Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

But this scenario seems most unlikely. More likely is some refinement of those parts of the reform that have not worked particularly well, and natural evolution into another model. But the traditional model of administration and all it stood for are finished. It is interesting that as the reform movement has developed there have been more and more critics and these have become more strident. There are criticisms of every conceivable aspect of the public sector reforms and new public management in particular. Some argue there is no change of paradigm; some argue there is not an international movement of change; some even argue that nothing has happened. The public management reforms are regarded by critics variously as an assault on democracy, an ideological movement, merely a fad, and have only achieved a derogation of morale within the public services where change has been tried. The main purpose of this chapter is to look at some of the key criticisms in more detail. Some of them have their valid points, but others miss the mark completely. Indeed, it is often the case that proponents and critics argue past each other not even agreeing on the parameters of debate. This is a characteristic of a time of paradigmatic change. As Kuhn argues, ‘To the extent … that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms (1970, p. 109). Whether or not traditional public administration and public management can be considered paradigms is one of the more controversial points about the public management reforms. A paradigm shift or not? Conclusion 257 One of the more interesting parts of the debate over the new public management has been whether the changes – and even the most fervent of critics agrees that there has been change – are sufficient to constitute a paradigm shift. It would be possible to draw up a list of those arguing that there is paradigmatic change. This would include Barzelay (1992), Behn (1998, 2001), Borins (1999), Holmes and Shand (1995), Mathiasen (1999), Osborne and Gaebler (1992), and the OECD (1998), and compare the list that argue there is no change of paradigm or universal movement such as Gruening (2001), Hood (1995, 1996), Lynn (1997, 1998, 2001, 2001a), Pollitt (1990, 1993), and Pollitt and Bouckaert (2000). Such a list would not advance the argument very far and would only be a comparison of authorities. More useful, although some may not be convinced, is to look again at what a paradigm is and whether the idea of competing paradigms in public administration has some validity. It is argued here that, either using the ordinary meaning of the word or the more recent usage associated with the work of Kuhn (1970), the term paradigm is appropriate both for the traditional model of administration and the public management reforms most commonly linked together as the new public management.
258 Public Management and Administration Some writers are uncomfortable with the word ‘paradigm’. As Behn argues, ‘The world is divided into two camps: people who use the word paradigm daily and those who detest it’ and notes further ‘the word does appear to be appropriate to this context under the third definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition): “a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated”.’ (2001, pp. 230–1). To Behn, the traditional model of administration qualifies as a paradigm; as he continues, ‘certainly, those who support traditional public administration would argue that they have a “discipline,” complete with “theories, laws, and generalizations,” that focus their research’ (Behn, 2001, p. 231). Supporting this notion of paradigm is the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of ‘paradigm’ as, in philosophy, ‘a mode of viewing the world which underlies the theories and methodology of science in a particular period of history’ and, rather than being something new, this usage dates to the late fifteenth century. Again this does not seem to place any barrier against using the term within public administration and supports the view that a paradigm is a school of thought, a set of ideas: no more and no less. As a way of looking at the world that exists for a time, there is no problem involved in using it to describe the traditional model of administration or new public management or any other reasonably coherent set of ideas. Writing in the mid-1970s, Frederickson was able to find five paradigms for public administration (1980, pp. 35–43). There is no need for agreement on any one paradigm even within a field. Lynn, however, argues, ‘The variation in the models of reform being tried around the world strongly suggest that there is no new paradigm, if by paradigm we use Thomas Kuhn’s original definition: achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners’ (1997, p. 114). Lynn quotes Kuhn (1970, p. 43) to the effect that paradigms are ‘a set of recurrent and quasi-standard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational, and instrumental applications’. According to Behn ‘Lynn then argues that there is no “community”, no “accepted theoretical canon”, and no “accepted methods of application” and concludes that “one cannot find evidence to support a claim of widespread transformation, much less a claim that a new paradigm has emerged” ’ (Behn, 2001, p. 234). In Lynn’s view it appears that a paradigm is to be regarded as a large hurdle to jump, requiring agreement among all its practitioners – a more or less permanent way of looking at the world (see also Gruening, 2001). It is necessary, it seems, to delve further into paradigms. Much of the modern usage of the word derives, as Lynn notes, from Kuhn (1970). However, Kuhn does not define paradigm clearly and uses the word in several ways. This was a criticism of the early edition, as Kuhn happily admits in a later one (1970, pp. 181–2). The full quote used by Lynn is as follows (1970, p. 43): Close historical investigation of a given specialty at a given time discloses a set of recurrent and quasi-standard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational,
Page 1 and 2:
Public Management and Administratio
Page 3 and 4:
Also by Owen E. Hughes AUSTRALIAN P
Page 5 and 6:
© Owen E. Hughes 1994, 1998, 2003
Page 7 and 8:
Preface Over the past 20 years the
Page 9 and 10:
viii Preface the Colorado link such
Page 11 and 12:
2 Public Management and Administrat
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
10 Public Management and Administra
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
3 Public Management Introduction Th
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
5 Public Enterprise Introduction Pu
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
100 Public Management and Administr
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
7 Strategic Management Introduction
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
10 E-government Introduction In the
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
11 Managing External Constituencies
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216: 206 Public Management and Administr
Page 227 and 228: 12 Public Management in Developing
Page 245 and 246: 13 Accountability Introduction The
Page 265: 14 Conclusion: A New Paradigm for P
Page 293 and 294: 284 References Borins, Sandford (19
Page 295 and 296: 286 References Glor, Eleanor D. (20
Page 297 and 298: 288 References Jordan, Grant (1997)
Page 299 and 300: 290 References Monroe, Kristen Renw
Page 301 and 302: 292 References Putt, Allen C. and S
Page 303 and 304: 294 References Wilson, Graham K. (1
Page 305 and 306: 296 Index bureaucracy 1-5, 9, 15-43
Page 307 and 308: 298 Index information and communica
Page 309 and 310: 300 Index ‘one best way’ thinki
Page 311 and 312: 302 Index Ritter, G. 85, 86 role of
show all

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?