Public administration theories and claims that are important to be discussed in the context of the development of the public sector in the U.A.E. are associated with privatisation or contracting out and with the improvement of monitoring systems for agencies. Thus, it is relevant to discuss the claims that agencies choose to contract out to shift responsibilities or blame, and the focus on improving monitoring technologies can reduce agency bias. Moreover, it is also important to concentrate on the aspects of the normative theories in the U.A.E. context. Contracting Out In the public sector, privatisation is often realised as a process of contracting out which means that agencies provide the specific service, but they can shift the responsibility for producing services to other organisations. Agencies choose to contract out not only to guarantee the provision of high-quality and cost-efficient services but also to share the responsibility or avoid certain problems with the process of production (Pritchett & Woolcock, 2002, p. 26). Contracting out leads to effective competition and efficiency, but the role of the government becomes restricted. In the U.A.E. context, privatisation and contracting out are actively used approaches because they guarantee the significant reductions in costs associated with the services’ provision. As a result, agencies support the development of the market approach and shift responsibilities to small companies and promote the micro-privatisation because of the necessity to provide high-quality, but cost-efficient services. That is why, contracting out is typical for transportation, education, and health care spheres of the U.A.E., where supportive or market-oriented operations are performed by small firms. In this case, the practice of contracting out can be discussed as an effective strategy that is used in the public sector of the U.A.E. to improve the quality of production. Moreover, it is important to note that the observed privatisation in the sector is more associated with the financial factors than with the idea of shifting blame. Monitoring Technology The governments focus on improving the monitoring technology to reduce agency bias. The problem is in the fact that monitoring is a controversial point, and agencies are inclined to state that the focus on monitoring can both improve the focus on norms and restrict the possibilities for variations and flexibility in agencies, and these factors are the causes of bias in agencies (Werlin, 2003, p. 339). Thus, while improving the approach to monitoring or changing the monitoring technology, it is possible to reduce the level of bias in agencies. The authorities in the U.A.E. follow directly this approach while implementing the most innovative approaches and technologies to conduct monitoring. In the public sector of Dubai, monitoring and coordination are closely connected. As a result, the improvement of technologies and use of new tools in monitoring leads to reducing the agencies’ opposition to coordination and, consequently, to reducing bias. The focus on monitoring technologies is important to understand why the public sector in the U.A.E. often utilises the approaches typical for the pr