1

Draft for the 1998 IPMN conference in Salem/Oregon

June 1998

Working Title

Origin and theoretical basis of the New

Public Management (NPM)

Gernod Gruening

Arbeitsbereich Public Management

Hochschule fuer Wirtschaft und Politik

Hamburg, Germany

2

1. Introduction

2. The characteristics of the NPM

3. The development of administrative thought (in the USA)

4. A descriptive model of the administrative-political sciences

5. The theoretical basis of the characteristics of the NPM

6. Is the NPM new? Is it a paradigm change?

7. Other findings

3

1. Introduction

In the last twenty years a practical reform movement of the public administrations of the

OECD countries (and a lot of other countries in the world) developed. This reform

movement is called NPM. In this paper I will try to answer some questions which are

referred to by the international discussion about the NPM frequently. First: Which

theoretical origins stand behind the NPM? The now common formula is that the NPM

has its origins in public choice theory and the so-called „managerialism“ (Aucoin 1990,

p. 115; Dunsire 1995, p. 21, p. 29; Lueder 1996, p. 93; Naschold et al. 1995, p. 1, p. 8;

Reichard 1996, p. 245f.; Schedler 1995, p. 155). The question is whether this formula

fits and whether it is exhaustive. When this question is answered then we can answer

the second questions whether the NPM is new, too. The third question is wether the

NPM stands for a paradigm change, as a lot of writers say (Aucoin 1995, p. 3; Borins

1994, p. 2; Kamensky 1996, p. 250; OECD 1995, p. 8, p. 25; Osborne/Gaebler 1993, p.

321; Reinermann 1995, p. 6).

To answer this three questions I will describe (as short as possible) the development of

administrative thought of that country where the most important impulses for public

choice theory and management theory came from: the USA. In my opinion the USA are

best suited as a reference point for theoretical developments because the sheer size of

the american administrative-political sciences, their diversity and richness of approaches

makes it the natural leader of the international discussion.

The historical description serves to put the developments and theoretical concepts into a

context and for the assessment whether other theoretical influences than public choice

and „managerialism“ can be identified. These course of analysis is based on hypotheses

1: Practicioners, scientists and consultants are subject to disciplinary socialization and

training. One can assume that they are influenced by these when they try to reform

administrative organizations and delivery systems.

2. The characteristics of the NPM

The NPM movement began to develop in the late 70s and early eighties. The first

movers where the United Kingdom, that was reformed by prime Minister Margaret

4

Thatcher and communal governments in the US which suffered heavily from recessive

developments and tax revolts of their citizens (i.e. Proposition 13 and 2 ½ in California

and Massachusetts). Later the national governments of other commonwealth countries,

mainly New Zealand and Australia) joined and after the reform successes in these

countries administrative reforms got on the agendas of almost all OECD countries and a

lot of other countries in the world (OECD 1995).

The common characteristics of the practical reforms where identified by academics

rather late and where then discussed under the label NPM (Dunsire1995, p. 21) - for the

US Osborne and Gaebler (1993) coined the phrase „Reinventing“. In the following I

will distinguish between characteristics of the NPM which are almost unequivocally

mentioned and those characteristics which are often but not unequivocally mentioned

(see for example: Borins 1994; Borins 1995; Boston/Martin/Pallott/Walsh 1996; Bushor

1994, Gore 1994, Hood 1991, Nashold et al. 1995, Reichard 1992, Stewart/Walsh

1992).

Table 1: Unequivocal characteristics of the NPM

Budget Cuts

Vouchers

Accountability

For

Performance

Performance

Auditing

Privatization

Customer Concept

(One-Stop-Shops,

Case management)

Decentralization

Strategic

Planning/

Management

Separation of

Provision and

Production

Competition

Performance

Measurement

Changed

Management

Style

Contracting Out

Freedom to Manage

(Flexibility)

Improved

Accounting

Personnel

Management

(Incentives)

User Charges

Separation of

Politics and

Administration

Improved

Financial

Management

More Use of

Information

Technology

5

Table 2: Other characteristics of the NPM

Legal

Budget/Spending

Constraints

Rationalization

of

Jurisdictions

Policy Analysis

and

Evaluation

Improved Regulation

Rationalization or

Streamlining of

Administrative Structures

Democratization

and

Citizens Participation

3. The development of administrative thought (in the USA)

The conscious study of public administration in the US began in a time when the

practical administration was in a highly disastrous condition. In the late 19th

century the

political system of the USA was dominated by parties which gave administrative

positions to their members. Administrative personnel therefore changed after election

successes of the opposition and the public purse was frequently plundered.

Incompetence, inefficiency and corruption where common (Weber 1956, S. 839ff.; Van

Riper 1987, Stone/Stone 1975; Schachter 1989).

In this situation a movement to reform politics and administration developed: the

Progressives. The Progressives pursued the separation of politics and administration;

they pressed for a more interventionist state, tenured, neutral and competent

administrators and a sound financial management. Main reform successes of the

Progressives where the invention of a career civil service (Pendleton Act 1883), the

invention of the line item budget and the rollback of parties and corruption (Eisenach

1994; Lee 1995; Waldo 1948).

Classical Public Administration

Main players in this time came from the New York Bureau for Municipal Research,

which was highly influenced by ideas of Frederick Taylors Scientific Management. One

important answer to the problem of corruption and incompetence was a stress on

efficiency. Techniques and studies imported from scientific management filled this gap

6

(i.e. studies on scientifical respective efficient street paving and snow removal). The

progressive reformers where the first to use performance indicators to benchmark the

efficiency of public organizations – one purpose behind this was to identify corruption

(Schachter 1989). In the 1920s some practicioners and academics built the science of

public administration on the fundaments of the progressive reform successes. On the

presupposition of loyal bureaucrats, honest politicians and the politics-administration

dichotomy the new scientists of public administration built a theory of organization that

was supplemented by a concept of management.

These principles where (Gulick 1937; Urwick 1937; Mooney 1937; Graicunas 1937):

The principle of division of work and specialization.

The principle of homogeneity.

The principle of unity of command.

The scalar principle respective the principle of delegation.

The principle of accountability.

The principle of the span of control.

The staff principle.

Within organizational structures which should follow these principles chief executives

where asked to do POSDCORB, which stands for Planning, Organizing, Staffing,

Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and Budgeting (Gulick 1937, S. 13). Based on these

principles, which were inductively drawn from practical experience, academics where

involved in modernization projects and completed the reforms of the progressives.

Reorganization efforts of that time normally included efforts to streamline, to

consolidate organizations and to standardize administrative procedures (Lee 1995;

Henry 1975; Arnold 1995).

In the 1930s in the time of the New Deal the scope of government activity and the

public administration of the US was dramatically expanded – guided by the principles

of public administration. The New Deal followed (and realized) the societal vision of

the progressives. The state became more involved, it regulated more activities, it

became more social democratic, it seemed to be built on scientific objectivity and

promised „material freedom“ (Egger 1975; Waldo 1948; Van Riper 1983).

7

I call this cluster of organization and management concepts and the closely related ethos

of orderly government, an active state and the belief in objective knowledge that serves

to control the social and physical environment the classical public administration.

Neoclassical Public Administration

After World War II the principles of the classical public administration where

reassessed and highly questioned. One of the most rigorous critics was Herbert Simon,

whose work set the tone and direction for the neoclassic public administration. His

dissertation with the title „Administrative Behavior – A Study of Decisionmaking in

Administrative Organization“ contained the buzzwords of an era: behavior, decisions

and organization.

Simon said that the principles of administration are not scientific but inconsistent

proverbs which were drawn from common sense (Simon 1976, S. 20). His suggestion

was to found public administration on the rigorous and scientific observation of facts

where „real“ scientific laws of human behavior should be (inductively) derived from.

Factual and value judgements should be separated and science should be divided in pure

science and applied science (Simon 1976; Simon/Smithburg/Thompson 1962). From

this perspective objective scientific knowledge serves for the control of the social

environment.

Simons ideas influenced a lot of scholars very much. There where lots of studies about

behavior and decisions in administrative organizations and a new and more presice

vocabulary and research methodology was used. Neoclassical public administration

(and Simon himself) followed the common trends of behaviorism, structural

functionalism and systems theory and took in theoretical underpinnings of welfare

economics and decision theory.

