Unlike Bangladesh Australian public servants themselves accept the value system that they should operate as efficiently as possible. They strive for efficiency not because of criticism, but because it is their responsibility as public servants, owing a duty to the community, and as ordinary citizens. In attempting to distinguish between politics and administration it is often identified as a contrast between 'means' and 'ends.' Public servants would come to be viewed as experts on 'means' of doing things. If all the politics is taken out of the public servant's life the service would become a machine adopting the means to the desired ends. Bangladesh may consider seriously adopting such measure.

In natural sciences or engineering efficiency can be expressed as an input/output relationship. In social sciences, however, such precision of measurement is not possible. In fact 'efficiency' in human situations, is a relative and not an absolute concept. There have been attempts to define 'efficiency' within public administration, one of the main areas where this has occurred is in relation to promotion systems. Australia is one of the first countries in the world to prescribe efficiency as the first prerequisite of promotion. It regarded efficiency as being special qualification and aptitude for the discharge of a higher duty.

The public service board is charged with devising means for effecting economies and promoting efficiency in the management and workings of departments (Australian Public Service Act, section 17). The New South Wales Act speaks of 'fitness' rather than efficiency [New South Wales Public Service Act 49(2)]. This act has stated proper standards of efficiency and emphasised greatly on the inspectoral functions of the board to investigate the character of the work and the manner in which the employees carry it out, as means towards that end [ibid section 9 (1)]. The Victoria Act is similar to Australian Public Service Act. The Queensland Act is silent on the question. The South Australia Act or Tasmanian Act is similar to that of Victoria, western Australian Public Service Act contains no details of how the board should encourage efficiency.

Some management specialists in public organisations do not agree that well-defined images of efficiency cannot be introduced in government administration. However, one can broadly compare the situations which apply in both cases. In both cases there are resources to be handled, human, financial and physical. Senior officials in both cases need to have common characteristics such as imagination, intellectual capacity, character, sensitivity, integrity, stamina and determination. There are also differences. One fundamental difference concerns the matter of responsibility, because effectiveness or efficacy is often more important than efficiency. Indeed it is often the case that provision of a particular service to the public has to be done rather inefficiently if it is to be handled effectively (in this case effectively means satisfying the vast majority of users). At times it is extremely difficult even to define clearly the goals of government. Another fundamental difference is that government undertakings operate on the principle of equity whereas private businesses are relatively free to serve the interests of whichever citizens they may choose. For government undertakings this enforces a measure of consistency in dealing with clients which is not as imperative for the private company.

There are operational dissimilarities, however. Public undertakings do not always function to make profits although a surplus can often be recorded. Profit or return on capital is a major criterion for judging business efficiency but this yardstick is rarely applicable in public administration, although there are many who still persist in ignoring this fact. In fact many government services are not charged for, so any return on capital invested can only comprise a vague esoteric amount of public satisfaction. Moreover, most of the public organisations are not in competition with others as regards the provision of that service. It is very difficult for public organisations to control the size and nature of their own resources. Thus departments find it extremely difficult to dispense with the services of staff in slack times, or to augment their operating funds at short notice largely because of the need for justice throughout the whole government machinery. Consequently the flexibility which managers of private firms may enjoy is much less evident in a public service.

Senior public servants require an ability to work under a degree of constant newspaper, parliamentary and public observation, comment and criticism which is not known elsewhere. It is also contended that in financial matters the permanent head does not enjoy the autonomy of the general manager, or managing director. In personal matters the permanent head must abide by service-wide regulations as to the handling of recruitment, promotion, discipline and dismissal of staff. He must cooperate with the public service board, and abide by appeal mechanisms which are designed to ensure equality of treatment for all public servants. The point is that public administrators work in an environment which is much more complex than that of their business counterparts.

There are more practical problems in measuring efficiency in public administration. Efficiency is largely a means/end in relationship. It is possible to identify goals or objectives to define them in quantitative terms and then measure progress towards those objectives. In measuring this a number of quantitative indicators have been devised (such as staff/pupil ratios, or capital expenditure or total expenditure per head of population). However, these are only partial measures. There are reasonably satisfactory measures of inputs (such as cost per day of staff, food, drugs, maintenance etc). Calculation of outputs is, however, difficult. Some of the most serious dangers in introducing measurement of output in government are:

1. Attention will be directed only to those items which can be measured ignoring other important factors.
2. If government or private experts refuse to quantify certain inputs/outputs, administrators may resort to placing a value on them using solely their own judgement.
3. Any attempt at quantifying goals or outputs may result in disagreement within the administration.
4. It is often hard to calculate the contribution of each part of an organisation towards its goals.
5. Efficiency may become an end in itself (e.g. the traffic police may come to view his goal as writing tickets rather than maintaining order).

However it has to be accepted that public administrators can learn a good deal from various outside sources about modern methods of dealing with the resources at their disposal to achieve the effective, equitable and efficient results required.

A few words about scientific management. Public servants of Australia extensively make use of organisation and methods, operation research, automatic data processing and system analysis to streamline the machinery of government. Techniques such as accountable management and management by objectives are commonly used both in national and state public services to improve service efficiency.

One of the most interesting concepts in Australian public service is internal consultancy units to (a) investigate assigned problems for management, recommend changes and assist with implementation of agreed changes; (b) assist with staff development, training and education, and (c) undertake research and development of management systems and techniques. Due attention is also paid on improving working conditions for public servants. The wages and other fringe benefits for Australian public servants are regarded as more than generous.

Improvement is a continuous process. The quest for improving efficiency is always on. The ties between public and private organisations are growing closer. However, the real danger lies in the strong possibility of accepting the philosophy and practice developed by business as capable of being adopted in government organisations without proper thought. Another major danger is the possibility of hypnotic effect on public servants by the gimmicks of modern technological progress without considering their effect on the morale of staff, relation with clients and preservation of accountability to the public.

ABMS Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary.