Weight: 15% of your final course grade Suggested Due Date: At the end of Unit 5 Length: This assignment must not be longer than two pages. Instructions For this assignment, you will choose a topic for

Unit 5: Overview

Overview

This unit investigates the impact of contemporary paradigms of public management on politics, public policy, and governance, as well as the resulting privatization of certain functions of the state. Public administration plays a very important role in our governance structures. Over the last few decades, public administration has been the subject of restructuring, a process nicely captured in the catchphrase “reinventing government.” Unlike previous periods of public administration reform, where the general view was that “change agendas” come and go but public service status quo is unaffected, changes brought by New Public Management (NPM) have been more permanent. Among other things, these reforms have called for state bureaucracy to be shrunk to a much smaller core, for market and contractual mechanisms to guide bureaucratic transactions, for treating consumers of public services more like customers as opposed to citizens, for moving to alternative service delivery (ASD) mechanisms, and for encouraging public–private partnerships. Moreover, some authors analyze the flaws of NPM and point to the need for new shifts in management paradigms toward a “more politicized, even partisan, model of public decision-making with power concentrated in the upper reaches of the political executive” (Chouinard & Milley, 2015, p. 1). In this unit, we will explore the impact and implications of NPM for the Canadian political system, as well as the challenges this system faces today.

Learning Objectives

When you have completed Unit 5, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives.

1. Identify and explain the significance of the New Public Management (NPM) approach to governance.

2. Delineate the relationship among neoliberalism, NPM, and other reforms of the state.

3. Explain the significance of the shift in the view of public administration from citizen to customer.

4. Explain the ways in which changes in the workings of public administration affect governance.

5. Explain the flaws and challenges of NPM.

6. Compare the utility of New Public Service as an alternative to NPM.

Required Readings

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015a). The new public service: Serving, not steering (4th ed.). Routledge.

• Chapter 1: Public administration and the new public management  (pp. 1–22)

• Chapter 2: The roots of the new public service  (pp. 23–43)

• Chapter 11: Fifteen years later: Are we rowing, steering, or serving?  (pp. 202–216)

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015b). The new public service revisited . Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347

Shepherd, R. P. (2018). Indigenous Peoples and the reconciliation agenda: Funding, accountability, and risk . In C. Dunn (Ed.), The handbook of Canadian public administration (3rd ed., pp. 246–268). Oxford University Press.

Unit 5: Commentary

Commentary

Over the last few decades, public administration has been the subject of restructuring, a process nicely captured in the catchphrase—coined by Osborne and Gaebler (1992)—“reinventing government.” Unlike in previous periods of public administration reform where the general view has been that the public service status quo is unaffected, recent changes have been more permanent. The reforms introduced through neoliberal restructuring have not been transient and superficial, but rather have been prolonged, deep, and substantive (Peters & Savoie, 1998, p. 3). Among other things, these reforms:

• Require the state bureaucracy to be shrunk to a much smaller core.

• Aim market and contractual mechanisms to guide bureaucratic transactions.

• Demand treating citizens more like customers.

• Shift to alternative service delivery (ASD) mechanisms.

• Encourage public–private partnerships.

As Dunn (2018) explains, three Western historical traditions have strongly influenced public administration in Canada: the British model (notionally based on the principles of political neutrality, merit, and a strong emphasis on centralized policy advising); the American model (based on a more systematic and “scientific” way of management); and the New Public Management model (based on “the adaptation of the practices of private business to the administrative activities of government”) (p. 4). In this unit, we will explore the impact and implications of New Public Management for the Canadian political system, as well as its critiques and challenges.

Changing Paradigms of Public Service

Western conceptualizations of the role of the public service, and of public administration generally, in Canada’s political system have been fundamentally transformed over the last few decades. In this unit, we describe three main Western dominant approaches to public service: the politics–administration dichotomy, the neo-Marxist critique, and neoliberal managerialism.

Previous Western notions of bureaucracy—what Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a) call the Old Public Administration—conceived it as a nonpartisan layer of the state, simply concerned with carrying out the policy decisions reached by elected politicians. In theory, the role of the public service is defined by a politics–administration dichotomy. Under this principle, it is the function of the elected government to make all decisions regarding public policy. It is the job of the bureaucracy to find the most efficient ways in which to implement and then administer the public policy decisions. The day-to-day administrative business of government, according to this conception, is to be conducted on a purely rational basis. Ideally, it would mean that public servants are to be appointed according to merit—that is, hiring and promotion is conducted on the grounds that the most qualified person gets the job, not on the basis of political patronage. Public servants, moreover, are to serve the government of the day with impartiality, regardless of which political party wins office (Inwood, 1999, pp. 5–6). However, suggesting appointment on “merit” is highly problematic, as it assumes objectivity and neutrality of the state, and denies all of the—gender, race, class, ability—prejudices that governments have and continue to reproduce.

