Is Socioeconomic Urban Division a Factor in Public Service Delivery?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Since the creation of this county, there have always been various differences between the rich and poor. In terms of social-economic status/class, the rich and wealthy elites have always dominated every aspect of society. However, the low socio-economic class has always endured the worst conditions in society. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention established the groundwork for the socio-economic differences between individuals in the British Colonies. There were delegates that owned land, and were highly educated was allowed to or had the right to vote. Thus, the actions of the elitist men have been emulated throughout history when there was a settlement among the socio-economic classes. Therefore, public service delivery has been mostly passive when it involved certain socio-economic backgrounds of beneficiaries. The passive actions have been very negative due to the fact that the beneficiaries have come from historically low economic backgrounds and made a majority of the population. These individuals have been considered as residue in the human social domain. Therefore, they received minimum or no services that were designed for the general public to endure. For instance, these services include educational, security, housing, water and sewage, protection, interstate and intrastate commerce as well as transportation accessibility. Consequently, there has been a cognitive relation to socio-economic class as a major factor to public service delivery!
The Purpose of this research paper is to explore secondary research and find out is there a linkage between socio-economic urban class and public service delivery. This research paper will include a historical concept of public servant responsibility, socio-economic urban class and public service delivery meaning as well as ongoing events and trends; and a personal recommendation of solving the socio economic class problem in public service delivery.
Historical Evolution of Public Management
The evolution of public personnel administration includes seven phases. These phases trace the concepts of public personnel management and its expectations. Phase One: The Guardian Period (1789-1829) was the period where gentlemen ruled government. This is much notably evident during the Washington Administration. These gentlemen were appointed to serve in certain positions based on the character, merit, high degree of education and family background. Phase Two: The Spoils Period (1829-1883) was coined by Senator William Marcy of New York when he made the statement “To the Victor Lies the Spoils of the Enemy.” During this period the individuals that were allowed to vote, the small proportion that owned land, based on their political loyalty were given jobs. Some individuals in this period believed in the notion, if a man earned a living before politics then they should been paid while in politics.
In Addition, Phase Three: Reform Period (1883-1906) was the period where spoils became so corrupt in federal service that the Pendleton Act (Civil Service Act) was created in 1883 that subsequently created the Civil Service Commission. Nevertheless, the Office of Personnel Management replaced the Civil Service Commission in 1978. This act established new guidelines for selection of employees entering the federal services. These guidelines included required entrance exams that served to be a fair method for selecting the most qualified and brightest individuals. Phase Four: Scientific Management Period (1906-1937) was the period where efficiency in business was influencing the way of how government worked. This era was based on time and motion series test led by Fredrick Taylor and Lillian Gilbreth. Although this period was based on...
References: Greenstein, Fred I, Larry Berman, Alvin S. Felzenberg, “Evolution of the Modern Presidency: A Bibliographical Survey.” Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977.
Scott, Janny and David LionHeardt. “Shadowy Lines that
Still Divide.” New York Times, May 15, 2005.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document