THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW APPROACH TO THE PUBLIC

SECTOR: THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Uğur ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN.

introd uetion

It is more than two decades since the first "Oil-Price Shoek" gaye rise to serious
economic difficulties in Westem economies, and it is almost two decades since the fırst
conservative govemment in a Westem country came to power on the basis of idealogy
which repudiated the "post-war consensus" formed around "Keynesian mixed economy"
and the "welfare state". The public sector has become topical because of profound
changes in its economic and ideological environmcnt during the 1980s and 199Os. In
Westem countries the renewed interest of govemments and academic circles in this field
results from a number of factors interlinked in a variety of ways. Prominent among them
are: the economic crisis of the 1970s; the changes in idealogical perceptions about the
role of government in soeial and economic life and then the collapse of post-war
consensus based on Keynesian economic management and the institutional/universal
welfare state; the rise in demand for social services and fiscal crisis of the welfare state;
and the search for the most suitablc institutions and techniques for promoting economy.
efficiency. and effectiveness in the provision of public services in the face of oversized.
overbureaucratic. and coercive administrative structures.

The debate of the 1980s was about redefining the boundaries betwccn the,public
and private sectors in favour of the private sector since the developed world faced the
reality of financial crisis due to the deterioration of economic performance and increased
demand on public services. The opposition to the over-expansion of the public sector
has gained ground since the Iate 1970s and then the "withdrawal.of govemment" has
become the official policy of conservative govemments in Westem Europe and North
America. This idealogical climate has soon spread to other countries and has affected
even same social demoerat govemments as in the cases of Australia and New Zealand.
Govemments have responded to the phenomenon of "big government" by taking same
measures to cutback public expenditurcs and staff in ordcr to reduce taxes; to privatise

• Research Assistant in the Department of Public Administration at Hacettepe University

 UGUR ÖMÜRGöNüLŞEN

i
state owned enterprises and to dereguIate private economic enterprises with their belief in
the tsuperiority of market" in efficient allocation of resources; an~ to launch VFM
auditing/efficieney semtiny for sayings. The debate of the 1990s is no longer the same
though it is linkcd to the previous debate. Even if the publie seetor is downsized,
whaıever remained in the publie sector should be better managed. Thus, the problem of
efficient use of resourees :in this smaller publie sector has stiıı been waiting to resolve.
In other words, resourees must be used effieiently to provide publie services, al 1east, at
the Same level and with the same quality as in the past sine e resourees allocated to the
publle sector are now more searce. This reality has foreed the govemments to search a
new system of ideas, stru;;tures, tt!Chniques and praetices which is appropriate to this
relauvely smaller publie sector. Under these eireumstances the size, values, strueture, and
funetioning of national public seetoes have been affeeted deeply allover the world. A
eost-eonscious, debureaueratised, market-oriented and eustomer-favoured publie service
haslbecome an "ideal" system to buiıd. The provision of publie serviees by more able
managers and more flexible struetures/processes in aecordance with both effieiency
criıeria and wishes of corısumers has beeome the central theme with the effeet of the
public man age men i approach and, in particular, its specifie version, the new public
managemenl (NPM) approach.

In brief, the 1980s <ınd 1990s have witnessed a transformation in the management
of the public sector in many advanced eountries. The rigid, hierarchical, bureaucratie form
of publie administration is changing to a flexible, market-based form of public
management. This is not :,imply amatter of change in management style, but it is of ten
con~idered as a "paradigm shift" from the traditional public administration approach,
which was dominant in the public sector for most of the century, to the publie
management (and to NPM). The traditional approach has been severely criticised on
theoretical and praetical grounds. Both this approach and the discipline of publie
administration have suffen:d from a serious dccline in their prestiges. Therefore, NPM as
a new "paradigm" poses a direct ehallenge to both the traditional publie administration
approach and the distinetive nature, culture, and fundamental principles of the discipline
of public administration.

i In this artiele, the following points will be discussed in order to understand the
true nature of the emergence of NPM as an alternatiye approach to the studyand praetice
of the public seetor:

! (i) Paradigm shift in the public sector?: The critique of fundamental features of the
traqitional public admini~,tration approach and a serious deeline in the prestige of the
discipline of public administration;

(ii) Changes in the perceptions and priorities in the public seetor: economic and
political/ideologieal changes gaye rise to NPM (i.e. NPM as a megatrend and
relationships betwcen the NPM approach and New Right ideology);

i (iii) As a conelusion, the strength of the NPM approach in creating a new

consensus and the irreversibility of recent public seetor reforms.

i
Public
ı. Paradigm
Administration
S'hift ~n the Public Sector?:
Approaeh and a Serious
Critique
Deciine
of Traditional
in the Prestige
of :the Discipline of Publie Administration
 THE NEW PUBLle MANAGEMENT 519

There has been a profusian of approaches and then confusian in deseribing the
studyand practice of the public seetar in the second half of the twentieth century. In the
1950s and early 1960s. the focus in many Westem countries was upon institutional
reform and this was reflected in the concem of academics with changing settings,
sb1lCtures and staffıng in the public seetor. The tradilional public administration approach
of that era was a mixture of deseription. comparisons with other Anglo-American and
Westem European countries and preseriptions for reform in the machinery and formal
procedures of government. This approach was defined but also delimited by its parent
disciplines of political seience, organisatian thcory and-in particular in continental
European context-administrative law.

In the 1960s and early 1970s many academics were influenced by the policy
analysis literature which was developed mainly in the United States. This was coincided
with the planning mood in same Westem European govemments and the development of
think-tanks and rationalist exercises in strategic policy-making. Public organisatian was
considered as an integral to the political process since bureaucrats play an important role
in formulating public policies and its implementation. This was the denial of the
traditional politics/administration dichotomy. Thus, the traditional public administratian
approach was to same extent overtaken by the more interdisciplinary public policy
approach.

Until two decades ago govemment was accepted as a principal means to solve
problems. Traditional public administratian and public policy approaches flourished in
this ideological atmasphere. Since the mid- 1970s. govemment has become identified by
manyasthe problem in the face of serious financial crisis. and then the practical concem
of govemments, almost allaver the world. has been with rolling-back the frontiers of
govemment including the pursuit of efficiency in govemment through more "business-
like" values. techniques and practices. Thus. management function has become more
critical to the current problems rather than administratian and policy-making (1). Within
this context. a management approach to the public settor. instead of traditional public
administration, has becn developed over the last two decades (see Bozeman. 1993;
Bozeman and Strausman. 1984; Perry and Kraemer. 1983; Rainey. 1991; Garson and
Overman. 1983; Lynn, 1996). The term public management has bccn offered asa rival
to, a substitute for, or sametimes a synonym of public administratian (Bozeman. 1993:
xiii). Public management is actually different from the previous approaches to the
public seetar. During the 1980s and 1990s it has been derived from different positive
influences of public administratian (normative procedures), public policy (policy-
making) and private sectar management (strategy). It has also laken into consideration
the weaknesses of each approach. Traditional public administratian is highly diseursive
and skill poor (Allison, 1979; Perry and Kraemer, 1983). Public policy gives too litlle
auention to management function (Beycr. Stcvens and Trice, 1983). Generic management
and private sectar management are inanentiye to essential features of the public seetor
(Rainey. 1990). Public management approach in general and NPM in particular seem to
replace traditional public administratian and public policy approaches which have
hitherto dominated academic thinking and the practice of public affairs (see Perry and
Kraemer, 1983 and Gunn, 1987; Bozeman, 1993; Hughes, 1994).

Within general public management approach, vitality and diversity in theoretical

standpoints, empirical research and practices which mainly stern from the effects of its
 i

5201
UGUR ÖMüRGöNüLŞEN

i
different strands (Le. economic, managerial, and newly developing nonnative publlcness
straflds) can easily be traced (2). Espccially, a newand distinctive model or approach of
management for the public sector within this general public management framework has
becn on the agenda since the early 1980s. This new approach has actually several
incamations. "Public management" (Perry and Kraemer, 1983), "supply-side
management" (CarroIl, Fritsehler and Smith, 1985), "managerialism" (polliu, 1993-fırst
edition in 1990), "new public management" (see Hood, 1990b, 1991; Polliu, 1993; and
MaScarenhas, 1990), "entrcpreneurial government" (Osbome and Gaebler, 1992) are the
most well-known versions of this general public management approach. In our opinion,
the best heading for the re<::entchanges in the studyand practice of the publle sector is the
neW public managemenı (NPM). We believe that NPM is a new approach to the study
andı practice of the public ~.ector and its position between traditional publle administration
approach and private (business) management approach is very special.

i NPM is a conyenient shortname for an approach to the public sectoro It contains

a set of values, nonns, teclıniques and practices conceming the management in the public
sedor. With NPM « 0.0 higher priority is given to the "management" of people,
resOurces and programmes compared to the "administration" of activities, procedures and
regulations» (Aucoin, 1988: IS2). Implicit in the shift towards NPM in the public
sedor has been the assumption that traditional administratiYe function should be
superceded by a more economistic and managerialistic functiono

, NPM does not haye a single theoreLİcal origino Therefore, NPM's origin can be
inıerpreted as a "marriage of two differcm streams of ideas" which mainly come from the
fields of economics and management. There is a growing consensus on the theoretical
bases of NPM in the literature of "eeonomics" and "management" (see Hood, 1991: S;
alsO see Hood, 1989; Aucoin, 1990; OECD, 1991: 1i; Hughes, 1994: 74-77). Hood
speCified the effects of economics and management on the emergence of NPM by naming
more particular strands of them: the new institutiona/ economics (Le. public choice,
priricipal-agent, transaction-costs and property rights theories) and the manageria/ism
(1991: S; for a similar approach, see Aucoin, 1990). We can al$O distinguish two
different strands of managerialism: "neo- Taylorian managerialism" (see Pollitt, 1993) and
"new wave of management" (variously called new managerialism, post-bureaucratic
management, the 'excellence' approach, the new human resource management and even
entrepreneurial govemment) (see Peters and Watennan, 1982; Peters and Austin, 1985;
Petees, 1989; Wood, 1989; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Managerialism is onlyone
dimension of NPM in addiLİon to economic one. With several exceptions (e.g. Jack$On,
19~0 and 1994; Aucoin, 1990; Hood, 1991; Rhodes, 1991; Dunleavy and Hood, 1994;
and Dunleavy, 1994), authors have mainly dealt with the "manageriaI' side of NPM
whereas the "economie" side of NPM is as important as its managerial one. Actuallyall
maiıagerial developments have centred around efficiency concept which is the crux of the
matter since the early 1980s. NPM is, therefore, different from "entrepreneurial
go~ernment" approach with its emphasis on economics. It also marks a shift from the
earlier American usage of public management (or "old" public management) which sees
it as a technical sub-field of public administration.

i Whether the sources of NPM are fully compatible remains to be discussed. This
is, ~ $ome extent, because NPM does not have a single theoretical origino Each strand of
NPM has its own disLİncLİvecharacterisLİcs and therefore they might contradict There is
a potential incompaLİbiliıy of the new insLİtutional economics (pubtic choice) which
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 521

provides "govemance level" and managerialism which provides "managerial level" of

administrative reform guided by NPM (see Scott and Gorringe, 1989: 81-82; Aucoin,
1990; Campbeıı, 1995: 484-485). Furthermore, there are some internal tensions within
each strands (see Pollitt, 1993: Chp. 5). However, these tensions cannot falsify the
argwnent that NPM can be considered as a paradigm shift In our opinion Aucoin's (1988
and 1990) efforts on this subject and some other recent academic work (e.g. Hoggett,
1991, 1996; Holmes and Shand, 1995) combined with practical developments in the
reform programmes suggest that these tensions can be resolved. Mter a "tight" political
control is established, a "selective" centralisation/decentralisation,
coordination/deregulation and controVdelegation in accordance with the "tight-loose"
principle (see Peters and Waterman, 1982) is likcly to be a more practical solution to the
current problems of Litepublic secLor (3).

A. Paradigm Shift in the Public Sector?

As wc mentioncd above, the traditional Lheories and practices of public

administration are under attack politically and intellecLually from both politicians and
expcrts who undertake administratiye and financial reform agendas of many OECD
countries. Further, in many countries there has been much talk of "administrative
revolutions" or "paradigm shifts" in the studyand practice of the public sector as a
worldwide phenomenon (Gray and Jenkins, 1995: 75-76) (4).

The idea of "paradibJIll" is borrowed from the work of the philosopher of sciences,
Thomas Kuhn (1964, 1970). it relates to the evolution of scientific disciplines. When a
commonly held value consensus breaks down, il is replaced by a newand generaııy
extemallyconstructedsetofvaluesandassumptions.Therevolution.therefore.brings
new values, new agendas, and often new pcople redefining the area which is driven by the
new paradigm. How far this analysis can fairly be transferred to social sciences and to the
studyand practice of public administration is highly controversial (5) but anothcr matter.
Nevertheless, academic discoursc on diffcrcnt form s of paradigmatic crisis and shifts has
been a common practice in social sciences (see Haque, 1996a). Public administration
could not avoid this trend cither (Şaylan, 1996). Many public administration scholars
from diffcrcnt ideological standpoints dcfend the value of paradigms as a means of
resolving the "crisis of identityOl in pu\)lic administraLion and argue that public
administralion cannot progrcss without an appropriate paradigm (see Ostrom, 1974-first
edition in1973; Bellone, 1980; Waldo, 1980; Harrnon, 1981). As amatter of fact,
numerous claims of a paradigm shift havc becn made since the mid- I970s. For example,
Henry's (1975) four paradigms characterise Lheevolution of public administration in the
twenticLh century, in particular in the American setting: "politics/administration
dichotomy" (1900-1926); "Lhe principles of adminisLration" (1927- 1937); "public
adminisLration as political science" (1950-1970); and "public administration as
administrative science" (1956-1970). The last paradigm (the so-called "generic
management" approach) competed with the poliLical science paradigm in the 1970s. Pcrry
and Kracmer (1983), influenced heaviIy by Henry's paradigms, proposed "public
management" as an emerging and integrative paradigm of the post- 1970s.

Recently, new claims of paradigm shift have been put forward: for example, the
move to "managerialism" (pollitt, 1993); the move to a "post-bureaucratic" paradigm
(Aucoin, 1990; Banclay with Armanjani, 1992; Kernaghan, 1993); or the move to
"market-based public administration" (Lan and Rosenbloom, 1992) or to "entrepreneurial
522 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNüLŞEN

govemment" (Osbome and Gaebler, 1992). Many authors are actually saying similar
things 'with different catchwords: Pinkerton's "new paradigm"; Hammer's "process re-
enginehring"; Johnston's "beyand bureaucracy" (see Goodsell, 1994: 178). There has
alsa been extensive discussion of the shifting values that underly the transition from
traditiünal public administratian to thenew public management (Hood, 1990b, 1991;
Pollitt; 1993; Mascarenhas, 1990; Rhodes, 1991; Dunleavy and Hood, 1994; Hughes,
1994) or to the "new public sectar management" (Jackson, 1994). At 1east, quite a few
authors have considered "public management" as a newand competing approach which
has bUn developed in order to study public sector (e.g. Gunn, 1987, 1988).

'Does the emergence of NPM represent the development of a "new paradigm"?

Undoubtedly its rhetoric suggests so. It is known that NPM represents a hostility to the
values' of traditional public administration. The consequence is the redefınition, isolation
or relOcation of the areas of the study of public administratian and the launching of a
comprehensive reform agencla in the public sectar. Therefore, same authors mentioned
above'consider this shift as an "cmerging paradigm". For more critical eyes, how far
NPM justifies a "new paradigm" remains an open question. This shift naturally gives
rise to the question, "what is new here?". Same aspects of NPM might be new in
companson with the traditional public administration. Thus, Eliassen and Kooiman say:
« we feel a change is in the air» (1987: 16) in this respeel. But, what is new in terms of
genenlı public management? Lynn (1996) explains in his review of the literature on
public' management that there is absolutely nothing new about the use of marketlike
mechanisms, privatisation, decentralisation, an emphasis on quality, or even a customer
orienıation. At this point Thompson asks: « Does this mean that the "new" in the New
Public Management is to he found, therefore, entirely in modifiers like "bold" or
"intensified"?». And he answers himself thus « [p]erhaps it is, but probably not» (1997:
166). '

The best point to begin to answer these questions is with public management
becau~e a New Public Management logically implies an old public management which
was developed in the 1970~; and 1980s. Although it is sametimes argued that public
management is only a renewed interest in long-standing isşues of the public sectar
exposed by the traditional approach, with an emphasis on contemporary applications (see
Allison, 1979; Rourke, 1984; Ingraham and Ban, 1986; Lynn, 1987; Rainey, 1990),
there are some significant differences between public management and traditional public
administratian approaches. According to Garson and Overman (1983), these involve: a
strong philosophical link with management studies in licu of close ties to political
scienee. Therefore, there is a focus on theorganisation itself rather than a focuson laws,
institutions, and political-bureaucratic processes, a focus on management values and
functions rather than soeial and politica\ values and confliets betwccn bureaueraey and
democraey, and a focus on middle-level managers rather than political (or policy) elites.
Thus, Lamore generic tendeney to minimise the differences between the public and private
sectar:' in lieu of accentuating them has been adopted.

