Robert B.

Denhardt
Janet Vinzant Denhardt
Arizona State University

The New Public Service:

Serving Rather than Steering

The New Public Management has championed a vision of public managers as the entrepre-
neurs of a new, leaner, and increasingly privatized government, emulating not only the prac-
tices but also the values of business. Proponents of the New Public Management have devel-
oped their arguments largely through contrasts with the old public administration. In this com-
parison, the New Public Management will, of course, always win. We argue here that the
better contrast is with what we call the New Public Service, a movement built on work in
democratic citizenship, community and civil society, and organizational humanism and dis-
course theory. We suggest seven principles of the New Public Service, most notably that the
primary role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interests
rather than to attempt to control or steer society.

Public management has undergone a revolution. Rather focus on their responsibility to serve and empower citi-
than focusing on controlling bureaucracies and delivering zens as they manage public organizations and implement
services, public administrators are responding to admon- public policy. In other words, with citizens at the forefront,
ishments to steer rather than row, and to be the entrepre- the emphasis should not be placed on either steering or
neurs of a new, leaner, and increasingly privatized govern- rowing the governmental boat, but rather on building pub-
ment. As a result, a number of highly positive changes have lic institutions marked by integrity and responsiveness.
been implemented in the public sector (Osborne and Gaebler
1992; Osborne and Plastrik 1997; Kettl 1993; Kettl and
Robert B. Denhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona
DiIulio 1995; Kettl and Milward 1996; Lynn 1996). But as State University and a visiting scholar at the University of Delaware. Dr.
the field of public administration has increasingly abandoned Denhardt is a past president of the American Society for Public Administra-
tion, and the founder and first chair of ASPAs National Campaign for Public
the idea of rowing and has accepted responsibility for steer- Service, an effort to assert the dignity and worth of public service across the
ing, has it simply traded one adminicentric view for an- nation. He is also a member of the National Academy of Public Administra-
other? Osborne and Gaebler write, those who steer the boat tion and a fellow of the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Dr.
Denhardt has published 14 books, including Theories of Public Organiza-
have far more power over its destination than those who tion, Public Administration: An Action Orientation, In the Shadow of Orga-
row it (1992, 32). If that is the case, the shift from rowing nization, The Pursuit of Significance, Executive Leadership in the Public Ser-
vice, and The Revitalization of the Public Service. He holds a doctorate from
to steering not only may have left administrators in charge the University of Kentucky. Email: [email protected]
of the boatchoosing its goals and directions and charting Janet Vinzant Denhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Ari-
a path to achieve themit may have given them more power zona State University. Her teaching and research interests lie primarily in or-
ganization theory and organizational behavior. Her book (with Lane Crothers),
to do so. Street-Level Leadership: Discretion and Legitimacy in Front-Line Public Service,
In our rush to steer, are we forgetting who owns the was recently published by the Georgetown University Press. In addition, Dr.
Denhardt has published numerous articles in journals such as Administration
boat? In their recent book, Government Is Us (1998), King and Society, American Review of Public Administration, Public Productivity
and Stivers remind us of the obvious answer: The govern- and Management Review, and Public Administration Theory and Praxis. Prior
ment belongs to its citizens (see also Box 1998; Cooper to joining the faculty at Arizona State, Dr. Denhardt taught at Eastern Wash-
ington University and served in a variety of administrative and consulting po-
1991; King, Feltey, and ONeill 1998; Stivers 1994a,b; sitions. She holds a doctorate from the University of Southern California. Email:
Thomas 1995). Accordingly, public administrators should [email protected]

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 549

Background public administration, which, despite its many important
As it is used here, the New Public Management re- contributions, has come to be seen as synonymous with
fers to a cluster of ideas and practices (including reinven- bureaucracy, hierarchy, and control. If that is the compari-
tion and neomanagerialism) that seek, at their core, to use son, the New Public Management will always win. We
private-sector and business approaches in the public sec- would like to suggest instead that the New Public Man-
tor. While there have long been calls to run government agement should be contrasted with what we term the New
like a business, the contemporary version of this debate Public Service, a set of ideas about the role of public ad-
in this country was sparked in the 1990s by President ministration in the governance system that places citizens
Clintons and Vice President Gores initiative to make at the center.
government work better and cost less. Modeled after con- While there have been many challenges to the New
cepts and ideas promoted in Osborne and Gaeblers 1992 Public Management and many alternative ideas promi-
book Reinventing Government (as well as managerialist nently advanced by scholars and practitioners, there have
efforts in a variety of other countries, especially Great Brit- been no attempts to organize these efforts and underscore
ain and New Zealand), the Clinton administration cham- their common themes. This article is an effort to do so.
pioned a variety of reforms and projects under the mantle First, it briefly summarizes the foundations and major ar-
of the National Performance Review. In part, what has dis- guments of the new public management as it contrasts with
tinguished these reforms and similar efforts at the state the old public administration. It then describes an alterna-
and local level, from older versions of the run-government- tive normative model we call the New Public Service.
like-a-business movement is that they involve more than This new model further clarifies the debate by suggesting
just using the techniques of business. Rather, the New Pub- new ways of thinking about the strengths and weaknesses
lic Management has become a normative model, one sig- of all three approaches. We conclude by considering the
naling a profound shift in how we think about the role of implications of placing citizens, citizenship, and the pub-
public administrators, the nature of the profession, and how lic interest at the forefront of a New Public Service.
and why we do what we do.
Yet many scholars and practitioners have continued to The New Public Management and the
express concerns about the New Public Management and Old Public Administration
the role for public managers this model suggests. For ex-
Over the past decade and a half, the New Public Man-
ample, in a recent Public Administration Review sympo-
agement (again, including the reinvention movement and
sium on leadership, democracy, and public management,
the new managerialism) has literally swept the nation and
a number of authors thoughtfully considered the opportu-
the world. The common theme in the myriad applications
nities and challenges presented by the New Public Man-
of these ideas has been the use of market mechanisms and
agement. Those challenging the New Public Management
terminology, in which the relationship between public agen-
in the symposium and elsewhere ask questions about the
cies and their customers is understood as based on self-
inherent contradictions in the movement (Fox 1996), the
interest, involving transactions similar to those occurring
values promoted by it (deLeon and Denhardt 2000;
in the marketplace. Public managers are urged to steer,
Frederickson 1996; Schachter 1997); the tensions between
not row their organizations, and they are challenged to
the emphasis on decentralization promoted in the market
find new and innovative ways to achieve results or to priva-
model and the need for coordination in the public sector
tize functions previously provided by government.
(Peters and Savoie 1996); the implied roles and relation-
In the past two decades, many public jurisdictions and
ships of the executive and legislative branches (Carroll and
agencies have initiated efforts to increase productivity
Lynn 1996); and the implications of the privatization move-
and to find alternative service-delivery mechanisms based
ment for democratic values and the public interest (McCabe
on public-choice assumptions and perspectives. Public
and Vinzant 1999). Others have suggested that public en-
managers have concentrated on accountability and high
trepreneurship and what Terry (1993, 1998) has called
performance and have sought to restructure bureaucratic
neomanagerialism threaten to undermine democratic and
agencies, redefine organizational missions, streamline
constitutional values such as fairness, justice, representa-
agency processes, and decentralize decision making. In
tion, and participation.
many cases, governments and government agencies have
We would like to suggest that, beyond these separate
succeeded in privatizing previously public functions,
critiques, what is missing is a set of organizing principles
holding top executives accountable for performance goals,
for an alternative to the New Public Management. We re-
establishing new processes for measuring productivity
ject the notion that the reinvented, market-oriented New
and effectiveness, and reengineering departmental sys-
Public Management should only be compared to the old
tems to reflect a strengthened commitment to account-

