New Public Management free essay sample

What is the New Public Management? And how has it expressed itself in the workings of public bureaucracies in the Caribbean? Introduction During the last twenty years, various public administrations of countries in Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, were characterised by a practical reform movement defined by Hood (1991) as the New Public Management (NPM). This is documented by other scholars such as Gernod Gruening (1998)[1], and Paul Sutton (2003). Throughout the literature, it is evident that the process of reform have been subject to different terminologies: Managerialism – Pollitt (1990); Market Based Administration – Lan and Rosenbloom (1992); Entrepreneurial Government – Osborne and Gaebler (1992). NPM has its origins in public choice theory and the so-called ‚â€Å"managerialism’’. A simple conceptualization is that the New Public Management is a philosophy used by governments since the 1980’s to modernise the public sector. A more detailed construct is offered by Michael Barzelay (2001)[2] who indicated that New Public Management is a field of discussion largely about policy interventions within executive government. We will write a custom essay sample on New Public Management or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The characteristic instruments of such policy interventions are institutional rules and organizational routines affecting expenditure planning and financial management, civil service and labour relations, procurement, organization and methods, and audit and evaluation. The New Public Management emerged in the 1980`s and 1990’s as a response to the creeping inefficiencies of traditional bureaucratic systems. The traditional philosophy of public administration as articulated by Max Weber – that bureaucracy made administration more efficient and rational was subject to strong criticism. Bureaucratic dominance was being viewed not as a solution to the problems of public administration, but the very source of these problems (Teehankee 2003). [3] Thompson (2003) argues that bureaucratic arrangements once, successfully provided security, jobs, and economic stability, ensured fairness and equity, and delivered the one-size-fits-all services needed during the era that lasted from the turn of the past century to the mid-1960s. 4] In the meantime, however, the organizational arrangements invented at the dawn of the industrial era have become increasingly anachronistic. The fact that improvements in educational levels and advances in automation including capital intensive industries have reduced the relative efficacy of bureaucratic personnel systems (control by rules and standard operating procedures, task specialization, and sequential processing) necessitated the need for a more suitable management system. Subsequently bureaucratic systems in many industries became replaced by modern, people based human resources management (HRM) practices. Apart from industrial transformation, Thompson also draws attention to the fact that we now live in an economy in which workers demand autonomy and citizenscustomers demand superior service and more choice. Old-fashioned business bureaucracies cannot meet these demands; neither can old-fashioned government bureaucracies. He sees the New Public Management as being instrumental in correcting various bureaucratic deficiencies as it calls for the adoption of the organizational designs and practices that are transforming business: decentralized, flatter, perhaps smaller, organizations, structured around sets of generic value-creating processes and specific competencies, high-performance HRM practices, modern information technology, balanced responsibility budgeting and control systems, and loose alliances of networks (L. R. Jones Thompson, 1999). 5] Osborne and Gaebler (1992) shared paralleled views to Thompson and referred to the process as an attempt to re-engineer the state. Generally there became a growing consciousness among public servants, politicians, activists and academics around the world regarding the inherent weaknesses of government bureaucracy. An assessment of the state of public administration in the regions of Asia, Latin America, Africa Europe and Eastern Europe[6] revealed the followi ng problems that were found in common; †¢ Public administration is too slow and expensive The quality of service is very poor †¢ Public administration is too far removed from the citizens to be able to cater to their interests †¢ Public administration is corrupt †¢ It is inefficient and ineffective since it wastes financial and human resources The aforementioned provided a stimulus for change among world leaders. Implementers of The Movement The NPM movement began to develop in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The first movers were the United kingdom, which was reformed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and communal governments in the US under Ronald Reagan which suffered heavily from recessive developments and tax revolts of their citizens. Later the national governments of other Commonwealth countries, mainly New Zealand and Australia joined, after news the reform successes in these countries, and administrative reforms got on the agendas of almost all OECD