The Third Wave of Public Administration: The New Public Governance

[a]School of Public Affairs， University of Science and Technology of China， Hefei， China.

[b]School of Accounting and Finance， The Hong Kong Polytechnic University， Hongkong， China.

*Corresponding author.

Received 7 April 2015; accepted 11 June 2015

Published online 26 July 2015

Abstract

Along with the development of the contemporary society， the western public sector began to set off a upsurge of “new public administration”， which changed the paradigm of the field of public administration from “the new public management” to “the new public governance”. “The new public governance” as a new paradigm of public administration， provided not only a new research framework for theory research， but also a new mode of practice for the modern government of public affairs management. This article reviewed the content and characteristics contribution and problems， as well as the reference and revelation of “the new public governance” paradigm， and it had important reference value and significance especially for deepening China’s current reform of administrative system and building the theory system of public management and public administration.

Key words： New public governance; New public management; Public administration.

Xu， R. Y.， Sun， Q. G.， & Si， W. （2015）. The Third Wave of Public Administration： The New Public Governance. Canadian Social Science， 11（7）， <Page>-0. Available from： http：///index.php/css/article/view/7354

DOI： http：///10.3968/7354

INTRODUCTION

In the eighties of the 20th century， the movement of public change initiated by western government departments made the New Public Management paradigm， which made great contribution to the government management and the public administration science at that time. However， with the rise of civil society and the deepening of social diversity process， “the New Public Management” paradigm was questioned by the public administration field and the practices of government public sectors， leading to the formation of “the New Public Governance” paradigm. The paradigm， whose theoretical source was sociology of organization and social network， had important significance to reform of our country current administrative system and construction and perfection of public administration theory system.

1. THE BASIC CONNOTATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW PUBLIC GOVERNANCE

After the emergence of “the New Public Management”， “the New Public Governance” was a theoretical paradigm that more adapted to the contemporary government public administration. The latter one was not a small change in reform of the transaction or the method of management， but a profound change in the government role and the relationship between government and civil society （Chen， 2000）. This profound change was a criticism of the traditional public administration theory which emphasized on impersonalization and institutionalization and rigorous logic specification. The traditional theory of public administration was a political creation of mechanized mass production period and greatly improved the efficiency of the work at that time. “The New Public Management” was theoretically based on traditional economic and enterprise management. It was different from the linear structure hierarchical bureaucracy， emphasizing the dual structure of the government and the market. However， this dual structure focused too much on the market power in the allocation of social resources and solving the problem of public， but it ignored the effect of other organizations in the public administration. “The New Public Governance”， as the new paradigm of public administration science， emphasized pluralism， attached great importance to the links between internal and external organizations， and paid attention to organizational governance. “The New Public Governance” paradigm had different names， such as “the New Public Governance” （Osborne， 2006）， “New Governance” （Rhodes， 1996）， and “Public Governance” （Skelcher， 2005） etc.. Although these names were different， but basically they all showed a trend that a change from the new public management theory and practice to the new public governance theory and practice， and this trend was seemed as the emergence of a new paradigm of the New Public Governance.

1.1 The Traditional Public Administration， the New Public Management， the New Public Service， and the New Public Governance

Originated in the late 19th century， the Traditional Public Administration reached its peak at “Welfare British” after 1945. At that time developed countries considered it was a public administration management theory system which can satisfy all the needs of society， but it has come into end in about 100 years with the change of time. After the criticism from academia （Ostrom & Ostrom， 1971; Dunleavy， 1985）， criticism came from the political elites that traditional Public Administration was not suitable for the development of the public sector （Mischra， 1984）.

The key elements of the traditional public administration can be defined as the following points：

Comply with the standardized procedures

Separation of thinking and action

The separation of policy formulation and implementation

Political and administrative dichotomy

The government takes charge in public product

As a historian of administrative， Dwight Waldo thought that Weber’s bureaucracy agencies would be replaced by a more democratic and flexible organization in the future world. Rhodes （1997） thought that traditional Public Administration has become a “bystander” to the New Public Management， paving the way for the rise of the New Public Management.