550 Public Administration Review November/December 2000, Vol. 60, No. 6

ability (Aristigueta 1999; Barzelay 1992; Boston et al. The New Public Management is not just the implemen-
1996; Kearns 1996). The effectiveness of this reform tation of new techniques, it carries with it a new set of
agenda in the United States, as well as in a number of values, specifically a set of values largely drawn from the
other countries, has put governments around the world private sector. As we have already noted, there is a long-
on notice that new standards are being sought and new standing tradition in public administration supporting the
roles established. idea that government should be run like a business. For
These ideas were crystallized and popularized by the most part, this recommendation has meant that gov-
Osborne and Gaeblers book, Reinventing Government ernment agencies should adopt practices, ranging from
(1992; see also Osborne and Plastrik 1997). Osborne and scientific management to total quality management,
Gaebler provided a number of now-familiar principles that have been found useful in the private sector. The New
through which public entrepreneurs might bring about Public Management takes this idea one step further, argu-
massive governmental reformideas that remain at the ing that government should not only adopt the techniques
core of the New Public Management. Osborne and Gaebler of business administration, but should adopt certain busi-
intended these principles to serve as a new conceptual or ness values as well. The New Public Management thus
normative framework for public administration, an ana- becomes a normative model for public administration and
lytical checklist to transform the actions of government: public management.
What we are describing is nothing less than a shift in the In making their case, proponents of New Public Man-
basic model of governance used in America. This shift is agement have often used the old public administration as
under way all around us, but because we are not looking a foil, against which the principles of entrepreneurship
for it, because we assume that all governments have to be can be seen as clearly superior. For example, Osborne
big, centralized, and bureaucratic, we seldom see it. We and Gaebler contrast their principles with an alternative
are blind to the new realities, because they do not fit our of formal bureaucracies plagued with excessive rules,
preconceptions (1992, 321). bound by rigid budgeting and personnel systems, and pre-
Other intellectual justifications for the New Public Man- occupied with control. These traditional bureaucracies are
agement evolved as well. These justifications, as Lynn described as ignoring citizens, shunning innovation, and
(1996) notes, largely came from the public policy schools serving their own needs. According to Osborne and
that developed in the 1970s and from the managerialist Gaebler, The kind of governments that developed dur-
movement around the world (Pollitt 1990). Kaboolian notes ing the industrial era, with their sluggish, centralized bu-
that the New Public Management relies on market-like reaucracies, their preoccupation with rules and regula-
arrangements such as competition within units of govern- tions, and their hierarchical chains of command, no longer
ment and across government boundaries to the non-profit work very well (1992, 1112). In fact, while they served
and for-profit sectors, performance bonuses, and penalties their earlier purposes, bureaucratic institutions in-
(to) loosen the inefficient monopoly franchise of public creasingly fail us (15).
agencies and public employees (1998, 190). Elaborating What are the tenets of this bureaucratic old public ad-
this point, Hood writes that the New Public Management ministration, and is it reasonable to characterize any con-
moves away from traditional modes of legitimizing the temporary thinking which falls outside New Public Man-
public bureaucracy, such as procedural safeguards on ad- agement as evidence of the old public administration?
ministrative discretion, in favor of trust in the market and Certainly there is not a single set of ideas agreed to by all
private business methods ideas couched in the lan- those who contributed over the decades to the old public
guage of economic rationalism (1995, 94). administration (just as there is not a single set of ideas that
As such, the New Public Management is clearly linked all associated with the New Public Management would
to the public choice perspective in public administration. agree to). But there are elements of public administration
In its simplest form, public choice views the government theory and practice that seem to constitute a guiding set of
from the standpoint of markets and customers. Public ideas or a normative model that we now generally associ-
choice not only affords an elegant and, to some, compel- ate with the old public administration. We suggest this
ling model of government, it also serves as a kind of intel- model includes the following tenets:
lectual road map for practical efforts to reduce govern- Public administration is politically neutral, valuing the
ment and make it less costly. And it does so unabashedly. idea of neutral competence.
John Kamensky, one of the architects of the National Per- The focus of government is the direct delivery of ser-
formance Review, comments that the New Public Man- vices. The best organizational structure is a centralized
agement is clearly related to the public choice movement, bureaucracy.
the central tenet of which is that all human behavior is Programs are implemented through top-down control
dominated by self-interest (1996, 251). mechanisms, limiting discretion as much as possible.

