INTRODUCTIONThe practice and discipline of public administration in Nigeria is beclouded by

problems which are internal (self-inflicted) and external (environmentally induced).

These problems impact negatively on public institutions and in the employees of

government such that what is demanded from government by the citizens becomes a far

cry from objective commitment on the part of government and on the deplorable results

that comes from administrators performance.

It has to be recognized that the public administration system in a country is in a

causal relationship with its environment. The environment therefore determines to a great

extent the structure and functioning of the administrative system and the latter in turn is

capable of modifying its environment to advantage. Indeed, the capability of a people to

collectively manipulate their environment to their advantage has been used by Bendix

(1960) to define ‘development’. However, when the environment is topsy-turvy, the

capability of the administrative system to manipulate its environment is hampered.

Seriously, these factors of revulsion, renders the administrative system weak in

implementing the nation’s collective decisions.

What do bureaucrats do all day in those hives of activity with the alphabet names?

What policies and programs will those agencies like Health and Human Services,

Education, Transportation, and Commerce be initiating or changing next? Every facet of

our daily lives is impacted in some way by the actions of the federal, state, or local

bureaucracies that manage and organize the public life of the country and its citizens.

Public administration trains the policy analyst who brings analytical skills to the task of

advising public servants on the merits of particular public policy issues and evaluates

programs as to which would best serve the interests of the constituents in the most cost-

effective way, and the public manager who implements public policy programs and

oversees or directs the operation of the program on a day-to-day basis.

Public administration is the study of public entities and their relationships with

each other and with the larger world: how public sector organizations are organized and

managed; how public policy structures the design of government programs that we rely

upon; how our states, cities, and towns work with the federal government to realize their

1

goals and plan for their futures; how our national government creates and changes public

policy programs to respond to the needs and interests of our nation.

DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public administration consists of the provision of services and regulation of inter-

group relations in society. Maintenance of law and order, defense, welfare of society,

application of science and technology and eradication of poverty in the developing

countries. In a word, the security and independence of the state and social and economic

welfare of a society is a function of public administration. Bhambhri in Polinaidu (2005)

says “When public administration is so important in our daily life, its study is naturally

worthy undertaking”.

In order to properly understand the term public administration we must first be

clear about what we mean by the adjective ‘public’. The word public is used in a variety

of meanings but here it means ‘governmental’. Public administration, therefore, simply

means governmental administration that operates in political settings. It’s focus is

specifically on public bureaucracy. As Nicholas Henry says, “The study and practice of

public bureaucracy is called public administration”. The public aspect of public

administration lends special character to it. What is crucial in public administration is that

it is an agency of the public. It concerns the management of public agencies that carry out

public policies in order to fulfill state purposes in the public interest. Since government

provides services for the people in the public interest the administration of governmental

affairs is known as public administration. According to Simon, Smithburg and Thomson,

public administration refers to the activities of groups cooperating to accomplish the

common goals of government” Such common goals include defence, safeguarding the

frontiers, maintenance of law and order, fire protection, communications, public health,

education and many other services that we enjoy.

In meaning, public affairs, public administration focuses principally on the (i)

planning (ii) organizing (iii) directing (iv) coordinating and (v) controlling governmental

operations. This little background forms the major emphasis of this unit as we look also

at the nature and scope of public administration, particularly as it has come to be referred

to and practiced today.

2

Public administration, in its simplest terms, is “what government does.” However,

the actions and activities of government are so expansive that a simple definition is not

feasible. The definition of public administration can be broken down into several

different factors. First, public administration has a political definition. Under its political

definition, public administration is the actions of government that affect the daily lives of

the citizens living under that government. These actions can be either direct, as when

public employees serve members of the populace, or indirect, as when government

agencies hire private contractors to carry out some aspect of public policy. Also, public

administration’s political responsibilities include making decisions about what to do or

not do while implementing the public interest. Finally, public administration is a

“collective doing”: it is the work of a group to meet a goal that individuals could not meet

as easily or well under their own, singular power.

Public administration also has a legal definition. Public administration is

inseparable from legality, since its creation and its actions are defined by law—it is

expressed in the action of implementing legislation, and also in regulating the behavior of

individuals and groups. Other legal definitions of public administration include its

“largesse” power, or the ability to bestow jobs, goods and services on the citizens, and its

role in the eyes of some as theft, as regulations and taxes take the rights and money from

citizens. Those who criticize public administration in this manner often see it as theft

regardless of ends—for instance, government organizations still rob people through taxes,

even if that tax money goes toward education, health care, or other programs to benefit

those same people.

Third, a managerial definition of public administration can be applied. Public

administration is the executive function, carrying out legislation. Since such action needs

to be managed in order to occur properly and efficiently, the process of running public

organizations has become a management specialty. The vast majority of public

administrators are members of middle management. Critics of public administration often

apply the managerial definition to describe public administration as a “Mickey Mouse”

venture: one that exerts considerable effort for very little gain.

The last major definition of public administration is an occupational one. Public

administration is a job, but it is a very broad job title that includes within it almost any

3

specialized career or skill possible. In the broadest sense, public administration includes

anything and everything public employees do. Two of the common traits of all public

administration jobs is that they rely very heavily on writing skills, and that the people in

these jobs are often idealistic—they see themselves as working toward a better good for

society. Finally, public administration has become an academic occupation as well as a

public or career one: the study of management as applied to the public sector and the

environments in which public administration operates have become more expansive in

recent years.

Public administration houses the implementation of government policy and an

academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for

this work. As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental goal... is to

advance management and policies so that government can function." Some of the various

definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public

programs"; the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day"; and

"the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves, the

various inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative

policies."

Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government

policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected)

formally responsible for their conduct" Many unelected public servants can be considered

to be public administrators, including police officers, municipal budget analysts, HR

benefits administrators, city managers, Census analysts, and cabinet

secretaries.Template:Kettl, D.F. and Fesler, J.W. (2009).

One scholar claims that "public administration has no generally accepted

definition", because the "scope of the subject is so great and so debatable that it is easier

to explain than define". Public administration is a field of study (i.e., a discipline) and an

occupation. There is much disagreement about whether the study of public administration

can properly be called a discipline, largely because of the debate over whether public

administration is a subfield of political science of a subfield of administrative science".

Scholar Donald Kettl is among those who view public administration "as a subfield

within political science".

4

The North American Industry Classification System definition of the Public

Administration (NAICS 91) sector states that public administration "... comprises

establishments primarily engaged in activities of a governmental nature, that is, the

enactment and judicial interpretation of laws and their pursuant regulations, and the

administration of programs based on them". This includes "Legislative activities,

taxation, national defence, public order and safety, immigration services, foreign affairs

and international assistance, and the administration of government programs are activities

that are purely governmental in nature".[14]

Evolution and Growth of Public Administration.

Public administration as an activity is as old as civilization but as an

academic discipline is a little over a hundred years old. This, however, does

not mean by implication that thinkers in earlier ages had never said anything

significant about public administration. Functioning of the governmental

machinery has attracted the attention of scholars and administrators since the

earliest periods of history. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the Mahabharata, the

Ramayana and the maxims and teachings of Confucius in the realm of

Oriental thought contain many profound observations about the organization

23

and working of government. In the history of western political thought,

Aristotle’s politics and Machiavelli’s The Prince are important contributions

to administrative thought and practice.

