Introduction
According to Schedler and Proeller (2010), one of the most significant areas in the existence of governments and governance structures is public management. Political developments and debates in a substantial number of states today revolve around issues of accountability and the need for proper structures of management.
The reason behind this is that there is growth in the limitation of the amount of resources, yet the needs and demands of people have kept swelling at an alarming pace. Therefore, from all angles, it can be noted that public management is the tool through which the resources of a society can be distributed and administered better in order to meet the needs of the citizens in different countries in the world.
In the recent times, increased calls have emerged highlighting the need for improving practices in public management. The most critical question to ask is the reason why demand for reforms in public management across different countries has been rising in the recent times.
It is vital to note that these demands are still persistent in a substantial number of countries across the globe (Schedler & Proeller, 2010). In this paper, it is argued that adoption of new public management is the best way through which governments can attain best practices in public sector management.
The need for changes in public administration emanates from the flaws that have been dominant in the public policy formulation and implementation, which dictates the manner in which public management is carried out.
Most of the needs that necessitate the introduction of newer practices in public administration are related to the malpractices that were prevalent in the way public management practices were conducted in a number of political regimes across the world.
Other reasons revolve around current developments, thus the need for public administrators to adapt to the developments to improve the discharge of public administration practices. The concept of new public management began gaining prominence from early 1980s. It entailed the need for change in government policies in order to make the public sector efficient.
This means that there were weaknesses in government policies, which impeded the full development of public sectors. It is argued that the concept of new public management is highly desired as it offers a wide room for improvement of public management. However, there are a number of policy areas that can impede the full realization of new public management (Shillabeer, Buss & Rousseau, 2011).
This paper explores the concept of new public management. The paper begins by exploring the rationale behind the development of the concept of new public management. In the analysis of the pros and cons of new public administration, the paper will focus on two main policy areas: Governance and accountability and the incorporation of new practices in public administration.
Understanding new public management
New public management can be traced from the late 20th century. This is the time when most countries across the world had focused on the path of growth after freeing themselves from colonial attachments. This period also marks the beginning of aggressive development in technology and investment in all kinds of innovations for the public good.
This denoted changes in various structures and prevailing systems of governance. The conception of new public administration can be cited from these developments. The question that needs to be asked is what is new in public management. This can be answered by looking at the real practices, which reflect the orientation of new public management (Argyriades, 2002).
Schedler and Proeller (2010) observe that new public administration entails the application of new principles of management in the public sector in order to improve the outcomes of public policy in the public sector. Other people argue that new public management is strategy-oriented, unlike ancient public management that was seen as a mere means of discharging public functions.
New public administration borrows heavily from the business commercial world, where organizations discharge their functions with the aim of minimizing losses and maximizing profits. While the public sector is still viewed as a sector that does not work for profits, it is run within the context of the modern economy.
This means that modern governments have to ensure that the public sector is run in a manner that enhances the minimization of wastage of public resources and increase the rate at which public goods and services meet the demands of the citizenry.
In order to fulfil the ever rising public needs amidst the constant and, in a number of instances, diminishing public resources, there is need for the political leadership, through public technocrats, to develop strategies of management.
The strategies of management that are often applied in business and other not-for-profit making institutions have been found to be effective in improving public management (Clarence, 2002).
According to Schedler and Proeller (2010), another important pointer to the application of strategy in the contemporary public management and new public management is the question of emerging challenges, and the need for the incorporation of strategies to deal with such challenges within the spectrum of public governance.
The concept of public governance in the ancient times, before the emergence of new public management, focused on centralized tendencies of management. In centralized administration, public functions are discharged basing on the principle of bureaucracy. Therefore, functions were discharged not basing on the desire to attain better outcomes, but basing on the fact that the procedures were followed.
This did away with the aspect of working for results. This does not, however, mean that bureaucracy is totally eliminated in the new public administration. However, only the positive qualities of bureaucracy are retained in the new public management.
Just as in strategic management, most elements of bureaucracy have been eliminated since they impose difficulties on the efficient coordination of administrative functions. Basing on this point, it can be said that the new public administration borrows some practices from the old public administration (Shillabeer, Buss & Rousseau, 2011).
The main development in new public administration is the restructure of the structures of administration and governance to capture the emerging needs in the public domain, as well as embrace changes in the governance environment. This means that the new public administration is set in a manner that makes it diverse enough to capture all the contemporary developments.
By capturing contemporary developments, the degree to which the new public administration can lead to the attainment of the needs and demands of the modern citizenry is widened. The rate of partnership and learning in new public administration is highly embraced.
This gives public administration a new meaning and a new look. Borrowing from the practices of benchmark institutions in terms of administrations helps public managers learn from the institutions by applying the managerial practices from such institutions in public administration.
This is because benchmark institutions still manage to attain a desirable level of performance irrespective of working with constrained resources. One of the enablers of performance, which is what is being taken up in new public administration, is the enhancement of the capacity and ability to deploy strategic management practices in administration (Shillabeer, Buss & Rousseau, 2011)
Talking about new public administration is a pointer to the existence of old public administration. The concept of new public management originated from the industrialized countries, where their citizenry pushed for reforms in governance. The political regimes that are responsible for overseeing the functioning of the public service began to be judged based on the level of efficiency in public delivery (Schedler & Proeller, 2010).
In order to win the confidence of the public and an assurance of being re-elected, political regimes were forced to show and exercise their commitment in reforming the public sector. Therefore, a series of public sector reforms were developed and enforced by each regime.
However, as at this time, these reforms were only pictured as a political tool by political regimes. The real sense of change in public administration across the globe can be traced from the last two decades of the 20th century, where citizens of most countries became highly enlightened and pressurized political leadership to embrace changes in public administration (Argyriades, 2002).
As it is in the contemporary times, most governments have attuned to new public administration. The question to ask at this point is whether the new public administration can be sustainable. Also, the other concern is whether all governments have the capacity to fully attune to new practices in public administration.
It can be said that the new public administration has taken deeper roots in the industrialized world because of the advances in policy development in most public sector segments. In the developing world, the public policy environment is still highly volatile, thereby making it difficult for these countries to pursue key policy goals in key policy areas, which can enhance new public administration (Schedler & Proeller, 2010).
However, most countries are showing positive prospects in the development of legislative reforms in the public domain, which can help in enforcing new public management practices. However, there are still a number of bridges in key policy areas that need to be developed in these countries in order for the countries to fully cross to new public management. This allows the citizenry to enjoy the fruits of new public management.
The fruits of new public administration include increased transparency in deployment of public funds and other resources, quicker access to public services and the increase in the number and quality of public service offering of public services in all public institutions within a given country.
According to Argyriades (2002), the essence of new public administration is to separate public servants from the political process of the country. In the old public administration, this phenomenon was quite rampant. It is known as the politicization of the public service. Thus, employees worked as a formality.
There was a lot of political interference in public sector management, which interfered with procedures of administration and work in public offices. Certain norms and behaviours were given priority, thereby depriving the public servants a substantial number of privileges that were enjoyed by the employees in the private sector.
While one could easily argue that the norms and the systematized codes of behaviour in old public administration helped to ensure that the identity of the public service was preserved, these practices demeaned the public employees of their rights and privileges.
This is cited as one of the reasons to why public servants always under-performed. Old public administration did not value performance management practices, like the use of rewards to manage performance (Argyriades, 2002).
While the public sector still remains under the control of political regimes, new public management advocates have pressurized for the pursuance of legislation that has aided in minimizing political interference in public sector administration. Furthermore, political elites are no longer left with the mandate of overseeing the performance of public sector segments.
As noted earlier in this discussion, the new public administration embraces technocracy, where public institutions are placed under people who have attained desired qualifications in certain areas. Thus, qualified personnel are left to administer the public service sector in areas in which they have the qualifications.
Technocracy is one of the most desire principles of new public administration. With highly minimized political interference and the embrace of accountability, technocracy has proven to enhance public sector delivery and performance (Clarence, 2002).
According to Bovaird (2005), the new public management presents a picture of governance that has multiple inclinations in different sectors. New public sector should be sustainable in the sense that it has to embrace social, economic and political development and long run sustainability.
According to the proponents of new public administration, the new public administration has been a key contributing factor to the development of a substantial number of economies in the world. Among these economies are most of the national economies of Western Europe, as well as most of the emerging economies of Eastern Europe and the South East Asia.
There are three vital areas of strategic public administration in new public administration that help public administration to bring about social cohesion and economic growth and transformation.
These are the consideration of the public sector as the sole industry within a country, treating the public sector as the main policy making and regulating institutions, and the consideration of the public sector as the main service provider in the country.
These factors can play out well in a cycle, resulting in better public governance. When all these are put into consideration in the realm of new public management, public sector reforms are easily developed and implemented (Hondeghem, 2000).