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 551

 Bureaucracies seek to be closed systems to the extent cratic citizenship; (2) models of community and civil so-
possible, thus limiting citizen involvement. ciety; and (3) organizational humanism and discourse
Efficiency and rationality are the most important values theory. We will then outline what we see as the main te-
in public organizations. nets of the New Public Service.
Public administrators do not play a central role in policy Theories of Democratic Citizenship
making and governance; rather, they are charged with Concerns about citizenship and democracy are particu-
the efficient implementation of public objectives. larly important and visible in recent political and social
The job of public administrators is described by Gulicks theory, both of which call for a reinvigorated and more
POSDCORB (1937, 13). active and involved citizenship (Barber 1984; Mansbridge
If we compare the principles of New Public Manage- 1990; Mansbridge 1992; Pateman 1970; Sandel 1996). Of
ment with these principles, the New Public Management particular relevance to our discussion is Sandels sugges-
clearly looks like a preferred alternative. But even a cur- tion that the prevailing model of the relationship between
sory examination of the literature of public administration state and citizens is based on the idea that government ex-
demonstrates that these traditional ideas do not fully em- ists to ensure citizens can make choices consistent with
brace contemporary government theory or practice (Box their self-interest by guaranteeing certain procedures (such
1998; Bryson and Crosby 1992; Carnavale 1995; Cook as voting) and individual rights. Obviously, this perspec-
1996; Cooper 1991; deLeon 1997; Denhardt 1993; Farmer tive is consistent with public choice economics and the
1995; Fox and Miller 1995; Frederickson 1997; Gawthrop New Public Management (see Kamensky 1996). But
1998; Goodsell 1994; Harmon 1995; Hummel 1994; Sandel offers an alternative view of democratic citizen-
Ingraham et al. 1994; Light 1997; Luke 1998; McSwite ship, one in which individuals are much more actively en-
1997; Miller and Fox 1997; Perry 1996; Rabin, Hildreth, gaged in governance. In this view, citizens look beyond
and Miller 1998; Rohr 1998; Stivers 1993; Terry 1995, self-interest to the larger public interest, adopting a broader
1998; Thomas 1995; Vinzant and Crothers 1998; Wamsley and longer-term perspective that requires a knowledge of
et al. 1990; Wamsley and Wolf 1996). The field of public public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a concern for
administration, of course, has not been stuck in progres- the whole, and a moral bond with the community whose
sive reform rhetoric for the last 100 years. Instead, there fate is at stake (Sandel 1996, 56; see also Schubert 1957).
has been a rich and vibrant evolution in thought and prac- Consistent with this perspective, King and Stivers (1998)
tice, with important and substantial developments that can- assert that administrators should see citizens as citizens
not be subsumed under the title the New Public Manage- (rather than merely as voters, clients, or customers); they
ment. So there are more than two choices. We will now should share authority and reduce control, and they should
explore a third alternative based on recent intellectual and trust in the efficacy of collaboration. Moreover, in con-
practical developments in public administration, one that trast to managerialist calls for greater efficiency, King and
we call the New Public Service. Stivers suggest that public managers seek greater respon-
siveness and a corresponding increase in citizen trust. This
Roots of the New Public Service perspective directly undergirds the New Public Service.
Like the New Public Management and the old public Models of Community and Civil Society
administration, the New Public Service consists of many
diverse elements, and many different scholars and practi- Recently, there has been a rebirth of interest in the idea
tioners have contributed, often in disagreement with one of community and civility in America. Political leaders of
another. Yet certain general ideas seem to characterize this both major political parties, scholars of different camps,
approach as a normative model and to distinguish it from best-selling writers and popular commentators not only
others. While the New Public Service has emerged both in agree that community in America has deteriorated, but ac-
theory and in the innovative and advanced practices of knowledge that we desperately need a renewed sense of
many exemplary public managers (Denhardt 1993; community. Despite increasing diversity in America, or
Denhardt and Denhardt 1999), in this section we will ex- perhaps because of it, community is seen as a way of bring-
amine the conceptual foundations of the New Public Ser- ing about unity and synthesis (Bellah et al. 1985, 1991;
vice. Certainly the New Public Service can lay claim to an Etzioni 1988, 1995; Gardner 1991; Selznick 1992). In pub-
impressive intellectual heritage, including, in public ad- lic administration, the quest for community has been re-
ministration, the work of Dwight Waldo (1948), and in flected in the view that the role of government, especially
political theory, the work of Sheldon Wolin (1960). How- local government, is indeed to help create and support
ever, here we will focus on more contemporary precursors community.
of the New Public Service, including (1) theories of demo- In part, this effort depends on building a healthy and
active set of mediating institutions that simultaneously