Scattered thoughts, however, do not constitute a discipline though it is

interesting to note that even without systematic teaching and study of the

subject, great cities, public works and monuments have been built, vast

empires administered, huge armies organized, taxes collected, effective law

and order maintained and enforced throughout history. Therefore, public

administration as an activity proceeded long before systematic study of the

subject began in the eighteenth century. Official academic status to the

discipline did not come until World War I when professional chairs in public

administration were established and subject textbooks published.

“Only when governments could be differentiated from other societal institutions

5

and their activities developed to the point where professional administrators

were indispensable for their effective performance, could modern public

administration emerge. The term public administration began to creep into

European languages during the seventeenth century to distinguish between the

absolute monarch’s administration of public affairs and his management of his

private household. The contemporary discipline arose out of the

bureaucratization of the nation-state when the church was separated from the

state and government was superimposed on all other social institutions within a

definite territory. (Paulinadu, 2005:4)

Modern public administration was first taught as a part of the training course

of public officials-on-probation in Prussia. The subject was largely compiled

and taught in a descriptive manner by professors of cameral sciences, which

then included all knowledge considered necessary for the governance of an

absolutist state. The cameralist approach continued to influence European

studies in public administration well into the twentieth century, until it was

replaced by the administrative law and legal studies approach. Ideologically

cameralism gave way to bureaucracy. Civil service recruits had to study

administrative law and gradually all over Europe including Nigeria public

service training schools started offering courses on administrative law and

public administration.

As E.N. Gladden says, the field of public administration is mainly a debate

over definitions. Despite more than a hundred years of development, public

administration lacks a significant definition that is acceptable to all students

of public administration. Various scholars have defined it in different ways.

While the traditional writers have defined public administration in its

narrower sense, the modern scholars have defined it is its wider sense. Let us

examine both the views by quoting some important definitions.

Traditional Definitions

The following are some of the important definitions of public

administration, which reflect the traditional view of the disciplines.

1. Public administration is detailed and systematic execution of law. Every

6

particular application of law is an act of administration”.

Woodrow Wilson.

To Wilson, “Administration is the most obvious part of government, it is

government in action, and it is the executive, the operative, the most

visible side of government”.

30

2. “Public Administration consists of all those operations having for their

purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy”.

L.D White

3. “By public administration is meant, in common usage, the activities of

the executive branches of the National, state, and local government”

Herbert A. Simon

4. Public Administration is that part of the science of administration which

has to do with government, and thus concerns itself primarily with the

executive branch, where the work of government is done, though there are

obviously administrative problems also in connection with the legislative

and judicial branches”

Luther Gulick

5. “Public administration is the action part of government, the means by

which the purposes and goals of government are realized.

Corson and Harris

6. “In its broadest sense, it (public administration) denotes the work

involved in the actual conduct of governmental affairs, regardless of the

particular branch of government concerned. In its narrowest sense, it

denotes the operations of the administrative branch only”.

W.F. Willoughby

7. “… Administration consists of getting the work of government done by

coordinating the efforts of people so that they can work together to

accomplish their set tasks”.

Pfiffner( in Polinaidu,2005:4&5).

The definitions quoted above reflect the narrow traditional point of view of

7

public administration. This view locates public administration in the

executive branch of government. Its main business comprises all those

activities that are involved in carrying out public policies as expressed in

laws made by the legislature and interpreted by courts. It is denied any role

in both legislative (i.e. policy – making) and judicial functions. Its main

business is to get things done and not to decide what things to do.

Public administration is thus identified with the administrative side of

government as opposed to the legislative and judicial sides. Therefore, the

traditional view is unduly restrictive as an explanation and does not fully

capture the scope of public administration. It emphasizes the locus but not

the focus of Public Administration. The reason is that administration not

only carries out policy but also recommends it. Administration is also

concerned with the hearing and deciding cases and controversies not

allocated to the judiciary. For all these reasons the traditional view

presents too narrow, formalistic, and legalistic picture of Public

Administration.

3.5a Some Modern Definitions

31

Some modern textbook writers such as M.E. Dimock, James Fesler and

F.A. Nigro have used the term “Public Administration ‘in its wider sense.

In their opinion, public administration has some responsibility in

formulating governmental policies, besides executing them. The definitions

quoted below are illustrative of the modern broader view of public

administration.

1. “… Public administration is the area of study and practice where law

and policy is recommended and carried out”.M.E. Dimock and G.O. Dimock

2“public Administration is policy executive and also policy formulation’

James W. Fesler

1. “Public Administration

i. Is cooperative group effort in a public setting

ii. Covers all three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial and

8

their interrelationships.

iii. Has an important role in the formulation of policy and is thus a part

of the political process.

iv. Is different in significant ways from private administration, and

v. Is closely associated with numerous private groups and individuals

in providing services to the community.

PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM: The impact of the environment on public

administration consist of the pressures and influences

emanating from the Socio-cultural, political,

pressure group, interest group, trade union,

economic, national and international environments,

which often constrain the structure,

process and output of public administration.

These are factors which though are external to

public institutions, but impinges upon administration

thereby affecting the efficiency, effectiveness

and goal attainment of public administration

and government.

Public Administration as a field of study

always poses critical questions that demands for

deep intellectual reflections. As a field of study

that examines the practice of managing the

business of government and as a body of knowledge

that looks into the process of management in

the public sector, public administration is best

considered from the standpoint of interrelationships

and that of comparison. Public administration

in modern societies is characterized by its

9

performance in the various concerns of housing,

health services, transportation, education,

welfare, social services, law and order etc. The

social welfare state has extended far and wide

and Nigeria being a country that operates the

mixed economy system, her performance in the

field of governance and administration has to be

compared with how successfully other democratic

nations have performed.

According to Riggs (1962), any truly scientific

study of public administration must be

comparative and to be truly comparative, it must

be ‘empirical, nomothetic and ecological’. He has

gone further to use this idea to explain the

differential problems confronting bureaucracies

in the western and developing societies. Riggs

(1961) defined developing societies as ‘prismatic’

or transitional societies characterized by

rapid change, uncertainty, overlapping and

ineffective differentiated structures. These marked

characteristics constitutes inherent prob-lems

in Nigeria’s public administration which inevitable

leads to these questions.

1. How has government fulfilled their own part

of the ancient contract to the citizens?

2. Do governments and public officials really

work hard for the public money delivered to

them continuously and in increasing amounts?

3. How much has the myriad environmental

problems in the Nigeria Nation really impinged

on the performance of government viceversa

10

the value with which the citizens regard

the government?

POLITICAL FACTORS

The Nigeria state which is a cluster of diverse

ethnic Nationalities lack that cohesive force that

may form for a national ideology. Leaders struggle

to take control of the centre so as to dispense

privileges to their kingsmen or ethnic affliations.

A political leader from the western part of the

country had to cry out in his famous book. Said

Awolowo (1947) that Nigeria was ‘a mere geographical

expression’. That is, in terms of social

relationships and national identification, one

could not speak of Nigeria in the same sense as

one could speak of such of its components like

the Benin Kingdom, Egba Kingdom, Kano

Emirate etc.

After independence in 1960, there was the

unequal distribution of political power on a

regional and ethnic basis. This resulted into

inequality of socio economic development as

every leader concentrated on developing his

region. In the realm of administration, the politics

of regional affiliation has denied Nigeria of a

national character and hence also of evolving

concrete notions of national interest. Therefore,

there now arose in the encyclopedia of Nigeria’s

administration, such policies as Zoning, Federal

character, quota system etc.

