Answer:
APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
1. Start by introducing post-NPM models.
2. Write some basics about post-NPM models.
3. Then write about core ideas of NPM.
4. Then show how Post-NPM is moving away from those ideas.
5. Still NPM is retained by Post-NPM models.
6. Conclude.
INTRODUCTION: It was weaknesses of NPM which gave rise to the post-NPM developments.
BODY: Two public reform waves have been important in recent decades – New Public Management and post-New Public Management. Reform measures were taken in the late 1990s which altered the nature of NPM modes of governance due to the drawbacks of NPM. Towards the end of the 1990s, developed nations were said to have entered the digital era which led to a reintegration and digitization, and thus new forms of governance. This has led to conceptualisation of new models like
- Digital Era Governance,
- Whole of the Government Approach,
- New Public Governance by SP Osborne
- New Public Value Paradigm by Mark Moore,
- Network Governance by Stephen O’Toole
- New Weberian State by Pollitt
These are collectively called post NPM models.
Emergence of NPM resulted into a new paradigm in PA i.e paradigm-VI as per Nicholas Henry. NPM as a model emerged in 1990s which is also known as Re-inventing model. George Frederickson says it is seconder -invention of government. It brings paradigm shift in public administration in terms of techniques of operational management which state should apply to become efficient and performance oriented. However, a decade after its application NPM also came under fire for its lack of a real theoretical basis, for its questionable benefits and the practicality of applying private sector techniques to the public sphere. In this backdrop post-NPM Models like NPV, NPG, Network Governance emerged as alternative to NPM paradigm.
Core of NPM: market-led techniques, Neo-Taylorism, PCA, NRP/NLP in which managerialism is the core. It tries to solve the problems of PA by adopting managerial techniques. Its spirit lies in privatisation, entrepreneurship, facilitation, regulaion, treating people as customers and clients hence giving emphasis on performance accountability in place of democratic accountability. NPM tried to make PA more means-oriented and ends became more performance-oriented.
How Post-NPM models are taking away the core:
- NPM can be one of the means to achieve efficiency but not the only mean
- Ends of PA can’t be performance accountability or efficiency. Ends are more related with democratic accountability, public interest, public opinion and building trust. These features are incorporated by post-NPM models.
- PA can’t be guided by Business Management values. Rather it may be one such guide but not the only guide.
Post-NPM models have overcame the weaknesses of NPM. Towards the end of the 1990s,NPm came to be seen as one-dimensional, failing to be effective in the management and governance of health services and leading to fragmentation in the delivery of public services. The NPM paradigm was theoretically deficient and methodologically normative and hence it lacked empirical validity. It was not considered as an empirical paradigm in PA.
So, post-NPM models are taking away the core ideas of NPM but not completely shifting because one technique will always remain as NPM. Hence though post-NPM models took away the core of NPM and redefined the PA yet NPM always remains as one of the ingredients of these models.
CONCLUSION:
Mohit Bhattacharya has stated the three major of developments in PA
1. Max Weberian Bureaucracy
2. NPM
3. Network Governance
All in all, Post-NPM models brought back the epistemological foundation of PA that is democratic principles with restructuring of NPM.
Spread the Word