552 Public Administration Review November/December 2000, Vol. 60, No. 6

give focus to the desires and interests of citizens and pro- The New Public Service
vide experiences that will better prepare those citizens for Theorists of citizenship, community and civil society,
action in the larger political system. As Putnam (1995) ar- organizational humanists, and postmodernist public
gues, Americas democratic tradition depends on the ex- administrationists have helped to establish a climate in
istence of engaged citizens, active in all sorts of groups, which it makes sense today to talk about a New Public
associations, and governmental units. Collectively, these Service. Though we acknowledge that differences exist
small groups constitute a civil society in which people in these viewpoints, we suggest there are also similari-
need to work out their personal interests in the context of ties that distinguish the cluster of ideas we call the New
community concerns. Only here can citizens engage one Public Service from those associated with the New Pub-
another in the kind of personal dialogue and deliberation lic Management and the old public administration. More-
that is the essence of community building and of democ- over, there are a number of practical lessons that the New
racy itself. Again, as King and Stivers (1998) point out, Public Service suggests for those in public administra-
government can play an important and critical role in cre- tion. These lessons are not mutually exclusive, rather they
ating, facilitating, and supporting these connections be- are mutually reinforcing. Among these, we find the fol-
tween citizens and their communities. lowing most compelling.
Organizational Humanism and Discourse Theory 1. Serve, rather than steer. An increasingly important
Over the past 25 years, public administration theorists, in- role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate
cluding those associated with the radical public and meet their shared interests, rather than to attempt
administrationists of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Marini to control or steer society in new directions.
1971), have joined colleagues in other disciplines in suggest- While in the past, government played a central role in
ing that traditional hierarchical approaches to social organi- what has been called the steering of society (Nelissen et
zation and positivist approaches to social science are mutu- al. 1999), the complexity of modern life sometimes makes
ally reinforcing. Consequently, they have joined in a critique such a role not only inappropriate, but impossible. Those
of bureaucracy and positivism, leading, in turn, to a search policies and programs that give structure and direction to
for alternative approaches to management and organization social and political life today are the result of the interac-
and an exploration of new approaches to knowledge acquisi- tion of many different groups and organizations, the mix-
tionincluding interpretive theory (for example, Harmon ture of many different opinions and interests. In many ar-
1981), critical theory (Denhardt 1981), and postmodernism eas, it no longer makes sense to think of public policies as
(Farmer 1995; Fox and Miller 1995; McSwite 1997; Miller the result of governmental decision-making processes.
and Fox 1997). Collectively, these approaches have sought to Government is indeed a playerand in most cases a very
fashion public organizations less dominated by issues of au- substantial player. But public policies today, the policies
thority and control and more attentive to the needs and con- that guide society, are the outcome of a complex set of
cerns of employees inside public organizations as well as those interactions involving multiple groups and multiple inter-
outside, especially clients and citizens. ests ultimately combining in fascinating and unpredictable
These trends have been central to interpretive and criti- ways. Government is no longer in charge.
cal analyses of bureaucracy and society, but they have been In this new world, the primary role of government is
even further extended in recent efforts to employ the per- not merely to direct the actions of the public through regu-
spectives of postmodern thinking, especially discourse lation and decree (though that may sometimes be appro-
theory, in understanding public organizations. While there priate), nor is it to simply establish a set of rules and in-
are significant differences among the various postmodern centives (sticks or carrots) through which people will be
theorists, they seem to arrive at a similar conclusionbe- guided in the proper direction. Rather, government be-
cause we depend on one another in the postmodern world, comes another player, albeit an important player in the pro-
governance must be based on sincere and open discourse cess of moving society in one direction or another. Gov-
among all parties, including citizens and administrators. ernment acts, in concert with private and nonprofit groups
And while postmodern public administration theorists are and organizations, to seek solutions to the problems that
skeptical of traditional approaches to public participation, communities face. In this process, the role of government
there seems to be considerable agreement that enhanced is transformed from one of controlling to one of agenda
public dialogue is required to reinvigorate the public bu- setting, bringing the proper players to the table and facili-
reaucracy and restore a sense of legitimacy to the field of tating, negotiating, or brokering solutions to public prob-
public administration. In other words, there is a need to lems (often through coalitions of public, private, and non-
reconceptualize the field and, both practically and intel- profit agencies). Where traditionally government has
lectually, so as to build a New Public Service. responded to needs by saying yes, we can provide that

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 553

 Table 1 Comparing Perspectives: Old Public Administration, New Public Management, and New Public Service
Old Public Administration New Public Management New Public Service
Primary theoretical and Political theory, social and political Economic theory, more sophisticated Democratic theory, varied
epistemological foundations commentary augmented by naive dialogue based on positivist social approaches to knowledge
social science science including positive, interpretive,
critical, and postmodern
Prevailing rationality and Synoptic rationality, administrative Technical and economic rationality, Strategic rationality, multiple tests
associated models of human man economic man, or the self- of rationality (political, economic,
behavior interested decision maker organizational)
Conception of the public interest Politically defined and expressed in Represents the aggregation of Result of a dialogue about shared
law individual interests values
To whom are public servants Clients and constituents Customers Citizens
responsive?
Role of government Rowing (designing and Steering (acting as a catalyst to Serving (negotiating and
implementing policies focusing on unleash market forces) brokering interests among citizens
a single, politically defined and community groups, creating
objective) shared values)
Mechanisms for achieving policy Administering programs through Creating mechanisms and incentive Building coalitions of public,
objectives existing government agencies structures to achieve policy nonprofit, and private agencies to
objectives through private and meet mutually agreed upon needs
nonprofit agencies
Approach to accountability Hierarchicaladministrators are Market-driventhe accumulation of Multifacetedpublic servants must
responsible to democratically self-interests will result in outcomes attend to law, community values,
elected political leaders desired by broad groups of citizens political norms, professional
(or customers) standards, and citizen interests
Administrative discretion Limited discretion allowed Wide latitude to meet Discretion needed but constrained
administrative officials entrepreneurial goals and accountable
Assumed organizational structure Bureaucratic organizations marked Decentralized public organizations Collaborative structures with
by top-down authority within with primary control remaining leadership shared internally and
agencies and control or regulation within the agency externally
of clients
Assumed motivational basis of Pay and benefits, civil-service Entrepreneurial spirit, ideological Public service, desire to contribute
public servants and protections desire to reduce size of government to society.
administrators