When traditional Public Administration theory failed to provide effective theoretical guidance for the contemporary government management， the western developed countries carried out a government management mode movement， known as “the New Public Management”. It started with the “small government” and “financial management innovation”， carried out by the Thatcher government in 1980s， and followed “the Citizens’ Charter Movement” of the Major government and “the Third Way” of the Blair government etc.. These British government reforms were trying to further the role of market. Thatcher thought the superiority of private sector management techniques can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of products and services provided by public organizations.

One of the most representative theories of the new public management theory system was “the Entrepreneurial Government” proposed by Osborne and Gaebler （1993） in “Reform of the Government”.

They thought that the key elements of new public management can be summarized as the following points：

The task of the government is steering instead of rowing

Put competition mechanism into service

The government should pay more attention to job performance

The object of government service is “customer”

Government should meet the needs of customers， not the need of bureaucracy

Government decentralization： from hierarchical to participation and collaboration

The government should treat market as guidance

As “the New Public Management” theory excessively pursued efficiency and entrepreneurship， scholars in field of public administration began to question and criticized “the New Public Management”， including that the new public management had different role depended on the audiences， included ideology， management， and research role （Dawson & Dargie， 1999）; the use of the new public management theory was limited to countries such as Britain，the United States， Australia， and northern Europe， while the old public administration was still dominant in other countries （Kickert， 1997）; and in fact， due to the lack of real theoretical basis and rigorous， the concept of new public management was seen as a branch of the old public administration theory （Frederickson & Smith， 2003）.

Some critics argued that the New Public Management mistaken the object of government as “customer” instead of “citizen”. Critics are represented by Robert Denhardt proposed the theory of “New Public Service”. Its critique to the New Public Management included the following points： a） To serve citizens rather than customers， b） Public interest was a goal rather than a by-product， c） Attached great importance to the citizenship more than entrepreneurial spirit， d） Strategic thinking and democratic action， e） Responsibility was not simple， f） Service， not steer， g） Attached great importance to the people， not just focused on productivity （Denhardt & Denhardt， 2002）.

Since the establishment of “the New Public Service Theory” was based on the criticism of the theory of new public management， its theory source was thin and lack of originality， which made it was hard to survive and developed under the complex Chinese public management background. Domestic scholars criticized it on its basis of the research and application， including the theoretical paradigm， research objects， theoretical content and form， etc.. Zhou Yicheng （2006） didn’t think that the New Public Service was novel and Yuan Nianxing （2013） thought that under the social risk， the new public service theory paradigm revealed the morals crisis behind plight of democracy.

In the 1960s， Warren G. Bennis predicted that there would be an adaptive and rapid temporary organization system. These organizations were task teams， composed of relative strangers who had different background and skills and were arranged according to the problem to be solved. This prophecy has been gradually evolved into the “New Public Governance” paradigm. So， what were content and characteristics of “the New Public Administration” paradigm？ The western public management scholars and practitioners had different summary and description： According to the Rhodes in the “The New Governance： Governing without Government”， “governance” has gradually replaced the “government” and it involved in six different usages： Smallest country， common governance， new public management， good governance， social ecological system， self-organizing networks. At the same time， Rhodes （1996） emphasized that “governance” was a process that market and third sectors participated in public products and services with government. In the book “the New Public Governance “， Stephen P. Osborne （2009） summed up the “New Public Governance” was based on organizational sociology and social network theory， had the characteristics of pluralism， paid attention to the management of organizations， emphasized the process and results of service， used trust as governance mechanism， and had value of neo-corporatism. In Governance as theory： ?ve propositions， Gerry Stoker 1999） made five brief introduction to “the New Public Governance”. a） The government was not the only power centre. Various public and private institutions as long as their authority of power were recognized by the public， they can be power centers on different levels. b） Paid attention to public responsibility transfer trend that from the government to the non-governmental organizations and individuals. c） Public administration main bodies depended on each other. d） This power dependency must form a self-organization network. e） The governments needed to pass new tools to coordinate and integrate social resources， instead of using the authority and command. The Global Governance Committee （1995） considered that governance was sum of methods that a variety of public or private organizations managed their common affairs. It was a continuous process that coordinates different interest subjects that conflicted with each other， and it included both the formal and informal rules and regulations. The United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Committee （2010）considered that good governance should include eight major characteristics that were participation， consensus， responsibility， transparency and response， effective and efficient， fair， no rejecting to any groups or individuals， the rule of law. “The New Public Management” was a negotiation based on all interest subjects’ consent on improvement of public policy and governance principle which were executed and regularly evaluated by interest subjects.

