Questioning the New Public Management

Books reviewed in this article: Ali Farazmand (ed.), Privatization or Public Enterprise Reform? International Case Studies with Implications for Public Management B. Guy Peters, The Future of Governing     

Defining and Defending the New Public Management

Book reviewed:
Lawrence R. Jones and Fred Thompson, Public Management: Institutional Renewal for the Twenty-First Century     

New Millennium,New Public Management and the New Zealand Model

Recently the much‐discussed ‘New Zealand model’ of new public management (NPM) has become significantly revised. It now lacks the theoretical coherence and the market‐led focus that it relied on between 1987 and 1996. Labour‐led governments since 1999 have undertaken gradual and pragmatic – yet significant – changes in public management structures and principles, refining and sometimes reversing the model implemented in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This article does a ‘stock‐take’ of public management developments in New Zealand from 1999 to 2008, and argues that New Zealand can no longer be viewed as a leading exponent of market‐led NPM. Some NPM principles have been refined, but others have been quietly abandoned. The new National‐led government appears unwilling to undertake radical reforms, and, while it may seek a greater role for the private sector, looks set to continue with the ‘gradual and pragmatic’ approach adopted since 1999.     

对新公共管理的几点反思

新公共管理是公共行政在新形势下的发展，它的一些理论和方法是值得我们借鉴的。但是，新公共管理是否能够成为一门独立的新学科，政府和政府官员是否是利己的，政府是否一定低效以及顾客导向等理论，是值得深入研究的。     

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy

The authors are concerned that a remaining refuge of substantive democracy in America, the public sector, is in danger of abandoning it in favor of the market model of management. They argue that contemporary American democracy is confined to a shrunken procedural remnant of its earlier substantive form. The classical republican model of citizen involvement faded with the rise of liberal capitalist society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Capitalism and democracy coexist in a society emphasizing procedural protection of individual liberties rather than substantive questions of individual development. Today's market model of government in the form of New Public Management goes beyond earlier "reforms," threatening to eliminate democracy as a guiding principle in public-sector management. The authors discuss the usefulness of a collaborative model of administrative practice in preserving the value of democracy in public administration.     

New Public Management in Swiss municipalities

Swiss municipalities are being stretched to their limits. In the years from 1995 to 1997, 32% of all Swiss municipalities closed with a deficit. In response to this situation, numerous reforms have been introduced since the start of the 1990s in order to improve the performance capability of the municipalities. Aside from intermunicipal cooperation, New Public Management (NPM) is the reform project that is currently being discussed most in the Swiss municipalities. Recent data shows that every fourth municipality has already taken first steps with NPM. Many kinds of activities are understood as being encompassed by NPM, even when not all aspects of NPM are implemented. Only one fifth of the municipalities that have introduced NPM are already working with key elements such as product definitions, performance agreements, and global budgets, which are necessary for an orientation toward output and outcome. In municipalities of less than 1,000 inhabitants NPM is still hardly an issue, while a number of towns with over 10,000 inhabitants are looking into NPM quite intensively. NPM programs are being developed primarily in municipalities that are part of German-speaking Switzerland. Municipalities that offer a wide range of services consider new steering models, such as NPM, far more frequently than those with a narrower range. The financial situation has little influence on whether NPM is introduced.     

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management

A new public administration movement is emerging to move beyond traditional public administration and New Public Management. The new movement is a response to the challenges of a networked, multisector, no‐one‐wholly‐in‐charge world and to the shortcomings of previous public administration approaches. In the new approach, values beyond efficiency and effectiveness—and especially democratic values—are prominent. Government has a special role to play as a guarantor of public values, but citizens as well as businesses and nonprofit organizations are also important as active public problem solvers. The article highlights value‐related issues in the new approach and presents an agenda for research and action to be pursued if the new approach is to fulfill its promise.     

论新公共服务理论对新公共管理理论的传承与超越

根据库恩的科学范式转换的观点,目前公共行政领域的两种范式:新公共管理范式和新公共服务范式。两种范式的关系并非替代而是传承与超越的关系,这种关系可以通过他们对理性的关注、对参与的关注、对组织弹性化改革与放松管制的态度的比较来说明。了解两种范式的关系对于解决我国目前建设服务型政府中的一些理论和实践困惑有指导意义,提示我们对新公共管理的成果是批判继承而不是抛弃,最终实现公平、公共利益和效率效能价值的统一。     

新公共管理视野下的行政价值观

本文在概述公共管理所经历的统治行政和管理行政两个阶段或模式的基础上,介绍了全球性新公共管理运动的主要理论和内容,探索新公共管理中所蕴含的新的时代精神和文化,并提出了适应这一全新公共行政模式的方向,当代公共行政者必须具备的行政价值观。     

超越新公共管理(上)

政府改革者常常发现,从概念到实践、从理念到行动困难重重.意图和结果之间的关系极其复杂、模糊,难以理出头绪.这也许可以解释,为什么治理研究者只专注于概念性问题,而根本不考虑这些概念在多大程度上能成为或者不能成为现实.     