Practically the rather regular reforms of the machinery of government in this times

followed the paths of the progressives and classical theory: Organizations and

jurisdictions where streamlined and consolidated, executive power was strengthened

and unified. However, the main practical event of this period was the invention of the

PPBS (Waldo 1969). The PPBS was based on microecomonic decision techniques and

8

a strong belief that central planning of the national administration (and economy) could

lead to successful optimization. The PPBS carried the logics of systems analysis,

rational planning and the systems theoretical vocabulary of inputs, throughputs,

outputs, outcomes, programs and alternatives (equifinality) into budgeting (Schick

1966; Greenhouse 1966; Gross 1969; Schick 1969). Unfortunately the implementation

of the PPBS suffered serious shortcomings and the system never worked as intended –

in 1972 it was terminated (Schick 1973).

So the neoclassical public administration seemed to have altered the scientific standards

and methodology, but practice continued to rely on the principles of the classics and on

the administrative structures of the progressives (Lynn 1996; Kramer 1987). As a

resumee about the practical influence of the neoclassics one can say, that they adapted

themselves to and carried on the principles and structures of classical public

administration and that they improved the analytical basis for performance

measurement, auditing, rationalization of jurisdictions and organizations, and

budgeting systems. What they especially added was a focus on analysis and a change

(tendency) from a bureaucratic towards a rational and analytic management style.

But there where other indirect consequences of the neoclassics. The (generic) research

about organizations, behavior and leadership found that human beings are complex

(Schein 1965), that other modes of leadership than the classical directive style are

possible and that organizations can be structured not only in mechanistic ways but in

organic ways, too (Burns/Stalker 1971). These findings didn´t have practical

consequences (yet) but they where there.

Another consequence of the neoclassical reassessment was that public administration

lost its unity (Waldo 1965). As I said, a lot of scholars followed Herbert Simons lead,

but not all. Some scholars felt not qualified for the new scientific standards and just

remained doing what they did before – so classical public administration not just

survived in the progressive structures of practical government but in theory, too. And

there where other scholars, who didn´t want to accept the separation of facts and values,

because they thought that this would cut off public administration from its foundations –

from political philosophy and the search for the public interest (Waldo 1965;

Subramaniam 1963).

9

So the situation of the public administration at the end of the 60s was that there was a

classical line of thought, a neoclassical line of thought and group of political oriented

scholars. What is important is that these divided groups did share one common creed:

the progressive vision of an active state and the belief in objective knowledge. But there

where coming up other approaches, which seriously questioned this basic belief of the

public administration scholars.

Public Choice and other developments of the modern institutional economics

The first of this rival approaches was public choice theory. The main event of the

institutionalization of the public choice approach was the founding of the „Thomas

Jefferson Center for Studies in Political Economy and Social Philosophy“ by James

Buchanan and and Warren Nutter at the University of Virginia. The founders wanted to

build a platform for all scholars who where interested in a society based on individual

freedom (Buchanan 1986, S. 8f.). Complementary to this basic aims was their use of

methodological individualism as their basic approach. Social phenomena where to be

explained from the aggregated behavior of individuals.

Table 3: The logic of individualistic explanation (Coleman 1995)

Social

Situation

Actor Individual Action

Logic of

the Situation

Logic of Action

Logik of

Aggregation

Collective

Explanandum

10

Characteristic for this approach is the assumption that individuals act according to their

own preferences and try to pursue their own aims according to the situation. This notion

contains a different notion of rationality than Simons, because rationality from this

perspective is not „bounded“ measured against a theoretical optimum, but rational

behavior is when a person acts to pursue its aims according to its knowledge of the

situation. For example an indian who believes that rain-dancing produces rain, acts

rational if he begins to dance in a severe drought (Tullock 1965). Models to explain

social phenomena where therefore deductively developed from a set of assumptions

about human aims and their information about the situation.

Another basic trait of this approach was that in incorporated a „natural“ normative

benchmark for assessing social reality. Since individual preferences and the free choice

of individuals stand in the center of the argumentation the benchmark for political

institutions is wether a free individual would willingly agree to such structures and to

their outcomes (Buchanan/Tullock 1962; Buchanan 1984, p. 8). One could call this a

contractarian vision of the state and its constitution.

On this basis public choice scholars assessed the reality of the modern welfare state that

the progressives and their companions in the public administration company built and

where going on to build. The results where devastating. The theoretical explanation of

representative democracy found that the use of the simple majority rule without

constitutional safeguards can lead (through logrolling) to the exploitation of minorities

by majorities, that such majorities have an incentive to waste ressources the minority

pays for, and that the notion of a public interest or a common good of classical

democratic theory is highly questionable (Downs 1968; Buchanan/Tullock 1962). The

public choice scholars further showed that the tendencies for inefficient use of resources

and the exploitation of certain groups is enhanced by the traditional budgeting situation

between representative committees and the executives of bureaucratic organizations

(Niskanen 1971). And it was shown that bureaucratic organization (defined as

organizations which are partly or wholly not evaluated on markets) has a number of

serious deficiencies. From a public choice perspective this deficiencies reach from a

strong tendency towards the accumulation of tasks and resources, over conservatism to

a lawlike unability to accomplish certain tasks (Downs 1994; Tullock 1965).

11

According to their explanation of state failure and based on their individual ethical

premises public choice scholars made a lot of reform proposals. Main issues where the

invention of constitutional safeguards against exploitation (political exploitation can

be assumed if the sum of taxes an individual pays is bigger than the worth of public

goods it gets delivered for them) and the invention of a polycentrical administrative

system (in contrast to the monocentric system fo the progressives). A polycentical

administrative system would be one where provision and production are separated,

where competition1 for delivery contracts is common, where private vendors are

competing among public ones and where the size of production units and public

consumption units (jurisdictions) must not necessarily fit (allowing economies of scale

and efficient intergovernmental contracting). Such a system would function best if it

would be highly decentralised and federal. Thus, to a polycentric system would belong

a wider use of transparent financing systems such as user charges, vouchers for public

goods and opportunities of choice for the consumer/citizens (Ostrom 1973; 1977; Savas

1982)

The main character trait fo a polycentric system would be that a lot of individuals make

decisions according to their personal knowledge of time and place: there is not any

longer one single and usually distant decision center but many of them (Hayek 1969;

Hayek 1991, p. 192f.). It is easy to see, that every single part of the explanations of

public choice theory, their methodology, their ethical benchmark, and their

recommendations flie directly into the face of all classical and neoclassical public

administration. Ironically, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom presented this as a new approach

to public administration and they found some supporters (Ostrom/Ostrom 1971).

Other approaches of modern institutional economics are the neo-austrian economics,

property rights theory, principal-agent theory, and transaction costs economics. The

neo-austrian economists deal mainly with the question of planned and unplanned social

order (Kosmos and Taxis) and they share a lot with the public choice perspective

(Hayek 1969; Hayek 1991). They have an almost stronger preference for individual

freedom and stress especially the necessity of a law that does not discriminate in any

1 An interesting proposal of Niskanen is to pay bureaucrats according to performance, for example by

leaving a part of the sum between the approved budget and the actually consumed resources to them or

12

way (and not in tax laws, too) and they are determined against the welfare state, which

they assess as a form of „tyranny“ (Von Mises 1983). The property rights theory deals

with the efficient allocation of property rights over resources (Demsetz 1967). The

principal agent theory deals mainly with problems and solutions for monitoring and

incentive systems in an agency relationship (Pratt/Zeckhauser 1983). And transaction

cost economics mainly deal with the question when markets or hierarchies are used as

efficient arrangements for the organization of production (Williamson 1975).

All these approaches became a major challenge for classic and neoclassic thoughts.

The New Public Administration and its successors

But classical and neoclassical public administration where not only challenged by

public choice theory – even in the heyday of the neoclassics there where dissenting

voices to the dominant stream of behavioral and positivist research. In matters of

management the later human relations school that followed the basic concepts of

Maslows man as self-actualizer urged for an approach that should put human beings

into the center of management (McGregor 1973). Human beings should get

opportunities to develop their selves and to live a „healthy“ life within organizations.

