The article aims to evaluate the presence of courses associated with the Post New Public Management (Post-NPM) approach in Chile’s curricula of public administration programs. For this purpose, a comprehensive review of 22 institutions offering Public Administration training in Chile was conducted. Content analysis methodology is used to determine the presence of principles associated with post-NPM. The research develops an extensive theoretical discussion on the transition between the New Public Management perspective to the Post-New Public Management paradigms, as well as empirically finding a limited presence of courses related to Post-NPM in the higher educational training system of public administrators in Chile, showing an intense persistent and influence of New Public Management. The paper contributes to an issue that the specialized literature on public administration education has identified as the most significant challenge: the promotion of democratic values and the influence of the political context on academic programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonE. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.
2.
ArayaE., & CerpaA. (2009). La nueva gestión pública y las reformas en la Administración Pública Chilena. Tékhne-Revista de Estudos Politécnicos, (11), 19–47. https://scielo.pt/pdf/tek/n11/n11a03.pdf
3.
Arias-YurischK.Retamal-SotoK., & Ramos-FuenzamidaC. (2023). América Latina frente aos desafios da governança em rede. In RodríguezM.AlmeidaL., & MagalhaesB. (Eds.), Campo de públicas: perspectivas e diálogos ibero-americanos (pp. 348–367). Fundação João Pinheiro. 10.5281/zenodo.8312005
4.
AristovnikA.MurkoE., & RavšeljD. (2022). From neo-Weberian to hybrid governance models in public administration: Differences between state and local self-government. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 26. 10.3390/admsci12010026
5.
ArnoldP. E. (1998). Making the managerial presidency: Comprehensive reorganization planning, 1905-1996. University Press of Kansas.
6.
BaniaminH. M., & RamasamyR. (2023). Key challenges of studying public administration in developing countries: An exploration of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 28(4), 389–406. 10.1080/15236803.2022.2116262
7.
Barría-TraversoD. (2017). Positivism, evolutionism, and public administration: The work of Valentín Letelier (1886-1917). Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(4), 275–291. 10.1080/10841806.2017.1381480
8.
BarzelayM. (1998). Atravesando la Burocracia. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
9.
BeckerJ.KnackstedtR., & PöppelbußJ. (2009). Developing maturity models for it management – A procedure model and its application. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222. 10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5
10.
BenavidesA. D.Fierro-VillaA. M., & AguayoE. C. (2013). Public service and good governance vs. corruption and self-promotion: MPA programs in Mexico. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 615–634. 10.1080/15236803.2013.12001756
11.
BernierL., & HafsiT. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.
12.
BertelliA. M.HassanM.HonigD.RoggerD., & WilliamsM. J. (2020). An agenda for the study of public administration in developing countries. Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 33(4), 735–748. 10.1111/gove.12520
13.
BlalockH. M. (1982). Conceptualization and measurement in the social Sciences. Sage.
14.
BlythM. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press.
15.
BrandsenT., & HoninghM. (2013). Professionals and shifts in governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(12), 876–883. 10.1080/01900692.2013.798809
16.
BraunJ.BraunM.BrionesI., & DíazJ. (2000). Economía Chilena 1810-1995 Estadísticas Históricas. In Documento de Trabajo N° (Vol. 187). Instituto de Economía PUC. https://www.economia.uc.cl/docs/doctra/dt-187.pdf.
17.
Bril-MascarenhasT.MailletA., & MayauxP. L. (2017). Process tracing. Inducción, deducción e inferencia causal. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago), 37(3), 659–684. 10.4067/S0718-090X2017000300659
18.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C., & BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. 10.1111/puar.12238
19.
CarrizalesT. (2010). Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 593–606.
20.
CarrizalesT., & BennettL. V. (2013). A public service education: A review of undergraduate programs with a community and service focus. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 309–323.
21.
CastellsM. (1998). ¿Hacia el Estado-Red?: Globalización económica e instituciones políticas en la era de la información. Seminario sobre “Sociedad y reforma del estado”, organizado por el Ministerio de Administracao Federal e Reforma Do Estado. Republica Federativa do Brasil.
22.
CavalcanteP. L. (2019). Trends in public administration after hegemony of the new public management: A literature review. Revista do Serviço Público, 70(2), 195–218. 10.21874/rsp.v70i2.3212
Chica VelezS. A., & Salazar OrtizC. A. (2016). Nueva y posnueva gestión pública ¿Continuidad o ruptura de las doctrinas de reforma a partir de 1990?Administración & Desarrollo, 46(1), 1. 10.22431/25005227.89
25.