The struggle to control the centre by ethnic

11

leaders has resulted into the inability to have a

successful and acceptable population census. This

affected the drive for viable planning and policy

making by both the politicians and administrators.

This largely accounts for the failure of many national

development progra-mmes. By advantage of

hindsight that history provides, Amuwo (1996)

contends that it does appears that after all, public

policy objectives are enunciated for elected

civilian politicians, mainly as vote-catching contrivances,

and part of an elaborate game plan to

secure legitimacy and win political acceptance.

The consequence is that there now arise a ruling

class that lacks Utopia, that has no vision and

that dreams no great dreams. This attribute,

impact negatively on the citizenry, the nation and

on adminis-tration.

In Nigerian politics and administration, the

rise to fame, wealth, power of virtually all senior

government officials and public officers is through

the agency of the state. While in all political

system of all ideological persuasions put together,

certain special privileges and largesse are attached

to political appointment, such brazen venality

need not be cultivated in order to ensure comfort.

The Nigerian topology appears different; it has

almost become a rule. This debilitating arrogance

exhibited by both the political and administrative

leadership is copied by the civil society as they

see the state as a prebend. Appointment to public

offices is conceived as God sent, a life time opportunity

12

to once and for all break the bondage of

poverty. Amuwo went on to state that it matters

little whether or not the appointee performs.

Indeed, criteria of performance have nothing to

do with how well or badly the job is done. Performance

is evaluated on the basis of material selfactualization

of the appointee, accentuated

comfort of his family and how well the appointee

relates to his friends. The danger here is that the

state and administration will become centralized.

The political class has largely failed to keep

the sovereign obligation that they owe to the

people. This class-whether military or civilian has

120 AKPOMUVIRE MUKORO

formed a cabal. They are very few in number and

they continue to rotate themselves in government.

Since their primary objective is to hold on to

power and accumulate wealth illegally, they

inevitably lack vision. The resultant impact of

their policies generates rancour, lack of patriotism

and the tendency to want to get back at the

uncaring system (state) by the civilian population.

People’s temperaments becomes always on edge,

there is frustration, anger and agitation which

results into violence, strife and crime. That

relationship that should go with leadership and

followership manifest only at the negative.

All these evil tendencies on the part of

leadership has always resorted into military coup

and counter coup. This has further politicized the

military institution itself together with the fact that

13

military incursion into politics is an aberration.

The advent of the military into politics according

to Jemibewon (1982) who was a one time military

governor of Lagos state lamented as ‘regrettable’,

because it has done more harm than good to both

the military institution and that of the civilian

including the public service.

From the international arena, one can say that

globalization and improvements on information

technology constitute demands that are placed on

both the political and the adminis-trative class.

Also, the influence of the supper-power nations

and other advanced societies, impact on what is

to be done in terms of policy and in terms of

implementation. There is the room to make

comparism so that checks can be drawn. The

impact of education and knowledge acquired from

other climes changes the orientation of people.

What is however left for conjecture is whether

their impact is on the positive or on the negative

side.

ECONOMIC FACTORS

This is made up of the financial institutions,

the organized private sector, natural and mineral

resources, technology and agriculture, which all

have varying impact on the public service organizations.

The nation’s development plans which results

from the consultation carried out with the different

interest group in the society reflects on the

economic environment of government.

Although, Nigeria was largely an Agricultural

14

economy in the 1960’s, with the discovery of oil,

there was a complete disem-phasis on agriculture

and shift of concentration to oil. Presently,

according to Olalokun (1979) petroleum contributes

to over 90% foreign exchange earnings for

the nation. While the scramble for oil was on, the

leadership which always comes from the majority

ethnic group never paid heed to the plight of the

minority oil producing communities of the Niger

Delta. All the benefits that accrue from oil sales

is appropriated by the central (federal) government.

While the pollution and environmental

degradation that results from oil exploration is

suffered by the oil producing communities, the

rest o the population keeps quiet and even device

more means to continue the subjugation of the

minority ethnic people of the Niger Delta. The

situation is so bad that there is now extreme

poverty amongst the people. The resultant effect

of this is anybody’s guess; lawlessness, crime,

strife, communual warfare etc. The progressive

centralization of the instruments of power and

administration has been responsible for this,

because stakeholders are not involved in governance,

policy making and implementation.

The attitude of the Nigeria state to the discovery

of oil has resulted into the neglect of Agriculture

and the rural areas in the develop-ment

process. The urban areas have become over urbanized

and according to Mabogunje (1960), they

have become parasites on the rural areas.

15

With all these wealth from oil, Nigeria has

not been able to manipulate her environment to

advantage technologically. This means that huge

programs of economic and social development

can be aborted by the absence and in- appropriateness

of technology. Administrators play a

pre-eminent role in the process of policy making

and implementation. Therefore they contribute a

great deal at influencing the economic system

through the control and operation of governmental

administrative machinery. The bureaucracy

affects the lives of the citizen. Therefore

the quality of personnel employed into it matters

a lot. This is where government attempt to

regulate the economy through national economic

planning, needs a well trained and competent civil

service. Even at that, most of the national development

plans have ended up failing because of the

internal contradictions arising from the plan

environment. These contradictions are the type

of centralized federalism being practiced which

excludes major stakeholders and encourage

wasteful competition and conflict. The ideological

pursuit of mixed economy where governTHE

IMPACT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON NIGERIA’S PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

121

ment gets involved in the management of certain

sectors of the economy that should have been left

with the private sector encourages this wasteful

spending. Considering the lack of an ideological

unity and presence of mutual suspection amongst

16

politicians and adminis-trators, virtually all the

development plans have ended up being

unworkable.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS

Studies by Riggs (1964) argued for the fact

that most developing nations exist in an

environment where the traditional and the modern

ways of doing things co-exist. This result into the

problems of communication, political mobilisation,

ethical/ethnic confusion etc. In Nigeria for

example, there is the presence of several indigenous

mother tongues, but the English language

serve as the medium of communication. And with

the high level of illite-racy, the substance of

message being dissemi-nated is lost to reason and

only the few literate population benefits.

The fanatical religious group in almost all the

religious sect creates problem and there is always

conflagration over minute things that should not

raise much dust. Tribal and clan allegiance still

holds strong in the Nigerian polity. This is even

more made to fester by the ruling elite. The end

product is confusion in policy making and in its

implementation. The effect of all these on public

Administration has been unsettling. The civil

service is torn by the presence of ethnic and selfish

allegiance and the pursuit of positive result

becomes a far cry from objective expectations.

1. Lack of Good Leadership; The ruling class often times do not have a clear

agenda of what they want to pursue and estimated time of achieving such. In

17

other words, it is a leadership without a vision and thus cannot elicit the

support or unleash the potentials of the followers.

2. Lack of Political and Economic Stability; Nigeria as a country has faced

series of change in governance with the military ruling for a greater

proportion of it’s years since independence. These military regimes too have

not been stable as government can be changed in a short time as Six months.

This long term instability has come to affect the nature in which government

activities are carried out.

During the military regimes, the entire constitution of the country is

suspended and the use of decrees which has no regard for human face in

administration is often introduced. This trend made if difficult even for the

few moments of civil rule up to the present time where elections are unstable

and erratic.

3. Cultural and Social Inequalities. Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups and

each clamouring for a place at the federal public service. Such struggle for

representation which is based on quota system and at times based on the fact

that each group wants to belong to the service. Such situations have come to

question the very need for merit and efficiency as appointments are no longer

based on merit.