The politics–administration dichotomy view conceptualizes public administration as a technical profession: “public servants are [simply] highly trained experts whose task is to identify the ‘optimal’—that is, most efficient—means to achieve policy goals set by the Minister” (Paquet, 1997, p. 32; also see: Kjær, 2004, pp. 20–21). Their role in governance is to be the loyal administrative servants of their political masters, as long as the political executive conducts its affairs in accordance with legislation as approved by the government of the day. In this way, the public service in liberal capitalist societies serves an essential function in the support of the political system.

In stark contrast to the theory of the politics–administration dichotomy, the neo-Marxist critique holds that bureaucratic elites hold significant political power, and thus they interfere in shaping policy. However, the bureaucracy may act in a “neutral” fashion, at least up to a point. Miliband (1973) maintains that the civil service in liberal democracies tends to loyally serve the reigning political party of the day. This theory assumes that if new governments are bent on radical policy shifts, such neutrality may vanish, and senior civil servants might act as the “voice of moderation and caution” when it comes to political change; thus, they are a powerful force for maintaining the status quo (Miliband, 1973, pp. 108–110). It is also assumed that the civil service acts as a link between the state political elite and the business class. The bureaucracy is in regular contact with large corporations, consulting with them on the potential impacts of policy changes. The public service brings back to the political executive a good sense of where business stands on important issues (p. 112). While conflict of interest legislation prevents public officials from overtly using their positions to advance a private interest, neo-Marxist perspectives suggest that close personal and working relationships ensure that the interests of particular classes of people are well represented and advanced in government.

Proponents of neoliberalism also challenge the classical understanding of the role of the state bureaucracy. They assert that, with the emergence of the Keynesian welfare state, the state grew too large, and the political and administrative process had been captured by “special interests.” In their view, one of the most powerful special interests was the bureaucracy itself, which was not concerned with advancing the public interest, but rather in increasing its own power. For this reason, neoliberals believe that the welfare state constitutes a threat to democratic governance. Their solution is to shrink the size of the state and introduce new management principles in order to control the baser instincts of the bureaucracy (Savoie, 1994). New Public Management (NPM) and other like-minded managerialist approaches were introduced as one of the “reform” mechanisms by which the public sector could be brought back under the control of the political executive, restoring the practice of the politics–administration dichotomy (Evans & Shields, 2002).

Managerialist approaches to public administration have become widespread, although with very different applications and outcomes, particularly with respect to Global North and Global South countries. This variation among and within states is due, in part, to the institutional specificities of the administrative structures in which reforms have been implemented, as well as to the predominant philosophies that have framed state–society relationships (Clark, 2002, p. 776). Global dissemination of the “managerialist revolution” has been greatly facilitated by transnational organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, and by international private consulting firms. In Global South nations, in particular, the adoption of managerialist reforms has been made a prerequisite for debt relief and aid packages.

During these shifts, public administration was entirely embedded in a Western perspective of state management. As Shepherd (2018, p. 251) points out, from the nineteenth century, Indigenous people have experienced different approaches to state funding and state management: from federal direct-service delivery to a more decentralized kind of resource management, to risk-based funding agreements. However, as we learned in Unit 4, these funding models work to serve the interests of the settler state and frequently were used to systematically exclude and marginalize Indigenous Peoples. “At present, the fiscal relationship is focused on satisfying federal policy and programmatic obligations, with very little attention dedicated to recipient policy and program needs and demands, other than creating the conditions necessary for multiple years of funding” (Shepherd, 2018, p. 263). The legal system formed the basis of these funding models that aimed to favour the settler state at the expense of Indigenous Peoples.

Characteristics of the NPM Approach

As Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a) explain, the essential ingredients informing the inner logic of managerialist approaches to public administration borrow their core principles from neoliberal ideology; in particular, public choice theory. Notions such as rational individual self-interest, the supremacy of market and contractual mechanisms, the transformation of citizens into customers, management’s right to manage, continuous improvement, and alternative service delivery (ASD) are thoroughly embedded in NPM / managerialist thought. Managerialism refers to professional managers providing planning and direction to organizations based on generic skills and theories. While managerialism presents ideas as simply innovative management techniques and principles, they are in fact value laden. In the name of ideals like Rule of Law, notions of democracy, and civil service, the settler state implemented policies aimed to exterminate Indigenous people physically and culturally. Certainly, all of the values that are presumed to accompany good governance never applied to how Indigenous people experienced governance—at any stage—in Canada. In addition, the implementation of managerialist approaches is not a politically neutral act (Shields & Evans, 1998), but rather it promotes the shift to neoliberal forms of governance. This system of governance demands that the public service be reduced to a small core, and that regulation and social welfare regimes be altered to emphasize individual responsibility. The state is to have a significantly narrowed role in the management of social and economic life. Critics see managerialism as critical to the transference of neoliberal mechanisms to the inner workings of the state (Burke et al., 2000, pp. 12–13). Arguably, managerialism has, through a process of stealth, allowed public administration to become far more politicized than in the past.

