MANAGING FINANCIAL STRINGENCY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

This article contributes to the debate about the most effective ways to manage the effects of financial stringency in the public sector. It tentatively draws ideas for further research from three action research studies conducted longitudinally over several years in different contexts and sectors and at different organization levels within the public sector. Our contribution focuses on the management of the early stages of stringency. We conclude that in stringent times, particularly in the short-term, intra-organizational conflict is likely to increase; organizational climates to become more cautious and reactive; and management to become more centralized, controlling and to take what is termed the efficiency rather than the effectiveness option. To these factors is added the resistance to change inherent in professional bureaucracies. Managers in public sector organizations experiencing harsher environments need to be helped to plan strategically for implementation in the particular context in which they find themselves.     

The Postwar Premiership League

The article reports the results from the latest survey of academic experts polled on the performance of post‐1945 prime ministers. Academic specialists in British politics and history rate Clement Attlee as the best postwar prime minister, with Margaret Thatcher in second place just ahead of Tony Blair in third place. Gordon Brown's stint in Number 10 was the third‐worst since the Second World War, according to the respondents to the survey that rated his premiership as less successful than that of John Major. The article compares public and academic opinion and rankings of prime ministers and their performance, noting significant discrepancies in contemporary and retrospective evaluations. Academic respondents to the survey also provided detailed ratings and evaluations of the performance and policy impact of the four prime ministers since 1979: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.     

Toward a New Era of Administrative Reform? The Myth of Post‐NPM in New Zealand

This article explores the supposed shift from New Public Management (NPM) to a new era of “post‐NPM” by looking at one critical case, New Zealand. It finds limited evidence of such a shift, suggesting that the wider literature needs to move to a more careful methodological treatment of empirical patterns. To contribute to such a move, this article applies a three‐pronged approach to the study of changing doctrines in executive government. After setting out the broad contours of what NPM and post‐NPM supposedly constitute, the article proceeds to a documentary analysis of State Services Commission doctrines; this is followed by an analysis of “Public Service Bargains” based on elite interviews and finally a case‐study approach of the Crown Entities Act 2004. Far from a new era of administrative reform, the “messy” patterns that emerge suggest a continuation of traditional understandings and ad hoc and politically driven adjustments, leading to diversification.