In Search of Prudence: The Hidden Problem of Managerial Reform

Abstract

This article argues that the concept of prudence can provide valuable insights into the problems of the New Public Management. Prudence, or practical wisdom, is the ability to make sound decisions under complex, ever‐changeable conditions. Old‐style bureaucracy severely limited the discretion of most administrators but preserved a site of true prudential judgment at the peak where discreet “mandarins” policed the boundary between politics and administration. The reforms that inaugurated New Public Management dismantled this site of prudence while simultaneously attempting, in effect, to disperse prudential judgment and action throughout the service. Though raising the problem of prudence, these reforms misconceived it as the problem of how to balance new freedoms with new controls to prevent abuse or folly. This essay argues that the introduction of market mechanisms, risk‐management and cost‐benefit techniques, ethics training, performance accountability, and calls to leadership were destined to fail because they misapprehended the problem of prudence.

Monastic Governance: Forgotten Prospects for Public Institutions

“…For example, teachers tend to "teach to the test" when their salary is coupled with their students' performances (Wragg et al 2004); the practical wisdom of decision makers is suppressed (Kane and Patapan 2006), or the strong crowding out of intrinsic motivation with the introduction of pay-for-performance in the U.S.…”

Risk-based management control in the public sector in Poland

“…The model brings attention to the key success factors identified during the implementation of projects and interactions with public officials. According to previous research, the first challenge is to obtain full support of the top management (Kane, Patapan, 2006). A particularly efficient method seems to be the allocation of the oversight of the risk management process to a clearly identified senior officer.…”

Prudential Public Leadership

“…These different perspectives on public administration ref lect quite different political theories about democracy and bureaucracy, with significant disagreements about the type of public leadership to be expected of bureaucrats and the corresponding code of public ethics to be relied on by bureaucrats (Ruderman 1997;Kane and Patapan 2006). Advocates of big government tend to expect much of bureaucrats as leaders in government, with responsibilities extending beyond administration through their roles in managing important parts of the policy process and in delivering public programs.…”