Principles of Good Governancein Employment Service Delivery

Contingency Perspective

2005. 5

Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Public Management

Graduate School of Governance

Sungkyunkwan University

Workshop on Access to Service for

All through Participation and Accountability

1/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Part 1: Theory

2/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

What is ‘Good Governance’?

World Bank(1989) ‘bad governance’: self-serving public officials and corruption in the

public service. ‘good governance’: transparency and accountability in the public

sector: Anglo-American liberal-democratic statesFirst World Conference on Governance(1991)

a system that is transparent, accountable, just, fair, democratic, participatory and responsive to people’s needs.European Union

five principles underpin good governance: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence

A normative concept that is highly context-Dependent; process aspects

3/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Mix of Governance

Governance Structure: - 0rganizational level: hierarchy, market, network - Polity level: elitism, pluralism, corporatism

“No governance structure works for all services in all conditions” (Rhodes, 2000: 354) - Mix of Governance

Effective Governance Structure = f (Function, Culture)

4/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Pros and Cons of Network Governance(Rhodes, 2000)

Networks are effective: - actors need reliable, ‘thicker’ information - quality is difficult to be specified - commodities are difficult to price - professional discretion and experts are core values - flexibility to meet localized, varied service demands is needed - cross-sector, multi-agency cooperation is needed - monitoring and evaluation incur high political and administrative costs - implementation involves haggling

Limits of Market

5/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Costs of Networks - closed to outsiders and unrepresentative

- unaccountable for their actions

- serve private interests, not the public interest

- difficult to steer

- inefficient because cooperation causes delay

- immobilized by conflicts of interests

- difficult to combine with other governing structures

Benefits of Hierarchy

6/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Modes of State Intervention(Alan Cawson, 1982)

security/efficiency/abundanceegalitarianismprivate propertyIdeological basis

social democratic/reformiststate socialistcompetitive individualistAssociated ideology

indicativeimperativenon-planningForm of planning

enablingdetailedregulatoryForm of legislation

Polycentric / hierarchyCentralized / concentrateddiffuse / pluralisticDistribution of power

bargain-governedrule-governedlaw-governedBasis of legitimate decisions

interventionistdirectivefacilitativeRole of the state

Corporatist modeBureaucratic modeMarket mode

7/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

State Function and Governance Structure

pluralismcorporatismbureaucracyGovernance Mode

serviceplanningexecutionOrg. Task

unstableunstablestableOrg. Environment

organicmechanistic-organicmechanisticOrg. Structure

consensus• present-oriented• popular influence•

consultation• future-oriented• interest inclusion•

authority• past-oriented• interests exclusion•

Policy Process

social consumptionsocial investmentsocial expenseExpenditure

legitimacycapital accumulationsocial orderObjective

IntegrationProductionConsensusState Function

8/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

New Culture Theory( Douglas & Wildavsky)

EgalitarianismIndividualismLow Grid

HierarchyFatalismHigh Grid

High GroupLow Group

Cultural biases Social relation Way of Life

Hierarchy Culture ≒ Hierarchy GovernanceIndividualism Culture ≒ Market GovernanceEgalitarianism Culture ≒ Network Governance

9/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Organization Culture( Zammuto & Krakower, 1991)

ProspectorDefenderStage � OrganizationImplementorStrategic Orientation

MarketHierarchyAdhocracyClanOrganizational Form

Directive, Goal-orientedConservative, cautiousIncentive, risk-takingConcerned,

SupportiveLeadership

CompetenceSecurityGrowthAttachmentMotivationContractRulesIdeologyAffiliationCompliance

Organizational Characteristics

production, efficiencyStability, controlGrowth, resource

acquisitionDevelopment of

human resourcesEnds

Planning, goal-setting

Information management,

communicationAdaptability, readinessCohesion, moraleMeans

ControlControlFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibility vs. Control

OrganizationPeopleOrganizationPeoplePeople vs.Organization

Value DimensionsRational CultureHierarchy CultureDevelopment CultureGroup Culture

Hierarchy Culture ≒ Hierarchy GovernanceRational Culture ≒ Market GovernanceGroup Culture ≒ Network Governance

10/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Part 2: Case

- Employment Service in Korea -

11/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Employment Service Center in Korea

Ministry of Labor

Bureau of Employment Stability•

Local Labor Administration

Unemployment Insurance Payment

Job Assistance Program

Employment Service Center (168)

Staff: public employees(25.6%), contract employees(74.4%)Budget: 100% Government Appropriations

Policy

Service

12/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Research Design

Front-line staffs working for 25 Employment Service Center in Seoul, Korea●Sampling

