the party's results and defend the
legitimate rights of the opposition.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf:
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is the most popular political party of Pakistan. The PTI (Pakistan Movement for
Justice) is a social democratic party which was founded by Imran Khan on April 25, 1996. In 2008, the
PTI boycotted national elections, but was politically more active until 2011. All Pakistanis, whatever their
faith, caste, language or region, are represented by the party. It seeks to establish a secular, inclusive,
equal Islamic and social welfare state. With more than 10 million members in Pakistan and all over the
world, PTI is the largest political party of Pakistan. PTI appeared as a significant party with more than 7.5
million votes in 2013 elections. However, party secure its position on second level by votes and third
position by the total seats. In 2018 elections PTI won by 116 seats in Pakistan, after the addition of 28
women & 5 Minority seats addition total number of seats extended to 149.Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
obtained 0.16 million votes with 31.82% of total cast votes, hence formed a government in the center with
the alliance of MQM-P, PML (Q), BAP, BNP-M, GDA, AML and JWP.

“PTI also formed government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by having 78 seats, Punjab by having 175 seats
and a government of alliance in Baluchistan. Following Elections Imran Khan was elected as Prime
minister obtaining 176 against Mian M. Shahbaz Sharif who obtained 96 votes. PTI was also successful
in electing its Speaker and deputy speaker national assembly, Asad Qaiser and Qasim Suri respectively.
On 4 September 2018, Arif Alvi got elected as 13th President of Pakistan. PTI nominated Usman Ahmad
Khan Buzdar as C.M. Punjab, Mahmood Khan as C.M. KPK and Jam Kamal Khan as C.M. Baluchistan.
The party also appointed its governors; Muhammad Sarwar as Governor of Punjab, Pakistan, Imran
Ismail as Governor of Sindh and Shah Farman as Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Prime Minister of
Pakistan, Imran Khan appointed his cabinet with key appointments of Minister of Finance given to Asad
Umar and Minister of Foreign Affairs to Shah Mehmood Qureshi”.

Pakistani Muslim League (N):

“The Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz) is a centre-right, conservative political party in Pakistan.
Alongside the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), it is one of the three
major political parties of the country. The party was founded by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
after the dissolution of Islamic Democratic Alliance in 1993. The party's platform is generally
conservative, which involves supporting free markets, deregulation, lower taxes and private ownership.
Although the party historically supported social conservatism, in recent years, the party’s political
ideology and platform has become more liberal on social and cultural issues.

Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan:
“Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), or simply known as Jamaat, is an Islamist political party based in Pakistan and the
Pakistani successor to Jamaat-e-Islami, which was founded in colonial India in 1941. Its objective is the
transformation of Pakistan into an Islamic state, governed by Sharia law, through a gradual legal, and
political process. JI strongly opposes capitalism, communism, liberalism, socialism and secularism as
well as economic practices such as offering bank interest.

Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in Lahore, British India in 1941 by the Muslim theologian and socio-
political philosopher, AbulAla Maududi, who was widely influenced by the Sharia based reign of the
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Following the Partition of India, Maududi and JI migrated from East Punjab
to Lahore in Pakistan. There they volunteered to help the thousands of refugees pouring into the country
from India by performing social work, opening hospitals and medical clinics as well. On 30 March 2014,
Sirajul Haq became Ameer”.

Pakistan People’s Party:

“The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is a Centre-left, social-democratic and secular political party in
Pakistan. It is currently the third largest party in the National Assembly. The party was founded in 1967,
when a number of prominent left-wing leaders of the country joined hands against the military
dictatorship of President Ayub Khan, under the leadership of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Affiliated with the
Socialist International,[6] the PPP's platform is socialist, and its stated priorities include transforming
Pakistan into a social democratic state, promoting secular and egalitarian values, establishing social
justice and a strong national defence. The party, alongside Pakistan Muslim League (N) and Pakistan
Tehreek-e-Insaf is one of the 3 largest political parties of Pakistan”.

Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP):

Pak Sarzameen Party was founded by Syed Mustafa Kamal (Karachi’s old mayor) in 2016. Mustafa
Kamal now leads the party alongside other party members. The party was established in 2016 on Clifton,
Karachi on the Pakistan Day.

Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT):

Awami Tehrik is a political party in Pakistan that is progressive, politically moderate and religiously
moderated. The founding president is a powerful suficleric Tahir-ul Mohammed-Qadri.

Awami National Party:

Abdul Wali Khan founded the Awami National Party in 1986 (ANP). It promotes nationalism, social
democracy, control over the state sector, and economic freedom. The ANP has maintained seven
members of the Senate and three members of the National Assembly. Asfandyar Wali Khan, the grandson
of Bacha Khan, is the chief of the new ANP. It belonged to the governing PPP alliance between 2008 and
2013.

Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (F):
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam was a ruling alliance in 2002 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Mutahida Majlis-e-
Amal, a highly conservative religious-theocratic Party with a 100-year-old historical background. It
currently has 17 National Assembly members, 5 Senate members, 17 Senate members, 17 Senate
Members and 8 Senate members, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan. The economic policy is socialist
and moderate.

Public Policy:
Public policy may generally be characterized as the Government’s collection of actions to address the
national problem in the country. Public policymaking has three aspects, namely challenges, players and
policies. The problem is that the player is the person or group of people who need to tackle the problem
that is found. The public policy creation process is a dynamic and multi-faceted process involving the
involvement of stakeholders and individuals who especially influence policymakers. The organizations
use their influences to promote their goals by promoting their positions, seeking to educate supporters
and rally allies on special issues. Five measures in the public process were taken by public policy experts
as seen in the following figure.

Policy Adoption:
The political analysis is a mechanism in which the policymaker examines possible strategies designed to
learn from or solve social and economic problems. The policy review consists of the formulation and
transmission of useful guidelines. The main aim of this operation is to help decision-makers select
between alternatives. A viable criterion for evaluating the alternatives is very relevant in this process.
Economic or social gains in choosing certain policy alternatives must be considered to compare and
evaluate alternative policies. The outcome of each alternative policy is evaluated, and the feasible
alternative is compared.

Policy Implementation:
This is the last step in the phase of public policy. The defining departments and entities are involved in
these phases and their roles are delegated to each department. This step involves good contact and
coordination between the organizations involved, adequate funds and resources to carry out the tasks and
to comply with the new strategy overall to achieve the required public policy goals. Departments and
agencies are typically responsible for the implementation of public policy at this level. In Pakistan, the
issue of public policy implementation goes beyond formulation.

Policy Evaluation:
In this phase, the policy is assessed to know that how it works after the policy is implemented, it is
essential to evaluate, after its implementation, the extent to which the company problem has been
resolved and whether the policy selected is properly implemented in order to achieve specific policy
objectives. Various types of evaluation approaches are used to analyze policy such as cost-benefit
analysis, multi-critical analysis, economic impacts and forecasting growth. This part of the process is
usually implemented through collaboration between the policy manager and the independent assessment.
The assessment is performed in many ways in the policy process. This part of the process is typically
implemented through a joint effort between policy managers and independent evaluations. In addition, the
influence of the policy is also measured to consider the cumulative impact of that policy.

Key Causes of Failure of Public Policies in Pakistan:

The experience of public policymaking in Pakistan has shown that, as addressed in the introductory part
of this research paper, a proper method of public policymaking has never been adopted. Public policies
were often adopted without public consent and the relevant knowledge on the ground was sought. In order
to build a sustainable agenda, it is highly important that political stakeholders can participate. University
professors may play a greater role in formulating or drafting a viable policy in political systems, but
sadly, the expertise and skills of the professors who have trained in many disciplines in formulating viable
policies are not acquired.

There have always been adverse relations between the government and university academies. Due to this
type of scenario, the policy formulation needs a lack of reliable details. The need to enhance the
knowledge base to improve policy structures in developing countries such as Pakistan is truly urgent. The
lack of accurate information hampers the ability of policymakers to formulate consistent policy priorities,
implementing strategies and assessment processes. The good policy has never been effective when it is
developed without the knowledge and involvement of the policy stakeholders needed (Bullock, 2001).
The study observed main causes of Pakistani public policy deficiencies.