Why is It So Difficult to Reform Public Administration? Government of the Future: Getting from Here to There (original) (raw)
Related papers
Public Administration Reforms: Is it a Global Regulation
It is commonly observed that the state has been in a restructuring process for over two decades. Liberal policies have been the sole criterion to decide what the state should do, to what extent and how it should be done. Widespread public sector reforms have occurred in compliance with this process and it can be asserted that there has been a global reform wave. This article examines the public sector reform experience of some countries. It explores, firstly, the pressures and incentives that have led to reform attempts in different cases. Thereafter, it tries to define differences and con-vergences between the methods, and targets of reforms. It also discusses the outcomes of reform attempts. Consequently, it seems that a reform attempt, which embraces most principles of new public management, is welcomed at an almost global level at least as a discourse. However, the outcomes of reforms are so problematic that it raises the following question: " Why, how and in whose benefit should public administration reform be made? "
In a work context generally characterized by low management autonomy, but rather high goal ambiguity and politicization (exceptions here are the Netherlands, Norway and the UK), executives clearly perceive factors limiting a full adoption of a managerial logic and performance management concepts: in fact managerial ideas and instruments such as clear targets, measurement and use of performance information are only moderately implemented across in European public administrations. The tide of typical, 'structural' NPM reforms (such as privatization, contracting out or agencification) has by now subsided, replaced by reform trends more closely connected to a networkoriented understanding of government: transparent, open and/or e-government, as well as collaboration and cooperation among different public sector actors. The ongoing fiscal crisis might account for other important trends, such as public sector downsizing, stronger focus on outcomes and results, and the reduction of internal bureaucracy. Overall, countries such as the UK, Estonia, Norway and the Netherlands appear to be more active, while Spain, France, Austria and Hungary are hesitant with regard to implementing management tools. Concerning the overall impact of public administration reforms, executives make a predominantly positive assessment in Norway, Netherlands, Estonia, Hungary and to a lesser extent in Germany; reforms are judged rather critically by executives in Spain and in the other survey countries (UK, France and, to a lesser extent, Italy and Austria), the assessment is mixed. Considering potential success factors, aiming at service improvements (as opposed to solely cost-cutting), and higher public involvement seems to positively influence the overall perception of reforms. At policy field level moderate improvement is seen in relation to managerial aspects such as cost and efficiency, service quality and innovation, but also concerning transparency and openness, fair treatment of citizens and ethical behavior among public servants. On the contrary, slight deteriorations are associated to issues of staff motivation, attractiveness of the public sector as an employer, social cohesion and especially citizen trust in government. Despite fears in this direction, we discover no clear evidence of negative impacts on internal cohesion dimensions as a result of reforms: in countries with more pronounced performance management we tend to find even somewhat higher levels of social capital and trust and work satisfaction, but also relatively lower organizational commitment, indicating the need for more detailed analysis. Executives in the employment and health sectors, also under the survey's focus, assess reforms rather similarly to their counterparts in central government, with the exception that management instruments are generally regarded as more relevant. Also, in both sectors we find that reforms assessed as more demanding are also considered more successful. Exceptionally, in health, we find a greater importance of downsizing than in central government and employment. While considerable variation can be identified between countries regarding reform intensity, those types of reform trends which are regarded as important are strikingly similar-which might indicate a shared sense of purpose across Europe with regards to public management reforms.
This study deals with the Need for Future Managerial Reforms (NFMR) in public administration as perceived by university professors from around the globe. We explore and validate a new NFMR scale based on traditional principles of the New Public Management (NPM) doctrine (e.g. downsizing government, debureaucratization, decentralization, managerialism, and privatization). We also propose a global professional selection (GPS) approach to the study of need for future managerial reforms, validating it with a theoretical model, eight propositions, and four hypotheses. According to the model, managerial quality, satisfaction with public services, trust in public services and NFMR are mutually related but should be considered within the cultural dimensions of each nation. Using data from a sample of 2995 faculty members in 191 major universities from 45 nations, we demonstrate the validity of the NFMR scale and of several direct and indirect hypotheses based on the theoretical model, as well as the advantage of the GPS-controlled mediating model over a simple mediating model. The findings are discussed theoretically and practically, with their implications for the study of future NPM-style reforms and the recent trends in modern governance.
Less for Better: Effects of restructuring public administration on organizational effectiveness
Over time many changes have taken place in the environment, technology, and dynamics of public administration. Currently, following the economic crisis, a number of reforms were introduced to reduce the size of government as well as downsize and privatize public enterprises which resulted in the layoff of a large number of public servants. In this sense, the government considers that building an effective, responsive and adapted administrative system can be realized through restructuring process, both in terms of organizational and functioning. On this premise, the paper discusses the restructuring process of public administration carried out in Romania, particularly the reducing of employees' number from public administration, looking at the effects of that on functioning and effectiveness of public organizations. Therefore, the main goal of the analysis is to show if less public employees means better results. Taking into consideration the aim of the paper, the research methodology is based on a case study as research strategy, and uses the triangulation method to obtain confirmation of findings through convergence of different perspective. Regarding the qualitative research, the author use theoretical framework, legal analyses, systematic and analytical collecting data from official written sources, and macroeconomic indicators for quantitative aspects.
Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums
Governance, 1990
The universal administrative reform movement in public management of the past two decades, as illustrated in the three articles on administrative reform in Britain, Australia and New Zealand which follow this article, has obviously been driven in large part by the requirement that governments respond to the fiscal stresses brought about by changes in the international economic system on the one hand and by the unrelenting demands for government services and regulations in national political systems on the other. These stresses have led to the paramountcy of policy responses aimed at budgetary restraint and at downsizing the public services of governments, as well asvarious measures to privatize government operations and to deregulate private economic enterprises.