Senyum itu magnet?

Senyum ramah itu seperti sebuah magnet. Secara alami tanpa kita minta ia akan menarik orang lain untuk dekat dan ingin bersahabat. Seperti halnya medan magnet yang dibentuk dengan menggerakan muatan listrik (arus listrik) yang menyebabkan munculnya gaya di muatan listrik yang bergerak lainnya, maka muatan listrik dari senyum ramah itu ialah ketulusan. Sikap terbuka dan memang benar-benar senyum yang dipersembahkan dari nuraninya. Bukan senyuman racun, menusuk bahkan membunuh dibelakang sambil menyuapkan sepotong roti ditangannya.

Putaran mekanika kuantum dari satu partikel membentuk medan magnet dan putaran itu dipengaruhi oleh dirinya sendiri seperti arus listrik; inilah yang menyebabkan medan magnet dari ferromagnet "permanen".  Demikian pun dengan manusia, ketertarikan seseorang terhadap dirinya lebih banyak dipengaruhi oleh sifat alamiahnya. Salah satunya ialah senyum ramah tadi. Secara tanpa sengaja siapapun yang melihat senyum ramah akan lebih merasa nyaman, tentram untuk memandang. Pengaruhnya sangat besar, seketika bisa saja membuat orang yang tidak kita kenal tiba-tiba mengulurkan tangan menawarkan sebuah pertemanan.

Sebuah medan magnet adalah medan vektor, yaitu berhubungan dengan setiap titik dalam ruang vektor yang dapat berubah menurut waktu. Pun demikian dengan sifat ramah manusia itu, ia berkembang dan bahkan berubah selaras berjalannya waktu. Bisa jadi bertambah lebih ramah dan mendamaikan atau bisa jadi uang tadinya ramah berubah menjadi berlawanan arah. Acuh dan sangat tidak bersahabat. Faktor-faktor didalam perjalanan pertemanan itulah yang mempengaruhinya. Teman baru itu datang seperti solenoida (kumparan kawat berbentuk tabung panjang dengan lilitan yang sangat rapat), kemudian waktu dan perlakuan berperan seperti aliran listrik. Jika ia datang searah (DC) ia mampu menjadikan benda-benda seperti besi menjadi magnet yang baru. Tetapi jika alirannya bolak balik (AC) justru akan menghilangkan sifat magnetik itu sendiri. Jika senyuman ramah ialah magnet maka perlakuanmu ialah aliran listriknya, mau dibawa kemana arahnya itu yang menentukan.

Public Management in Developing Countries

There has been a transformation in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries . The traditional model of public administration, which predominated for most of the twentieth century, has changed since the mid-1980s to a flexible, market based form of public management. This is not simply a matter of reform or a minor change in management style, but a change in the role of government in society and the relationship between government and citizenery. Traditional public administration has been discredited theoretically and practically, and adoption of new forms of public management means the emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector.

This new paradigm poses a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration. The first of these was that of bureaucracy, that governments should organize them selves according to the hierarchical, bureaucratic principles moat clearly enunciated in the classic ananlysis of bureaucracy by the German sociologist Max Weber (Gerth and Mills, 1970).

So, how was public management in Developing Countries?

Even if the public management reforms are appropriate for developed countries, these is still the question as to whether managerialism is applicable in developing countries. It can't be assumed that a style of management started in the developed countries of the West would necessarily work in such a different setting. It is possible that the new public management is culturally bound in a way that restricts its utility in lesser-developed countries.

In addition, along with a bureaucratic approach to administration, most developing countries adopted the principle of a strong state sector in the economy, in many cases allied with the t then-prevailing ideas of socialism and Marxism. It was thought that the fastest way of achieving economic growth was through government ownership of enterprise, intervention in the private economy and dominance by a bureacratic technocracy. In general, this strategy failed. As World Bank argued (1997, p.2):

“In a few countries, things have indeed worked out more or less as the technocrats expected. But in many countries outcomes were very different. Governments embarked on fanciful schemes. Private investors, lacking confidence in public policies or in the steadfastness of leaders, held back. Powerful rules acted arbitrarily. Corruption became endemic. Development faltered, poverty endured.“

Government loomed large in economic activity, but didn't have the competence or standing to be successful and its larger role enchanced the power of the bureaucracy  even more than in Western countries. Govermnet became by far the mos important societal actor. This need to change.

Whether managerial principles will work in developing countries  as they have in the West is far from clear. Indeed, it is argued by same critics that new public management doesn't work in developed countries, let alone developing ones. They may be some danger in adopting new managerialist approaches yet, the traditional bureaucratic model was not a great success in developing countries either.

In addition, the seeming success of the Soviet Union and China, with their particular models of economic development, seemed to provide an alternative system for many developning countries. These also promised something different from models of the former colonial. power, itself highly state-centric by comparison to what followed after  the public sector regorms. In rhetoric, Soviet and Chinese socialism appeared to promise a path  for developing countries and with the Third World an ideological battleground during the Cold War, adviced tries chose the socialist side and gained some benefits, such as the Tazman railway constructed by the Chinese in Tanzania in the early 1970s. Tanzania tried to follow other parts of the Chinese model, although the latter was starting to make its own transition from Maoism. Superpower conflict  through Third cost of programmes to allevieate poverty, this led to the military itself becoming an important part of the bureaucracy and even the economy.

Bureaucracies were particularly important in developing countries, but at a cost to the nation. Public employement accounted for over 50% of non agricultural jobs in Africa, 36% in Asia, and 27 % in Latin America, and in 1986 the wage bill for Guinea's civil servants accounted for 50% of total current expenditure )Smith, 1996, pg 221). The bureaucracy often operated at a remove from its own society and constituded an elite with its counterparts in the West and with foreign corporations than with its own people. Although not part of the traditional model, corruption became endemic as public servants followed their own interests. Public service pay was low and it became common,as for example in Indonesia, for public servants to have additional jobs in the private sector as well as in government employ. They sancionts against corruption were weak, so it is hardly surprising that individual public servans sought to enrich themselves.

Ref:
*Public Management and Administration by Owen. E. Hughes profesor of Public Sector Management, Monash University, Australia.

*FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, Principles and Application by Keown/Martin/Petty/Scott, JR