Public Management and Governance

Lecture 1 270120

Introduction to the module

Changing paradigms of public service TPA-
NPM-Network Governance-Public Service
Approach
Dr Pauline Jas
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Nottingham
Room B28 Law and Social Sciences Building
0115 95 15 425
pauline.jas@nottingham.ac.uk
The University of Nottingham
Today’s session

Welcome to January starters – welcome back September

starters
New term – expectations, reflection
Aims and LOs
Programme – hand-in dates
Seminars and Groupwork

Lecture – changing paradigms of public service TPA-NPM-

Network Governance-Public Service Approach
Seminar - Personal introduction – using world maps. Discuss
public service paradigm in countries of origin.

The University of Nottingham

Aims

To equip students with the theoretical knowledge and practical

skills to analyse varieties of governance and management
practices in the public sphere. It will draw upon governance and
management theories and specific public sector research and
trends.
 To examine a number of key management issues in public sector
organisations.
 To examine specific professional contexts, and allow students to
draw on their own professional experience to illustrate multi-
professional approaches to governance and management.
Learning outcomes

Knowledge and understanding - models of governance and

management in the public sector 
Intellectual skills - critically appraisal, demonstrate the application
of theories, models and concepts to individual public
organisations and contexts.
 Professional practical skills - analyse management problems and
issues arising as policies are formulated and implemented
through new forms of governance arrangements.
 Transferable skills - analysis, evaluation and synthesis applicable
to all graduate employment. In addition, presentation and
communication skills are similarly valuable.

The University of Nottingham

27 Jan Introduction to the module - Changing paradigms
of public service TPA-NPM-Network Governance-
Public Service Approach
3 Feb Procurement and Commissioning
10 Feb Accountability

17 Feb Role of the Public – choice and voice

   
24 Feb Role of public service workers
 
2 March Co-production

9 March International Public Administration

16 March Voluntary sector and social enterprise
23 March Public Value

30 March Wrap up and essay writing

The University of Nottingham
 
Work planning – essay deadlines

Mon 17 Feb Formative essay Jan starters

Mon 11 May Dynamics of International Social Policy 1
Tue 12 May Public Management and Governance 1
Wed 13 May Globalisation, Europeanisation and Public Policy
Thu 14 May Leadership, Strategy & Performance
Mon 18 May Dynamics of International Social Policy 2
Tues 19 May Economics and Policy Analysis
Wed 20 May Public Management and Governance 2
Thu 21 May Dissertation proposal Jan starters

Thursday 4 September Dissertation

The University of Nottingham
Time allocation per module

10 credits of a module ~ 100 hours of activity

Direct contact time ~ 30 hours
Essay preparation and production :
30 hours/2k word essay
60 hours/4k word essay
Self study, i.e. reading and preparing for lectures:
10-credit module ~ 40 hours
20-credit ~ 110 hours
30-credit ~ 180 hours
No room, and no excuse, to leave all your activity until the last
minute!
The University of Nottingham
Seminars and groupwork

2 seminar groups – A4 LASS building, 4-5, 5-6

Jack Aldridge Dean – 3rd year PhD student, previously involved
with PAC&T, Dynamics, various UG modules
One seminar tutor each week: one week Jack will do take
groups, the next week I will take both groups
This term: working hard on transferable skills
Active role in learning
Learning process has a range of elements
Learning is iterative, takes time
Discussion and exchange of ideas integral to learning
Preparation! Preparation! Preparation!

The University of Nottingham

 Break

The University of Nottingham

 Main features of state forms (from Skelcher, 2000)
  Overloaded Hollowing-out Congested
Political Mainstream State reduction Wicked issues
agenda welfare
programmes
Organisation Large Appointed bodies Partnerships
bureaucracies
Accountability Representative Patronage and Plurality of
democracy markets governance
Transparency Visible Partially visible Invisible

Senior Policy advice Managerial Networking

employees & administration
Public Passive recipient Active customers Active citizens
of services & stakeholders
Assumptions and rationale of TPA (Lynn,
2001)

Prior to TPA – access to services and appointment to admin

posts based on spoils system – who you know, not what you
know
Scientific management – breaking down tasks into segments is
efficient
Public service motivation – contribute to public good, not self-
interest; to do good, to be fair, to follow rules
State has powers of taxation – brings responsibilities

The University of Nottingham

Traditional Public Administration (TPA)
main features

Organised according to hierarchical, bureaucratic principles

Direct provider of goods and services through the
bureaucracy
Separation of politics and administration
Standardisation of processes
Career civil servants