As amatter of fact, the proponents of the NPM approach have not focused on
I
social, and political values and institutions either, although all have given more or less
attentlon to the political feasibility of reform. Instead, they have tended to focus on
managerial values and meclıanisms by establishing close ties to generic and business
. management studies For examplc, business gurus are all citedpositively and far mare
frequently than are the giants of public administratian. As Thompson (1997) argues,
 THE NEW PUBLle MANAGEMENT 523

NPM has a lot in comman with the old public management, but there are a1so same
important differences which make NPM a different version of general management
approach. It is less interested in organisations per se than in institutionaI design and
choice. it seeks to privatise public services that can be privatised; Lo contraet in or out
support services; Lo establish oottom-line bureaus govemed by contracts as appropriate;
to lake advantage of competitian where possible; and to restrict direct bureaucratic
provisian to core public services. As is seen, in addition to strong links with
management studies, NPM has c10se ties Lo economics, especially the economics of
organisations and public choice. This distinctive feature of NPM is alsa a result of its
relatian with New Right ideology (see Polliu, 1993 and 1996; Mascarenhas, 1993; Gray
and Jenkins, 1995; Rhodcs et al., 19~5; Famham and Horton, 1996b: 42).

Although same of its values and practices are not new, theyare reinterpreted or
reformulated under the new circumstances. For example, control and efficiency concerns
of Taylorism have become popular again under the label of "noo- Taylorism" (see Polliu,
1993). Alsa the traditional politics/administration dichatamy has come Lo the agenda
again with a new interpretation (6). With value for money analysis, economic concerns
are renewed. However, NPM is not one in which old tmths can be reasserted. It is one
in which "new principles" have to be developed. Government must face the challenge of
innovation rather thanrely on imitation. Improving public management is not just a
matter of catching-up with what is already being done in business; it alsa involve's
brcaking new ground (see Metcalfe and Richards, 1990: 35).

Same authors consider NPM as a "revolutian", or a "paradigm shift", but others

see it as "explorations" lowards a new paradigm ör a "compcting visian" (see Kooiman
and Eliassen, 1987; Gray and Jenkins, 1995). It seems to us it will lead to anather long
lasting theoretical debate in the field. Although the terms used .by these authors are
different and these various terms reficct, to same extent, differing views of what is
aceuring, they do have comman points to indicate the same phenomenon: improving
management in the public scclor by replacing tradiıianal public administratian with a
new approach. Whether these developments are so great as to call them a "revolutian" or
"paradigm shifı" is subject lO endless debate, and especiaIIy is amatter for empiricial
invesligation, bul one thing is certain. The nalure of conducling public affairs in the
public sectar and the s1rUcıure, practices and culıure of the public sectar are changing
significantly. Despiıe its highly rhetorical and riıualistic aspecı, nabooy can deny and
ignore the scope and effcct of the recent changes in the public sectar. These changes,
guided by NPM, have aıready had substantial impacts on the relationships between
govemment, bureaucracy and cilizens/customers. Mareaver, all these changes are
legilimised by us ing the "government failure" argumenı and severe crilique of the
tradiıional approach and the discipline of public adminislration.

B. The Critique of the Traditional Publie Administration

Approaeh

Two main compcting.mOOels or approaches can be distinguished in both academic

studies and practices in the public seclar for approximateıy last two decades. The fırst one
is the traditional public administration approach. The "public" aspect and
'bureaucratic/legal process" of public seclar are highlighted by this approach and thus it
is orienıed lawards public philosophy (public lawand political seience). The lradilional
public administratian approach, the longesı standing theoretical framework to the study
524 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

of public sector, is now being challenged and partially supplanted by NPM. Almost a
cenuİry af ter its adoption, it cannot be expected that traditional approach will disappear or
will be replaced completely by another approach ovemight As a matter of fact, same of
its fundamental elements still exist However, theyare now considered old-fashioned and
no longer relevant to the needs of a rapidly changing society sincethe focus of
govemments has shifted from !egaVformal and rigid structures, procedures and safeguards
to flexible structures, and results (Hughes, 1994: 24). Within this framework, it would
not be a mistake to say that bureaucratic and legal rules and even the relationships
between the administration and laware the first things to be questioned. Since
economic/managerial rationality has been rapidly replacing legal rationality,
administrative lawand its basic concepts, institutions and principles, in particular in the
continental European countries, have been reconsidcred. Even in those countries which
have a long tradition of administrative law, there is a tendecy from the application of
administrative law to that of private law i from the application of administratiye justice to
that of general jurisdiction. The performance of govemment is no longer assessed by the
only: criterion of legality but by some langible results. Therefore, the govemment is
looking for a new rationaht)' and the internal structures and procedures of govemment are
being radically altered (fan, 1988, 1995).

! The theoretical foundations of the traditional public administration approach

deri~e from several source~: from Wilson came the "politics/administration dichotomy"
in order to make public administration an independent discipline and to achieve political
neutrality in the public services; from the Northcote-Trevelyan Report (in the U.K.) in
1854 and the Pendlcton Act (the U.S. Civil Service Act) in 1883 came the "merit
system" against the patronage system; from Weber cam e the "theory of bureaucracy";
from Taylor came "scientific managemenC'(the one best way); and from classieal writers
such as Fayol, Gulick, and Urwick came "universal principles of administration". Thus,
the discipline of public administration was established, in particular in the Anglo-
American world, on a "teclınical" base by Wilson, Weber and Taylor in order to separate
it from political science. While politics/administration dichatamy was used to establish
an independent discipline of public administration from political science, the demareation
line between public administratian and private management has become blurred.
Political neutrality guarantecd efficiency in administration, and efficiency concem
legiumised political neutrality (see Bouckaert, 1990: 55). As administratian was seen
politieaııy neutral and teclınical, there would be nothing unique about the operational
me~ods used in the public sectar. As amatter of facl, most of the major classical figures
in this field claim that their theories and insights apply to most or all types of
organisations (Rainey, 1991: 4-5; 16-18). As a result, a series of methods were imported
from the private sectar. The main concem of the traditional approach was, therefore,
effiÇiency though the means to achieve this aim (e.g. monolithic structures,
centralisatian, uniformity, hurcaucratic processes) were diffetent from the means of taday.
In ille continenlal Europe, the traditional approach had more normative aspects, despite
the discipline of public administratian strugglcd to have its independence from general
public law.

i Theorisation in this field began in the second-half of the nineteenth century and
then became formalised in the first quarter of the twentieth century. The traditional model
was! of course, modified to same extent in time by the effects of thearetical and
ideological developmcnts: For example, although the mechanisms set up against spoils
system were totaly adopte:d and supported, the politics/administration dichatamy was
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 525

denied by political science-oriented perspectives. Allhough bureaucratic structures were

constructed in accordance with the principle of separation between politics and
administration,lhis principle was widely regarded as a "mylh" (Caiden, 1982: 82; Peters,
1989: 4). The aııempt to be a "non-political" was alsa considered as a reluctance to
recognise lhe distintiye political nature and significance of lhe public service. Countless
studies and commonsense observatiqn by practitioners testify to lhe fact lhat elhical
judgements by administrations intrude into lhe policy formation process at alııevels. As
amatter of fact, lhis mylh has been called into question since lhe Iate 1940s (see Marx,
1946; Appleby, 1949; Gaus, 1950; Long, 1954; Shick, 1975) and lhen discrediled to a
great extent

As Kingdom points out, if one accepts lhe unreality of lhe distinction between
politics and administration, it becomes logically necessary to assert lhe actuality of lhe
distinction between public and private administration because policy-making in lhe
public sector profoundly differs from lhat in lhc private sector in terms of process,
content, and elhical purpose (1986a: 3). AIlhough its main bureaucmtic characteristics
were largely remained , lhe "public" aspects of the approach wcre asserted more of ten and
loudly (Le. more realist interpretation of lhe dichotomy of politics and administration on
lhe base of political neutrality rather than a fictious separation betwcen policy-making
and administration functions (7); direct public service provision; public service
professionalism; public service unionism; more humanistic employce relations) by lhe
political scicnce-oriented perspectivcs such as "new public administratian" and "public
policy", ,wilh lhe effect of social-democratic post-w ar consensus. Thus, lhe political
nature of lhe traditional approach was emphasised in addition to its technical expertise.
This is why the traditional approach draw same characteristic debatcs not only from lhe
world of administrative/bureaucratic theories but alsa from political science. However,
lhis kind of modification did not change lhe bureaucratic character of lhe approach but
reinforeed it due to increased direct service provision and public service professionalism.
As a result, this modification has reinforced the criticisms against inefficiency stemming
from uniform-centralist-bureaucratic cIassical principles instead of bringing a new
solution to this acute problem of the public sector.

The traditional public administration approach was; without any doubt, a great
improvement over previous administrative lhoughts and practices, bul the inadequacics of
lhis approach are now apparent, in particular, in terms of efficiency concerns. Public
administration was considered as a governmental application of generic administratiye
concepts and practices by many cIassical writers such as Wilson in order to gain public
administration's independence from political science. However, lheir tools to achieve
efficiency in government were very rigid and bureaucratic (see Hughes, 1994: 44-56).
There are also some particular problems with Weberian model of burcaucracy which have
becn highlighted especially by public choice writers. The first problem is lhe Weberian
model of bureaucratic behaviour. Weber considered, or aticast he wanted, that burcaucrats
automatically follow lhe rules to scek public inıerest whereas public choice writers
consider individual bureaucrat as a rational man secking his self-interest (Le. utility-
maximisation hypothesis) and cIarify his role in "office politics". Therefore, lhey have
developcd strong arguments regarding burcaucrats as endogenous non-passive agents who
have lheir own personal interests lhat will influence policy outcomes (Tullock, 1965;
Downs, 1967; Niskanen, 1971; Jackson, 1982). The second problem is alsa one Weber
did not foresee. This is the supposed technical superiority of burcaucracy that Weber saw
as higher than through any other conceivable process. However, Weberian burcaucracy is
"
526 I. UGUR ÖMÜRGöNüLŞEN

no ılnger ~niversallY seen as a form of organisatian which provides the maximum

teehnical efficiency. it is !itrongly argued that it breeds timeserves not innovatars, it
encoUrages administrators ıo be risk-averse rather than risk-taking and ta waste scarce
resoUrces instcad of using them efficiently. Weber saw bureaucracy as the "ideal type" but
bureaucracy is usually criticised for producing inertia, lack of initiative, red tape,
med~ocrity and inefficiency. 'Mareover, all these diseases thought to be endemic in
public organisations (Crozier, 1964; Merton, 1968; Caiden, 1981).
i
i There are newer theories of organisational structure and behaviour which argue
that form al bureaucratic model is no longer particularly efficient or effeetive, when
compared to more flexible forms of management. The tradilional public administratian
apprbach was developcd at a particular stage of industrialisation. It suited relatively
smail and stable public seetar (Thompson, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979, 1983; Hood, 1990b;
Hill. 1992). Despite same of its advantages (e.g. preeision, continuity, stability,
discipline, reliability), fixed and rigid procedures and orderly working patterns do not
work when the environment is constantly changing (see Schön, 1983; Drucker, 1986;
and Argyris, 1990). As a mauer of fact, it «simply doles] not funclion well in the rapidly
changing, information-rich, knowledge - intensiye society and eeonomy of the 1990s»
(Osbome and Gaebler, 1992: 12). IL is now of ten argued that the traditional model was a
great reform in its day, but its "golden age" has go ne and the world has moved
on(lj,ughes, 1994: 48, 56). What has previously been positively valuedare now
considered as costs rather than benefits. Therefore, it is argued that the public
orgaİıisations should be d~signed according to "post-orthodox" principles which are
derived from the new realilies of the public sector (i.e. complcxity, public-private sectar
intetaction, tcchnological change, limited resources for growth, diversity of workforce
i
and clientele, individualism and personal responsibility, quality of life and
environmenta1ism) (see Emmert, Crow and Shangraw, Jr.,1993). Traditional bureaucratic
prinbples should be reconsidered (balancing the trade off between speed and
misılııce/abuse) and then used in accordance with the change in society (see Rhodes, 1991:
553~554; and Kclman, 199-1).

, Traditional public administration is now considered as one of the main sources of

effidiency and effectiveness problem s in public services with its monopolistic service
production and provision, vague notian of public interesı, overcentralist, overbureaucratic
and tocrcive features. The traditional approach has aI1inpuı-dominated struclure. It is too
obscssed with regulaling processes and controlling inputs rather than conceming with
results (Osbome and Gaebler, 1992: 14). Once an organisation sel up it is assumed that
establishing the hierarchy. the personnel system, and the like, would Icad ta satisfacıory
results by themselves. The efficiency and effectiveness of the tasks are the concem of
sameone else. Also, politicians may not have been capable of or willing to moniıor
performance. Newer theories of organisation, however, recognise that formal burcaucracy
has Same strengths bul that there are altemative structures possible (Veechio, 1991).
Thel privaıe seelor is moving away from, formal bureaucratic structures towards
deeentralised and flexible structures. With the effect of this change, the focus of
subSequent reforms in ıhe public seclor has a1so be~n to move away from a rigid and
bur~ucratised structure ta a more fluid structure. While there may be a necd for order and
precision in management, there is now a greater need forspeed, flexibilityand results.
Hmı(cver, changing the existing system into a one that is speedy, risk-taking, output-
oriented, innovative and efficient requires a remarkable change in the public service
culture.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 527

in brief, the 1980s and 1990s have witnessed a transfonnation in the economy and
management of many advanced countries. Goveroments have implemented more or less
similar economic and managerial stratcgies as a "universal panacea", ta make their public
sectars like corporate business (see Metcalfe and Richards, 1990; Boyle, 1992; Massey,
1993; Ormond, 1993; Self, 1993; Hughes, 1994; Savoie, 1994; Bouckaert and
Halachmi, 1995; ILO, 1995; Johnston and Callender, 1997; Masearenhas, 1993; Buller,
1994; also see OECD-PUMA publicalions and OECD PubHc Management
Developments Surveys in those years). The statist, bureaucratic, paternalist, unifonn
and monolithic, centralist and hierarchical fonn of public administration is changing to a
market-based (flexible, decentralist, innovative, and entrepreneurial) fonn of public
management

C. Deeline in the Prestige of Publie Administration Diseipline

Recent changes menlioned above have challenged not only the values, structure
and operation of the public sector but have shaken the pillars of the diseipline of public
administration. Public administraıion a" a studyand practice is usually considered as a
rather "dull area" or "boring subject" linked to the seclor that is seen as out of fashion
(see Kingdom, 1990: 13; Chandler, 1991: 44). Even the tcnn "public administration" as
a diseiplinc and practice seems to be under threat, with tenns like "public managcment"
or "public sector management" bcing USed increasingly instcad (Grccnwood and Wilson,
1988: 349 and 1989: 15) (8). There has been a tendency that the discipline of public
administration is repudiated and iı is getting defined as public management The evidence
of this tendency of change can be understood from the recent modifications made in the
name of institutions, academic courses, prestigious conferences, academic/official
publications and in the ir locations and contents. The term "public administration" is
disappearing fast due to the flurey of institutional renaming public administration courses
to incorporatc management in the tille (e.g. courses in public sector management, public
policyand management, public administration and management, and public management
appeared on the seene) (see Hunt, 1990; Chandler, 1991; Midwinter, 1990; Gray and
Jenkins, 1995: 82; Pollitt, 1996: 84-85). Meanwhile, the actual work done by public
authorities is far more of ten called "managemenı" (Hughes, 1994: 8). There has been a
trend towards the use of words "management" and "manager" within the public sectoro
"Public administration" and "administrator" are dearly losing favour as a descripıion of
the work carried out. The term manager is bccoming more common, where once
administrator was used (polliu 1993: vii; Hughes, 1994: 6; see also Gray and Jenkins,
1995: 84; and Aucoin,1988: 153). A new class of managers are being created out of
administratars and professionals (Hoggeu, 1991: 254). Indccd, the overall process has
produced a shift from management by professionals to professionalisation of
management (Thompson and McHugh, 1995: 89).

Although there is a close link belween idcological/economic transformation

experienced in the public sector and the repudiation of the tradİlional public
administralion approach, this repudiation is also an inevitable result of the disarray (Le.
the assumcd "identity crisis" or "intellectual crisis") (9) of the discipline of public
administration in tenns of its seope, subject matter, and research methodology (ıo). In
other words, diversities and inadequaeies in theoretical approaches, research topics and
methodologies, research quality, education curricula; and the defensive attitudes of public
administration scholars have also facilitated the repudiation of tradilional public
 528 UGUR ÖMüRGöNüLŞEN

administratian approach and the ri se of NPM as an alternative approach or a new

paradigm. Ostrom (1974) cIaims that we can anLicipate a resolutian of the inteUectual
crisis in public administralion only if an alternative paradigm is available. The
alternative paradigm is inherent in the work of contemporary political economists
(mainly public choice writers). Thus NPM containing some public choice assumptions
could be a new paradigm to overcome the identity crisis (IL).