Table 1

Comparison Among the Traditional PA， NPM， NPS and NPG

Traditional public administration and management New public management New public service New public governance

Value orientation Regime & procedure Efficiency Democracy Democracy & efficiency

Theoretical basis Bureaucratic system， political & administrative dichotomy Economics theory， management philosophy of private sector Democratic citizenship， civic society， humanistic theory of organization， postmodern administrative theory Contractualism， integrity theory， collectivism

Behavior Policy-making & execution-separating，centralized government Government service outsourcing & marketing Cultivation of government service spirit， cooperation with third sector Citizen independence， public deliberation， polycentric governance

Role of citizen Leader Customer By the service of the citizens Participate in decision

Research method Institutionalism research method Positivism research method Humanism research method Collectivism research method

1.2 Governance， Public Governance， New Public Governance

The word “governance” has existed for thousands of years. Since the 1990s， western scholars from all over the world have put forward five main points of views of governance. （a） The main body of governance was not limited to the government and other public sector， but also included social public institutions and other actors. （b） The bound of governance was uncertainty， while the responsibility was obscure. （c） Governance was a respect for diversity of subjects， methods， contents， and tools， etc.. （d） Management meant a self-organizing network， and interaction between interests subjects in the network. （e） Governance depended on the will of cooperation and trusted to each other.

The Public Governance was a kind of administration mode that the governance body ，such as the government， social organizations and the private sector， governance public affairs through consultation， negotiation and other democratic way. Tony Bovaird （2003） thought that “Public Goverance” was a kind of interaction among interests subjects to influence public policy effect. The connotation of the Public Governance was smaller than that of Governance. It emphasized on “public” but the “public” here did not mean publicness of the governance body but that of content of governance， emphasizing on public resources configuration， struggled for public interest and public affairs management.

The New Public Governance was relative to the New Public Management and the New Public Service， and the “new” was reflected by how transition of the governance concept adapted to modern social public affairs. The Public Governance focused on the allocation and management of public resources， and the New Public Governance did more on the collective effects of thinking and behavior of individual citizens. The New Public Governance covered many management concepts such as “polycentric governance”， “electronic government”， “multi-level governance”， “global governance” and “regional governance” and “organizational governance”. In conclusion， we defined the New Public Governance as an administration mode that pluralistic governance body， which included the government， the private sector， non-profit organizations and a series of social groups， consulted and negotiated to adapt to the changing social affairs.

1.3 The Six Characteristics of the New Public Governance

According to the generalization of scholars and other new public governance information， we summarized the theoretical connotation or paradigm features of “the New Public Governance” as the following six aspects.

Firstly， the New Public Governance emphasizes the dispersion of power. According to “the New Public Governance”， in addition to the government and the market， other organizations in the society also have the right to participate in public affairs management， and at the same time have the decision right to participate in solving public problems. Over the several past decades， the government has relatively concentrated right of management to public affairs and ignored the right other public or private organizations to participate in， making problems involving public interests failed to be properly solved. The division of government is based on democracy. Administrators have to decide to what extent to share public influence with the public， who will participate in public decision-making process and what kind of particular form to choose citizens.

Secondly， the New Public Governance stresses the coordination of the government. For a long time the government has been regarded as the center of the public administration， from policy formulation to implementation. The New Public Governance tries to turn the government from paternalism to a coordinator and from “big government” to small one， and coordinates more social interests， builds dialogue platform， and integrates public resources. In other words， administrators and the public negotiate and try to reach a consensus. Only the government continuously enhances its coordinating role， then it can ensure mostly satisfy various demands from different interests subjects， gain more information and collect the power from all aspects to solve complex social problems.