Public Management Convergence - Research Paper Example

1. Introduction The aim of this work is to present a summary of the article by Christopher Pollitt (2001) d "Public Management Convergence: The Useful Myth" and Chapter 14 of the Book by Hughes O. E. (2003) titled "Public Management and Administration. An Introduction". The study will thereafter try to see how the summaries from these two books relate to the essay titled "How Useful is New Public Management (NPM) as a framework for the comparative analysis of public administration". The rest of the work is organised as follows: section 2 presents a summary of Pollitt (2001), Section 3 is a summary of chapter 14 by Hughes (2003) while section four presents a discussion on how the articles relate to the Essay and section 5 presents a conclusion of the entire study. Having said this the study will now move on to summarise Pollitt (2001). 2. Public Management Convergence: The Useful Myth By Pollitt (2001). Pollitt (2001) begins by stating that the thesis that there is an inevitable and global convergence towards a particular, new style of public management. He notes that despite the evolving literature in support of diversity, some politicians, academics and civil servants continue to preach convergence. He suggests that to better understand this controversial issue, it is necessary to tackle the problem from different perspectives. He states a series of angles that can be compared to see if there is convergence. They include debate, reform decisions, actual practice or results. Pollitt (2001) begins his introduction by reviewing some literature on the convergence towards the "New Public Management"/"Reinventing government" styles of public management reform. According to Pollitt (2001) most of the studies are in favour of divergence and not convergence. These studies include (Flynn and Strehl, 1996; Kickert 1997; Olsen and Peters, 1996; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000; Pollitt and Summa 1997; Premfors 1998; Wollman, 1997). This implies that the Orsbone and Gaebler thesis that global pressures are producing an inevitable and inexorable global convergence on what they term "entrepreneurial government" is now being open to criticisms by many academicians. Pollitt (2001) however, also identifies studies that continue to be in favour of this thesis. They include (Halligan, 1996; Kettl, 2000). The main aim of Pollitt (2001) was to develop a concept of convergence that will enable us understand why many commentators continue to invoke convergence in spite of the evidence in support of divergence. Pollitt (2001) asserts that the strategy should be to consider whether the very idea of convergence has value of its own. Pollitt (2001) relates the convergence myth of public administration to the creation myth in art and religion, which has served so many purposes irrespective of whether it is true or false. He identifies four main steps to the argument as follows: The convergence process can be divorced from ideas of global and functional imperatives by summarizing the still developing critique which has been articulated by comparativist scholars. The notion of institutional isomorphism can be used to see that convergence, in the sense of replication of rhetoric forms and practices across the world, may have more to do with government fashions, symbolism and the propagation of norms than with the grim dictates of the global economy or the functional necessity for increased government efficiency. The third adopted by Pollitt involves the acknowledgement that words and concepts can develop lives of their own. According to Pollitt (2001) in the fourth and final step, an analysis of who benefits from a situation of where convergence is more a matter of talk, symbolism and pronouncement that of the day-to-day practices. Pollitt (2001) then goes on to discuss two disclaimers namely that the line of argument advanced his work is not intended to seem Macchiavellien. The second disclaimer is that a partial rehabilitation of the idea of convergence is not in any way to deny the diversity of national regimes and practices. Pollitt (2001) then moves on to discuss the four main steps to the argument in detail. He begins by throwing more light on the first step which deals with a critique of ideas of global and/or functional necessity. Pollitt (2001) again quotes the work of Osborne and Gaebler (1992). He cites the most repeated arguments for convergence towards the NPM as seemingly, at root, to be either globally deterministic, or functionalists, or both. Pollitt (2001) asserts that there are many problems to the use of these types of explanation for convergence. He identifies the continuing evidence of extensive diversity, variety and historical continuity in national reform trajectories. He identies Christensen and Laegreid (1998); Guyomarch (1999); Pollitt and Summa (1997); Pollitt and Bouckaert (2000); Premfors (1998); Wollmann (1997). Pollit goes further to explain that even the modified formulation may overstate the notion of 'global pressures'. Pollitt (2001) also