NPM & Traditional Public Administration – Secure IAS (2023)

NPM AND TRADITIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Under the NPM, public sector decision making structures are so designed as tolet managers manage. This was not so in traditional public administration. Under traditional public administration, it was “Administration’, in NPM, it is“Management”.

NPM stipulates that public servants should have to accept morepersonal accountabilityfor the actions of their agencies in return for enhanced autonomy and flexibility to them. This is clearly a significant departure from the concept of “anonymous” bureaucracy in traditional public administration.

Traditional public administration is inward looking focusing primarily on its own organization; however NPM is moreoutward looking. In the traditional public administration, rules are ends in themselves resulting into red-tapism and associated evils. However, in NPM, rules are considered a means to an end.

WHAT’S NEW IN NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

NPM has provided anew paradigm to the disciplineof public administration. Earlier it was ‘administration’now it is ‘management’.However, there is not much new in NPM, as would be clear from the followings:-

1.Itadvocates neo-Taylorism. Earlier we discarded Taylor’sScientific Management schoolof thought for various reasons primarily because it was alleged that itled to dehumanization. But after discarding Taylor’s scientific management, though we adopted a number of other views as shown in the diagram. We havereverted back to the efficiency based scientific managementadvocated by Taylor’s though with a different orientation.

2.Since it emphasizes that thepublic managers be allowed to manageandpolitical leadership be concerned only with macro policies, it essentially involves reasserting theWilsonianseparation of administration from politics.

3.The NPM is not so much as an all-together new ‘paradigm’ as a refreshingreconstruction of theevolving disciplineof public administration. It needs to be recalled that there has been a long traditions of ‘implementation research’ pioneered by academic stalwarts like Pressman and Wildavsky. The main issue raised by them has been: How public organizations transform policies into results. No doubt, theNPM has symbolizedsomething very new, sweeping thestudy of governance and public policy.Yet, both implementation research and traditional public administration had much to contribute to the new movement.

CRITICISMS OF NPM

New Public Management, managerialism or market-based administration, which has been followed by mostdeveloping countries since 1990sis fraught with serious criticisms. ‘Managerialism’ is seen as a derogatory termin some quarters,particularly in India. There are several aspects of new public management which have attracted criticism.

REVIVAL OF TAYLORISM:

Pollitt, a staunch critic, sees managerialism representing arevival of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management ideaswhich, according to him, arecontrary tothe development of the organizational behaviour(human relations approach).Pollitt argues that the managerial reform programme in the 1970s and 1980s “wasdominated by the values of efficiency and economy, with effectiveness a poor third”,while other values – for example, fairness, justice, representation, or participation- were either off the agenda or were treated as constraints on the drive for higher productivity.

PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY:

Public choice advocates themaximization of choice by individuals,a maximum role for market forces and a minimal role for government. The key assumption of public choice is a view of rationality. However in the real world all individuals do not behave rationally and all bureaucrats do not maximize their own utility i.e. increasing their own power, prestige and security. It could be said that the assumption of individual rationality is too sweeping and ignores any selfless or public-spirit behaviour by public officials. The question aboutbureaucrats maximizing budgets to achieve their personal endssuffers from a market lack of empirical test.

ETHICAL AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROBLEMS:

It is argued thatpoliticization of the public serviceleads toerosion of ethical standards. Stillman contends that the emphasis is on an enlarged, politically partisan cadre of loyalists to carry out the work of public administration can and does lead to wholesalecorruption and ethical misconduct in office,not to mention poor and inefficient performance as well”. It can open up the government toshady practices, but be continuous: “limited state literature remains largely silent on these vital accountability issues”. A few ethical problems may arise in contractual maters. Corruption may result from secret commissions to individual public officials giving contracts, political interference in the selection of contractors, collusion among tenders and acceptance of tenders for prices above the cost of public provision, and so on. It is largely felt that there are greater opportunities for the dishonest with the adoption of new managerialism. In addition, there are difficulties in ascertaining accountability.

PROBLEMS OF POLITICIZATION:

Under the new managerial approach, it is argued that politicization of public service may lead to theemergence of spoils system.

