Kaboolian--The NPM Challenging the Boundaries

8/10/2019 Kaboolian--The NPM Challenging the Boundaries

1/6

The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs.Administration DebateAuthor(s): Linda KaboolianSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1998), pp. 189-193Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for PublicAdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976558Accessed: 08/03/2009 12:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/976558?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/976558?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/6

This ymposium sintended opromote constructive nd meaningful ialogue etweencholarsn thepublic olicy nd o-called ?raditional ublic dministration communities.cholars epresentingoth cademic rovinces ere sked ocon-tribute rticles hataddress hebroad opic f leadership, emocracynd henewPublicManagement. While heauthorsapproached heir asks n a variety fdifferent ays, AR eaders illfind heessaysngaging nd hought rovoking. rticlesincluded n the ymposium ere eviewed ya distinguishedpanel fscholarsncluding erbert aufman, 996 Waldo

Award winner, avidH. Rosenbloom,ormer AR ditor-in-chief nd Gary . Wamsley,ditor-in-chief dministrationSociety. Wewelcomeour omments n he ymposium.

Larry . Terry, ymposiumditor

h e e w u b l i c Management

Chal lenging the o u n d a d i e s of th

Managementv s dniiistraonDebte

Linda aboolian, arvard niversity

eform movements n the public ector, odi-R fied as the NewPublic Management y

cholars, provide an opportunity or theadherents f public administration nd of publicmanagemento engage ach ther. This ymposiumpresents he reactions f well-known cholars ithdifferent erspectivesn the heoretical nd mpiricalopportunities nd challenges resented ythe NewPublicManagement. ll of the authors avepub-lished mportant nd engthyworks lsewhere hatmore ullyelucidate heir positions n issues hatdivide he chool fpublicmanagement rom hatofpublic administration.'The nique quality f thesymposiums that hese cholars ddress neanotherin a conversation isciplined y focus on a specifictopic.

The NewPublic Management : ewVine in Old Bottles

The NewPublicManagement abels series finnovations ccurring omestically nd abroad(OrganizationorEconomic ooperation ndDevel-opment, 1995a, 1995b). The contemporaneousappearance f similar ublic ector eformsn coun-tries s varied n their conomic ndpolitical ystemsas the United States,Korea, he United Kingdom,Portugal, rance, razil,Australia,

weden,NewZealand, ndCanada s a natural opic or scholarlyinvestigation nd discussion. Whether he nnova-tions epresent paradigmhift n ThomasKuhn's(1962) ense s an empirical uestion argely nan-swered.2 That the characteristic lements f theinnovations eem ounded n a set of shared rinci-ples ppears ore vident Nagel, 997).

Public dministration eview May/June 998,Vol. 58,No. 3 189


3/6

Common o reform movements n all these countries s the useof the economic market s a model or political nd administrativerelationships Nagel, 1997, 349). The institutional eforms f theNew Public Management re heavily nfluenced by the assump-tions of the public choice approach, rincipal-agent heory, andtransaction ost economics. Political oles such as voter, bureau-crat, elected epresentative, nd interest roups, swell as the rela-tionships mong hem, are modeled using market nalogies Self,1993, 3).

Similarly, olicy-making, mplementation, nd service-deliverysystems an be analyzed s a series of transactions ith the charac-teristics of negotiated contracts, complete with concerns aboutinformation asymmetries, apture, rent-seeking, moral hazards,and the attendant roblems f monitoring o ensure compliance(Lane, 1993, 33).

While the reform movements ary n depth, scope, and successby country, hey are remarkably imilar n the goals they pursueand the technologies hey utilize. Each movement s driven omaximize roductive nd allocative fficiencies hat are hamperedby bureau-pathology hat is, public agencies nresponsive o thedemands f citizens, ed by bureaucrats ith the power and ncen-tives to

expandheir administrative

mpiresand

policy paces(Nagel, 1997, 350).3 While control of administrative ureaucra-cies by political eadership s a traditional oncern n representativegovernments nd the target of many waves of innovations, heinstitutional eforms ssociated ith the New Public Managementare unprecedented n the formal eparation etween olicymakingand service elivery Light, 1997). These arrangements ake differ-ent forms, or example, n the United Kingdom nd New Zealand;however, heir purposes re he same Thompson, 997, 10).