questions the methodology of Osborne and Gaebler and some of their fellow followers to be somewhat suspect, because of their over reliance on anecdotal studies as well as the fact that they only look for evidence of similar developments. Pollitt (2001) therefore concludes that the methodology is flawed on the basis that they follow a biased selection procedure. Pollitt (2001) further questions functionalism because of the paucity of scientific evidence for the efficiency gains which are supposed to result from these innovations. He quotes studies by Boyne (1998) and Pollitt (2000) as examples. Finally, Pollitt concludes the first step by saying that his argument is not aimed at refuting the fact that NPM-type innovations never work but that it is a step along the road to arguing that contextual factors-not usually specified in the NPM model are actually crucial. Second Step: Isomorphism Pollitt (2003) asserts that one possible answer lies in the 'new institutionalist' literature. He quotes a seminal paper by Powel and DiMaggio (1991) who argued that the copying of organizational forms owed a great deal to factors other than a simple search for superior performance. Pollitt asserts that Powell and DiMaggio (1991), distinguish three modalities, any or all of which may present in a specific case. Firstly, coercive isomorphism occurs when pressure to adopt a particular form comes from other organizations which can exercise power over subject organization. (Pollitt, 2003: p. 937). Secondly, mimetic isomorphism occurs where, under conditions of significant uncertainty as to what the most appropriate organizational form actually is, the safest strategy appears to be to copy whatever is in fashion with other organizations which are perceived as 'modern' or 'successful'. Third, normative isomorphism according to Powell and DiMaggio as quoted by Pollitt (2001) refers to copying results from processes of professionalization and institutionalization. Pollitt concludes that Powell and DiMaggio's model of isomorphism identifies a set of processes which could explain convergence of a kind that could not necessarily have anything directly to do with global economic pressures or with warranted gains in efficiency or effectiveness. Rescuing Covergence Third Step: Words and Things. Under the third step, Pollitt draws a stronger distinction than hitherto between convergence talk, Convergence decision and convergence action. He quotes Brunssom's book, The Organisation of Hypocrisy, which is devoted to demonstrating that each category is important in its own right and requires separate analysis. Conclusion: Unpackaging Convergence Pollitt concludes that this kind of analysis can help us refine our discussion of the phenomenon of convergence. According to him, this can be done with respect to two main dimensions including the extent of convergence and the reason and motives for it. As concerns the extent, it can be thought of in the form of a venn diagram, with four overlapping but not coterminous zones. He identifies Type A convergence where reforms are put into action and this produces a convergence of results or outcomes. (Pollitt, 2001). He also talks of a type B convergence where although results may not converge, actions within and between public sector organizations become more similar. (Pollitt, 2003). He later talks about the type C and Type D convergences. As concerns reasons and motives Pollitt (2001) states that Powell and DiMaggio (1991) and Brunsson's theories make at least two contributions. First they bring agents back in but without throwing structures and constraints out. Second institutionalist theories enrich our model of the agent's cognition. (Pollitt, 2001: p. 945). 3. Hughes (2003): A New Paradigm For Public Management. The main argument in Hughes (2003) is that the traditional model of public administration has been replaced by new models of public administration. The change according to him represent a paradigm shift characterized by a shift from administration to management, from bureaucracy to markets and more realistic view of the relationship between the political and administrative leadership. In the second paragraph of Hughes (2003)'s conclusion the reforms began during a thorough ideological attack on the public sector in the 1970s and 1980s mainly in the US and in the UK. Also, the reforms and the way they have been perceived have changed overtime. the reforms have metamorphosed from a theoretical perspective to a practical attack on the traditional practices and conditions of the public services. A change of such a magnitude is highly controversial. (Hughes, 2003: pp 256). Hughes (2003) however, notes that despite the changes, they have not worked properly as there have been mistakes, and there are likely to be problems in the change to new forms of public management. He asserts that "it is possible that the public sector will go back to the days before Woodrow Wilson, to political or personal administration, and the kind of corruption he fought against may also return." (Hughes, 2003: pp 256). He foresees that