New Zealand is frequently cited as a country that has applied the New Public Management (NPM) model in a relatively rigorous and consistent manner. But this kind of assessment of New Zealand normally relies on commentaries covering the period 1984 -1996. The present article examines further refinements of public management that have occurred in New Zealand more recently, especially since the change to a Labour-led coalition government in late 1999. To what extent have these changes revised 'the New Zealand model' of public management? While many achievements of the NPM have been preserved, there are instances where NPM reforms and public-choice principles have been reversed, and there is now an effort to re-instil an ethic of 'public service'. Significant, though not radical, changes now mean that references to 'the New Zealand model' in the comparative public management literature need to take account of 'the revised version'.

Recently the much‐discussed ‘New Zealand model’ of new public management (NPM) has become significantly revised. It now lacks the theoretical coherence and the market‐led focus that it relied on between 1987 and 1996. Labour‐led governments since 1999 have undertaken gradual and pragmatic – yet significant – changes in public management structures and principles, refining and sometimes reversing the model implemented in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This article does a ‘stock‐take’ of public management developments in New Zealand from 1999 to 2008, and argues that New Zealand can no longer be viewed as a leading exponent of market‐led NPM. Some NPM principles have been refined, but others have been quietly abandoned. The new National‐led government appears unwilling to undertake radical reforms, and, while it may seek a greater role for the private sector, looks set to continue with the ‘gradual and pragmatic’ approach adopted since 1999.

No abstract

No abstract

Editor-in-Chief’s Note: September 1 of every odd-numbered year is the date when most new legislation from the most recent session of the Texas Legislature typically goes into effect. With this in mind, the Texas Water Journal invited seven organizations that work closely with the Texas Legislature to provide their take on the changes to Texas water policy and law that were made during the 2021 session. The opinions expressed in these summaries are the opinions of the individual organizations and not the opinions of the Texas Water Journal or the Texas Water Resources Institute.Organizations:Texas Water Conservation AssociationTexas Alliance of Groundwater DistrictsTexas Water FoundationSierra Club, Lone Star ChapterTexas Water Infrastructure NetworkTexas Rural Water AssociationTexas Desalination Association