Justice,Efficiency, and the New Public Management

In this article I aim to explore the link between two normative values, namely justice and efficiency, and the New Public Management approach. In pursuing this task I offer several critical arguments against some of the recent justice‐based objections levied against New Public Management by David Arellano‐Gault. I claim that Arellano‐Gault's account of the relation between justice and the New Public Management is seriously undermined by two conceptual flaws: (1) a conflation of right‐libertarianism, utilitarianism, and desert theories of justice and (2) a conflation of the technical/productive sense of efficiency with the social/distributive sense. Furthermore, I maintain that even when the different theories of justice and the different senses of efficiency are properly delineated, the case for necessarily linking NPM to a particular theory of justice is markedly unconvincing.     

公共行政的发展与变迁:新公共管理的研究途径

新公共管理理论是公共行政领域最为引人注目的理论之一.它的兴起,既是对传统公共行政理论的矫正,也促进了政府变革的发展.本文就其主要理论基础进行介绍、分析与评述,并就其未来的发展进行预测和评论.     

从新公共管理到新公共服务——西方公共行政理论的最新发展

自20世纪80年代以来,新公共管理理论在西方国家“突破官僚制”的行政改革中,逐渐成为主导性的行政范式。但新公共管理理论对经济、效率、效能的片面追求,使得民主、公民权和公共利益等公共行政应有的价值观念丧失殆尽。在此背景下,一种新的公共行政理论———新公共服务理论应运而生了。它在肯定新公共管理理论固有价值的基础上,对其理论与实践中的缺陷进行了批判,努力构建一种以公民权利和公共利益为指向、顺应现代公民社会发展要求的新的公共行政范式。     

新公共管理：反思、批判与超越——兼评新公共服务理论

通过采用企业化政府的理念,新公共管理提高了效率,但也导致了公共性、公平、责任、价值诉求等公共管理价值的缺失.通过对新公共管理的反思和批判以及对新公共服务的理论基础、原则和内容的介绍,说明新公共服务在理论基础、价值选择、政府责任、公民精神方面不仅可以弥补和纠正新公共管理的偏颇,并可以替代新公共管理成为公共管理的发展趋势.     

New Public Management and Management Education: Foundations of Successful Management Reform

International experience shows that the main objective of New Public Management (NPM) reform has predominantly been to overcome the current crisis in funding and public service delivery. The achieving this objective has involved adopting a philosophy of 'more for less' or, in other words, by enhancing 'value for money' in public service delivery. To this end,NPM reforms have generally aimed at replacing the inherited or traditional bureaucratic structure of management with a market – or at least a competition-based – contract arrangement. As is the case in any contested market setting, the main concern of state and public administration is no longer merely to ensure a legally correct application of laws, but also to use scarce resources as 'efficiently' as possible in the pursuit of the desired ends of increased productivity and 'more for less'.     

Federal and State Public Forest Administration in the New Millennium: Revisiting Herbert Kaufman's The Forest Ranger

Herbert Kaufman's 1960 investigation of federal forest rangers provided important insights into administrative discretion, agency culture, and natural resource policy making. Subsequent studies of Forest Service administration have documented that agency's change over time, mirroring broad changes in federal public administration. But little is known about state forest administration. This article describes results from a survey of line officers in 48 state forest agencies, as well as state forest statute analysis. Results indicate systematic state–federal differences in legal constraints, citizen interactions, and the forest administrators themselves. Though these differences foster state administrator decision making based on professional expertise, they do not encourage the incorporation of stakeholder views into agency policy making, nor do they yield a bureaucracy that represents a diverse constituency. State forest administrators perceive substantial external challenges to their professional discretion, but it remains to be seen whether state forest agencies will change to more closely resemble their federal counterpart.     

What's New about the New Public Management? Administrative Change in the Human Services

Interpretations of the emergence of the New Public Management are split. The champions of the movement present it as a new administrative paradigm that departs sharply from past thinking and practice, whereas skeptics argue it has evolved incrementally from past administrative traditions. To assess these views, this article examines recent administrative innovations in the human services that broadly reflect the New Public Management. The findings suggest that these innovations have built incrementally on past reforms in the human services field, supporting the skeptics' claim that the New Public Management represents an evolution and renewal of historical trends in public administration.