Chica-VélezS. A., & Salazar-OrtizC. A. (2020). Posnueva gestión pública, gobernanza e innovación. Tres conceptos en torno a una forma de organización y gestión de lo público. OPERA, 28(28), 17–51. 10.18601/16578651.n28.02
26.
ChristensenT. (2012). Post-npm and changing public governance. Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics, 1(1), 1–11. 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
27.
ChristensenT., & LægreidP. (2005). El Estado fragmentado: los retos de combinar eficiencia, normas institucionales y democracia. Gestión y Política Pública, xiv(3), 557–598.
28.
ChristensenT., & LægreidP. (2007a). Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms. Ashgate Publishing Company.
29.
ChristensenT., & LægreidP. (2007b). Reformas Post Nueva Gestión Pública. Tendencias empíricas y retos académicos. Gestión y Política Pública, xvi(2), 539–564.
30.
ChristensenT., & LægreidP. (2017). Transcending new public management. Taylor & Francis.
31.
CienfuegosI. (Ed.). (2016). Tensiones y retos de la Gestión Pública. -RIL Editores.
32.
CohenN. (2016). Forgoing new public management and adopting post-new public management principles: The on-going civil service reform in Israel. Public admin. Dev, 36(1), 20–34. 10.1002/pad.1751
33.
ColyvasJ. A., & PowellW. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization. The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353. 10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27008-4
34.
CooperT. L.BryerT. A., & MeekJ. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 76–88. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00668.x
35.
CrowR. E., & IskandarA. (1961). Administrative reform in Lebanon 1958-1959. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 27(3), 293–307. 10.1177/002085236102700306
36.
Cunill-GrauN. (2014). Resistencias a La Colaboración Interinstitucional. Aprendizajes Para La Implementación De Las Nuevas Políticas Sociales. Documentos y Aportes en Administración Pública y Gestion Estatal, 23(23), 7–32. 10.14409/da.v0i24.4764
37.
De VriesM., & NemecJ. (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. 10.1108/09513551311293408
38.
De WaeleL.BerghmanL., & MatthyssensP. (2015). Defining hybridity and hybrid contingencies in public organizations: An alternative conceptual model. In GnanL.HinnaA., & MonteduroF. (Eds.), Contingency, behavioural and evolutionary perspectives on public and non-profit governance (pp. 113–154). Emerald.
39.
DenhardtR. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526–534. 10.1111/0033-3352.00125
40.
DenhardtR. B., & DenhardtJ. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
41.
DoughertyG. W. (2011). A place for undergraduate public administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(3), 325–341. 10.1080/15236803.2011.12001648
42.
DunleavyP. (1985). Bureaucrats, budgets and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an instrumental model. British Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 299–328.
43.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS., & TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead-long live digital era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16(3), 467–494. 10.1093/jopart/mui057
44.
EchebarríaK., & MendozaX. (1999). “La Especificidad de la Gestión Pública: el Concepto de Management Público”, en Losada i Madorrán [ed.], ¿De Burócratas a Gerentes?Estados Unidos, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
45.
ElliottI. C.JoyceP., & SahraouiS. (2024). Developing effective leaders for the civil service: A case study of Bahrain. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 315–330. 10.1080/15236803.2024.2312761
46.
El-TaliawiO. G.NairS., & Van der WalZ. (2021). Public policy schools in the global south: A mapping and analysis of the emerging landscape. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 371–395. 10.1007/s11077-020-09413-z
47.
FarrellC.HatcherW., & DiamondJ. (2022). Reflecting on over 100 years of public administration education. Public Administration, 100(1), 116–128. 10.1111/PADM.12808
48.
FenwickJ. (2018). Teaching public administration: Key themes 1996-2016. Teaching Public Administration, 36(1), 6–13. 10.1177/0144739417740180
49.
Figueroa-HuenchoV.Olavarría-GambiM., & Navarrete-YáñezB. (2011). Política de Modernización de la Gestión Pública en Chile 1990-2006. evidencias a partir de un modelo de análisis. Convergencia, 18(57), 61–99.
50.
FreidsonE. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Policy Press.
51.
GaynorT. S., & CarrizalesT. J. (2018). Teaching democracy: A review of public administration introductory courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(1), 66–79. 10.1080/15236803.2018.1429822
52.
GoldfinchS. F. (2023). The challenge of public administration reform: Introduction to the handbook of public administration reform. In S. F. Goldfinch (Ed.), Handbook of public administration reform (pp. 1–26). Edward Elgar Publishing.
