Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform

Abstract

The literature on public management reform exhibits two intertwined convergence myths. First, a world‐wide consensus on a new public management (NPM) reform agenda is seen to exist amongst policy reformers and practitioners. If this agenda is not fully implemented in all cases, this is generally explained by political and reform setbacks rather than disagreement on policy aims. Second, this NPM agenda is now seen as challenged and even abandoned and replaced by an emergent post‐NPM or ‘public value leadership’ agenda and/or policy paradigm. We show the NPM convergence is overstated, with a remarkable resilience of existing institutions, and a diversity of public management systems. On the other hand, even within NPM exemplars that have putatively now adopted a post‐NPM agenda, there is debate to what degree NPM has been abandoned, and over the novelty, coherence and resilience of the post‐NPM agenda. Divergence and contextual variation prevail. The role of myth in policy reform is further examined.

The Grit in the Oyster: Professionalism, Managerialism and Leaderism as Discourses of UK Public Services Modernization

“…Across the world there has been an exponential rise in the advocacy of 'public value' or public service leadership as a means for reinvigorating state-run services (Goldfinch and Wallis 2010;Martin, Currie and Finn 2009;O'Reilly and Reed 2010;see OECD 2010 for an example). Prompted by this advocacy of public service leadership as a form of legitimated organizational agency in a variety of international contexts, this article focuses on the UK as an illuminating individual case study.…”

Local Sensemaking of Policy Paradoxes – Implementing Local Crime Prevention in Sweden

“…The liberal and neoliberal ideology that is a driving force of globalization (Farazmand 1999) is also often representing the core values of these widely spread policies. Some of the most researched idea-complexes are New Public Management (NPM) (Goldfinch and Wallis 2010;Lane 2000;Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000) and sustainable development (Dryzek 2005;Hajer 1995;Hysing 2010;Olsson 2009). These are ideas that have been widespread at the discursive and decisional level, but have often been translated differently or been more or less influential at practice level (Olsson 2009;Pollitt 2001a, b), as supported by studies showing the importance of local context in relation to reform mechanisms (Pawson and Tilley 1997).…”

Managing Change, or Changing Managers? The role of middle managers in UK public service reform

“…This role is founded on a belief in the success of public sector leadership to achieve a genuine decentralization of public services delivery, allowing 'leaders to lead' and 'managers to manage' by implementing local solutions (Goldfinch and Wallis 2010). Under New Labour, 'managerialism' evolved somewhat towards a wider ideology of 'leaderism', which encompassed notions of culture management and entrepreneurialism, radicalizing the nature and focus of organizational change (O'Reilly and Reed 2010).…”

“…Although new managerialism was associated with a putative move towards more flexible, delayered and decentralized structures, Hales' (2002) research shows that such a transformation is merely 'illusory' (p. 61), and that hierarchical control and vertical accountability endure, either through re-bureaucratization or the creation of neo-bureaucratic structures (Farrell and Morris 2003). Several strands of organization theory, such as neo-institutional theory and organizational ecology, suggest that organizations are deeply embedded within social, political, economic and normative settings that exert isomorphic and inertial population-level pressures to conform to existing and established modes of operation (DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Hannan and Freeman 1989;Goldfinch and Wallis 2010), and, consequently, create an existential tension for organizational actors within public services. These issues are intensified at structural positions where professional and administrative identities become entangled through 'hybrid' practitionermanager roles.…”