“entrepreneurial” federal agencies to assess the needs of customers, to set
standards for the delivery of services, and to take those steps necessary to
meet those standards. Similar language and approaches were taken at the
state and local level, as governments and their agencies sought to “reinvent”
themselves as customer-driven operations. In other countries, comparable
efforts were undertaken, actually in many cases predating the United States’
efforts in this regard. The British “Citizen’s Charter” movement set minimum
standards of service, backed by ministerial authority, and in some cases even
provided redress when those standards were not met. Similar efforts were
undertaken in other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, France,
and Belgium.
While improving the quality of governmental services is an idea no one
would dispute, using the rhetoric and approach of “customer service” has
both practical and theoretical difficulties. In the first place, the notion of
choice is essential to the economic concept of the customer. Generally, in
government, there are few if any alternatives. There is only one fire department,
for example (and the fire department cannot choose to go into another
line of work). Moreover, many services provided by government are services
the specific recipient may not want—receiving a speeding ticket, being held
in jail, and so on. Even identifying the customers of government is problematic.
Who are a local health department’s customers? People who visit a
clinic? Citizens who might be concerned about a particular health hazard?
Doctors and nurses? Local hospitals? The general public? All of the above?
Even listing all the potential customers points out another dilemma: All the
customers of government seem to have different interests. For example,
often there is a conflict between the interests of the immediate recipient of
government services and the taxpayers who must pay the bill. And, of course,
some government services—foreign policy or environmental protection, for
example—do not connect with individual customers; once they are provided,
they are provided for all, whether you want them or not.
Perhaps the most important objection to the customer orientation has to
do with accountability. In government, citizens are not only customers; they
are “owners” (Schachter 1997). As George Fredrickson puts it, “Customers
choose between products presented in the market; citizens decide what is
so important that the government will do it at public expense” (1992, 13).
Further, the interests of customers and owners do not always coincide—in
business or government. While businesses may benefit in the long term
from satisfying the immediate customer, government may not. A state motor
vehicle division made important efforts to improve customer satisfaction
—brightening their waiting areas, cutting down on waiting time, even making
the pictures better. But a statewide commission questioned whether