Administrative philosophies in the discourse and decisions of the New Zealand public service: is post-New Public Management still a myth?

Abstract

New Zealand is frequently cited as the archetypical example of New Public Management (NPM), having gone ‘further and faster’ than other jurisdictions in radically reforming their public service in the late 1980s. These reforms have been credited with significant gains in efficiency and responsiveness, while introducing new challenges. Successive reforms over the past 30 years tinkered with the model without fundamentally altering the underlying paradigm, such that authors refer to the ‘myth of post-NPM in New Zealand’. In 2020, New Zealand repealed and replaced its main public service legislation. By textually analysing government documents, this article explores the different theoretical roots of New Zealand's ongoing administrative reforms and debates the extent of their theoretical coherence. The Act directly dialogues with and draws inspiration from recent academic debates, drawing from a range of sources (such as New Public Governance, Digital Era Governance, and the New Public Service).

Points for practitioners

New Zealand has long been regarded as the purest example of New Public Management (NPM).

Legislation passed in 2020 saw New Zealand adopt a range of reforms described in the literature as ‘post-NPM’, while also reaffirming features associated with Traditional Public Administration (TPA).

While New Zealand has moved away from a pure NPM model and adopted features associated with Post-NPM, Post-NPM is not a coherent doctrine and it may only be possible to identify administrative doctrines retrospectively.

We may be entering a period of ‘New Public Complexity’, where administrative doctrines are blended and layered.

Keywords

digital era governance legislation new public governance new public management new public service New Zealand post-NPM public sector reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Althaus

Vakil

(2013) Political transitions: Opportunities to renegotiate the public service bargain. Canadian Public Administration 56(3): 478–490.

Bevan

Scott

(2021) A new economics of public services: Lessons from using targets and quasi-markets in the UK and New Zealand. Working paper, Public Service Commission.

Bevir

Rhodes

(1999) Studying British government: Reconstructing the research agenda. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 1(2): 215–239.

Boston

Martin

Pallot

, et al. (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Bryson

Crosby

Bloomberg

(2014) Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445–456.

Cameron

Butler

(2021) Public service principles – what are they and what do they mean for public servants. Public Sector 44(1): 19–21.

Cavana

Delahaye

Sekaran

(2001) Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Singapore: Wiley.

Chapman

Duncan

(2007) Is there now a new ‘New Zealand model’? Public Management Review 9(1): 1–25.

Christensen

Lægreid

(2011a) Democracy and administrative policy: Contrasting elements of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM. European Political Science Review 3(1): 125–146.

10.

Christensen

Lægreid

(2011b) Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review 11(4): 407–423.

11.

Corbett

Grube

Lovell

, et al. (2018) Singular memory or institutional memories? Toward a dynamic approach. Governance 31(3): 555–573.

12.

Corbett

Grube

Lovell

, et al. (2020) Institutional Memory as Storytelling: How Networked Government Remembers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Denhardt

(2000) The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–559.

14.

Dickinson

(2016) From new public management to new public governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’. In: Butcher J and Gilchrist D (eds) The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with not-for-Profits and Business. Canberra: ANU Press, 41–60.

15.

Donadelli

Lodge

(2019) Machinery of government reforms in New Zealand: Continuous improvement or hyper-innovation? Policy Quarterly 15(4): 43–48.

16.

Donadelli

Cunha

Dussauge-Laguna

(2020) ‘Post-NPM’ by force or fiat? A comparison of administrative reform trajectories in Brazil and Mexico. Public Administration & Development 40(5): 255–266.

17.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

, et al. (2006) New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 467–494.

18.

Farazmand

(2002) Modern Organizations: Theory and Practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

19.

Farazmand

(2003) Chaos and transformation theories: A theoretical analysis with implications for organization theory and public management. Public Organization Review 3(4): 339–372.

20.

Fischer

(2012) Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21.

Franco-Santos

Otley

(2018) Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(3): 696–730.

22.