Governance and accountability in new public administration
When public administration is mentioned, public accountability always comes up. Public accountability is one of the key areas in public policy cycles that still present a lot of challenges in the performance of public sectors. Governance and accountability is the most critical area of governance.
While there have been a lot of debates and calls to improve governance and accountability in public administration, it is still evident that a considerable number of impediments still stand in the way to the attainment of this aspect in public administration.
Even in the realm of new public management, there exist a lot of pointers that denote that desired governances and accountability have not been attained. It is vital to understand the meaning of these two terms and where they lie in the public policy cycle (Erkkilä, 2007). This can help one to know whether they have been fully ignited in new public administration.
Governance is linked to the administration. Governance entails the aspect of entrusting political systems with resources such that they can utilize these resources to meet the needs of public in the country.
On the other hand, accountability entails the best practices in utilization of resources to meet the intended needs. In the context of public administration, accountability entails the ability to deploy public goods to meet the needs of the public (Osborne, 2006).
According to Erkkilä (2007), accountability goes further in that it entails the aspect of responsibility for action in public administration. This implies that public servants should be responsible for the course they take while utilizing public resources in meeting the needs of the public. With all the improvements that come with new public management, accountability in public administration is raised.
The question of accountability in public governance still remains elusive even in the contemporary times where most governments are deemed to be applying the practices of new public administration in the public sector.
In most upcoming democracies that are applying new public administration, there are still a number of loopholes in public procurement procedures, which makes it hard for the countries to attain quality of accountability in public administration.
While a significant number of positive changes in public governance are witnessed under new public administration, the question is whether the government can totally eliminate corruption and mismanagement of public resources.
While the new public administration has been geared towards eliminating the notion of ‘the public’ in public administration, it is doubtful whether this notion can be totally drawn away. Accountability often begins with the orientation of the mind of a person.
This showcases the fact pure accountability in public administration is a hard thing to attain. This is because of the existence of a low sense of responsibility in public services due to the notion that public servants are utilizing public resources (Hondeghem, 2000).
According to Makrydemetres (2002), ethics and accountability are vital in contemporary public administration. However, there still exist a considerable number of problems of legitimacy in a substantial number of countries. Most governments seem to dwell on the introduction of performance management in public administration as the main way of dealing with problems of legitimacy in public governance.
This is causing citizens to sit back as they expect public servants and political elites to exercise ethical and responsible conduct. This cannot be attained in a wishful way. There is a need for the citizenry to demand for the development of legislation that can help them push for ethical responsibility and accountability of public servants and politicians (Makrydemetres, 2002).
According to Kernaghan (2000), traditional bureaucratic ethics have been replaced by new problems in public management; therefore, it is quite challenging to attain ethical responsibility as it is supposed in new public administration. The new public administration can result in greater lack of accountability if it is not sufficiently backed by legislation.
The newness in public administration is quickly eroded without development of laws to help hold the public servants and politicians accountable in the handling of public resources (Erkkilä, 2007). Legislation is the main backing tool for the public as it helps them to bring to book public servants who seem not be accountable.
Some of the key developments in policy and legislation include the development of performance contracts in the public service. Performance contracting has been a key aid in raising the level of public accountability in a number of countries in the world.
A notable example is New Zealand, where ministerial accountability has gone high due to enforcement of performance contracting (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000).
Hondeghem (2000) observed that a number of principles of administration that are exercised in new public administration are cited as the pillars that have encouraged responsibility and accountability of public servants. These are devolution and decentralization.
Devolution embraces equity in the distribution of public functions and resources, while decentralization encourages delegation of duties in the public service sector. Decentralization, sometimes referred to as de-bureaucratization, helps reduce the power of public servants by encouraging delegation of authority and work to subordinates.
This does not only increase accountability, but also encourages the rate of accomplishment of public functions. Decentralization of functions makes the public service more efficient. Power and continued centralization have been the main source of lack of responsibility and accountability in public administration.
There is a rise openness and transparency due to the aspect of service oriented performance in public organizations under new public administration. The other notable thing is the growth of the relationship between the private and the public sector. This has also been instrumental in bringing about accountability in public administration.
As the public sector interacts with the private sector, a comparison of administrative attributes becomes eminent. This is argued to be the source of the concern about integrity in public administration. This forces the public sector to pay attention to the features of public administration, which embrace the principle of integrity.
