Article2001

The Legacy of the New Public Management in Developing Countries

Unknown author

338 citations0/0 files storedInternational Review of Administrative Sciences

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Public Policy and Administration Research Public Administration in Developing Nations Public Administration and Political Analysis

Abstract

Introduction ‘New Public Management’ is now a somewhat dated label. It was always a complex and far from consistent set of ideas, and from the first spotting of the trend it was often derided as a useful model for developing countries to follow. The conflicting mix of suspicion and enthusiasm that surrounded the NPM debate in the 1980s and early 1990s (see, for example, Spann, 1981; Osborne and Gaebler 1992) gave way to a more thoughtful skepticism in the late 1990s about its generalized applicability (Schick, 1998; Allen, 1999; Sutch, 1999). Probably, doubt has now won out. It is certainly commonplace for weary consultants and development agency staff to maintain that there is little in the NPM technical/ managerial amalgam that is appropriate for the politicized public sectors in many developing countries. After over 20 years of living with NPM, we should be able to address three substantial questions. The first key question is: Has NPM become the way of thinking about public management in developing, and developed, countries? NPM made some big claims, both about its effectiveness in improving government performance and about its inevitable dominance as a school of managerial thought. Did NPM win in its battle with the old public management approaches? Second, whether or not it removed other possibilities, to the extent that it was implemented did NPM work? Did it deliver on its promises to improve operational efficiency and the responsiveness of bureaucratic agents to their political principals? Finally, did it win enough, and did it work enough, to matter? Overall, what is the legacy of NPM — in a fashion-prone industry does it stand out from the other relatively minor twists and turns of public management? This article argues that the victory of NPM was very partial. It changed the debate but did not silence other public management voices and certainly did not take us to the end of managerial history. In looking at whether it worked, we are

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 338 citations exist upstream.

References

1991A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS?1995The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme 1993Reinventing Government 1994From old public administration to new public management 1998Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration 2002New Public Management 1990Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums 1998Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand's Reforms

Cited by

2006New public management in developing countries 2010Performance Regimes Amidst Governance Complexity 2015Public Sector Management Reform in Developing Countries: Perspectives Beyond NPM Orthodoxy 2013Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths 2008Innovation in Public Sector Services 2016Public sector management accounting in emerging economies: A literature review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.