4. Lack of favourable economic environment for both domestic and foreign

investment .This situation in the economy is brought about by incessant

industrial strike action by public workers in demand of improved conditions

of service. Wars and conflict particularly the recent Niger-Delta militancy

activities which have reduced Nigeria’s oil earnings by 40%.

5. Other problems include high poverty levels, high illiteracy levels,

inadequate infrastructure, and heavy dependence on foreign aids And

foreign technical support. And because of the dependence, local initiatives

are killed and usually not appreciated.

6. Corruption. This has eaten so deep into the public sector, as contract

sums are inflated and bad behaviours go unpunished. This, therefore,

encourages the abandonment of tenets of commitments and a sense of

18

service to the nation becomes a mirage.

7. Inadequate infrastructures to facilitate productivity. Industries have

learn to produce with obsolete equipments, while the situation in tertiary

institutions are such that science students are only thought theory without

practicals.And the result is the production of half-baked graduates.

8. The Nigerian experience in trying to bring about transformation of it’s

public service appears to be muddled up between the presidential and

parliamentary system of the public service. The result is that, political

interference in the service has brought about the emergence of half-baked

153

bureaucrats to manage the public service at various tiers of government.

Consequently, the presence of ill-groomed, inexperienced and incompetent

bureaucrats in the service.

CORRUPTION PROBLEM

Corruption at high places and gross misadministration spoilt the reputation of the civilian

administration and compelled the military to come back to power. By the time the

military took over on

December 31, 1983, every Nigerian was sure there were going to be drastic changes. And

it happened so.

Isuikwuato and Okigwe which had already been enjoying some kind of autonomy as

distinct Local

Governments were once again amalgamated into a single Local Government Area. The

Government of

the long-capped civilian President, Alhaji Shehu Aliyu Shagari was overthrown by Major

General

Mohammadu Buhari, a dynamic but non-tolerant young military officer from the present

Katsina State

of Nigeria. Military overthrew military in 1985. This brought into power another Head of

State and

19

President of Nigeria, General Ibrahim Badamosa Babaginda. His coming into power

brought drastic

changes one of which was the creation of more Local Governments. This, according to

Government, has

been to enhance grassroot development throughout the nation. Isuikwuato District was

one of the lucky

ones affected by this new policy. On the 29th of May 1987, Isuikwuato became a Local

Government of its

own. This has been the summary of the onerous journey so far, from clan, through

district, to Local

Government Area which it still remains now 2010.

The history of corruption is as old as the world, because ancient civilizations have traces

of widespread ‘illegality and corruption.’ Thus, Lipset and Lenz 2000 note that

"corruption has been ubiquitous in complex societies from ancient Egypt, Israel, Rome,

and Greece down to the present." Corruption is also believed to be endemic in modern

governments and it is not peculiar to any continent, region, or ethnic group. This does

not, however, mean that the incidence and magnitude of corrupt activities are the same in

every society. Some countries are obviously more corrupt; yet others have better plans in

managing corrupt activities. Obviously, Nigeria is not one of those countries with a better

handle on corruption, despite its unending corruption commissions and all the noise made

by every administration on the efforts to transform the nation into a corruption-free

society.

Therefore, this article, which re-visits the discussion on corruption in Nigeria, adopts a

new approach with a view to effectively managing the challenges of corruption in the

society. More importantly, the discussion on the phenomenon is necessary now that the

nation has sworn in the second and ‘brand new’ Chief Olusegun Obsanjo administration

20

(and new a Congress) at Abuja, because the magnitude of corruption the society

witnessed in his first civilian administration was alarming, to say the least. However, with

the on-going political somersaulting in the society, it does not look that the new

administration would be anything different than the previous one.

Nevertheless, the forms of corrupt activities prevalent in Nigeria include political

corruption, bureaucratic corruption, electoral corruption, embezzlement and bribery.

Political corruption, which takes place at the highest levels of political authority, is a

‘corruption of greed.’ It affects the manner in which decisions are made, manipulates and

distorts political institutions and rules of procedure. Bureaucratic corruption, which

occurs ‘in the public administration" or ‘the implementation end of politics,’ is the ‘low

level’ and ‘street level’ corruption. This is the type of corruption the citizens encounter

daily at places like the hospitals, schools, local licensing offices, encounters with the

police, taxing offices, etc. It is ’ petty’ -‘corruption of need’ - that occurs when one

obtains a business from the public sector through inappropriate procedure. However,

electoral corruption includes purchase of votes, promises of office or special favors,

coercion, intimidation and interference with freedom of election. And corruption in the

offices involves sales of legislative votes, administrative, or judicial decision, or

governmental appointment. Other forms of corruption include embezzlement (theft of

public resources by public officials) and bribery (persuade to act improperly by a gift of

money, etc).

If one may ask, who is to blame for the prevalence of corrupt activities in the society? Is

it the common person or those in power? No matter who the culprits are, convention

dictates that to effectively tackle a problem one should first and foremost determine and

understand the cause (s) –why it happens, before one could effectively manage the effect

21

(s) -what happens as a result. Similarly, to effectively control corruption in Nigeria it is

pertinent to understand the cause (s) before looking for ways to mange it.

From the foreground, it is ‘luminously evident’ that corruption is not peculiar to Nigeria,

but it is a viable enterprise in the society. But the situation in the society is complicated

because the system does not have the apparatus to trace and prosecute the ‘big

politicians’ that engage in grand thefts. Thus, greed and the ‘brazen display of wealth by

public officials,’ which they are unable to account for, points to the fact that those in

power are to blame more for corruption than the common people who are often pushed

into corrupt behavior in their struggle for survival. Until the society devices effective

sanctions to deal appropriately with the ‘big’ corrupt politicians, all efforts toward

tackling the menace are in vain.

The causes of corruption, which are myriad, include the culture and weird value systems

of the society. According to one who has lived in Nigeria, becoming corrupt is almost

unavoidable, because morality is relaxed in the society, and many people struggle for

survival without assistance from the state.

The influence or pressure of ‘polygamous household’ and extended family system, and

pressure to meet family obligations, which are more in Less Developed Countries, are

some of the causes of corruption. Thus, Merton (1968) acknowledges the relationship

between culture and corruption. And Banfield (1958) shows a relationship between

22

corruption and strong family orientation. The study, which helped to explain high levels

of corruption in southern Italy and Sicily, shows that "Corruption is linked to the strong

family values involving intense feelings of obligation." Lack of effective control and

taxing systems are other problems. Thus, Lotterman (April 25, 2002) who noted that bad

rules breed corruption, acknowledged that ‘ineffective taxing system’ makes it difficult

for societies to track down people’s financial activities.

Poor reward system is another serious factor, because Nigeria’s is probably the poorest in

the world. It is no longer news that workers in the society are not paid regularly.

Therefore, to check bureaucratic corruption workers should be paid, and when due,

because without getting paid they would devise ways to meet their family obligations

even if it involves breaking the law. Thus, lack of economic opportunity is a serious

problem in a society whose citizens are achievement oriented, but have relatively low

access to economic opportunities. This alone could explain the reason for the upsurge of

corrupt behavior in the society. Therefore, Lipset and Lenze (2000) note that the cultures

of societies "that stress economic success as an important goal but nevertheless strongly

restricts access to opportunities will have higher levels of corruption." And these are

detrimental to the sociopolitical and economic development of the nation because many

studies, including Mauro 1995 and 1997and Lipset and Lenz 2000, and Sen 2000 have

documented the negative impacts of corruption on societies.

