Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tolofari
Tolofari
ABSTRACT Public administration has always been under constant review. Such reviews
were mostly parochial, incremental, initiated or driven by low-key staff and often ended as
fads. From the end of the 1970s to the 1990s, however, governments around the world were
engaged in widespread and sustained reforms of their public administration. These reforms
were born out of economic recession, but also had political and social drivers. They were
initiated by the political apex and fuelled by New Right ideology. Collectively, these reforms
came to be termed New Public Management (NPM). NPM is characterised by marketisation,
privatisation, managerialism, performance measurement and accountability. This
employment of corporate attitudes in public administration is grounded on certain theories,
mainly public choice, transaction cost analysis and principalagent theory. As with every
other sector, the education service was also reformed. In this field the major signs of NPM
are the local management of schools on managerialist principles and the heightened
influence of stakeholders in the daily life of the school, while the collegiality of academia is
diminished. At the higher education level, institutions are tending towards full-fledged
corporate organisations delivering enterprise education. This article discusses NPM in detail,
tracing its origins, considering the theories and examining its principal characteristics, and
then takes a critical look at its implications for education.
Introduction
The public administration reforms from the late 1970s have led to a revolutionary change not only
in the manner of delivery of social services and accounting for government expenditures, but also
in the structures of governance. These reforms towards marketisation, or the application of
business management theories and practices in public service administration, came to be called, in
professional parlance, the New Public Management (NPM).
NPM is often mentioned together with governance. Some writers, Jo Ann Ewalt, for instance,
explain that governance is about the overarching structure of government and the setting up of
overall strategy, while NPM is the operational aspect of the new type of public administration
(Ewalt, 2001). Many authors and researchers use both terms interchangeably.
This article examines the impact of NPM on the delivery of the education service. The article is
organised in two sections. The first section considers the concept of NPM, attempting to trace its
origins, examining its main theories and looking at its key characteristics. The second part looks at
the impact of NPM on education, especially the political ideology behind it, changes in
organisational structures and the emphasis on performance.
NPM is generally viewed as a global phenomenon, as it spread quickly from the countries
where it is said to have originated to other parts of the globe, influencing government policies both
in developed and developing countries. In consideration of this, the article will not limit itself to
any one country or region in drawing examples to demonstrate the effect of NPM. Also,
concerning its impact on education, there will be no limitation to either tertiary or secondary
education.
75
Sowaribi Tolofari
The Origins of the New Public Management
The origins of NPM may be considered in terms of time (When did it start?) and in terms of where
and who (In which country did it start and whose idea was it?). There is little convergence in the
literature on either issue.
On the time aspect, Kiiza (2000), for instance, posits that:
Even if one argued that managerialism constitutes a fundamental review of conventional
public service delivery, one would still concede that the new paradigm is not the first. It is a
third wave of radical reforms of running the business of modern states.
Kiiza then dates the first wave, which occurred in Britain, to as far back as the second half of the
nineteenth century, and the second wave, called progressivism, is said to have occurred in the
USA in the 1930s. The Industrial Revolution was the driver for these administrative revolutions,
since it changed the way business was done, and this was benchmarked by the public sector.
This rather historic dating of the new radical change to governance processes could be
understood in the light of reform being a continuous process. As Kiiza (2000) puts it: Indeed, the
history of public governance is a history of continuous administrative change. Ferlie et al (1996)
explain this when they state that reform of public administration had been going on long before the
advent of NPM in the 1980s. These reforms were, however, usually incremental and often vanished
as fads. NPM reforms, though, took on a new form due to two concepts: radical shock (the
replacement of a relatively stable state of affairs with a new, different and also stable state) and
persistent political will, usually via an attempt to impose a significantly different ideology (p. 35).
Cohen & Eimicke (1998), tracing trends in US government ethics in the twentieth century,
locate NPM within the period 1971-87. For them, the era ended just when others say it was
beginning. The majority of the literature (Nikos, 2000; Bovaird & Lffler, 2001; McTavish, 2003;
Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004) situates the origin of NPM at the end of the 1970s or the middle of the
1980s. Ferlie et al (1996, p. 3) note that: the post-1979 UK experience is dominated by a series of
reforms initiatives apparent across a number of different settings, driven from the top and
sustained over a long time period. These changes became more apparent in the 1980s and were
not only structural, but also impacted processes and roles. They were, in effect, all-permeating.