Public administraLicm deparunents and scholars, in particular in theU.K., have

become outsiders in the recent developments in the studyand practice of the public sectar
(see Rhodes, 1991: 548,550; Dunsire, 1995: 21) except a small minority (e.g. Dunsire
and Hood, 1989; Dunlcavy, 1991; alşo see ESRC's research initiative on Management in
Goveroment, 1985). New Rightist think-tanks, business people (e.g. contrnctors), some
government organisations and practitioners (e.g. same central control agencies, audit
commissions, specialised commiuees and high - level public officials-the elite ranks) and
professionals (e.g. accountants and lawyers) and management consultanLc; and so-called
management gurus shaped the content of NPM and supported the reforms since they have
diffcrcnt stakes in that (pollitt, 1993: 8-10; 46, 47; 1996: 84; see also Hood, 1990a:
113; :Rhodes, 199 i: 548-550; Boston, 1991: 9; and Johnston and CalIender, 1997: 53).
PubIic administralion scholars now suffer from what Bozeman calls "market fatigue"
(1988: 672). They have bccome worried (Ventıiss, 1989) and demoralised, perhaps
because of the growing uncertainity about their professional future caused by the
declining crebility of the field (Hughes,1994: 272; Holtham, 1992: 84). Theyare also in
some danger of becoming irrelevant (Hughes, 1994: 272). Some of them are content
with severly criticising NPM (see Keating, 1988; Pollitt, 1993; Elcock, 1991;
Campbell, 1995), some otlıers have reacted to NPM by reasserting that management
function in the public domain is "unique" (Stewart and Ranson, 1988, and Ranson and
Stewaı-t, 1994) or by offering a radical approach to public administration (Dunleavy,
1982). Hood (1990a) described the predicament of the discipline of public administration
welllin his artiele named "Public Administration: Lost an Empire, Not Yet Found a
Role?". As lordon puts, the territory of public administration has bcen "balkanised"
(quoted in Rhodes et aL., 1995: 13). Business studies, economics and accountancy have
occupied and colonised the field (Hopwood and Tomkins, 1984: 167; Power and
Laughlin, 1992; Hood, 1995b: 170-172; Rhodes ct aL., 1995: 13). Therefore, the future
of public administratian se~ms "bleak" (Rhodes et al., 1995: 14; Rhodes, 1996: 513).
Although Dunleavy admits that public administration has had an appalling record of
looking forward and correetly amicipating trends and future developments of central
relevlmce to the subject, he bclieves that this anachronislic position is likely to recede a
bit inı future as the current wave of reforms guided by NPM stabilizes and as many of its
internal difficulties. He also argues that public administratian as a discipline has now.
internalised many NPM id~s and is slowly rebuilding a management-oriented orthodoxy
to replace its traditional approach (1994: 36-37; Dunleavy and Hood, 1994). However,
in this situation, whether we can stiıı caıı the discipline and its mainstream approach as
"public administration" is a highly debatable poinL

i
II. Changes in Perceptions
Economic and Political/ldeological
and Prioritiesin
Transformation
the Public Sector:
Gave Rise to the
i
New Public Management Approach

i Administrative refornı efforts before i980s wcre undertaken as a r.echnical activity

to improve the administrative ability of govemment within the sphere of the ttaditional
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 529

public administration understanding. However, governmental or administratiye failure

was considered as a politicaVideological problem in addition to its technical (economic
.and managerial) aspect in the 1980s. As we mentioned in the intraduction section, the
debate of the 1980s was abaut the "roIling back the frontiers of govemment" in the face
of phenomenon of "big government". The focus was on "what" government
organisations manage in the smailcr, liberalised and commercialiscd govemment, with a
more govemance level (Le. more extemal and economic) concem. In the 1990s, this
noisy debate over govemment's role and size gaye way to less ideological and more
pragmatic one. The debate of the i 990s is, therefore, no longer the same though it is
linked to the previous debate. The rolling back the frontiers of govemment policy has
faced serious difficulties in carrying on some core public services. The driving force
behind recent administrative reforms has dearly been, therefore, to provide at Ieast the
same level of public service with relatively fewer resources, given that most political
regimes have not been willing or able to substantially cutback on public services
themselves. Furthermore, eve n if the public seetor is shrunk thanks to the privatisation
of state owned enterprises, the problem of efficient use of resources in this smaller public
sector has still been wailing lo resolve especially for core public services financed
ıhrough taxation. In other words, since there is alimiı lO achieve reduction in the
relative share of the govemmenı in the economy, pressure lO improve efficicncy has
increased. The focus has shifled LO "how" govemment organisations are managed, with a
more management level (i.e. internal and managerial) concem. It is realised that the
efficient management of the public sector affecıs the private economy and national
competitiveness and that improving managemenl in the public sector is an integral part
of the structural adjusıments' whichare required for better economic performance in
changing global environment since the public and private seetors are bccoming more
interdependent. This reality has forced the govemments to search new system of ideas,
structures, and practices which is appropriate to this relatively smailer public sectoro
Nevertheless, this new search in the public seetor as the only viable political option has
increased the dissonancc bclween the govemment objectives and present administratiye
structures and processes. Therefore, a new task has emerged in order to have
administratiye structure and networks keep up with the economic and politicaVideological
transformation (see Muhammad, 1988; Prokopenko. 1989; Aucoin, 1991: 132-133;
Keating, 1991: 235; Pollilt, 1993: 48; Hughes, 1994: 67-68; 256; see also OECD-
PUMA public management development surveys in the 1990s). The teehnical aspect of
reform efforts has become dominant again to increase the efficiency and effeetiveness of
this limited govemment, but this time it has been treated within the sphere of NPM
understanding (Hughes, 1994: 256).

A. NPM as a Megatrend in the Publie Seetor

As Christensen pointed out, the search for more efficienı provision of public
services has been expanded to a "general crusade" in order to reorganise the public sectar
by intraducing new forms of management (1988: 55). In many OECD countries,
national public sectors are radically transformed and restructurcd by intradueing market-
bascd values (competition, innovation, value for money, customer responsiveness);
competitiye market conditions (competitive tendering, contracting-out, internal markets);
decentralised structures and processes (decentraliscd, disintegraıed, and deregulatcd civil
service departments; devolved budgeting; decentralised and deregulatcd human resource
management); and importing many other superior private sector management practiccs
(new management information and performance measurement systems) (see Boston,
530, UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

1987, 1991, 1996; Aucoin, 1988, 1990; Shick, 1990; Caiden, 1991; Hoggett, 1991;
Hoo<t, 1991; Stewartand Walsh, 1992; Jsaac-Henry, Barnes and Painter, 1993;
Masearenhas, 1993; Ormond, 1993; Hughes, 1994; Peters and Savoie, 1994; Savoie,
1994; Holmes and Shand, 1995; Kouzmin, Dixon and Wilson, 1995; Foster and
Plo~den, 1996; Pollitt. 1996; Ingraham, 1997. Also see the OECD-PUMA public
management developmenB surveys in 1990s. For recent developments in the Turkish
pubİic sector, see Ömürgönülşen, 1995; Tan, 1995; Ayman-Güler, 1996). In brief, this
transformation has brought important changes in the relationships between market and
govemment, government and bureaucracy, govemment and the citizenry, and bureaucracy
and 'the citizenry. As a paradigmatic change, it.s effect on the studyand practice of
management of the public sector is also reınarkable (see Hughes, 1994: 256; 278-279).
The' traditional public administration approach has almost been replaced by a new
approach, NPM.
,
: The rise of NPM over the last two decades is considered as one of the most
stri~ing "megatrends" in public administration (Hood,1989). Although the term NPM
appears mainly in British administratiye literature, it is not uniquely British
dev410pment. Hood (l990b, 1991: 3) has linked the rise of NPM with other major
administratiye megatrends since explanations for that development are not reduciable
merely to the characteristics of a political leader or even to the accession to power of a
political party. A complex set of short-run and long-mn historical factors can join where
explanations are sought (Willcocks and Harrow, 1992: xiii).
i
: We can explain these political, econom'ic and administratiye trends briefly as
follows (see Hood, 1989 and 1991; Wright, 1992: 35-36; Isaac-Henry, 1993;
M~arenhas, 1993: 320; Dunleavy, 1994; Farazmand, 1994; Hughes, 1994: 9-20):

i (i) An intense "anti-governmental attaek" on the size, role, values and practices of
the govemment following a serious financial crisis. Since this ideological and political
attack was extended to public opinion in the Iate 1970s and 1980s, public bureaucracy
has beeome a useful scap'~goat for financial difficulties, and then the "withdrawal of
government" as an attempt to reverse government growth through cutbacks and
privatisation and to rederine the role, values and practices of government through
economic liberalisation and marketisation has become an official policy of many
governments. This policy has also faced little effectiye opposition in the 1990s since the
poli~ical and economic environment has changed from centrally planned eeonomy to
market-based economy almast everywhere.

(ii) In the 19805 and 1990s economic theories (e.g. public choice, principal-agent,
tran$action-cost economic5, and ownership rights) have provided theoretical backing for
polilical and ideological attacIcing on the public sector. They have provided alternatives,
mainly market and commercial solutions, to the vague/fuzzy and bureaucratic notions of
the traditional public service and then economic thinking has begun to replace the
traditional understanding of public administration in the public sectoro

i(iii) A more "international agenda" has bcen developed for the studyand practice
of public administration. Public administration scholars and practitioners, now, live in
what is much more of a "global viııage" conceptuaııy. Since the public and private

,
sectors are seen interdependent and the improving managemcnt in the public seetar is
considered an integral part of the structural adjustments necd for better economic
,
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 531

perfonnance (Le. higher national competitiveness) in a changing global environment, the

structural and operational changes occured in the private sector in the post-Fordist era
have also influenced the management function in the public sector. Leaner and flatter
organisational structures and decentralised and flexible management style are prominent
examples of this new era. The spread of ideas and the impact of "infonnation technology"
now occur so rapidly that national barriers are becoming inereasingly artificial. Asimilar
managerial refonn agenda is now being implemented in many eountries and the older
nadition of individual country specialism in public administration is dying out by means
of "globalisation". In other words, transnational pressures on nation states to standardise
their policies wiU powerfully erode the existing single - country distinctiveness of public
service markets. In brief, it can be said that globalisation, blurring the dichotomy
between formaııy public and private spheres, roııing back the frontiers of the state,
liberalisation and marketisation and structural (economic/administrative) adjustrnent
refonns leading to "hollow state" are all interwoven processes.

These trends are not jointly exhaustive of developments in this field. They
certainly overlap and are causally related .. Therefore, NPM is of ten interpreted as a
consequenee of a shift to "smailer government" and as a form of "ineııectual
privatisation" of the study of public administration (Hood, 1989: 350).

The emergence of NPM is not simply a matter of change in management style,

but it is considercd a "paradigm shift" to a new approach to the public sector. This new
"paradigm" poses a direct challenge to the distinctive nature, culture, and fundamenta!
principles of the traditional public administration. Supcriority of market •• rather than
hierarchical bureaucracy; responsiveness to consumers; a greater focus on results than
processes, on initiative and responsibility rather than its evasion, and on management
rather than administration, and a greater concem with value for money(economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness) are bccoming the new Values of the public seetoro The
changes in approach and values in the public seetor demand that public administrators
should think, act and perfonn more like private seetor managers who have greater concem
with efficiency. As Jackson points out, nowadays NPM is considered as a means of
improving public seetor efficiency (1994: 121); and it is also generaııy accepted that
market-type culture,structures, teehniques, and managerial knowledge and skills are
crucial for public sector efficiency (see Pollitt, 1993; Hoggett, 199 i; Hood, 1991;
Stewart and Walsh, 1992).

Anglo-American countries (Le. the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand) have bccome pioneers in economic and administrative refonn programmes.
Many other developed Westem countries have followed remarkably similar policies.
Even Eastern European countries and many developing countries because of their
economic and political depcndencies on the Westem world and their being under the
influence of international financial institutions have in fact been launching similar
policies. Not only conservative governm.ents, but also social-democratic govemments
launched administrative reform programmes conceming decision-making, budgeting,
decentralisation, human resource management, infonnation technology, ete. in the 1980s
and early 1990s (Muhammad, 1988; Caiden, 1991; L1ewellyn and Potter, 1991; Wright,
1992; Butler, 1994; ILO, 1995; Mascarenhas, 1993; Massey, 1993; World Bank, 1994;
and Haque, 1996b; Ingraham, 1997).
532 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNÜLŞEN

i
Much of the existing literature on NPM comes from cr is stimulated by the
writings in Anglo-American world. However, there are some distinctive features among
natiorial reform programmes because the ideas have been put together with different aims
and emphases and in different ways. Fıirthermore, the implementations have been
achided in different sequenccs and speed in those countries. Therefore, the transplantation
of arguments and examples from the typical Anglo-American context to other contexts
(e.g. continental European countries and espcciaııy developing countries) should be
treated with caution. We necd to be careful about over-generalisations on public seetoİ"
refonlıs. For example, while in some countries the reform s may aim at reducing the role
and size of the government (c.g. the U.K.), in others, theyare perceived as defending and
enhancing the government and then maintaining the legitimacy of the state '(e.g.
Ausı.ralia, France and Scandinavian countries). The reforms in the U.S. are quite
nonstrategic, at least until NPR of Gore (1993), and ineremental. The experiences of the
U.K. and Australia have proceeded in stages, but the U.K. has adopted a more ideological
pasition in promoting private sector values and practices against those of public services
whil~ Australia has tried to seek a general consensus on the reform by considering its
constitutional difference. A more fresh and zealous start and comprehensive model
influ~nced mainly by ~e new instutional economics has been adopted in New Zealand.
Scandinavian countries have followed a more measured approach, while most continental
EuroPean (administrative law) countries such as ltaly, Spain and Austria have only
achieved smailer changes. There are some countries where public sector reform is not
majo~ issue as yet - Germarıy and lapan. The role of politics and politicalleadership is
also linked to the various models of reform. More comprehensive and strategic efforts
require great initial political will and leadership but ineremental efforts require more
continuous political invol"emenl. Therefore, a country's state tradition, system of
government, its constitutional - legal system and legislative process, its political and
administratiye culture, the political leadership st yle in its politics; the existence arid i

power of staff organisations, the stage of socio-economic development, and even its
native language are country specific factors affecting the essence, direction and success of
a reform programme (see Kooiman and Eliasscn, 1987; Eliassen and Kooiman, 1993;
Masearenhas, 1993; Ridlcy, 1996; Harris, 1990; Holmes, 1992; Haque, 1996b; Polliu,
1993: 193; OECD, 1993 and 1995; Stiliman, 1997; lngraham, 1997). Therefore, it is
argudd that managerialisation is much easier in Anglo-American countriesbecause there
is litiı c law involved, regulations are made and changed by the government, their
administrative structure and tradition is more flexible than Napoleonic or Prussian types,
there' are large-scale and successful private sector examples in the economy, and
managerialliterature is essenLİally developed in the English language (Ridlcy, 1996; see
alsa Savoie, 1994). Despite these differences, the recent developments represent an
obvious break with the bureaucratic traditions of many countries, in particular, of
continental European countries. As Holmes and Shand point out, the changes in the
strueture and management of national public sectors reflect greater convergence across the
political spectrum. The convergence is apparent within the OECD countries, but it is
alsa 'apparent in many developing- countries, and in economies in transition (Le the
former centrally planned economies) since the basic principles of reform are relevant for
every country (1995: 554; 576-577).

B. Political/ideological ties of NPM

i NPM is claimed to be a politicaııy "neutral" approach within which many

diffeİ"ent values could be pursued cffcetively. lts propanents arguc that different political
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 533

priorities and circumstances could be accommodated by altering the "settings" of the

management system, without the need to rewrite the basic programme of NPM. That
framework is not, according to NPM's advocates, a machine exclusively tunable to
respond to the demands of the New Right or to any one political partyar progr;unme (see
for example, Scott, Bushnell and Sallee, 1990: 162; British Treasury and Civil Service
Committee, 1990: ix, 22, 61). In this respect, Hood rightly argues that NPM followed
the c1aims to "universality" of traditional public administratian. it alsa purported to offer
a neutral and aU-purpose instrument for realizing whatever goals elccted representatives
might set (1991: 8; see Ostrom, 1974; and Hood, 1987) (12).

Every grand reform project represents a particular politica1/ideological visian

(Gray and Jenkins, 1995). Therefore, me change from traditional public administratian
approach to NPM approach is, however, not innocuous and value-free as is of ten
supposed (Jackson, 1994: 121). It could be argued that managerialisation in its broad
sense is a deeper "idealagical process" transforming relationships of power, culture,
control and accountability (Clarke, Cochrane and McLaughlin, 1994a: 3). With same
important exceptions, such as PoIIitt (1993), Hoggett (1991), Hood (1991), Taylor-
Gooby and Lawson (1993) and Clarke, Cochrane and McLaughlin (1994a, 1994b) this
process has generaIIy been presented as a transition from administratiye rationality to an
alternative (usually superior) form of technical rationality. Therefore, their emphasis is
on "teaching" public managers how to change their practice (see, for example, Metcalfe
and Richards, 1990; Willcocks and Harrow, 1992). The main critical view of NPM, on
the other hand, has dismissed it as littlc more than a "fad" or an "ideological
smokescreen" behind which disinvestment, privatisation and increased exploitation of
labour are hidden (see, for example: Johnson, ı990). In contrast, the process of
managerialisation is neither merely a politically neutral and rational information-
processing/decision-making black box nor a smokescreen which conceals more
significant events. Instead, it could be argued that managerialisation constitutes the
means through which the structure and culture of public services are being recast. In
doing so, it seeks to dismantle the_"old" consensus and then introduces new orientations
and remodels existing power relations (bureau-professionalism) within and around the
welfare state and affects how and where public policy choices are made. Within this
context, NPM has strengthened the political project of restructuring the state by
providing relatively new systems ofauthority, control and motivation to unlock the
bastions of the traditional (bureaucratic and professional) model of public administratian.
Thus, NPM has been forged out of a complex articulation between changes in the realms
of both politics and managemenl. It has, in certain instances, politicised rather than
depoliticised public service issues. This is why NPM matters (Clarke, Cochrane,
McLaughlin, ı994a: 4; ı994b: 227, 23 ı,232; and Newman and Clarke, ı994).