The lukewarm attitude of the officers charged with enforcing the laws (judges, police and

other public officials) lead to corrupt behavior. They often let the culprits off hook when

they are ‘settled.’ What is currently happening in the trial of Chief Omisore and others

implicated in the murder of Chief Bola Ige (the Ige’s family has been frustrated out of the

23

case) and the recent Senator Wabara episode are cases in point. Because money

exchanged hand witnesses were allowed to modify their initial testimonies, and Mr. Imo

(in the case of Wabara) has been bought over. However, If these cases are not resolved

(killers of Bola Ige to be found and prosecuted) it may lead to another criminal behavior,

because one criminal behavior leads to another. Corruption has taught the society a

wrong lesson, that it does not pay to be honest, hardworking and law-abiding. Through

corrupt means many political office holders have acquired wealth and properties in and

outside Nigeria; and they often display the ill-gotten wealth without the society blinking.

Having briefly reviewed some of the causes of corruption in societies (because of limited

space we cannot catalog all the causes) let’s browse through its effects. Some scholars

(including Pye, March 1965) have argued that corruption could be beneficial to a nation’s

political development. In particular, Gluckman (1955) noted that scandals associated with

corruption sometimes have the effect of strengthening a value system of a society. In

spite of the apparent benefits of corruption, any person who has witnessed the devastating

effects of ubiquitous corruption in Nigeria would find it difficult to accept its apparent

benefits.

Therefore, Mauro 1997 and 1995 note that corruption negatively impacts economic

growth and reduces public spending on education The effect of corruption on education is

well stated in a statement made by Costello (Nov/Dec 2001) at a European Commission

(EC) meeting in support of Nigeria’s anti-poverty efforts. He said, "Nigeria has enough

money to tackle its poverty challenges. If the government can win this [its] battle against

corruption and mismanagement, the money will start to turn into functioning schools,

health services and water supply, thus laying the foundation to eradicate poverty" (Dike,

24

May 27, 2003). Also some studies, such as Lipset & Lenz 2000 and Cooksey 1999, have

tied poverty and income inequalities to corruption. Cooksey (1999) in particular notes

that corruption ‘reduces the size’ of a nation’s ‘economic cake’ thereby exposing some

‘segments of the population to poverty.’ Because of corruption and despite its abundance

material and human resources, Nigeria is the 26th poorest nation in the entire globe.

Corruption wastes skills, as precious time is wasted to set committees to fight corruption,

and monitor public projects that are often abandoned by unscrupulous politicians and

contractors. The unending chains of corruption-fighting commissions in the society

includes, the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other

Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Police, Central Bank and the Court of Justice,

etc. But none of them has the will to fight corruption, because some of the officers are

themselves corrupt. Corruption leads to ‘aid abuse’ or aid foregone (Hope, et. al., 2000).

However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are introducing

tougher anti-corruption standards into their lending policies’ to tackle corruption.

Similarly, the Europe Union and the Organization of American States are reportedly

taking some tough measures against international corruption.

Corruption is politically destabilizing. It leads to social revolution and military takeovers,

as some of these in Less Developed Countries point to corruption. Bribery and corruption

create the culture of late payment, and delays and refusal to pay for services already

executed in Nigeria. As was reported in Sen 1999 and as Hall (Reuters June 27, 2002)

noted on the WorldCom scandal, corruption leads to ‘information distortion’ as it ‘cooks

the books;’ and ‘a high level of corruption can make public policies ineffective.’

25

Corruption tarnishes the image of a nation; perhaps, Nigeria suffers more than most

societies from an appalling international image created by its inability to deal with

bribery and corruption. For instance, the 1996 Study of Corruption by the Transparency

International and Goettingen University ranked Nigeria as the most corrupt nation among

the 54 nations on the study, with Pakistan as the second highest (Moore 1997). In the

1998 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) survey of 85

countries, Nigeria was ranked 81 (Lipset and Lenz 2000). Worse still, in the 2001

Corruption Perception Index (CPI) survey of 85 countries, the image of Nigeria slipped

further south, as The Transparency International Corruption Index, 2001 ranked Nigeria

90 out of the 91 countries studied (second most corrupt nation in the world) with

Bangladesh coming first.

However, corruption leads to slow traffic, potholed and trash-filled roads and streets, and

political killings (and other election irregularities) that was rampant during the 2003

elections (Shekarau, March 6, 2003). Corruption could upset ethnic balance and

exacerbates problems of national integration. The social brawl following the Chief

Moshood Abiola's June 12, 1993 elections rebuff is one of the many cases dotting

Nigeria's political landscape; and the heat created by this continues to raise the

temperature of the polity. Corruption is destructive of governmental structures and

capacity, destroys the legitimacy of a government, and makes governance ineffective. It

may alienate modern-oriented civil servants and cause them reduce (or withdraw) their

service and to leave a country (the ‘brain-drain’ episode is tied to corruption).

26

Nevertheless, given all this baggage, is it possible for Nigeria to ameliorate the effects of

corruption? Currently, the remedies for corruption in the society are not working, and the

inability of the leaders to report on the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the nation’s anti-

corruption strategies make apparent the war on corruption a joke. However, any society

faced with the challenges of corruption would continue to find ways and means to solve

the problem. This author has argued elsewhere that Nigeria cannot effectively control

corruption by merely instituting probe panels (Dike, Oct 6, 1999). The Oputa Panel and

Akanbi Commission could not (and would not) solve the corruption puzzle in the society.

Therefore, the society is still searching for effective ways to control the menace beyond

the mere rhetoric.

In its apparent effort to tackle corruption in the society, the nation has, in addition to the

above panels, tried the Judicial Commissions, the Code of Conduct Bureau, and Public

Complaints Commission without success. And the current civilian administration of

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has constituted the Economic and Financial Crime

Commission (EFCC) to fight money laundering, the INEC for elections-related

corruption, and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), which seems to

have power only over the corrupt poor. To win the war on corruption, Obasanjo’s slogan

of ‘no sacred cows’ should be put into practice by prosecuting all the known corrupt

political ‘heavy weights’ in the society, because they contribute to making the nation’s

laws inoperable. Thus, corruption, which is currently a high-profile issue, has created a

dangerous mixture of celebrity and corruption in the society. Thus, Nigeria’s corruption

laws are like a cob web that it is too weak for the ‘big’ politicians committing grand

thefts, but strong enough to catch the poor and powerless involved in petty thefts.

27

One would re-call that Chief Obasanjo made a ‘financial deal’ with the family of Late

General Sani Abacha who looted the nation. But he fired Mr. Vincent Azie (the acting

Auditor-General) whose audit report indicted the executive, legislative and judiciary

branch (among other agencies) for ‘improper accounting practices.’ See the Daily

Independent of Jan 13, 2003 and Feb 26, 2003 and Ugwuanyi, in Vanguard of Feb 21,

2003. The Abacha deal and the Azie’s case show that Chief Obasanjo does not have the

will to fight corruption in Nigeria.

To ameliorate the scourge of corruption, Nigeria must hold politician accountable for

their actions, and have effective judiciary and law enforcement to monitor the financial

statements of foreign and local corporations. Recently, Vanguard, May 27, 2003 reported

that Halliburton, a US Oilfield Service firm admitted that it gave a bribe of $2.4 million

to Nigerian tax officials through a Nigerian company (KBP Engineering Construction

Company) to avoid paying taxes of $5 million. Therefore, the society must restructure

and fortify the institutional ‘checks and balances among the country’s major social forces

and the separation of powers within the government.’