Nevertheless, for some scholars, managerialist reforms were not simply the result of neoliberal political projects originating beyond the state nor the result of pressure from external governance structures such as the IMF or World Bank. Supporters of managerialist reforms also framed their agenda in terms of adapting the state to the growing complexity of state–society and state–economy relations brought about, in part, by globalization, which challenged the rigid hierarchical structures promulgated by classical understandings of the state bureaucracy. For example, Bourgon (2007) argues that classical notions of the state no longer matched the reality of work in the public service; in particular, the rigid division between politics and administration. As well, proponents of NPM hold that the complexity of the tasks associated with contemporary state administrative structures requires greater flexibility when it comes to “organizational responses” that may simultaneously include several levels of administration. Finally, NPM reforms have been justified in terms of their implementing new forms of accountability and citizen-centred services that encourage citizen participation in service design and delivery.

From this perspective, the NPM was not couched exclusively in terms of reducing the size of the state as part of a neoliberal “class project,” but also offered solutions to real problems that afflicted the administrative structures of the Western welfare state. Thus, as Clark (2002) argues, NPM-inspired reforms often found support from, and were driven by, civil servants within the state. These types of reforms have also found support among domestic constituencies in Global South countries on the receiving end of Structural Adjustment programs, since they have been understood to be mechanisms through which to improve governance and reduce corruption (Harvey, 2005, p. 117). The assumption behind these reforms is that the Global South is more susceptible to corruption and the Global North is above such devices, which is hardly accurate. Although managerialist reforms were not just technical solutions but were in fact political with reference to the neoliberal framework that promulgated them, it is important not to underestimate the fact that the governance problems associated with dominant forms of bureaucracy were very real.

The reform of the public sector along managerialist lines was dominated by the following ideas:

• The belief that certain aspects of private sector models of management and administration could be used to improve public sector models.

• The belief that the private sector could carry out tasks usually performed by the public sector more efficiently and should be allowed to do so.

• An emphasis on results rather than processes.

• A shift toward dealing with certain people / citizens as customers or clients.

• A greater use of ASD—government should be concerned with steering (that is, making policy decisions) rather than rowing (that is, the actual delivery of services).

• Greater use of information and telecommunications technology—government administration should be engaged in a continuous process of change to improve efficiency.

(Thomas, 2000, p. 15)

These ideas and approaches to managing and organizing public administration form the core content of NPM. NPM has been said to be the “shorthand term for the remodeling of state services according to the presumed structures and processes of private enterprises” (May, 2002, p. 162).

Based on Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a), we can summarize the key differences between the Old Public Administration and the New Public Management with the following table.

Comparing Old Public Administration to NPM (based on Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015a, pp. 10 & 11–22)

Note that this table is based on the comparison of ideal constructs of administrative theory; both assume that administrative structures can be neutral, and as such, all citizens will be treated equally. Very few public administration scholars have attempted to investigate the impact of racism and colonization on organizations, despite professional and ethical standards for ensuring administrative neutrality. Governments have been slow to recognize obvious inequalities in how institutions respond both to individual citizens and groups of citizens, reducing rights-seeking groups to the status of special interest groups advocating a particular position on policy. The Black Lives Matter and, in Canada, the Indigenous Lives Matter movements have heightened public awareness of systemic racism, which represents a serious aberration of public administration theory by denying basic human rights. The Canadian case is made more complicated by the fact that Indigenous Peoples seek acknowledgment of rights grounded in inherent sovereignty, not as assimilated citizens of the Canadian state. Additionally, the Canadian state has been slow in honouring its obligations to First Nations under treaties signed before and since Canadian confederation. Characterizing expectations of Indigenous Peoples as “special interests” denies this unique history.

Critiques of NPM: Towards a New Public Service

Managerialist reforms, such as those embodied by the NPM, have a contested legacy. On the one hand, they were formulated to address real problems within classical forms of bureaucracy, specifically, and the welfare state, broadly, by increasing efficiency and flexibility, as well as improving the delivery of certain services. On the other hand, they had important ramifications for the definition of citizenship in democratic societies, ramifications that might adversely affect “social rights” by reducing the scope of the state–citizen relationship to a narrower market-based one.