And within public administration there was a number of scientists who charged the

separation of facts and values to cut off public administration from its vital roots in

political philosophy (Appleby 1947; Harmon/Mayer 1986, p. 22). For these scholars the

search for the public interest continued to be a central question in spite of its demise by

Arrow and Schubert (1957).

In the late 60s when the US where in a time of turbulence and revolutions (Waldo 1968)

Dwight Waldo organized a conference about the future of public administration where

he invited only younger members of the discipline. These young men brought the

revolutionary spirit of their times to the conference and initiated a movement that was

called the „new public administration“ (NPA) and took up a lot of impulses of the later

human relations movement and the „political faction“ of public administration (Marini

1971).

their bureaus – competition for the resources of the budget he saw as a prerequisite for this because of

13

Basically the NPA was a critique of classical and neoclassical public administration.

The participants raged against a society that was in their eyes full of discrimination,

injustice and inequality and they saw the public administration - practically and

theoretically – support this „unbearable“ status quo. All theorizing from politics-

administration dichotomy over separation of fact and value to accountability in

representative democracy was (in their opinion) serving the status quo of repression and

alienation (White 1971; Harmon 1971). Therefore they urged for a reorientation of the

discipline: Public administration should move away from the pursuit of efficient

administration towards more democratic structures within and without public

organizations – participation was the buzzword of the movement – and it should

especially try proactively to further social equity. La Porte (1971, p. 31) said: „I would

argue that our primary normative premise should be that the purpose of public

organization is the reduction of economic, social, and psychic suffering and the

enhancement of life opportunities for those inside and outside the organization.“ It is

easy to see that the center of theoretical gravity moves towards a normative „theory“.

The problem of the NPA was that it had not very much more to offer than this

normative reorientation. When the US discovered in the 70s that they where not nearly

as „affluent“ than it was assumed in the 60s the proposals of the NPA for administrative

and democratic experiments became unrealistic. In the midst of recession and

unemployment productivity seemed to be more important (Campbell 1972, p. 345ff.).

But the argument that normative questions matter for public administration and that

there is another possible vision of a participative and socially equitable public

administration was not forgotten.

And this vision was reinvented through the backdoor. In the early 80s when bureaucrat-

bashing was a common sport among politicians and journalists John Rohr (1978; 1986)

developed a justification for public organization that was based on a highly „creative“

interpretation of the american constitution – accordingly the approach was called

constitutionalism. Constitutionalism was a „flag“ to gather for the defenders of public

administration. And among them where „veterans“ of the NPA movement. John Rohr

and his colleagues of the Blacksburg polytechnicum in Virginia continued their

perverse incentive effects in the other case.

14

defensive work and developed the „blacksburg perspective“ that incorporated a lot of

the thoughts of the NPA within it (Wamsley et al. 1990). Another development of the

eighties that carried on the normative thrust of the NPA was communitarianism. Based

on a critique of the individualist and rootless modern society and its inhabitants

communitarians urged for a social reform towards more participative political and

administrative structures (Cooper 1991; Barber 1994). The basic (revived) idea was

that human beings are political beings and that one can only be fully human if one has

the possibility to participate in political life. The structures of public administration

would have to be accomodated to such a social change, the administrators would

become citizens among peers, and they would assume the role of facilitators for

participative action. The third follower of the NPA movement was the discourse theory

of public administration. Based on a critique of the communicative basis of

represenative democracy and its bureaucracy Fox and Miller (1995) proposed that

public administration should assume a moderators role in public policy networks or

„energy fields“ where interested individuals and organizations find solutions for public

problems in a situation that comes as near as possible to ideal speech.

All these three approaches – the blacksburg perspective, communitarianism and

discourse theory – share a lot of their normative basis and their practical reform

proposals with the NPA and they seem to make up an alternative postmodern

movement within public administration. They all have a preference for proactive and

politically acting bureaucrats, they all pursue values „beyond efficiency“, they all

heavily criticize representative democracy and progressive administrative structures and

they all propose reforms leading in the direction of participation, community, self-

actualization and the development of human potential within and without public

organizations. Interestingly their commonality goes as far back as to their very scientific

roots. They are all heavily influenced by phenomenology, that states that reality is

socially constructed and that therefore the scientist has to try to share the frameworks

through which his subject sees the world for understanding the lifeworld of his subject

and its actions. The other main influence is critical theory that is based on a critique of

the „reign“ of instrumental reason in society and tries to unmask „false social

appearances“ behind which domination is covered. An important further development

of critical theory is the discourse theory of Habermas who tried to show which ideal

communicative situation is necessary for overcoming domination. Important elements

15

of discursive thoughts can be found in every one of the three followers of the NPA – for

example it is frequently referred to by communitarian writers when they try to develop

their participative ideal of democracy.

Policy Analysis

We see that public administration was multiple split and under fire in the early 70s and

later: There can be identified classical and neoclassical branches of the discipline, it was

heavily questioned by modern institutional economics and some scholars followed this

approach, and it was challenged by the NPA in whichs wake even three followers

appeared who brought two very different scientific perspectives into public

administration: critical theory and phenomenology.

In this situation another competitor began to develop. In the early 70s political scientists

who where interested in finding the causes for the failure of a lot of policies which

where invented in the 60s and who wanted to find ways for improvement founded the

discipline of policy studies or policy analysis (Parsons 1995). From the beginning

policy analysis could mean two things: analysis of policies, where practical political

developments, the main actors, the outcomes etc. were described and partially explained

(Anderson 1975), and analysis for policy, where it was tried to find optimal solutions

for political problems (Nagel 1980). Both branches where strongly related to the

neoclassical research program of Herbert Simon. Analysis of policy tended more to the

behavioral aspects and analysis for policy tended more to the aspects of decision

techniques. It is no incident that scientists like Merriam and Lasswell who where

closely related to Herbert Simon where leading figures in the policy studies field. The

compatibility to neoclassical public administration went as deep as to the scientific

roots: policy analysis used the separation of fact and value, logical positivism left its

marks.

In practice the approach of analysis for policy became extremely prominent. Intensive

analysis was frequently used to provide information for policy makers. The idea was

that informed legislators can realize more rational policies. But to a rational political

decision not only information about „optimal“ policies are needed, but the

implementation and evaluation of policies have to be incorporated. By enlarging their

16

field towards these aspects of politics researchers closed the conceptional circle of

information gathering, analysis, decision, implementation, and evaluation. The result

was a conception of rational policy making (Parsons 1995).

Since the approaches where highly compatible there was no need for conflict. But

conflict developed because policy analysis and public administration where competing

for the same audience, students, research funds, and practical consulting projects. In this

situation adherents of polic analysis tended towards the argumentation that public

administration with its institutional focus is outdated and that policy analysis with its

focus on policies is modern and more relevant (Lynn 1996). The effect of all this where

extremely bitter feelings on the side of public administration scholars and the attempt to

include policy analysis themes into the courses of public administration.

But policy analysis got its own problems, too. Its early conceptual core was soon

questioned. The popularity of the discipline and its success in aqcuiring students and

research funds drew researchers with other approaches into its borders. Soon policy

research was undertaken not only in the optimizing format of systems analysis but with

methodogical individualism, too (Parsons 1995). And later there appeared critical

scientists and phenomenologists with even more different approaches of naturalistic

inquiry (Henry 1990) and a consulting approach that was called interpretative forum

(Kelly/Maynard-Moody 1993). So despite of its success the policy studies field suffered

the same fragmentation as the public administration field.

Public Management

Another institutional creation of the 70s is the field of public management. When

schools of policy analysis began to train students for executive positions in the public

sector, they soon realized that more is needed than the skill to create „optimal“ policies,

simply because the opportunity for this is rare. The other part of the work consists of

management and therefore adequate courses had to be included (Bozeman 1991a;

Moore 1995). Since public administration was the competitor the label public

management was used. Other competitors on the market for students where schools for

business administration and schools of generic management which also began to hold

public management courses.

