New Public Management

Introduction New Public Management (NPM) is a term that various governments have been using since the 1980s to modernize the public sector. The NPM reforms are meant to change the old system of traditional public administration and come up with a revamped system of public administration (Lynn, 1998).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on New Public Management specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to Larbi, Key elements of NPM â€Å"include various forms of decentralizing management within public services, increasing use of markets and competition in the provision of public services, and increasing emphasis on performance, outputs and customer orientation† (Larbi, 1999, pp. 1). These reforms were necessitated by economic, social and technological factors. The existence of economic and fiscal crises has increased the need in the financial system a high technology that would make delivery of public se rvices less costly. The Origin, theory and principles of NPM The origin of NPM. The New Public Management approach to public management was founded on a critique of bureaucracy as the organizing principle within public administration (Dunleavy, 1991). He claimed that bureaucracy was plagued by progressive inflexibility which was based on complex hierarchical rule based systems and top-down decision making which caused it to become increasingly distant from the general publics’ expectations. According to Kelly (1998), NPM focused on what was believed to be the critical aspects of private sector modes of organizing and managing public sector and public administration. While the State Owned Enterprises continued to incur losses due to poor management and inefficiency by its managers, the private sector mode of management was claimed would help these government institutions out of those problems hence enhancing service delivery to the people of the countries concerned. Government s were urged to incorporate the techniques of business administration and business values which included the values of competition, a preference for market mechanisms as a way of social choice and respect for the entrepreneurial spirit (Yamamoto, 2003). Following these recommendations the public sector reforms have started been initiated and as a result governments institutions have started moving forward in terms of profit making, and accountability (Mathiasen, 1996). In Japan for instance, scholars have tried to look at the various techniques that the government used in order to make her the most industrialized country in Asia because the new public management ideas were introduced in Japan few years back through the assistance of programs set out by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Advertising Looking for research paper on government? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Principles of NPM.NPM as a term ca n be used to describe; organization and management design, how the new institutional economics can be applied to public management, and a pattern of policy choices. According to Hood (1995), there are several NPM principles that include: An emphasis on hands- on professional management skills for active, visible, discretionary control of organizations, explicit standards and measures of performance through clarification of goals targets, and indicators of success, A shift from the use of input controls and bureaucratic procedures to rules relying on output controls measured by quantitative performance indicators of success, A shift from unified management systems to disaggregation of units in the public sector, An introduction of greater competition in the public sector so as to lower costs and achievement of higher standards through term contracts, A stress on private sector style management practices such as the use of short term labor contracts, the development of corporate plans , performance agreements, and mission statements (Hood, 1991) and finally, Stresses on cost cutting, efficiency, parsimony in resource use (Yamamoto, 2003). The Theory of NPM. According to Ewan (1996), new public management is a fusion of contractual elements in the field of institutional economics such as the principles of measuring performance and introducing competition and of the management by objective in the field of business administration. Therefore to Ewan, new public management unites the institutional economics and managerialialism from business management thought which therefore means that new public management strategy should balance effort involving the use contractual arrangement as a tool of output controls and managerial freedom (Matland, 1995). Factors responsible for New Public Management Reforms The idea of New Public Management started in the developed countries like United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Therefore, the developing countries in Afric a and Asia were forced into adopting these reforms by pressure and influence from these countries. The new public management reforms are a result of the following factors; The first factor is related to Economic and fiscal crises of the state. Countries adopting the NPM are concerned about their balance of payments, cost of providing public services, and the size of public expenditure (Jennings, Ewalt, 1998). In the United Kingdom for instance, the fiscal crisis led to an IMF intervention with a demand for financial reforms while some blame was placed on leaders who were non reformist. When the Western governments were faced with fiscal crisis they initiated measures not only to cut but also control public spending. Just as was the case with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand reorganized and modernized public bureaucracies hence prioritizing public sector management reforms.