This writer recommends that Nigeria should borrow ideas from the US and other

advanced countries that are waging effective war against corruption. Although the US is

equally corrupt, but it does not let its corrupt ‘big wings’ off hook whenever they are

caught violating the laws of the land. The Associated Press (and other news

organizations) reported recently that the ImClone Systems founder, Sam Waksal (a drug-

company entrepreneur), who was found guilty of insider trading, was sentenced to seven

years and three months in prison and ordered to pay $4.3 million in fines and back taxes.

In addition, Martha Steward who was implicated in the ImClone scandal has been

28

indicted on conspiracy charges. If this were in Nigeria the officials in charge of the case

could become millionaires’ overnight, as money would change hands.

Therefore, to effectively control corruption in Nigeria, adherence to ‘ethical standards’ in

decision-making must be the foundation of the nation’s policy on corruption (Bowman

1991). The nation’s public officials are not worried about the ethical implications of their

corrupt behaviors. However, armed with ethics and virtue, the nation should reduce

personal gains from corrupt behavior by instituting "effective sanctions" for corrupt

behavior (de Sardan 1999). The World Values Surveys of 1990-1993, which has good

information on attitudes and values, shows a relationship between values and corruption

(World Values Study Group, 1994). Therefore, preaching the gospel of virtue alone (as is

often the case with the leaders of Nigeria) is not enough to fight corruption. And Nigeria

may not win the war on corruption without increasing it’s "economic pie" through good

economic policies and increase in productivity. And the press (including electronic

media) has an important role to play by exposing those involved in corruption.

To control administrative corruption, the society should not grant too much powers to

officers, such as customs and immigration and the poorly paid police officers that issue

business licenses, goods clearance documents and international passports. As well-stated

in 1887 by Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Nevertheless, lack of adequate rewards for good skills and honest efforts are among the

reasons for the upsurge of corruption in the society. For that, adequately rewarding

workers for their services could go along way to controlling corruption in the society.

Nigeria needs all necessary weapons to combat corruption; the society should demand

that politics, which is now less a matter of issues, should be issues-based.

29

However, to tackle corruption in ancient China, Alatas 1980, Klitgaard 1988 and Sen

2000 noted that some bureaucrats were paid "corruption-preventing allowance" (yang

lien) as "incentive to remain clean and law-abiding." But can this method work in

Nigerian situation? Government activities must be transparent. And it should introduce

into its agencies watchdog outfits (anti-corruption bureaus; inspectors general; auditors

general), and ombudsmen =government official appointed to receive and investigate

complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials, etc,

that would identify corruption practices and bring them to public attention.

Finally, the keys to effectively managing corruption in any society are honesty and

integrity, effective leadership and governance, transparency and accountability, because

corrupt leaders cannot wage effective war against corruption.

LACK OF CONTINUITY

This lack of continuity has created a situation where each P.R.O has always aimed at

pleasing the Chairman who has appointed him, while the true position of things in the

locality remains undiscussed. A true P.R.0 should be immune to political gymicks and

should give impartial advice to the Chief Executive of the Local Government Area. This

is not prevalent in Isuikwuato Local Government Area.

LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Public Accountability and Control

30

One of the norms of democratic administration is that power should be

commensurate with responsibility and the holders of public office should be

accountable to the people for the exercise of authority. This is considered an

effective safeguard against the misuse of power and abuse of public

authority. Various forms and measures of public accountability of

administration have been devised in all democratic states. In Nigeria,

SERVICOM was instituted by the then Obasanjo’s administration along site

the Ombudsman to ensure accountability and transparency in the sector.

According L D White, Public accountability consists of the “sum total of the

constitutional, statutory, administrative and judicial rules and precedents and

the established practices by means of which public officials may be held

accountable for their official action.” In other words, public accountability

refers to the liability of government servants to give a satisfactory account of

the use of official power or discretionary authority to the people. This is

considered a check against arbitrary use of authority. Various formal and

objective methods and procedures (legislative, executive and judicial) have

been gradually evolving to ensure the public servant’s accountability and

responsiveness to the public will in democracies.

With the ever-increasing functions and importance of public administration in

modern welfare states the issue of public accountability has assumed great

importance. The civil servants not only implement policy but in a large

measure are actively responsible for their initiation and formulation. In the

Third World countries where the bureaucracy becomes the chief agent of

social and economic change and progress, they have to be given a wide range

of discretionary authority to perform their functions. No clear norms and

precedents exist and in many situations bureaucrats are largely left to

themselves to take decisions. In the authoritarian administrative culture,

which pervades many of the Third World countries, an effective system of

public control over administration is a growing imperative to curb all kinds

of authoritarian tendencies.

A successful system of administrative control should strike a balance between

31

the effective use of public authority and the democratic rights of the people.

The extent and range of public accountability varies according to the

constitutional framework of the country. In direct democracies like

Switzerland, the control of the people over administration is far more direct

and effective than in indirect democracies. In communist countries like the

Soviet Union and China, public accountability, in effect, means

accountability of the administration to the communist party. In indirect

democracies, the major agencies, which exert control over administration, are

the legislature, executive and the judiciary. In the cabinet form of

government, as in England and India, legislative control is more effective

than in the presidential form. We will be looking at the example of India

because Nigeria’s public administration has borrowed a lot from it.

LACK OF PEOPLE’S PARTICIPATION

The degree and extent of people’s participation in the administration of

developing countries like India is greatly conditioned by the basic nature and

operational peculiarities of administration during the colonial period, when

maintenance of law and order and revenue raising were the prime

considerations of administration. The administrative apparatus and functions

107

were then to a great extent, autonomous and accountable to the public.

Public participation neither existed nor was solicited by the government. In

the authoritarian and unegalitarian political and administration culture in

which colonial administration functioned, the benefits of administration

accrued mostly to the upper and the privileged classes of society. In terms of

methods of operation administration was essentially coercive, formal and

procedural.

After independence with the adoption of the goals of a social welfare state,

the key responsibility for rapid socioeconomic progress and modernization

was undertaken by the state, which sought to implement them with the help of

public bureaucracy. With the beginning of the process of planted development

32

in India the planners and administrators have repeatedly stressed the need to

involve the masses and solicit their cooperation in the tremendous challenge

of development administration. To shake free the inertia of the masses that

had hitherto been only used to being passive recipients of government aid the

government sought to create an institutional infrastructure to promote popular

participation. Community development programmes were introduced mainly

to solicit popular participation in the development administration of the

government. The community development programme was a method of

soliciting community participation to assist the government authorities in

improving the economic, social and cultural life of the people in the rural

areas.

They include encouraging the village people to become self-reliant,

responsible citizens, capable of participating in socioeconomic development

and nation-building by proper utilization of the scare resources, adoption of

modern agricultural methods and practices. Utilizing the free time of the

villagers in useful community work; extending the principle of cooperation to

make the rural families credit-worthy; launching a multi-pronged attack on

hunger, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness and upgrading the social

status of the village teachers and associating them in development

programme.

In short, the essence of the concept of rural development is the all round

development of the village community with the efforts of the people

themselves. Such participatory system was introduced to operationalise the

concept of democratic decentralization and devolution of their areas.

Slowness in taking decisions: Civil servants delay action on matters

referred to them, because of bureaucracy or red tape. This means overdevotion

to precedents and official routines. They cannot act promptly on

cases before them because their actions have to be strictly guided by existing

rules and regulations, in order to achieve uniformity and avoid undue

mistakes.