Gregory

(2006) Theoretical faith and practical works: De-autonomising and joining up in the New Zealand state sector. In: Christensen

Lægreid

(eds) Autonomy and Regulation – Coping with Agencies in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 137–161.

23.

Halligan

(2003) Public sector reform and evaluation in Australia and New Zealand. In: Wollmann

(ed.) Evaluation in Public - Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 80–103.

24.

Hood

(1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.

25.

Hood

(1994) Explaining Economic Policy Reversals. Buckingham: Open University Press, 125–141.

26.

Hood

Lodge

(2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty-and Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Hood

Jackson

(1991) Administrative Argument. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Group.

28.

Hughes

Scott

(2021) High-autonomy and high-alignment: Coordinating a more unified public service. In: Richardson

Mazey

(eds) Policy-making Under Pressure: Rethinking the Policy Process in Aotearoa New Zealand. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 170–179.

29.

Hupe

Van Dooren

(2010) Talk as action: Exploring discursive dimensions of welfare state reform. Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 3(2): 17–18.

30.

Innes

Booher

(2010) Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.

31.

Jensen

Scott

Slocombe

, et al. (2014) The management and organisational challenges of more joined-up government: New Zealand’s Better Public Services reforms. Wellington, New Zealand Government.

32.

Klijn

(2008) Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Key concepts in complexity theory compared to their counterparts in public administration research. Public Management Review 10(3): 299–317.

33.

Lodge

Gill

(2011) Towards a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post- NPM in New Zealand. Governance 24(1): 141–166.

34.

New Zealand Government (2019) Public Service Act 2020: An overview of the changes. New Zealand Government. Available at: https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/SSC-Site-Assets/SAPG/Public-Service-Reform/Factsheet-1.pdf (accessed 9 June 2022).

35.

Osborne

(2006) The new Public Governance? New York: Taylor and Francis.

36.

Pollitt

(2001) Clarifying convergence. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review 3(4): 471–492.

37.

Pollitt

(2013) The evolving narratives of public management reform. Public Management Review 15(6): 899–922.

38.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. New Public Management, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39.

Reiter

Klenk

(2019) The manifold meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – a systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1): 11–27.

40.

Saxe

(2016) The Blind Men and the Elephant. Kowloon: Enrich Spot Limited.

41.

Schama

(2004) Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. London: Penguin.

42.

Scott

Bardach

(2019) A comparison of management adaptations for joined-up government: Lessons from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration 78(2): 191–212.

43.

Scott

Boyd

(2016) Results, targets and measures to drive collaboration: Lessons from the New Zealand better public services reforms. In: Butcher

Gilchrist

(eds) The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-Profits and Business. Canberra: ANU Press, 235–257.

44.

Scott

Boyd

(2017) Joined-up for what? Response to Carey and Harris on adaptive collaboration. Australian Journal of Public Administration 76(1): 138–144.

45.

Scott

Boyd

(2019) Determined to succeed: Can goal commitment sustain interagency collaboration? Public Policy and Administration. DOI: 0952076720905002.

46.

Scott

Boyd

(2022) Targeting Commitment: Interagency Performance in New Zealand. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

47.

Scott

Macaulay

(2020) Making sense of New Zealand’s ‘spirit of service’: Social identity and the civil service. Public Money & Management 40(8): 579–588.

48.

Scott

Merton

(2021) When the going gets tough, the goal-committed get going: Overcoming the transaction costs of inter-agency collaborative governance. Public Management Review 23(11): 1640–1663.

49.

Scott RJ and Merton ER (2022) Contingent Collaboration: When to use which Models for Joined-up Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Scott

Macaulay

Merton

ERK

(2020) Drawing new boundaries: Can we legislate for administrative behavior? In: Symposium on decision-making in public organizations: The continued relevance of administrative behavior. London: Queen Mary University of London, 1–20.

51.

Torfing

Triantafillou

(2013) What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system. International Review of Public Administration 18(2): 9–25.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB