New public management

The New Public Management (NPM ) or the Public administration reform refers to a direction within the administrative reform and modernization of the state, based on the adoption of private sector management techniques. The cornerstones of the New Public Management vary by country and / or author. In Europe, found primarily in the UK, a particularly radical version of the NPM application ( Thatcherism ). NPM comes from the 1980s, with its dominance of liberal economic governments, particularly the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but also social democratic governments such as in New Zealand and Sweden. Many attempts at reform were also of successor governments (Tony Blair, Bill Clinton) continued in essential points.

Theoretical and conceptual background

It is disputed whether the New Public Management is a coherent and consistent approach. Due to the random combination of the individual components as well as the different theoretical currents that make up the New Public Management has emerged, universal, genuine core can not be determined; on the other hand results in - even transnational - overall view have a clearly describable approach, which can be identified as NPM and also is. Significant theoretical and conceptual base flows in the NPM are public choice approaches are calling for substantially more voting rights for the understood as customers of public administration citizens, and various theories and approaches medium range such as the transaction cost approach, principal-agent approaches (which essentially, the separation between client and contractor in the public production demand ), but also different approaches to quality in nationally very different weighting. In addition, that is, the participation and co-production of the recipients of public services to the power production must not be overlooked that some States also provide quality closely associated with users democracy itself

In the vision to see the citizens as possible as customers, the NPM has a point of contact with the arisen around 2000 concept of civic community - however, focuses on particular citizens.

Content

The goal is a more efficient management through introduction of business efficiency criteria. Characterized the NPM is through tags such as project management, flat hierarchies, customer orientation, target agreements, reconstruction of the civil servant status, de-politicization of the administration and by English expressions such as lean management ( lean management ), total quality management, benchmarking and contracting-out.

Core elements of NPM are

Redefinition of the role and functions through greater market orientation
Independence of administrative units (enabling authority, agencyfication )
Reorganization of the operating organization
Modernization of the accounting system and implementation of controlling concepts for profit management
Stronger customer orientation
Stronger performance orientation in the personnel policy

National strategies of the NPM

New Zealand

Key points of the central government modernization of the Labour government ( " Rogernomics " ) were

Reform of the budgeting process;
Introduction of non - cameralistic household financial management systems;
Stabilization role separation between politics and administration and between " ordering " and " exporting " administrative units;
Fundamental reform of the civil service law, and finally
Outsourcing of commercial activities of the central government in public enterprises, some also complete material privatization of public enterprises under the prohibition of unfair competition.

Cause of the modernization of the state was the United Kingdom's accession to the then European Community. This New Zealand lost its most important sales market. Exports were little internationally competitive and economic policy focused on one side of the UK. The potential of the Australasian market are not used. Due to the loss of markets, the currency lost value, the national debt increased, as did the trade balance weighed on the New Zealand economy. Meanwhile in New Zealand - also under the impression of Schick reports, an extensive, given by the State in order analysis - drawn attention to the social costs and the loss of democracy, fundamental changes have, however, not reversed.

Great Britain

The economic situation in Britain was in the early 80s by a long -lasting negative for economic development, high unemployment and - characterizes spending above the average - in a European comparison. Since the beginning of the conservative Regierungsära 1979, the modernization of the public sector has been a central policy goal. The priority was to reduce spending in the public sector significantly. Since 1981, the trend was toward a smaller and smaller share of government expenditure to gross domestic product, which showed particularly evident after 1986. This is due to the fact that the British central government since 1979/80 the expenditure of municipalities greatly restricted and their limited income. Margaret Thatcher's goal was to reduce public spending by the public sector was reduced per se ( privatization of nationalized key industries such as shipbuilding since 1945, mining and others ), reducing the influence of trade unions and cost containment at the subnational level. The objectives were similar to those in New Zealand, however, the reform process was top-down oriented, was pressed with high political costs against great resistance, and ultimately led to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher. Significant reforms have not been carried out by the Blair government, the key changes in the reign of Thatcher and Major were left untouched. As in New Zealand put the Blair government, especially on the neglected areas such as education and social standards.

Switzerland

The development in Switzerland was originally heavily influenced by the models abroad, but then went very own. Above all, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Scandinavia later served as suppliers of ideas for the development of a Swiss version of NPM: the effect of New Public Management. The first reform efforts went ( c.1991 ) primarily by chief officers from who wanted to make the perceived as bureaucratic state again able to act, and who managed to win leading executive politicians for their ideas. 1993 first major projects were launched ( cantons of Bern and Lucerne, Bern and Baden) that were tested around 1996 with pilot offices. Since about 2000 still was the reaction in most cantons, but in a few cities. Also at the federal level is the effect of oriented public management rather than just cautious.

What to Switzerland from other countries is the strong and consistent relation to the effect of government action ( rather than just the services). Even here, the effect of measurement is a largely unsolved problem, but the attitude of the alignment of all measures to effect goals is undisputed. In addition, Switzerland 's political system allows a very pragmatic, solution- oriented approach.

An evaluation after five years, " New public management " ( NEF) in the canton of Bern showed that these have indeed increased the transparency of governance, but expectations overall not satisfied: The proposed control over output and outcome goals and the separation between operational and strategic control is too theoretical and political life can not be implemented. Therefore, the governance successes continue by traditional instruments such as parliamentary initiatives and the budget process.

