What is New Public Management in social work
Contents
- Introduction
- Evolution
- Globalization
- Aspects
- Competition
- Issues
- References
Introduction
New Public Management (NPM) is a management approach used in government and public service institutions and agencies at both the sub-national and national levels. Academics in the United Kingdom and Australia coined the term to describe approaches developed during the 1980s as part of an effort to make the public sector more "businesslike" and efficient by employing private sector management models.
As in the private sector, which emphasizes "customer service," NPM reforms frequently emphasise the "centrality of citizens who were the recipients of services or customers to the public sector." NPM reformers experimented with decentralised service delivery models in order to give local agencies greater flexibility in how they delivered programmes or services. In some cases, NPM reforms utilising e-government consolidated a programme or service to a centralised location in order to reduce costs. Some governments attempted to use quasimarket structures in order to force the public sector to compete with the private sector (notably in the UK, in health care). The key themes in NPM were "financial control, value for money, increasing efficiency..., identifying and setting targets and continuous performance monitoring, handing over... power to senior management" executives. Audits, benchmarks, and performance evaluations were used to assess performance. Some NPM reforms enlisted the help of private-sector firms to deliver previously public-sector services.
In some countries, NPM advocates worked to replace "collective agreements in favour of... individual rewards packages at senior levels combined with short term contracts" with private sector-style corporate governance, including the use of a Board of Directors approach to strategic guidance for public organisations. While NPM approaches have been used in a variety of countries around the world, they are most closely associated with the most industrialised OECD nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States of America. NPM advocates emphasise the use of approaches from the private sector – the corporate or business world – that can be successfully applied in the public sector and in the context of public administration. NPM approaches have been used to reform the public sector, as well as its policies and programmes. NPM proponents argue that it is a more efficient and effective way of achieving the same result.
Citizens are viewed as "customers" in NPM, while public servants are viewed as "public managers." By creating a parallel relationship between the two, NPM attempts to realign the relationship between public service managers and their political superiors. Under NPM, public managers are motivated by incentives such as pay-for-performance, and clear performance targets are frequently set, which are then evaluated using performance evaluations. In addition, managers in an NPM paradigm may have more discretion and freedom in achieving the goals that have been set for them. This NPM approach contrasts with the traditional public administration model, which is guided by regulations, legislation, and administrative procedures in institutional decision-making, policy-making, and public service delivery.
Disaggregation, customer satisfaction initiatives, customer service efforts, applying an entrepreneurial spirit to public service, and introducing innovations are some of the approaches used in NPM reforms. The NPM system gives "the expert manager more discretion." "Under the New Public Management reforms, public managers can provide a range of options from which customers can choose, including the right to opt out of the service delivery system entirely."
Evolution
The first New Public Management practises emerged in the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher served as both a functional "policy entrepreneur" and an official prime minister. Thatcher was a driving force behind changes in public management policy in areas such as organisational methods, civil service, labour relations, budgeting, financial management, audit, evaluation, and procurement. Thatcher's successor, John Major, kept public management policy on the Conservative government's agenda, resulting in the Next Steps Initiative. The Citizens Charter Initiative, Competing for Quality, Resource Accounting and Budgeting, and the Private Finance Initiative were also launched by Major.
In the late 1980s, a term was coined to denote a new (or renewed) emphasis on the importance of management and 'production engineering' in public service delivery, which was frequently linked to doctrines of economic rationalism (Hood 1989, Pollitt 1993). During this time period, public management became an active policy area in a number of other countries, most notably New Zealand, Australia, and Sweden. Simultaneously, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established its Public Management Committee and Secretariat (PUMA), elevating public management to the status normally reserved for more traditional policy domains. President Bill Clinton prioritised public management in the 1990s. The Clinton administration's first policy actions included launching the National Partnership and signing the Government Performance and Results Act into law. There are currently few indications that public management issues will be removed from governmental policy agendas. According to a recent study, municipal directors in Italy are aware of a public administration that is now oriented toward new public management, where they are evaluated based on the results they produce.
The term New Public Management (NPM) refers to the idea that the cumulative flow of policy decisions in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, North America, and Latin America over the last two decades has resulted in a significant shift in the governance and management of the "state sector." Regional innovation agencies, for example, were established under NPM principles to support the innovation process. A more positive interpretation is that these decisions were a reasonable, if imperfect, response to policy issues. These issues, as well as their solutions, were developed during the policymaking process. The agenda-setting process has been heavily influenced by electoral commitments to improve macroeconomic performance and contain public-sector growth, as well as a growing perception of inefficiency in public bureaucracies. The alternative-generation process has been heavily influenced by ideas from economics and various management disciplines.
Globalization
Although NPM originated in Westernized countries, it spread to a variety of other countries in the 1990s. Prior to the 1990s, NPM was primarily associated with a concept used by developed countries, particularly Anglo-Saxon countries. However, in the 1990s, countries in Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world began to consider using this method. Downsizing and fee reductions have been widely implemented in Africa. These autonomous public-sector agencies have been established in these areas. Performance contracting has become a common policy in crisis-stricken countries around the world. Contracting out of this magnitude can be used for waste management, cleaning, laundry, catering, and road maintenance, among other things.
Aspects
In the 1990s, NPM was regarded as the "gold standard for administrative reform" . The idea behind using this method for government reform was that it would work more efficiently if government-guided private-sector principles were used instead of rigid hierarchical bureaucracy. NPM advocates for a shift away from bureaucratic administration and toward more business-like professional management. NPM has been cited as a solution for management ills in a variety of organisational contexts, as well as policy formulation in education and health care reform. The fundamental principles of NPM are best described when divided into seven distinct aspects elaborated by Christopher Hood in 1991. Hood also coined the term "NPM."