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on New Public Management specificall y for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The second factor is about change in political context. Poliit (2007) argues that Reagan’s election in 1978 did provide some fresh impetus for market oriented reforms in the public sector which was already under pressure to reform. The case was the same in Australia and New Zealand which both brought reforms oriented governments. He further says that the strategies to cut the size of the public sector were buttressed by an ideological campaign to reverse the growing reliance on the government. The Development of information technology is another factor enhancing the development of new public management reforms. The development and availability of information technology provided the necessary tools and structures to make workable managerial reforms in the public sector. Refined information became important in the management because executive agencies were put in place which enhanced accountability. Public a dministration and management context also played a significant role in reforming the new public management. The 1970s and early 1980s crisis were believed to have been as a result of failure of public administration institutions and hence improving their performance was largely believed to be critical to recovery and adjustment (Milward, 1996). For example, in Ghana there were 235 State Owned Enterprises (SOE) at the beginning of Economic Recovery Program most of which were making losses thus contributing nothing to the growth of the economy in terms of revenue generation. However when the government intervened, the SOE sector increased from 1.1 billion cedis in1982 to 735 billion in 1987 in 1986 (Yamamoto 2003). From the late 1980s public sector reforms became part and parcel of Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) which provided institutional support. The other factor is international experiences. When communism collapsed in there was a wind for change in most of the Western world w hich also spread across many developing countries in crisis that they had to reform (Kaboolian, 1998). The factors that dove reforms in particular were the structural lending conditions which pointed toward market and private sector approaches to public sector management under the guise of new public management. There is also Good governance that leads to superb public sector management reforms and hence influences new public management reforms. In 1980s, there was a debate about good governance. Its requirements provided a new approach to public sector management reforms.Advertising Looking for research paper on government? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Responsiveness to customer needs, and accountability have been identified as aspects of good governance by donor agencies like the United Kingdom and USAID supporting reforms in developing countries. According to the World Bank, good governance calls for a non compromising judicial system and an administration that has efficiency of the highest profile. Guyverson (2007) elaborates the elements of good governance as; [Public sector management emphasizing the need for effective financial and human resource management through improved budgeting, accounting and reporting, and rooting for efficiency and particularly in public enterprises; Accountability in public services, including effective accounting, auditing and decentralization, and generally making public officials responsible for their actions and responsive to consumers; A predictable legal framework with rules known in advance; a reliable and independent judiciary and law enforcement mechanisms and; Availability of information and transparency in order to enhance policy analysis, promote public debate and reduce risks of corruption] (Guyverson, 2007, PP. 1). The practical applicability of New Public Management The principles of NPM are applicable in several situations. Firstly, they are applicable in Breaking up monolithic bureaucracies into agencies.This involves a split between a small strategic policy core and large operations arms of government with increased managerial autonomy. Agencies are then required to conduct their relations with each other and with the central departments on contractual basis. In principle these agencies have greater managerial flexibility in allocation of human resources in return for greater accountability for results. United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand provide some of the best examples of these agencies. The development of executive agencies has been accompanied by the delegation of authority to senior management in public agencies hence giving top management freedo m to manage with clear responsibility and accountability (Terry, 1998). Secondly, there is devolving budgets and financial control. This involves creating budget centers or spending units (Stamp, 1923). This entails giving managers increased control over budgets for which they are accountable. Singapore for example has already started a process of devolving financial management as a prelude to creating autonomous agencies. From 1996 ministries and departments were assigned operating budgets based on target output. Ghana on the other hand embarked on a public financial management that involved financial devolvement. Thirdly is the Organizational unbundling. This involves replacement of traditional, tall hierarchies with more responsive structures formed around specific processes such as paying of benefits as in the United Kingdom (Pollit, 994). Then there is down sizing. This entails trimming the public workforce so that efficiency and accountability can be enhanced. Downsizing is a s a result of concerns over the size of public sector employment which was not effective. Some countries like Ghana and Uganda in Africa, Thailand and Bangladesh have had to retrench surplus numbers of civil servants in the last ten years. According to Rhodes (1996), it’s worth noting that although downsizing took place in many countries, this did not lead to budget savings which could have been used to improve the salaries and incentives of those who