A Shared Perspective on Public Administration and International Development 389 Public Administration Review, Vol. 76, Iss. 3, pp. 389–390. © 2016 by The American Society for Public Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12566. Max Everest-Phillips is director of the United Nations Development Program’s Global Centre for Public Service Excellence (GCPSE) in Singapore. He was previously the Director of Governance at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. E-mail: max.e-phillips@undp.org Alikhan Baimenov is chairman of the Steering Committee of the Regional Hub of Civil Service in Astana, a 32-member nation Kazakhstan-based organization established to strengthen civil service through cooperation among its participants. He formerly served in prominent positions in the government of Kazakhstan. E-mail: baimenov.alikhan@gmail.com Perspective I n September 2015, the United Nations (UN) member states agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as universal global targets encapsulating the complexity of the development agenda for the next 15 years. However, this 2030 Agenda does not explain how the SDGs will, in practice, be delivered. In effect, it overlooks the vital role of the public service. Yet, we believe, the risk of a demoralized and demotivated public service (in both developing and developed countries) represents a potentially serious obstacle to implementing the development ambitions of the international community. How has this challenge arisen, and what can be done to address it? People have, of course, been complaining about “red tape,” idle bureaucrats and indolent “pen-pushers” abusing their positions of public authority probably almost since government was invented. Nearly 4,500 years ago Uruinimgina, ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, apparently in response to “civil society,” dismissed allegedly corrupt officials, who supposedly demanded excessive fees for performing their duties. (Was this, however, perhaps the first recorded example of blaming the public administration as a populist gesture?) But, in recent decades, efforts to undermine the motivation and morale of effective and efficient public officials working for the common good have advanced on seven fronts. First, it is ideological. This is encapsulated in the assertion, regardless of evidence and repeated often enough to have become regarded by many as a truism, that any public service is, by its very nature, inherently incompetent, indolent, and unresponsive. Of course, if this were true, it would reflect the decisions of political leaders to allow it. Consider post-independence Singapore, where political determination for building a highly disciplined and motivated public service has transformed the city-state. Second, it is intellectual—and a catch-22 conundrum. Public Choice theory posits that Public Service is inherently self-serving and needs to be constrained, and New Public Management (NPM) propagates that it is inherently apathetic and needs to be incentivized into being effective. Third, it is commercial—big profits are generated for consultants and the private sector by fostering the ideas of NPM: running government like a business, outsourcing services, and promoting public–private partnerships. Fourth, it is political—blaming the public service for failure offers a tempting scapegoat for politicians to deflect criticism of their own inadequate leadership and direction. Fifth, it is financial—pay levels for professional posts in public service have lagged behind those of the private sector that either many high-skilled vacancies could not be filled or special pay arrangements were required. Sixth, it is institutional—there has been selective truth in portraying obstructive public service unions and unhelpful “street level bureaucrats” to obscure much more positive images of devotion to public good, as famously demonstrated by the unstinting self-sacrifice of the New York Fire officers on and after 9/11. Finally, it is organizational—both elected leaders and senior administrators benefit from creating a “permanent revolution” of ceaseless reforms and reorganization of public service. Despite mounting evidence over the years that many reforms achieve almost no lasting improvements but greatly demoralize staff, the temptation to appear shaking up supposedly lazy and incompetent bureaucrats is all too great. This is aggravated by the fact that in some cases senior managers themselves lack the knowledge and skills, and sometimes the willingness, to use resources efficiently. Tackling all seven of these causes is essential if an impartial and merit-based public service is to emerge Alikhan Baimenov Regional Hub of Civil Service in Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan Max Everest-Phillips UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, Singapore A Shared Perspective on Public Administration and International Development