Reception of NPM in Germany: The New Control Model

The international approaches to the modernization of the state at the local level were selectively perceived in Germany. The German New control model in its original version from 1993 has some major differences to other national modernization programs: It is striking that especially structural elements have been included, while process elements were neglected - just missing entry points for earlier changes in individual policy areas - in contrast to the developments for example, in Sweden, Denmark or Finland. However, can be identified as a variant of the New Public Management, the new control model; but these are limited to the enumerative compilation of different and sometimes competing, even contradictory elements. A comparison of national modernization approaches taking into account the institutional framework and starting points of the administrative modernization reveals substantial differences.

With the new control model is a step towards a change of public administration was conceptually made towards the service provider. The bureaucratic structure pattern of local government, the strict division of labor and hierarchy - " atomization " - allegedly led to a system of organized irresponsibility, which was increasingly seen as a core problem of public administration since the early 1990s. The basic ideas of the New Public Management represent a break is with earlier recommendations and reports of the Municipal Association of Administrative Management ( KGSt ), although interesting innovations developed since the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s in certain policy fields, only limited by the traditional management structures and processes were compatible at the local level. In particular, in the "new " formative action areas of cities and towns such as urban renewal and regeneration, the children and youth services, local employment development, but also in the classic right-wing construction law forms of participation and co-determination have been introduced. These innovations were capped at their policy field and have had only a limited impact on the overall concept of public administration. They are also not included in the new control model.

The German New control -oriented model is very strong in the management structures and elements of the Dutch city of Tilburg. The KGSt report to Tilburg is so far the only case study that the KGSt published. In this report, the basic structures and elements of the report published two years later to the new control model can already be clearly seen. Through the report is the so-called ' Tilburg Model " became known throughout Germany. That Tilburg was a model for the German New control model, was more random and less the result of a systematic search for useful solutions for the German local government. The principles of the New Public Management to be based on a for that time "innovative" organizational structure of a Dutch city, in which the KGSt report - and also the following, complementary and expanding follow-up reports - unmistakable emphasis was placed on the imported instruments. The international discussion, commonly grouped under the term " New Public Management ", Germany thus reached only indirectly, despite the passage of time, especially on the part of management science, a reception of the general NPM - albeit with delay and without them getting in the discourse be able to insert practice - took place.

Criticism

It is criticized (eg v. Wilson), NPM was " subversive ," urge the " dismantling of the State", unilaterally favoring private creation and fulfillment of tasks ( privatization), and destroy the foundations of participatory democracy, because the reduction of the citizen to the plain clients no continuation, but an undemocratic step back performing.

From the coming particularly from the academic criticism is the NPM accused assumed too great a similarity between the state and private sector, although the state is dominated by the monopoly of power and government action have to be based on the common good, while the business world by the pursuit of profit maximization was characterized. This is in principle in all countries so that the - have followed label of NPM - naturally generalizing.

From a business side ( inter alia King, Evans / smoke, Christensen ) is put forward that NPM producing no efficiency improvement, 'll be there acts, among others, with "pseudo - markets " that the reforms are more expensive than any savings ( examples from New Zealand and especially Great Britain; study of the CEP, London School of Economics), and that NPM structures of the tasks are just not up to in terms of economy. ( Context of classical administrative and economic growth; Evans / smoke).

After NPM

At the beginning of the 21st century is scientifically strongly pointed to the problematic aspects of NPM, whereas at the level of (especially local) administrative reform and, still shows in practice, for example in Germany internationally through the concept of good governance marked effect. Today is the issue of management science, can be taken over what insights of modern management theories for administrative reforms under what circumstances meaningful ( Jann ). As empirical and normative sequence paradigm of administrative organization is distinguished for Germany the " Neo - Weberian state" ( Neo - Weberian State; Pollitt / Bouckaert ) from.

Basic literature

Dietrich Budäus: Public Management. Concepts and procedures for modernization of public administrations ( public sector modernization, Vol 2), Berlin 1994
Dietrich Budäus and Peter Gronbachs (ed.): implementation of new accounting and information systems in innovative administrations. First North German conference on New Public Management. Haufe publishing group, Freiburg, Berlin, Munich, 1999. ISBN 3-448-03961-6.
Jann, Werner / Röber, Manfred / Wollmann, Hellmut: Public Management - Fundamentals, effects and criticism, Edition Sigma, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-89404-776-3
Kickert, Walter JM, eds: Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. . Cheltenham - Northampton, MA 1997 ( esp. It Kickert, " Public Management in the United States and Europe": 15-38; King, " Entrepreneurial Management or Executive Administration: The Perspective of Classical Public Administration ": 213-232; Wright, "The Paradoxes of Administrative reform": 7-13 ).
Pollitt, Christopher and Geert Bouckaert. Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford 2000.
Ritz, Adrian: Evaluation of New Public Management. Bern, Stuttgart, Vienna, 2003.
Schedler, Kuno and Proeller, Isabella: New Public Management. ( 3.Aufl. ). Bern 2006.