service, or no, we cant, the New Public Service sug- unconstrained and authentic discourse concerning the di-
gests that elected officials and public managers should re- rection society should take. Based on these deliberations,
spond to the requests of citizens not just by saying yes or a broad-based vision for the community, the state, or the
no, but by saying, lets work together to figure out what nation can be established and provide a guiding set of ideas
were going to do, then make it happen. In a world of (or ideals) for the future. It is less important for this pro-
active citizenship, public officials will increasingly play cess to result in a single set of goals than it is for it to
more than a service delivery rolethey will play a con- engage administrators, politicians, and citizens in a pro-
ciliating, a mediating, or even an adjudicating role. (Inci- cess of thinking about a desired future for their commu-
dentally, these new roles will require new skillsnot the nity and their nation.
old skills of management control, but new skills of In addition to its facilitating role, government also has
brokering, negotiating, and conflict resolution.) a moral obligation to assure solutions that are generated
2. The public interest is the aim, not the by-product. Public through such processes are fully consistent with norms of
administrators must contribute to building a collective, justice and fairness. Government will act to facilitate the
shared notion of the public interest. The goal is not to solutions to public problems, but it will also be respon-
find quick solutions driven by individual choices. sible for assuring those solutions are consistent with the
Rather, it is the creation of shared interests and shared public interestboth in substance and in process. In other
responsibility. words, the role of government will become one of assur-
The New Public Service demands that the process of ing that the public interest predominates, that both the so-
establishing a vision for society is not something merely lutions themselves and the process by which solutions to
left to elected political leaders or appointed public admin- public problems are developed are consistent with demo-
istrators. Instead, the activity of establishing a vision or cratic norms of justice, fairness, and equity (Ingraham and
direction is something in which widespread public dialogue Ban 1988; Ingraham and Rosenbloom 1989).
and deliberation are central (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Luke In short, the public servant will take an active role in
1998; Stone 1988). The role of government will increas- creating arenas in which citizens, through discourse, can
ingly be to bring people together in settings that allow for articulate shared values and develop a collective sense of

554 Public Administration Review November/December 2000, Vol. 60, No. 6

the public interest. Rather than simply responding to dis- immediate client. Government also serves those who may
parate voices by forming a compromise, public adminis- be waiting for service, those who may need the service
trators will engage citizens with one another so that they even though they are not actively seeking it, future gen-
come to understand each others interests and adopt a erations of service recipients, relatives and friends of the
longer range and broader sense of community and soci- immediate recipient, and on and on. There may even be
etal interests. customers who dont want to be customerssuch as those
3. Think strategically, act democratically. Policies and receiving a speeding ticket.
programs meeting public needs can be most effectively Moreover, some customers of government have greater
and responsibly achieved through collective efforts and resources and greater skill in bringing their demands for-
collaborative processes. ward than others. Does this justify, as it would in the pri-
To realize a collective vision, the next step is establish- vate sector, that they be treated better? Of course not. In
ing roles and responsibilities and developing specific ac- government, considerations of fairness and equity play an
tion steps to move toward the desired goals. Again, the important role in service delivery; indeed, in many cases,
idea is not merely to establish a vision and then leave the these are much more important considerations than the
implementation to those in government; rather, it is to join desires of the immediate customer.
all parties together in the process of carrying out programs Despite the obvious importance of constantly improv-
that will move in the desired direction. Through involve- ing the quality of public-sector service delivery, the New
ment in programs of civic education and by developing a Public Service suggests that government should not first
broad range of civic leaders, government can stimulate a or exclusively respond to the selfish, short-term interests
renewed sense of civic pride and civic responsibility. We of customers. Instead, it suggests that people acting as
expect such a sense of pride and responsibility to evolve citizens must demonstrate their concern for the larger
into a greater willingness to be involved at many levels, as community, their commitment to matters that go beyond
all parties work together to create opportunities for par- short-term interests, and their willingness to assume per-
ticipation, collaboration, and community. sonal responsibility for what happens in their neighbor-
How might this be done? To begin with, there is an ob- hoods and the community. After all, these are among the
vious and important role for political leadershipto ar- defining elements of effective and responsible citizen-
ticulate and encourage a strengthening of citizen responsi- ship. In turn, government must respond to the needs and
bility and, in turn, to support groups and individuals interests of citizens. Moreover, government must respond
involved in building the bonds of community. Government to citizens defined broadly rather than simply in a legal-
cant create community. But government and, more spe- istic sense. Individuals who are not legal citizens not only
cifically, political leadership, can lay the groundwork for are often served by government programs, they can also
effective and responsible citizen action. People must come be encouraged to participate and engage with their com-
to recognize that government is open and accessibleand munities. In any case, the New Public Service seeks to
that wont happen unless government is open and acces- encourage more and more people to fulfill their respon-
sible. People must come to recognize that government is sibilities as citizens and for government to be especially
responsiveand that wont happen unless government is sensitive to the voices of citizens.
responsive. People must come to recognize that govern- 5. Accountability isnt simple. Public servants should be
ment exists to meet their needsand that wont happen attentive to more than the market; they should also at-
unless it does. The aim, then, is to make sure that govern- tend to statutory and constitutional law, community
ment is open and accessible, that it is responsive, and that values, political norms, professional standards, and citi-
it operates to serve citizens and create opportunities for zen interests.
citizenship. The matter of accountability is extremely complex. Yet
4. Serve citizens, not customers. The public interest re- both the old public administration and the New Public
sults from a dialogue about shared values, rather than Management tend to oversimplify the issue. For instance,
the aggregation of individual self-interests. Therefore, in the classic version of the old public administration, public
public servants do not merely respond to the demands administrators were simply and directly responsible to
of customers, but focus on building relationships of political officials. As Wilson wrote, [P]olicy will have no
trust and collaboration with and among citizens. taint of officialism about it. It will not be the creation of
The New Public Service recognizes that the relation- permanent officials, but of statesmen whose responsibility
ship between government and its citizens is not the same to public opinion will be direct and inevitable (1887, 22).
as that between a business and its customers. In the public Beyond this, accountability was not really an issue; politi-
sector, it is problematic to even determine who the cus- cians were expected to make decisions while bureaucrats
tomer is, because government serves more than just the carried them out. Obviously, over time, public administra-

