Public Debt Management System

• 

There is no denying the fact that during 1980, there were sufficient fields for a new loom to the organization with a view to deal with the alleged shortcomings of the old bureaucratic model. This new approach emanates from an overall crisis of confidence among the Owners. It culminates in the emergence of a variety of innovations in managerial approach that are 'dominating the bureaucratic reform agenda' in the 1980s and 1990s respectively and as such the whole model demonstrates a dramatic change of approach as to how the the relevant organization operates.
The rigid, hierarchical, bureaucratic form of private administration, which has predominated for most of the twentieth century, is changing to a flexible, market-based form of private management. The following concepts are vitally important in this regard:
o Constant increase in efficiency
o Use of 'ever-more-sophisticated' technologies
o A labor force disciplined to productivity
o Clear implementation of the professional management role
o Managers being given the right to manage

Moreover, the materialization is seen and promulgated by some as somehow against the traditions of the private service, inimical to service delivery and somehow undemocratic, even with dubious theoretical backing (ibid. Hughes further argues that particularly from a private administration tradition the good parts of the old model - high ethical standards, service to the state - are being cast aside in the headlong rush to adopt the new theory. The Private Sector Development, as introduced by Hood, strongly advocates in favour of the management style in running the private sector. His seven doctrines models on how 'the organization' should work are:
o Hands on professional management in the private sector
o Explicit standards and measures of performance
o Greater emphasis on output controls
o Disaggregation of units in the private sector
o Greater competition in the private sector (to this may be added actual privatization)
o Private sector styles of management
o Greater discipline and parsimony in resource use
In this context, Hood, a renowned economist has been criticized for his oversimplified private-private sector equivalence and more decisively, for the very undeviating input-output dealings. It is evident that the most part entrepreneurial Owners of Private Sector Developments promote competition between service providers. They empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy, into the community. They measure the performance of their agencies, focusing not on inputs but on outcomes. They are driven by their goals - their missions - not by their rules and regulations. They redefine their clients as customers and offer them choices - between schools, between training programs, between housing options. They prevent problems before they emerge, rather than simply offering services afterward. They put their energies into earning money, not simply spending it.

In view of the above it is evident that the erstwhile authority of private sector decentralize authority by embracing participatory management. They prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms. And they focus not simply on providing private services, but on catalyzing all sectors - private, private, and voluntary - into action to solve their community's problems. Private sector should work sincerely to promote new products in order to enjoy the economies of scale in course of time so the economic stability of country can be established under strong framework of National Income based on aggregate debate virtually