Many writers have the view that NPM emanated from the USA and Britain. Lynn (2003, p. 1),
for example, posits that:
The contemporary study of public management has its origins in the 1970s: in America, in
the curriculum and research of the new policy schools ... in Europe, in efficiency-driven
managerial reforms originating in Great Britain and New Zealand.
This view appears, however, to be mooted, or might refer to the leadership role of these countries
in the formulation of the corpus of concepts that came to be collectively called NPM. But this is to
be expected, since these countries have had a strong tradition of the capitalist concepts from which
NPM has borrowed generously. Nonetheless, considering the drivers of the drastic reforms to
public management, the more popular view is that from the late 1970s, and to the present day, a
remarkable revolution swept most countries of the world ... it seems that not only in Europe but
all around the world public administration is being changed or reinvented (Nikos, 2000, p. 39).
Bovaird & Lffler (2001) also note that due to budget deficits in the early 1980s, there were
government reforms in many parts of the world. These views may themselves becloud two
points: first, that the reforms in many countries of the world were merely adoptions of what had
begun elsewhere, and second, that in some cases, especially in Africa and Latin America,
governance and NPM reforms were imposed by external forces, notably the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
A discussion of the origins of NPM cannot be concluded without an examination of the
background to the reforms. Indeed, this may make the imperative of the reforms more
understandable.
The motives for the development of NPM reforms can be broadly packaged into five categories:
the economic, the political, the social, the intellectual and the technological. These categories have
a somewhat symbiotic relationship, in that the requirement to correct one situation requires the
enhancement of another.
76
77
Sowaribi Tolofari
general ideological shift to the Right and consequent preference for a smaller public sector and a
more extensive reliance on market mechanisms.
The economic crisis in the developed economies gave the New Right a basis to challenge
vehemently the welfare state in Britain, Canada, the USA, etc. The neo-liberals could attack the
extent of the involvement of government in the economy and the cost to the taxpayer: they
questioned the ability of government to get the economy out of the woods with its bureaucracy,
monopolies, bad management, non-accountability, and where the consumer had no voice. The
philosophy, and solution, of the neo-liberal thinkers was that only market mechanisms,
privatisation and choice for both consumers and producers could bring about the discipline,
efficiency and accountability that could ameliorate the situation (Ferlie et al, 1996; Larbi, 1999).
Ferlie et al (1996, p. 11) state that the Conservatives under Thatcher diagnosed the public sector
as bloated, wasteful, over-bureaucratic and underperforming. This was also the thinking of the
intellectuals behind Reagan in the USA, as well as in other countries such as Australia and New
Zealand. As well, in all these countries and in all others that joined NPM reform train,
marketisation was the solution proffered by the gurus. They advocated that government should be
run more like a business, lean and mean. They argued that the market is an effective allocator of
resources, an efficient co-ordinating mechanism, a rational decision-making process and, in
addition, encourages resourcefulness and enterprise (Larbi, 1999, p. 3).
Another point to make about the political drivers for NPM is that they were top-down. Most of
the extant literature notes that the sustained political backing for the reforms came from the very
top. Ferlie et al (1996, p. 11) write that the recurrent institutional reforms were led from the top of
the political system in a way which would not have been conceivable in the 1970s. That they were
top-down and sustained would explain both why they were all-permeating and revolutionary in
character, as opposed to the parochial and incremental reforms of previous decades that were
limited in scope. Indeed, Boston et al (1996, p. 364), concluding their study of the New Zealand
model, advise that:
For successful implementation, major reforms require a high level of political support,
ideally of a multi-party nature. Additionally, rapid implementation will be much easier
where key officials accept the need for change and endorse the main reform initiatives.
Social Drivers
There are also social factors that have given impetus to the drastic reforms in public administration.
Social factors involve the relationship between the people and their governments; or between
delegated and elected officials and electors. It bears repeating here that all these factors political,
economic and social feed each other. Lynn (2003, p. 20) puts it nicely when he states that even if
the enthusiasm for and implementation of NPM differ in different countries, there are still
universals, even when there is no consensus on what they are:
If there is a transcendent issue, it is the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy,
between administration and the people, between managerial responsibility, on the one hand,
and popular sovereignty and the rule of law on the other.