countries. [7] Philosophy of the New Public Management Some of the major philosophical underpinnings of the NPM were outlined by Teehankee (2003) and are very pervasive throughout the literature: †¢ Management culture that emphasizes the centrality of the customer †¢ Transparency with regard to resource allocation and results †¢ Organization that promotes decentralized control through a wide variety of alternative service delivery mechanism †¢ NPM represents the idea of a cascading chain of contracts leading to a single principal who is interested in getting better results within a sector portfolio over which he/she has significant authority †¢ NPM is the attempt to transfer management instruments from the private sector in a modified way into the public administration Concepts of the New Public Management[8] Budget Cuts Vouchers Accountability For Performance Performance Auditing Privatization Customer Concept (One-Stop-Shops, Case management) Decentralization Strategic Planning/ Management Separation of Provisi on and Production Competition Performance Measurement Changed Management Style Contracting Out Freedom to Manage (Flexibility) Improved Accounting Personnel Management (Incentives) User Charges Separation of Politics and Administration Improved Financial Management More Use of Information Technology Factors Influencing Public Sector Reform and the Spread New Public Management In the Caribbean. (a)Economic and fiscal pressures on governments. The role of supra territorial governance organizations such as the International Monetary Organization (IMF) the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) played a critical role in the region. The downturn in the 1980’s led countries to seek aid from these lending agencies. These loans were accompanied by conditions or measures referred to as structural adjustment measures. As La Guerre (1994) stated, structural adjustment also impacted on the public sector. [9] b)Public attitudes and increasing criticisms of the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of governance and delivering public services. Concerns about governance in the Commonwealth Caribbean was raised by Patrick Emmanuel who claimed that there was a feebleness of will towards genuine change. [10] This idea was supported by civil societ y and governments throughout the region. International conferences such as the biennial meeting of the World Bank ( CGCED) claimed that there was a strong link between good governance, strong economies and positive social outcomes. (c)Resurgence of New Right politics in the late 1970’s and 1980’s advocated by Reagan and Thatcher regimes. (d)The proliferation of management ideas (e)Globalization and the spread of global markets. The globalized economy had profound implications for public administration. [11] Four major trends were identified: (i) the attempt by various governments to slow down or reverse growth of the state in terms of overt spending and staffing; (ii) the shift towards privatization and quasi-privatization and away from core government institutions, with renewed emphasis on subsidiary in public service provision; (iii) the development of automation, particularly in information technology, in the production and distribution of public services; (iv) the development of a more international agenda. In order to attract investors governments were forced to introduce efficient and standardized systems of administration. [12] In this paper we will examine how the NPM has expressed itself in the workings of public bureaucracies in Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana. THE EMERGENCE OF NPM IN BARBADOS Attempts at public sector reform in Barbados were made since independence in 1966. In 1969, the government abolished the system of local government administration and it was replaced by a temporary Organization and Management Division in 1971 which became permanent in 1973. [13] During the 1980’s there was the creation of the Ministry of the Civil Service which brought all human resource functions under one ministry. In 1997 the Office of Public Sector Reform (OSPR) was created. This organisation was positioned directly under the Ministry of Civil Service. It was a response to the percieved need to reform and re-engage its governments machinery in order to meet the challenges of a constantly changing global environment. The case for reform was a case for modernisation to ensure competitiveness in the face of globalisation. [14] The main slogan was â€Å"making Barbados work betterâ€Å". The overall objectives that were outlined by the Constitutional Review Commission in 1998 were expressed by buzz words such as transparency, accountability, efficiency, impartiality, integrity, contractual appointments, privatization and outsourcing. The structure and organizational culture, inherited at independence (Based on the Weberian model) were seen as obstacles in need of change. These changes were outlined in the draft white paper. [15] The reform strategy highlighted in the White Paper were drawn from the ideas associated with NPM . The major initiatives identified for action were; a) Strategic Planning b) Organizational Reviews c) Customer Charters d) Integrated Internal Reform Committees e) Employee Assistance Programmes f) Year of customer Service