the most likely scenario will be a refinement of those parts of the new model that have not worked well and the evolution of an entirely new model. The interesting thing is that the development of the reform movements have been subject to strident criticisms (Hughes, 2003: pp 257). While some argue that there is no change in paradigm, some argue that there is no international movement of change. (Hughes, 2003). Some do not even see any change at all. Hughes concludes the introduction of the concluding chapter by providing the main purpose of the chapter, which is to look at some of the key criticisms of the NPM model in more detail. A paradigm shift or not Hughes (2003) tries to identify whether the arguments for and against changes in the NPM model are sufficient to constitute a paradigm shift. In carrying out his analysis, Hughes (2003) presents a list of those saying that there is a paradigmatic change, which include Barzelay (1992), Behn (1998, 2001), Borins (1999), Holmes and Shand (1995), Mathisen (1990), Osborne and Gaebler (1992), and the OECD (1998). He later on provides a comparison between them with those who are against the fact that there has been no paradigmatic change, such as Gruening (2001), Hood (1995, 1996), Lynn (1997, 1998, 2001, 2001, 2001a), Pollitt (1990, 1993) and Pollitt and Bouckaert (2000). Hughes (2003) then considers the meaning of a Paradigm and whether the idea of completing paradigms in public administration has some validity. According to Hughes (2003), some writers and uncomfortable with the word paradigm. For example Behn argues that "the world is divided into two camps, those who use the word paradigm daily and those who detest it". According to Hughes (2003), The Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition) defines a paradigm as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school of discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated". Quoting from Behn (2001: pp 231), Hughes (2003: pp 258), concludes that the traditional model of administration qualifies as a paradigm implying that those who support traditional public administration would argue that they have a "discipline", complete with theories, laws, and generalizations", that focus their research. Hughes presents another confirmatory definition of a paradigm from the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, which again does not seem to place any barrier against using the term within public administration and supports the view that a paradigm is a school of thought, a set of ideas: mo more and no less. Hughes later presents a contrary view by Lynn who argues that "The variation in the models of reform being tried around the world strongly suggest that there is no paradigm, if by paradigm we use Thomas Kuhn's original definition: achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners". According to Hughes, Lynn argues that there is no "community", no "accepted theoretical caution", and no "accepted methods of application" and concludes that "one cannot find evidence to support a claim of widespread transformation, much less claim that a new paradigm has emerged". It is worth noting that much of the modern usage of t he word paradigm derives, according to Lynn from Kuhn (1970). (Hughes, 2003: p. 258). Hughes (2003) however notes that Kuhn (1970) does not define paradigm clearly and uses it in several ways. According to Hughes (2003) quoting from Lynn (1970, p. 43): Close historical investigation of a given specialty at a given time discloses a set of recurrent and quasi-standard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational, and instrumental applications. These are the community's paradigms, revealed in its text books, lectures, and laboratory exercises, by studying them and by practicing with them, the members of the corresponding community learn their trade. The forgoing does not imply one set of views everyone should agree on, rather views that exist for a time and are revealed in the discipline's practices. The traditional model of administration does fit this in the sense of there being, at a given time, a corpus of knowledge, textbooks and ways of approaching the trade. According to Hughes (2003), Lynn's argument is a misreading of Kuhn. Instead of a paradigm being a generally accepted framework of all practitioners of a science, it is actually a contested idea. (Hughes, 2003: p. 259). Although it is difficult to decide when one paradigm ends and when another one begins, it is more arguable that there has been a change of paradigm than Lynn allows. (Hughes, 2003: p. 259). There is no justified reason why the term paradigm should not be used. (Hughes, 2003: p 259). Therefore, the question is whether or not the traditional model of administration or its competitor can be regarded as paradigms. (Hughes, 2003: p. 259). The Traditional Paradigm. According to Hughes (2003), the traditional model of administration, founded by Weber, Wilson and Taylor although earlier argued as a paradigm was a paradigm with a distinguished history and is also one that has effectively been