Critics of NPM / managerialism argue that the influence of these ideas is not just one of “improving the administrative efficiency” of the state bureaucracy. These values also affect governance because they promote a redistribution of power between the private sector and the state and redefine not just how “public goods” are to be delivered, but also if certain “goods” should be “public goods” at all. It can be argued that these changes in public administration entail a shift in philosophy about how individuals are conceived, and dealt with, by public administrative authorities. This involves, in some cases, the move away from public services based on the notion of citizen, to that of the client, customer, or user of public services. The concept of the citizen is a fuller and deeper concept, centred on the notion that certain individuals are members of a community with shared rights and duties. In contrast, the concept of the client (customer / user) is more limited, centred on a set of needs and wants based on a market relationship. As Bovaird and Löffler (2003) put it, in the citizenship model, the individual is part of a social contract with the state and society; while in the client model, the individual is engaged in a market contract with the state.

Critics such as Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a, 2015b) problematize the assumption that the state should be in charge of steering. Instead, they propose a view where the government has the duty to “serve and empower citizens” (2015a, p. 21). They state, “with citizens at the forefront, the emphasis should not be placed on either steering or rowing the governmental boat, but rather on building public institutions marked by integrity and responsiveness” (2015a, p. 21). Applying an equity lens suggests “integrity and responsiveness” must also address the legacy of differential treatment of particular groups of citizens based on race, gender, and other attributes that challenge the assumption of organizational neutrality.

Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a, 2015b) propose an approach to public management called New Public Service (NPS) based on public service, civic engagement, and democratic governance. This approach emphasizes that “government shouldn’t be run like a business; it should be run like a democracy” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015a, p. 1). New Public Service conceives of people as active and participating citizens, not customers. It is also less reliant on the values of neoliberalism to advance public interests. NPS advocates believe that privatization has not shown solid evidence of a higher citizen engagement and participation, and it is not conclusive on efficiency and the advance of public interest. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the importance of institutions that work for the benefit of all citizens, while at the same time underscoring the concern of citizens for government over-reach. States are critical for marshalling resources to collectively address public health or security emergencies. Yet citizens must be both engaged and supportive of state actions, otherwise trust in government declines, and citizens will either disengage or rebel. While both an activist state and citizen participation have many positive benefits for defining and protecting the public interest, the 2022 convoy blockades and demonstrations that began in Canada demonstrate that state activism can create political polarization and citizen participation outside of state channels. Citizen participation can promote democratic engagement, but it can also serve to radicalize citizens who then call for regime change outside of established procedures. Finally, is notable that, like the public administration scholars who proceeded them, Denhardt and Denhardt’s New Public Service does not consider the history of or the potential contributions of governance perspectives outside the traditional Western Anglo lens.

Conclusion

Over the last few decades, public administration has been the subject of restructuring. The Public Administration neoliberal paradigm has called for: shrinking state bureaucracy to the smallest core possible, implementing market and contractual mechanisms to guide bureaucratic transactions, treating consumers of public services like customers as opposed to citizens, moving to alternative service delivery mechanisms, and encouraging public–private partnerships. This unit explored three main Western-dominant approaches to public service: the politics–administrative dichotomy, the neo-Marxist critique, and neoliberal managerialism. NPM comes from the neoliberal paradigm and has become widespread in Global North and Global South nations, to the extent that, for example, the adoption of managerialist reforms has been made a prerequisite for debt relief and aid packages in Global South nations. Critics of NPM have proposed an approach called New Public Services, which focuses on the idea that governments should be run as democracies and people should be considered citizens, not customers. It is important to note, however, that New Public Service does not consider the history or potential contributions of non-Western governance perspectives. Indigenous Peoples in Canada, for example, have experienced different approaches to state funding and state management: from federal direct-service delivery to a more decentralized kind of resource management to risk-based funding agreements. However, these funding models work to serve the interests of the settler state and frequently have been used to systematically exclude and marginalize Indigenous Peoples.

Unit 5: Key Concepts

Key Concepts

Note: Many of these key concepts are defined in the course glossary  .

alternative service delivery

citizen-centred services

citizen as customer

New Public Management

New Public Management and Indigenous Peoples

New Public Service

Old Public Administration

politics–administration dichotomy

Unit 5: Study Questions

Study Questions

Once you have completed Unit 5, test the depth of your familiarity with it by answering the following study questions.

1. How do Denhardt and Denhardt (2015a) define New Public Service? What are the characteristics of this approach?

1. What are the limitations of the Old Public Administration approach?

2. Describe the influence of private sector models of administration and management on New Public Management (NPM).

3. What are the limitations of NPM?

4. How have different paradigms of public administration impacted Indigenous Peoples in Canada?