An analysis of the Barbados experience showed that they adopted a rational rather than incremental approach to the reform process. This may be one of the reasons that the reforms were met with resistance and a lack of commitment at the top of the programme. The actors in the process did not reach a common agreement. The following were identified as threats to the programme: [16] †¢ there is a duplication of responsibilities with other Departments with respect to the implementation of the programmes. †¢ There is an apparent lack of support for reforms being implemented by the Office and the use of traditional strategies to subvert efforts- e. g. transfers and refusal to disseminate information on PSR activities. Evidence also showed lack of priority to reform activities. Since the implementation of the programme were characteristic of a top-down approach lack of support from the top constituted a restraining factor. There exists a public service culture that condones behaviours, attitudes, practices and values that are negative, non productive and antireform. †¢ Some senior managers carry a negative perception and attitude to interacting with Management Development Officers. These officials have received feedback suggestin g lack of cooperation due to the level at which they are graded. †¢ There is lack of committed financial resources for the implementation of programmes. There is therefore need to provide adequate financing for reform programmes. Reports compiled by the Office of Public Sector Reform concluded that critical support must be gained from all actors in the arena. It was suggested that a mandate must come from the steering committee that would put mechanisms in place for the Ministries and Departments to treat Public Sector Reform seriously. They resigned to the fact that reform would take a considerably long time. This is reflected in the analysis of programmes that were actually completed between the period 1995 and 2003. Of the 108 projects scheduled, only 50 were completed. [17] PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM IN JAMAICA The need for Civil Service reform in Jamaica was driven by the inefficiency of the Public Service and its inability to operate within a changing environment. There was considerable waste in the public sector, with overlapping and duplication of functions among government organizations, and the mismanagement of human, financial and technological resources. The excessive centralization of decision making by central agencies and the continued use of outdated and cumbersome regulations and procedures caused inordinate delays in decision making and in responding to public needs. There were five main attempts at the reform process: (a) The first effort was made in the early 1970s through the creation of a Ministry of the Public Service (MPS). (b) The second attempt was made in 1984 with the introduction of the Administrative Reform Programme (ARP), which sought to improve human and financial resources management within the Jamaican public sector (c) The third phase, otherwise known as ARP II, began in 1991 with the establishment of the Financial and Programme Management Improvement Project (FPMIT). It was charged with the responsibility for programme budgeting and corporate planning throughout the public sector, (d) The fourth phase was associated with the introduction of the Tax Administration Reform Project in November 1994, whose primary focus was to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of administration in revenue mobilization (World Bank, 1994). (e) The final phase, the Public Sector Modernization Programme (PSMP), was introduced in 1996 and was charged with four main responsibilities: (i) privatization of some public sector entities, including contracting out services that can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by the private sector; (ii) down-sizing and strengthening the required work force; iii) abolishing redundant statutory bodies and government companies; and (iv) the creation of executive agencies,[18] aimed at reducing centralization of control through more delegation of authority to managers in public service departments or agencies (Government o f Jamaica, 1996). The final phase of reform in Jamaica contained concepts and strategies parallel to those outlined in the New Public Management and was influenced mainly by economic conditions. In 1985, inflation stood at 30% and unemployment had increased to 25. 6%. These factors were responsible for the Jamaican government approaching the IMF in April of the same year. This was followed by the formal adaptation of the New Public Management in the latter part of 1985. The success of the programme in Jamaica was mainly due to the homogeneity of the population. According to Bissessar (2006) being a fairly homogeneous society allowed for frequent discussions, negotiations and compromises between governing party and the opposition. Much of the success for the reform in the public sector in Jamaica was because of the long term planning and bargaining between the government, the opposition party and the private sector. Due to the support of the unions there was more coordination than resistance. It was observed that public sector reforms would never succeed without support of the