17

The content of such courses – and of the discipline - was highly similar to generic

management thought. Leadership styles, management techniques, and techniques of

analysis where transplanted to public sector questions and more or less successful

proposed for and used in practice. Therefore one of the main and heavily contested

question was (and is) what the public in public management is and what the

consequences for management are (Murray 1975).

The transplants which where discussed in public management circles usually had deep

roots in the findings of generic research in the heydays of the neoclassics. The

conclusions of these research which couldn´t bring their weight into the progressive

structures of practical and theoretical public administration where highly influential in

the private sector – and they where then transplanted.

Important examples of these „transplants“ can be grouped into two classes. Some tend

more towards rational or mechanistic management styles and instruments and

others tend more towards humanistic or organic management styles and

instruments. From the rational side came Zero Base Budgeting (Lerner/Wanat 1992),

Management by Objectives (Drucker 1962; Sherwood/Page 1976), techniques of

performance measurement and accounting (Henry 1990), public sector marketing

(Kotler 1978), and rational strategic management (Wechsler/Backoff 1986). All this

approaches have a heavy bias for the gathering and analysis of information and try to

find „optimal“ answers for management problems on this basis. From the standpoint of

this approaches it is extremely important to measure and to objectify and if it comes to

leadership to reward according to the results which where found.

During the 70s such thoughts dominated public management almost exclusively. But in

the early 80s the book „In search for excellence“ of Peters and Waterman (1982)

changed the scene. They showed that the best and most successful american companies

where not managed rational-oriented, but that they used organic structures and

humanistic management styles, and a thick culture to lead their employees. The book

provoked an intense public discussion and did a lot to turn the tide towards

humanistic/organic management – and soon this movement began to spread in public

management, too. More and more scholars asked wether it might be possible to make

18

public organizations excellent with accomodated transplants of Peters and Watermans

ideas. Important example for organic and humanistic styles and approaches are

organizational development (Golembiewski 1969), total quality management (Swiss

1992; Milakovich 1991), or culture oriented strategic management, where mission

statements used for leadership purposes (Moore 1995).

Unfortunately for the field there was not yet found a conceptual unity to bind all this

approaches together. Bozeman, a leading figure of the field says: „If recent assessments

of public management research and theory are valid, then the field is not yet ready to

take its place alongside more mature and theoretically rich social science disciplines.“

(Bozeman 1991b, p. 29) And: „One should not expect theoretical mastery in a field that

is relatively immature. There is no paradigm for public management research and

theorizing; rather, ours is a preparadigmatic field conforming closely to Ravetz´s model

of an ´immature and ineffective field of inquiry.`“ (Bozeman 1991b, p. 33)

It is easy to see, that public management and public administration have close ties

regarding their problems, their research questions, techniques, approaches, and

sometimes researchers. On the other hand the relationship gets always stressed if public

managment scholars appear as competitors or as founders of a new science that is

independent of public administration.

4. A descriptive model of the administrative-political sciences

The result of the inquiry until now is, that the political administrative sciences in the US

are even on a cursory overview a melee of approaches and disciplines. Some disciplines

are reletively unified (i.e. public choice) others are heavily fragmented (i.e. public

management). Certain disciplines are in heavy conflict about basic approaches (i.e.

public choice and public administration) others use compatible approaches and are in

heavy conflict for students, audiences and research funds (public administration and

policy analysis).

But if one leaves disciplines aside and asks for scientific bases one can bring order into

the scene.

19

If we try to group researchers according to their basic values, we find that some prefer

order, a notion of material freedom (the ability to participate on the welfare of a nation),

and efficiency that is pursued by planning. Other scholars lean heavily towards

individual freedom (freedom from interference), innovation, and efficiency that is

pursued by spontaneous orders. Other scholars prefer values like community, political

freedom (freedom to participate in political processes), and the development of human

potential respective emancipation.

Likewise one can group the scientific approaches of scientists. What we find most are

variations of the scientist as „omniscient observer“. These are approaches which let the

scientist assume an objectified and distanced position, where he has superior knowledge

about his subject, gathers more knowledge and is able to use this knowledge for social

control, what goes often together with ideas of optimization. Other scientists use

methodological individualism. If one distinguishes like Hayek in true and false

individualism, here is meant the true individualism that leads towards a more modest

approach towards science. The researcher realizes that he does not know substantially

more about the myriad facts of everyday life and especialoy about specialties of time

and place. He especially knows that – given limited knowledge – can not steer or

control anything perfectly and that his scientific „laws“ are just forecasts of patterns.

This position is closely related to a critical rationalism in contrast to a constructivist or

immodest rationalism of „omniscient observers“. A third common approach is

critical/interpretive, which is closely related to the dialectic method. Researchers who

use this approach begin with the notion that reality is not „out there“ but socially

constructed and can therefore only be understood by the scientist through learning about

the frameworks of the human beings they deal with. Critical aspects enter if researchers

go a step further to demask dominative relationships in a social situation they seem to

have understood.

If one groups scientists according to their method one can say that one group uses

empirical studies to generate scientific laws inductively – usually they speak of a

verification if they have gathered enough data to be sure of their findings. Another

group develops „daring“ hypotheses based on certain premises deductively and tests

these hypotheses empirically – if they find their daring outlines empirically wrong they

20

usually speak about a falsification. The third method of learning the framework of

human beings and their lifeworld is phenomenological.

We can group scientists according to the gravity of their statements. That means to

assess in which direction their main utterances go. Naturally all scientists describe more

or less, and all try to explain, to prescribe and talk about values, but one group has a

heavy bias towards prescriptive statements, another has a strong explanative bias, and

another has a strong normative bias.

If it comes to research fields or technological recommendations the different groups

normally lean towards certain modes of social coordination. One group has a bias

towards hierarchy, the other towards markets, and the other group tends towards the

recommendation of communities or clans.

One can also identify biases towards the assessment of social problems. One group

tends to see change, adaptation, and social complexity as problematic. The other group

assesses social petrification, the coercion of the welfare system, and the protection of

individual freedom as main problems. And the other group sees alienation,

individualisation, and sustainable development among the main questions scientists and

society have to answer.

If one orders these groups and different centers of gravity, one gets the following model

of three scientific worldviews which are in themselves consistent and compatible, but

in most questions incommensurable to the respective others. That means that the

scientists which share one scientific worldview can communicate without greater

problems with each other but tendentially they talk past one another if they

communicate „across the borders“ – nevertheless: a circle is an area and that implies

that one can position oneself more or less near the border and it is even possible that

scientists as individuals leave their string on certain levels.

To name the three worldviews I would suggest the terms emancipatoric, rationalistic

and individualistic. Although these terms define the three worldviews on different

levels, they seem to fit because they all incorporate the very charcteristics of the

respective creed. Rationalists especially share their belief that the world can be ordered

21

and controlled with the help of objective scientific knowledge. Individualists share

their commitment to put the individual in the center of their deliberations –

methodologically and normatively. And emancipatorics are held together by their

ardent desire to free individuals from domination, to realize a far reaching social equity,

and to cure society by a daring experiment with basic forms of marketplace democracy.

And the extreme proponents of each of these worldviews – for example Nagel and the

(early) Samuelson for the rationalists, Hayek and Buchanan for the individualists, and

Barber and Thayer for the emancipatorics have few more to say to each other than that

their respective approaches and recommendations are irrelevant, unsensible or

unbearable.

Table 4: Dominant patterns of scientific worldviews

Now we have an overview and a descriptive model of the political-administrative

sciences of the US and can go on with answering the questions about origin and

theoretical basis of the NPM.

Basic Values

Worldview

Scientific

Approach

Method

Gravity of

Statements

Technological

Gravity

Problem

Focus

Order, material Freedom

Efficiency per Planning Individual Freedom,

Innovation, Efficiency per

spontaneous OrdersCommunity, political Freedom,

Development of human Potential

Rationalistic

Emanzipatoric

Individualistic

Variations of the

„Omniscient Observer“ Methodological

IndividualismCritical/Interpretive

Inductive

Dedutive

Phenomenological

Strategies/Presriptions

Normative

Positive

Hierarchy

Market

Community, Clan

Change, Adaptation,

ComplexityPetrification,

Coercion of the Welfare System

Protection of Individual

Freedom

Alienation, Individualization,

sustainable Development

22

5. The theoretical basis of the characteristics of the NPM

If one accepts hypotheses 1 (above) it makes sense to ask which theoretical bases may

have been influential on the inventors of the reforms which where later labeled as the

NPM or Reinventing Government. First the undisputed characteristics of the NPM.