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 555

tors assumed great capacities for influencing the policy ated through processes of collaboration and shared
process. So, at the other end of the spectrum, in the ver- leadership based on respect for all people.
nacular of the New Public Management, the focus is on In its approach to management and organization, the
giving administrators great latitude to act as entrepreneurs. New Public Service emphasizes the importance of man-
In their entrepreneurial role, the new public managers are aging through people. Systems of productivity improve-
called to account primarily in terms of efficiency, cost ef- ment, process reengineering, and performance measure-
fectiveness, and responsiveness to market forces. ment are seen as important tools in designing management
In our view, such models do not reflect the demands systems. But the New Public Service suggests that such
and realities of public service today. Rather, public admin- rational attempts to control human behavior are likely to
istrators are and should be influenced by and held account- fail in the long term if, at the same time, insufficient atten-
able to complex constellations of institutions and standards, tion is paid to the values and interests of individual mem-
including the public interest, statutory and constitutional bers of an organization. Moreover, while these approaches
law, other agencies, other levels of government, the me- may get results, they do not build responsible, engaged,
dia, professional standards, community values and stan- and civic-minded employees or citizens.
dards, situational factors, democratic norms, and of course, If public servants are expected to treat citizens with re-
citizens. Further, the institutions and standards which in- spect, they must be treated with respect by those who man-
fluence public servants and to which they are held account- age public agencies. In the New Public Service, the enor-
able interact in complex ways. For example, citizen needs mous challenges and complexities of the work of public
and expectations influence public servants, but the actions administrators are recognized. They are viewed not just as
of public servants also influence citizen expectations. Laws employees who crave the security and structure of a bu-
create the parameters for public administrators actions, reaucratic job (old public administration), nor as partici-
but the manner in which public servants apply the law in- pants in a market (New Public Management); rather, pub-
fluences not only its actual implementation, but also may lic servants are people whose motivations and rewards are
influence lawmakers to modify the law. In other words, more than simply a matter of pay or security. They want to
public administrators influence and are influenced by all make a difference in the lives of others (Denhardt 1993;
of the competing norms, values, and preferences of our Perry and Wise 1990; Vinzant 1998).
complex governance system. These variables not only in- The notion of shared leadership is critical in providing
fluence and are influenced by public administrators, they opportunities for employees and citizens to affirm and act
also represent points of accountability. on their public service motives and values. In the New
The New Public Service recognizes the reality and Public Service, shared leadership, collaboration, and em-
complexity of these responsibilities. It recognizes that powerment become the norm both inside and outside the
public administrators are involved in complex value con- organization. Shared leadership focuses on the goals, val-
flicts in situations of conflicting and overlapping norms. ues, and ideals that the organization and community want
It accepts these realities and speaks to how public ad- to advance; it must be characterized by mutual respect,
ministrators can and should serve citizens and the public accommodation, and support. As Burns (1978) would say,
interest in this context. First and foremost, the New Pub- leadership exercised by working through and with people
lic Service demands that public administrators not make transforms the participants and shifts their focus to higher
these decisions alone. It is through the process of dia- level values. In the process, the public service motives of
logue, brokerage, citizen empowerment, and broad-based citizens and employees alike can be recognized, supported,
citizen engagement that these issues must be resolved. and rewarded.
While public servants remain responsible for assuring that 7. Value citizenship and public service above entrepre-
solutions to public problems are consistent with laws, neurship. The public interest is better advanced by pub-
democratic norms, and other constraints, it is not a mat- lic servants and citizens committed to making mean-
ter of their simply judging the appropriateness of com- ingful contributions to society rather than by
munity-generated ideas and proposals after the fact. entrepreneurial managers acting as if public money
Rather, it is the role of public administrators to make these were their own.
conflicts and parameters known to citizens, so that these The New Public Management encourages public admin-
realities become a part of the process of discourse. Do- istrators to act and think as entrepreneurs of a business
ing so not only makes for realistic solutions, it builds citi- enterprise. This creates a rather narrow view of the objec-
zenship and accountability. tives to be soughtto maximize productivity and satisfy
6. Value people, not just productivity. Public organiza- customers, and to accept risks and to take advantage of
tions and the networks in which they participate are opportunities as they arise. In the New Public Service, there
more likely to succeed in the long run if they are oper- is an explicit recognition that public administrators are not