unions, e. g. The Jamaica Civil Service Association. The Public Sector Modernization Programme sought to heal the breach and form a partnership that would ensure a smooth transition of the change process (Jamaica Gleaner Aug 9, 1999). By the time the Public Sector Modernization Project (PSMP) was introduced, there was more attention paid to the implementation process. The government had learnt that the ARP (second phase of reform) failed because the implementation process was poorly designed. According to the operations manual for the PSMP (Government of Jamaica 1996) the project was developed through a consultative process of workshops conducted with a variety of potential stakeholders. Some of these stakeholders included targeted ministries and agencies, the Jamaica Civil Service Association, funding agencies, consultants and selected members of the public. The PSMP in Jamaica is a good example of a reform programme that is being monitored and coordinated at the highest level of government. The policy direction of the project is provided by the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Administrative Reform (IMCAR), which is chaired by the Prime Minister and with membership drawn from senior ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Technical guidance is provided by the Project management Committee (PMC), chaired by the Cabinet Secretary (Office of the Prime Minister), who is also the Head of the Civil Service and Chairman of the Permanent Secretaries’ Board. According to Radman (1998) to be effective, the monitoring and coordination functions of Civil Service reforms should be conducted at such a high level in government hierarchy that they attain sufficient respect and clout in the system. THE EMERGENCE OF NPM IN TRINIDAD A White Paper was introduced by the new UNC government in 1997. The reform process was to be overseen by a Minister of Public Administration who would initiate the restructuring, rationalization and decentralization of the public service to meet the challenges of the twenty first century. [19] Major emphasis was to be placed on quality service delivery, efficiency audits, quality management, financial management, accounting, procurement and supply management, policy planning, organizational development, training and new appraisal methods. The approach by the government was a top-down approach that seemed to be rational rather than incremental. One of the major influences being the conditions laid down by the IMF to undertake Structural Adjustment programmes. One of the major obstacles to implementation was the perceived ethnic power division between the East Indians and Africans. The fact that the public service in Trinidad Tobago had for so long been dominated by the African segment was a major factor in the perception that African Public servants held. Commissioners argued that they were charges against them. The chairs of the Commissions were mainly of African decent or persons who were known to be political supporters of the ruling party. [20] Various commissioners were appointed by the non-executive head of state, and there developed a perception among the East Indian Population that complaints or appeals were frustrated (Brown 2008). When the New Public Management was introduced in the late 1990’s there was a fear that the principal of merit would be compromised. Reform of executive agencies such as the Public Service Commission could not be achieved without constitutional amendment. Because the two major parties mirrored the two ethnic groups and because of the small majorities of recent governments, it was clear that the party in power would not obtain the support of the opposition if an amendment of the constitution was sought. Resistance to reform also came from top and middle level public officers. Public servants argued they were not adequately paid and they were distrustful of senior managers in the service ( Bissesar 2002). The 1990 attempted coup may also be a symptom of resistance by disgruntled groups in the wider population. THE CASE OF GUYANA President Forbes Burnham (1962-1985) embraced the ideological position of socialism in an attempt to deal with the economic problems in Guyana. By the late 1970’s the state controlled 80% of the economy. This policy forced private interests to terminate their economic positions which led to severe economic downturn in 1985. The situation was exacerbated by the massive inflations of the 1990’s where it became difficult to retain and attract public servants. The lack of cohesion among different ethnic groups along with the lack of funding resulted in little or no sustained effort on the part of the government to introduce the NPM. The public sector in Guyana was thought to have been politicized with appointments based on political affiliation rather than merit. This was reflected in the ethnic composition of the Guyana Public Service Union and the ruling party which were predominantly Afro-Guyanese ( Deryck Brown 2008). The nationalization of the economy and the politicization of the public service caused a massive brain drain depriving both private and public sectors of talent. The situation was exacerbated by the massive inflations of the 1990’s where it became difficult to retain and attract public servants. With the assistance