replaced. Quoting from the book, Quoting from the book, The Intellectual Crises of American Public Administration (1974, 1989) Hughes (2003) presents Ostrom's argument that the traditional model of administration had problems, as in crises, and called for a new approach. Osborn argued 'the sense of crises that has pervaded the field of public administration over the last generation has been evoked by the insufficiency of the paradigm inherent in the traditional theory of public administration'. The idea of crises was explicitly drawn from Kuhn who had argued paradigm testing occurs 'only after the sense of crises has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm' and that testing occurs 'as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community'. (Hughes, 2003: p. 260) quoting from Ostrom (1970: p. 145). Following from the mid-1970s, there has been a recognizable stream within public administration that would refer to the traditional model as a paradigm and argue for using public choice theory as the basis for an alternative, as well as claim Ostrom as one of its intellectual forebears. (Hughes, 2003: p. 260) On the contrary, Pollitt and Bouckaert (2000: p. 60) argue that each country is different and "the idea of a single, and now totally obsolete, ancient regime is as implausible as the suggestion that there is now a global recipe which will reliably deliver "reinvented" governments'. (Hughes, 2003: p. 260). Lynn (2001a, pp 146-7) also disagrees that there ever was a traditional model, arguing That there was an old orthodoxy has become the new orthodoxy. The essence of traditional public administration is repeatedly asserted to be the design and defense of a largely self-serving, weberian bureaucracy that was to be strictly insulted from politics and that justified its actions based on a technocratic, one-best-way 'science of administration'. Facts were to be separated from values, politics from administration, and policy from implementation. Traditional administration is held to be sluggish, rigid, rule bound, centralized, insular, self-protective, and profoundly antidemocratic. Based on an examination of the Literature Lynn argues that there were many theories and not just one, many ways of approaching public administration and not one model. Hughes (2003) identifies a flaw in Lynn's analysis which is that it relies on 'a selective reconsideration of the Literature, not the practice of public administration'. There is also another argument by Lynn against the idea of a post-bureaucratic paradigm, arguing that this would mean 'a fundamental transformation in the historic role of the nation state'. (Hughes, 2003: p. 260). According to him "if the post-bureaucratic paradigm is rational/legal in the Weberian sense, then a post-bureaucratic paradigm must be founded on a different basis of legitimacy: perhaps different forms of rationality, different jurisprudential principles, a different allocation of property rights'. (Hughes, 2003: p. 261). Lynn overstates the argument in 3 ways. First, market rationality is a valid alternative in many settings and a familiar one in that it is the central organizing feature of the private sector. (Hughes, 2003: p. 261). Secondly, no advocate of public management reforms proposes totally overthrowing the system of government, the rational/legal authority of jurisprudence and property rights. Hughes (2003) however, asserts that Lynn is correct in one sense because to move completely away from a rational/legal paradigm is to require a different form of government. However, no theory has ever suggested the latter. (Hughes, 2003). He asserts that the public management reforms may have wide effects but what we have as a result is a form of management within government elected by the normal means, not a totally different form of politics altogether. (Hughes, 2003). Lynn further argues that the profession of public administration 'mounts an unduly weak challenge to various revisionists and to the superficial thinking and easy answers of the policy schools and the ubiquitous management consultants'. (Hughes, 2003). Hughes describes this as the fate of the old paradigm whereby the decline of one school of thought occurs as a result of the rise of a new alternative. (2003, p. 261). Or 'the decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with another'. (Hughes 2003: p. 261). The Public Management Paradigm According to Hughes (2003), the critics may have a point about paradigms only when a new paradigm is based on very different premises than its competitor. The argument under this heading is that the public management reforms are sufficiently different from the traditional model to be regarded as another paradigm. (Hughes, 2003). The public sector is described by the paradigms outlined by Ostrom as derived from two opposing forms of organization: bureaucracy and markets. (Hughes, 2003). According to Hughes (2003: p. 262), a further look at what is involved in the public management reforms may assist in assessing its candidature as a paradigm. Hughes (2003) quotes an OECD