International

Review of
Administrative
Editorial Sciences

International Review of
Administrative Sciences
Post-New Public 2019, Vol. 85(1) 3–10
! The Author(s) 2019
Management: reform Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
ideas and their DOI: 10.1177/0020852318810883
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras

application in the field

of social services

Tanja Klenk
Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed
Forces Hamburg, Germany

Renate Reiter
FernUniversit€at Hagen, Germany

From New Public Management to post-New

Public Management?
Public sector reforms used to be easier to understand in the past – or so it seems –
especially during the heyday of New Public Management (NPM) from the late
1980s to the late 1990s. Indeed, what Christopher Hood (1991) once called ‘New
Public Management’ was a generalised reform programme that was implemented
throughout the whole Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) world and beyond, at the supranational level as well as at the national
and local levels. It was all about business-like changes in public sector organisa-
tions (e.g. corporatisation), including the replacement of hierarchical coordination
by competition, the market mechanism as a possible modus operandi for improving
the efficiency of public services, the introduction of a product culture intended to
strengthen accountability and so on (Lindberg et al., 2015: 3).

Corresponding author:
Department of Political Science (Public Policy & Environmental Policy), FernUniversit€at in Hagen,
Universit€atsstraße 33 / C, 58084 Hagen, Germany.
Email: renate.reiter@fernuni-hagen.de
4 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1)

Without doubt, the reality has always been much more complex than the NPM
label suggested. NPM has been an umbrella concept covering various reform
features. However, it was not until the early 2000s that a rising number of pub-
lications acknowledged the huge variety of reform paths at the national, regional
and local levels, as well as across different service sectors. In this context, various
authors also pointed to an increasing differentiation in public sector goals, partic-
ularly efficiency, quality and accountability, and to the contingency of reform
measures. Scholars of public administration frequently use the rather vague term
of ‘post-NPM’ (cf. Christensen and Laegreid, 2007; De Vries and Nemec, 2013) to
describe the overall reform picture, which has since created a hybridisation of both
the public sector as such and the organisations operating within it.
Like NPM, post-NPM is a ‘shopping basket’ (Christensen, 2012: 1) of selected
reform elements. The post-NPM selection, however, differs decisively from the
NPM selection. The post-NPM label embraces reforms seeking to improve coor-
dination vertically between government and other actors and horizontally in terms
of inter-agency coordination. Hence, post-NPM reforms pay attention to a holistic
management style, boundary-spanning skills and joined-up targets. They aim to
improve the steering capacity of the centre. However, civil servants are thought to
be network managers and partnership leaders instead of being the pure business
managers suggested by the NPM model (Christensen and Lægreid, 2007; Lodge
and Gill, 2011).

Post-NPM in the social services sector in Europe:

a research framework
This special issue is dedicated to the assessment of post-NPM as a reform trend in
public administration, paying special attention to the introduction of post-NPM
reforms in the social services sector. A systematic literature review (Reiter and
Klenk, in this special issue) shows that while post-NPM reforms have been imple-
mented in various sectors, for example, transport, infrastructure, health care and
the care of the elderly, they appear to be particularly relevant to the social services
sector. There is high congruence between the reform features emphasised by the
post-NPM model – for example, professional standards, cooperation/coordination
and values like user and stakeholder participation – and the features and values
traditionally considered important in the social services sector (Wollmann et al.,
2016). This might explain why the social services sector has been particularly prone
to adopting post-NPM reforms as an alternative to the efficiency-driven NPM
reform model.
The authors of this special issue analyse the dissemination and actual stage of
implementing post-NPM ideas in the social services sector, and appraise whether
and to what extent we can observe a shift away from the efficiency-oriented per-
formance goals typical of the NPM reform paradigm. Contributing to this, the
issue’s various articles concentrate on the external dimension of administrative
Klenk and Reiter 5

reforms, that is, on reforms that are able to alter the way in which public admin-
istration works vis-a-vis society and fulfil its external service functions (cf. Hood,
1991; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Indeed, this was, and still is, the reform dimen-
sion that has raised a highly controversial debate among scholars in public admin-
istration. The focus on the external dimension of reforms directly relates to the
performance goals formulated by proponents of NPM and brings the conflicting
relationship between efficiency, quality and accountability of the NPM concept
most clearly to light (De Vries and Nemec, 2013: 6–7, 10–13). Tying in with the
scientific debate on post-NPM, the following research questions have guided our
research on public administration reforms in the social services sector:

1. What differences or similarities can we observe regarding reforms in the social

services sector in different European countries over the last two decades? Is
hybridisation really the common denominator of recent reforms? Or, can we
‘discern a new trend’ (Lindberg et al., 2015: 4) that is distinct from NPM?
2. Can these changes be understood as a reaction to the negative experiences of
NPM-driven reforms, as has been suggested by Christensen and Lægreid (2011:
408)? Does ‘post-NPM’ mean ‘anti-NPM’? Or, can we explain recent changes in
the reform agenda better by using other explanatory factors, independent of the
experiences of NPM reforms (see Pollitt and Dan, 2011: 39–43)?
3. What are the actual performance goals of the social services sector in a post-
NPM era? Is the improvement of efficiency as an important goal of NPM
reforms (still) a (the major?) purpose of post-NPM reforms? Or, are we witness-
ing a shift in public administrators’ attention towards other goals such as, for
example, accountability or quality?

The first set of questions refers to the unresolved discussion concerning whether
or not NPM is being followed by a new era (Lindberg et al., 2015). Two ‘camps’
stand vis-a-vis each other in this discussion: one suggesting the dissolution of NPM
in the actual practice of public administrative reforms; the other seeing the estab-
lishment of a new post-NPM model of public administration (e.g. the neo-
Weberian state, good governance and new digital-era governance; cf. De Vries
and Nemec, 2013: 4–5; Dunleavy et al., 2005). The authors of this special issue
tend to be rather sceptical of an establishment or even ‘consolidation’ of post-
NPM as a new, self-contained era of reform following the NPM wave of public
administrative reforms in Europe.
The second set of questions points to the still undecided issue: ‘What is the
reason behind public administration reforms (be they NPM-driven reforms or
other types of reform)?’ In this special issue, we argue that in order to tackle
this topic, it is important to pay attention to various factors, such as the admin-
istrative level at which reforms have taken place, the timing of administrative
restructuring, the specific problem structure of the social services in question
and the institutional background of the different European countries. Compared
with nationalised industries, local governments in Europe have proven to be more
6 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1)

resistant to NPM reforms (Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014) as they are most
directly exposed to their citizens’ appraisal of reforms generally. This holds partic-
ularly for the social services sector, where citizens are most attentive to the reli-
ability and the high quality of services. Thus, the social services sector can be
described as an overall ‘latecomer’ with respect to NPM reforms. In addition,
the various fields of social services provision were shaped by NPM reforms to a
different extent. While we find, for example, the hospital sector being strongly
affected by NPM reforms, this is not the case for early childcare services (cf.
Klenk and Pavolini, 2015; Klenk and Reiter, 2012).
The third set of questions focuses on the discussion on reform outcomes – a
neglected aspect in the intensive debate on NPM (Pollitt and Dan, 2011: 52). Not
only has the issue of the outcomes of NPM reforms received little attention in the
academic debate, but a serious discussion about viable indicators for performance
outcomes is still lacking. One reason for the absence of a set of viable indicators is
that the notion of ‘performance’ is strongly contested in public administration
research, particularly when it comes to the relationship between performance
and accountability (Christensen and Lægreid, 2015; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004;
Pollitt and Dan, 2011). Interpretations vary depending on the reform model in
question. Whereas scholars of NPM reforms tend to emphasise the efficiency,
functional responsiveness and effectiveness of public administrations, post-NPM
reformers instead stress the administrators’ (democratic) accountability or citizens’
control over public administration, as well as the tight coordination and integra-
tion of public services. In this special issue, we argue that both perspectives should
be kept in mind when tackling the performance question. Accordingly, we refer to
a performance concept that integrates these perspectives. Our analytical frame-
work includes the following performance dimensions: (1) democratic control and
(politico-administrative) accountability; (2) efficiency; (3) effectiveness; and (4) the
vertical and horizontal coordination of local administrators, as well as adminis-
trators and other non-public local social services actors (Kuhlmann et al., 2011).