This social factor is even more succinctly articulated by Aucoin & Neintzman (2000, p. 46, cited in
Lynn, 2003, p. 21):
All governments must now govern in a context where there are greater demands for
accountability for performance on the part of a better educated and less deferential citizenry,
more assertive and well-organised interest groups and social movements, and more
aggressive and intrusive mass media operating in a highly competitive information-seeking
and processing environment.
One of the arguments of the New Right was the lack of openness on the part of governments; the
ordinary man hardly knew how the government functioned. There was no involvement of the
citizen in the processes that involved him as a service user, and there was no choice or voice. In the
case of the USA, for instance, Cohen & Eimicke (1998) claim that societal upheavals, such as
assassinations of public figures, protests against wars and the lack of economic opportunities for
78
79
Sowaribi Tolofari
rapid sharing of information and comparison, even convergence (some say), could not have been
possible in a period without ICT. The second way is that ICT has enabled coordination among
loosely connected networks or devolved, decentralised entities. This view is supported by Larbi
(1999, p. 5), who writes that:
the literature on public management reforms also points to the development and availability
of information technology as providing the necessary tools and structures to make workable
management reforms in the public sector. For example, refined information systems are
pivotal to the principle of decentralization through the creation of executive agencies. In
order to decentralize and, at the same time, have greater accountability, it is important to
have confidence in reported performance information.
On the part of the citizen, elector or customer, the availability of ICT is empowering in that it gives
the public quicker and broader insight into what the government does, or the choices that are
available and the ability to compare as a customer.
Principal Theories
A perusal of the literature shows that while most writers have extensively written about the
characteristics and applications of NPM, many have only made a passing mention of the key
theories on which it is based. However, a detailed discourse of these can be found in Boston et al
(1996) and, to a lesser degree, in Ferlie et al (1996). On this matter the literature has also referred to
the works of other key theorists in the field such as Pollitt, Hood, Aucion, Kettl, Olsen, Barzelay,
Osborne & Gaebler, etc.
While the development of the theoretical framework can be said to be still ongoing, it has been
posited that NPM is a revival of the old managerialist ethos, reminiscent of Taylors scientific
management, which has been greatly influenced by such doctrines as homo economicus and new
institutional economics (Boston et al, 1996; Ferlie et al, 1996; Cohen & Eimicke, 1998; Larbi, 1999;
Yamamoto, 2003). Yamamoto (2003, p. 6) puts all this together and writes that: thus NPM unites
the new institutional economics and managerialism from business management thought. She
opines that it is the conflation of the elements of contract in the new organisational economics,
such as performance measurement and the introduction of competition, and management by
objective borrowed from business administration.
Boston et al (1996) are of the opinion that the principal theoretical bases for the new
management reforms are public choice theory, principalagent theory and transaction cost
economics. To these three, Ferlie et al (1996) add microeconomic theory and the new economic
sociology.
Public Choice Theory
According to Boston et al (1996), the central tenet of public choice theory is that man is a rational
being, acting or desiring to act autonomously, and seeking to satisfy his personal best interest; in
short, homo economicus. In public administration terms, this would mean that services have to be
targeted or varied (choice), and that the taxpayer would demand value for his money (more for
less) and accountability. One of the thrusts of this theory is that the uniform treatment of the
citizenry has led to an ever widening bureaucracy as government tries to do everything. Further, in
the view of Larbi (1999, p. 6), adherents of this theory criticise the poor reward system of the public
service, which promotes ineffective performance, giving rise to waste of resources and an in-built
tendency for expenditure to grow and for delivery to take precedence over productivity. Since
there have been inadequate discipline and control or accountability mechanisms, government
agencies oversupply collective goods because of budget maximization behaviour. The reform
needs were, therefore, diagnosed as the need for efficiency and efficacy, with an automatic
discipline mechanism the market just like in business. The solution was, consequently, the
adoption of business-sector management processes in the public arena.
80
81
Sowaribi Tolofari
Microeconomic Theory
What is understood of the microeconomic theory is that it describes the interaction of producers
and consumers in the marketplace. In public service terms, that would mean providers and users of
social services and how they behave in the quasi-market, one of the major applications of the new
managerial business principles. The view of Ferlie et al (1996) is that the quasi-market may very
likely not be a perfect market in the real economic sense, so that there may only be periodic
competition. But even so, pressure is exerted on service providers, e.g. school authorities, and they
must respond to the demands of the users or their proxies, e.g. parents of school children or school
governing boards. In the quasi-market, they go on to claim:
behaviour is seen as determined crudely by a mix of information regarding product price and
quality and a new structure of incentives rather than shaped by a mixture of strategic choice,
government and professional regulations, social norms, or historic interpersonal networks.