It seems that there is a "casual" relationship between "New Right" policies,

formulated as an "alternativc" to the ongoing "crisis" which has emerged as a result of
Keynesian economics and the welfare state, and the "public management" thesis (see
Üstüner, 1992: 99-101; 1995; also see Aksoy, ı995;' Özen, 1995). The origins of public
management (especially NPM) have been attributetl to New Right ideology though its
roots lie further back in Scientific Management theory and same offıcial reform reports
such as the Fulton Report (1968) for the British Civil Service. NPM and recent public
sectar reforms guided by NPM emerged out of the coincidence of particular
circumstances, both economic (decline in profit rates and increase in world-wide
competition coming mainly from Far Eastern countries; petrol shocks; relatively slow
534 ; UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

i
rate qf growth due to mainly crowded-out public seetor), social (rising expectations about
public services and change in demographic structure) and political (general public.
disenchantment with govemment and, in particular, with the quality of public services;
and then a shift in political ideas about the role of govemment) prescnt - albeit to
varyıng degrees - in the Western World which characterised the last quarter of the
twentieth century (see Hood, 1991; Mascarenhas, 1993; PoIlitt, 1993; Zifcak, 1994).
Although there is some truth in the view that the rise of NPM is a prime result of the
economic/financial crisis - reccssion combined with increased international competition
(see Schwartz, 1994; and, Thompson, 1997), such economic and financial pressures do
not solely explain the content of public sector reforms. In the second half of the
nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, increased international
comi>etitiveness and depression seem to have inevitably led to more goveiTIment, more
bureaucracy and greater reliance on hierarchical and centralised solutions (Thompson,
1997). On the other hand, in the 1980s and 1990s, eeonomic theories (e.g. public choice,
principal-agent, transactiorı-cost economics, and ownership rights) provided theoretical
bac~ing for political and ideological attacks on the public sector; and the structural and
operational changes in the private sector have influenced management in the public sector
by mcans of the trend to globalisation (Hughes, 1994: 9-20). In other words, capitalism
save~ itself by creating general consensus on Keynesian economic management and the
welfare state. However, thi.s policy could not save the capitalist system from crisis this
time. and furthermore, it has been secn as the main reason for the crisis (Şaylan, 1994,
199Ş). The international e~onomic crisis, it was considered, could be solved by more
market-oriented policies and cconomic liberalisation, but globalisation of national
economies seemcd inconsistent with prevailing government polices, largely confined to
national boundaries. Govemments and the public had to be convinccd of the neeessity and
benefits of economic liberalisation and marketisation, foIlowed by the reform of the
pubjic sector (Mascarenh.ls, 1993: 320). New Rightist ideologues and conservative
politicians hadplentiful ammunition with which to bombard their opponents with the
glaring government failure and discomforts of the 1970s and with the help of right-wing
thinlc tanks and international financial organisations (Economist, May 6,1989: 62-64;
Pollitt, 1996: 84). They captured and exploited citizen dissatisfaction and then translated
it i~to demands for smaIler, leaner and more responsive government(Ingraham, 1997:
326). As a matter of facı, nowadays, government intervention is no longer seen as
desiTable; the private seetar is held up as a model of eeonomic efficiency in contrast to
the monopoly ridden public seetor (Minford, 1984). ınsıcad of traditional administratiye
means, some kinds of privatisation and the introduction of private management practices
are remedies offered by ıhe cirdes of the New Right to enhance the competence of
government in order to resDlve the "crisis". Famham and Hoı:ton argue, therefore, that it
is ~ot too much to daim that NPM is, to so me large degree, a by-product of the
ascendancy of New Right ideas. Without the shift in emphasis from politics to markets,
from welfare to enterprise and from state monopolies to the "new model" enabling state,
the managerialist idea s and practices based on private-sector orthodoxy, would not have
takdn root as they have done( 1996a: 23). .

i In the U.K., Mr. HeseItine (1980), as a former Secretary of State for the
Environment, said: « Efficient management is a key to the [national] revival ... And the
management ethos must mn right through our national life - private or public .... ». In
the private seetor, NPM has been essentially "market-driven". The changes in private
business have sometimes been enforced upon a frightened and reluctant workforce by
"macho" style of management. In addition to the common view about the technical
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 535

superiority of private seetor management teehniques and practices over traditional public
administration ones, NPM has been "politically-driven" in the public seetor. As Pollitt
writes, for the New Right, better management provides II label under which private
seetor disciplines can be introduced to the public services, political control can be
strengthened, budgets trimmed, professional autonomy reduced, public service unions
weakened and a quasi-competitive framework erected to flush out the natural
"inefficiencies" of bureaucracy (1993: 49).

Thus it can be seen that there is a highly developed political agenda underpinning
NPM in the public sectoro NPM and current public seetor reform programmes, in brief,
are a distinctive element of New Rightist policies towards the public seetor (Pollitt,
1993 and 1996; Mascarenhas, 1993; Gray and Jenkins, 1995; Rhodes et aL., 1995;
Famham and Horton, 1996b: 42). The different strands of New Right ideology (Le.
economic liberalism, political conservatism) have formed a philosophical base and
atmosphere for NPM and public choice theory has provided its institutional and
operational framework. New Rightist polilical parties and Ieaders who were quite hostile
to govemment bureaucracy in the Anglo-American world (espeeially In the U .S., the
U.K., and Canada) have put anti-govemmenı.aJ policies into practice. They have sought
to perform radical surgery on the bureaucracy. "Bureauerat bashing" became a popular
sport among conservative politicians (Campbell and Peters, 1988; Peters, 1989 and.
1991; Gormley, 1989; Peters and Savoie, 1994; Savoie, 1994). These politicians saw
the opportunity of linking anti-govemment feeling in public opinion (13) with New
Rightist solutions developcd by academies (Pollitt, 1993: 45). Public support for the
Reagan and Thatcher administrations could be explained by a publie reaetion to
"bureaucratie paternalism" (Hoggett and Hombleton, 1987) or, in other words, to
profcssional-dominated and customer-insensitive service provision (see Stewart, 1983).
This was highly succesfully exploitated by both the New Rightist politicians and
acadcmies.

Pollitt argues that managerialism, in particular, is the "acceptable face" of New

Right thinking conceming the state and that ideological considerations may be part of the
argument for redueing government (1993: 49). Some other authors regard NPM as a
simple vehiele to make national eeonomies more open and integrated to the world
eeonomy; and they see causal relationships between New Right ideology. globalisation
and economic/administrative restrueturing (structural adjustment) initiatives,
recolonisation effforts and NPM and govemance theses (for examplc, see Ayman-Güler,
1994, 1996 and 1997; Şaylan, 1994 and 1995). They also argue that many scholars use
the NPM framework without questioning its ideological or methodological implications.
According to them, the most dangerous aspect of the shift to NPM without considering
publicness dimension is the power of NPM in creating a de facıo situation supporting
the privatisation or marketisation of public services without allowing enough debate (see
Ayman-Güler, 1994: 7, 18). Within this context it is not surprising to see the links both
between New Right policies and the current status of the discipline of public
administration (see, Kingdom, 1990; Chandlcr, .1991: 39-40) and between New Right
policies and the repudiation of the traditional public administration approach.

One significant poinl should be elarifed in terms of the links mentioned above. It
wou1d be too much to suggest that conservative govemments in the Westem world since
the Iate 1970s have simply been vehieles for the New Right. What is elear is that New
Right ideas have had a great influenee on politicians and governmental policies. But,
536 UGUR ÖMCJRGÖNüLŞEN
.
f
some conservative govemmenlS (e.g. the Reagan, Thateher and Mulroney goveromenlS)
were much more commitled to the reforms than other conservative govemmenlS in the
Westem world (e.g. Kohl and Chirae govemmenlS) (Savoie, 1994). It should also be kept
in mınd that proponenlS of Neo-Marxism and new social movemenlS such as feminism,
anti-cacist and green ideologies, and the idea of civil society indirectly helped New
Righust theorists and politicians to break dow n the post-war consensus by severely
criticising the bureaucratic and oppressive nature of the welfare state (14). In addition,
left-of-center govemmenlS (i.e. Labour governments in Australia and New ZeaIand; leftist
goveroments in Denmark and Sweden; and probably the new Labour govemment in the
U .K.) have also undertaken similar reform prograrnmes though theyare not as
ideol~gically-oriented or enthusiastic about these reforms as conservative govemments
(see Mascarenhas, 1993; also Johnson, 1993; Farnharn and Horton, 1996a and 1996c;
Schwartz, 1994; Kirkpatrick and Martinez Lucio, 1996; Ingraharn, 1997). Furthermore,
in the U.K. for instance, from Fabianism through to "new urban lert" or "municipal lert"
thinking'on urban governance made soıne managerial idcas more politically acceptable in
LabOur-controllcd British local govemments in the 1980s (see Gyford, 1985; Blunketl
and jackson, 1987; Hogget, 1991: 248).

Although NPM is cIosely rclated to New Right ideologyand to aıı these

megatrends toward a "smaııer-limited but strong state", it is more than a simple
administrative vehicle of it. It would be too simplistic to place NPM solely in relation
to New Right ideologyand political project. Such a conclusion represenlS a partial and
incmhpIete reading of the changes that have occured in the i980s and i990s. it could also
leavc the critics of NPM with nothing more than a politics of nos1algia for the "old"
arrangemenlS as the only W3.yof coordinating the provision of public services of which,
in th~ past, they themselves have frequently been the harshest critics (Clarke, Coehrane
and ~cLaughlin, 1994b: 227). As Hughes aptly poinlS out, to regard NPM as only an
ideological occurance ignores the general argument which stems from different
ideological standpoinlS against burcaucracy as an organising principle and bureaucratic
form:of dccision-making and service provision. Bureaucracy as an organising principle
has clearly lost ground in the private sector, so the extension of this to the public sector
may ibe less amatter of ideologyand more a response to its theoretical failures.
Privatisation lcads to a shrinking of government, but what remaincd of govemment could
still Cunction in a traditional bureaucratic way since improving efficiency has a logic of
ilS own. The movement against bureaucracy could oecur regardless of size or in addition
to the size problem and may prove to be more fundamental and more sweeping than a
reduction in the size and rok of the public sector (1994: 20-2 I).

i It should also be kept in mind that one does not have to be a right winger to
believe that traditionally government performance is low and need,>to be improved. The
consensus on the need for change in the management of public services have bridged
party; divisions. This is the case for Demoerat Clinton administration which launched
National Performance Review (Oore, 1993). The new Labour govemment's position in
the U.K. is another strong indicator of this reality. Thus, broad political support for
reform programmes guided by NPM makes it difficult to read it politically not just
because it represents itself as being "apolitical", "value-free" and "technical".
Consequently, because Qf ilS apparent capacity to be rearticulated within various political
posit~ons, NPM is likely to outlive New Rightist administration (see Clarke, Coehrane
and McLaughlin, 1994a: 5). However, 'as Kirkpatriek and Martİnez Lucİo have
emp~asiscd, this is not to sııggest that a soeial demoeratic variant will be the same one.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 537

More attention could be paid to the roles of various political actors (Le. interest groups.
consumer bodies. local authorities, and alternatiye political networks) (1996: 7). In some
countries such as Australia. left of center politicians have launched similar reform
programmes but have not given so much credit to bureaucrat bashing (see Ingraham.
1997: 327) as a starting point or justification of changes; in contrast, they have sought
the cooperation of publle servants and their unions (see Mascarenhas. 1993).

In brief. it can be said that the transformaıion in the economic and

politicaVideological environment of the public seetar is not only a rhetorical debate or a
cosmetic change; and that. in addition to some exploitation and manipulation of New
Right ideology. it is anatural consequence of serious uneasiness stemming from the
structure and functioning of the traditional publle sectoro

Condusion: Irreversibility of NPM?

The debate about "resurrection/revoluLİon" of administratiye reforms comes into

agenda from time to time. Many of ıoday's reforms in the public secıor are actually
embedded in those of yesıerday, from FUllon lo Rayner in particular in the case of the
V.K .. So we may observe "conLİnuity" in the reform commitmenı and in some NPM
prescriptions (Wright. 1992: 33) bul the application of those by commilted govemments
in arather different political and economic consensus can be considered as a "revolution"
or a "new" paradigm.

The significance of current public seclor reforms guided by NPM compared with
pası efforts is thaı theyare more rapid. straıegic and comprehensive and aimed not
atmaking minor changes bul at altering the relaLİonship between the public and private
sectors of the economy by essentiaııy re examining the role of govemmenl in social and
economic life and promoıing fundamental values such as freedom of the individual.
cuslomer choice and greaıer initiative for the privaıe sector in economic development.
Theyare closely linked to New Right idcology and in many cases theyare supported
wholeheartedly and straıegically by conservaLİve poliıical leadership (see Campbell.
1995: 488; and Mascarenhas, 1993: 319; Holmes and Shand. 1995: 522).

There is also a serious quesLİon abouı NPM linked closely lO the debaıe
mentioned above: whether it is a lasting change in ideas with substance. or merelya
fashion or fad thaı is simply a hype of old ideas in a new package which is bound to fail
(see Hood. 199 I; Wrighı. 1992). Foııowing the failure of many administratiye
experiments. the feeling abouı NPM is quiıe understandable. However. there is some
basis for believing thaı NPM wiII be a longer lasıing sel of prescriptions or programme
than earlier reforms. Vnıike the previous internal managemenl reforms within a
bureaucratic framework, this programme has received strong support from poliLİcians.
managers. some professions, and the public sine e they have differenı stakes in NPM and
theyareall very critical about the bureaucnıtic administration model (Hughes. 1994: 263-
264). •

In the begi~ning of the 1990s. one of lhe' Icading scholars in this field. Hood
argued thaı the managerial approach has no inıellectual Superiorily over the old orthodoxy
in public administration in terms of principles for organising public services (1990a:
113-ıı4). However, in the middle of the 1990s. Hood admiııed thal NPM seemed
succe~sful. in particular. in terms of the durability and conıinuous development of
 538 UGUR öMüRGÖNüLŞEN

OrganiJing principles (see Dunleavy and Hood. 1994). But it does not mean that Hood
wholeheartedly accepts NPM as a "single" and "global" paradigm which is a very popular
daim made explicitly by Osbome and Gaebler (1992). Aucoin (1990: 134) and Barzelay
with Armanjani (1992) also mention this new international paradigm. Hood (with
Dunleavy) is sceptical about Ihe argument of new global paradigm. He accepts that there
has been a trend away from traditional ("progressive" in his own terms) public
adminjstration in manydeveloped countries but this partial retreat does not necessarily
demonstrate that any single a.."lduniversal paradigm will inevitably replace thetraditional
one. The "globality". "uniformity". "coherence" and "monoparadigmatic" character of
contemporary public management change seems to be exaggerated. Hood argues that the
fuwre lof public management may be more "plural" and "contradictory" than the sweeping
prognastications of Osborne and Gaebler might lead us to think. Therefore,we necd to
i
know more about the "different agendas" that may underly the same slogans (see
Dunlcavy and Hood, 1994: 13; Hood, 1995a, 1995b: 168-170,1996).

i
However, it should be noted that although each country has put emphasis on
different themes and strategies of NPM at different times, each has adopted the main
philoSpohy of NPM and has tried to achieve these reforms within the general NPM
framdwork. This makes NPM the strongest paradigm of today and, possibly, of the near
future. It is feasible for NPM to continue or intensify for many years before triggering a
fun~entalreconsideration or a scrious public opinion backlash.

i Therefore, it can be argued that there appears to be a "new political conscnsus"

emerging, in place of the post-war sculement, which is rooted in the acceptance of the
mixed economy of welfare and NPM (Horton, 1996: 176)(15). Even the British Labour
Partyi, in the process of reform in the i990s, has becoıne more attached to the vision of
an eiıabling state, endorsing citizens' rights and quality of service provision and
managerialist practices by disearding its out of fasnion ideological baggage which was
close1y related to the post-war consensus. With the elec1.İonof Mr. Blair to the Icadership
of the "New" Labour Party in 1994 and the Party's distinctive shift from centre-Ieft to the
centre of British politics, the free market and enabling state model seem unlikely to be
chalıbnged by leading British politicians in the foresceable future (see Johnson, 1993; and
Farn~am and Horton, 1996a). As a mauer of fact, the New Labour Party won the April
199~ elections with this pragmatic programme. This programme has influenced not
only the British left, but many other socialdemocrat/Sücialist parties and governments of
bothldeveıoped Westem coııntries and some developing countries. .
i
i ifhe "culture" of the public has bcen changing too. People are demanding not only
more scrvices but also chcaper and bcuer quality provisions. At the same time people and
inte~est groups are questioning the values, motives and compelence of bureaucrats and
proCessionals. Theyare beginning to act more like "customers" than "cIients" (Isaac-
Henry, 1993: 4).

i As Jack Welch, Chairman of General Electric recently explained, the centraliscd

and bureaucratic procedures were« right for the 1970s, a growing handicap in the 1980s,
and would have been a ticket to the bone yard in the 1990s» (quoted in Thompson, 1997:
.175). This is also true, to a great extent, for the public sectoro

NPM seems to be a worldwide phenomenon bccause it is a manifestation of a

fundamental transformation affccting nearly every corner of the globc. Similar practices

: : ı i: ' 'I i
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENı 539

have simultaneously become current in many different countries and under political
regimes of different persuasions. A new model of public management has almost
supplarıted the traditionaı model of public administratian. The fundamentallogic of this
new model (Le value for money) is now widely acepted, providing the frame of reference
within which decisions must be justified. Alternative forms of legitimation and
justification associated with equity have been marginalised. While most public activities
are becoming "managerialised" so too almost everybody in the public seetor have had to
re-image themselves and redefine his role within the framework of NPM. Therefore, there
has been an increasing degree of "consensus" on NPM though it may be varied in
different contexts. Same of the absurdities of "managerially correct" language and
practice will have abated, but there is "no possibility of going back" to traditional public
administration. The public sectar in the future will inevitably be more managerial in
both theory and practice (Hughes, 1994; see alsa Dunsire, 1995). Therefore, NPM or in
other words managerial revalutian, seems "irreversible" (see Metealfe, 1993: 351, 352,
369; Hughes, 1994: 22,260,278; Clarke, Cochrane and McLaughlin, 1994a: 5, 1994b:
227,229).

