Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility: Every Reform Is Its Own Problem

Sutherland, Sharon

doi:10.1017/s0008423900013433

Cited by 40 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Free from the need to market its product day-to-day, PA in PS has the potential for broader historical and theoretical sweep (e.g. Eisenstadt, 1969;Hodgetts, 1973;Sutherland, 1991;Silberman, 1993) than the questions of application that NPM is confined to. To help governments to perform better is a noble goal, and 'those who practice in the real world cannot wait for science' (Weimer, 1992: 243).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was a 'close kin' to the bureaucratic model of Max Weber (Golembiewski, 1977(Golembiewski, : 1488Hood, 1996). In Canada, this model seemed particularly apt, since it fitted nicely to the Canadian version of Westminster government (Bourgault and Dion, 1990;Sutherland, 1991). Political authority was centered in the minister and the cabinet, a neutral and independent public service faithfully advised elected officials and executed public policy.…”

Section: Nature Of the Previous Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does it Matter?

Gow

Dufour

2000

International Review of Administrative Sciences

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the appearance of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1970, Thomas Kuhn's notion of a paradigm has been widely used in the social sciences even though its author was not sure about its applicability outside the hard sciences of nature. In the field of public administration and management, the approach known as 'New Public Management' (NPM) has been seen by many as the new paradigm that is replacing the classic bureaucratic or Weberian paradigm of 'public administration' (PA). However, there has been little reflection concerning the validity of using in this way the notion as it was developed by Thomas Kuhn.The question of whether or not NPM is a new paradigm merits attention for a number of reasons. First, does the introduction of ideas borrowed from business management and economics constitute a fruitful transfer or borrowing (Kuhn, 1970: 29) or a spurious one (Bendor, 1976;Ramos, 1978)? Second, the question of paradigms leads us to reflect on the degree of difference between the supposed new paradigm of NPM and the old one of PA. Is it a revolution that challenges the former paradigm and ultimately leads to its replacement? Finally, inquiring into paradigms informs us of the nature of knowledge in NPM and by extension PA.Here we enter into the realm of epistemology and raise a more universal question about social science: Are we really taking part in a 'conversation that is aware of itself ' (McSwite, 1997: 4)?In what follows Kuhn's theory is recalled, NPM is presented and analyzed in terms of it. In a third section NPM and PA are compared before an overall assessment is attempted in the conclusion. While we claim universality for our theoretical content, the practical difficulties cited, with which the traditional PA paradigm met, are mostly Canadian. Kuhn's theory of paradigms and its application to the social sciencesKuhn's theory was inspired by the desire to put order into the study of the external conditions giving rise to scientific discoveries. What emerged was a

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nature Of the Previous Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does it Matter?

Gow

Dufour

2000

International Review of Administrative Sciences

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was this, not Next Steps, that opened up the possibility of scapegoating. Parallel trends have been observed in Canada (Sutherland 1991a;Sutherland and Mitchell 1997): here too, this has happened quite independently of such limited experimentation with agencies as has taken place.…”

Section: The Ones Who Got Away: Two Previous Prison Escapesmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…On current interpretations, no minister has ever resigned on such grounds (Marshall 1989;Woodhouse 1994). The same applies in Canada (Sutherland 1991a). Marshall goes so far as to say that this convention never existed-it was a misinterpretation of ministers' legal responsibility for administrative acts.…”

Section: An Evolving Convention-and Its Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and The Derek Lewis Affair in Britain

Polidano

1999

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various concerns have been raised about the practicability of Next Steps and the adequacy of accountability mechanisms in Britain, particularly after the dismissal of Derek Lewis as chief executive of the Prison Service. This article critically reviews these concerns. It argues that the agency model is viable notwithstanding doubts about the practicability of the policy–operations distinction; that Next Steps is not the cause of defective accountability or the scapegoating of bureaucrats by ministers; and that a commonly proposed solution—making agency heads accountable to parliamentary select committees—has fundamental drawbacks of its own. The “conventional wisdom” that Next Steps cannot work ignores important evidence and badly needs reassessment.

show abstract

“…A range of viewpoints on the nature of the problem can be found in the literature, but for present purposes two main camps can be identified. The first camp emphasizes the continuing relevance of ministerial responsibility and urges all players to recommit themselves to the principle (Butler 1973;Jones 1987;Sutherland 1991). Part of the problem, it is argued, is that critics of the doctrine have placed too much emphasis on its supposed requirement that ministers accept liability for actions performed on their authority, whereas the more realistic requirement of answerability and rectification is all that is often needed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Administrative Accountability in the ‘Westminster’ Democracies: Towards a New Conceptual Framework

Stone

1995

Governance

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understandings of administrative accountability in the " Westminster" democracies remain too closely linked to the institutional arrangements through which accountability has traditionally been exacted in these countries. This has prevented a full appreciation of the nature and extent of changes which have been under way for some time. The article argues that a refined concept of accountability and five subordinate "conceptions" of accountability, corresponding to distinctive sets of institutional arrangements, are needed to comprehend the relevant changes. The identification of multiple options for administrative accountability, in turn, raises questions about how the different accountability systems are to be chosen and combined to maximize accountability without impairing administrative effectiveness.The modern debate about administrative accountability in countries with Westminster-derived governmental arrangements' is centered on the heavy reliance of those systems on a single principle of accountabilitynamely, the responsibility of ministers of state to parliament -and concern about the continuing ability of that principle to ensure democratic control of a large, active and increasingly complex executive branch of government. A range of viewpoints on the nature of the problem can be found in the literature, but for present purposes two main camps can be identified. The first camp emphasizes the continuing relevance of ministerial responsibility and urges all players to recommit themselves to the principle (Butler 1973;Jones 1987;Sutherland 1991). Part of the problem, it is argued, is that critics of the doctrine have placed too much emphasis on its supposed requirement that ministers accept liability for actions performed on their authority, whereas the more realistic requirement of answerability and rectification is all that is often needed. The second camp, to which a majority of academic commentators probably now belongs, argues that ministerial responsibility either is now incapable by itself of sustaining a system of administrative accountability or else is undesirable in this role because of its adverse effects on efficiency or on openness and responsiveness in government (Robinson et al. 1987). and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, 0x4, m, UK.

show abstract

Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility: Every Reform Is Its Own Problem

Cited by 40 publications

References 9 publications

Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does it Matter?

Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does it Matter?

The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and The Derek Lewis Affair in Britain

Administrative Accountability in the ‘Westminster’ Democracies: Towards a New Conceptual Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About