Similarly, cross he reform movements t is possible o observethe use of administrative echnologies uch as customer ervice,performance-based ontracting, ompetition, market ncentives,and deregulation. Knit together nto a coherent whole, hese ech-

nologies reinforce ach other. An orientation o customer ervicefocuses managers nd agencies n what users of the services efineas important Barzelay nd Kaboolian, 990; Osborne and Gae-bler, 1992). Well-designed measures or the performance f agen-cies and managers rovide direction n a daily basis and increaseaccountability o political overseers or performance Eggers,1997). Market-like rrangements uch as competition within unitsof government nd across overnment oundaries o the non-prof-it and for-profit ectors, erformance onuses, nd penalties oosenthe inefficient monopoly ranchise f public agencies nd publicemployees ensen, 1995; Donlevy, 1994).

The implementation f the New Public Management omes atthe same time

that the role of managers n the private ector schanging. In order o achieve he performance easures or whichthey are accountable, t is argued, managers eed to be liberatedfrom routines nd regulation y the various dministrative ystems,e.g., procurement nd personnel Peters, 987; Thompson, 1997).This advice has been embraced y the public sector. The Gorereport on reinventing overnment escribes he U.S. federal ov-ernment s filledwith good people rapped n bad systems: ud-get systems, personnel ystems, procurement ystems, inancialmanagement ystems, nformation ystems National PerformanceReview, 993, 2). Deregulation hat s, relaxing he rules, decen-

n ordero chievehe erformanceeasuresforwhichheyre ccountable,t sargued, anagerseed

tobe iberatedfromoutinesnd egulationyhe

variousdministrativeystems.tralizing uthority, nd ncreasing he discretion f managers, s therecommended ourse f action. In the public ector, both domes-tic and abroad, deregulation as taken the form of civil servicereforms, otably n New Zealand, nd delegation f authority oagency-based anagers Horner, 994; Kettl, 1997).

Politics r Administration?The authors f the papers resented n this symposium onsid-

er the consequences f the New Public Management or publicmanagers. This is by no means a parochial nterest but an oppor-tunity o revisit ong-standing ssuesabout he relationship f pub-

lic managers o the public nterest, olitical processes, nd mecha-nisms of accountability.All five authors sk f the market rientation f the New Public

Management eformswill limit public managers o an instrumen-tal role n the delivery f politically efined policies or will allowpublic managers o engage n or design he political processes hatshape policies. This question emains elevant espite he fact thatthe New Public Management as an explicitly ormative model ofpublic managers. While the New Public Management ncouragespublic managers o be entrepreneurial nd to use incentives oguide and to enhance he performance f people and systems, ub-lic managers ave been excluded rom the political arena Peters,1996). Under he assumption hat preferences re fixed and bestexpressed hrough market mechanisms, ublic managers re givenmore discretion n deciding how public agencies will achievetheir performance goals than in defining what he publicprefers.4

However nstrumental his approach may appear, he model ofthe market-oriented ublic manager s problematic or democraticgovernance, Larry Terry argues n this symposium, because timplies hat public managers re motivated y self-interest nd actopportunistically, stark ontrast o the ideal of the ethical gentswho administer he public's business with the common good inmind. The image of the entrepreneurial ublic manager willaffect managers' egitimacy, hich, Terry rgues, estson the pub-

lic's confidence hat they will be faithful o the public nterest ndcan be held accountable or their actions. More mportantly, hisimage may further undermine rust n government, lready t anall-time ow in the United States Nye, Zelikow, nd King, 1997).Until we know more about how to ensure accountability, erryrejects he model of public managers resented y the New PublicManagement.

Cook and Kelly oin Terry n centering heir concerns boutthe New Public Management n its consequences or democraticstates. Public administration y its nature, Cook argues, s a politi-cal institution, ormed by the character f the polity, n service o

190 Public dministration eview May/June 998,Vol. 58, No. 3


4/6

u b l i c managersnderheNew ublic anagement

reformsan roviderangef hoicesomwhichustomers

can hoosee.g.,ouchersnadditiono ublicchools)r

the ightoopt ut f he erviceeliveryystem.

the health and improvement f the regime. Normative models ofpublic management otwithstanding, nstitutions esigned o solveproblems nd provide oods and services ave ormative ffects nsociety and are hereby onstitutive. he job of public managers sto be vigilant about the effects of various nstitutional rrange-ments on the relationships nd processes hat are necessary or thehealth of the democracy nd to accept hat political ngagement sinevitable. But this engagement hould be circumscribed y theconstitutional equirements f the polity.

Kelly agrees hat he origins f institutional orms are he politi-cal, social, and economic systems of the regime. Moreover, hedefines he goal of these orms as the development nd sustenanceof an

inclusive emocratic olity that provides ll its adult...citi-zens with full rights, duties and responsibilities nd a sense ofbelonging s an equal partner ntitled o the benefits nd burdenssociety offers.