of the ODA the government of Guyana initiated a programme of public sector reform called Public Service Management. This is where ministries were reduced from 18 to 11. The reduction was to avoid duplication in similar areas of government policy and thus increase coherence in policy formulation and service delivery. Major problems were caused by financial constraints and depressed public service salaries inhibited full implementation. The ability to pay competitive salaries was essential to the success of the reform programme. The situation was further frustrated by the shortage of qualified applicants which to high level positions to be filled by inadequately qualified individuals. Other major obstacles to the reform process identified by Brown (2008) are as follows: ) lack of commitment and ownership at both political and senior management levels b) senior public service managers were either unaware or apathetic about project objectives c) a lack of consensus and a clear vision on the part of the Government of Guyana about the kind of public sector it wanted. This led to a lack of objectives and information reaching stakeholders. d) An autocratic style displayed by PSM, without displaying the competence to earn respect. Tyrone Ferguson in his analysis of Guyana came up with parallel explanations. He observed that ministerial dominance of the Public Service became the order of the day. Ministers over time usurped control of the day to day operational tasks of administration from Permanent Secretaries to other Senior Officials. Accountability of public agents was thus destroyed. Public imperatives came to imbue decision making CONCLUSION Persisting fiscal constraints, declining productivity and disenchantment with the delivery of public services triggered the movement in many countries akin to what Hood (1991) termed a New Public Management. The main forces influencing the introduction of the New Public Management in the Caribbean are Globalization and Structural Adjustment. It can be interpreted as what Dolowitz and Marsh (1996) refer to as coercive policy transfer. Coercive transfer occurs when an actor directly imposes policy on a government. Prior to the 1980’s there was little emphasis on reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Even thought there were reform committees in Jamaica, Trinidad Tobago, Dominica and Barbados which identified problems to be addressed, recommendations were never implemented. Structural adjustment measures seem to have provided a stronger impetus. Mandates from lending agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank required various countries to undertake comprehensive reform of their public services. However, even though Barbados, Trinidad Tobago, Guyana and Jamaica had similar mandates, evidence suggests that they were faced with differing cultural constraints and were also employing different approaches to reform. As a result they experienced different levels of success. Jamaica adhered closely to may of the guidelines and measures such as auditing financial reforms in the budgeting systems and performance appraisal systems were successfully introduces (Bissessar 2002 ). This was substantiated in (Journal Public Personnel Management) Jamaica has had a greater measure of success in the implementation of a new appraisal system than has Trinidad Tobago, and Guyana due largely to differing cultures of their bureaucracies. The Westminster system of governance which is the model adopted by these countries seem to be more relevant when the populations are homogeneous. In Barbados it is also evident that many of the principles of the NPM has been successfully introduced and had actually resulted in increased but only marginal output in the public sector. In Trinidad Tobago political agendas did not translate in terms of actual implementation of the wider public sector. Even though there was the introduction of Performance Management and Appraisal Systems, promotions were based on seniority rather than on merit. The entire issue the with Urban Development (UNDECOTT) illustrates that there are burning issues with the concept of accountability and that the existed structure of executive agencies need to be properly evaluated. Guyana on the other hand was faced by the most barriers and showed little success. The variations in reform in these territories can be attributed mainly to homogeneity of the public sector and the opportunity for politicians to move the systems sharply in that direction to facilitate their own interests. The shifts in political power in both Guyana and Trinidad Tobago by 19945 affected the continuity of programmes in these countries. The NPM policy makers also failed to take into consideration the domestic environment in various countries. It can also be suggested that the approach took on a rational connotation and may have been more successful by the adaptation of incremental measures. However proper policy evaluation can only take over a long period of time and the policy learning process must be given time before assessments. The issue of Public Sector Reform was created through the demands of global environment and structural adjustment measures. It successfully reached on the agendas of Governments in Caribbean States. However it is the stages of implementation and evaluation that encountered several obstacles, thereby necessitating reassessment of various processes. BIBLIOGRAPHY | |Barzeley, M. 2001. The New Public Management. University of California Press. | | | | | |Best-Winfield, Gail. 2006. â€Å"Public Sector Reform – The Barbados Experience ’’, Case Study prepared for The Caribbean Centre for | | |Development Administration (CARICAD). 