The University of Nottingham

Politicians and bureaucrats

Ministerial responsibility for all the activities of their

departments
Civil servants accountable to politicians

People are ‘self- interested utility-maximizers’ (public choice

theory)
Bureaucrats increase own ambitions using hierarchical
structure to their own ends
Individual ambitions for larger budget, more staff, more
power and status, ‘empire building’
Critique on TPA (Osborne & Gabler, 1992; Denhardt &
Denhardt, 2000)

Inefficient – long processes of bureaucracy use up excessive

resources
Good for control, not for management
Lack of innovation – due to following rules and lack of rewards
Crowding out – no initiative due to dependence on the state
Distance from service users – only connection through
elections
Conflict between bureaucracy and democracy
Civil servants do pursue self-interest – bureau-shaping,
corruption

The University of Nottingham

 Assumptions and rationale of NPM

Reducing state – stimulate private action/self-reliance

Business practices transfer to public sector
Competition and choice – improve quality of service
Aggregate of preference – consumer behaviour
Motivation based on self-interest – incentivise with targets
and rewards

The University of Nottingham

New Public Management (NPM)

Reduce role and extent of state, prevent future expansion of

the public sector
Introduce best private sector techniques and marketplace
conditions into public sector
Facilitate acquisition of entrepreneurial skills into public sector
Depoliticise policy decisions, entrust authority in professional
experts
Focus on individualism instead of collectivism and dominance of
state
Assumed benefits of NPM

Public service functions disaggregated and decentralised into

quasi-market and/or quasi-contractual arrangements
Enables competition between public agencies, firms, and non-
profit bodies through the roles of provider and purchaser
More transparent budgets – PIs for outputs, attributing costs to
outputs
Accountability – principal-agent relationships, contracts tied to
efficient performance
Critique on NPM (Dieffenbach, 2009)

Incompatibility of public and private sector – profit for

shareholders vs common good
Lack of equity – reinforces existing inequalities
Shifts responsibility – reduced political accountability
Economics theory – lack of market conditions and consumer
choice
Implementation – contracting usually stacked in favour of
private sector actor; different skills sets; different cultures
Performance management – perverse incentives
Competition – crowding out of collaboration

The University of Nottingham

Outcomes of 30 years of NPM (Hood &
Dixon, 2013)

Main claim of NPM: A government that works better and costs less
Counter argument: you get what you pay for => damage to
fairness and consistency
UK early adopter of NPM, 30+ years experience – any results
should be visible in UK
Cause-effect difficult to attribute, NPM not the only change in the
world, evidence difficult to attain
40% increase in cost of administration; 1/3rd fewer civil servants;
total public spending doubled
Increase in complaints about fairness and consistency, but only
some upheld; no sharp fall in trust in government
Overall: worked a bit worse, cost a bit more
The University of Nottingham
Assumptions and rationale of network
governance (Rhodes, 1996; Torfing, 2005)

Wicked issues – multi-partner collaboration

Exchange of resources – partners’ unique perspectives
Stakeholder focus – involvement in decision making
Co-production – taking responsibility for services
Community engagement – place and interest
Characteristics of networks - self-organising, interdependence,
interaction between network members, autonomy from the
state

The University of Nottingham

Critique on network governance (Klijn &
Koppenjan, 2000; Davies, 2002, 2007)

Public actors – reduced role, same responsibility

Constraints on government – cannot chose partners, not allowed
to goal bargain, need for exemplary behaviour, media, need
for legitimacy
Inequality of partners – access to resources
Closed subsystems – established interest groups, reinforces
existing inequalities
Undermines democracy – participative vs representative
No space for conflict – inclusion implies exclusion, ‘us’ and
‘them’

The University of Nottingham

Recap – features of paradigms

Traditional Public New Public Network

Administration Management Governance
Hierarchy Markets Networks
Bureaucracy Agencification Partnership
Collectivism Individualism Collaboration
State provision Self-reliance Co-production
Separation of De-politicised Joined up thinking
politics and decisions Participation
administration Business-like Deliberation
Career civil management Focus on outcomes
servants Focus on outputs
Focus on process
and inputs

Challenges: accountability, efficiency, equity

Alternative – Public Service-Dominant
Logic (Osborne et al., 2012, 2018)

Main critique on NPM: based on product-dominant logic

instead of service-dominant logics
Product – concrete; production and consumption separate;
passive role of consumer
Services – intangible; production and consumption
intertwined/ inseparable; service user is co-producer/co-
creator

The University of Nottingham

Public service ≠ private service (Osborne,
2018)

Repeat business – to be avoided by public sector

Unwilling or coerced service users – voluntary agency
Multiple end-users, multiple service providers
Dual role of service users and citizens

Benefits of public service-dominant approach

Essential stakeholder engagement adds value
Shaping expectations and trust
Experience and knowledge of user at heart of service
Increased effectiveness

The University of Nottingham