Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
PA-201A
Submitted by: Rogelio Vicente Juan O. Morales
In his article appearing in the World Bank website entitled, The New Public
Management (NPM) and its Legacy1, Nick Manning has boldly proclaimed,
“NPM is a slippery label.”
At the time it was promoted back in the 1980s, the philosophy promised to
bring better results to governments who applied it. There was a sentiment
that the public sector needed reforms, most especially in its delivery of
services. NPM emerged giving emphasis to government as a steerer in
society, not just a mere rower.
The main principle behind it was the use of a market oriented approach in
running government, which means running government based on business-
oriented principles. As such any of the tools applied in government were
largely borrowed from the private sector. NPM sought to improve ways
governments delivered its services, to be as efficient as its private sector
counterpart.
Central to this philosophy is the emphasis in serving the customer and that
government’s task is to continuously find ways to improve services. This has
caused the adoption of market-oriented innovations in public sector life:
business process reengineering, decentralized control, and developing
public-private partnerships. The main intent of NPM is for governments to
become efficient in serving and responding to the needs of society.
Manning, a senior public management specialist for the World Bank, explains
the beginnings of NPM in parliamentary democracies that have strong
executive powers, a centralized government, and little administrative law. In
this context, contracts for service outcomes can be forged down along the
hierarchy to an entity or agent who has the relatively unchallenged authority
to deliver the desired results.
1
A condensed version of his work entitled, “The Legacy of New Public Management in
Developing Countries,” International Review of Administrative Sciences (Jun 2001).
Further into Manning’s article he posits his answers to three critical
questions about NPM: Has the NPM won? Did it work? Why has the impact in
less developed nations been so modest? For the first question, his answer is
no. While NPM has made its mark, it is not in the way as it was predicted to
become of universal significance. As of the time Manning’s article was
published in 2001, many hierarchical bureaucracies in less developed
countries remain dominant.
The second question Manning posed is whether NPM worked. He cites the
work of Batley2 when he studied governments in South Asia, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and South America. He asserted that the effect of NPM reforms were
mixed, at best with some improvements in efficiency and mixed effects on
equity. Manning further cited Polidano’s conclusion that evidence on NPM’s
impact is “perplexingly equivocal.”3
In the final part of Manning’s article, he explains why the impact in less
developed nations has been so modest. One reason Manning offers implies
that receivers of government services have become desensitized or cynical
of their providers, hence performance expectations are not that high.
NPM was first applied in the United Kingdom during the time of Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher. Then the trend expanded to Australia and New
Zealand and other developed countries including the United States. While it
was mentioned that among developed countries the levels of impact
2
Batley, R. 1999. “The Role of Government in Adjusting Economies: An Overview of
Findings.” International Development Department, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
Alabama.
3
Polidano, C. 1999. “The New Public Management in Developing Countries.” Institute for
Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester.
achieved are not uniform, it therefore reinforces the notion that among
developing countries NPM’s impacts fell short of expectations. The reason is
already obvious and was stated earlier: that NPM had its beginnings in
parliamentary democracies that have strong executive powers, a centralized
government, and little administrative law.
On a broader sense, the results gained by the private sector cannot readily
be achieved in the public sector by using private sector tools. Structurally,
both sectors are different. But this is not to say that the Philippines have not
adopted the NPM mantra. As early as the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos, the
need to institute reforms had been echoed. This era started the fashionable
formulation of vision and mission statements among government agencies.
This is simply an indication of the prevailing public sector ethos, that resisted
and thus stunted NPM’s benefits amongst developing countries. For NPM to
work to a desired level, a country’s sociocultural profile must not be
overlooked, it’s capacity to adapt and act, or readiness to embrace and
commit must be analyzed. Silo thinking is still endemic among front line
service government agencies. This indicates the need for continued
awareness and enrichment among the ranks in the public service sector.
4
Aristovnik, Aleksander & Seljak, Janko, 2009. "Performance budgeting: selected
international experiences and some lessons for Slovenia," MPRA Paper 15499, University
Library of Munich, Germany.
5
Heather Base and Peter Morgan, Apr 2008. “Capacity Change and Performance,” European
Center for Development Policy Management.
Despite NPM’s lackluster performance more particularly with developing
countries, Manning’s article said nothing of it about not bringing any gains.
For its shortcomings, they should be viewed as a sort of debriefing; an
assessment of what worked, what did not, and what lessons can be derived
for the next contingency or opportunity to improving service delivery in the
public sector. For Manning, the bottom line is that although NPM did not
come near to meeting its expectations, the failures and the debate over
what they mean have created new possibilities.6
6
Dator, J.A., Pratt, R., Seo, Y. (2006). “Fairness, Globalization, and Public Institutions: East
Asia and Beyond.” University of Hawai’I Press, Hawai’I USA.