556 Public Administration Review November/December 2000, Vol. 60, No. 6

the business owners of their agencies and programs. Again, Implications and Conclusions
as King and Stivers (1998) remind us, government is owned From a theoretical perspective, the New Public Service
by the citizens. offers an important and viable alternative to both the tradi-
Accordingly, in the New Public Service, the mindset of tional and the now-dominant managerialist models. It is
public administrators is that public programs and resources an alternative that has been built on the basis of theoretical
do not belong to them. Rather, public administrators have explorations and practical innovations. The result is a nor-
accepted the responsibility to serve citizens by acting as mative model, comparable to other such models. While
stewards of public resources (Kass 1990), conservators of debates among theorists will continue, and administrative
public organizations (Terry 1995), facilitators of citizen- practitioners will test and explore new possibilities, the
ship and democratic dialogue (Chapin and Denhardt 1995; commitments that emerge will have significant implica-
King and Stivers 1998; Box 1998), catalysts for commu- tions for practice. The actions that public administrators
nity engagement (Denhardt and Gray 1998; Lapp and Du take will differ markedly depending on the types of as-
Bois 1994), and street-level leaders (Vinzant and Crothers sumptions and principles upon which those actions are
1998). This is a very different perspective than that of a based. If we assume the responsibility of government is to
business owner focused on profit and efficiency. Accord- facilitate individual self-interest, we will take one set of
ingly, the New Public Service suggests that public admin- actions. If, on the other hand, we assume the responsibil-
istrators must not only share power, work through people, ity of government is to promote citizenship, public dis-
and broker solutions, they must reconceptualize their role course, and the public interest, we will take an entirely
in the governance process as responsible participant, not different set of actions.
entrepreneur. Decades ago, Herbert Kaufman (1956) suggested that
This change in the public administrators role has pro- while administrative institutions are organized and oper-
found implications for the types of challenges and respon- ated in pursuit of different values at different times, during
sibilities faced by public servants. First, public adminis- the period in which one idea is dominant, others are never
trators must know and manage more than the requirements totally neglected. Building on this idea, it makes sense to
and resources of their programs. This sort of narrow view think of one normative model as prevailing at any point in
is not very helpful to a citizen whose world is not conve- time, with the other (or others) playing a somewhat lesser
niently divided up by programmatic departments and of- role within the context of the prevailing view. Currently,
fices. The problems that citizens face are often, if not usu- the New Public Management and its surrogates have been
ally, multifaceted, fluid, and dynamicthey do not easily established as the dominant paradigm in the field of gov-
fall within the confines of a particular office or a narrow ernance and public administration. Certainly a concern for
job description of an individual. To serve citizens, public democratic citizenship and the public interest has not been
administrators not only must know and manage their own fully lost, but rather has been subordinated.
agencys resources, they must also be aware of and con- We argue, however, that in a democratic society, a con-
nected to other sources of support and assistance, engag- cern for democratic values should be paramount in the way
ing citizens and the community in the process. we think about systems of governance. Values such as ef-
Second, when public administrators take risks, they are ficiency and productivity should not be lost, but should be
not entrepreneurs of their own businesses who can make placed in the larger context of democracy, community, and
such decisions knowing the consequences of failure will the public interest. In terms of the normative models we
fall largely on their own shoulders. Risk in the public sec- examine here, the New Public Service clearly seems most
tor is different. In the New Public Service, risks and op- consistent with the basic foundations of democracy in this
portunities reside within the larger framework of demo- country and, therefore, provides a framework within which
cratic citizenship and shared responsibility. Because the other valuable techniques and values, such as the best ideas
consequences of success and failure are not limited to a of the old public administration or the New Public Man-
single private business, public administrators do not single- agement, might be played out. While this debate will surely
handedly decide what is best for a community. This need continue for many years, for the time being, the New Pub-
not mean that all short-term opportunities are lost. If dia- lic Service provides a rallying point around which we might
logue and citizen engagement is ongoing, opportunities and envision a public service based on and fully integrated with
potential risks can be explored in a timely manner. The citizen discourse and the public interest.
important factor to consider is whether the benefits of a
public administrator taking immediate and risky action in
response to an opportunity outweighs the costs to trust,
collaboration, and the sense of shared responsibility.

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 557

 References

Aristigueta, Maria P. 1999. Managing for Results in State Gov- 61.

ernment. Westport, CT: Quorum. Fox, Charles, and Hugh Miller. 1995. Postmodern Public Ad-
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Poli- ministration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
tics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Frederickson, H. George. 1996. Comparing the Reinventing
Press. Government Movement with the New Public Administration.
Barzelay, Michael. 1992. Breaking through Bureaucracy. Ber- Public Administration Review 56(3): 2639.
keley, CA: University of California Press. . 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Fran-
Bellah, Robert, et al. 1985. Habits of the Heart. Berkeley, CA: cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of California Press. Gardner, John. 1991. Building Community. Washington, DC:
. 1991. The Good Society. New York: Knopf. Independent Sector.
Boston, Jonathan et al. 1996. Public Management: The New Gawthrop, Louis C. 1998. Public Service and Democracy. New
Zealand Model. New York: Oxford University Press. York: Chandler.
Box, Richard. 1998. Citizen Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Goodsell, Charles T. 1994. The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham,
Sage Publications. NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Bryson, John, and Barbara Crosby. 1992. Leadership for the Gulick, Luther. 1937. Notes on the Theory of Organization. In
Common Good. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by L. Gulick
Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and L. Urwick, 146. New York: Institute of Government.
and Row. Harmon, Michael. 1981. Action Theory for Public Administra-
Carnavale, David. 1995. Trustworthy Government. San Fran- tion. New York: Longman.
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. . 1995. Responsibility as Paradox. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Carroll, James, and Dahlia Bradshaw Lynn. 1996. The Future of Sage Publications.
Federal Reinvention: Congressional Perspectives. Public Ad- Hood, Christopher. 1995. The New Public Management in the
ministration Review 56(3): 299304. Eighties. Accounting, Organization and Society 20(2/3): 93
Chapin, Linda W., and Robert B. Denhardt. 1995. Putting Citi- 109.
zens First! in Orange County, Florida. National Civic Re- Hummel, Ralph. 1994. The Bureaucratic Experience. 4th ed.
view 84(3): 210215. New York: St. Martins Press.
Cook, Brian J. 1996. Bureaucracy and Self-Government. Balti- Ingraham, Patricia W., and Carolyn Ban. 1988. Politics and Merit:
more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Can They Meet in a Public Service Model? Review of Public
Cooper, Terry. 1991. An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Admin- Personnel Administration 8(2): 119.
istration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ingraham, Patricia W., Barbara S. Romzek, and associates. 1994.
deLeon, Linda, and Robert B. Denhardt. 2000. The Political New Paradigms for Government. San Francisco, CA:
Theory of Reinvention. Public Administration Review 60(2): Jossey-Bass.
8997. Ingraham, Patricia W., and David H. Rosenbloom. 1989. The
deLeon, Peter. 1997. Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Al- New Public Personnel and the New Public Service. Public
bany, NY: State University of New York Press. Administration Review. 49(2): 11625.
Denhardt, Robert B. 1981. In the Shadow of Organization. Kaboolian, Linda. 1998. The New Public Management. Public
Lawrence, KS: Regents Press of Kansas. Administration Review 58(3): 18993.
. 1993. The Pursuit of Significance. Pacific Grove, CA: Kamensky, John. 1996. Role of Reinventing Government Move-
Wadsworth. ment in Federal Management Reform. Public Administration
Denhardt, Robert B., and Joseph E. Gray. 1998. Targeting Review 56(3): 24756.
Community Development in Orange County, Florida. Na- Kass, Henry. 1990. Stewardship as Fundamental Element in
tional Civic Review 87(3): 22735. Images of Public Administration. In Images and Identities in
Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 1999. Lead- Public Administration, edited by H. Kass and B. Catron, 113
ership for Change: Case Studies in American Local Govern- 30. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
ment. Arlington, VA: Price Waterhouse Coopers Endowment Kaufman, Herbert. 1956. Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines
for the Business of Government. of Public Administration. American Political Science Review
Etzioni, Amitai. 1988. The Moral Dimension. New York: The 50(4): 105773.
Free Press. Kearns, Kevin, 1996. Managing for Accountability. San Fran-
. 1995. The New Communitarian Thinking. Charlottes- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Kettl, Donald F. 1993. Sharing Power. Washington, DC: The
Farmer, John David. 1995. The Language of Public Administra- Brookings Institution.
tion. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Kettl, Donald F., and Jon J. DiIulio, eds. 1995. Inside the Rein-
Fox, Charles. 1996. Reinventing Government As Postmodern vention Machine. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institu-
Symbolic Politics. Public Administration Review 56(3): 256 tion.