53.
GomesS.AlmeidaL. S., & LucioM. L. (2016). A new agenda for teaching public administration and public policy in Brazil: Institutional opportunities and educational reasons. Teaching Public Administration, 34(2), 159–177. 10.1177/0144739415615663
54.
GrimmH. M., & BockC. L. (2022). Entrepreneurship in public administration and public policy programs in Germany and the United States. Teaching Public Administration, 40(3), 322–353. 10.1177/01447394211021636
55.
GrueningG. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public ManagementJournal, 4(1), 1–25.
56.
HajnalG. (2003). Diversity and convergence: A quantitative analysis of European public administration education programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(4), 245–258.
57.
HajnalG., & RostaM. (2015, March). NPM and post-NPM in the view of European administrative elites: Towards understanding the relationship of public management reform doctrines. IRSPM Annual Conference, Birmingham, UK (Vol. 30).
58.
HammerschmidG.Van de WalleS.AndrewsR., & MostafaA. M. S. (2019). New public management reforms in Europe and their effects: Findings from a 20-country top executive survey. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 399–418. 10.1177/0020852317751632
59.
HarveyD. (2012). El enigma del capital y la crisis del capitalismo. AKAL.
60.
HaynesP. (2005). New development: The demystification of knowledge management for public services. Public Money and Management, 25(2), 131–135. 10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00463.x
61.
HendrikxW., & van GestelN. (2017). The emergence of hybrid professional roles: GPs and secondary school teachers in a context of public sector reform. Public Management Review, 19(8), 1105–1123. 10.1080/14719037.2016.1257062
62.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons, in public administration (Vol. 69). Royal Institute of Public Administration.
63.
HoodC. (Ed.). (2005). Controlling modern government: Variety, commonality and change. Edward Elgar Publishing.
64.
HoodC. C. (1990). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
65.
HoxJ. J., & De Jong-GieveldJ. (1990). Operationalization and research strategy. Swets & Zeitilnger.
66.
IacovinoN. M.BarsantiS., & CinquiniL. (2017). Public organizations between old public administration, new public management and public governance: The case of the Tuscany region. Public Organization Review, 17(1), 61–82. 10.1007/s11115-015-0327-x
67.
JessopB. (2008). El futuro del Estado capitalista. Editorial Catarata.
68.
JessopB. (2017). El Estado. Pasado, presente y futuro. Editorial Catarata.
JoS., & MeierK. J. (2024). Public perceptions of the administrative values tradeoff: Bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Public Administration.
71.
JunJ. S. (2009). The limits of post-New Public Management and beyond. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 161–165.
72.
KapucuN., & HuQ. (2021). The development of network governance and its relevance for public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(3), 267–275. 10.1080/15236803.2020.1839851
73.
KarkinN., & GursesF. (2022). An analysis of the public administration curricula in Turkey: Realities, expectations, and attitudes toward novel courses. Teaching Public Administration, 40(3), 3. 10.1177/0144739421997514
74.
KelleherS. R. (1988). The apotheosis of the department of the prime minister and cabinet: Further reflections on administrative change, 1987. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, (54), 9–12.
75.
KleinP. G.MahoneyJ. T.McGahanA. M., & PitelisC. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1–15. 10.1057/emr.2010.1
76.
KolisnichenkoN. (2015). Multiple system, multiple approaches: National organizational arrangements for the delivery of public administration education and training. In A. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Quest for excellence: Approaches to enhancing the quality of public administration education and training (pp. 143–170). United Nation & IASIA/IIAS.
77.
LægreidP., & VerhoestK. (Eds.). (2010). Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance. Springer.
78.
LapuenteV., & Van de WalleS. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 33(3), 461–475. 10.1111/gove.12502
79.
LeightM. D., & AbbottM. (2022). Globalizing public affairs education: The role of comparative public administration in the MPA classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 28(4), 373–388.
80.
LiffR., & AnderssonT. (2013). The multi-professional team as a post-NPM control regime: Can it integrate competing control regimes in healthcare?Offentlig Förvaltning Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 16(2), 45–67.
81.
LightP. C. (2001). The new public service. Brookings Institution Press.
82.
LodgeM., & GillD. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post NPM in new Zealand. Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 24(1), 141–166. 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
83.
MackW. R.GreenD., & VedlitzA. (2008). Innovation and implementation in the public sector: An examination of public entrepreneurship. The Review of Policy Research, 25(3), 233–252. 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00325.x
84.