The principle of integrity is one of the building blocks towards the attainment of a responsible administration in the public service (Hondeghem, 2000).
The embrace of change in new public management
New public administration entails a considerable number of changes in the structure of management. The rationale behind the embrace of new public administration is to match the public sector with the emerging public needs and demands.
Therefore, a considerable number of changes are implemented in public organizations under new public administration. The need for change in public administration is to improve the efficiency of the public sector delivery, which in turn increases the ability of the public sector to serve other sectors.
As argued earlier, new public management considers the public sector to be the central industry that controls the functioning of other sectors in the economy. Arguing from this perspective, the public sector needs to be in the forefront in terms of adapting to new technologies and innovations that aim at increasing efficiency in the public sector delivery, thereby boosting its role in serving other sectors (Hartley, 2005).
One notable change in new public administration is the embrace of information and communication technology in public governance. Here, e-governance can be given as a crucial pointer to technology adoption in the public sector. The question that ought to be asked is whether governments have the capacity to embrace technological changes and innovation in public administration.
Also, the embrace of changes requires public organizations to lay a structural foundation on which changes are implemented. This means that most of the old structures of public administration have to be refurnished or totally abolished in order to give room for adoption of new public management practices.
This is another policy that is critical in the new public administration, yet it poses a lot of challenges to policy makers in the public sector. This leads to the question of whether public sectors are indeed ready for new public administration.
One peculiar thing with management of change is that it poses a lot of challenges to organizational functioning, to the extent that it may be a source of disadvantage to organizational functioning. While innovation is essential for improving the public service, it must come through change.
Only governments that are equipped with sufficient policy and resources can be in a better position when it comes to implementation of innovation in public administration. Innovation in governance is an aspect of change that needs a pool of resources to implement. It is not necessarily functional as was pointed out in ancient literature in public administration.
Hartley (2005) ascertained that there are three key things that can stimulate the environment in readiness for change in public administration. These are policy, research and resources. Policy is critical for the setting up of structures that are receptive to new practices of public management in new public administration. Research is also vital in embracing change in public administration.
As opined by the proponents of new public administration, research helps public policy makers to identify areas of public administration that need change and the consequent search for practices for benchmark public institutions, which can be used to effect change in public administration. When new systems of governance are fully realized, citizens often enjoy the resultant public service in public organizations.
However, it should be remembered that public sector reforms is a process that is facilitated by resources, often financial resources (Jan-Erik & Luc, 1999). This means that the new public administration is a kind of a burden to the citizens, who are the taxpayers.
The public expenditure rises in order to sustain public sector reforms under new public administration. This means that citizens are forced to submit more taxes to the government in order to enable the government to implement reforms. However, it is argued that the costs are offset once the new reforms are implemented (Hartley, 2005).
Conclusion
This paper has explored the concept of new public sector administration. From the paper, it has emerged that a substantial number of countries in the world today are making efforts to make the public service sector be more proactive in terms of performance. The improvement of performance and delivery of the public sector is in the principles of new public administration.
The discussion has unveiled a number of benefits of embracing new public administration. Among the benefits of new public administration is the decentralization and debureaucratization of operations in the public sector organizations, which enhances public service delivery.
The other benefit of new public sector administration is the opening of learning in the public sector management through the interaction of the public sector with the private sector. However, it has also come out that the embrace of new practices in public sector management still poses a lot of challenges to public administrators and should be given attention by public administrators.
References
Argyriades, D. (2002). Governance and public administration in the 21st century: New trends and new techniques — Proceedings. General Report. Brussels: International Institute of Administrative Sciences, 2002, p. 31-64.
Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 217-228.
Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence based policy movement. Public Policy Administration, 17(3), 1-11.
Erkkilä, T. (2007). Governance and accountability – a shift in conceptualisation. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 1-38.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27-34.
Hondeghem, A. (2000). Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Jan-Erik, L. & Luc, B. (1999). Public sector reform: rationale, trends & problems. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 384-387.
Kernaghan, K. (2000). The post-bureaucratic organisation and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 91-104.
Makrydemetres, A. (2002). Dealing with ethical dilemmas in public administration: The “ALIR” imperatives of ethical reasoning. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 251–266.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Trust in government: Ethics measures in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387.
Schedler, K., & Proeller, I. (2010). Outcome-oriented public management: A responsibility-based approach to the new public management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
Shillabeer, A., Buss, T. F., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based public management: Practices, issues, and prospects. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.