In a tidal wave of reform during the late 1980s and 1990s New Zealand comprehensively adopted the approach to public sector performance management categorized as New Public Management (NPM). Techniques drawn from business and the marketplace were used to transform a centralized public service into an array of focused providers of service and policy ‘outputs’. These reforms decentralized decision-making and emphasized efficiency and cost containment. Since the election in 1999 of a center-left coalition government, a new tide of reform has been gathering momentum, and will be underpinned by legislation before Parliament in 2004. Outcomes, collaboration and capability are the new concerns, indicating a shift of system from a laissez faire ‘financial control’ model to more centralized strategic planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Group. (2001). Report of the Advisory Group on the Review of the Centre. Wellington, State Services Commission.
2.
AucoinP. (1995). The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective. Montreal, Canada: , Institute for Research on Public Policy.
3.
BaronJ. N., and KrepsD. (1999). Strategic Human Resources. Frameworks for General Managers.” New York, John Wiley and Sons.
4.
BlauP. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy; a study of interpersonal relations in two Government agencies. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
5.
DavisG. (1997). “Implications, Consequences and Futures.” Chapter 16, the New Contractualism? Davis, G., Sullivan, B., and Yeatman, A (eds). Melbourne, Macmillan.
6.
EcclesR. G., and NohriaN. (1992). Beyond the Hype -Rediscovering the Essence of Management. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
7.
Economics and Group Strategy (2003) Departmental Uptake of the Managing for Outcomes Initiative. Wellington, State Services Commission.http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=3364 Visited December 11, 2003.
8.
FerlieE.AshburnerL.FitzgeraldL., & PettigrewA. (1996). The New Public Management in Action. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
9.
GooldM., and CampbellA. (1987). Strategies and Styles the Role of the Centre in Managing Diversified Corporations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
10.
HoodC. (1990) “De-Sir Humphreyfying the Westminster Model of Bureaucracy: A new style of governance?” Governance (3)2: 205–214.
11.
KettlD. F. (2000). Performance Management: The State of the Field. Association for Public Policy and Management, 22nd annual research conference, Seattle, Washington.
12.
LightP. C. (1997). The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945–1995. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press.
13.
MallardT. (2003). Progress on public management initiatives. Speech by the Minister of State Services, Trevor Mallard, to the annual meeting of the Institute of Public Administration, 30 June 2003. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=17194. Accessed December 9, 2003.
14.
MertonR. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure (Revised and enlarged edn.). Glencoe, Ill., Free Press.
15.
NewberryS. (2002). “Intended or Unintended Consequences? Resource Erosion in New Zealand's Government Departments.” Financial Accountability and Management 18(4)309–330.
16.
NormanR. (2003). Obedient Servants? Management freedoms and accountabilities in the New Zealand public sector. Wellington, Victoria University Press.
17.
NormanR. (1997). Accounting for Government. How New Zealand built an accounting system that tells the full story about a government's financial performance. Wellington, Victoria Link Ltd.
18.
PollittC., and BouckaertG. (2000). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
19.
ScottG. (2001). Public Management in New Zealand. Lessons and Challenges. Wellington, New Zealand Business Roundtable.
20.
State Services Commission (SSC) (2002). The Review of the Centre - One Year On: Getting Better Results - for citizens, Ministers and staff. State Services Commission, Wellington.