DataCollection Questionnaire Survey from 250 staffs●

ResponseRate 51.2% (N=128)●

Time January/February, 2004●

13/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

ClientsFlexibleCorporationCultureNetworkGovernance

PriceCost drivenContractsCompetitionMarketGovernance

Target groupsGoal drivenPlansManagementCorporateGovernance

UniversalReliabletreatmentRulesLawProcedural

Governance

Service delivery focus

Primaryvirtue

Form ofcontrol

Source of rationality

Source: Considine, Mark (2003), p.133

Governance Types: Analytical Framework( Mark Considine, 1999)

Corporate Governance + Market Governance = Enterprise Governance(M. Considine, 2003)

14/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

3.28.506Fixed rules for doing work

3.74.548Basic rules to follow

3.82.567Refer to my supervisor problems

3.72.636Rules and procedures to guide me

3.32.664Supervisor knows about my work

3.21.502Better than your competitor

2.44.601Reluctant for others to know my work

2.47.642Pay attention to income

2.49.648Maximize the number of clients as possible

2.21.763Interested in payable outcomes

3.20.475Cooperate with other organizations

3.57.478Would help other organization

3.21.507Obtaining assistance important

3.75.580Gain trust of clients

3.73.690Keep harmonious relationships with others

ProcedureMarketNetwork

factor 3factor 2factor 1 Mean

Factor Loadings

Contents

Governance Scale Items & Factor Loadings

15/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

2.57

3.56 3.50

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Market

NetworkProcedure

Governance Profile in Employment Service in Korea

Strong Procedure & Network Orientation

16/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

8.870.012811.251.41289.671.2128Korea

10.461.71489.774.714415.368.9151UK

8.569.912210.670.212212.875.8130New Zealand

9.167.22648.968.222913.565.7269Netherlands

9.276.358411.164.757016.965.9599Australia

SDMeanNSDMeanNSDMeanN

Network TypeCorporate-Market TypeProcedural Type

Procedure Governance : No.2 (Very High) Corporate-Market Governance: No.5 (Very Low) Network Governance: No.2 (High)

Comparison of Governance Types

Australia: Centre Link, Employment National [Quasi-Market] Netherlands: Arbeids Voorziening, START, Vedior [Co-production] New Zealand: New Zealand Employment Service [Crown Entity] UK: Jobcentre Plus [Executive Agency] Korea: Employment Security Center [Affiliated Agency]

17/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

1.000.055(549)

.456**(.000)

.152(.099)

.249**(.006)

.303**(.001)

-.296**(.001)

.475**(.000)

-.087(.350)

.150(.104)

10. Innovation Orientation

1.000.255**(.004)

.207*(.021)

-.067(.457)

.127(.159)

-.090(.318)

.106(.248)

.259**(.004)

.137(.139)9. Performance

1.000.533**(.000)

.239**(.007)

.410**(.000)

-.255**(.004)

.383**(.000)

-.078(.408)

.277**(.003)

8. Organization Commitment

1.000.064(.476)

.079(.386)

-.341**(.000)

.280**(.002)

.279**(.002)

.090(.335)7. Job Satisfaction

1.000.405**(.000)

-.208*(.019)

.105(.255)

-234*(.010)

.177(.054)6. Autonomy

1.000-.037(.685)

.271**(.003)

-.116(.211)

.356**(.000)5. Task Knowledge

1.000-.299**(.001)

-.077(.405)

.136(.140)4. Formality

1.000.138(.135)

.188*(.042)3. Network

1.000-.047(.613)2. Market

1.0001. Procedure

10987654321Variables

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01

Correlation Analysis

18/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

.229(F=12.360**)

.070(F=3.894*)

.199(F=10.291**)

.116(F=5.934**)

.094(F=4.978**)

.170(F=8.694**)

.088(F=4.689**)

Adj. R2

(F-value)

.478(5.647**)

.047(.508)

.358(.4.117**)

.227(2.491*)

.134(1.464)

.236(2.661**)

-.321(-.3494**)Network

-.147(-1.777)

.268(2.949**)

-.116(-1.359)

.251(2.797**)

-.295(-3.288**)

-.135(-1.560)

-.016(-.173)Market

.066(.784)

.132(1.434)

.238(2.760**)

.081(.901)

.117(1.285)

.306(3.482**)

.169(1.850)Procedure

β (t-value)β (t-value)β (t-value)β (t-value)β (t-value)β (t-value)β (t-value)

InnovationPerformanceCommitmentSatisfactionAutonomyKnowledgeFormality Variables

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01

Regression Analysis

19/19Keunsei Kim, Ph.D.

Procedure Governance - Task Knowledge ↑ - Organization Commitment ↑

Market Governance - Program Performance ↑

Network Governance - Innovation Orientation ↑ - Organization Commitment ↑

=> More Market and Network Governance

Findings: Governance Types & Service Performance