report which describes the reforms as a new paradigm and sets out the key points involved as follows: In most member countries public management reform has involved a major cultural shift in response to a new paradigm of public management, which attempts to combine modern management practices with logic of economics, while still retaining the core public service values. This new management paradigm emphasizes results in terms of 'value for money', to be achieved through management by objectives, the use of markets and market-type mechanisms, competition and choice, and devolution to staff through a better matching of authority, responsibility and accountability. In place of the old paradigm, which was largely process and rules driven with an emphasis on hierachical decision-making and control, the new management environment is chracterised by: A focus on results in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, quality of service and whether the intended beneficiaries actually gain; A decentralized management environment which better matches authority and responsibility so that decisions on resource allocation and service delivery are made closer to the point of delivery, and which provide scope for feedback from clients and other interest groups; A greater client focus and provision for client choice through the creation of competitive environments within and between public sector organizations and non-government competitors; The flexibility to explore more cost effective alternatives to direct public provision or vouchers and the sale of property rights; and Accountability for results and for establishing due process rather than compliance with a particular set of rules, and a related change from risk avoidance to risk management. (Hughes, 2003: pp 262-263) quoting from OECD (1998, p. 13). According to Hughes (2003), each of the above points is markedly different from the public administration paradigm. Accordingly, a focus on results is different from a focus on process, decentralized management is very different from a rigid bureaucratic hierarchy, a greater client focus contrasts with the traditional model where clients were only incidental, while allowing choice and competition is anathema to the traditional model. (Hughes, 2003: p 263). The use of market instruments is counter to bureaucracy, while a focus for results is very different from hoping that results will follow from structure and process. (Hughes, 2003: p. 263). Hughes also quotes Behn (2001: p. 26) as also emphasizing a focus on results and defining the new public management paradigm as 'the entire collection of tactics and strategies that seek to enhance the performance of the public sector - to improve the ability of government agencies and their non-profit and for-profit collaborators to produce results. 4. Relationship Between the Two articles and The Essay. The discussion in the essay offers an insight into how useful the New Public Management (NPM) as a framework for the comparative analysis of public administration. The essay uses theoretical definitions and arguments to establish the current position of understanding and explain the reasons for recent changes. The essay discusses two principal views concerning the significance of NPM as a framework, which include the argument that there is now a global movement that has resulted in the transformed structural changes across individual nation states, each with a degree of variance depending on cultural and historical traditions and values. The article carries out a comparative analysis of Germany and the UK to see if there are variations in changes that have occurred and help to illustrate the usefulness of the framework in the field of comparative analysis. The essay quotes Pollitt (2001) as one of the critics of convergence and as referring to other comparative studies that have favoured divergence. On the other hand the article quotes Hughes (2003) as challenging the above view by saying that the defining is too narrow and doesn't take into account the fact that changes were often introduced at different times across countries, and the influence that political will has had upon the delivery of reforms. The article also quotes Hughes (2003) as noting striking similarities found in the reforms carried out across a number of countries and states that Hughes (2003)'s principal argument is that the greatest shift has been in theoretical convergence rather than in specific activities and practices that have been adopted by countries. The essay concludes that Pollit's (2001) proposals of four stages of convergence theory offers a useful comparative framework for NPM although further comparative study may need to be undertaken to fully establish this usefulness. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hughes O. E. (2003). Public Management and Administration. An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Pollitt C. (2001). Public Management. Convergence: The Useful Myth Public Administration Vol. 79 No. 4, pp 933-947. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Read More