Government as a Catalyst

Introduction

The government and public servants have the obligation of serving the public with respect and dignity. It is a constitutional requirement for the government to deliver socio-economic services and that citizens are supposed to demand these services constitutionally (Thomson & Perry, 2006). Under this context, a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the public administration is the need to respect the constitution by both the ruler and the ruled. The Thomson-Perry argument posits that the effectiveness of public administration relies significantly on collaborative activity between partnering parties. This essay evaluates the case of “the government as a catalyst” with the Thomson-Perry argument to determine whether it supports or contradict the Thomson-Perry argument. The paper also discusses the definition of the “collaboration process” and argument. In addition, the paper assesses whether the case of the “government as a catalyst” provides an even more convincing model.

Overview of the Case

            The internet is increasingly becoming an indispensable element of the global economy since it is increasingly becoming an essential prerequisite used in the exploitation of educational and socio-economic opportunities. Municipal Wireless Networks (MWNs) are seen as a potential solution, especially because they are created with the leadership and active involvement of the government. The implementation of MNW by Philadelphia offers insights through which communities cans serve as catalysts and exploit information technology to advocate for socio-economic change (Stillman, 2009). An analysis of the case reveals that MWNs entails competition from both private and public sector stakeholders. The drivers of the Philadelphia MNW included technological availability, market opportunity, legislative approval and socio-economic potential. The inhibitors of implementing the MNW included the risks of a technological savvy prospect in the sense that the private sector would not implement it, probability of government incompetence in the long-term (Stillman, 2009).

Collaboration Process

            Collaboration takes place through formal and informal interactions between organizations, usually in the form of persistent negotiations, formulation of commitments and ensuring that these commitments are implemented. Unlike cooperation and coordination, collaboration places emphasis on the use of collective action. Collaboration is a form of cooperation characterized exchange and sharing of resources with the primary objective of ensuring the achievement of shared ends, rather than individual ends. Thomson and Perry developed a multidimensional framework of understanding collaboration by public officers. The collaboration model comprises of five dimensions, which include administering, mutuality, norms, governing and maintaining organizational autonomy (Thomson & Perry, 2006). As a result, partners in search for collaboration have the obligation of joint coming up with the rules to govern their behavior and nature of relationships. It is imperative for collaborating partners to show support for the joint decisions made by partnering stakeholders. The success of collaboration significantly depends on the commitment of the partnering entities to monitor and impose sanctions on parties that are not complying with the agreed decisions. The success of collective action significantly relies on trust and reciprocity. Face-to-face communication is also essential, whereas administration ensures the formation of structures used in turning governance into action (Thomson & Perry, 2006).

Collaboration is also defined as formal and informal interaction between autonomous actors through negotiation, creation of rules and structures aimed at directing their relationships and making decisions on collective issues bringing them together. In a brief overview, collaboration is characterized by sharing norms and interactions that are mutually benefitting. Another important aspect of collaboration is the reconciliation of people and collective interests wherein autonomy is central. In this regard, collaborating partners have to ensure that they uphold their organizational identity and authority irrespective of the prevalence of collective interests formulated in the collaboration process. The mutuality aspect entails the process of formulating mutually beneficial ties, which will be helpful in encouraging the commitments of each partner in accordance with the agreed decisions (Thomson & Perry, 2006). The other aspect of collaboration is reciprocity and trust, which entails establishing social capital norms, which involves the conventional believe of noble intention of others. Therefore, it is imperative for all partners to reciprocate to other partners in the positive light.

The Government as a catalyst Case in Relation to Thomson-Perry’s Argument

            The assertion of “The Government as A catalyst” tends to shore up the Thomson-Perry argument. The Philadelphian city government had the primary objective of ensuring that the residents of Philadelphia had access to the intent. In achieving this goal, there was the need to utilize the potential market; as a result, there was anticipation that the government, the community and private sector would benefit significantly from the implementation of the municipal wireless network (Thomson & Perry, 2006). The MNW could also lead to socio-economic growth among the local communities in Philadelphia. In the process of implementation of the MNW, the city government of Philadelphia had to partner with all stakeholders including the incumbent players and the community basing on shared benefits; this is consistent with the mutuality dimension outlined in the Thomson-Perry argument. The city government also played a significant role in the administration of the municipal wireless network project. This denotes the administration dimension outlined in Thomson-Perry’s argument, which helped in transforming governance into action. Therefore, the city government of Philadelphia played the role of a catalyst by assuming the roles of the steering community, the champion, policy maker, project manager and coordinator. In addition, the city government served as the catalyst because it played the role of a partner, project management and capacity building. The government was also a referee and a regulator (Thomson & Perry, 2006).

The city government had to ensure that the interests of numerous stakeholders, such as the telecommunication firms, the media, state government, community groups, city politicians and the larger public, were taken into consideration. Further, the city government of Philadelphia had to eliminate barriers and inhibitors and offer incentives, and legislative framework in order to target appropriate funding, accumulate resources and ensure stability of the newly implemented infrastructures (Stillman, 2009, 312-314). Further, the city government of Philadelphia had the obligation of addressing all complaints and informs all stakeholders of the joint benefits associated with the implementation of the municipal wireless network. There was the need to undertake difficult compromises including maintaining a balance between needs of the public and private sector. Optimizing the interests of all stakeholders was central in ensuring that the project turned out to be a success. This is consistent with the autonomy dimension outlined in Thomson-Perry’s argument. It was imperative for stakeholders to uphold their identity irrespective of sharing collective goals and interests. The case also demonstrated the reciprocity and norms dimension of Thomson-Perry’s argument; the Philadelphian city government partnered in the interests of all stakeholders. Further, all the stakeholders also reciprocated their interests through working in partnership with the Philadelphian city government, which lead to the successful implementation of the municipal wireless network project. These circumstances were instrumental in the formation of capital social norms characterized by take and give attitude typified by immense trust and honesty among stakeholders in the project (Stillman, 2009).

Conclusion

            It is evident that the “government as a catalyst” supports the Thomson-Perry’s argument and offers a more convincing model. The case study is a real life scenario of how numerous independent stakeholders in Philadelphia city collaborated to ensure a successful implementation of the Wireless Municipal Network project. The case study also illustrates the significance of an administration as an integral element of the collaboration process. The case also illustrates the ways of addressing diverse barriers towards a successful collaboration process. The government of the city of Philadelphia had to utilize other stakeholders to persuade other parties regarding the significance of the collaboration process, which is an effective strategy of ensuring that a collaboration process is successful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Stillman, R. (2009). Public administration: Concepts and cases. New York: Cengage Learning.

Thomson, A. M., & Perry, P. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public            Administration Review , 66 (Special issue), 20–32.