THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND ITS CRITICS

The new managerial model emerged in the public sector in 1980s and 1990s to rectify inadequacies of the traditional model of administration is still very controversial. The approach, which has had many names but finally settled on “new public management” was supposed to alleviate many of the problems associated with the traditional model both in developed and in developing countries. However, it was also to bring about dramatic changes in the way the public sector operates.
Despite the fact that almost two decade has passed since inception of this managerial approach in government, it still is controversial. In fact, the criticism of the public administration reforms in general and the NPM approach in particular has taken roots right at their initiation and now has become even more forceful. Critics of the NPM approach argue in many different aspects and in my report, I would like to mention about some of the most serious and challenging critiques.
According to the literature, some argue that the NPM did not bring about change of paradigm in the public administration science; some argue that there is not an international change of movement; and the others argue that the reality is nothing has happened. There are even people who argue that the public management reforms assaulted the democracy. Another group argued that NPM was just an ideological movement of the time and it no longer exists.
A paradigm shift or not?
Arguments concerning the paradigm shift constitute the most interesting part of the critisims surrounding NPM. Paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. List of those who argue there is no paradigm shift include such as Gruening (2001), Hood (1995, 1996), Lynn (1997) and etc. They, particularly Lynn argued that the paradigm change was brought about by the traditional model of public administration derived from Weber, Wilson and Taylor. Lynn wrote, “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”. However, the changes presented by the managerial approaches are more than enough to constitute a paradigm shift. Even the most fervent of NPM critics agreed there have been tremendous changes carried out as results of the reforms.


An international movement or not?
Hood (1995) argued that NPM is not a global phenomenon for three reasons: 1) any single new style of public administration will not be adopted worldwide; 2) the idea of `a new global paradigm ignores the very different local political agendas to which contemporary public management changes are responding` (1995); 3) whether the agenda for public management reform `has been stable enough over the last decade or two to be counted as a single set of ideas and practices` (1995). However, a survey conducted among 123 countries of the world revealed that “significant government reform is goind on round the world” (Kamarck, 2000) and Kettl (2000) argued,
Since the 1980s a global reform movement in public management has been vigorously under way. The movement has been global in two senses. 1) it has spread around the world including Mongolia, Sweden, New Zealand and the United States. 2) it has been of sweeping scope. Governments have used it to reshape the role of the state and its relationship with citizens.
Assault on democracy?
One rather serious critisim of the NPM is related to democracy and it evolves around 4 points. First argument is that democracy requires bureacracy. Secondly, increased accountability of public managers for results might allow politicians to avoid accountability with reduction of political accountability. Thirdly, it might be argued that discrimination might be applied in distribution of outcomes. Finally, there is a reduction in scale and scope by government. However, some defenders of reforms such as the OECD argues, “the public management reforms are not responsible for any problem of democratic deficit, rather they are part of the solution” (1998).
Future prospects?
Critics of NPM claim that NPM will disappear or even that there never was such an approach in practice. Lynn (1998) even wrote that the NPM will fade away and listed down the reasons why he thinks so: 1) the initial shape of the Westminster reforms that inspired the term will eventually be disfigured; 2) as comparative work across countries and sectors accumulates, fundamental differences among reforms will begin to eclipse superficial similarities; 3) the term “new” will be viewed as an inconvenient adjective for emerging themes; 4) political debate will require a fresh theme to attract attention.



The above are few aspects in which the NPM approach has been under attack ever since it has been incepted regardless of the greater public sector achievements in countries like UK, New Zealand, Australia, some apparent changes in the US, Germany and the fact that number of developing countries like Mongolia are perusing the approach. According to famous writers in the field, there exist quite extensive critiques of NPM approach, some of which make interesting points while others are clearly written by hardline followers of old style public administration, who are unable to see anything positive in the changes. After analyzing the relevant literature on the subject, I have discovered that at least the existing critiques are not adequate enough to deny the impacts of NPM approach. I agree with authors like Owen Hughes that now probably the time has come to omit the word “new” from the NPM approach since two decades have passed after it was first introduced in the developed part of the world ultimately being spread out to the developing world. In the end, I would like to say that however controversial the NPM approach is, the public sector is not going back to the old model of administration; it will effectively challenge the problems on the way and propose solutions.

NOTE: Works of Gernod Gruening (2001), Christopher Hood (1995), Elaine Kamarck 2000), Donald Kettl (2000) and Laurence Lynn (1997) were cited in Owen E.Hughes’ book “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition.

REFERENCES:

1. David Rosenbloom & Robert Kravchuk “Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector”, 2002, Mcgraw-Hill Publishing,
2. Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P. Osborne and Ewan Ferlie, “New public management : current trends and future prospects”, 2002, Routledge.
3. Martin Minogue, Charles Polidano & David Hulme “Beyond the New Public Management”, 1998, Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Mike Dent, John Chandler & Jim Barry, “Questioning the New Public Management”, 2004, Ashgate Publishing.
5. Owen E.Hughes, “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition. 2003, Palgrave Macmillan Press.