Structure of this special issue

The overall aim of this special issue is to assess the post-NPM trend from an
empirical perspective. Therefore, we examine: first, how the post-NPM trend is
perceived in the recent public administration literature; and, second, how it is
perceived and implemented in different European countries and different fields
of social service provision.
In ‘The manifold meanings of “post-New Public Management” – A systematic
literature review’, Renate Reiter and Tanja Klenk develop an analytical framework
to capture how scholars of public administration understand post-NPM and assess
whether and how far post-NPM has become ‘institutionalised’, that is, has become
a concept of public management reform that enjoys cognitive and normative legit-
imacy and is taken for granted (Powell and Bromley, 2015; Suchmann, 1995). In
order to assess the career of the concept, they differentiate between: a low degree of
Klenk and Reiter 7

institutionalisation characterised by a variety of meanings and implementation

models; a middle degree of institutionalisation, where consolidation occurs; and
a full degree of institutionalisation, where the concept has developed into a blue-
print for reforms and is infused with value. Reiter and Klenk show that, so far,
post-NPM has only reached a low to medium degree of institutionalisation. While
academic work on post-NPM has contributed to delegitimising the NPM concept
by highlighting its deficiencies, post-NPM is still far from being a blueprint for
future reforms.
Following Reiter and Klenk’s systematic literature review, this special issue
presents three case studies analysing the dissemination of post-NPM ideas and
practices in different fields of social services provision in different countries
(Poland, England, France, Finland and Sweden). The case studies conform to a
similar, three-step structure. In the first step, an empirical description of external
local public administrative reform activities in the field of social services provision
under consideration is given (for a time period from the early 2000s to today),
paying specific attention to the use of post-NPM-inspired reform ideas and goals.
Second, an analysis of the driving forces behind the restructuring of social services
provision is conducted (Are post-NPM reforms a reaction to NPM experiences?).
Finally, the administrative performance goals are analysed.
In their study, ‘From marketization to recentralization: The health-care system
reforms in Poland and the post-New Public Management concept’, Łukasz Mikuła
and Urszula Kaczmarek argue that even though public administration in the
Polish hospital sector has recently seen a recurrence of reform ideas that appear
at first glance to be inspired by post-NPM (recentralisation, etc.), the reform
measures implemented cannot be taken as a sign of the emergence of a new,
comprehensive reform model. The authors refer to the specific Eastern European
political, social and economic environment of public administration reforms since
the end of the 1980s and the mistrust that many actors have of a strong state.
These factors can explain why recent reforms, which can certainly be described
as ‘anti-NPM’, can by no means be considered as ‘post-NPM’. Instead, the authors
interpret the reforms as a sign of the political aspiration of the PiS-party govern-
ment to strengthen its capacity to control public administration in different sectors
and fields of action. From this point of view, Mikuła and Kaczmarek scepti-
cally conclude:

The programme of the de-marketization and de-agencification of health care shows

many traces of the post-NPM concept but it can also be perceived as a politically
driven action to strengthen the tight control of the ruling party over an important part
of the public sector.

Martin Laffin, in his article on ‘Explaining reforms: Post-New Public Management

myths or political realities? Social housing delivery in England and France’, takes
the example of structural reforms in the social housing sector in England and
France since the beginning of the 2000s to discuss the ‘post-NPM thesis’
8 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1)

(saying that after disappointing experiences with NPM-driven reforms, public

sector managers have turned to post-NPM as the new reform model). Laffin rejects
this thesis and argues that it denotes an oversimplified perception of public-sector
reform mechanisms and their drivers. His analysis of social housing reforms in
England and France demonstrates that political factors, namely, the interests of
party-political actors and socio-political factors such as urban unrest, play a crit-
ical role in explaining recent reform trends in France and in England. Against this
background, Laffin suggests that the:

research agenda should focus more on issues where significant interests are at stake
rather than the existing emphasis on less consequential reforms (at least in redistrib-
utive terms), such as agencification, reflecting the continuing hold of the NPM-post/
NPM discourse over public management research.