Same will be pleascd by this conclusian (e.g. Peat Marwick, 1986; OECD,
1995; World Bank, 1995) since they do not see any other "real" alternative, others
perhaps le ss so (e.g. Eicoek, 1991, 1995; Polliu, 1993). However, it should be
emphasised that NPM's effeets on the public sectar are not always positive, in contrast
to the claims. In addition to many heneficial results in tcrms of government performance,
it has same potential problcms and dangers. Furthermore same negative effects have
already appeared as is daimed by critics such as Pollitt. Undear specifieation of NPM
(all rhetoric no substance argument), its political/ideological neutnılity and universality
C1aims, the role of NPM in interest relationships in society, its effect on the
politicisation of administratiye system, its neo- Taylorian and economistic character,
contradictions between market culture and values and the traditional public service culture
and values, internal contradictions between its theoretical bases, the possibility of
porıability of private seetor management teehniques and practices into the public seetar,
the erosion in the public accountability, and the deterioration in the morale of public
servants are the main criticisms directed to NPM. it is alsa argued that the cultural
change guided by market-based and managerial values will eventually undermine the
values of the public domain (e.g. equity, justice, impartiality, citizenship rights, public
interest and public ethic, and public accountability). The remodeliing of the public
sector, therefore, remains "business unfinished" rather than "missian accomplished".
Dcstabilisation which has bccn created by NPM has provided new possibilities for mdieal
changes in favour of both managers, employees and service users, but many scholars are
stili sceptical about whether the conditions underıying these changes ean, in fact, deliver
on these multiple promises. In other words, the possibility of positive-sum game is
questionable (see Clarke, Coehrane and McLaughlin, 1994b: 230,239-240). Therefore, it
seems there is a long wayto go in restructuring the public sectar. Neither traditional
values and mechanisms of public administartion such as the vague notion of publie
interest and the polities/administration diehotomy, nar managerial and commereial values
and mechanisms, such as effieiency ,are enough to explain and solve the eomplex
problem s of the public sector on their own.

Anti-government doctrines that rcaehed their apogee at the end of the 1980s, have
begun to wain to same extent. Although the limitations of NPM are being inereasingly
aeknowledged both in the politieal and acadcmic world s, no single and strong alternative
540 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNÜLŞEN

has yet emerged or managed the kind of dominance which NPM has achieved. "Public
service orientation" (Clarke and Stewart, 1986), "management for the public domain"
(Stewart and Ranson, 1988; Ranson and Stewart, 1994) or "public management as an
integrative approach" (perry and Kraemer, 1983) has yet to be - and may never be -
popularised and laken up by major political parties or the academic world (see Pollitt,
1993: 148; and 1996: 86). As a maucr of fact, same scholars have already switched their
auention to search for a new approach to or vision for the management of the public
sectoro The new but compIcmentary approach called "governance" (see Kooiman, 1993;
Dunsire, 1995), and even "postmodern" public administration theory (see Hussard and
Peker, 1993; Fox and Miller, 1995) are given as examplcs, despite the current dominance
of NPM in both studyand practice in the public sectoro In our opinion a distinctive
approach to public management has to be developed. If it is developed, Perry and
Kraemer's integratiye "public management" could bea useful starting point. This effort
must lake account of the distinctiveness of the public sector, while stili recognising the
need that the managerial work must be done with an acceptable level of performance.

Improving the performance of the publie sector is the crucial point of the recent
reform efforts. The very nature of the purpose of improving efficency in the public sectar
makes « the adoption of a managerial approach necessary, but the kind of management
must be specijic to the eonditions of the public sector» (OECD, 1991: ıo). Managing
the publie seetor well will require an understanding of the "distinetive nature" of
management in this seetor, and in the public service in partieular. Any initiative must
show an understanding of the partieular legal and socio-political environment within
which the public seetor operates in addition to economic and financial constraints.
Therefore, the public seetıır must develop its own management ethos and st yle, based
around the concept ofpublic service which has always bcen its guiding principle (Boyle,
1992: 245-246). In fact, as Hughes aptly points out: « what we are witnessing may be a
new theory of management, but, thus far, it is a theor)' of public management and not a
generic management» (1994: 86). Publie management will not be derived merely by
transferring private management techniques to Lhe public sector, but rather by
consideration of what the general management function entails, what the peculiar features
of management in the publie sector are and the derivation of a new system of
management which suits that secLor (Hughes, 1994: 86).

Publie management is neither a function of mere application of publie lawand

administratiye procedures nor a function focusing only on achieving objectives by using
some economic criteria and managerial techniques without eonsidering any social and
politica! criteria. On the one hand, the denia! of the importance of cost-<:onsciousness and
sticking to the bureaucraı.ic rules are among the main causes of bureaucratic inertia.
Therefore, there is no doııbt that eeonomics and management are necessary pillars of
public managemenL Signifieant improvements in the performanee of public
organisations can be expected from improved approaches to managemenL On the other
hand, economics and management cannot soIcly form an adequate foundation for public
management. An excIusi\'e focus on value for money and management may never be
entirely appropriate in the publie seetor. The denial of the different demands on
management in government and therefore the applieation of generic management
principlcs is a dangerous fallaey. Public management does not exist apart from socio-
politiea! issues (e.g. equity, participation) and public law (Le. the constitutional order).
The studyand practice of pubHc management wiLhout legal and socio-political contents
should be seen as pointles~; and artifieial (see Chandler, 1991). Anopposite understanding
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 541

will facilitate the identification of public management with generic or private

management. Eventually, public management will die out in the field of gerieric
management Departing from this point, public management should be reconsidered as an
approach beyand the narrow concept of the technology of public administratian; and not
only its instrumental aspect but also its normative aspect should be enriched (see Butler,
1994). The problem, which we are now facing is that of how the best of both approaches
can be synthesised. Unfortunately, both the advocates of traditional public administratian
and NPM have showed relatively little concem in this crucial matter (see Wilson, 1996).
In our opinion, public management should be a coherent combination of applications of
legal, economic and managerial rules in order to provide public services expediently,
efficiently and effectively. In the long-run more efficient and effective public
management based on a greater concem for eeonomically rational results may be vitalto
sustaining support for government policies to improve social aims (see also Keating,
1991: 238, 262-263). A new approach to public management, therefore, should be
developed with an integratiye understanding of the contribution of politics, public law,
economics and management (For asimilar argument, see Ranson and Stewart, 1994: 30-
31; Johnston and Callender, 1997: 54; Şaylan, 1995: 118-119). We hope that an enriched
public management approach will provide a broader perspeetive from which to analyse
the phenomenon of limited but efficiem govemmenl. We are aware of the difficulties and
contradictions of this task, but wc believe that in the Iate 1990s enough knowledge and
experience has accumulated to permit such an approach to be developed.

The last deeade was devöted to lcgitimising public management with considerable
success. As Perry argues, wc are nowentering a more serious stage, in whieh valued
knowledge must be developed (1993: 16). We have stilltittle knowledge about public
management, espccially as eompared to generic or business managemenl. We need both
researehers and practitioners to devote sustained and scrious atlention to developing our
knowledge for publie management (see Rainey, 1991: 7, 11). However, the value of
public management will be limited unless we establish a conceptual bridge between
political rationality and economie rationality( see Levine, 1979: 471, 484, 485) and
between managerial rationality and the rationality of publie law (see OECD, 1991: 13;
and alsa Peters, 1989: 296). This sort of synthesis may be an idealistic view sinee the
management of public affairs is not an easy task, but it should be done (see Hughes,
1994: 257-258). Thus, the key substantive issue, which is still how the inherent eonfliet
between the private management model with its criteria of economie efficiency and the
public administration model with its criteria of public imerest, could be resolved. The
public management approaeh has raied this issue correctly, but a long and painstaking
road is waiting for it to resolve the issue meaningfully. Furthermore, public
management should not be eonsidered as a eertain remedy for all publie ilIness (see
Kooiman and Eliassen, 1987: 15-16). Indecd, public management is only a promising
direction rather than a full panacea. It does not represent some miraculous elixir for all
problem s of the public seetor (see Rainey, 1990: 172, 173). Therefore, public seetor is
not likely to be the comfortable place for both academics and practitioners as it was
before the 1980s.

Notes:
542. UGlJR ÖMüRGÖNüLŞEN

(1) For the differenc.e between "administration" and "management" functions, in

particular in the public ;iector context, and the phenomenon of transition from
administration to management, see Hughes (1994: Chp. 1).

(2) For wide variations in approach, see Rainey (1990). For a stronger argument,
see Bozernan (1993: 361-362).

(3) Due to short ~f space we cannot elaborate this poinl. For detailed
information, see Aucoin (1988, 1990); Hoggeu. (1991, 1996); Holmes and Shand (1995).

(4) For the U.K., :,ee Jones (1989); Polliu (1993); Metealfe (1993); Painter
(1993); Overman and Boyd (1994); Horton (1996). Also see Major (1989); Butler (1992)
as public figures. For Commonwealth countries. see Borins (1994). For the U.S. and
Canada, see Aucoin (1990); Barzelay with Armanjani (1992); Lan and Rosenbloom
(1992); Osbome and Gaebler (1992); Gore (1993); Kemaghan (1993). For the debate on
paradigm shift and paradigınatic crisis in the Turkish public administration literature, see
Üstüner (1986, 1992, 1995); Uysal-Sezer (1992); Ayman-Güler (1994. 1997); Aksoy
(1995); Ergun (1995); Şaylan (1996).

(5) For a contrar:ı view, see Toulmin (1970;) Bay (1972); Golembiewski
(1974:174). For a general evaluation, see Lovrich (1985).

(6) NPM's position in terms of this dichotomy is quite differenl. Kingdom argues
that it' is a considerable irony that NPM as a new movement is premised upon such an
outrnoded axiom (1986b: 17). However, the dichotoıny is supportcd by NPM with the
understanding that managerial practices can beused in both the private and public sectors
since political influence, which is the distincLİve characteristic of the public sector, is
averted by this dichotomy. PoliLİcal process is viewed, in general, as an impcdiment to
efficiency (see Pollitt, 1993: 189). Thus, political neııtrality at middle and lower levels
of the public bureaucrac)' can be maintained, and the transplantaLİon of managerial
practices into the public sectür can be achieved by leaving out political influences on
public organisations and agents. The area of influence of career bureaucrats is confined to
policy implcmentation and management by making them managers of their units
through decentralisation, delegation and devolution (Le. policy-making/management
dichotomy). Theyare asked to implcment govemmcnt policies in a most efficient and
effeclİve way. On the other hand. NPM ignores the dichotomy where the higher level of
the public bureaucracy is concerned. But it docs not mean that senior bureaucrats are
allowed to shape policies as in the case of the traditional public administration modeL. it
means an intensified poliücisation of the highest echelon in the pursuit of the political
goals of its political ma,ters. The erosion in the career notion in the public sector
through the rejection of security of tenure and the introduction of contractual
relationships has increased the level of politicisation at the highest cehelon of
bureaucracy in the Anglo-American world (see Long, 1981; Newland, 1983; Pfiffner,
1987; Volcker Commission, 1990; Maranto and Schultz, 1991; Mascarenhas, 1993). In
addition to politicisation, for example, Mrs. Thatcher had personaliscd the sclection of
senior bureaucrats in Whitehall (Campbell, 1995: 488). She did not want policy advice
from senior bureaucrats and this has weakened the policy advice capacity of those
bureaucrats (Savoie, 1994). In brief, while political and technical rationalities are
effcetivcly blended by increased politicisation at the govemance Jcvel (with the effect of
public choice arguments on tight controlaf burcaucrats due to vested intcrets at higher-
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 543

level), policy-making/management dichotomy is strictly pursued at management level

(with the effect of managerial arguments on loose control-devolution and autonomy-on
managers at middle and lower-Ievels). For a contrary view, see Yeatrnan (1993).
However, even the depoliticisation at management (operational) level is being driven by
the most politicised restrucLuring the public seetor has ever seen. Within the boundaries
of predetermined strategic framework, line managers act wiLh relatively higher autonomy
on the basis of teehnical rationaliLy. This sort of interpretation of the dichotomy seems
more realistic than traditional dichotomy interpretation. it also facilitates the application
of NPM principles to the public sector.

(7) The politics/administration diehotomy is usually associated with Wilson and

Weber. Although writing for different reasons and from distinct intelleetual traditions,
both wriiers developed the idea to separate the policy-making from the policy
implemenLation. There was greater anxieLy about the usurpaLion of administratiye
powers and functions by politicians than there was about ensuring the powers of those
politicians (Campbell and Peters, 1988). A good part of the jusLification for the
separation of politics and administration in Wilson's writing {i 887) was to give greater
latitude to the administratiye officials to exercise their own independent powers and
discretion (Doig, 1983). Wilson wanted government to be managed very much like a
business, and to reach that dream required the removal of political meddling. Alsa, rather
than being a defender of politicians, Weber can be seen as auempting to proLect the state
from the excess of poliLicians (Campbell and PeLers, 1988). Despite their original
inıentions, the writings of Wilson and Weber have becn largely interpreted as an attempt
to restrict administratiye involvement in policy-making. This is certainly the manner of
those who were representatives of "scientific administration" era (see Goodnow, 1900;
Gulick and Urwick, 1937), and those who deelared Lhat dichoLomy dead (see Friedrich,
1940, Appleby, 1949; Abcrbach, Puınam and Rockman, 1981). In the contemporary
politics and public administration, eiLher this dichotomy is used as a mean of prescrving
and justifying the powers of Lhepolitical executive or it is completely denied since there
is no clearcut division between political and administratiye functions. However, the
dichotomy is revived in Lhe 1980s and 1990s (see Waldo, 1990; see also foolOote 6). It
can be asked that why has this dichotomy had such durability? According to Campbell
and Peters (1988), it has survived as a eonvenient fiction raLher Lhan adescription of any
reality since many groups (e.g. politieians, senior bureaucrats, street-level bureaucrats)
have diferem stakes in its prescrvation.

(8) This tendency can be elearly seen in many reeent publications in this field.
For example, see Kooiman and Eliassen (1987); Jaekson (1988, 1990 and 1994); Taylor
and Popham (1989); Aynn (1993-first edition in 1990); Metcalfe and Richards (1990-
fiest edition inI987), Lawton and Rose (1994-first edition in 1991); Famham and Horton
(1996d-fırst edition in 1992); Willcocks and Harrow (1992); Bozernan (1993); Eliassen
and Kooiman (1993); lsaac-Henry, Painter and Bames (1993); Hughes (1994); McKewiu
and Lawton (1994); Lynn (1996).

(9) For the concept of "identity crisis", see Waldo (1968: 5). Waldo argues that
identity crisis emergcs when boLh the nature and boundaries of the subject matter and the
methods of studying and teaching this subject maUer bccome problematica!. Due to the
interdisciplinary nature of public administratian and cominuous borrowing knowledge
from other disciplines (McCurdy, 1986: ll- 16), it is argued that the discipline of publie
administration could not develop around an integrated centre (Waldo, 1975) and, thus, it
544 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNüLŞEN

faces an idenLity crisis (Houston, 1993). Some authors, by taking a step further, daim
that public administralion ü; no more than a bulk of knowledge borrowed form other
disciplines and it is not even an independent field of study (McCurdy, 1986: 15).
Actual1y, although it has ol century-Iong history, it is argued that defining public
administration stil1 as an "interdisciplinary discipline" or taking a "middle-of-the road"
position by emphasising its dose ties with political science or management is the same
thing as denying its existence and neeessity as an independent discipline (see Ayman-
Güler, 1995: 4). This, of coıırse, reinforces the identity crisis of the discipline.

