Purpose – When new public management (NPM) emerged in the mid-1980s, most governments such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada embraced it as a better way to provide public services. A more recent assessment of NPM would conclude that its appeal has faded. The purpose of this paper is to assess the serious impediments to NPM-inspired change. Design/methodology/approach – The literature is diffuse, and therefore its insights have been limited by the lack of synthesis. In this paper the authors set out to synthesize the main work already available. Findings – Change, such as breaking up large public sector hierarchies, or developing internal market-like competition and contracting out public services is indeed disruptive. Such change cannot be achieved without shifting decision-making processes, disrupting existing roles and working relationships and leaving some confusion and uncertainty among staff. Many of the changes feature numerous levels of ill-defined processes, ongoing multi-layered and complex decision making, and no easily agreed or clear path to resolution. Originality/value – The terms “wicked problem” and “disruptive innovation” are increasingly familiar to public managers and policy makers. This paper argues that managing NPM-style change represented yet another wicked problem in managing public organizations. The authors set out to synthesize the main work available, and in so doing, frame the various attributes of NPM-inspired change – five basic parts, five types of uncertainty and five fragmenting forces. The conceptual framework suggests hypotheses as the basis for further research.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative approach to the decision‐ and policymaking that has been practiced in most developed countries for more than a quarter of a century. Such policies followed, to a greater or lesser degree, the policies adopted in the UK and the USA since the period of the Thatcher and Reagan administrations, respectively. These policies proclaimed the supremacy of the market and downplayed government intervention in the marketplace.Design/methodology/approachThis paper draws upon earlier research by the authors as well as upon published works of other researchers.FindingsSelf‐interest governed the way policies are formed and through a process of extreme capitalism financial leaders took ever‐increasing risks for which executives received lucrative incentive salaries. The recent crash suggests a failure in such policies and this paper proposes an alternative way of operating – the way of altruism. Selfishness and egoism are argued as endemic in economic rationalism and extreme capitalism, replacing selflessness that engenders policies more aligned to altruism.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited by the ability to examine all the research literature in the field at greater depth. However, the examination that has been possibly indicated that self‐interest and greed, endemic in extreme capitalism and economic rationalism, have made significant contributions to the recent subprime and global financial crises.Practical implicationsThis paper provides government and corporate policymakers with an understanding of an alternative value – selflessness as aligned to altruism – than the values of selfishness and greed that are endemic in economic rationalism and extreme capitalism guiding policies that led to the global financial crisis.Originality/valueThe paper fulfils an identified need and supports policymakers seeking to achieve just outcomes for all stakeholders across the globe.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to trace the development of economic theory to the point where "economic rationalism" is a commonly used term. Design/methodology/approach -The paper draws on earlier research and published works examining: the history of economics; economic rationalism; and the different influences in comprising basic economic concepts. Findings -The analysis of writing indicates that rationalism has been a focus of discussion in economic writing since Classical times, through to the "rational" influence in economic policy making from neoclassical economic writing. But, the specific term "economic rationalism" gained wider usage after Pusey's book. From that time, the term was used outside academia as a disparaging means to criticise economic theorists and policy makers.Research limitations/implications -The research is limited by the ability to examine all the literature in the field in greater depth. However, this has been ameliorated by examining a sufficient sample of literature relevant to the concept of rationality in economic theory and policy. Practical implications -This paper provides a useful critique -from the classics to the modern era -of the contribution made to economic theory and practice. It provides managers with a comprehensive historical overview. Originality/value -This paper fulfils an identified need and gives support to executives and managers who have doubts about theological justification for some values and accountability procedures being employed in policymaking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.