Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Conclusion 267
1 Discursive convergence – more and more people are talking and writing about the
same concepts … The conceptual agenda is converging.
2 Decisional convergence – the authorities … publicly decide to adopt a particular organizational
form or technique …
3 Practice convergence – public sector organization begin to work in more similar
ways …
4 Results convergence – when reforms produce their intended (and unintended) effects
so that the outputs and outcomes of public sector activity begin to converge.
Pollitt finds the greatest level of convergence is in the first category, some in
the second, with limited information on practice convergence and only sparse
information on the convergence of results. Pollitt then argues that not everyone
is ‘travelling in the same direction anyway’ (2001, p. 485):
Deep differences of approach continue to manifest themselves between different countries
and groups of countries. The Finns do not aspire to the ‘New Zealand model’ and
the French do not want to copy the American ‘National Performance Review’. The
Canadians claim to have a Canadian model and a number of leading German authorities
believe that they have little to learn from the Anglo-Australo-American paradigm of
NPM/reinvention. Even strong believers in convergence see important differences
between, on the one hand, the UK and New Zealand and, on the other, the later American
attempt at ‘reinvention’. Such multiple and durable differences are hard to explain within
a model that assumes irresistible and uniform global pressures.
The extent of irresistibility and uniformity that are needed in order for there to
be an international movement may be arguable, but convergence is not disproved
by Pollitt’s argument.
It is interesting and significant that Pollitt misses the most important form of
convergence of all. This is theoretical convergence; where the underlying theoretical
changes most characteristic of the public management reform have
spread around the world. This is not covered by any of Pollitt’s points.
Theoretical convergence is much more than discursive convergence as, in the
latter, it would be enough to just talk about making change. Indeed, Pollitt’s
elaboration of that point is all about the words used in reform, rather than anything
about theory. Theoretical convergence helps to explain why there is some
similarity in different countries and also why the details are likely to be modified
by tradition and the extent of opposition. It is argued here that there has
been substantial theoretical convergence and substantial convergence in the
instruments and strategies used by public sector reformers.
It is unnecessary to establish that change is irresistible, uniform and global
for there to be a worldwide movement of public sector reform. More correct is
the view of public sector reform as involving similar policy instruments, as
Boston et al. argue (1996, p. 2):
Although the rhetoric might have varied around the world, most of the recent efforts at
governmental reinvention, restructuring, and renewal have shared similar goals – to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector, enhance the responsiveness