2-Lack of Initiative and Imagination: Civil servants seldom take decisions

33

independltly.They are, therefore, often criticised for being conservative and

lacking initiative. They have little or no opportunity to exercise individual

judgement and cannot bend existing rules to adapt to changing circumstances.

They are often unwilling to take responsibility or introduce new measures.

3-Poor attitude to work: Civil servants are often accused of lack of

dedication and devotion to duty, caused by poor conditions of service and

insecurity of jobs, leading to poor morale.

4-Ineffective organisation, wastefulness and misuse of man power:

Records are often not well kept, while documents such as file and important

letters can usually not be found when they are most needed. Offices and

duties are often duplicated in the various ministries, with no effective

coordination among them. Added to this, many civil servants with declining

productivity due to old age and poor health are retained in the service, while

healthy and well trained youths remain jobless. The result is a waste of

manpower and scarce economic resources, leading to overall inefficiency.

5-Remoteness from the rest of the service: Civil servants are often

inaccessible to the public. The officials treat members of the public

impersonally and are sometimes impatient with or rude to them.

6-Oppurtunity for Tyranny; this is associated with the delegation of

additional powers to civil servants over legislative and administrative

matters. The exercise of these powers by the civil servants may be abused.

(Oyediran et-al,2005:116&117).

Other problems of public administration worthy of mentioned include;-

1.One central problem of public administration according to Rodee et al(1983;pg 230) is

the

modern democratic state of increasing the efficiency of governmental performance

without

sacrificing the basic democratic principles of government and making its officers and

employees to remain responsible to the sovereign people.

2. The constitution confers immunity upon the president (and Governors) for

34

any act done in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his

office. He can, however, be impeached by parliament. No criminal

proceedings can be started against him, nor can he be arrested or imprisoned.

Civil proceedings can, however, be instituted against him during his term of

office in respect of any act done in his personal capacity after a two months

notice in writing. Serving governors and senators in Nigeria also enjoy such

immunities alike. This means they cannot be treated like ordinary citizens

because of the office they occupy.

3. The judicial officers are immune from liability, as provided for in the

constitution. This means that no judge, magistrate, justice of peace, collector

or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil court

for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his official

duty, whether or not without the limits of his jurisdiction, provided that he at

the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order

the act complained of.

As regards the non-judicial officials the position is that they are not

personally liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for

the purposes of this constitution or for the purposes of enactment relating to

the Government of Nigeria. A public official incurs liability for torts and

illegal acts unless he has acted in good faith in the exercise of some statutory

power. Civil proceedings can be initiated against him after two months notice

in writing. For example, the criminal liabilities of any official as an ordinary

citizen are defined by the India Penal code, thus: “Nothing is an offence

which is done by a person who is or who by reason of a mistake of fact and

151

not by a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to

do it. This provision provides a wide protective umbrella to public officials.

Suggested ways of solving the public service problems.

Though history has shown that there is no system that works satisfactorily, it

35

is important to mention before we proceed that it is not good to have a public

service that is under the control of the executive and for the appointments to

change according to the turn of political wheel. This has often led to

instability and in some countries the system had proved nearly fatal. The

public service must be reformed in order to attain the public service of our

dream that can rival it’s counter-parts in other countries of the world.

This can be achieved if the following ideals are upheld;-

1. A Public Service that is proactive, anticipates problems and provides

well considered indigenous solutions and competent to evaluate foreign

based solutions usually packaged through experts/consultants or by

whatever other designation known.

2. A public service in which corruption is at Zero tolerance level.i.e

where corruption is near absent or insignificant to affect the goals of

the service.

3. A public service that provides structures and working conditions that

creates space for motivation, growth, efficient managerial succession

154

and fulfilment of the needs of the employees and not based on sectional

interest or tribal affiliations.

4. A public service that pursues unity by keeping the country together,

and committed to finding lasting solutions to the Niger Delta and other

ethnic nationalities.

5. A public Service that attracts and retains some of the best brains and

core competent holders that would render efficient and timely service.

6. A public service that is strictly driven by the observance of efficient

and dynamic Rules and Regulations.

7. A public service that is appropriately enumerated, and

8. A public service that is confident in it’s people and institutions that

can withstand changes in our democratic process.

3.5 a Other ways of Improving the Administrative Problems

The various administrative reforms commissions have suggested various

36

measures for improving the administrative systems. They broadly indicated

reforms in the following lines:

1. The development work, which is most often situational, needs some

flexibility from a strict observation of rigid rules and regulations.

Therefore, the rigid rule bound bureaucracies should be changed

into flexible action-oriented and more responsive instruments of

social change. The bureaucrats have to be positive, persuasive and

innovative.

2. The civil service must be made fully professional, dynamic, and

equal to the task through appropriate methods of recruitment and

training. The civil servants should combine administrative shills

with modern management techniques for greater effectiveness and

responsiveness in administration.

3. Creating right values and attitudes in the administrators. They are

required to be less oligarchic and closer to the ordinary people.

Thus, what is required is change in the behavioural orientation of

public administrators.

4. Simplification of rules, regulations, procedures and reduction of red

tape in the implementation of developmental policies and

programmes. This is also necessary for the convenience of the

public, the cutting edge level of public administration.

To be more precise, the following are some of the important

recommendations made by the expert committees and commissions for

restructuring the administrative system of a developing society like India

which can be applicable to Nigeria and other developing countries:

(a) De-emphasising hierarchy in the administrative structure

(b) Collegiate decision – making

155

(c) Giving precedence to the achievement of goals over strict adherence to

rules and regulations

(d) Decentralization of authority

37

(e) Democratization of administration

(f) Creation of new work culture, and encouraging creativity

(g) Elimination of archaic office procedures, and the use of such

technological devices as fax, personal computer and the electronic mail in

administration.

(h) Adoption of modern management techniques such as management by

objectives.

(i) Elimination of corruption so as to secure clean, honest, impartial and

efficient administration.

(j) Effecting the needed attitudinal and behavioural changes in the

bureaucracy through proper recruitment system and orientation training

(k) Securing integrity of administrators

(l) Promoting efficiency, economy, and public cooperation

(m)Specifying tasks and responsibilities for better implementation of plans

and programmes, and

(n) Facilitating expeditious dispatch of government work.

CONCLUSION

The experience of Nigeria is such that the

administrative state allows a clique of public

officials, the military and politicians to accumulate

wealth, get away with it and leave the

entire system to suffer for it. The effect of this

and other constellating factors earlier mentioned

render public administration ineffective, ineffectual

and corrupt. Administrators support

whatever government is in power and end up

becoming part of the rot. The environmental

implication of these drawbacks in the relationship

between government, adminis-trators, and the

38

public are that the myriad problems discussed

above becomes mutually reinforcing to one

another, thus manifesting negative results.

A way out is to allow political integration to

prevail. By this, there will be ideological unity

that would fashion out a path for the entire

citizenry and the nation to follow. Also, government

programmes should be able to bring the

good life for all, by ensuring that services

provided are satisfactory, facilities and infrastructures

work perfectly, there is accountability and

prudence in the dispensing and management of

public wealth and the rule of law is made to take

pre-eminence over mundane demands.

REFERENCES

Amuwo, Kunle: Nigeria as an administrative state. pp. 4 -

11. In: Nigeria Administration. Omole Tale and Nassar

Lanre (Eds.). Strategic International Press, Lagos (1996).