MARKET ORIENTED APPROACH:

NPM accepts market as a model of government and idealizes thevaluesandtechniques of private administration. But NPMfails to take account of real politicof government. Thecore of the modern government lies in observance ofrule of lawand not market driven mechanism.Major problemsin public administration arebasically politicaland NPM overlooks it.

1.It is good to know how private management works, but at the same timethe unique policy role of the government should not be diluted.Government especially at the higher levels, has its peculiar ways of accommodating interests, feeling thepulse of the nation,intervening in conflict situationsandcalculating pay-offsin difficult bargaining situations. This is not so in private organizations.

2.The‘public interest’lies at the heart of government operational, and it is irreplaceable by any market philosophy.

3.There is a lurking suspicion that the new paradigm might as well lead tohijacking of the state by the ‘private’ and the ‘powerful’.

4.It is alleged that theNPM iscentered on the coreandalmostignorant of theperiphery.It means in addition to the public and private sectors, there are NGOs, voluntary organizations, civil society etc. TheNPM may focus only on government.People’s efforts to organize themselves may be left over.

5.Sometimes it isallegedthatNPMis a moral, caringlittle for administrative ethicswhich is cornerstone in the running of public affairs.

6.NPM mayresult intocomplete neglect of means, insensitivity tosocial needsand unresponsiveness topublic interest.

7.Itrevives dichotomy.

NPM – INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

In the1980s and early 1990sfor a variety of reasons, remarkablechanges took place inpublic sector management practices inmost advanced countries. To operationalize good governance, NPM is being considered as a vital input. To achieve this, there have been a lot of structural adjustment and a new type of state invention to seek cooperation and help from community organization and empowerment of citizens.

Most of the countries have attempted tolimit the role of the State, includingdownsizing bureaucracy,devolution of authority,cost reduction,contracting outsome of the operative functions of government, developing and designingresult oriented appraisal system, andcommercializationas well asmarket orientationof the government activities.

This has been supported by effective accountability moving from rule to result orientation, from systems to enterprises, obedience to reward, inaction to action, centralization to decentralization and from the duties of administrators to the rights of citizens.

a)Structurally, the change was fromrigid,hierarchicalandbureaucraticformof public administration to aflexible,market-based formof public management.

b)The changes were not merely in form/style. There was remarkablechange in the role of government in society. Similarly, there was achange in government-citizenship relationship.

BRITAIN: THE PUBLIC COMES FIRST

The reform processes in British public management gained momentum with the rise of conservative party headed by Margaret Thatcher. A public policy known asThatcherismeffected a dramatic reduction in the central government’s involvement in the provision of direct services to the citizens. This policy introduced a form of privatization in fields such as transportation and the media whose purpose is toincrease market competitionandreduce the size of bureaucracies, while introducing aneconomic logic into the activities of public agenciesand the organization related to them. Since the 90’s, the British government has acted mainly on a politically motivated, managerial scheme aiming atbudget decentralizationto bring the government closer to the citizens and toreducethe‘remote control’ approach.

These have contributed to the political stability of U.K. and have achieved the status of amanagerial autonomy, characterized by agreater democracyandfreedom of choicefor the citizens. Thus British public management has become morehumaneandsensitivetowards the citizenry while increasing the level of responsiveness through the introduction of‘Citizen Charter’. In March 1999, further steps for continuation of reforms introduced through‘white Paper’and came to be known as‘Modernizing Government’.

The emphasis is on the fact that the government does not exist for its employees, but rather for the people and the individuals as clients and citizens. Therefore, the government’s plan has been based upon five main components:planning of long-term public policy,encouraging a responsive public service,emphasizing technological improvement,stressing on information availabilityandimproving the public service’s image.

THE UNITED STATES: MEASURING PERFORMANCE

The main contribution of the United States to the development of the NPM thinking came in the form of the improvement of performance and process measures. The Federal government in the United States has especially stressed this in the‘Government Performance and Results Act’ – GPRA, which was approved by the Congress in 1993. Governmental organisations and agencies have been requested to develop detailed measuring strategies for their products by identifying goals and purposes, studying the possible influences upon them and tightening the tie between performances and long-term goals. As part of this process, all the governmental agencies are obliged to consult the Congress and the other stakeholders as and when needed.