Kelly argues hat the rational-choice nderpinnings f the NewPublic Management reproblematic o the continued egitimacy fdemocratic nstitutions n heterogeneous ocieties attempting omaintain n inclusive olity. In the light of evidence hat minoritygroups may not have assimilated r may have rejected eeminglyuniversal norms about individualism nd profit maximization,public agencies may be evaluated s unresponsive, njust, nd lle-gitimate. Kelly's proposed remedy s any set of institutionalarrangements hat provide escriptive, ymbolic, nd herefore ub-stantive epresentation. he s agnostic n the value of service ro-vision by public rather han private ntities, valuing nstead heextent to which the decision makers nd service providers mirrorthe composition f the citizenry.

Customer ervice eforms mplemented y the New PublicManagement rovide a case n point for the concerns bout theconstitutive ature of public management. Cook, referencing heformative ffects of the New Deal programs, uestions he unin-tended onsequences f treating itizens s customers. Customer,a commercial ole, assumes n individualist rientation nd fixedpreferences n contrast with the public ssumptions f politicallife. Politics, Cook argues, s as much about hanging eople's ref-

erences and developing ollective purposes s it is about gettingpreferences atisfied. Reinforcement f the customer ole mayaffect he way citizens ee themselves nd their obligations, ights nthe political egime, nd relationships o others.

Kelly admits he value o public managers f the customer er-vice trategy n addressing he heterogeneous astes f diverse iti-zenry. But, Kelly notes, it is one thing to satisfy ndividual us-tomers, another o be accountable or broader oals. If politicalprocesses o not provide ull satisfaction o citizens, public man-agers under he New Public Management eforms an provide arange of choices rom which customers an choose e.g., vouchers

in addition o public chools) r the right o opt out of the servicedelivery ystem. Dissatisfied ustomers an exit e.g., ive ngated ommunities), ut he extent o which itizens ccept hoic-es made by agents, uch as elected fficials nd public managers,when hese hoices o not represent heirpreferences, ndremainengaged n civic ife is key to the maintenance f a democraticstate.

Not all visions f the constitutive ublicmanager n the NewPublicManagement eforms redire. Behn upports ublicman-

agers laying constitutive olebut s less concerned bout heoutcomes f these ctivities, rguing hatpublicmanagers otonlycan mprove heperformance f public nstitutions, utalsomakegovernment oredemocratic. ehn presents n activist mage nstark ontrast o Terry's all or the conservator ublicmanager.In Behn's iew,public managers avean obligation o remediatethe failures f governance hat tem rom he structure f deci-sion-making rocesses, uman railties f leaders, olitics, ll-informed itizens, nd nattentive lected fficials. Behn ees noreason o predict ewer ailures nder he New Public Manage-ment; herefore, overnance illrequire ublicmanagers o engagein constitutive ctivities.

Finally, ynn oo agrees hat public managers illbe constitu-tive. Despite ttempts f the New PublicManagement eforms okeep hem part rom olitics, henature f performance ontract-ing requires egotiation f outcome oals, utput measures, ndresources. heseare ultimately llocative ecisions hat will bepolitically etermined. o the extent hat he contracts reused,public managers ill be engaged n politics nd will shape hecharacter fthe state.

Uniting hese uthors s their oncern hat publicmanagers eaccountable. iscussions f accountability oo often ocus n thecharacteristics f mechanisms nd processes ather han on sub-stance. n contrast, heauthors evisit he ssues fforwhat publicmanagers reaccountable nd o whom. The New PublicMan-agement eforms se market orces o hold the public sectoraccountable nd he satisfaction f preferences sthe measures faccountability. n order or his ystem o proceed, ertain ondi-tions, uchas the existence f competition, ust existand nfor-mation bout hoices must be available. Kellyworries bout herobustness f both of these onditions n the public ector. BehnjoinsKelly n viewing hecitizenry sbounded n their ationality,lacking he nformation, kill, r attention ecessaryo understandthe ullrange f choices nd echnologieso solve ocial roblems.Behn alls his civicailure ndargues hat publicmanagers eedto help educate hecitizenry bout heir ptions. fpublicman-agers o this well, by which Behn means hey are explicit bout

their goalsand strategies, heir eadership ill increase oliticalaccountability.

Questions, ot AnswersThe value f this ymposiums that he discussion mong ari-

ous schools f thought within he fields f public dministrationand management bout he NewPublicManagement illresult na comprehensive esearch genda. Lynn s enthusiastic bout hepossibilities resented y the New Public Management or empiri-cal research nd theory building, hough he warns us that this set

Symposium: eadership, emocracy nd heNewPublicManagement 191


5/6


6/6

References

Banelay, Michael, nd Linda Kaboolian 1990). Structural etaphors ndPublic Management ducation. ournal f PolicyAnalysis nd Manage-ment9(4): 99-610.