They are as follows:
- Management
Because it believes in the importance and power of privatising government, it is critical to place an emphasis on management through hands-on methods. This theory gives leaders the ability to manage freely and with discretion.
- Performance standards
It is critical to maintain explicit measures and execution measures in a workforce. Using this strategy helps to clarify goals/intent, targets, and movement markers.
- Output controls
The third point recognises the "shift from the use of input controls and bureaucratic procedures to rules based on output controls measured by quantifiable performance indicators." When looking to outsource work to private companies/groups, this aspect necessitates the use of performance-based assessments.
- Decentralization
NPM proponents frequently transitioned from a centralised administration framework to a decentralised framework in which directors gain adaptability and are not constrained by organisational constraints.
Competition
This feature focuses on how NPM can advance competition within the public sector, which may in turn lower fetched, eliminate debate, and possibly achieve a higher quality of progress/work through term contracts. Competition can also be found when the government awards contracts to private sectors and the contract is awarded based on the capacity to provide the benefit sustainably and the quality of the merchandise provided. This will increase competition because the other private sector that did not receive the contract will strive to improve the quality and capacity, thereby encouraging competition.
Private-sector management
This point of view focuses on the need to create short-term labour contracts, corporate plans or trade plans, execution agreements, and mission statements. It also focuses on creating a working environment in which open representatives or temporary workers are aware of the goals and intentions that offices are attempting to achieve.
Cost reduction
The most effective one, which has led to its global popularity, focuses on keeping costs low while increasing efficiency. "Doing more with less" also encourages efficiency and is one way it differs from traditional management approaches.
Issues
Criticisms
In the New Public Management system, the lines between policymaking and service delivery are blurred. When executives are hired on a contract basis under pay-for-performance systems, concerns have been raised about the potential politicisation of the public sector. Citizens' ability to effectively select the appropriate government services they require has also been questioned. "The concept of choice is critical to the economic concept of the customer. In general, there are few, if any, options in government." There are concerns that public managers will move away from attempting to meet the needs of citizens, as well as limitations on accountability to the public. When dealing with incentives for public managers, NPM calls into question integrity and compliance - the interests of customers and owners do not always align. Questions such as whether managers are more or less loyal arise. The public interest is jeopardised, and trust in government may suffer as a result. "Government must be accountable to the public interest as a whole, not just to individual immediate customers or consumers [of government services]."
Relevance
Although NPM had a significant impact on management and policymaking in the 1990s, many scholars believe it has passed its prime. Scholars such as Patrick Dunleavy believe that New Public Management is on its way out due to a disconnect between "customers" and their institutions. Scholars argue that the Digital Era and the new importance of technology have rendered NPM obsolete. The NPM concept is still growing and spreading in less industrialised countries. This trend is heavily influenced by a country's ability or inability to bring its public sector into the Digital Era. In the public sector, new public management was established to effect change through disaggregation, competition, and incentives. Using incentives to get the most out of an organisation is largely stalled and being reversed in many countries due to increased complexity.
Alternatives
Many countries investigated digital era governance after the NPM (DEG). Dunleavy believes that this new form of governance should place a strong emphasis on information and technology. Technology will aid in reintegration as a result of digitalization changes. Digital Era Governance (DEG) offers a unique opportunity for self-sustainability; however, a variety of factors will determine whether or not DEG can be successfully implemented. When countries have adequate technology, NPM simply cannot compete with DEG. DEG does an excellent job of improving service accuracy, timeliness, and removing most barriers and conflicts. DEG can also improve service quality and provide outsourcers with local access.
AM Omar (2020) presented a challenge to DEG by combining the governance approach with Social Media technology. The work on Brunei's Information Department, titled "Digital Era Governance and Social Media: The Case of Information Department Brunei. In Employing Recent Technologies for Improved Digital Governance," aims to provide theoretical and practical support for the claim. The study concludes that digital dividends can be secured by effectively integrating social media into the governance process.
The New Public Service (NPS) is a newly developed theory for citizen-focused public administration in the twenty-first century. This work directly contradicts the New Public Management's clientelism and rationalist paradigm. NPS focuses on democratic governance and reimagining public administrators' accountability to citizens. According to NPS, administrators should act as a liaison between citizens and their government, focusing on citizen participation in political and administrative issues.
Comparisons to New Public Administration
New Public Management is frequently confused with New Public Administration. The 'New Public Administration' movement emerged in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Though there are some similarities, the two movements' central themes are distinct. The main goal of the New Public Administration movement was to align academic public administration with an anti-hierarchical egalitarian movement that was popular on university campuses and among public sector workers in the United States.
References
1. Hood, Christopher (1 March 1991). "A Public Management for all Seasons?". Public
Administration. 69 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Fj.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x). and Hood and Jackson 1991
2. "New Public Management Model" (http://www.managementstudyguide.com/new-public-man
agement.htm).
3. Farazmand, Ali (February 2, 2006). "New Public Management". Handbook of Globalization,
Governance, and Public Administration: 888.
4. Barzelay (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue (h
ttps://archive.org/details/newpublicmanagem00barz). Russell Sage Foundation.
5. Kaboolian, Linda (1998). The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the
Management vs. Administration Debate. Public Administration Review.
6. Marozzi, Marco; Bolzan, Mario (2015). "Skills and training requirements of municipal
directors: A statistical assessment". Quality and Quantity. 50 (3): 1093–1115.
doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0192-2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11135-015-0192-2).
Comments