A pandemic of public sector management reforms has occurred during the last twenty years. Under the banner of ‘new public management’, governments across the globe have reorganised, restructured and reinvented public services in an attempt to achieve higher performance. These reforms have been inspired by a variety of ideas, from neo-classical economics to popular management best-sellers on organizational improvement.
A common feature of countries going down the New Public Management route has been the experience of economic and fiscal crises, which triggered the quest for efficiency and for ways to cut the cost of delivering public services. The crisis of the welfare state led to questions about the role and institutional character of the state. In the case of some countries, reforms in public administration and management have been driven more by external pressures and have taken place in the context of structural adjustment programmes. Other drivers of New Public Management-type reforms include the ascendancy of neo-liberal ideas from the late 1970s, the development of information technology, and the growth and use of international management consultants as advisors on reforms.
Historically, it has been convenient for a decision-maker to distinguish between the public and private sectors. Operational objectives of managers within the private sector have always been considered as geared towards maintaining a position within the marketplace, thinking competitively and are more willing to innovate. Whereas the public sector manager would be more concerned with stability and, according to Liblom (1959) to maintain the status quo consistent with the society’s norms. These approaches may be termed, as ‘incrementalism’ and ‘rationalism’ and defined as follows:
-
Incrementalism is where planning tends to be ‘bottom up’, with managers responding to their departmental needs and acting within long-standing practices and assumptions
-
Rationalism provides a basis of evaluation for decisions already taken and those being considered and a stimulus for longer-term thinking.
The incrementalist school of thought, as articulated by Lindblom recognises that rationalist approaches can be problematic:
"Let's admit that we live in a world of partisanship, constituencies and special interests...few of which represent the viewpoint of doing what is best for society at large with available resources."
The rationalist approach is the traditional "planned" approach:
- A desired future state is defined.
- The activities and resources required to achieve it are defined and allocated
Rationalism favours finite, project-based development, requiring the agreement of parties, strong definition of objectives and co-ordination of resources.
In the real world, change can often only be effected gradually due to limited resources, difficulty in obtaining agreement on requirements and actions, and the resultant necessity for compromise. As a result of this Quinn (1980) offers a new concept whereby both rationalism and incrementalism should be combined which was reflected in many large American firms as ‘logical inrementalism’.
New Public Management in the UK was particularly prevalent during the 1980s and early 90s, the Conservative government of this time transformed the public sector in ways consistent with the doctrines of New Public Management although is more commonly referred to under the veil of ‘Thatcherism’. During this time there have been major political and economic changes and this has forced public sector organisations to become much more business orientated and employing logical incrementalism.
The best example of how New Public Management has changed UK public Policy is the case of Best Value the rationale for the introduction of Best Value was to produce continuous improvements in local public services. Local councils, and other Best Value authorities, would therefore be required to provide services at a quality and price that local people were willing to pay (Martin, 1999).
It could be strongly argued that New Public Management has created a more formal decision making culture for public policy within the UK, this is as a result of the public sector adopting more rationalism which is, by definition, a formal approach to decision making. During the 1980s and 90s the public sector became increasingly decentralized and in many cases privatised, as a result the entire decision making process over the sector as a whole has been devolved down-wards, meaning all levels of local authority and management have adopted more stringent planning. As a result of the longer-term thinking involved in rationalism, effective planning has become a necessity. Major changes have also been witnessed in the decision-making personnel, whereby executives and managers who have previously been successful in the private sector are now controlling the traditionally public sector firms. An example of this is the Post Office who have recruited Adam Crozier as Chief Executive, with a very dynamic and holistic management style whereas in the Post Office’s prior nature as a nationalised institution such an appointment was unheard of.
The Best Value regime encourages, and in some respects enforces, a move away from incrementalism and towards rational planning. This emphasis on planning is a recurring theme in public management reform, and has been tried before in UK local government as well as in other domains, including for example the US federal government. The elements of the Best Value framework that emphasise rationalism rather than incrementalism include:
- The duty to publish targets and plans; the requirement to consult with external stakeholders.
- The need to scan the market for external service providers.
- And processes of external audit and inspection that check whether the required planning procedures have been followed and targets achieved.
It is therefore important to examine the extent to the Best Value regime encourages authorities to adopt more ‘rational’ forms of strategy formulation.
While the new public management approach may not be a panacea for the problems of the public sector, a careful and selective adaptation of some elements to selected sectors may be beneficial. The public sector has been completely rearranged as a result of the tendency towards New Public Management and decision making within UK public policy has changed drastically, there now exists a much more formal and planned approach.
References
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Hughes, O. (1998) Public Management and Administration London, MacMillan, 2nd Edition.
Boyne, G.A., C. Farrell, J. Law, M. Powell and R. Walker (2002) Evaluating Public Management Reforms: Principles and Practice Buckingham, Open University Press.
George A. Larbi, 2000, “Public Sector Reform and Crisis-Ridden States”, “UNRISD”, 1st September 1999.
Lee, D., Newman, P. & Price, R. (1999) Decision Making in Organizations, London: Pitman FT.
Lindblom, Charles E. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), 79-89
Downs, G. and P. Larkey (1986) The Quest for Government Efficiency, New York,
Random House.