2006. | | | | | | | |Bissessar, Ann Marie, 2002. â€Å"Globilisation, Domestic Politicsin the Introduction of the New Public Management in the Commonwealth | | |Caribbean’’, International Review of Administrative Services. March 2002; Vol 68, pp 113-125. | | | | | |Bissessar, Ann Marie, 2006. â€Å"The Difficulty of Protecting Merit in a Plural Society: The Case of Trinidad Tobago’’, Review of | | |Public Personnel Administration. March 2006; Vol. 26: pp 74-90. | | | | | |Brown, Deryck, 2008. Institutional Development and Reform in Public Services: Lessons from the experience of Small Caribbean | | |States’’, Paper prepared for The Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management (CAPAM). 2008 Biennial Conference | | |Barbados, 19-22 October. | | |Common, Richard. 1998. â€Å"Convergence and Transfer: A Review of the Globilisation of New public management’’, International Journal of | | |Public Sector Management. Vol II, No. 6: 440-450. | | |Government of Barbados, 2004. â€Å"Public Sector Reform for the period 2004 to 2005 – Making Barbados Work Better’’, (Report of the Office| | |of Public Sector Reform 2004). | | | | |Graham, Sandra, 1999. â€Å" Public Sector Reform: The role of the Union in Transition’’, Jamaica Gleaner. August 9, 1999. | | | | | |Gruening, Gernod, 1998. â€Å"Origin and theoretical basis of the New P ublic Management’’, | | |Draft for the 1998 IPMN conference in Salem Oregon. | | | | | | | | | | | |Sutton, Paul, 2003. Governance, Public Sector Reform and New Public Management: The Commonweath Caribbean Experience’’, Economic and | | |Social Research Council. | | | | | |Sutton, Paul, 2006. Modernization the State: Public Sector Reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Kingston: Ian Randle. | | | | | | | | |Teehankee, Julio, 2003. â€Å" New Public Management:Lean State Lean Government’’. | |Seminar organisied by International Academy for Leadership Program under the auspices of Freiderick Naumann Stiftung, Germany Feb 8th| | |– 17th | | | | | | | | | | | |Thompson, Fred and Hugh Miller, 2003). â€Å"New Public Management and Bureaucracy Verses Business Values and Bureaucracy’’, Review of | | |Public Personnel Administration. Vol. 23: No. 4; December 2003 pp 328 -343. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Public Personnel Management: Summer 2,000 | | | | | | | | | | | |. | | | | [1] Gruening, Gernod. 1998. â€Å"Origin and theoretical basis of the New Public Management’’ Draft for the 1998 IPMN conference in Salem Oregon. [2] Barzeley, M. 2001. The New Public Management. University of California Press. [3] Teehankee, Julio (2003). â€Å" New Public Management: Lean State Lean Government’’. Seminar organisied by International Academy for Leadership Program under the auspices of Freiderick Naumann Stiftung, Germany Feb 8th – 17th. 4] Thompson, Fred and Hugh Miller (2003). New Public Management and Bureaucracy Verses Business Values and Bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Vol. 23: No. 4; December 2003 pp 328 -343. [5] Ibid [6] Teehankee, Julio (2003). â€Å" New Public Management:Lean State Lean Government’’. Pg 1 [7] Gruening, Gernod. 1998. â€Å"Origin and theoretical basis of the New Public Managementâ⠂¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Draft for the 1998 IPMN conference in Salem Oregon. [8] Ibid [9] Cited in Bissessar, Ann Marie, 2002. â€Å"Globilisation, Domestic Politicsin the Introduction of the New Public Management in the Commonwealth Caribbean’’. International Review of Administrative Services. March 2002; Vol 68, pp 116. [10] Sutton, Paul. 2003. Governance, public sector reform and â€Å"new public management†: the Commonwealth Caribbean experience. [11] Bissessar, Ann Marie, 2002. â€Å"Globilisation, Domestic Politicsin the Introduction of the New Public Management in the Commonwealth Caribbean’’. International Review of Administrative Services. March 2002; Vol 68, pp 116 [12] Ibid [13]Gail Best-Winfield 2006 â€Å"Public Sector Reform† – The Barbados Experience. The Caribbean Centre for Development Administration (CARICAD). [14] Sutton, Paul. 2006. Modernization the State: Public Sector Reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Kingston: Ian Randle. 15] Sutton Public Sector Reform in the Eastern Caribbean [16] Sutton, Paul, 2006. Modernization the State: Public Sector Reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Chapter 6, pg 151. Kingston: Ian Randle. [17] Report of the Office of Public Sector Reform 2004. pg 14. [18] Jamaica has been the leade r in the Caribbean in the creation of Executive Agencies [19] Governance, public sector reform and â€Å"new public management†: the Commonwealth Caribbean experience. Paul Sutton [20] Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2006; 26; 74. The Difficulty of Protecting Merit [Type the document title] [Type the document subtitle] Marina [Year] [Type the company name]