This development has switched the center of the discussion to issues of performance and results instead of wallowing in issues of processes and resources as has been done previously. This also accounts for the evolution of the term‘Performance Budgeting’.It means the improvement of decision-making processes as an aspiration to achieve certain performances. The main achievement of this focus on performance evaluation in the United States has been the implementation of a methodical and ordered process of studying policy products and evaluating their meaning in terms of out pits and outcomes.

AUSTRALIA: THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY APPROACH

The NPM approach permeated the Australian public management mostly towards the end of the 80s. Government sector, which was plagued by centrality, ‘heavy activity’ and ineptness of the system, received the change initiative with enthusiasm. The change proposes a drastic cut-back on governmental standards. However, the main characteristic of the change in the Australian public management has been‘Administrative Responsibility and Accountability’, which stands for the increase in the direct responsibility of civil servants for their actions and views. The managers are directly responsible for their decisions in addition to the direct political responsibility, which those elected by the public have towards the citizens. Through outreaching changes in the administrative law in Australia, a legal framework has been set up in order to enforce this responsibility. This means that managers are required to account for their decisions, their implementation and even for their decisions for not acting or executing.

CANADA: COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH AND SHAPING OF PUBLIC POLICY

The changes and reforms in Canada came from different directions, but are all based on a limited number of basic assumptions: (1) maintaining a strong government is essential for the protection of the state, (2) evaluating the government’s role in the future is important, (3) well-performing public sector is highly related to a modern policy of providing services to the citizens, (4) professional civil servants and those who have an independent way of thinking are to be nurtured, (5) wise governmental and administrative leadership gives direction and backing to those deal with public service roles and must be encouraged. In 1995,the Task Force on the Management of Horizontal policywas established. Its role is to centralize the policy issues, which are related to more than one office, and to manage the activities required of them a little better.

In general, the Task Force has been requested to create a cooperative culture of policy-making and implementation, and to form a commitment amongst governmental agencies to coordinate work while constantly and rapidly transferring ideas, information and learning mutually from past experience. In 1996, the Policy Research Committee was established for assisting the government in preparing for cooperative work among public organisations and in implementing coordinated public policy by 2005. This Committee has produced two main reports, which focus on the means to increase the collaboration and coordination between the different market sectors at the national and international levels. The activity of this Committee has been the first step in a process called“The Policy Research Initiative’. As a part of this framework, a Secretariat for policy Research has been established in the Federal government.

NEW ZEALAND: THE RESHAPING OF WELFARE POLICY

In the last decade an accelerated processes of privatization, governmental decentralization, reduction in the number of public sector employees and increase in the collaboration with private bodies, which would perform activities that have been hitherto in the domain of the government, also called‘Outsourcing’, began. The government has initiated a comprehensive plan, which has greatly reduced the rate of national expenditure for the purposes of welfare. It has introduced components, which encourage internal and external competition in the public sector’s environment, attempt to lower the taxes and maintain fairness in the distribution of national resources. The plan has also encouraged reliance on the country’s own resources. It aims at increasing the stress upon public sector’s efficiency, citizens’ freedom of choice, and mutual relations between service providers and clients as opposed to the former pattern according to which the citizen is dependent upon the government and its institutes (Boston, Dalziel And John, 1999).

The switch to a harsh budgetary restraint has indeed managed to rescue the country and its public sector from the crisis it had fallen into. Yet the harsh recuperation process has left its signs among different social groups, which now have to get accustomed to a much weaker support from the government than before. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened and by the end of the decade many people in New Zealand may taste the influence of the new management reforms on their lives.

ISRAEL: DECENTRALISATION AND PRIVATISATION

Certain motives of the NPM approach have entered Israel in the last two decades. The main changes in the Israeli public sector from the 70s till today are based on two main components:a real revolution in the field of decentralization(for example, the transfer of managerial authorities from the central to the local government and the award of greater freedom to act in terms of budgetary management in the different government offices), anda growing Privatization since the mid-80s. At the same time, there is a strengthening of processes such as raising thetransparency regarding governmental activity,nurturing managersandinstitutes accountability to the public, and involving thepublic auditing systemin the fields it had not dealt with in the past (Friedberg, 2000). However, it seems that in other fields such as the reduction of bureaucracy and the introduction of a new managerial culture, especially in the field of performance evaluation of public organisations, the steps are smaller and insufficient and therefore the challenge for change is greater.

Israel was as a welfare country with a market and society, which were managed in a highly centralized manner, and which were characterized bythree main sectors: the public, the private and that of the Employees Federation, the Histadrut. The country’s values as a welfare country included the aspiration to provide social security, maintain the quality of life, and reduce inequalities (Doron, 1995). In order to achieve the goals, which suit these values, the inter-sectoral power-structure in the country’s initial years had clearly leaned towards the public sector and the sector of the Histadrut. These have usually acted in a cooperative and coordinated way and stopped the introduction of reforms and changes, which threatened the social values. This power-structure has changed completely since the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s when, on the one hand, the dominance of the Histadrut sector has greatly deteriorated while on the other, the global trends, with greater efficiency and focus on business management in the public sector have increased.

Even though the governmental and public committees have been able to keep the issue of change and reform on the Israeli public agenda, a close study would show that the public management changes only focus on the organizational, structural and financial structure of the government’s branches. They all lack a systematic approach to the introduction of a new managerial culture into the government, and there is no sufficient focus on the development of appropriate, tools for the behavioral performance evaluation of the public sector. As a result, most of the knowledge we have today centers on the attitude towards changes and reforms on the formal aspects of the public system’s structure and organisation or alternatively on its activities and performance from an economic perspective. The latter deals with the functioning of the budget or with the other issues of resources’ allocation and does not make use of tools from the field of social sciences, whose efficiency and contribution to the improvement of the public service is proven.

NPM – INDIAN EXPERIENCE

Indian reforms towards introducing ‘New Public Management’ during the last 53 years have been rather ad hoc and slow. However, in theconference of the chief secretaries of state/UTs of effective and responsive administrationin November1996followed by aconference of Chief Ministersin May1997,it was recognized thatgovernance has to extend beyond conventional bureaucraciesand to involve actively citizens and consumer groups. Of late, in India, consensus hasemergedon achieving the goals ofaccountability, citizen friendly government,transparency,right to informationand improving performance andintegrityof public services at the central and state levels. A large number of states, UTs and central Government have already taken several steps in this direction. Achieving of the declared agenda forreforms towards good governance in Indiawould require operationalization of the concept of New Public Management. A number steps have already been taken in this direction. The achievements are worthy. Still there are many promises which have remained unaccomplished.

CONCLUSION

Cost-cutting,right-sizinganddisinvestmentof government assets are the major components of NPM in order to improve the service delivery system. The crux of the reform in each state is to improve the system in the form of focusing onResponsibility,AccountabilityandPerformance(RAP), which are the major building blocks of management reform in public system. There is need toimprove the governance decision making process,constructive political will,change of ideological orientation,a simplified public system,financial inclusion,strict implementation of code of ethics for the public servants,heavy investments in social welfare and infrastructure,political stabilityand bringingprofessionalism in public systemto overcome failures in governance.

The NPM has exposed the over protected ‘bureaucracy’ to models of management. NPM’sconcern for the citizenis praise worthy. It is a bold measure of systematic administrative reform in the broadest term. If implemented in the right earnest, it can change the way the government govern.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

1.“New Public Managementandpost-New Public Management reformsinitiatives have affected the balance betweenmanagerial, political, administrative, legal, professional & social accountability.”Analyse.(2014)

2.“New Public Managementmay have neither been thesaviourits enthusiasts promised nor thedevilits critics worried it would be.” Discuss.(2013)

3.‘Acrisis of credibilityin the administrative system can be overcome only by‘Reinventing government ‘.’ Comment.(2011)

4.“New Public Management is dead; long livedigital era of governance.”Comment.(2010)

5.It is said that “the perspective of public administration, developed over a century, with a tradition of management of Public institutions and services has received a jolt from the novelty of New Public Management”. Bring out thecore values, approaches and assumptions oftraditional public administrationand show how theNew Public Managementhas attempted to change or retain them, and to what extent.(2009)

6.In the last two decades, almost all countries of the world have experiencedtransformations intheiradministrative systems.”Explain this phenomenon with examplesfrom the developed and the developing nationsin the context ofNPM Movement. (2008)

7.“The (NPM)is an incarnation of anew model of public sector managementin response of thechallenges of liberalization, international competitiveness and technological changes.”Explain.(2003)

Copy& Paste