Market-based administrative reform has triggered a debate argument in the public administration field. Some argue that it enhances cost efficiency and customer responsiveness. Others maintain that the public sector is not just a service-producing system delivering “public value” but that it stands for legality, due process, and legal security in addition to being a service provider. The article first compares the impact of market-based reform in Rechtsstaat administrative systems and “public interest” systems. It then discusses the potential democratic downsides to market solutions in the public administration and assesses under what conditions “publicness” can be delegated to private sector organizations.
AdamsG. B.BalfourD. L. (2010). Market-based government and the decline of organizational ethics. Administration & Society, 42, 615-637.
2.
AlfordJ. (1993). Towards a new public management model: Beyond “managerialism” and its critics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 52, 173-186.
3.
AucoinP. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3, 115-137.
4.
BerkiR. N.HaywardJ. (1979). The state of European society. In HaywardJ. E. S.BerkiR. N. (Eds.), State and society in contemporary Europe (pp. 253-264). Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
5.
BlomqvistP. (2004). The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration, 38, 139-155.
6.
BostonJ.MartinJ.PallotJ.WalshP. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
7.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
9.
BrunssonN. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Colchester, UK: Wiley.
10.
BuchananJ. M. (1975). The limits of liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BuchananJ.TullockG. (1965). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
12.
ChristensenT.LaegreidP. (1998). Administrative reform policy—The case of Norway. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 64, 457-475.
13.
ColeA. (2008). Governing and governance in France. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
ConsidineM. (1988). The corporate management framework as administrative science: A critique. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, 4-18.
15.
CrozierM. P. (2010). Rethinking systems: Configurations of politics and policy in contemporary governance. Administration & Society, 42, 504-525.
16.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
17.
DysonK. H. F. (1980). The state tradition in Western Europe: A study of an idea and institution. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
18.
FriedmanM. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
GilleyB. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 499-525.
20.
GrandeE.PratoriusR. (2003). Neue Steuerung und neue Statlichkeit: Staatslehre und politische Verwaltung New Steering and New Stateness: A Basic Theory of the State and Political Administration. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
21.
GustafssonL.SvenssonA. (1999). Public sector reform in Sweden. Malmoe, Sweden: Liber.
22.
HaasP. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.
23.
HalliganJ. (2001). Politicians, bureaucrats and public sector reform in Australia and New Zealand. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform (pp. 157-168). London, England: Routledge.
24.
HalliganJ. (2003). Paradoxes in reform in Australia and New Zealand. In HesseJ. J.HoodC.PetersB. G. (Eds.), Paradoxes in public sector reform (pp. 97-125.). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humbolt.
25.
HalliganJ. (2010). Reforming management and management systems: Impacts and issues. In PierreJ.IngrahamP. (Eds.), Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned: A Festschrift to Honor B. Guy Peters (pp. 139-158). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
26.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HoltmanR. B. (1981). The Napoleonic revolution. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
28.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
29.
LaegreidPRollandV.WRonessP. GÅgotnesJ. -E. (2008, June 3-4). The structural autonomy of the Norwegian State 1985-2007: Increased specialization or pendulum shift?Paper presented at the COST meeting.
30.
LaneJ.-E. (1993). The public sector. London, England: SAGE.
31.
LightP. (1997). The tides of reform: Making government work, 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
LightP. (2006). The tides of reform revisited: Patterns in making government work. Public Administration Review, 66, 6-19.
33.
MadrickJ. (2009). The case for big government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
MoeR.GilmourR. (1995). Rediscovering principles of administration: The neglected foundation of public law. Public Administration Review, 55, 135-146.
35.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
MullerD. (1979). Public choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Munk ChristiansenP. (1998). A prescription rejected: Market solutions to problems of public sector governance. Governance, 11, 273-295.
38.
NewmanJ.ClarkeJ. (2009). Publics, politics and power. London, England: SAGE.
39.
NiskanenW. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
PainterM. (1988). Public management: Fad or fallacy? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, 1-3.
42.
PainterM.PetersB. G. (Eds.). (2010). Administrative traditions in comparative perspective. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
43.
PeschU. (2008). The publicness of public administration. Administration & Society, 40, 170-193.
44.
PetersB. G. (2001). The future of governing: Four emerging models (2nd ed.). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
45.
PetersB. G. (2003). Administrative traditions and the Anglo-American democracies. In HalliganJ. A. (Ed.), Civil service systems in Anglo-American countries (pp. 10-26). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
PetersB. G. (2008). The politics of bureaucracy (6th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
47.
PierreJ. (2000). Externalities and relationships: Rethinking the boundaries of the public service. In PetersB. G.SavoieD. J. (Eds.), Governance in the 21st century: Revitalizing the public service (pp. 332-357). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
48.
PierreJ.PainterM. (2010). Why legality cannot be contracted out: Exploring the limits of new public management. In RameshM.AraralE.WuX. (Eds.), Reasserting the public in public services: New public management reforms (pp. 49-62). London, England: Routledge.
49.
PierreJ.RothsteinB. (2011). Reinventing Weber: The role of institutions in creating social trust. In ChristensenT.LaegreidP. (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 405-416). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
50.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
PremforsR. (2002). Reshaping the democratic state: Swedish experiences in a comparative perspective. Public Administration, 76, 141-159.
52.
RadinB. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
53.
RosenbloomD. H. (1998). Understanding management, politics and law in the public sector. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
54.
RosenbloomD. H.PiotrowskiS. J. (2005). Outsourcing the constitution and administrative law norms. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 103-121.
55.
RoubanL. (2008). Reform without doctrine: Public management in France. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2, 133-149.
56.
SavoieD. J. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In search of a new bureaucracy. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
57.
SelfP. (1993). Government by the market? The politics of public choice. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
58.
SOU (1993). 16 Nya Villkor för Ekonomi och Politik [16 New Conditions for the Economy and Politics] (Royal Commission report). Stockholm, Sweden: Norsteds.
59.
SuleimanE. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
TurnerM. (2002). Choosing items from the menu: New public management in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 1493-1512.
61.
ViningA. R.WeimerD. L. (2006). Efficiency and cost-benefit analysis. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 417-432). London, England: SAGE.
62.
WeberM. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