For the concept of "intel1cetual crisis", see Ostrom (1974). He describes

inteııeetual crisis in a situalion in which the agreed-on bases of theory fail to refleet or
respond to the needs of actors in the field - theorists, practitioners, and citizens.

Reeent expressions of these recurrent concems include Hood (1990a, 1990b); Kass
and Catron (1990); Lynn and Wildavsky (1990); Rhodes (1991); and Stil1man (1991);
Haque (1996a, 1996b). For a postmodernist view of the identity crisis in pub\ic
administratian, see McSwite (1997). For the identity problem of the study of public
administratian in histarienI perspcctive, see Rutgers (1997). Haque C1aims that the
nature, intensity, and severity of intelleetual crisis have changed taday due to the
worldwide mavement towards privatisation (1996a). The privatisation mavement has
challenged the legitimacy of public service (Le. decline in public confidence in
government and public ser.ice), public service ethics (Le the replacement of traditional
values and norm s of public service by pro-market ones), and public service motivation
(Le. decline in moral and motivation of public servants) (Haque, 1996b). These
challenges in practical spheres of the public seetar have direetly affceted the study of
public administration. According to Haque, the current crisis in public administratian
takes three main forms by affecting the crcdibility, norms and confidence negatively in
academic and professional public administration. There are alsa causal relationships
between the three modes of imellectual crisis in that they reinforce each other (1996a).

Managerial reforms in the public seetor are Iikely to bring some ben efi ts at
operational level, but they shake the normative and constitutional bases of public
administratian and give rise to loss of the soul of public administratian (see Hart and
Wasden, 1990; Grecn, Kdler and Wamsley, 1993). However, some authors are more
optimistic, arguing that the current reform efforts in the public seetor do not signal an
intellectual crisis in the field; rather, they mark opportunities for change in both the
practitioning and research communities (see Kingsle)', 1997). For a general evaluation
on this point, see Lovrich (1985).

(ıo) Public administration as a field of study has been in turbulence recendy. The
question of whether public administration is a scientific diseipline or not is stili a
traubling matter commcnted on by many scholars. See Waldo (1968, 1972);
Golembiewski (1977); Dı~nhardt (1982); Bozeman and Straussman (1984); Kingdam
(1986a and 1986b); McCurdy (1986); Hood (1987, 1990a); Ventriss (1987); Chandler
(1988, 1991); Henry (1989); Rosenbloom (1989); Bhattacharya (1990); Frederickson
(1990); Midwinter (1990); Lynn and Wildavsky (1990); Rhodes (1991); White and
Adams (1994); Rhodes et al. (1995); Haque (1996a); Merino (1996); Rhodes (1996).

(ll) lnstead of 'NFM, it is argued by some authors that only a proper

understanding of the concepts of "public" and "publicness" and a comprehensive "public
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 545

perspective" provide asound intelleetual foundation LO alIeviale the field's current crisis
(see Ventriss, 1987, 1989, 1991; Coursey and Bozeman, 1990; Frederickson, 1991;
Ranson and Stewart, 1994; and Haque, 1996a). Dunleavy's (1982) "radical approach" (in
neo-Marxist or Marxist-structuralist discourse) and "Blacksburg Manifesto" proclaimed
by some schoIars from Virginia Polyteehnic (see Wamsley and Bacher, 1990) can also be
mentioned as critical approaches LO the identity crisis of public administration (see
Üstilner, 1995). There is growing unease among orthodox/radical public administration
seholars in Turkey about the reeent ideological and methodological devcIopments in this
field. For example, it is of ten argued that the phenomenon of public administration is
being sterilised by the tendeney to manageria1ism with the reassertion of the traditional
politics/administration dichotomy. Thus, the phenomenon of public administration is
exposed as only a technical and neutml activity and its social and politicaI dimensions are
negleeted and even concealcd. Managerialisation shifts the focus of the diseipline of
public administration from discussions on the substance to instrumental rationality (see
Ayman-Giller, 1994; Aksoy, 1995; Üstüner,I 995). Üstüner (1992, 1995) also argues
that suggestions made to overcome the identity crisis in this field are, unfortunately,
mainiyat "epistemological" level (tcehnical and practical questions about administratiye
reforms) and ignore "ontological" questions,:md therefore they block the way-out, create
a vicious circle, and then prolong the crisis. The "technology of public administration"
must be left to practitioners, and scholars must concentrate on the "academic activities of
public administration" (Le. ontological concepts and questions) such a<; the state and its
organisation, public interest, democratic administration, hierarchies, and the privileges of
the rulers. He argues that if it is not supported by the reality that public administration is
a significant part of the state and the socio-political dynamics of society, this will be a
very narrow perspective that will facilitate the identification of public administration
with private management and eventualIy results in the diminuation and dying out of
public administration in the field of management. He claims that the so-called "identity
crisis" of the discipline of public administration eannot be overcome by limited solutions
(Le. the technology of public administration) carried out by the practitioners to solve the
managerial problem s of the public sectoro Academic activities must be directed to the
questions conceming the "reason of existence" and the "object" of the discipline of public
administration. As Özen points out, this also brings a question into mind: what is the
fundamental prcoccupation of this discipline?(1995: 71). There are two main approaches
conceming this question. The fırst one is a relatively "narrow" approach (Üstüner, 1986:
142) focusing on the "organisational and managerial" dimension of executive organ s
and/or administratiye organisations of the state (McCurdy, 1986,: 1-2,25). The second
one is, however, a "broader, more comprehensive and political" approach focusing on all
dimensions of social life (McCurdy, 1986: 1-2,31; Üstüner, 1986: 143). Despite some
modifications made in the 1960s with the effect of devcloping a political perspective, the
first approach, as Özen emphasised, was dominant in the universal public administration
literaturc of the time and this approach which stems from "functionalist" paradigm
reinforces the identity crisis of public administration (1995: 72-73; 90).

With the aim of creating an independent discipline and with the effect of the
functionalist paradigm, the field of study of the discipline of public administration was
restricted LO the "administration" or "bureaucracy" as an operational part of the state, and
a broader approach focusing on the "state" in all aspects was neglected. Since public
administration was seen as a 1ocomotive of national development especially af ter the
Second World War, studying this subject was considered to be highly prestigious
preoccupation but the aim and methodology of the discipline was not qucstioned enough.
546 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

This was, in fact, in harmony with the narrow organisational and managerial approach.
Thus this feature to some extent facilitated the move to a more "managerial" approach
later on in this field. As a matter of fact, with the advent of globalisation and
liberalisation processes in .the 1980s and 1990s, universal market mechanisms have
replaced the bureaucratic mechanisms. The focus of interest has shifted LO the ceonomic
and financial aspects of the public sector. The creation of more efficient and effective
organisations and mcehanisms in the public sector has become the main concem. Public
administration as a discipliııe and practice could not completely cover and absorb this
development (see Üstüner, 1992, 1995; and Ayman-Güler, 1994: 3-4, 7, 17, 1995: 4).
As a matter of facl, the tenn "public sector management" is now in common usage LO
refer to the new ceonomic and financial concem in this field. We should point out that
this is also a limited concem for scholars studying the public sector as the political,
economic and managerial aspects of the public sector are closely interlinked.
Emphasising its managerial aspect and not considcring the difference between public and
private scetors is a commoıı and dangerous mistake. Similarly, identifying the efforts
that reviewand value its managerial aspect with the hegemony of the New Right
ideologyand then emphasising only its political aspect (its close ties with political
science) is also a narrow approach (for this position, see Ayman-Güler, 1994, 1995).
Actually, Güler admits the danger of this approach espccially in tenns of the relationship
between public administration and political science disciplines. She sees that excessiye
reliance on political science may confuse rather than clarify the question of what the
actual field of study of public administration is (Ayman-Güler, 1995: 3). However, her
orthodox/radical stand leads Ayman-Güler to claim that the only way of salvation for
public administration is it:; redefinition as the "discipline of the state science" that
embraces not only the central administratiye organisation, but the phenomenon of the
state with all dimensions and institutions (1994: 4-5, 19; 1995: 4). It is obvious that
this raises a qucstion in one's mind as to what the difference between public
administration and political science actually is. it also gives rise to the danger that public
administration may lose its distinctiveness in the family of political sciences.

(12) it is possible to see NPM as a neutral approach or as a part of the attempt LO

"depoliticise" public policy provision. The appeal of NPM lies its promise to go beyond
politics (whether party, interest group or organisational micro-politics) and produce
rational and efficient decisions abOut the deployment of resources rather than produce the
political discourse about public policies. The "depoliticisation" associated with NPM is
actually being driven by one of the most "politicised" restructurings of the national states
during this century, especially in the U.K. Therefore, it may be more accurate to argue
that NPM has in certain instances politicised rather than depoliticised public service
issues (see Clarke, Cochrane and Mclaughlin, 1994b: 231, 232).

(I 3) For some evidencc which was supposed to be signs of a welfare backlash in

the U.K., see Golding and Middleton (1982) and the surveys of the Institute of Economic
Affairs during 1970s. For negative public perception of public services in the U.S., see
the Volcker Commision(1990). From various studies, some scholars discovered asimilar
erosion of public confidence in govemment and the public service in other Westem
countries. See Mahler and KalZ (1988: 48) and Wilenski (1988: 213-215). For contrary
results, espccially in welfare services, see Taylor-Gooby (1985, 1989, 1991); Smith
(1987); Alber (I 988); and British Social Aıtitudes Surveys af ter 1983.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 547

(14) See Pierson (1991: Chp. 2 and 3); Newman and Clarke (1994: 26); Taylor
(1993); Williams (1993).

(I 5) Same authors argue that the transformative power of NPM has bccn
pmfoundly effective in dismantling the "old consensus" on the traditional model but
considerably less effective in producing a new stable settlement or a singular future (see
Clarke, Cochrane and McLaughlin, 1994b: 230,239-240).
\.

Referenees

ABERBACH, J. D., R. D. PUTNAM, and B. A. ROCKMAN (1981).

Bureauerats&Politicians in Western Democracies, (Mass.: Harvard
University Press).

AKSOY, Ş (1995), "Yeni Sağ ve Kamu Yönetimi" in Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini

Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Vol. II, (Ankara: TODAİE).

ALBER, J. (1988), "Continuities and Changes in the Idea of the Welfare State",
Politics and Society, Vol. 16, No. 4.

ALLISON, G. T. (1979), Public and Private Managemeni: Are They Fundamentally

Alike in All Unimportant Respects?, Paper to Publie Management
Research Conference, (Washington D.C. : Brookings Institution); reprinted
in Perry and Keaemer (1983).

APPLEBY, P. H. (1949). Poliey and Administration, (University, Ala.:

University of Alabama Press).

ARGYRIS, c. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenees: Faeilitating

Organizatio~al Learning, (Needham HeighlS, Mass.: Allyn&Bacon).

AUCOIN, P. (1988), "Contraction, Managerialism and Decentralisation in Canadian

Government", Governance, Vol. I, No. 2.

AUCOIN, P. (1990), "Administraıive Reform in Public Managemeni: Paradigms,

Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums", Governance, Vol. 3, No. 2.

AUCOIN, P. (1991), " The Politics and Management of Restraint Budgeting", in A.

Blais and S. Dion (eds.), The Budget-Maximizing Bureauerat:
Appraisals and Evidence, (PillSburgh, Pa.: University PitlSburgh Press).

AYMAN-GüLER, B. (1994), "Nesnesini Arayan Disiplin: Kamu Yönetimi", Amme

İdaresi Dergisi, Vol. 27, No. 4.

AYMAN-GÜLER, B (1995), "Sempozyum Genel Raporu" in Kamu Yönetimi

Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (Ankara: TODAİE).

AYMAN-GÜLER, B. (1996). Yeni Sa~ ve Devletin Değişimi: Yapısal

Uyarlama Politikaları, (Ankara: TODAİE).
548 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNüLŞEN

AYMAN-GÜLER, B. (1997), "21. Yüzyılda Nasıl Bir Kamu Yönetimi?", ıl.

Yüzyılda Nasıl Bir Kamu Yönetimi Sempozyumu. Açılıs
Bildirisi, (Ankara: TODAİE).

BARZELAY M. and BJ. ARMANJANl (1992). Breaking through Bureaucracy:

A New Vision for Managing in Government, (Berkeley, Ca:
University of California Press).

BA Y, C. (1972), "Thoughts on the Purposes of Political Science Education" in G. J.

Graham and G. W. Carey (cds.), The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives
on Political Science, (New York: David McKay).

BELLONE, C. 1. (ed.) (1980). Organisation Theory and the New Public

Administration, (Bostan: Aııyn&Bacon).

BEYER, J. M., J. M. STEVENS and H. M. TRICE (1983), " The Implementing

Organization: Exploring the Black Box in Public Policy Research" in R. C.
Haıı and R. E. Quinn (eds.), Organization Theory and Public Policy,
(Beverly HiIls: Sage).

BHATT ACHARY A, M. (1990), " Recent Advanccs in the Discipline of Public

Adminİstration", Tlte Indian Journal of Publie Administration, Vol.
XXXVI, No. 1.

BLUNKETT, D. and K. JACKSON (1987). Demoeraey in Crisis: The Town

Haııs Respond, (London: Hogarth Press).

BORINS, S. (1994). Go"ernment in Transition: A New Paradigm in Publie

Administration, A Report on the Inaugural Conference of the
Commenwealth Association for Public Adıninİstration and Management,
(Toronto: CAPAM).

BOSTON, J. (1987), " Transforming New Zealand's Public Sector: Labour's Quest for
Improved Efficiency and Accountability", Public Administration, Vol. 65,
Winter Issue.

BOSTON, J. (ed.) (1991). Resitaping the State: New Zealand's Bureuacratie

Revolution, (Auekland: Oxford University Press).

BOSTON, J. (ed.) (1996). Publie Management: The New Zealand Model,

(Auckland: Oxford University Press).

BOUCKAERT, G. (1990), "The History of the Productivity Movement", Publie

Produetivity&Management Review, Vol. 14.

BOUCKAERT, G. and A. HALACHMI (1995), "Introduction: The Chaııenges of

Management in a Changing World" in A. Halachmi and G. Bouckaert (eds.),
The Enduring Challenges in Public Management, (San Fransisco,
Cal.: Jossey-Bas:;).
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 549

BOYLE, R. (1992), "Civii Service Management Trends: Challenges for the 1990s",
Administration, (Journalaf the Institute of Public Administratian of
Ireland), Vol. 39, No. ı.

. BOZEMAN, B. (1988), "Exploring the Limits of Public and Private Sectors: Sectar
Boundaries as Maginat Line, Publie Administration Review, Vol. 48,
No. 2.

BOZEMAN, B. (ed.), (1993). Publie Management: The State of Art, (San

Fransisco, CaL.: Jossey-Bass).

BOZEMAN, B. and STRAUSMANN (eds.) (1984). New Direetions in Publie

Administration, (Monterey, Cal.: Brooks/Cole).

BUTLER, Sir R. (1992), "The New Public Management: The Contribution of Whitehall
and Academia", Publie Policyand Administration, Vol. 7, No. 3.

BUTLER, Sir R. (1994), "Reinventing' British Government", P u b ii c

Administration, Vol. 72, No. ı.

CA IDEN, G. E. (1981), "Administrative Reform" in G. R. Curnow and R. L. Weuenhaıı

(eds.). Understanding Public Administration,' (Sydney: AlIen and
Unwin).

CAIDEN, G. E. (1982). Publie Administration, (2nd ed.), (pacific Palisades:

Palisades Pub.).

CAIDEN, G. E. (1991). Administrative Reform Comes of Age, (New York:

Walter de Gruyler).

CAMPBELL, C. (1995), "Does Reinvention Need Reinvention? Lessons from Truncated

Managerialism in Britain", Governance, Vol. 8, No. 4.

CAMPBELL, C. and B. G. PETERS, (1988), "The Politics-Administration Dichatamy:

Death or Merely Change?", Governance, Vol. I, No. ı.

CARROLL, J. D., A. L. FRITSCHLER, and B. L. R. SMITH (1985), "Supply-Side

Management in the Reagan Administratian", Public Administration
Review, Vol. 45, No. 6.

CHANDLER, J. A. (1988), "Public AdministraLİon or Public Management", Teaehing

Publie Administration, Vol. VIII, No.ı.

CHANDLER, J. A. (1991), "Public Administration: A Discipline in Decline",

Teaching Public Administration, Vol. XI, No. 2.

CHRISTENSEN, J. G. (1988), "Withdrawal of Government: A Critical Survey of an

Administrative Problem in its Political Context", International Review of
Administrative Science, Vol. 54, No. ı.
550 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNüLŞEN

CLARKE, ı., A. COCHRANE, and E. MCLAUGHLIN (1994a), "Introduction: Why

Management Matters" in ı.
Clarke, A. Cochrane, and E. McLaughlin (eds.),
Managing Social Policy, (London: Sage).