558 Public Administration Review November/December 2000, Vol. 60, No. 6

Kettl, Donald F., and H. Brinton Milward, eds. 1996. The State Rabin, Jack W., Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J. Miller, eds. 1998.
of Public Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni- Handbook of Public Administration. 2nd ed. New York:
versity Press. Marcel Dekker.
King, Cheryl Simrell, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget ONeill. Rohr, John A. 1998. Public Service, Ethics and Constitutional
1998. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Pub- Practice. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
lic Participation in Public Administration. Public Adminis- Sandel, Michael. 1996. Democracys Discontent. Cambridge,
tration Review. 58(4): 31726. MA: Belknap Press.
King, Cheryl, and Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government Is Us: Schachter, Hindy Lauer. 1997. Reinventing Government or Re-
Public Administration in an Anti-government Era. Thousand inventing Ourselves. Albany, NY: State University of New
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. York Press.
Lapp, Frances Moore, and Paul Martin Du Bois. 1994. The Schubert, Glendon. 1957. The Public Interest in Administra-
Quickening of America: Rebuilding Our Nation, Remaking tive Decision-Making: Theorem, Theosophy, or Theory. The
Our Lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. American Political Science Review 51(2): 34668.
Light, Paul. 1997. The Tides of Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale Schwartz, N.L. 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation
University Press. and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Luke, Jeffrey. 1998. Catalytic Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Selznick, Phillip. 1992. The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley,
Jossey-Bass. CA: University of California Press.
Lynn, Lawrence E. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science, Stivers, Camilla. 1993. Gender Images in Public Administra-
and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mansbridge, Jane, ed. 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: Uni- . 1994a. Citizenship Ethics in Public Administration. In
versity of Chicago Press. Handbook of Administrative Ethics, edited by Terry Cooper.
. 1992. Public Spirit in Political Systems. In Values and New York: Marcel Dekker.
Public Policy, edited by Henry J. Aaron, Thomas Mann, and . 1994b. The Listening Bureaucrat. Public Administra-
Timothy Taylor. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. tion Review 54(4): 3649.
Marini, Frank. 1971. Toward a New Public Administration. San Stone, Deborah. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason.
Francisco: Chandler. New York: Harper Collins.
McCabe, Barbara, and Janet Vinzant. 1999. Governance Les- Terry, Larry D. 1993. Why We Should Abandon the Miscon-
sons: The Case of Charter Schools. Administration and Soci- ceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship with De-
ety 31(3): 36177. mocracy. Public Administration Review 53(4): 3935.
McSwite, O.C. 1997. Legitimacy in Public Administration. Thou- . 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies. Thousand
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, Hugh, and Charles Fox. 1997. Postmodern Reality and . 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism,
Public Administration. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press. and the Public Management Movement. Public Administra-
Nelissen, Nico, Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, Arnold tion Review 58(3): 194200.
Godfroij, and Peter deGoede. 1999. Renewing Government. Thomas, John Clayton. 1995. Public Participation in Public
Utrecht, Netherlands: International Books. Decisions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Govern- Vinzant, Janet. 1998. Where Values Collide: Motivation and Role
ment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Conflict in Child and Adult Protective Services. American
Osborne, David, with Peter Plastrik. 1997. Banishing Bureau- Review of Public Administration 28(4): 34766.
cracy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Vinzant, Janet, and Lane Crothers. 1998. Street-Level Leader-
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. ship: Discretion and Legitimacy in Front-Line Public Ser-
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. vice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Perry, James L., ed. 1996. Handbook of Public Administration. Waldo, Dwight. 1948. The Administrative State. New York:
2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ronald Press.
Perry, James L., and Lois Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases Wamsley, Gary, et al. 1990. Refounding Public Administration.
of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
73. Wamsley, Gary, and James Wolf. 1996. Refounding Democratic
Peters, B. Guy, and Donald Savoie. 1996. Managing Incoher- Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
ence: The Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum. Pub- tions.
lic Administration Review 56(3): 2819. Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political
Pollitt, Christopher. 1990. Managerialism and the Public Ser- Science Quarterly 2 (June).
vice. Cambridge, UK: Basil-Blackwell. Wolin, Sheldon. 1960. Politics and Vision. Boston: Little-Brown.
Putnam, Robert. 1995. Bowling Alone. Journal of Democracy
6(1): 6578.

The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering 559