Dissimilar Public Management Paradigms, Similar Adoption: Finding an Approach Contingent on Policy Goals
Received: Feb 28, 2016; Revised: Mar 10, 2016; Revised: Apr 05, 2016; Accepted: Apr 16, 2016
Published Online: Apr 30, 2016
Abstract
Several management paradigms—traditional public administration, new public administration, new public management (NPM), and networked governance—have been leaders in practice and in the academic world of public administration at different time periods. However all these management paradigms have a negative aspect in common—a “one-size-fits-all” approach to government reforms. This study tries to overcome this approach, utilizing a contingent method. Each of the four paradigms has been suggested for adoption in one or two areas of different policy types based on a two-by-two table with the dimensions of high and low with respect to market mechanisms and high and low on the explicitness of the politics-administration dichotomy. The study proposes that traditional public administration would be the appropriate choice in the areas of redistributive and constituent policy. New public administration would work well for regulatory policy, whereas networked governance and NPM (customeroriented practices) would be the right choice in the arena of distributive policy.
Metrics
QR Code of this Article:
Related Articles
Toward a New Public Administration Model in Romania: The Challenges of Designing Coherent Public Administration Reforms
J. Policy Stud. 2024;39(3):57-69.
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENTS in AUSTRALIA: LESSONS an NPM LEADER MIGHT TODAY DRAW FROM NWS
J. Policy Stud. 2024;39(2):63-79.
The NPM Legacy: The Impacts of Job Insecurity, Innovativeness, and Public Employees’ Trust in Their Supervisors on Organizational Performance
Korean J. Policy Stud. 2019;34(3):25-49.
Korea’s Experience with NPM-Based Reform: Applying the Policy Fashion Concept
Korean J. Policy Stud. 2010;25(1):19-33.
Searching for an Alternative Paradigm for Korean Public Administration after the NPM Movement
Korean J. Policy Stud. 2004;19(1):7-29.