Behn, Robert D. (1991). Leadership ounts. ambridge, A:Harvard ni-versity ress.

Cook, Brian 1996). Bureaucracy nd Self-Government: econsideringheRoleofPublicAdministration n American olitics. altimore, D:Johns Hop-kins University ress.

Donlevy, ohn W. Jr. (1994). ntergovernmental ontractingfor ublic ervice.LosAngeles: eason oundation.

Downs,Anthony 1967). nside ureaucracy. oston,MA: Little Brown.Eggers,William D. (1997). Performance asedContracting. osAngeles: ea-

son Public Policy nstitute.Evans, Lewis, Arthur Grimes, Bruce Wilkinson, nd David Teece (1996).

Economic eform n New Zealand 984-95:The Pursuit f Efficiency.Journal f Economic iterature)XXKJVDecember): 856-1902.

Horner, Constance 1994). Deregulating he Federal ervice: s the TimeRight? n John J. DiIulio Jr., ed., Deregulating hePublic ervice: anGovernment eImproved? ashington, C: The Brookings nstitution.

Jensen, Ron (1995). Managed ompetition: Toolfor chieving xcellencenGovernment. lliance or Reinventing Government. Available romhttp://www.alliance.napwash.org/alliance/index.html.

Kaboolian, inda 1996). Disciplinary oundation: ociology. n DonaldF. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward, heState fPublicManagement. alti-more, MD: The Johns Hopkins University ress.

Kelly, Rita Mae and Georgia Duerst-Lahti, ds. (1995). Gender ower, ead-ership nd Governance. nn Arbor, MI: University f Michigan ress.

Kettl, Donald F. (1997). The Global Revolution n Public Management:Driving Themes, Missing Links. ournal f PolicyAnalysis nd Manage-ment 6 (3): 446-462.

Kuhn, Thomas 1962). The Structure f Scientific evolutions. hicago, L:University f Chicago ress.

Lane, an-Erik 1993). The Public ector. ondon: age.Light, Paul C. (1997). The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work

1945-1995. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity ress.Lynn, Laurence . Jr. (1996). Public Management sArt, Science nd Profes-

sion.Chatham, J: Chatham ouseMathiasen, avid G. (1996). The New Public Management nd ts Critics.

International Public Management ournal 1(3). Available fromhttp://www.willamette.org/ipmn/research/journal/journal2.html.

Nagel, ack H. (1997). Radically einventing overnment: ditor's ntro-duction. ournal fPolicyAnalysis ndManagement 6 (3): 349-356.

National Performance eview 1993). From Red Tape o Results: reatingGovernment hat Works etter nd Costs ess.Washington, C: U.S. Gov-ernment rintingOffice.

Niskanen, William A. (1971). Bureaucracy nd Representative overnment.Chicago, L:Rand McNally.

Nye, Joseph . Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, nd David C. King, ds. (1997). WhyPeople Don't Trust Government. ambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Organization or Economic Cooperation nd Development 1995a). Gover-nance n Transition: ublic Management eforms n OECD Countries.Paris:Organization or Economic ooperation nd Development.

Organization or Economic Cooperation nd Development 1995b). PublicManagement evelopments: pdate 994. Paris: Organization or Eco-nomic Cooperation nd Development.

Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler 1992). Reinventing overnment: ow heEntrepreneurial pirit s Transforming he Public Sector. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Peters, B. Guy (1987). Politicians nd Bureaucrats. n Jan-Erik Lane,Bureaucracy ndPublic Choice. everly ills:Sage.

(1996). Models f Governance or the 1990s. In Donald F.Kettl and H. Brinton Milward, The State of Public Management. alti-more, MD: The Johns Hopkins University ress.

Reich, Robert 1990). Public Management n a Democratic ociety. Engle-wood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice all.

Self, Peter 1993). Government ythe Market? ThePolitics f Public Choice.London: Westview ress.

Terry, Larry . (1995). Leadership fPublic Bureaucracies: heAdministratoras Conservator. housand aks,CA: Sage.

Thompson, ames 1997). Quasi-Markets nd Strategic hange n PublicOrganizations. resented t the Fourth National Public ManagementResearch onference, thens,GA.

Tullock, Gordon 1965). The Politics fBureaucracy. ashington, C: PublicAffairs ress.

Symposium: eadership, emocracy nd heNewPublicManagement 193

Documents

Kaboolian--The NPM Challenging the Boundaries