remained. Limitations of the New Public Management The presumptions that involving public sector enhances performance may at times not be true and may be only partially truth. According to Osborne 2002, the quality in service provision may fall as an aspirational professional standard may increasingly be replaced by minimalist, economizing managerial standards. Emphasizing too much on cost reduction, NPM may encourage the pursuit of efficiency in flawed policies with short term gains undermining the capacity of the state to take long term perspective on important issues like education, environment, health and technology. Issues like these ones need to be considered in seeking to transfer New Public Management to developing countries (Bekke, Kickert Kooiman, 1995). In developing countries like Ghana it is feared among traditional bureaucrats that the potential destabilizing effects of NPM may get out of control, become unmanageable and do irreversible damage to the provision of public services. Critics of NPM also points out to increasing inequality as market type mechanisms produce ‘market niche seeking’ behavior by public service providers. Thus the cultural and organizational change in the social provision, expressed in the concepts of markets and individualism may create conditions for social exclusion (Mazamanian Sabatier, 1983. As a result such reforms may end up harming most of those in need of state provision and welfare safety nets; the poor and the vulnerable. Other people argue tha t NPM may promote self interest and corruption as policy makers and senior bureaucrats opt for privatization and contracting out because of increased opportunities for rent –seeking and other forms of misdemeanor (Hjern Porter, 1981). There has also been a fall in ethical standards in public life with increasing incidence of greed, favoritism or conflicting interests. In developing countries adoption of NPM may lead to more abuses and arbitrary use of discretion in contracting for example (Kate 2002). There have also been complaints about loss of public and traditional channels of local accountability as functions are fragmented among numerous agencies and many of them are privatized or contracted out to profit seeking commercial firm. According to Tom 2007 fragmentation makes accountability and monitoring more difficult There is also a risk of huge increases in transaction as governments and other purchasers struggle to monitor contracts across an increasing and varied numb er of provider organization. Therefore we can argue that good leadership is important in all organizations if they are to produce high quality goods and services. This feature of management cuts across cultural boundaries and is not just restricted to the developing countries in the third world in Africa and Asia (Peters Pierre, 1998). However it’s good to appreciate that this leadership and its outcome is not affected by the culture of a people and therefore it is expected to vary in certain aspects. The above criticism of NPM has received interest in the active role of the state in some aspects of development. As United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for International Development said, the main focus of development policy which is elimination of poverty could only be achieved through strong and effective states and that the era of complete enmity to the public sector and to state provision was coming to an end (Jan Eric 2000). Conclusion New Public Management aim was to enhance cost effective methods as well as accountability. While the adoption of these NPM measures seem to have been of great benefit to some instances, they have also been found to have real constrains in applying them especially in the third world countries. The NPM implementation have raised question even to the developed countries with mature public administration systems (Mead, 1996). From the factors driving change it’s apparent that the conditions for introducing NPM reforms in developing countries may be very different from those of developed nations NPM reforms in developing countries appear to be based on a common frame work with those in developed countries and therefore seem to follow a common master plan rather than a process or contingent approach (Agranoff McGuire. 1998). While the new public management approach may not be a panacea for the problems of public sectors management in developing countries, there should be a careful adaptation of some elements s ince the implementation needs to be sensitive to realize operations. Reference List Agranoff, R. McGuire M., 1998. â€Å"Multinetwork Management.† Journal of Public  Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, No. 1: 67-91. Bekke, H., W. Kickert Kooiman J.. 1995. â€Å"Public Management and Governance.† In  Kickertand F. A. van Vught, eds. Public Policy and Administrative Sciences in the Netherlands. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Ewan, F., 1996. A New Public Management in Action. New York: Oxford University Press. Hjern, B. Porter, D., 1981. â€Å"Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative  Analysis.† Organization Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3: 211-227. Hood, C., 1991. â€Å"A Public Management for All Seasons.† Public Administration. Vol. 69: 3-19. Guyverson, V., 2007.   The Impacts of Information Technology (IT) on Public  Administration – 6 – Performance. US: Atlantic International University. Web. Jan-Eric, L., 2000. N ew Public Management. London: Routledge Jennings, E. T Ewalt, J., 1998. â€Å"Interorganizational Coordination, Administrative Consolidation and Policy Performance.† Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No.5:417-428. Kaboolian, L., 1998. â€Å"The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. Administration Debate.† Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No.189-193. Kate, M. Stephen, P., 2002. New public management: current trends and future  Prospects. London: Routledge. Kelly, R. M., 1998. â€Å"An Inclusive Democratic Polity, Representative Bureaucracies, and The Public Management.† Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3: 201-207. Larbi, G, A., 1999. The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States. Geneva: United Nations. Web. Lynn, L., 1998. â€Å"The New Public Management: How to Transform a Theme into a Legacy.† Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3: 231-237. Mathiasen, D., 1996. The New Public Manag ement and its Critics. Paper presented at The Conference on the New Public Management in International Perspective, St. Gallen, Switzerland, July 11-13. Matland, R., 1995. â€Å"Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict  Model of Policy Implementation.† Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2:145-174. Mazamanian, D. Sabatier P., 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview,  IL: Scott, Foresman. Mead, L., 1996. â€Å"Welfare Policy: The Administrative Frontier,† Journal of Policy Analysis  And Management, Vol. 15, No. 4: 587-600. Milward, H. B., ed., 1996. Symposium on â€Å"The Hollow State: Capacity, Control and  Performance in Interorganizational Settings.† Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Vol. 6, No. 2:193-313. Osborne, S., 2002. Public Management London: Routledge. Peters, B. G. Pierre, J., 1998. â€Å"Governance without Government? Rethinking Public  Administration.à ¢â‚¬  Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, No. 2: 223-243. Pollitt, C., 1994. The essential public manager: Open university Press. London: Mc-Graw-Hill Education. Rhodes, R., 1996. â€Å"The New Governance: Governing without Government.† Political  Studies, No. 44: 652-657. Stamp, J. C., 1923. ‘The Contrast between the Administration of Business and  Public Affairs,’ Journal of Public Administration, 1:158-171. Terry, L., 1998. â€Å"Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public  Management Movement.† Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3: 194-200. Tom, C., 2007. Transcending new public management: the transformation of public  Sector Reform. Hampshire: Ash gate Publishing Limited. Yamamoto, H., 2003. New Public Management-Japan’s Practice. Tokyo: IIPS Publications. This research paper on New Public Management was written and submitted by user Butterfly to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. New Public Management Introduction According to Schedler and Proeller (2010), one of the most significant areas in the existence of governments and governance structures is public management. Political developments and debates in a substantial number of states today revolve around issues of accountability and the need for proper structures of management.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on New Public Management specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The reason behind this is that there is growth in the limitation of the amount of resources, yet the needs and demands of people have kept swelling at an alarming pace. Therefore, from all angles, it can be noted that public management is the tool through which the resources of a society can be distributed and administered better in order to meet the needs of the citizens in different countries in the world. In the recent times, increased calls have emerged highlighting the need for improving practi ces in public management. The most critical question to ask is the reason why demand for reforms in public management across different countries has been rising in the recent times. It is vital to note that these demands are still persistent in a substantial number of countries across the globe (Schedler Proeller, 2010). In this paper, it is argued that adoption of new public management is the best way through which governments can attain best practices in public sector management. The need for changes in public administration emanates from the flaws that have been dominant in the public policy formulation and implementation, which dictates the manner in which public management is carried out. Most of the needs that necessitate the introduction of newer practices in public administration are related to the malpractices that were prevalent in the way public management practices were conducted in a number of political regimes across the world. Other reasons revolve around current dev elopments, thus the need for public administrators to adapt to the developments to improve the discharge of public administration practices. The concept of new public management began gaining prominence from early 1980s. It entailed the need for change in government policies in order to make the public sector efficient.Advertising Looking for essay on government? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This means that there were weaknesses in government policies, which impeded the full development of public sectors. It is argued that the concept of new public management is highly desired as it offers a wide room for improvement of public management. However, there are a number of policy areas that can impede the full realization of new public management (Shillabeer, Buss Rousseau, 2011). This paper explores the concept of new public management. The paper begins by exploring the rationale behind the development of the concept of new p ublic management. In the analysis of the pros and cons of new public administration, the paper will focus on two main policy areas: Governance and accountability and the incorporation of new practices in public administration. Understanding new public management New public management can be traced from the late 20th century. This is the time when most countries across the world had focused on the path of growth after freeing themselves from colonial attachments. This period also marks the beginning of aggressive development in technology and investment in all kinds of innovations for the public good. This denoted changes in various structures and prevailing systems of governance. The conception of