Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes
Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes
Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
4 <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Management</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Administration</strong><br />
school of thought occurs as a result of the rise of an alternative, in this case<br />
public management. As Kuhn argues, ‘the decision to reject one paradigm is<br />
always simultaneously the decision to accept another, <strong>and</strong> the judgment leading<br />
to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature <strong>and</strong><br />
with one another’ (1970, p. 77, emphasis in the original). Paradigmatic change<br />
involves the comparison of theories, neither of which work perfectly. If there<br />
are problems with the public management reforms, the response will be further<br />
changes in the managerial direction. <strong>Public</strong> management is argued to be a new<br />
paradigm.<br />
The emergence of a new approach<br />
By the beginning of the 1990s, a new model of public sector management had<br />
emerged in most advanced countries <strong>and</strong> many developing ones. Initially, the<br />
new model had several names, including: ‘managerialism’ (Pollitt, 1993); ‘new<br />
public management’ (Hood, 1991); ‘market-based public administration’<br />
(Lan <strong>and</strong> Rosenbloom, 1992); the ‘post-bureaucratic paradigm’ (Barzelay,<br />
1992) or ‘entrepreneurial government’ (Osborne <strong>and</strong> Gaebler, 1992). Despite<br />
the differing names, they all essentially describe the same phenomenon. The<br />
literature has more or less settled on new public management, often abbreviated<br />
to NPM, a term coined by Hood (1991), a persistent critic. Ten years on<br />
perhaps the time has came to question at what point the ‘new’ should be<br />
dropped from the title.<br />
In the United Kingdom there were reforms in the 1980s, such as the widespread<br />
privatization of public enterprises <strong>and</strong> cuts to other parts of the public sector<br />
during the Thatcher government. Before long theorists began to see the trend<br />
as being to a new form of management. Rhodes, drawing on Hood (1991), saw<br />
managerialism in Britain as a ‘determined effort to implement the “3Es” of economy,<br />
efficiency <strong>and</strong> effectiveness at all levels of British government’ (1991, p. 1).<br />
By 1999, Horton would argue ‘during the 1980s <strong>and</strong> 1990s the civil service<br />
moved from an administered to a managed bureaucracy <strong>and</strong> from a system of<br />
public administration to one of new public management (NPM)’ (1999, p. 145).<br />
In the United States, a key event was the publication in 1992 of Reinventing<br />
Government by Osborne <strong>and</strong> Gaebler (1992). Even if simplistic at times with<br />
its use of anecdotal examples <strong>and</strong> its similarity to other works looking at the<br />
private sector (Peters <strong>and</strong> Waterman, 1982), Reinventing Government became<br />
a runaway best-seller. The book cover included an endorsement by then presidential<br />
c<strong>and</strong>idate Governor Bill Clinton. It was no surprise that, after his election,<br />
the new president would take an avid interest in reforming government,<br />
giving the task of conducting the National Performance Review to his Vice-<br />
President Al Gore (Gore, 1993). This review was clearly influenced by<br />
Osborne <strong>and</strong> Gaebler, in the diagnosis of the problem as being too much<br />
bureaucracy, the solutions advanced, <strong>and</strong> the language of reinvention used. The<br />
Gore Report set out to change the culture of American federal government