Comparative Public Sector Reform – Perspectives and Experiences

1. Comparative Public Sector Reform – Perspectives and Experiences Professor Tom Christensen, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo Presentation at University of Zagreb, May 2013

2. 1. Main questions covered • What are the main perspectives we can use to understand reform processes? • What do they say about leaders’ control and rational calculation? • What are the main features and challenges of New Public Management and post-NPM?

3. 2. Perspectives on reform processes • A. Instrumental perspective • Reform is necessary and possible • Leaders control reforms and have clear goals • They basically achieve the effects they want • Main instrument is reorganization – vertical/horizontal specialization/coordination

4. B. Cultural perspective • A slowevolutionarypath-dependent developmentalprocessresult in reform • Adaptation to internalpressure and externalpressure from taskenvironment • Reforms must be compatiblewithhistorical-culturaltraditions

5. C. Mythperspective • Institutional environmentcreate reform myths • Dominant norms for what is appropriate: • Knowledge/professions, organizational forms, systems, services and products • Important to be seen as modern, to increaselegitimacy

6. 3. Main features of New Public Management • Based in new institutional economic theory • Efficiency orientation - use of markets, competition, contracts and privatization • But also based in management theory – ‘let or make the managers manage’ • Combination of centralization and autonomy

7. Structural fragmentation - increased structural devolution and horizontal specialization • Establishing agencies, regulatory agencies and public enterprises with a lot of autonomy • More service and consumer orientation – choice and participation

8. Main challengesof NPM: • Deliver on efficiency – balanceefficiency and othercentralconsiderations and interests • Copewithpotential undermining ofpoliticalcontrol • Handle structuralfragmentation • Balance roles as consumers/users and citizens

9. 4. Why the need for post-NPM-reforms? • A. NPM could not deliver • Not evident that the economy in large has improved in the main NPM countries • Mixed results concerning the increased efficiency of services • Decreasing quality and increased social inquality

10. B. Major weakeningofpoliticalcontrol • It waspromisedthatpoliticalcontrolshouldincrease or staythe same, butmeanschange • Realityseems to show both a formal and real undermining ofpoliticalcontrol • More problems ofcapacity and coordinationamongtop leaders

11. C. More insecure and unstable world • Fear of terrorism drives reforms: • Increasing demands of stronger control and coordination • Fear of catastrophes and crises: • Pandemics, tsunamies, global financial and environmental problems

12. 5. What is typical for post-NPM reforms? • More emphasis on strengtheningthecentralpolitical and administrative levelagain • Increasedcontrol and capacity • More coordination in and betweensectors: • Create cross-sectoral program and projects

13. Demands for more pro-active leadership roles • Leaders must have a broad competence • More pragmatic cooperation among public organizations - smart practice • Value-based management important • More focus on cultural cooperation and common values – counter-acts sub-cultures

14. 6. Possiblefuturedevelopment • Governments in reality a complex and hybrid combination of: • ”Old public administration” – NPM – post-NPM features • A layering process – ‘archeological’ features • What are the effects of such combination?

15. Positive effects?: • Give political and administrative leaders flexibility – ‘ambiguity is good’ • Increased legitimacy through ‘pleasing’ • Negative effects?: • Problems of control and accountability • Chaos and lack of goal achievement?