new public administration can be cited from these developments. The question that needs to be asked is what is new in public management. This can be answered by looking at the real practices, which reflect the orientation of new public management (Argyriades, 2002). Schedler and Proeller ( 2010) observe that new public administration entails the application of new principles of management in the public sector in order to improve the outcomes of public policy in the public sector. Other people argue that new public management is strategy-oriented, unlike ancient public management that was seen as a mere means of discharging public functions. New public administration borrows heavily from the business commercial world, where organizations discharge their functions with the aim of minimizing losses and maximizing profits. While the public sector is still viewed as a sector that does not work for profits, it is run within the context of the modern economy. This means that modern governments have to ensure that the public sector is run in a manner that enhances the minimization of wastage of public resources and increase the rate at which public goods and services meet the demands of the citizenry.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on New Public Managemen t specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In order to fulfil the ever rising public needs amidst the constant and, in a number of instances, diminishing public resources, there is need for the political leadership, through public technocrats, to develop strategies of management. The strategies of management that are often applied in business and other not-for-profit making institutions have been found to be effective in improving public management (Clarence, 2002). According to Schedler and Proeller (2010), another important pointer to the application of strategy in the contemporary public management and new public management is the question of emerging challenges, and the need for the incorporation of strategies to deal with such challenges within the spectrum of public governance. The concept of public governance in the ancient times, before the emergence of new public management, focused on centralized tendencies of management. In central ized administration, public functions are discharged basing on the principle of bureaucracy. Therefore, functions were discharged not basing on the desire to attain better outcomes, but basing on the fact that the procedures were followed. This did away with the aspect of working for results. This does not, however, mean that bureaucracy is totally eliminated in the new public administration. However, only the positive qualities of bureaucracy are retained in the new public management. Just as in strategic management, most elements of bureaucracy have been eliminated since they impose difficulties on the efficient coordination of administrative functions. Basing on this point, it can be said that the new public administration borrows some practices from the old public administration (Shillabeer, Buss Rousseau, 2011). The main development in new public administration is the restructure of the structures of administration and governance to capture the emerging needs in the public dom ain, as well as embrace changes in the governance environment. This means that the new public administration is set in a manner that makes it diverse enough to capture all the contemporary developments.Advertising Looking for essay on government? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More By capturing contemporary developments, the degree to which the new public administration can lead to the attainment of the needs and demands of the modern citizenry is widened. The rate of partnership and learning in new public administration is highly embraced. This gives public administration a new meaning and a new look. Borrowing from the practices of benchmark institutions in terms of administrations helps public managers learn from the institutions by applying the managerial practices from such institutions in public administration. This is because benchmark institutions still manage to attain a desirable level of performance irrespective of working with constrained resources. One of the enablers of performance, which is what is being taken up in new public administration, is the enhancement of the capacity and ability to deploy strategic management practices in administration (Shillabeer, Buss Rousseau, 2011) Talking about new public administration is a pointer to the exist ence of old public administration. The concept of new public management originated from the industrialized countries, where their citizenry pushed for reforms in governance. The political regimes that are responsible for overseeing the functioning of the public service began to be judged based on the level of efficiency in public delivery (Schedler Proeller, 2010). In order to win the confidence of the public and an assurance of being re-elected, political regimes were forced to show and exercise their commitment in reforming the public sector. Therefore, a series of public sector reforms were developed and enforced by each regime. However, as at this time, these reforms were only pictured as a political tool by political regimes. The real sense of change in public administration across the globe can be traced from the last two decades of the 20th century, where citizens of most countries became highly enlightened and pressurized political leadership to embrace changes in public ad ministration (Argyriades, 2002). As it is in the contemporary times, most governments have attuned to new public administration. The question to ask at this point is whether the new public administration can be sustainable. Also, the other concern is whether all governments have the capacity to fully attune to new practices in public administration. It can be said that the new public administration has taken deeper roots in the industrialized world because of the advances in policy development in most public sector segments. In the developing world, the public policy environment is still highly volatile, thereby making it difficult for these countries to pursue key policy goals in key policy areas, which can enhance new public administration (Schedler Proeller, 2010). However, most countries are showing positive prospects in the development of legislative reforms in the public domain, which can help in enforcing new public management practices. However, there are still a number of bridges in key policy areas that need to be developed in these countries in order for the countries to fully cross to new public management. This allows the citizenry to enjoy the fruits of new public management. The fruits of new public administration include increased transparency in deployment of public funds and other resources, quicker access to public services and the increase in the number and quality of public service offering of public services in all public institutions within a given country. According to Argyriades (2002), the essence of new public administration is to separate public servants from the political process of the country. In the old public administration, this phenomenon was quite rampant. It is known as the politicization of the public service. Thus, employees worked as a formality. There was a lot of political interference in public sector management, which interfered with procedures of administration and work in public offices. Certain norms and behaviou rs were given priority, thereby depriving the public servants a substantial number of privileges that were enjoyed by the employees in the private sector. While one could easily argue that the norms and the systematized codes of behaviour in old public administration helped to ensure that the identity of the public service was preserved, these practices demeaned the public employees of their rights and privileges. This is cited as one of the reasons to why public servants always under-performed. Old public administration did not value performance management practices, like the use of rewards to manage performance (Argyriades, 2002). While the public sector still remains under the control of political regimes, new public management advocates have pressurized for the pursuance of legislation that has aided in minimizing political interference in public sector administration. Furthermore, political elites are no longer left with the mandate of overseeing the performance of public secto r segments. As noted earlier in this discussion, the new public administration embraces technocracy, where public institutions are placed under people who have attained desired qualifications in certain areas. Thus, qualified personnel are left to administer the public service sector in areas in which they have the qualifications. Technocracy is one of the most desire principles of new public administration. With highly minimized political interference and the embrace of accountability, technocracy has proven to enhance public sector delivery and performance (Clarence, 2002). According to Bovaird (2005), the new public management presents a picture of governance that has multiple inclinations in different sectors. New public sector should be sustainable in the sense that it has to embrace social, economic and political development and long run sustainability. According to the proponents of new public administration, the new public administration has been a key contributing factor to the development of a substantial number of economies in the world. Among these economies are most of the national economies of Western Europe, as well as most of the emerging economies of Eastern Europe and the South East Asia. There are three vital areas of strategic public administration in new public administration that help public administration to bring about social cohesion and economic growth and transformation. These are the consideration of the public sector as the sole industry within a country, treating the public sector as the main policy making and regulating institutions, and the consideration of the public sector as the main service provider in the country. These factors can play out well in a cycle, resulting in better public governance. When all these are put into consideration in the realm of new public management, public sector reforms are easily developed and implemented (Hondeghem, 2000). Governance and accountability in new public administration When public ad ministration is mentioned, public accountability always comes up. Public accountability is one of the key areas in public policy cycles that still present a lot of challenges in the performance of public sectors. Governance and accountability is the most critical area of governance. While there have been a lot of debates and calls to improve governance and accountability in public administration, it is still evident that a considerable number of impediments still stand in the way to the attainment of this aspect in public administration. Even in the realm of new public management, there exist a lot of pointers that denote that desired governances and accountability have not been attained. It is vital to understand the meaning of these two terms and where they lie in the public policy cycle (Erkkilà ¤, 2007). This can help one to know whether they have been fully ignited in new public administration. Governance is linked to the administration. Governance entails the aspect of entrus ting political systems with resources such that they can utilize these resources to meet the needs of public in the country. On the other hand, accountability entails the best practices in utilization of resources to meet the intended needs. In the context of public administration, accountability entails the ability to deploy public goods to meet the needs of the public (Osborne, 2006). According to Erkkilà ¤ (2007), accountability goes further in that it entails the aspect of responsibility for action in public