Christopher Pollitt

Public Management Reform: Reliable Knowledge and International Experience

In this paper I want to address some fundamental questions concerning the nature of knowledge about public management reform, and particularly its transferability between countries and contexts. My main point will be that knowledge of what works and what does not tends to be heavily contextdependent. That is to say, a technique or organisational structure which succeeds in one place may fail in another. So – to put it bluntly – there is no set of general tools that can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another, all around the world, with confidence that they will work well every time. This means we have to look carefully at contexts, and at the “terms of trade” each time we are thinking of borrowing a good management idea from somewhere else. This is not a “how-to-do-it” paper. Rather it is a series of reflections on the nature of the “trade” in public management reforms, drawing on the existing academic literature and seeking to identify issues where further work seems to be desirable...

Joined-up Government: A Survey

This paper first identifies the varied meanings and objectives of joined-up government (JUG). Subsequently it explores the costs and risks involved, and briefly reviews some of the relevant academic literature. Having thus clarified the key concepts and situated the current fashion for a ‘holistic approach’ within the broader literature on co-ordination, the paper also considers a range of approaches to the assessment of progress with JUG.

CLARIFYING CONVERGENCE. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform

Both academics and practitioners have disagreed among themselves about whether and to what extent the developed world is witnessing a convergence in the forms of public management. Some of this disagreement may be attributed to the formidable empirical problems facing those who wish to make global or near-global generalizations. To a considerable extent, however, the divergences of view may be attributed to a more subtle cause – an inadequate conceptualization of the notion of ‘convergence’ itself. This article sets out to remedy that deficiency by discussing ‘convergence’ and proposing a multi-layered definition of the concept. This approach carries with it the implication that different aspects of convergence require substantially different research strategies. It also holds out the probability that convergence and enduring difference can co-exist in one jurisdiction at one time – depending on the level at which the analysis is being conducted. The article concludes with a preliminary examination of the substantive question of actual convergence, comparing the adequacy of different theoretical approaches.

Convergence: The Useful Myth?

Many academics have questioned the thesis (most prominently associated with Osborne and Gaebler’s Re-inventing government) that there is an inevitable and global convergence towards a particular, new style of public management. Yet, despite the ongoing production of scholarly evidence of global diversity, pronouncements of convergence continue to be made by politicians, civil servants and some academics. In this paper it is suggested that, better to understand this apparent controversy, a more subtle conceptualization of convergence is needed. First, convergence can take place at different stages or levels — for example, there can be convergence in debate, convergence in reform decisions, convergence in actual practices, or, ultimately, convergence in results. There is no automatic succession from one stage to the next: the momentum of convergence can (and frequently does) stall or dwindle at any point. Furthermore, it should be recognized that convergence claims may have a value of their own, whether or not they lead to actual convergence of practice or improvements in outcomes. Convergence, in short, may be a useful myth.

Decentralising public service management

Introduction Theories and Concepts Reform Doctrines Roads to Freedom? Decentralised Management of NHS Trusts Decentralised Management of Secondary Schools Decentralised Management of Socially Rented Housing Freedom, Performance and Accountability Research Design and Methodology

Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion

In the last 15 years, the governments of many OECD countries have transferred a wide range of functions to new, agency-type organizations. Allowing for the fact that, for comparative purposes, it is difficult precisely to define agencies, and further acknowledging that in many countries agencies are far from being new, it nevertheless remains the case that there seems to have been a strong fashion for this particular organizational solution.This article investigates the apparent international convergence towards “agencification.” It seeks to identify the reasons for, and depth of, the trend. It asks to what extent practice has followed rhetoric. The emerging picture is a complex one. On the one hand, there seems to be a widespread belief, derived from a variety of theoretical traditions, that agencification can unleash performance improvements. On the other hand, systematic evidence for some of the hypothetical benefits is very patchy. Furthermore, the diversity of actual practice in different countries has been so great that there must sometimes be considerable doubt as to whether the basic requirements for successful performance management are being met.

IS THE EMPEROR IN HIS UNDERWEAR? An analysis of the impacts of public management reform

This paper assesses our state of knowledge concerning the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) reforms which seem to have been launched in so many countries. In the first section it appraises the types of materials available as a basis for such an assessment. It then considers, and rejects, the thesis that, because of the improved performance they bring, these reforms are global in reach and inevitable in nature. Subsequently, the main part of the paper assesses the available evidence with respect to a number of key dimensions of reform impacts. It concludes that, while there is evidence of specific improvements in particular instances, the general case for NPM as a solution to diverse problems of governance in many different countries is far less firmly established than is commonly supposed.

New Public Management in Europe

New Public Management (NPM) is the label which many academics have given to a series of reforms from the 1980s onwards, to improve the efficiency and performance of western governments and/or public sector organizations. Examples are the development of performance indicators and benchmarking, personnel reforms aimed at ‘normalising’ public sector employment on private sector models, placing executive bodies at arms’ length from ministries, establishing public private partnerships and introducing new management techniques and instruments. Continental European governments have adapted and re-interpreted many of the Anglo-American ideas underpinning the NPM, to adjust them to their own national politico-administrative contexts. As a consequence, reforms of the public sector may have the same labels in different countries but need not be the same in practice or in meaning; there is both convergence and divergence.

Performance Information for Democracy The Missing Link

This article examines research into the use of performance information by ministers, parliamentarians and citizens. These ‘end users’ are of crucial importance to the claim that performance information is not merely managerially useful, but also contributes to the quality of democratic debate and to the ability of citizens to make choices. A literature review indicates that research into use by these groups has been very patchy, and that much of what we do know suggests that evaluations and performance reports and audits are seldom highly valued by politicians or citizens. Possible reasons and remedies for this apparent state of affairs are discussed, and areas for further research are suggested.

Talking About Government

Abstract This article examines the phenomenon of ‘magic’ concepts – those key terms which seem to be pervasive among both academics and practitioners. Within that category our focus is on ‘governance’, ‘accountability’ and ‘networks’. Our prime purpose is to map their meanings and how they are used. Following an analysis of a wide range of literature – both academic and practitioner – we find that these concepts have properties in common which help promote their popularity. A high degree of abstraction, a strongly positive normative charge, a seeming ability to dissolve previous dilemmas and binary oppositions and a mobility across domains, give them their ‘magic’ character. Limitations are also identified. Magic concepts are useful, but potentially seductive. They should not be stretched to purposes for which they are not fitted.