Budget cuts need no explanation. All types of scholars (except perhaps those of the

emancipatory worldview) would recommend budget cuts in times of money shortages.

Privatization can be recommended from the standpoint of public choice theory, the neo-

austrian school, and property rights theory. But proposals to privatize came from

rationally oriented management scholars (especially Drucker 1969), too.

The separation of provision and production can best be derived from the model of a

polycentrical administrative system of the Ostroms, but such recommendations came

from Drucker, too. Contracting out can be seen as a cure from the standpoint of

rational oriented management and from the standpoint of humanistically oriented

management. An great influence came from transaction costs economics. But Public

Choice scholars like Niskanen recommended it, too. If contracting out means to

strengthen community organizations it is even demanded by emancipatorics.

The invention of user charges was mainly proposed by public choice adherents, but

they can be derived from consumerists views and marketing (rational management), too.

The same can be said about vouchers. The customer concept can be traced back

directly to marketing approaches. Certain details of it like one stop shops or case

management can be seen as the outcome of organic management conceptions and even

of the NPA.

The invention of competition to the public sector comes mainly from public choice

theory. If competition is a measure to motivate departments within an organization

(internal competition, revolving funds) it can also be substantiated from the perspective

of organic management models. To let managers „freedom to manage“ and flexibility

is merely a matter of management thought (and disciplinary self-interest).

23

The separation of politics and administration can even be traced back to the

progressives and classical public administration and to the influence of policy analysis

for politics, and certain branches of public management. Decentralization is again a

concept that can be recommended on the basis of neoclassic thoughts, on the basis of

public choice, transaction costs economics, and on the basis of the NPA and its

followers.

Accountability for performance can be traced back to classical thought and their idea

to benchmark public organizations. It reappeared in neoclassical public administration,

in policy analysis, and in the rational public management circles. The same is true for

the respective techniques of performance measurement, and improved accounting.

Nevertheless public choice scholars like Tullock recommended them, too (with some

reservations). The reform ideas for financial management and performance auditing

can also be traced back to this approaches with a particular stress on rational public

management that used transplants from the private sector. Interestingly the whole

branch of output-oriented steering and evaluation shows heavy influences of the PPBS.

The whole language that is now used in this area (inputs, outputs, outcomes, products,

programs, alternatives ...) was invented in the wake of the PPBS. But one can also

identify ideas of principal-agent theory in these cluster of reform concepts.

Strategic Planning and changed management styles can be seen as the result of the

influence of the two branches of public management. Whereas transitions from

bureaucratic to rational management styles and from rational or bureaucratic to

humanistic management styles have to be distinguished. The same is true of improved

personnel management systems and incentives. But these can also be traced back to the

influence of principal agent theory.

However the use of information technology seems to be a characteristic of the NPM that

has no special theoretical but purely pragmatic roots – it is used where it is useful.

If it comes to the not unequivocally mentioned characteristics of the NPM the center of

gravity of the theoretical origins seems to move a little bit away from management:

legal budget constraints are surely a creation of constitutional deliberations of public

choice scholars (especially Buchanan). Improved regulation can be traced back to

24

property rights theory and the theory of regulation of public choice (especially Stigler

and his colleages of the chicago school).

The rationalization of jurisdictions and the streamlining of administrative

structures can again be traced back to classical administrative theory and the

progressives and was taken up by neoclassics, policy analysis and rational public

management scholars. The role of policy analysis for the use of policy analysis and

evaluation in the reforms is self explaining.

And democratization and enhanced citizen participation can mainly be traced back

to the NPA and its three following approaches. Although consumerist views and public

choice may, too, have played a role.

Table 5: Characteristics of the NPM and theoretical approaches

Budget Cuts

Privatization

Sep. Prov./Prod.

Contracting Out

User Charges & Vouchers

Customer Concept

Competition

Fexibility for Management

Sep. of Pol. & Admin.

Acc. for Performance

Decentralization

Performance Measurement

Impr. Acc. & Financial Mt.

Performance Auditing

Strategic Planning & Mt.

Management Styles

Personnel Management

Use of IT

Legal Spending Constraints

Improved Regulation

Rationalzt. of Jurisdictions

Rationalzt. adm. Structures

Analysis and EvaluationDemocratization & Particip.

Classical P

A

Neo

classical PA

Pu

blic C

ho

ice

Au

strian S

cho

ol

Prin

cipal-A

gen

t

Po

perty

-Rig

hts

Tran

saction

s Co

sts

NP

A

Co

nstitu

tion

alism

Co

mm

un

itarianism

Disco

urse

Po

l. An

alysis

Ratio

nal P

uM

a

Org

anic P

uM

a

XX

X X X XX

X

X

XX

XX XX XX

X X

XX XX X

XXXXXXX X

XXXXXX

XXXXX

X X

XX

XXX

X

XXX X

XXXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXX

X XX

XXX

XXX

XXXXXX

XXXX

XX XX

25

I do not claim that this list is complete or exhaustive but it is surely sufficient to show

that the NPM can be traced back to a variety of theoretical origins which all may have

been influential on reformers. And it is sufficient to derive hypotheses 2 from it: The

formula „NPM is public choice + ´managerialism´“ is seriously incomplete. The NPM

can be traced back to influences of public choice theory, management theory, classical

public administration, neoclassical public administration, policy analysis, principal

agent theory, property rights theory, the neo-austrian school, transaction cost

economics, and the NPA and its following approaches. Individuals who were active in

practical reforms may have been influenced by any of these approaches.

6. Is the NPM new? Is it a paradigm change?

On the basis of the findings of section 4 and 5 we can easily answer the open questions

now and derive the hypotheses 3: A lot of the theoretical origins of or influences on the

NPM are not new. Some can even be traced back to the times of the progressives and

are almost a hundred years old.

But this finding has to be qualified in hypotheses 4: Although some individual

characteristics are rather old there where never reforms (for example like that in new

Zealand or Phoenix/Ar.) where these elements where put together in one reform

movement. Therefore the „mix“ of measures which make up the NPM is certainly new.

The same is true for the practical use of some characteristics of the NPM. Although

theoretically old, some ideas where practically tested (large scale) for the first time with

the NPM, for example the reform ideas of public choice scholars.

So there is left the question whether the NPM is a paradigm change.

The term paradigm was invented by Kuhn (1976) in his path breaking work „The

Structure of Scientific Revolutions“. Kuhn described paradigms as concrete examples

for the solution of scientific problems and specified this thought later by saying that a

paradigm is the disciplinary system of a science and consists of laws and definitions,

metaphysical orientation hypotheses, values and concrete examples (Kuhn 1976, p.

194ff.).

26

Thus a paradigm is something the scientists of a discipline agree on and that guides their

research. A mature science is characterized by its paradigm and as long as the so called

normal science goes on researchers work within their paradigm to solve the open riddles

of their discipline. According to Kuhn this work of normal science is disturbed from

time to time. This happens when the researchers find facts which don´t fit into their

paradigm and which can not be explained by it. Kuhn calls such facts anomalies and

such a situation an intellectual crisis. The crisis leads towards the situation where

researchers begin to search for solutions outside of their paradigm until new laws,

definitions, orientation hypotheses, values and examplary solutions are found which can

explain the anomaly and have the power to convince the other scientists. If this happens

and everybody in a science agrees on the new disciplinary system a new paradigm is

„installed“ and serves as research guide – a paradigm change has happened.

From this description of Kuhns paradigm term and the model we found in section 4 we

can derive the following hypotheses 5: The new public management is not a new

paradigm for the political administrative sciences. The scientists of the political

administrative sciences are far away from any agreement about a disciplinary system.

But what about the individual sciences? Hypotheses 6 states: Almost none of the

poilitical administrative sciences has a paradigm. Most of them share no unified and

agreed upon disciplinary system. Public administration is multiple split, public

management is fragmented, and the same is true for policy analysis. All of them are

characterized by the simultaneous existence of rationalistic, individualistic and

emancipatoric approaches within their boundaries. Therefore they are wasting a lot of

time with methodological quarrels and are not doing normal science. The only group of

scientists that could claim the possession of a paradigm, that pursues normal science,

and that progresses with a comparatively high speed are those which belong to the

modern institutional economics.

Even if one goes as far as to state that the NPM is a new concrete example for the

solution of administrative problems one can easily see that it is far from being agreed

on. There are heavy quarrels about the fact wether it is useful or suitable or „the right

answer. This has to do with the fact that practical developments like the NPM are not

just questions of facts and explanation but of values, too. And that brings me to one of

27

the main points I found in my research: In my opinion there is not even hope for a new

paradigm to gain a foothold. As we see in the model of the political administrative

sciences the worldviews of researchers in the political administrative sciences are

closely tied to values. And certain basic values will never cease to move the hearts of

people. There will always be some idealists who have a strong preference for

community, their will always be defenders of individual freedom, and their will always

be technically minded people who want to order the world in terms of technique. So

there is no hope that certain scientific positions become outdated (like in the natural

sciences) and die out. The flames of the three scientific worldviews one can identifiy in

the political administrative sciences will burn forever and there will always be some

ardent supporters of one or the other value – therefore there is no hope for unity or a

paradigm.

Hypotheses 7: It is highly improbable that there will ever be a unified paradigm for the

political-administrative sciences. Therefore it is highly questionable whether Kuhns

model that was developed for natural sciences has any use to understand the political

administrative sciences. As long as values and not facts make up a good deal of the

„scientific“ quarrels of the respective disciplines paradigms and paradigm changes are

not a valid description of the scientific development in this area.

Hypotheses 8: A better model to understand the situation of the political administrative

sciences that can be drawn from the natural sciences is the conception of scientific

anarchism of Feyerabend.

As Feyerabend states their are different scientific worldviews or disciplinary systems

existing parallelly and the decision of the individual reseacher to join one of them

depends on individual character traints, beliefs, values and so on and no disciplinary

system can a priori claim a greater worth or even the only way towards „turth“. Seen

from this perspective the scientist has the possibility to choose and „anything goes“

(Andersson 1988).

8. Other findings

On the basis of these findings there are some more conclusions possible.

28

Hypotheses 9: Decisions about administrative structures are political questions and are

closely related to political philosophy.

Hypotheses 10: Seen from this perspective the NPM is a current mix of values that

seems to fit the situation and solves current administrative problems as well as currently

possible but it will not last forever. There will come other problem situations and their

will come new reform waves which will reform the NPM-oriented structures.

What I want to stress in the end is that all this should not be interpreted as a statement

for or against the NPM. It is an analysis of its basics and of the sciences which are

related to it - but nothing more. All these findings are totally irrelevant regarding the

question whether it is good, suitable or the „right answer“. Thus an argument against the

NPM like: „Look, it is made of different parts which are based on incommensurable

theories. Therefore we mustn´t invent it.“ is misguided. What we see is that science and

disciplinary systems are exactly that: science. The world of science and theory is

detached from practice though they influence each other via recommendations and

empirical findings or facts. But scientists search for truth and practicioners search for

solutions. And while different scientific worldviews are usually incommensurable it is

surely possible to mix practical solutions which are preferred from the perspective of

different scientists – the NPM is a living confirmation of this. Therefore the assessment

of practical and scientific commensurability or compatibility belong to different levels

of discussion.

Unfortunately, this implies that the findings of this paper are practically completely

irrelevant – this paper assessed a practical movement from a scientific perspective and

there are no conclusions which point towards right answers or solutions for practical

problems. What the paper shows is that the assessment of the attractivity of the NPM

will usually highly depend on the values of the assessor and only partly on hypotheses

about causes and effects. Unfortunately, scientists are most of the time not fair enough

to each other and to their practical coworkers and audience to admit that. Therefore

value judgements and political statements about the „right way“ are often masked as

scientific truths.

29

Perhaps the practical consequences of this paper may lie in making researchers aware to

their methodological and other (very personal) choices and to reflect on them – and it

may encourage a discussion about the theoretical origins (or even field studies to test its

hypotheses) that goes a little bit deeper than „public choice + ´managerialism´“. Perhaps

it may even contribute to the understandig of the NPM. The other practical consequence

that the paper may have is a hopeless cause: Scientists should separate their scientific

statements about politics, their disciplinary self-interest (e.g. covering the public service

from bureaucrat-bashing), and their search for truth explicitly. This cause is hopeless for

two reasons. First, a lot of scientists (from the emancipatoric area) do not agree to the

separation of fact and value and will therefore deliberately go on to mix them. Second,

scientists have to compete for research money and the one who talks the „hype“ often

makes it. Therefore, modest approaches to science have a serious disadvantage in the

competition for money. So things will stay as they are, because as they are they fit into

the self-interest and the worldviews of scientists.

Abstract

The article described the characteristics of the NPM and gave a cursory overview about

the development of the political-administratiave sciences which can be seen in a relation

with the NPM. Then a descriptive model of the political administrative sciences was

developed that states the existence of three consistent scientific worldviews which are

incommensurable to each other. On this basis it was stated that the theoretical origins of

the NPM can be traced back to a variety of theoretical perspectives with a long history.

Nevertheless, the special mix of the characteritic features of the NPM is new. Another

finding of the article is that the NPM does not lead towards a paradigm change and that

it is highly improbable that there will ever be one.

Literature

Anderson, James A. (1975), Public Policy-Making, Praeger Publishers 1975.

Andersson, Gunnar (1988), Kritik und Wissenschaftsgeschichte - Kuhns, Lakatos´ und Feyerabends

Kritik des kritischen Rationalismus, Tuebingen 1988, Mohr.

Appleby, Paul H. (1947), Toward Better Public Administration, in: PAR, 7. Jvol 1947, p. 93-99.

30

Arnold, Peri E. (1995), Reform´s Changing Role, in: PAR, 55. vol. 1995, p. 407-417.

Aucoin, Peter (1990), Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes

and Pendulums, in: Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 3. Vol., 1990, p.

115-137.

Aucoin, Peter (1995), the new public management - Canada In Comparative Perspective, Montreal 1995,

Institute for Research and Public Policy (IRPP).

Borins, Sandford (1994), Government In Transition: A New Paradigm in Public Administration - A

Report On The Inaugural Conference Of CAPAM The Commonwealth Association For Public

Administration And Management, Toronto 1994, CAPAM.

Barber, Benjamin (1994), Starke Demokratie - Ueber die Teilhabe am Politischen, Hamburg 1994,

Rotbuch Verlag. In Original: Strong Democracy.

Borins, Sandford (1995), The new public management is here to stay, in: Canadian Public

Administration, 38. vol. 1995, p. 122-132.

Boston, Jonathan/Martin, John/Pallot, June/Walsh, Pat (1996), Public Management: The New Zealand

Model, Auckland et al. 1996, Oxford University Press.

Bozeman, Barry (1991a), Introduction: Two Concepts of Public Management, in: Bozeman, Barry

(editors), Public Management - The State of the Art, San Francisco 1991, Jossey-Bass, p. 1-5.

Bozeman, Barry (1991b), Theory, ´Wisdom´, And The Character Of Knowledge In Public Management:

A Critical View Of The Theory-Practice Linkage, in: Bozeman, Barry (editor), Public Management - The

State of the Art, San Francisco 1991, Jossey-Bass, p. 27-39.

Buchanan, James M. (1986), Liberty, Market and State - Political Economy in the 1980s, Brighton

(Sussex) 1986, Harvester Press.

Buchanan, James M. (1984), Die Grenzen der Freiheit - Zwischen Anarchie und Leviathan, Tuebingen

1984, Mohr. In Original: The Limits of Liberty. Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago/London 1975,

University of Chicago Press.

Buchanan, James M./Tullock, Gordon (1962), The Calculus Of Consent - Logical Foundations of

Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor 1962, University of Michigan Press.

Burns, Tom/Stalker G.M. (1971), Mechanistische und organische Systeme des Managements, in: Renate

Mayntz (editor), Buerokratische Organisation, Koeln - Berlin 1971, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, p. 147-154.

Buschor, Ernst/Schedler, Kuno (editors), Perspectives on performance measurment and public sector

accounting, Bern u.a. 1994, Haupt.

Buschor, Enrst (1994), Introduction: From Advanced Public Accounting Via Performance Measurement

To New Public Management, in: Ernst Buschor/Kuno Schedler (editors), Perspectives on performance

measurment and public sector accounting, Bern u.a. 1994, Haupt, S. VII-XVIII.

Campbell, Alan K. (1972), Old And New Public Administration In The 1970´s, in: PAR, 32. vol. 1972, p.

343-347.

Chandler, Ralph Clark (editor), A Centennial History of the American Administrative State, New York

und London 1987, The Free Press.

Coleman, James S. (1995), Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie, Band 1, Handlungen und Handlungssysteme,

Muenchen/Wien 1995, Oldenbourg. In Original: Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge (Mass.) 1990,

Harvard University Press.

Cooper, Terry L. (1991), An Ethic Of Citizenship For Public Administration, Englewood Cliffs (New

Jersey) 1991, Prentice Hall.

31

Demsetz, Harold (1967), Toward A Theory Of Property Rights, in: American Economic Review, 57. vol.

1967, p. 347-359.

Downs, Anthony (1994), Inside Bureaucracy, 1966 Rand Corporation - Republished, Prospect Heights

1994, Waveland Press.

Downs, Anthony (1968), Oekonomische Theorie der Demokratie, Tuebingen 1968, Mohr. In Original: An

Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper & Brothers 1957.

Drucker, Peter F. (1962), Praxis des Management - Ein Leitfaden fuer die Fuehrungs-Aufgaben in der

modernen Wirtschaft, 3. Auflage, Düsseldorf 1962, Econ. In Original: The Practice of Management,

Harper & Brothers, New York.

Drucker, Peter F. (1969), Die Zukunft bewaeltigen - Aufgaben und Chancen im Zeitalter der

Ungewißheit, Duesseldorf 1969, Econ. In Original: The Age Of Discontinuity, New York 1968, Harper &

Row.

Dunsire, Andrew (1995), Administrative Theory In The 1980s: A Viewpoint, in: Public Administration,

73. vol. 1995, p. 17-40.

Egger, Rowland (1975), The Period of Crisis: 1933 to 1945, in: Mosher, Frederick C. (editor), American

Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, The University of Alabama Press, Alabama 1975, p. 49-96.

Eisenach, Eldon J. (1994), The Lost Promise Of Progressivism, Lawrence (Kansas) 1994, University

Press of Kansas.

Fox, Charles T./Miller, Hugh T. (1995), Postmodern Public Administration - Toward Discourse, SAGE,

Thousand Oaks u.a. 1995.

Golembiewski, Robert T. (1969), Organization Development in Public Agencies: Perspectives On Theory

And Practice, in: PAR 29. vol. 1969, p. 367-377.

Gore, Al jr. (1994), The New Job of the Federal Executive, in: PAR, 54. vol. 1994, p. 317-321.

Graicunas, V.A. (1937), Relationship In Orbanization, in: Gulick, Luther/Urwick, L.(editors), Papers on

the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York 1937, p. 189-195.

Greenhouse, Samuel M. (1966), The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System: Rationale, Language,

and Idea-Relationships, in: PAR, 26. vol. 1966, p. 271-277.

Gross, Bertram M. (1969), The New Systems Budgeting, in: PAR, 29. vol. 1969, p. 113-137.

Gulick, Luther/Urwick, L. (editors), Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New

York 1937.

Gulick, Luther (1937), Notes On The Theory Of Organization, in: Gulick, Luther/Urwick, Lyndall

(editors), Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York 1937, p. 1-45.

Harmon, Michael M./Mayer, Richard T. (1986), Organization Theory For Public Administration, Boston

und Toronto 1986, Little, Brown And Company.

Harmon, Michael M. (1971), Normative Theory and public Administration: Some suggestions for a

Redefinition of Administrative Responsibility, in: Marini, Frank (editor), Toward a New Public

Administration - The Minnowbrook Perspective, Scranton u.a. 1971, Chandler Publishing, p. 172-185.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1991), Die Verfassung der Freiheit, 3. edition, Tübingen 1991, Mohr. In

Original: The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago 1960, University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1969), Freiburger Studien - Gesammelte Aufsaetze von F.A. von Hayek,

Tuebingen 1969, Mohr.

Henry, Nicholas (1975), Paradigms of Public Administration, in: PAR, 25. vol. 1975, p. 378-386.

32

Henry, Gary T. (1990), Program Evaluation, in: Whicker, Marcia Lynn/Areson, Todd W. (editors), Public

Sector Management, New York et al. 1990, Praeger, p. 113-128.

Hood, Christopher (1991), A Public Management For All Seasons?, in: Public Administration, 69. vol.

1991, p. 3-19.

Kamensky, John M. (1996), Role of the ´Reinventing Government´ Movement in Federal Management

Reform, in: PAR, 56. vol. 1996, p. 247-255.

Kramer, Fred A. (1987), Changing Public Bureaucracy: Values and Organization - Management

Theories, in: Chandler, Ralph Clark (editor), A Centennial History of the American Administrative State,

New York und London 1987, The Free Press, p. 417-431.

Kelly, Marisa/Maynard-Moody, Steven (1993), Policy Analysis in the Post-Positivist Era: Engaging

Stakeholders in Evaluating the Economic Development Districts Program, in: PAR, 53. vol. 1993, p. 135-

142.

Kotler, Philip (1978), Marketing für Nonprofit-Organisationen, Stuttgart 1978, C.E. Poeschel Verlag. In

Original: Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, Englewood Cliffs 1975, Prentice Hall.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1976), Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen, 2. Revidierte und um das

Postskriptum von 1969 ergaenzte Auflage, Frankfurt am Main 1976, Suhrkamp. Im Original: The

Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, University of Chicago.

La Porte, Todd R. (1971), The Recovery of Relevance in the Study of Public Organization, in: Marini,

Frank (editor), Toward a New Public Administration - The Minnowbrook Perspective, Scranton u.a.

1971, Chandler Publishing, p. 17-48.

Lee, Eliza Wing-yee (1995), Political Science, Public Administration, and the Rise of the American

Administrative State, in: PAR, 55. vol. 1995, p. 538-546.

Lerner, Allan W./Wanat, John (1992), Public Administration - A Realistic Reinterpretation of

Contemporary Public Management, Englewood Cliffs 1992, Prentice Hall.

Lueder, Klaus (1996), "Triumph des Marktes im oeffentlichen Sektor?" - Einige Anmerkungen zur

aktuellen Verwaltungsreformdiskussion, in: Die oeffentliche Verwaltung, 49. Vol. 1996, p. 93-100.

Lynn, Laurence E. Jr. (1996), Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession, Chatham (New Jersey)

1996, Chatham House Publishers.

Marini, Frank (editor), Toward a New Public Administration - The Minnowbrook Perspective, Scranton

u.a. 1971, Chandler Publishing.

Marini, Frank (1971), The Minnowbrook Perspective and the Future of Public Administration Education,

in: Marini, Frank (editor), Toward a New Public Administration - The Minnowbrook Perspective,

Scranton u.a. 1971, Chandler Publishing, p. 346-367.

Mayntz, Renate (editor), Buerokratische Organisation, Koeln - Berlin 1971, Kiepenheuer & Witsch.

McGregor, Douglas, Der Mensch im Unternehmen, Duesseldorf 1973, Econ Verlag. Im Original: The

Human Side of Enterprise.

Milakovich, Michael E. (1991), Total Quality Management in the Public Sector, in: National Productivity

Review, 10. vol. 1991, p. 195-213.

Mises, Ludwig von (1983), Bureaucracy, Spring Mills 1994, Libertarian Press, (originally: 1944, Yale

University Press).

Mosher, Frederick C. (editor), American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, The University of

Alabama Press, Alabama 1975.