administration. This implies that public servants should be responsible for the course they take while utilizing public resources in meeting the needs of the public. With all the improvements that come with new public management, accountability in public administration is raised. The question of accountability in public governance still remains elusive even in the contemporary times where most governments are deemed to be applying the practices of new public administration in the public sector. In most upcoming democracies that are applying new public administration, there are still a number of loopholes in public procurement procedures, which makes it hard for the countries to attain quality of accountability in public administration. While a significant number of positive changes in public governance are witnessed under new public administration, the question is whether the government can totally eliminate corruption and mismanagement of public resources. While the new public administration has been geared towards eliminating the notion of ‘the public’ in public administration, it is doubtful whether this notion can be totally drawn away. Accountability often begins with the orientation of the mind of a person. This showcases the fact pure accountability in public administration is a hard thing to attain. This is because of the existence of a low sense of responsibility in public services due to the notion that public servants are utili zing public resources (Hondeghem, 2000). According to Makrydemetres (2002), ethics and accountability are vital in contemporary public administration. However, there still exist a considerable number of problems of legitimacy in a substantial number of countries. Most governments seem to dwell on the introduction of performance management in public administration as the main way of dealing with problems of legitimacy in public governance. This is causing citizens to sit back as they expect public servants and political elites to exercise ethical and responsible conduct. This cannot be attained in a wishful way. There is a need for the citizenry to demand for the development of legislation that can help them push for ethical responsibility and accountability of public servants and politicians (Makrydemetres, 2002). According to Kernaghan (2000), traditional bureaucratic ethics have been replaced by new problems in public management; therefore, it is quite challenging to attain ethica l responsibility as it is supposed in new public administration. The new public administration can result in greater lack of accountability if it is not sufficiently backed by legislation. The newness in public administration is quickly eroded without development of laws to help hold the public servants and politicians accountable in the handling of public resources (Erkkilà ¤, 2007). Legislation is the main backing tool for the public as it helps them to bring to book public servants who seem not be accountable. Some of the key developments in policy and legislation include the development of performance contracts in the public service. Performance contracting has been a key aid in raising the level of public accountability in a number of countries in the world. A notable example is New Zealand, where ministerial accountability has gone high due to enforcement of performance contracting (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000). Hondeghem (2000) observed that a number of principles of administration that are exercised in new public administration are cited as the pillars that have encouraged responsibility and accountability of public servants. These are devolution and decentralization. Devolution embraces equity in the distribution of public functions and resources, while decentralization encourages delegation of duties in the public service sector. Decentralization, sometimes referred to as de-bureaucratization, helps reduce the power of public servants by encouraging delegation of authority and work to subordinates. This does not only increase accountability, but also encourages the rate of accomplishment of public functions. Decentralization of functions makes the public service more efficient. Power and continued centralization have been the main source of lack of responsibility and accountability in public administration. There is a rise openness and transparency due to the aspect of service oriented performance in public organizat ions under new public administration. The other notable thing is the growth of the relationship between the private and the public sector. This has also been instrumental in bringing about accountability in public administration. As the public sector interacts with the private sector, a comparison of administrative attributes becomes eminent. This is argued to be the source of the concern about integrity in public administration. This forces the public sector to pay attention to the features of public administration, which embrace the principle of integrity. The principle of integrity is one of the building blocks towards the attainment of a responsible administration in the public service (Hondeghem, 2000). The embrace of change in new public management New public administration entails a considerable number of changes in the structure of management. The rationale behind the embrace of new public administration is to match the public sector with the emerging public needs and demand s. Therefore, a considerable number of changes are implemented in public organizations under new public administration. The need for change in public administration is to improve the efficiency of the public sector delivery, which in turn increases the ability of the public sector to serve other sectors. As argued earlier, new public management considers the public sector to be the central industry that controls the functioning of other sectors in the economy. Arguing from this perspective, the public sector needs to be in the forefront in terms of adapting to new technologies and innovations that aim at increasing efficiency in the public sector delivery, thereby boosting its role in serving other sectors (Hartley, 2005). One notable change in new public administration is the embrace of information and communication technology in public governance. Here, e-governance can be given as a crucial pointer to technology adoption in the public sector. The question that ought to be asked i s whether governments have the capacity to embrace technological changes and innovation in public administration. Also, the embrace of changes requires public organizations to lay a structural foundation on which changes are implemented. This means that most of the old structures of public administration have to be refurnished or totally abolished in order to give room for adoption of new public management practices. This is another policy that is critical in the new public administration, yet it poses a lot of challenges to policy makers in the public sector. This leads to the question of whether public sectors are indeed ready for new public administration. One peculiar thing with management of change is that it poses a lot of challenges to organizational functioning, to the extent that it may be a source of disadvantage to organizational functioning. While innovation is essential for improving the public service, it must come through change. Only governments that are equipped wit h sufficient policy and resources can be in a better position when it comes to implementation of innovation in public administration. Innovation in governance is an aspect of change that needs a pool of resources to implement. It is not necessarily functional as was pointed out in ancient literature in public administration. Hartley (2005) ascertained that there are three key things that can stimulate the environment in readiness for change in public administration. These are policy, research and resources. Policy is critical for the setting up of structures that are receptive to new practices of public management in new public administration. Research is also vital in embracing change in public administration. As opined by the proponents of new public administration, research helps public policy makers to identify areas of public administration that need change and the consequent search for practices for benchmark public institutions, which can be used to effect change in public ad ministration. When new systems of governance are fully realized, citizens often enjoy the resultant public service in public organizations. However, it should be remembered that public sector reforms is a process that is facilitated by resources, often financial resources (Jan-Erik Luc, 1999). This means that the new public administration is a kind of a burden to the citizens, who are the taxpayers. The public expenditure rises in order to sustain public sector reforms under new public administration. This means that citizens are forced to submit more taxes to the government in order to enable the government to implement reforms. However, it is argued that the costs are offset once the new reforms are implemented (Hartley, 2005). Conclusion This paper has explored the concept of new public sector administration. From the paper, it has emerged that a substantial number of countries in the world today are making efforts to make the public service sector be more proactive in terms of performance. The improvement of performance and delivery of the public sector is in the principles of new public administration. The discussion has unveiled a number of benefits of embracing new public administration. Among the benefits of new public administration is the decentralization and debureaucratization of operations in the public sector organizations, which enhances public service delivery. The other benefit of new public sector administration is the opening of learning in the public sector management through the interaction of the public sector with the private sector. However, it has also come out that the embrace of new practices in public sector management still poses a lot of challenges to public administrators and should be given attention by public administrators. References Argyriades, D. (2002). Governance and public administration in the 21st century: New trends and new techniques — Proceedings. General Report. Brussels: International Institute of Administ rative Sciences, 2002, p. 31-64. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 217-228. Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence based policy movement. Public Policy Administration, 17(3), 1-11. Erkkilà ¤, T. (2007). Governance and accountability – a shift in conceptualisation. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 1-38. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money Management, 25(1), 27-34. Hondeghem, A. (2000). Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Jan-Erik, L. Luc, B. (1999). Public sector reform: rationale, trends problems. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 384-387. Kernaghan, K. (2000). The post-bureaucratic organisation and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 91-104. Makrydemetres, A. (2002). Dealing with ethical dilemmas in public administration: The â€Å"ALIR† imperatives of ethical reasoning. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 251–266. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Trust in government: Ethics measures in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387. Schedler, K., Proeller, I. (2010). Outcome-oriented public management: A responsibility-based approach to the new public management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Shillabeer, A., Buss, T. F., Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based public management: Practices, issues, and prospects. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. This essay on New Public Management was written and submitted by user Cayson Nolan to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.