Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:49:39.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy and administrative policy: contrasting elements of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Tom Christensen  and
Per Lægreid
Tom Christensen*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Per Lægreid*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
*
* E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
* E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an analytical platform for discussing and analyzing administrative reforms in terms of democracy. First, we present the democratic theory positions represented by output democracy and input democracy. These two positions are used to classify different types of reform. The second explanatory approach on democracy and reforms is transformative, and it applies a mixture of external features, domestic administrative culture, and polity features to understand variations in the democratic aspects of public sector reforms. Central issues are whether these reforms can be seen as alternatives or whether they complement each other in terms of layering processes. Third, we take a broad overview of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM reforms and carry out an in-depth analysis of a new administrative policy report by the Norwegian centre-left government. Finally, we discuss briefly the broader comparative implications of our findings.

Keywords

NPMpost-NPMadministrative policyadministrative reformwhole-of-governmentdemocracy
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , 25 February 2011 , pp. 125 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberbach, J.D., Rockman, B.A. (1999), ‘The reinvention syndrome: politics by other means?’. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Workshops, March 26–31, Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Aberbach, J.D.Christensen, T. (2003), ‘Translating theoretical ideas into modern state reforms. Economic-inspired reforms and competing models of governance’, Administration & Society 35(5): 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aberbach, J.D.Christensen, T. (2005), ‘Citizens and consumers – a NPM dilemma’, Public Management Review 7(2): 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, G.T. (1971), Essence of Decision, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Allison, G.T. (1983), ‘Public and private managers: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respect?’, in J.L. Perry and K.L. Kraemer (eds), Public Management. Public and Private Perspectives, Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing, pp. 14–29.Google Scholar
Ashworth, R.C., Boyne, G.A., Delbridge, R. (2009), ‘Relationships between societal logics and innovative outcome: the case of local government in the UK’. Paper presented at the EGOS Colloquium, July 2–4, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Behn, R. (2001), Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Blomqvist, P.Rothstein, B. (2000), Välfärdsstatens nya ansikte (The new face of the welfare state). Stockholm: Agora.Google Scholar
Bogdanor, V. (ed.) (2005), Joined-up Government. British Academy Occasional Paper 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J.Walsh, P. (1996), Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brunsson, N.Olsen, J.P. (1993), The Reforming Organization, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christensen, T.Peters, B.G. (1999), Structure, Culture, and Governance: A Comparison of Norway and the United States, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Christensen, T.Lægreid, P. (2001), ‘New public management – undermining political control?’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), New Public Management. The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 93–121.Google Scholar
Christensen, T.Lægreid, P. (2002), ‘New public management. Puzzles of democracy and the influence of citizens’, Journal of Political Philosophy 10(3): 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T.Lægreid, P. (2007a), ‘Introduction – theoretical approach and research questions’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), Transcending New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Christensen, T.Lægreid, P. (2007b), ‘The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform’, Public Administration Review 67(6): 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R.M.March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A.Tufte, E.R. (1974), Size and Democracy. Politics of the Smaller European Democracies, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Day, P.Klein, R. (1987), Accountability. Five Public Services, London: Tavistock Publishers.Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1965), A System Analysis of Political Life, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Egeberg, M.Trondal, J. (2009), ‘National agencies in the European administrative space: government driven, commission driven of networked?’, Public Administration 87(4): 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fountain, J.E. (2001), ‘Paradoxes of public sector customer service’, Governance 14(1): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederickson, G. (1996), ‘Comparing the reinventing movement with the new public administration’, Public Administration Review 56(3): 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (1996), ‘Institutions and their design’, in R.E. Goodin (ed.), The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, pp. 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2000), ‘Accountability – elections as one form’, in R. Rose (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Elections, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (2001), ‘Transforming governmental culture: a sceptical view of new public management’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), New Public Management. The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 231–261.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (2006), ‘Theoretical faith and practical works: de-autonomizing and joining-up in the New Zealand state sector’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, London: Edward Elgar, pp. 137–161.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, L.Svensson, A. (1999), Public Sector Reform in Sweden, Malmø: Liber Ekonomi.Google Scholar
Halligan, J. (2007), ‘Reform design and performance in Australia and New Zealand’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), Transcending New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 43–64.Google Scholar