(Ferlie et al, 1996, p. 69)
Microeconomic theory, advancing a neo-liberal agenda, focuses attention on efficiency, individual
benefits and remuneration determined by the forces of the market. It ignores the internal processes
of the organisation and the sections of the public that are at a disadvantage to compete in the
market that government regulations and social norms are intended to protect.
The New Economic Sociology
The analytical basis of this theory is the concept of social relations between service providers and
users, agents and principals, or buyers and sellers. Ferlie et al (1996, p. 70) provide the insight that
such social relations as trust ... reputation and obligation are seen as central to the understanding
of how markets really work. The authors explain that the common view of the market comprising
active sellers and passive buyers within a closed market distorts the true picture of the market.
They argue that corporate buyers (or a government buying services from an agency or private
company) might interact in a complex way, especially over time, with the service providers,
establishing a relationship exhibiting commitment, trust, as well as conflict. Within the same
market, such a relationship may also develop between buyers or amongst sellers. The result could
be the identification of common values, leading to a few well-established service providers and
users binding themselves into long-lasting commitments, which probably exclude others. Buying
decisions would be made on soft data (e.g. trust) as well as hard information, with the result that
reputation is a key intangible asset on which providers trade (Ferlie et al, p. 71).
Main Characteristics
A good place to start a discussion of the characteristics of NPM might be to use the words of
Manning (2000) to explain what NPM is:
Generally it is used to describe a management culture that emphasises the centrality of the
citizen or customer, as well as accountability for results. It also suggests structural or
organisational choices that promote decentralised control through a variety of alternative
service delivery mechanisms, including quasi-markets with public and private service
providers competing for resources from policy makers and donors.
It comes through that the basic desire is to do away with the rigidity and tediousness of
bureaucracy. This calls for a new paradigm in the administration of public services. This new
paradigm must be able to fuse both the tenets of the market and the norms of the public sector.
Nikos (2000, p. 40) explains how this is successfully done: Business logic is the dominant one which
underlies in our days the core values of administration culture (efficiency, effectiveness, quality)
without replacing the traditional values of legality, impartiality and equality.
Against this background, the literature is replete with a huge variety of the characteristics of
NPM. There is little doubt that this is the result of the widespread use of NPM reforms around the
world, coupled with the fact that there must be varying adaptations of its tenets to suit local
environments. The characteristics relate to organisational leadership, policy and strategy, people
82
83
Sowaribi Tolofari
with legislating policy and providing resources after consultation with the professionals. This new
view was to change the manner of cooperation that had existed since 1945, whereby:
the central government in consultation with education professionals would enact legislation
and provide resourcing; local authorities would be responsible for implementing legislation
whilst ensuring local needs were met; and the teaching professionals would be responsible
for curriculum and assessment. (Arnott, 2000, p. 53)
As Grace (1994, p. 126) writes: The New-Right challenge of the 1980s has been to argue that
education is not a public good but a commodity in the marketplace and that this commodity would
be delivered more efficiently and effectively in [by] market forces. In order to assure the
consumer of the quality of the product, according to Morris (1994, p. 23), [a]ttainment targets
were introduced and pupils were to be tested at [various stages] ... There was thus a standard
product available in the education marketplace and a control system intended to guide the
parent-consumer towards those schools which delivered a quality product the matter of choice.
Even in education, the changes were in pursuit of a New Right agenda (McTavish, 2003). The
neo-liberals and neoconservatives saw education professionals in the civil service as more
interested in maintaining their professional positions than in delivering an effective national
education. They sought to free schools from bureaucracy, mainly by weakening the power of
central bargaining and introducing market-based practices (Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004). The neoliberals wanted competition, choice, efficiency and accountability. The neoconservatives wanted
education to reflect British traditional values. They advocated for a national curriculum.
Furthermore, for the New Right, education should not be a right of citizenship; only those who
truly desire education should go for it. Market mechanisms should determine demand and supply.
As Lubienski (cited in Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004, p. 120) put it, they were seeking to redefine
education from one of public good to that of a private good; that is, education should be seen not
as a social service but as a commodity.
The objective and mechanisms were the same the introduction of managerialism, i.e. to
manage education instead of administering education. Management would be devolved to schools
and education professionals would have less influence. Alternatives would be provided through
publicprivate partnerships, and parents and businesses would have power. As the institutions took
over the powers for planning, budgeting and resources allocation from the Local Education
Authorities (LEAs), heads and teachers would be held accountable for quality, which would be
measured and inspected using numerous instruments and organs.
Mangerialism in Education
One act easily and significantly gives an indication of managerialism in education. At the school
level it is the local management of schools (in England) or devolved school management (in
Scotland). This involves, according to Raab (2000, p. 19), changes in the exercise of power and
leadership within schools and the relationship of schools to the wider system of management and
control. This has, for example, seen the introduction of school governing boards modelled on the
private sector and having far wider powers than previously. However, unlike the private sector,
they must contain representatives of stakeholders. Only the head teacher is an executive member
(Ferlie et al, 1996).
Principally, devolved management of schools involves the transfer to schools from the local
authority of powers over budget, appointments, personnel and planning; the sharing of powers
amongst all stakeholders (head teacher, teachers, parents, governors and the neighbouring
community); competition for pupils; and public accountability (Ferlie et al, 1996; Raab, 2000).
At the level of higher education, managerialism is flagged by a new kind of executive power,
characterised by a will to manage and, in some respects, a freedom to act greater than was once the
case (Marginson & Considine, 2000, p. 9). Here also, decisions about allocation of resources that
were once made by regional or national governments are made by the university; the university is
under pressure to raise the level of non-state incomes and this has led to greater adoption of
business methods and the creation of quasi-markets (Ferlie et al, 1996; Marginson & Considine,
2000). Again, as in the case of schools, institutions of higher education are required to be more
accountable. Duke (2002, p. 30) sees a contradiction here. As he puts it: individual university
84
85
Sowaribi Tolofari
apparatuses were structured so that the disciplines had influence in the decision process. This is
now seen by the executive managers and outside policy makers as a hindrance to managerialism,
where decisions have to be made quickly, in executive style, without having to pass through
several remit instances.
Expanded periphery. In line with entrepreneurialism, other expert areas have sprouted in the
university to manage knowledge transfer, intellectual property, relations with industry, alumni,
fundraising and continuing education. Research centres are created and dissolved as needed,
because research is geared toward short-term returns and in favour of the disciplines whose
products have the greatest commercial potential.
Inclusion and social engineering. Universities must inculcate the concept of widening access for
minorities, socially and economically disadvantaged groups and the physically challenged. There
are also those who are advanced in age taking advantage of lifelong learning opportunities. The
cost of exclusion is an expensive public burden. New Labour advocates educational inclusion as
a means to empowerment, independence and social responsibility for the marginalised. The
university is expected to be a key participant in this attempt at social engineering.
Changes in delivery methods. The universitys traditional role as an institution of higher education
no longer follows the traditional method of having students on campus. With the use of new
delivery systems, e.g. ICT, distance learning has become a major method of learning.
Universities also give recognition and accreditation to learning achieved outside the university,
including work-based learning, and advanced standing is given for work done elsewhere. In
some cases, curricula are customised to suit students needs.
Enhanced flexibility of personnel. There is greater dependence, according to Marginson &
Considine (2000), on formulae, incentives, targets and plans than on legislation by senates or
deliberations of academic boards.
Reputation management. In the same way that private sector companies create and maintain their
public images through professional public relations and publicity, universities and other
educational institutions must create and enhance a reputation that the institution and its
members present to the outside. In the quasi-market environment, a good reputation, especially
for the quality of research and teaching and service to students, is a major weapon of
competition.
The imperative for these structural changes is the pressure to earn higher levels of non-state
incomes. The result is a quasi-student-market, where some courses are run, e.g. Master of Business
Administration, because they are self-financing, and there is a drive for overseas students mainly
because of the high tuition fees that can be charged.
Universities and schools compete on the quality of the education they offer. This quality is
defined, according to Marginson & Considine (2000, p. 4) less from traditional public sector and
political cultures, and more from the private sector and culture of economic consumption. In
relation to this, the meaning and value of research has changed ... Research income is a valued
status indicator, driving management behaviour at all levels (Duke, 2002, p. 28).
