Canadian Government Executive - Volume 26 - Issue 04

September/October 2020 // Canadian Government Executive / 23 F rameworks cannot be seen as global Band-Aids. Governments use frameworks as guidelines to achieve public policy, service, and administration objectives. When considering public management issues, there is a propensity to apply estab- lished frameworks to solve complex prob- lems. It is presumed that what worked once can produce successful results in an- other situation. Framework construction inherently reflects the architect’s biases. Implementation feasibility and budgeting depend invariably on political agendas. In the normative view, there is an assump- tion that frameworks are consistent in application, hence achieving predictable results. Conversely, in the neo-liberal view, frameworks should incorporate contextual references focusing on culturally sensitive target population assessments. In April 2000, the UNESCO World Educa- tion Forum held a big conference in Dakar, Senegal, with the objective of providing the right to education by 2015. The Dakar Frame- work for Action was supported by 182 of the 193 countries attending the conference. Its adoption marginalized impoverished coun- tries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as nations in conflict. It failed to ad- dress disparate contextual layers of political, economic, social, and technological impacts in the face of growing poverty and debt lev- els. A universal framework, when applied as a prima facie solution to a country’s complex public management problems, is doomed to fail when it neglects resounding contextual inequalities. Success of the NPM model In the 1980s and 1990s, many developed countries adopted a new method of pub- lic administration called the “New Public Management”. The NPM model attempted to integrate managerial and market-based approaches in administrative doctrines to address public management problems. The key elements of NPM included decen- tralization, privatization, contracting out, performance management, and perfor- mance contracting. While NPM generated modest results when transferred to some developing countries, overall success in the third- world context was limited. According to a 2003 Economic Commission for Africa study, the International Monetary Fund ar- rogantly relied upon NPM as a panacea for developing countries and ignored a pletho- ra of unique contextual issues like account- ability, transparency, and corruption. Contextual approaches matter Can managing chronic water crises in Sub-Saharan countries using Canadian public policy frameworks for water explo- ration, collection, sanitization, and distri- bution be successful in providing water to marginalized communities? In October 2016, the United Nations Economic Com- mission for Europe attempted to promote “best practices” using a global frame- work. It addressed issues of sustainable consumption and production relative to resource efficiency, climate change, recy- cling, and hazardous waste. North Ameri- can “best practices” were adapted from the United States experience. The Universal Basic Education Policy Implementation questioned why policies regularly fail in Nigeria. Between 1960 and 2007, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission estimated US$500 billion of corruption in Nigeria. Clearly, context matters. Proponents argue that frameworks are essential components of effective public management solutions. They rationalize that frameworks provide a set of proce- dures and structures that, when applied in combination with meaningful analysis and empirical data, result in consistency. Conversely, when these inherently flawed structural and analytical decision- making frameworks are applied univer- sally, they often fail owing to the: • Biases of framework architects; • Uniqueness of target populations; • Cultural variations; and • Collaborative shortcomings in relations with key actors. Should flawed public management frame- works or models be exported to address international, or even subnational, prob- lems? Paradigm shift needed Van Olmen et al. (2012) contend that, “... theories and frameworks are developed in reaction to one another, partly in line with prevailing paradigms and as a re- sponse to very different needs.” Bruno Jobert (2006) claims that frameworks are more than just “frames” since they come with instruments that “work” towards achieving goals. Frameworks should not take for granted the target population that they intend to address. Meaningful frames of reference should be used. Otherwise, the diffusion of influence is the consequence. Strate- gic collaboration with key political and bureaucratic stakeholders is essential to gaining systemic commitment from those in authority and control. The idea of “one-size-fits-all” approach is elusive. Frameworks should be about finding “best fit”, not transferring “best practices”. The challenge of “best fit” con- textual frameworks is to develop viable, multi-stakeholder partnerships that are grounded in transparency, evidence, and public value. Sarika Bhatnagar is Provincial Prosecu- tor, Peel & Hamilton Crown Attorney’s Offices, Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, and part-time professor at Sheridan College. She is a Candidate for the Master of Public Policy, Administration and Law at York University (sarikabhatnagar7@hotmail. com). Millennial Outlook Frameworks … does one size fit all? The shoe that fits one person pinches another. – Carl Jung (1933) By Sarika Bhatnagar