33

Mooney, James D. (1937), The Principles Of Organization, in: Gulick, Luther/Urwick, L.(editors), Papers

on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York 1937, p. 89-98.

Moore, Mark H. (1995), Creating Public Value - Strategic Management In Government, Cambridge

(Mass.) and London 1995, Harvard University Press.

Murray, Michael A. (1975), Comparing Public and Private Management: An Exploratory Essay, in: PAR,

35. vol. 1975, p. 364-371.

Nagel, Stuart S. (1980), The Policy-Studies Handbook, Lexington (Mass.) and Toronto 1980, Lexington

Books.

Naschold, Frieder/Oppen, Maria/Tondorf, Karin/ Wegener, Alexander (1995), Neue Staedte braucht das

Land - Public Governance: Strukturen, Prozesse und Wirkungen kommunaler Innovationsstrategien in

Europa - Eine Projektskizze, Berlin 1995, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.

Niskanen, William A. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago - New York 1971,

Aldine-Atherton.

OECD (1995), Governance In Transition - Public Management Reforms In OECD Countries, Paris 1995.

Osborne, David E./Gaebler, Ted (1993), Reinventing Government - How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is

Transforming the Public Sector, New York 1993, Penguin.

Ostrom, Vincent/Bish, Frances Pennell (editors), Comparing Urban Service Delivery Systems - Structure

and Performance, Beverly Hills und London 1977, SAGE.

Ostrom, Vincent/Ostrom, Elinor (1971), Public Choice: A Different Approach to the Study Of Public

Administration, in: PAR, 31. vol. 1971, p. 203-216.

Ostrom, Vincent (1973), The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, The University of

Alabama Press, Alabama 1973.

Ostrom, Vincent (1977), Structure and Performance, in: Ostrom, Vincent/Bish, Frances Pennell (editors),

Comparing Urban Service Delivery Systems - Structure and Performance, Beverly Hills und London

1977, SAGE, p. 19-44.

Parsons, Wayne (1995), Public Policy - An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis,

Cheltenham and Lyme 1995, Edward Elgar.

Peters, Thomas J./Waterman, Robert H. (1982), In Search Of Excellence - Lessons from America´s Best-

Run Companies, New York u.a. 1982, Harper and Row.

Pratt, John W./Zeckhauser Richard J. (editors), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston

(Massachusetts) 1984, Harvard Business School Press.

Pratt, John W. (1984), Principals and Agents: An Overview, in: Pratt, John W./Zeckhauser Richard J.

(editors), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston (Massachusetts) 1984, Harvard

Business School Press, p. 1-35.

Reichard, Christoph (1996), Die `New Public Management`-Debatte im internationalen Kontext, in:

Reichard, Christoph/Wollmann, Hellmut (editors), Kommunalverwaltung im Modernisierungsschub?,

Basel u.a. 1996, Birkhaeuser, p. 241-274.

Reichard, Christoph/Wollmann, Hellmut (editors), Kommunalverwaltung im Modernisierungsschub?,

Basel u.a. 1996, Birkhaeuser.

Reinermann, Heinrich (1995), Ergebnisorientierte Fuehrung und Schlanke Verwaltung - Schlagwoerter

oder Herausforderungen fuer die oeffentliche Verwaltung? (Teil 1), in: Verwaltung und Management, 1.

vol. 1995, Sonderdruck, p. 5-9.

Reichard, Christoph (1992), Kommunales Management im internationalen Vergleich, in: der staedtetag

34

1992, p. 843-848.

Rohr, John A. (1978), Ethics for Bureaucrats - An Essay on Law and Values, New York und Basel 1978,

Marcel Dekker.

Rohr, John A. (1986), To Run A Constitution - The Legitimacy Of The Administrative State, Lawrence

1986, University Press of Kansas.

Savas, Emanual S. (1982), Privatizing The Public Sector - How to Shrink Government, Chatham 1982,

Chatham House Publishers.

Schachter, Hindy Lauer (1989), Frederick Taylor and the Public Administration Community - A

Reevaluation, Albany (N.Y) 1989, State University Of New York Press.

Schedler, Kuno (1995), Zur Vereinbarkeit von wirkungsorientierter Verwaltungsfuehrung und

Demokratie, in: Swiss Political Science Review, 1. vol. 1995, p. 154-166.

Schein, Edgar H. (1965), Organizational Psychology, Englewood Cliffs 1965, Prentice-Hall.

Schick, Allen (1966), The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Refrom, in: PAR, 26. vol. 1966, p. 243-

258.

Schick, Allen (1969), Systems Politics And Systems Budgeting, in: PAR 29. vol. 1969, p. 137-151.

Schick, Allen (1973), A Death in the Bureaucracy: The Demise of Federal PPB, in: PAR, 33. vol. 1973,

p. 146-156.

Schubert, Glendon A. (1957), “The Public Interest“ In Administrative Decision-Making: Theorem,

Theosophy, Or Theory?, in: The American Political Science Review, 51. vol. 1957, p. 346-368.

Sherwood, Frank P./Page, William J.(1976), MBO And Public Management, in: PAR, 36. vol. 1976, p. 5-

12.

Simon, Herbert A. (1976), Administrative Behavior - A Study of Decision-making in Administrative

Organization, 3. edition, New York 1976, The Free Press.

Simon, Herbert A./Smithburg, Donald W./Thompson, Victor A. (1962), Public Administration, 7. edition,

New York 1962, Alfred Knopf.

Stewart, John/Walsh, Kieron (1992), Change In The Management Of Public Services, in: Public

Administration, 70. vol. 1992, p. 499-518.

Stone, Alice B./Stone Donald C. (1975), Early Development of Education in Public Administration, in:

Mosher, Frederick C. (editor), American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, The University of

Alabama Press, Alabama 1975, p.11-48.

Subramaniam, V. (1963), Fact and Value in Decision Making, in: PAR, 23. vol. 1963, p. 232-237

Swiss, James E. (1992), Adapting Total Quality Management (TQM) to Government, in: PAR, 52. vol.

1992, p. 356-362.

Tullock, Gordon (1965), The Politics Of Bureaucracy, Wahington 1965, Public Affairs Press.

Urwick, L. (1937), Organization As A Technical Problem, in: Gulick, Luther/Urwick, L.(editors), Papers

on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York 1937, p. 47-88.

Van Riper, Paul P. (1987), The American Administrative State: Wilson and the Founders, in: Chandler,

Ralph Clark (editor), A Centennial History of the American Administrative State, New York und London

1987, The Free Press, p. 3-36.

35

Waldo, Dwight (1948), The Administrative State - A Study of The Political Theory Of American Public

Administration, The Ronald Press Company, New York 1948.

Waldo, Dwight (1965), The Administrative State Revisited, in: PAR, 25. vol. 1965, p. 5-30.

Waldo, Dwight (1968), Public Administration In A Time Of Revolutions, in: PAR, Heft 4, 28. vol. 1968,

p. 362-368.

Waldo, Dwight (1969), A Symposium - Planning-Programming-Budgeting System Reexamined:

Development, Analysis, and Criticism, in: PAR, 29. vol. 1969, p. 111-112.

Wamsley, Gary L./Bacher, Robert N./Goodsell, Charles T./Kronenberg, Philip S./Rohr, John A./Stivers,

Camilla M./White, Orion F./Wolf, James F. (editors), Refounding Public Administration, Newbury Park

u.a. 1990, SAGE.

Weber, Max (1956), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 2. Halbband

Wechsler, Barton/Backoff, Robert W. (1986), Policy Making and Administration in State Agencies:

Strategic Management Approaches, in: PAR, 46. vol. 1986, p. 321-327.

Whicker, Marcia Lynn/Areson, Todd W. (editors), Public Sector Management, New York et al. 1990,

Praeger.

White, Orion F. jr. (1971), Social Change and Administrative Adaptation, in: Marini, Frank (editor),

Toward a New Public Administration - The Minnowbrook Perspective, Scranton u.a. 1971, Chandler

Publishing, p. 59-83.

Williamson, Oliver E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications - A Study in

the Economics of Internal Organization, New York 1975, The Free Press.