Performativity
Peters (2004) defines performativity in education as the combination of enforced standards and
accountability (e.g. national tests, school inspections), devolution and diversity (different types of
schools running core curriculum programmes and specialising in some areas of their choice),
flexibility of employment (for teaching professionals at different levels), greater choice (wider
variety of schools and the consumer having real power to choose) and managerialism. In other
words, performativity is the concept that the efficacious use of allocated resources is the
determinant measure of true value. This is akin to the business focus on shareholders worth, or
the neo-liberal expectation of more for less. In effect, perform or disappear; performance is the
raison dtre of educational institutions, so that the school leaders job is to manage performance.
Devolution and diversity, and flexibility of personnel major components of performativity
ought to signify independence of action, or a high degree of laissez- faire. Yet Marginson &
Considine (2000, p. 9) talk of new methods of devolution, a kind of devolution that is a key
mechanism of the new executive power, a part of centralized control and not its antithesis. The
86
87
Sowaribi Tolofari
problems, high rates of unemployment, underperforming industries, etc. on the excessive scope
of governments engagement in business, mediocrity in administrative performance and the lack of
accountability, among other things. In addition, there was also new intellectual thinking
developing on how public services should be organised and delivered. This was probably because
the populace in various countries were now better educated and more sophisticated in their
thinking, tastes and demands.
If only one element is to be pointed out as characterising the reforms, it would be
marketisation. The administration of public services was now benchmarked against private
business power should be exercised by those who give the service; the consumer should have
choice; the reason to exist should be determined by how well the organisation performs; there
should be measures of performance and public accountability. These characteristics were based on
certain theories: mainly public choice, transaction cost economics and principalagent theory.
As with every other sector, the education sector was also reformed. In this field, the major signs
of NPM are the local management of schools along managerial lines, the choice and powers given
to parents and governors, and the greater participation of the neighbouring community in the life
of a school, while the collegiality of academia is diminished. There is, of course, also the focus on
performance, which is measured and monitored. Performativity, focused on outcome
measurement, now appears to be the key concern of school leaders and LEAs.
References
Arnott, M.A. (2000) Restructuring the Governance of Schools: the impact of managerialism on schools in
Scotland and England, in M.A. Arnott & C.D. Raab (Eds) The Governance of Schooling: comparative studies
of devolved management, London: Routledge.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. & Walsh, P. (1996) Public Management: the New Zealand model. Auckland: Oxford
University Press.
Bovaird, T. & Lffler, E. (2001) Emerging Trends in Public Management and Governance, BBS Teaching &
Research Review, 5.
Cohen, S. & Eimicke, W. (1998) Trends in 20th Century United States Government Ethics. New York: School of
International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
Duke, C. (2002) Managing the Learning University. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ewalt, J.A.G. (2001) Theories of Governance and New Public Management: links to understanding welfare
policy implementation, paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Conference of the American
Society for Public Administration, Newark, NJ, 12 March. Available at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/aspa/unpan000563.pdf
Ferlie, E., Pettigrew, A., Ashburner, L. & Fitzgerald, L. (1996) The New Public Management in Action. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fusarelli, L.D. & Johnson, B. (2004) Educational Governance and the New Public Management, Public
Administration and Management, 9(2), pp. 118-127.
Grace, G. (1994) Education is a Public Good: on the need to resist the domination of economic science, in
D. Bridges & T. McLaughlin (Eds) Education and the Market Place, London: Falmer.
Hoggert, P. (1994) The Politics of the Modernization of the UK Welfare State, in R. Burrows & B. Loader
(Eds) Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State? London: Routledge.
Kiiza, J. (2000) Does the Marketization of Public Service Delivery Make Sense in a Poor Market Economy?
Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association conference, Australian National
University, 3-6 October. Available at: apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/kiiza.rtf
Larbi, G.A. (1999) The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States, United Nations Research Institute for
Social Development (UNRISD) Discussion Paper 112, September 1999. Geneva: UNRISD.
Lynn Jr., L.E. (2003) Public Management: A Brief History of the Field. Available at:
bush.tamu.edu/content/research/working_papers/llynn/pubman-bhistory.pdf
McTavish, D. (2003) Aspects of Public Sector Management: a case study of further education, ten years from
the passage of the Further & Higher Education Act, Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 31(2), pp. 175-187.
Manning, N. (2000) The New Public Management and Its Legacy. Available at: www.worldbank.org/
publicsector/civilservice/debate1.htm
88
89