CLARKE, ı., A. COCERANE, and E. MCLAUGHLIN (1994b), "Mission

Accomplished or lfnfinished Business? The Impact of Managerialization" in ı.
Clarke, A. Cochrane, and E. McLaughlin (eds.), Managing Social Policy,
(London: Sage).

CLARKE, M. and ı.
STEWART (1986). Tbe Public Service Orientation:
Developing the Approacb, (Luton: Local Govemment Training Board).

CROZIER, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, (Chicago: University of

Chicago).

COURSEY, D. and B. BOZEMAN (1990), "Decision-Making in Public and Private

Organizations: A Test of Alternative Concepts of "Publicness", Public
Administrative Review, Vol. 50, No. 5.

DENHARDT, R. B. (1982), "Public Administration: Sub-Field? Profession?

Discipline?", American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 16,
No. ı.

DOIG, ı. W. (1983), "If I See a Murderous Fellow Sharpcning a Knife Cleverly ...: The
Wilsonian Dichotomy and the PublicAuthority Tradition", Public
Administration Review, Vol. 43, No. 3.

DOWNS, A. (1967). Insid,e Bureaucracy, (Boston: Littıc, Brown).

DRUCKER, P. (1986). The Froııtiers of Management, (New York: Dutton).

DUNLEA VY, P. (1982), "Is There a Radical Approach to Public Administration",

Public Administration, Vol. 60, Summer Issue.

DUNLEAVY, P. (1991). Democracy, Bureaucracy&Public Choice: Economic

Explanations in Political Science, (Herncı Hempstead, Hert.: Harvester
Wheal'ihcaf).

DUNLEAVY, P. (1994), "The Globalization of Public Services Production: Can

Government be 'Best in World'?", Public Policyand Administration,
Vol. 9, No. 2. i

DUNLEAVY,P. and C. HOOD (1994), "From Old Public Administration to New

Public Managemcnt", Public Money&Management, Vol. 14, No. 3.

DUNSIRE, A. (1995), "Administrative Theory in the 1980s: a Viewpoint", Public

Administration, Vol. 73, Spring Issue.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 551

DUNSIRE, A. and C. HOOD (1989). Cutback Management in Public

Bureaucracies: Popular Theories and Observed Outcoıiıes in
Whitehall, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

ELCOCK, H. (1991). Change&Decay? Public Administration in the 1980s,

(Harlow, Essex: Longman).

ELCOCK H. (1995), "The Fallacics of Managcmcnt", Publie Policyand

Administration, Vol. ıo, No. ı.
EllASSEN, K. A and J. KOOlMAN (1987), "Introduction" in J. Kooiman and K. A.
Eliassen (cds.) Managing Publie Organizations: Lessons from
Contemporary European Experience, (London: Sage).

ELIASSEN, K. A and J. KOOIMAN (1993). Managing Public Organizations:

Lessons from Contemporary European Experience, (2nd. ed.)
(London: Sage).

EMMERT, M. A., M. CROW, and R. F. SHANGRAW, Jr. (1993), "Public

Management in the Futurc: Post-Orthodoxy and Organization Design" in B.
Bozeman (cd.), Public Management: The Staie of Art, (San Fransisco,
Cal.: Jossey-Bass).

ERGUN, T. (1995), "Kamu Yönetiminin Gelişimine Kısa Bir Bakış: Yeni Arayıslar ve
Gerçekler" Açılış Bildirisi, Kamu Yönetimi Sempozyumu Disiplini
Bildirileri, Vol. I, (Ankara: TODAİE).

FARAZMAND, A. (1994), "The New World Order and Global Public Administration: A
Critical Essay" in 1. C. Garcia-Zamor and R. Khaıor (cds,), Public
Administration in the Global Viiiage, (Westport, CT: Praeger).

FARNHAM, D. and S. HORTON (1996a), "The Political Economy of Public Sector

Change" in D. Famham and S. Horton (eds.), Managing the New Public
Services, (2nd. cd.), (London: Macmillan).

FARNHAM, D. and S. HORTON (1996b), "Managing Private and Public

Organisations" in D. Famham and S. Horton (cds.), Managing the New
Public Services, (2nd. ed.), (London: Macmillan).

FARNHAM, D. and S. HORTON (1996c), "Public Service Managerialism: A Review

and Evaluation" in D. Famham and S. Horton (eds.), Managing the New
Public Services, (2nd ed.), (London: Macmillan).

FARNHAM, D. and S: HORTON (eds.) (1996d). Managing the New Public

Services, (2nd. ed.), (London: Macmillan). .

FLYNN, N (1993). Public Sector Management, (2nd ed.), (Herncı Hempsıead,

Hert.: Harvester Wheatsheal).
552 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNüLŞEN

FOSTER, C.D. and F.J. PLOWDEN (1996). The State Under Stress: Can the
Hollow State be Good "Government?, (Buckingham: Open University
Press).
FOX, C. J. and H. T. MILLER (1995). Postmodern Public Administration:
Toward Discourse, (London: Sage).

FREDERICKSON, H. G. (1990). New Public Administration, (University of

Alabama Press).

FREDERICKSON, H. G. (1991), "Toward a Theory of the Public for Public

Administration", Administration&Soeiety, Vol. 22, No. 4. i

FRIEDRICH, C. 1. (1940), "Public Policyand the Nature of Administrative

Responsibility" in C. J. Fricdrich and E. S. Mason (eds.), Public Policy,
(Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press).

FULTON, LORD (1968). The Report of the Committee on the Civil

Service, (London: HMSO).

GARSON, G. D. and E. S. OVERMAN (1983). Public Management Research in

the United States, (New York: Praeger).

GAUS, J. M. (1950), "Trends in the Theory of Public Administration", Public

. Administration Review, Vol. 10.

GOLDING R. and S. MIDDLETON (1982). Images of Welfare: Press and

Public Attitudes to Poverty, (Oxford: Martin Robertson).

GOLEMBIEWSKI, R. T. (1974), " 'Maintenance' and 'Task' as Central Challenges in

Public Administration". Publie Administration Review, Vol. 34, No. 2.

GOLEMBIEWSKI, R. T. (1977). Public Administration as a Developing

Diseipline: Part ı-Perspeetive on Pa st and Present, (New York:
Marcel and Dekkc!").

GOODNOW, F. J. (1900). Politics and Administration, (New York: Macmillan).

GOODSELL, C. T. (1994). The Case for Bureaucraey: A Public

Administration Polemie, (3rd ed.), (Chaıham, NJ.: Chatham).

GORE, A. (1993). From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that

Works Better&Costs Less, Report of the National Performanee
Review, (New York: Time Books/Random House).

GORMLEY, W. T. (1989). Taming the Bureaucracy: Muscles, Prayers, and

Other Strategies, (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University.Press).
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 553

GRAY A. and B. JENKINS (1995), "From Public Administration to Public

Managemenı: Reassesing a Revolution?", Publie Administration, Vol. 73,
Spring Issue.

GREENWOOD, J. and D. WILSON (1988), "British Public Administration: The

Beginning of the End?", Teaehing Politics, Vol. 17, No. 3.

GREENWOOD, J. and D. WILSON (1989). Publie Administration in 8ritain

Today, (2nd ed.), (London: Unwin Hyman).

GREEN, R. T. and L. F. KELLER, and G. L. WAMSLEY, (1993), " Reconstituting a

Profession for American Public Administration", Public Administration
Review, Vol. 53, No. 6.

GULICK, L. and L. URWICK (eds.) (1937). Papers on the Science of

Administration, (New York: Institute of Public Administration).

GUNN, L. (1987), "Pcrspectives on Public Management", J. Kooiman and K. A.

Eliassen (eds.), Managing Publie Organizations, (London: Sage).

GUNN, L. (1988), "Public Management: A Third Approaeh", Publie

Money&Management, Vol. 8, No. ı.

GYFORD, J. (1985). Politics of Local Socialism, (London: Allen&Unwin).

HAQUE. M. S. (1996a), "The Intelleetua! Crisis in Public Administralian in the Current

Epoch of Privatization", Administration&Society, Vol. 27, No, 4.

HAQUE, M. S. (1996b), "Publie Service Under Challenge in the Age of Privatization",

Governance, Vol. 9, No. 2. .

HARMON, M. M. (1981). Action Theory for Public Administration, (New

• York: Longman).

HARRIS, P. (1990). Foundations of Public Administration: A Comparative

Approaeh, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press).

HART, D. K. and C. D. WASDEN (1990), "Two Roads Diverged in a Yellow Wood:

Publie Administration, the Managemem Orthodoxy, and Civie Humanism",
International Journal of Publie Administration, Vol. 13, No. 6.

HENRY, N. (1975), "Paradigms of Publie Administratian", Public Administration

Review, Vol. 35, No. 4.

HENRY, N. (1989). Publie Administration and Publie Affairs, (4th ed.),

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentiee Haıı).

HESELTINE, M. (1980), "Ministers and Management in Whitehall," Management

Services in Government, U.K., 35.
554 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

HILL, L. B. (ed.) (1992). The State of PubHc Bureaucracy, (New York: Annonle).

HOGGETI, P. (1991), " A New Management in the Public Sector?" , Policyand

Politics, Vol. 19, No. 4.

HOGGETI, P. (1996), "New Modes of Control in the Public Service", Public

Administration, Vol. 74, Spring Issue.

HOGGETT, M. and R. HAMBLETON (eds.) (1987). Decentralisation and

Democraey, University of Bristol-SAUS Occasional Paper, No. 26.

HOLMES, M. (1992), "Public Sector Management Reform: Convergence or

Divergence?", Güvernance, Vol. 5, No. 4.

HOLMES, M. and D. SHAND (1995), "Management Reform: Some Practitioner

Perspeclives on the Past Ten Years", Governance, Vol. 8, No. 4.

HOLTHAM, C. (1992), "Key Challcnges for Public Services Delivery" in L. Willcocks

and J. Harrow (cds.), Rediscovering Public Services Management,
(London: Mc Graw-Hill).

HOOD, C. (1987), "Public Administration" in V. Bogdanor (cd.), The Blackwell

Encyclopedia of Political Institutions, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

HOOD, C. (1989), "Public Administratian and Public Policy: Intellectual Challenges for
the 1990s", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 48,
No. 4.

HOOD, C. (1999a), "Publk Administralion: Lost an Empire, Not Yet Found a Role?" in
A. Leftwich (d.), New Developments in Political Science: An
International Review of Aehievements and Prospeets, (Aldershot,
Hanı<;:Edwar EIgar).

HOOD, C. (1990b), "Beyond the Publie Bureaueracy State? Publie

Administration in the 1990s", Inaugural Lecture, London School of
Economics, January 16, 1990.

HOOD, C. (1991), "A Public Management for All Seasons", Public

Administration, Vol. 69, Spring Issuc.

HOOD, C. (1995a), "Contemporary Public Management: A New Global Paradigm",

Public Policy Hnd Adminİstratİon, Vol. 10, No. 2.

HOOD, C. (1995b), "Emerging Issues in Public Administraıion", Public

Admİnİstration, Vol. 73, Spring Issue.

HOOD, C. (1996), "Beyond 'Progressivism'; A New 'Global Paradigm' in Public

Management?", International Journal of Public Admİnİstration, Vol.
19, No. 2.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 555

HOPWOOD, A.G. and C. TOMKlNS (eds.) (1984). Issues in Public Sector

Accounting, (Oxford: Philip AlIen).

HORTON, S. (1996), "The Civil Service" in D. Farnham and S. Horton (eds.),

Managing the New Public Servic2s, (2nd ed.), (London: Macmillan).

HOUSTON, D. J. (1993), "Search for Identity: The Impact of the 'Great Books' in Public
Administration", International Journal of Public Adniinistration,
Vol. 16, No. 5.

HUGHES, O. E. (1994). Public Management&Administration: An

Introduction, (London: The MacMillan).

HUNT, M. (1990), "Undergraduate Degree in Public Sector Management", Teaehing

Public Administration, Vol. X, No. 2.

HUSSARD, J. and M. PEKER (eds.) (1993). Postmodernism and Organizations,

(London: Sage).

ILO (1995), Impaet of Struetural Adjustment in the Publie Serviees,

(Geneva: InternationalLabour Office).

INGRAHAM, P. W. (1997), "Play lt Again, Sam; It's Stili Not Right: Searching for the
Right Notes in Administrative Reform", Publie Administration Review,
Vol. 57, No. 4.

INGRAHAM, P. W. and C. R. BAN (1986), "Models of Public Management Are They

UsefuI to P'ublic Managers in the 1980s?", Publie Administration
Review, Vol. 46, No. 2.

ISAAC-HENRY, K. (1993), "Development and Change in the Public Sector" in K.

Isaac-Henry, C. Painter, and C. Barnes (eds.), ~anagement in the Publie
Sector: ChalIenge and Change, (London: Chapman&HaIl).

ISAAC-HENRY, K., C. PAINTER, and C. BARNES(eds.) (1993). Management in

the Public Seetor: ChalIenge and Change, (London: Chapman&Hall).

JACKSON, P. M. (1982). The Political Eeonomy of Bureaueraey, (Oxford:

Philip Allan).

JACKSON, P. M. (1988), "Management Techniques in the U.K. Public Sectar",

International Review of Administrative Scienees, Vol. 54.

JACKSON, P. M. (1990), "Public Choice and Public Sectar Management", Publie

Money and Management, Vol. 10, No. 4.

JACKSON, P. M. (1994), "The New Public Sectar Management: Surrogate Competitian

and Contracting Out" in P. M. Jackson and C. M. Price (eds.), Privatisation
and Regulation: A Review of the Issues,' (Harlaw, Essex: Langman).
556 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNÜLŞEN

JOHNSON, E. (1993), "The Challenge to the Public Sector: Changing Politics and
Ideologies" in K. Isaac-Henry, C. Painter,ıand C. ~ames (eds.), Management
in the Public Sector: Challenge and Change, (London:
Chapman&Hall).

JOHNSON, N. (1990). !Restructuring the Welfare State, (London: Harvester

Wheatshcaf).

JOHNSTON, J. and G. CALLENDER (1997), "Vulnerable GovemmenlS: Inadvertent De-

Skilling in the New Global Economic and Managerialisı Paradigni? ",
International Review or Administrative Sciences, Vol. 63.

JONES, G. W. (1989), iLA Revolution in Whitehall? Changes in Briıish Central

Governmenı since 1979", West European Politics, Vol. 12.

KASS, H. D. and B. L. CATRON (eds.) (1990), Images and Identities in Public

Administration, (London: Sage).

KEATING, M. (1988), " QuoVadis? Challenges of Public Administration",

Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 48.

KEATING, M (1991), "Managemem of the Public Sector" in J. Llewellyn and S. J.

Poııer (cds.), Economic Policies for the 1990s, (Oxford: Blackwell).

KELMAN, S. (1991), " The Prescriptive Message', The Public Administraıion of James
Q. Wilson: A Symposium on Bureaucracy", Public Administration
Review, Vol. 51, No. 3.

KERNAGHAN, K. (1993) "Reshaping Goveromenl: the Post-Bureaucratic Paradigm",

Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 36, NoA.

KHUN, T. (1964). The Structure of Scientific' Revolutions, (Chicago:

Universily of Chicago Press).

KHUN, T. (1970), "Reftections on My Critics~' in ı. Lakotas and A. Musgrave (eds.),

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, (New York: Cambridge
University Press).

KINGDOM, J. (1986a), "Public Adminisıration: Defining the Discipline-Part L",

Teaching Public Administration, Vol. Vi, No. ı.
KINGDOM, J. (1986b), "Public Adminisıralion: Defining the Discipline-Parı II",
Teaching Public Administration, Vol. Vi, No. 2.

KINGDüM, J. (1990), "Public Administration or Public Implementation-A Discipline in

Crisis", Public Policyand Administration, Vol. 5, No. 2.

KINGSLEY, G. (1997), "Reflecting on Reform and the Scope ofPublic Administration",

Publie Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 2.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT '557

KIRKPATRICK, i and M. MARTINEZ LUCIO (1996), "Introduction: The Contract

State and the Future of Public Management", Public Administration, Vol.
74, Spring Issue.

KOOIMAN, J. (ed.) (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society

Interactions, (London: Sage).

LEVINE, C. H. (1979), Public Management: First Approximations", International

I! Journal of Public Administrations Vol. I, No. 4.' .

LLEWELLYN, J. and S. J. POTTER (1991). Economic Policies for the 1990s,

(Oxford: Blackwell).

'LONG, N. (1954), "Public Policyand Administration: The Goals of Rationality and

Responsibility", Publie Administration Review, Vol. 14, No. 1.
i
i

!LONQ, N. (1981), "The S.E.S. and the Public Interest", Publie Administration
Review, Vol. 41., No. 3

ILOVRICH, N. P. Jr. (1985), "Contending Paradigms in Public Administration": A Sign

, of Crisis or Intellectual Vitality?", Administration&Society, Vol. 17, No.
3.
;LYNN, L. E. Jr. (1987). Managing Publie Policy, (Boston: Little, Brown).

LYNN, L. E. Jr. (1996). Public Management as Art, Science, and

:1 Profession, (Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House).

LYNN, N. B. and A. WILDAVSKY (eds.) (1990). Public Administration: The

State of the Discipline, (Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House).

McCURDY, H. E. (1986), Public Administration: A Bibliographic Guide to

the Literature, (New York: Mareel Dckker).

McKEWITT, D. and A. LAWTON (ed.) (1994). Publie Sector Management:

Theory, Critique&Practiee, (London: Sage-Open University).

i '
558 UGUR ÖMüRGÖNÜLŞEN

McSWlTE, O. C. (1997), "Postmodernism and Public Administration's Identity Crisis",

(Book Review), Publie Admİnİstration Review, Vol. 55, No. 2.

MAHLER, V. A. and C. J. KATZ (1988). "Social Benefits in Advanced Capitalist

Countries: ACross-National Assessment", Comparative Politics, Vol. 21,
No.l.

MAJOR, J. (1989). Publie Service Management: The Revolution in

Progress, (London: The Audit Commission).

MARANTO, R. and D. SCHULTZ (1991). A Short History of the United

States Civil Service, (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America).

MARX, F. M. (1946). Elemenls of Publie Administration, (New York: Prentice

Hall).

MASCARENHAS, R. C. (1990). "Reform of the Public Service in Australia and New

Zealand", Govel'nance, Vol. 3, No. 1.

MASCARENHAS, R. C. {1993), "Building an Enterprise Culture in the Public Sectür:

Reform of the Public Sector in Australia, Britain, and New Zealand", Publie
Administration Review, Vol. 53, No. 4.

MASSEY, A. (1993). Managing the Publie Sector: A Comparative Analysis

of the United Kingdom and the United States, (Aldershot: Edward
Elgar).

MERINO, M. (1996), "From a Discipline Without a Subject to a SubjeCt Without a

Discipline: Public Administration and Public Policies from an Institutional
Perspective", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.
119, No. 9.

MERTON, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Strueture, (3rd ed.), (New
York: Free Press).

METCALFE, L. (1993), "Conviction Politics and Dynamic Conservatism: Mrs.

Thatcher's Managerial Revolution", International Politieal Scienee
Review, Vol. 14, No. 4.

METCALFE, L. andS. RICHARDS (1990). Improving Publie Management,

(2nd ed.), (London: Sage-European Institute of Public Administration).

MIDWINTER, A. F. (1990), "Editorial: What New Manageriahsm?", Publie Policy

and Administration, Vol. 5, No. 1.

MINTZBERG, H. (1979). The Strueturing Organizations, (Englewood Cliffs, N.

J.: Prentice-Hall).

MINTZBERG, H. (1983). Struetures in Fives, (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentİce-

Hall).
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 559

MUHAMMAD, F. (1988), "Public Administration: Prevailing Perceptions and

Priorities", International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol.
54, No. 1.

NEWMAN, J. and J. CLARKE (1994), "Going About OUT Business? The

Managerialization of Public Services" in J. Clarke, A. Cochrane, and E.
McLaughlin (eds.), Managing SoİCal Policy, (London: Sage).

NEWLAND, C. A. (1983), "The Reagan Presideney: Limited Govemment and Political

Administration", Public Administration Review, Vol. 43, No. ı.

NISKANEN, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government,

(Chicago, lll.: Aldine-Athcrton).

OECD (1990). Financing Public Expenditures through User Charges,

Oceasional Papers on Publie Managcment, (paris:OECD).

OECD (1991). Serving the Economy Better, Oeeasional Paper on Publie

Management, (paris: OECD).

OECD (1993). Public Management: OECD Country Profiles, (Paris: OECD).

OECD (1995). Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in

OECD Countries, (Paris: Puma-OECD)~

ORMOND, D. (1993), "Improving Govemment Performance", The OECD Observer,

No. 184, Octobcr/Novembcr Issue.

OSBORNE, D. andT. GAEBLER (1992). Reinventing Government: How the

Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector,
(Reading, Mass,: Addison-Wesley). .

OSTROM, V. (1974). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public

Administration, (rev. ed.), (Tusealoosa: University of Alabama Press).

OVERMAN, E. and K. BOYD (1994), "Best Practiee Researeh and Post-Bureaucratic

Reform", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
Vol. 4.

ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN, U. (1995), An Analysis of the Government's Strategy

Concerning the Staff Cutbacks in the Turkish Civil Service:
Cutback or Restraint, Diseussion Paper in Publie Sectar Economies,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Publie Sectar Eeonomies Research Centre, Leicester
University, U.K., No. 95/4.

ÖZEN, Ş. (1995), "Kamu Yönetimi Yazınımız ve Örgütler-Yönetim Çalışma Alanı:

Tehlikeli İlişkiler" in Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu
Bildirileri, Vol. I, (Ankara: TODAtE).
560 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

PAINTER, C. (1993), "Managing Change in the Public Sector" in K. Isaac-Henry, C.

Painter, and C. Barnes (eds.), Management in tbe Public Sector:
. Cballenge and Change, (London: Chapman&Ha1I).

PEAT MARWICK (1986). Current Issues in Public Sector Management,

(London: Peat Marwick).

PERRY, J. L. (1993). "Public Management Theory: What Is lt? What Should it Be?" in
B. Bozeman (ed.), Public Management: Tbe State or Art, (San J

Fransisco, Cal.: Jo:.sey-Bass).

PERRY, J. L. and 1<. L. KRAEMER (1983). Public Management: Public and

Private Perspectives, (palo Alto, Cal.: Mayfield).

PETERS, B. G. (1989). The Politics or Bureaucracy, (3rd ed.), (London:

Longman). .'

PETERS, B. G. '(1991), "Government Reform and Reorganization in an Era of

Retrenchment and Conviction Politics" in A. Farazmand (ed.), Handbook or
Comparatiye and Development Public Administration, (New York:
Marcel Dekker).

PETERS, B. G. and D. J. SAvorE (1994), "Civii Service Reform: Misdiagnosing the

Patient", Public Administration Review, Vol. 54, No. 5.

PETERS, T (1989). Thriving on Chaos, (London: Pan).

PETERS, T. and R. H. WATERMAN Jr. (1982). In Search or Excellence:

. Lessons from America's' Best-Run Companies, (New York:
Harper&Row). '

PETERS, T. and N. AUSTIN (1985). A Passion ror Excellence: The

Leadership Difference, (London: Fortana).

PFIFFNER, J. P. (1987), "Political Appointees and Career Executives: The Democracy-

Bureaucracy Nexus in the Century", Publie Administration Review, Vol.
47, No. ı.

PfERSON, C. (1991). Beyond the Welfare State: The New Political

Economy or Welfare, (Cambridge: Poliıy Press).

POLLITT, C. (1993). Managerialism and Publie Services, (2nd. ed.), (Oxford:

Blackwell).

POLLlTT, C. (1996), "Antistatist Reforms and New Administrative Directions: Public

Administration iıı the United Kingdom", Public Administration Review,
Vol. 56, No. ı.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 561

POWER, M. and R. LAUGffi.JN (1992), "Critica! Theory and Accounting" in N.

Alveson and H. Willmoıı (eds.), Critical Management Studies, (london:
Sage).

PROKOPENKO, 1. (1989). Management Implieations of Struetural

Adjustment, (Geneva: ILO).

RAINEY, H. G. (1990), "Public Management: Reeent Developments and Current

Prospects" in N. B. Lynn and a. Wildavsky (eds.), Publie Administration:
The State of the DiscipIİne, (Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House).

RAINEY, H. G. (1991). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations,

(San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass).

RANSON, S. and J. STEWART (1994). Management for the Publie Domain:

Enabling the Learning Soicety, (New York: Sı. MartinOs Press).

RHODES, R. A. W. (1991), "Theory and Methods in British Public Administration: The

View from Political Science", Political Studies, Vol. XXXiX.

RHODES, R. A. W. (1996), "From Institutions to Dagma: Tradition, Eeleetidsm, and

Ideology in the Study of British Public Administration", P u b iic
Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 6.

RHODES et aL. (1995), "The State of Public Administration: A Professional History,

1970-1995", Publie Administration, VoL. 73, Spring Issue.

RIDLEY, F. F. (1996), "The New Public Management in Europe: Comparatiye

Perspectives", Publie Policyand Administration, VoL. 11, No. 1.

ROSENBLOOM, D. H. (1989). Publie Administration: Understanding

Management, Politics, and Law in the Publie Seetor, (2nd ed.),
(New York: Random House).

ROURKE, F. E. (1984). Bureaueraey, Politics, and Publie Policy, (Boston:

Liule, Brown).

RUTGERS, M. R. (1997), "Beyond Woodrow Wilson: The Identity of the Study of

Public Administration in Historical Perspective",
Administration&Society, Vol. 29, No. 3.

SAVOIE, D. J. (1994). Thateher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New

Bureaueraey, (Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh Press).

SCHWARTZ, H. (1994), "SmaIl States in Big Trouble", World Politics, VoL. 46,
No. 4.

SCOTT, G. P., P. BUSHNELL, and N. SALLEE (1990), "Reform of the Core Public
Sector: New Zealand Experience", Governance, VoL. 3.
 562 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

SELF, P. (1993). Governrnent by the Market?, (London: Macmillan).

sınCK, A ..(1975), "The Trauma of Politics: Public Administration in the Sixties" in F.

C. Mosher (ed.), American Public Administration:Past, Present,
Future, (Syracuse: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and the
National AssoCİation of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration).

sınCK, A. (1990), "Budgeting for Results: Recent Developments in Five Industrialised

Countries", Public Administration Review, Vol. No. ı.

SMITH, T.W. (1987), "The Polls - A Report The Welfare State in Crossnational
Perspective", Pulılic Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 5 ı.

STEW ART, J. D. (1983). Local Government: The Freedom of Local Choice,

(London: Alien and Unwin).

STEWART, J. and S. RANSON (1988), "Management in the Public Domain", Public

Money&Management, Vol. 8, No. 1-2.

STEW ART, J. and K. WALSH (1992), "Change in the Management of Public Services",
Public Administration, Vol: 70, Winter Issue.

STILLMAN, R. J. (1991). Preface to Public Administration: A Search for

Themes and Direction, (New York: St. Martin's Press).

STILLMAN, R. J. (1997), 'American vs. European Publie Administration: Does Public

Administratian Make the Modem State, or Does theState Make Public
Administratian?", Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 4.

ŞAYLAN, G. (1994). Değişim, Küreselleşme ve Devletin Yeni İşlevi,

(Ankara: tmge).

ŞAYLAN, G. (1995), "?oulantzas'ın Devlet Kuramına Katkıları Üzerine Bazı

Düşünceler" in Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri,
Vol. I, (Ankara: TODAtE).

ŞA YLAN, G. (1996), "Bağımsız Bir Disiplin Olarak Kamu Yönetimi: Yeni Paradigma
Arayışları, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Vol. 29, No. 3.

TAN, T. (1988), "Kamu Hizmeti, Özelleştirme ve Bürokrasinin Azaltılması Üzerine",

Türk İdare Dergisi, No. 378.

TAN, T. (1995), "tdarede Yeni Ussallık Arayışları ve Hukuk" in Kamu Yönetimi

Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Vol. II, (Ankara: TODAtE).

TAYLOR, G. (1993), "Challenges from the Margins" in J. Clarke (ed.), A Crisis in

Care?, (London: Sage).

TAYLOR, ı. and G. POPHAM (1989). An Introduction to Public Sector

Management, (London: Unwin Hyman).

'I .1
-----
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 563

TAYLOR-GOOBY, P. (1985). Public Opinion, Ideologyand State Welfare,

. (London: Routledge-KeganPaul).

TAYLOR-GOOBY ,P. (1989), "The Role of State" in R. Jowell, S. Whitherspoon and

L. Brook (eds.), British Social Attitudies: Special International
Report, (6th ed.), (Albcrshot, Hants.: SCPR-Gower).

TAYLOR-GOOBY, P. (1991), "Attaehment to the Welfare State" in R. Jowell, L. Brook

and B. Taylor (cds.), British Social Attitudes, the 8th Report,
(Aldrshot, Hants: SCPR-Gower).

, TAYLOR-GOOBY, P. and R. LAWSON (eds.) (1993). Markets and Managers,

(Buckingham: Opcn University Press).

THOMPSON, F. (1997), "Book Review", Journal of Policy

Analysis&Management, Vol. 16, No. ı.

THOMPSON, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action, (New York: McGraw-HiIl).

THOMPSON, P. and D. McHUGH (1995). Work Organisations: A Critical

Introduction: (2nd ed.), (London: Macmillan Business).

, TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE (The U.K.) (1990). Eight Report
of Session 1989-90 Progress in the Next Steps Initiative, HC
481, (London: HMSO).

TULLOCK, G. (1965). The Politics of 8ureaucracy, (Washington, D.C.: Public

Mf airs Press).

TOULMIN, S. E. (1970), "Does the Distinction betwecn Normal and Revolutionary

Science Hold Water?" in i. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and
the Growth of Knowledge, (New York: Cambridge University Press).

UYSAL-SEZER, B. (1992), "Büyük Devlet-Küçük Devlet Tartışması", Amme İdaresi

Dergisi, Vol. 25, No. 4.

ÜSTÜNER, Y. (1986), "KamuYönetimi Disiplininde Yöntem Sorunları", Türkiye'de

Sosyal Bilim Araştırmalarının Gelişimi, S. Atauz (ed.), (Ankara: Türk
Sosyal Bilimler Derneği).

ÜSTÜNER, Y. (1992). In Search df an Identity: Considerations on the

Theory and the Discipline of Public Administration, Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, (Ankara: Middle East Technical University).

. ÜSTüNER, Y. (1995), "Kamu Yönetimi Disiplininde Kimlik Bunalımı" in Kamu

Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Vol. I, (Ankara:
TODAİE).
564 UGUR ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN

VECCHIO, R. P. (1991). Organizational Bebavior, (2nd ed.), (Chicago, III.:

Dryden Press).

VENTRISS, C (1987), "Two Critica! Issues of American Public Administration:

Reflections of a Sympathetic Participant", Administration&Society, Vol.
19, No. ı.

VENTRISS, C (1989), "Toward a Publlc Philosophy of Public Administration: A Civic

Perspective of the Public", Public Administration Review, Vol. 49, No.
2.
VENTRISS, C (1991), "Contemporary Issues in American Public Administration
Education: The Search for an Educationa! Focus", Public Administration
Review, Vol. 51, No. ı.

VOLCKER COMMISSION (National Commission on the Public Service and the Task
Force Reports to the NaLional Commission on the Public Service) (1990).
Leadership for America: Rebuilding the PubIc Service, (LexingLon,
MA: LexingLon Books).

WALDO. D. (1968), "Scoye of the Theory of Public Administration" in J. C.

CharlesworLh (ed.), Theory and Practice of Public Administration:
Scope, Objectives, and Methods, (p,hiladelphia: American Academy of
Political and Social Scicncc). '

W ALDO, D.(l972), "Developments in Public Administration", Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 404.

W ALDO, D. (1975), "Education for Public Administration in the Seventies" in F. C.

Mosher (ed.), American Public Administration, (University, AI.:
University of Alabaına Press).

WALDO, D.(1980). The Enterprise of Public Administration: A Summary

View, (Novato. Cal.: Chandler&Sharp).

W ALDO, D.(1990), "A Theory of Public Administration Means in Our Time a Theory
of Politics Also" .in N. B. Lynn and A. Wildavsky (eds.), Public
Administration: The State of the Discipline, (Chatham, N. J.:
Chatham House).

WAMSLEY, G and R. BACHER (1990). Refounding Public Administration,

(California: Sage).

WHITE, J. D. and G. B. ADAMS (eds.) (1994). Research in Public

Administration: Reflections on Theory and Practice, (London:
Sage-ASPA). }

WILENSKI, P. (1988), "Social Change as a Source of Competing Values in Public

Administration", i\ustralian Journal of, Public Administration, Vol.
XLVII, No. 3.
 THE NEW PUBLlC MANAGEMENT 565

WILLCOCKS, L. and J. HARROW (eds.) (1992). Rediscovering Public Services

Management, (London: MeGraw-Hill).

WILLIAMS, F. (1993), "Gender, 'Race' and Class in British Welfare Policy" in A;

Cochrane and J. Clarke (eds.), Comparing Welfare States, (London: Sage).

WILSON, V. S. (1996), "Publle Administratian Refonn and the 'New Managerialism': A

Comparative Assessment of a Fundamental Cha1lenge Confronting Canadian
Publie Administration", International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol 19" No.9.

WILSON, W. (1887), "The Study of Administratian", Political Science Quarterly,

Vol. 2, No. ı.

WOOD. S. (1989), "New Wave Management", Work, Employment and Society,

Vol. 3, No.3.

WORLD BANK (1994) World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for

Development, (New York: Oxfard University Press).

WORLD BANK (1995). Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and

Politics of Government Ownership, (New York: Oxford University
Press).

WRIGHT, V. (1992), "Publie Administratian in th.eNineties: Trends and Innovations" in

Public Administration in the Nineties: Trends and Innovations,
Proceedings of XXII International Congress of Administrative Seienees, Vienna:
(Bruxelles: International Institute of Administrative Seiences).

YEATMAN, A. (1993). The Reform of Public Management: An Overview,

Address ta the Royalaf Australian Institute of Public Administratian,
November 1993.

ZIFCAK, S. (1994). New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in

Whitehall and Canberra, (Buekingham: Opcn University Press).