Finally, in their contribution, ‘Still “skiing their own race” on New Public
Management implementation? Patient choice and policy change in the Finnish
and Swedish health-care systems’, Daniel Rauhut and Christopher J. Smith
argue that even though we can observe recent shifts from decentralisation to
recentralisation in both countries, these changes cannot usefully be interpreted
as a post-NPM measure to explicitly address the mistakes of previous policies.
In both cases, post-NPM is neither a myth nor a model, and it is not meaningful at
all as a point of reference for public sector reform. Instead, efficiency gains and
cost containment continue to be predominant compared with other concerns such
as accountability and equity in service accessibility.
This special issue refines our understanding of the still rather vague notion of
post-NPM. Furthermore, it stimulates academic debate on whether or not we are
witnessing a significant transformation in public management reform. As for the
three leading research questions – (1) ‘Is there a new trend?’; (2) ‘Can this new
trend be described as anti-NPM?’; and (3) ‘How have performance goals devel-
oped: are we seeing the increasing importance of non-efficiency goals?’ – the
articles in this special issue give rather sceptical or reluctant answers. However,
they convincingly demonstrate the ongoing intense struggle for new models of
public management reform. They remind us that when analysing this struggle,
we need to be sensitive to the political dimension of public sector reform and to
study the interplay between political interests, perceived economic constraints and
suggested reform models.

References
Christensen T (2012) Post-NPM and changing public governance. Meiji Journal of Political
Science and Economics 1(1): 1–11.
Christensen T and Lægreid P (2007) The whole-of-government approach to public sector
reform. Public Administration Review (November/December): 1059–1066.
Christensen T and Lægreid P (2011) Complexity and hybrid public administration –
Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review 11(4): 407–423.
Klenk and Reiter 9

Christensen T and Lægreid P (2015) Performance and accountability – A theoretical dis-

cussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organizations Review 15(2): 207–225.
De Vries M and Nemec J (2013) Public sector reform. An overview of recent literature and
research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 26(1): 4–16.
Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S et al. (2005) New Public Management is dead – Long
live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
16(3): 467–494.
Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.
Klenk T and Pavolini E (eds) (2015) Restructuring Welfare Governance. Marketization,
Managerialism and Welfare State Professionalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
€
Klenk T and Reiter R (2012) Offentliche Daseinsvorsorge, privat organisiert? Ein deutsch-
franz€osischer Vergleich der Bereitstellung der Krankenhausinfrastruktur. Zeitschrift für
Sozialreform (ZSR) 58(4): 401–425.
Kuhlmann S and Wollmann H (2014) Introduction to Comparative Public Administration:
Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kuhlmann S, Bogumil J, Ebinger F et al. (2011) Dezentralisierung des Staates in Europa.
Auswirkungen auf die kommunale Aufgabenerfüllung in Deutschland, Frankreich und
Großbritannien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lindberg K, Czarniawska B and Solli R (2015) After NPM? Scandinavian Journal of Public
Administration 19(2): 3–6.
Lodge M and Gill D (2011) Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post-
NPM in New Zealand. Governance 24(1): 141–166.
Osborne D and Gaebler T (1992) Re-inventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Pollitt C and Bouckaert G (2004) New Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis
(2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt C and Dan S (2011) The Impacts of the New Public Management in Europe. A Meta-
Analysis. COCOPS Work Package 1. Brussels: European Commission (European
Research Area).
Powell WW and Bromley P (2015) New institutionalism in the analysis of complex organ-
izations. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, pp. 764–769.
Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy. Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.
Wollmann H, Kopric I and Marcou G (eds) (2016) Public and Social Services in
Europe. From Public and Municipal to Private Sector Provision. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Tanja Klenk is a Professor of Public Administration at the Helmut Schmidt

University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany. Her
main research interests lie in the areas of the governance and organisation of the
welfare state, public policy, and public sector reforms. Her most recent book,
Restructuring Welfare Governance (edited with Emmanuele Pavolini), discusses
the introduction and impact of marketisation and managerialism in different
fields of social policy in different European countries.
10 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1)

Renate Reiter is Senior Fellow at the Department of Political Sciences at the

FernUniversit€at in Hagen, Germany, and an Assistant Professor of Multilevel
Governance (fix-termed) at the University of Leipzig, Germany. She specialises
in comparative public policy and (local) social policy studies. One of her recent
publications (with Sabine Kuhlmann) is ‘Decentralisation of the French welfare
state: From “big bang” to “muddling through”’, International Review of
Administrative Sciences (2016) 82(2): 255–272.