Awolowo Obafemi: Path to Nigeria Freedom. Faber and

Faber Ltd., London, pp.99- 100 (1947).

Bendix, Reinhard: Max Weber, An intellectual Portrait. Sage

Press, New York, pp. 384 - 416 (1960).

Hampton, J.: Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986).

Hayes, J. Roberts: Organization Theory and Local

Government. George Allen and Unwin, London, p. 25

(1980).

Henry, Nicholas: Public Administration and Public Affairs.

Prentice Hall of India, Delhi, p. 151 (2002).

Hobbes, Thomas: Leviathan edited with an Introduction by

Michael Oaheshott. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

39

pp. 72- 91(1957).

Jemibewon, David: The administration of the military. Pp.

197-205. In: Nigerian Public Administration 1960 -

1980: Perspectives and Prospects. Adamolekun Ladipo

(Ed.). Heinemann Educational Books, Ibadan (1985).

Laleye, O.M.: Appraising the theory and practice of public

administration in Nigeria: Some critical Considerations.

Pp. 17-18. In: Nigerian Public Administration: Past,

Present and Future. Olowu Dele, Ayo S. B. and Erero

John (Eds.). Shaneson, Ibadan (1991).

Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge

University, Cambridge, p. 62 (1960).

Mabogunje, L. Akin: Urbanization in Nigeria. p 316. Oxford

University Press, Ibadan, p. 316 (1968).

Okediji, F. Olu: Introduction. p ix. Ethnic Relations in

Nigeria. A. O. Sanda (Ed.). Caxton Press, Ibadan (1976).

Olalokun, F. A.: The Structure of the Nigerian Economy.

Macmillan Press, London, pp. 160-166 (1979).

Otite, Onigu: On the concept of a Nigerian society. In: Ethnic

Relations in Nigeria. A. O. Sanda (Ed.). Caxton Press,

Ibadan, p. 6 (1976).

Otobo, Ejeviome: Nigeria. p 292. In: Public Administration

in Africa. Ladipo Adamolekun (Ed.). Spectrum Books

Limited, Ibadan (2002).

Riggs, W. Fred: Trends in the comparative study of public

administration. International Review of Administrative

Services, 28(1): 9 - 15 (1962).

Riggs, W. Fred: The Ecology of Public Administration.

Asia Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 109- 110

(1961).

Riggs, W. Fred: Administration in Developing Countries:

40

The Theory of Prismatic Society. P Houghton Mifflin

122 AKPOMUVIRE MUKORO

Coy, Boston, pp. 78 -90 and pp. 200 - 202. (1964).

Rousseau, J.J.: The Social Contract and Discourses. P

202,Translated with an Introduction by G.D.H. Cole.

Everyman’s Library, London (1913).

Vigoda, Eran: Are you being served? The responsiveness of

public administration to citizen’s demands: An empirical

examination of Israel: Public Administration Quarterly,

78 (1): 165 - 191 (2000).

41

REFERENCES

Robert and Janet Denhardt. Public Administration: An Action Orientation. 6th Ed. 2009:

Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont CA.

Kettl, Donald and James Fessler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process.

Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Jerome B. McKinney and Lawrence C. Howard. Public Administration: Balancing Power

and Accountability. 2nd Ed. 1998: Praeger Publishing, Westport, CT. p. 62

UN Economic and Social Council. Committee of Experts on Public Administration.

Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public administration.

2006

Wilson, Woodrow. June, 1887. The Study of Administration, Political Science Quarterly

2.

Public administration. (2010) In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved August 18, 2010,

from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Shafritz, J.M., A.C. Hyde. 2007. Classics of Public Administration. Wadsworth: Boston.

Kernaghan, Kenneth. "Public administration" in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available

online at: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?

PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006540Accessed August 20, 2010.

Kernaghan, Kenneth. "Public administration" in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available

online at: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?

PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006540Accessed August 20, 2010.

42

Definition Public Administration (NAICS 91). Available online at:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sic/cis-sic.nsf/IDE/cis-sic91defe.html Accessed October 25, 2010

Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), 'Definitions and typologies in public administration

research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public Administration,

32(8): pp. 704–727.

^ Ryan, M., Mejia, B., and Georgiev, M. (Ed). 2010. AM Gov 2010. McGraw Hill: New

York.

^ Wilson, W. 1887.

^ Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight

Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. page 80

^ Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May – Jun., 1996), pp. 247–255

^ Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts et al, 'New public management is dead: Long live

digital era governance',Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, (July

2006).

^ Diane Stone, (2008) 'Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their

Networks,' Journal of Policy Sciences.

^ Denhardt , Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt (2000). "The New Public Service:

Serving Rather than Steering." Public Administration Review 60(6)

^ Aucoin, Peter (2008). New Public Management and the Quality of Government:

Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada, Conference on "New Public

Management and the Quality of Government", SOG and the Quality of Government

Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 13–15 November 2008, p.14.

^ Shafritz and Hyde. 2009.

^ Dubois, Hans F. W.; Fattore, Giovanni (2009). International Journal of Public

Administration. 32. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 704–727.

doi:10.1080/01900690902908760.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913084156. "The field of

public administration knows many concepts. By focusing on one such concept, this

research shows how definitions can be deceptive..."

43

^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online

at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.

^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online

at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.

^ THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION by Donald F. Kettl. Available online

at: http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/tfreport/kettl.pdf Accessed on October 25, 2010.

^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America,

2008. P. 33

^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America,

2008. p. 33

^ Haroon A. Khan. Introduction to Public Administration. University Press of America,

2008 p. 34

References:

Achebe Chinua. (1964). Arrow of God. London; Heinemann p. 14.

Achebe Chinua. (1958). Things Fall Apart. London; Heinemann p. 131.

Appleby C. Robbert. (1982). Modern Business Administration. London: Pitman Press.

Eweka, J. A. et al. (1979). Village Development Management Strategy: Food Basket.

Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press, p.43.

Farugba Ade. (1976). Elements of Government Ado-Ekiti. Omalaya Standard Press p.79.

Glen M. Broom. (Fall 1982). A Comparison of Sex Roles in Public Relation. Public

Relations Review.

Harold Burron. (1982). 'The Role of Public Relations' Bureon Marsteller brochuse.

44

Nwankwo GO. (1982). Basic Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon Raymond. (1984). Public Relations; Concepts and Practices (3rd Edition). New

York; Macmillan.

Spotlight on the Local Governments (1980). Owerri Government Press Ltd. p. 17.

Ugbor Onundinjo. (1959). Isuikwuato, her History, Tradition, Legend and Intelligence

Report. Aba (unedited work), p. 13.

Walter Lindermann and Alison Lapetina. (Fall 1981). Management's View of the Future

of Public Relations. Public Relations Review.

Wraith Ronald (1972). Local Administration in West Africa. London: George and

Unwin, p.14.

Avasthi A and S Maheshwari,(1983)Public Administration, Agra, Lakshmi

Narain Agarwal.

Heady, Ferrel,(1984) Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New

Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc.

Self, Peter,(1984) ,Administrative Theories and Politics: An Enquiry into the

Structure and Process of Modem Government, New Delhi, S Chand and

Company.

Polinaidu S.(2005)Public Adminstration,Golgotia Publications PVT Ltd,New

Delhi pg:3.5.19.20 &21)

Uveges, Joseph A Jr (eds)(1982) Public Administration: History and Theory

in Contemporary Perspective, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.

45