Advocates of new public management (NPM) claim that private service delivery promotes efficiency, effectiveness, and cost savings in government. Critics of NPM cite numerous examples of failed attempts to apply NPM. This article examines multiple case studies to determine the strengths and weaknesses of NPM when applied to the outsourcing of public library management. Particular attention focuses on several predicted NPM outcomes including accountability, cost savings, and citizen use/satisfaction. The findings from the cases show that NPM claims related to returning government to its proper principal-agent focus, and thus achieving gains in efficiency and citizen use/satisfaction, are questionable.
Arnold, P. E. (1998). Making the managerial presidency (2nd ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
2.
Baker, R. L. (1998). Outsourcing in Riverside County: Anomaly, not prophecy. Library Journal, 123(5), 34-37.
3.
Boston, J. (1991). The theoretical underpinnings of public sector restructuring in New Zealand. In J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot, & P. Walsh (Eds.), Reshaping the state: New Zealand’s bureaucratic revolution (pp. 48-79). Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
4.
City of Calabasas. (2001). Library services agreement. Calabasas, CA: Author.
5.
City of Hemet. (1999). Special services agreement. Hemet, CA: Author.
6.
City of Lancaster. (2001). Contract for library management services of the Lancaster Veterans Memorial Library. Lancaster, TX: Author.
7.
City of Linden. (2000). Contract for library management and operations. Linden, NJ: Author.
8.
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. London: Sage.
9.
County of Riverside. (1997-2002). Agreement with library systems and services, LLC, for provision of library services. Riverside: Board of Supervisor, County of Riverside, State of California.
10.
deLeon, L., & Denhardt, R. A. (2000). The political theory of reinvention. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 89-97.
11.
de Soto, H. (1989). The other path: The invisible revolution in the third world. New York: Harper & Row.
12.
DiMattia, S., St. Lifer, E., & Rogers, M. (1998). Calabasas secedes from LA County PL. Library Journal, 123(9), 13-13.
13.
Dubberly, R. A. (1998, January). Why outsourcing is our friend. American Libraries, 29(1), 72-74.
14.
Evans, P. (1997). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
Fargo Public Library. (2000). Contract for library management services of the Fargo Public Library. Fargo, ND: Fargo Public Library Board of Directors.
16.
Ferlie, E. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review, 56, 263-270.
18.
Goodsell, C. (1993). Reinventing government or rediscovering it? Public Administration Review, 53(1), 85-86.
19.
Halligan, J. (1997). New public sector models: Reform in Australia and New Zealand. In J. E. Lane (Ed.), Public sector reform: Rationale, trends and problems (pp. 17-46). London: Sage.
20.
Hojnacki, W. (1996). Politicization as a civil service dilemma. In H. Bekke, J. Perry, & T. Toonen (Eds.), Civil service systems in a comparative perspective (pp. 137-164). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
21.
Jersey City Free Public Library. (2001). Board of trustees. Renewal contract for management consultant services to the Jersey City Free Public Library. Jersey City, NJ: Author.
22.
Lancaster Veterans Memorial Library. (2003). History of the Lancaster Library. Lancaster, TX: Author.
23.
Lane, J.-E. (1997). Incorporation as public sector reform. In J.-E. Lane (Ed.), Public sector reform: Rationale, trends and problems (pp. 283-300). London: Sage.
24.
Lane, J.-E. (2000). New public management. London: Routledge.
25.
Lewis, D. E. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design: Political insulation in the United States bureaucracy, 1946-1997. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
Martin, R. S. (2000). The impact of outsourcing and privatization on library services and management. Chicago: American Library Association.
27.
McCubbins, M. D., Roger, N., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243-277.
28.
Milward, H. B. (1996). Symposium of the hollow state: Capacity, control and performance in interorganizational settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 193-195.
29.
Moe, R. C. (1994, March/April). The “reinventing government” exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 111-122.
30.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Data file, Public use: Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal year 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
31.
National Center For Educational Statistics. (2001). Public library statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Data file, Public use: Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal year 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33.
Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.
34.
Niskanen, W. (1973). Bureaucracy: Servant or master?London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
35.
Oder, N. (2004). LSSI in NJ: One contract ends, efforts continue. Library Journal, 129(8), 16-17.
36.
Pierre, J. (Ed.). (1995). Bureaucracy in the modern state: An introduction to comparative public administration. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
37.
Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the public services (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
38.
Potoski, M. (2002). Designing bureaucratic responsiveness: Administrative procedures and agency choice in state environmental policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 1-23.
39.
Rogers, M., & Oder, N. (1998). NJ judge nixes LSSI, Jersey City outsourcing contract. Library Journal, 123(19), 12-13.
40.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. (1994). Issues of accountability in flexible personnel systems. In P. W. Ingraham & B. S. Romzek (Eds.), New paradigms for government: Issues for the changing public service (pp. 263-294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
Rondinelli, D. A. (2003). Partnering for development: Government-private sector cooperation in service provision. In D. A. Rondinelli & G. S. Cheema (Eds.), Reinventing government for the twenty-first century: State capacity in a globalizing society (pp. 219-239). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
42.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
43.
Savas, E. S. (1994). On privatization. In F. S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (5th ed., pp. 404-413). New York: St. Martin’s.
44.
Schuman, P. G. (1998). The selling of the public library: It’s not just “outsourcing” it’s “privatization.”Library Journal, 123(13), 50-52.
45.
Talbot, C. (1996). Ministers and agencies: Control, performance and accountability. London: CIPFA.
46.
Terry, L. D. (1998, May/June). Administrative leadership: Neo managerialism and the public management movement. Public Administration Review, 58, 194-200.
47.
Trovillion, A. (2002). Report on privatization of public libraries-pro and con. Tallahassee: Florida House of Representatives, Committee on Tourism.
Wang, X. (2002, September). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. American Review of Public Administration, 32, 350-370.
50.
Whitford, A. B. (2002). Bureaucratic discretion, Agency structure, and democratic responsiveness: The case of the United States attorneys. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 3-27.
51.
Yeatman, A. (1998, December). Trends and opportunities in the public sector: A critical assessment. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(4), 138-147.