ManoharanA. P.ViswanathS., & SabharwalM. (2020). Public administration pedagogy in India. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(3), 291–312. 10.1080/15236803.2020.1773118
85.
MarchandJ. S., & BrunetM. (2019). The emergence of post-NPM initiatives: Integrated impact assessment as a hybrid decision-making tool. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(2), 319–336.
86.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis (Vol. 4). Sage.
87.
MeloS.De WaeleL., & PolzerT. (2022). The role of post-new public management in shaping innovation: The case of a public hospital. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(4), 1032–1049. 10.1177/0020852320977626
88.
MíguezD., & DeweyM. (2018). The conditions of socioeconomic development exploring the legitimacy of social norms, trust, and corruption in Chile and Argentina. ECONSTOR. MPIfG discussion paper, No. 18/9. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/185554/1/1040653219.pdf
89.
MolobelaT. T., & UwizeyimanaD. E. (2023). New public management and post-new public management: Deconstruction and reconfiguration of the South African public administration. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(8), 327–334. 10.20525/ijrbs.v12i8.2941
90.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
91.
MorenoE. A., & ChandíaJ. R. (2015). Análisis comparado de escuelas formadoras de Administradores Públicos en Chile: contenidos, tendencias y perspectivas. Políticas Públicas, 8(1), 78–102. https://core.ac.uk/reader/162593800
92.
NewcomerK. E., & AllenH. (2010). Public service education: Adding value in the public interest. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 207–229.
93.
Olavarría GambiM. (2010). Efectividad en la gestión pública chilena. Convergencia, 17(52), 11–37.
94.
Olavarría GambiM.Navarrete YáñezB., & Figueroa HuenchoV. (2011). ¿ Cómo se formulan las políticas públicas en Chile?: Evidencia desde un estudio de caso. Política y Gobierno, 18(1), 109–154.
95.
OliveiraF. B., & RubinM. M. (2013). Public administration education in Brazil: Evolution, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 635–655. 10.1080/15236803.2013.12001757
96.
OlsonO.GuthrieJ., & HumphreyC. (1998). International experiences with ’new’ public financial management (NPFM) reforms: new world? small world? better world?. In OlsonO.GuthrieJ., & HumphreyC. (Eds.), Global Warning: International Financial Management Changes (pp. 17–48). Bergen, Norway: Cappelan AkademiskForlag.
97.
O’NeillM. A. (2022). MPA/MPP programmes and the future of work: Does MPA curriculum align with civil service requirements. Teaching Public Administration, 40(3), 388–409.
98.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume.
99.
OsborneS. P. (2010). The (New) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 1–16). Routledge.
100.
OszlakO. (2014). Políticas públicas y capacidades estatales. Revista Forjando, 3(5), 14–21.
101.
PenagliaF. (2016). Subversión del orden transicional: del oscurantismo posdictatorial a la esperanza. Editorial el desconcierto.
PerryJ. L. (2007). Democracy and the new public service. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 3–16. 10.1177/0275074006296091
104.
PerryS. W. (2005). Social equity for the long haul: Preparing culturally competent public administrators [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
105.
PliscoffC. (2008). Modernización de la Gestión Pública en el Primer Tiempo: Avances y retrocesos. Agenda pública, 6(11), 10–22.
106.
PliscoffC. (2009). New public management in Chile (1990-2008): Exploring its impact on public employees [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
107.
PliscoffC. (2023). Public administration education in Chile: History and the current state-of-the-art. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(3), 280–297. 10.1080/15236803.2023.2177466
108.
PliscoffC. (2024). ¿Cómo estamos formando? Análisis de los cursos, perfiles de egreso y formas de enseñanza de las carreras de administración pública en el sistema universitario chileno. In CienfuegosI.PenagliaF., & RetamalK. (Eds.), Manual de Administración Pública (pp. 25–44). Editorial RIL
109.
PliscoffC., & Sanabria-PulidoP. (2024). Can we learn together? Challenges and opportunities of teaching public administration in a binational classroom in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching Public Administration, 01447394241248323.
110.
Pliscoff VarasC. (2014). Enseñanza y aprendizaje de administración y políticas públicas en las Américas. RIL editores.
111.
Pliscoff-VarasC. (2016). Implementando la nueva gestión pública: Problemas y desafíos a la ética pública. El caso chileno. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 73(73), 73. 10.29101/crcs.v0i73.4241
112.
Pliscoff-VarasC., & Lagos-MachucaN. (2021). Efecto de las capacitaciones en la reflexión sobre ética y corrupción. Revista de Administração Pública, 55(4), 950–968. 10.1590/0034-761220200658
113.
PollittC. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Blackwell.
114.
PollittC. (1993). The struggle for quality: The case of the national health service. Policy and Politics, 21(3), 161–170. 10.1332/030557393782331119
115.
PollittC., & BouckaertG. (2004). New public management reform. A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
116.
PollittC., & DanS. (2011). The impacts of the new public management in Europe: A meta-analysis. COCOPS Work Package.
117.
PowellW. W., & BromleyP. (2015). New institutionalism in the analysis of complex organizations. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 764–769). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32181-X
118.
RaadscheldersJ. C., & WhetsellT. A. (2018). Conceptualizing the landscape of decision making for complex problem solving. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(14), 1132–1144.
119.
RauhausB. M., & SakievA. (2018). A comparative analysis of public administration education in the United States and post-Soviet central asia. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(1), 27–42.
120.
ReichardC., & SchröterE. (2017). Education and training in public administration and management in Europe. In The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 41–60). 10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_3/TABLES/1
121.
ReiterR., & KlenkT. (2019). The manifold meanings of ‘post-new public management’-a systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 11–27.
122.
RiascosA. E. (2010). El análisis multicriterio en la gestión de la Biodiversidad. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
123.
RolandssonB. (2022). Responsive professionalism in Post-NPM reforms: The case of the Swedish police. Culture and Organization, 28(2), 97–114.
124.
RomaniniG. (2024). A implementação do componente curricular“Tecnologia e Inovação” em escolas públicas do estado de São Paulo na perspectiva de professores.
125.
RosenbloomD. H. (1993). Have an administrative rx? Don’t forget the Politics!Public Administration Review, 53(6), 503–507.
126.
RubaiiN. M., & PliscoffC. (2013). Public administration education in Latin America—understanding teaching in context: An introduction to the symposium. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 585–589. 10.1080/15236803.2013.12001754
127.
RuizC. (2019). La política en el neoliberalismo. Experiencias latinoamericanas. Lom ediciones.
128.
SabharwalM.Hijal-MoghrabiI., & RoysterM. (2014). Preparing future public servants: Role of diversity in public administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 206–245.
129.
Sanabria-PulidoP.RubaiiN., & PurónG. (2016). Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?Policy and Society, 35(4), 315–331. 10.1016/J.POLSOC.2016.11.004
130.
SchwabD. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behavior. In StawB. M. & CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). JAI press.
131.
SilvaP. (2016). A poor but honest country: Corruption and probity in Chile. Journal of Developing Societies, 32(2), 178–203. 10.1177/0169796X15609712
132.
SimonetD. (2015). Post-NPM reforms or administrative hybridization in the French health care system?International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 672–681.
133.
StreeckW. (2017). ¿Cómo terminará el capitalismo?. Traficante de Sueños.
134.
SwansonR. A., & HoltonE. F. (2005). Research in organizations, foundations and methods of inquiry. Berrettt-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
135.
van der MeerJ.VermeerenB.van ThielS., & SteijnB. (2024). The bureaucrat, the entrepreneur, and the networker: Developing and validating measurement scales for civil servants’ role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 84(3), 500–518.
136.
van GestelN., & TeelkenC. (2004). Servicios de educación superior y de seguridad social en los Países Bajos: institucionalismo y nueva gestión política. Gestión y Política Pública, xiii(2), 427–467.
137.
VerhoestK. (2013). Agencification processes and agency governance: Organizational innovation at a global scale? In P. Valkama, S. J. Bailey, & A.-V. Anttiroiko (Eds.), Organizational innovation in public services: Forms and governance (pp. 49–71). Palgrave Macmillan.
138.
VignieriV. (2022). Dynamic performance management: A methodological framework to enhance public value-driven performance regimes. In V. Vignieri (Ed.), Enhancing performance regimes to enable outcome-based policy analysis in cross-boundary settings: A dynamic performance management approach (pp. 45–73). Springer International Publishing.
WendlerR. (2012). the maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 54(2012), 1317–1339.
141.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–222. 10.2307/2139277
142.
XiaolongT., & ChristensenT. (2023). Leading groups: Public sector reform with Chinese characteristics in a post-NPM era. International Public Management Journal, 26(1), 66–86.
143.
YeatmanA. (1987). The concept of public management and the Australian state in the 1980s’. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 46(4), 339–356. 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1987.tb02578.x