Haque, M.S. (2001), ‘The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance’, Public Administration Review 61(1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (1996), ‘Exploring Variations in Public Management Reform of the 1980s’, in H.A.G.M. Bekke, J. L. Perry and T.A.J. Toonen (eds), Civil Service Systems, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 268–287.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1998), ‘Individualized contracts for top public servants: copying business, path-dependent political re-engineering – or trobriand cricket?’, Governance 11(4): 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2005), ‘The ideal of joined-up government: a historical perspective’, in V. Bogdanor (ed.), Joined-up Government. British Academy Occational Paper 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–42.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B., Lægreid, P.Pedersen, O.K. (2004), Europeanization and Transnational States: Comparing Nordic Central Governments, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, S.D. (1988), ‘Sovereignty. An institutional perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 21(1): 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, T. (2002), ‘Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems’, Public Administration 80(4): 615–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lægreid, P.Olsen, J.P. (1978), Byråkrati og beslutninger (Bureaucracy and Decisions). Bergen: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Lægreid, P.Roness, P.G. (1999), ‘Administrative reform as organized attention’, in M. Egeberg and P. Lægreid (eds), Organizing Political Institutions, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 301–330.Google Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1983), ‘Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government’, American Political Science Review 77: 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.W.Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83(September): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, R. (2005), ‘Joined-up government: past, present and future’, in V. Bogdanor (ed.), Joined-up Government. British Academy Occasional Papers 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–187.Google Scholar
Nagel, J.H. (1997), ‘Editor’s introduction’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(3): 357–381.Google Scholar
NOU (1989), En bedre organisert stat (A Better Organized State). (Norwegian Official Reports 5). Oslo: Ministry of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. (1991), ‘The antecedents of deinstitutionalization’, Organizational Studies 13(4): 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J.P. (1988), ‘Administrative reform and theories of organization’, in C. Campbell and B.G. Peters (eds), Organizing Governance: Governing Organizations, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Olsen, J.P. (2005), ‘May be it is time to rediscover bureaucracy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J.P. (2007a), ‘The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization’, The Annual Review of Political Science 11: 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J.P. (2007b), Europe in Search for Political Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perri 6 (2005), ‘Joined-up government in the west beyond Britain: a provisional assessment’, in V. Bogdanor (ed.), Joined-Up Government. British Academy Occasional Papers 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–106.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G. (1998), ‘Administration in the year 2000: serving the client’, International Journal of Public Administration 21(12): 1759–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B.G. (1999), ‘Institutional theory and administrative reform’, in M. Egeberg and P. Lægreid (eds), Organizing Political Institutions, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 331–356.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G. (2008), ‘Bureaucracy and democracy’. Paper presented at the SOG/IPSA Conference ‘New Public Management and the Quality of Government’, November 13–15, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G.Pierre, J. (1998), ‘Governance without government? Rethinking public administration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2003), ‘Joint-up government: a survey’, Political Studies Review 2: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C.Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, D.Smith, M. (2006), ‘The tensions of political control and administrative autonomy: from NPM to a reconstituted Westminster model’, in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds), Autonomy and Regulation. Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
Romzek, B.S. (2000), ‘Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(1): 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røvik, K.A. (1996), ‘Deinstitutionalization and the logic of fashion’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon (eds), Translating Organizational Change, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 139–172.Google Scholar
Røvik, K.A. (2002), ‘The secrets of the winners: management ideas that flow’, in K. Sahlin-Andersson and L. Engwall (eds), The Expansion of Management Knowledge – Carriers, Flows and Sources, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 113–144.Google Scholar
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996), ‘Imitating by editing success’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon (eds), Translating Organizational Change, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Self, P. (2000), Rolling Back the State. Economic Dogma & Political Choice, New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
St.meld.nr.19 (2008–2009), Ei forvaltning for demokrati og fellesskap (An Administration for Democracy and Community). Oslo: Ministry of Government Administration and Reform.Google Scholar
Suleiman, E. (2003), Dismantling Democratic States, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, K.Mahoney, J. (2009), Explaining Institutional Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, P.G. (1998), ‘The changing nature of accountability’, in B.G. Peters and D.J. Savoie (eds), Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms, Montreal: Canadian Centre for Management Development, pp. 348–393.Google Scholar
Thompson, F.J.Riccucci, N.M. (1998), ‘Reinventing government’, Annual Review of Political Science 1: 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, B.K.Rockman, B.A. (1993), ‘Assessing the effects of institutions’, in R.K. Weaver and B.A. Rockman (eds), Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Wolin, S.S. (1960), Politics and Visions, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar