A Review of New Public Management Practice in Developing Countries
A Review of New Public Management Practice in Developing Countries
A Review of New Public Management Practice in Developing Countries
Introduction of New Public Management (NPM) in public sector organizations typically results in an
overhaul of the existing traditional management system, with renewed emphasis on improving
efficiency and performance of the public sector organization. Public sector organizations and
countries suffering from corruption, non-performance, bureaucracy, incompetence and high
operational costs were in dire need of a new management system that would assist in bringing down
operational costs, help manage resources and budget, minimize bureaucracy, eliminate corruption
and improve the overall performance of the sector. NPM pertains to several strategies that can be
adopted, such as decentralization and delegation of leadership, minimization of bureaucracy,
privatization, human resource management, customer satisfaction, accountability, transparency,
adoption of latest technology, resources and budget management and performance oriented
management style. Several countries around the world have implemented NPM strategies among their
public sectors, in order to deal with the growing rate of corruption and incompetence, lowering
national morale and waste of resources, with mixed results. Sectors with highly complex workforce,
multiple and highly ambiguous mission goals and objectives and efficient utilization of information,
resources and budget, need new public management strategies for effective management.
Keywords: New Management Practice (NPM), bureaucracy, performance.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 About New Public Management practice and where it is used
New Public Management (NPM) paradigm indicates the inadequacies and failures of the
public sector organizations over time in addition to pointing out the various processes which
led to such failures. The concept of NPM had been introduced as a means of reorganizing
public sector organizations on lines of business management practices. The scope of NPM is
extensive as it addresses a variety of issues like size of the government, accountability
mechanism, resource management, and bureaucratic structure etc. (Kalimullah, Alam, and
Nour 2012a).
The NPM movement had started in the UK and the US but later its adoption has not been
limited to the capitalist nations including Austria, Denmark, Spain, Canada, France, Italy,
Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies
Ajay Kumar Gautam
9680
(Pg. 9679-9688)
Japan, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands and Norway but in 1990s many developing countries
in Asia, Africa and Latin America also came forward for NPM implementation. The range of
NPM adoption even extends to the poorest countries of Africa like Zimbabwe, Malawi,
Uganda, Zambia, as well as Ghana. But the concept implementation has not been the same
everywhere as the different components of NPM are adopted in different countries and that
too in different degrees. A number of principles which NPN promotes such as market
competition, customer orientation, and value-for-money are not observed in countries across
the world reinforcing the idea that NPM is emerging as a global concept (Haque 2003).
NPM mainly revolves around implementation of strategies inspired by management of
private sector into the field of public administration (Osborne 2006). The private sector
strategic approach is deployed in public sectors through NPM with the primary objective of
augmenting value and competencies of varied services provided by them. Thus NPM
proposes to bring about professionalism within public administration organizations (Leicht et
al. 2009). NPM is based upon the supposition that private organizations are comparatively
efficient than public service organization (Ehsan and Naz 2003).
One the most important features of NPM which differentiates it from traditional formats is
that NPM postulates promotion of professionalism and modernization based upon
individual’s experiences through a gradual process rather than just burdening it on
organizations (Leicht et al. 2009). Thus NPM is about developing a culture that would
support breeding of such qualities which in the long run would trigger creation of a
professionally managed public administration organization (Leicht et al. 2009). Another
feature of NPM is that it concentrates on development of entrepreneurial qualities amongst
people within public administration organization by motivating them to take leadership
through innovative approaches. People are educated and motivated to be flexible to new ideas
and thus foster innovation espousal (Damanpour and Schneider 2008).
NPM also advocates the presence of a two-way system wherein inputs in the form of quality
and quantity of resources are provided importance along with outputs provided by them. Thus
NPM provides for a mechanism to measure performances of varied resources used for
achieving the desired targets by setting performance benchmarks and auditing performances
to compare actual with desired ones (Osborne 2006). One of the distinctive features of NPM
is that it provides for a foundation wherein differing activities related to a public service are
separated and then combined into major activities groups. This facilitates public
Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies
Ajay Kumar Gautam
9681
(Pg. 9679-9688)
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1: Emergence of the New Public
Management from Traditional Public Administration
Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies
Ajay Kumar Gautam
9682
(Pg. 9679-9688)
that focuses on innovation and change. Bockel & Noordegraaf (2013) in lieu of developing
an excellent organizational culture suggested overhauling of compensation schemes for
employees in public administration sector. Service orientation model as identified by Ferlie et
al. (1996) is an approach in which public sector organizations indulge in providing values to
customers. It is thus also specified as value-driven approach.
1.3.2 Determining factors for implementing NPM in developing countries
Sarker, (2006) in his study asserted that an array of factors are to be considered while
implementing NPM primarily as these factors very strongly affect success quotient of NPM
execution. These factors played identified were extent of economic development experienced
by the country, presence of formal and appropriate market structures, legal rules and related
framework, highly developed state of administrative infrastructure and overall competency of
a state. Gautam, (2008) identified factors which influenced NPM implementation adversely
in the sphere of public administration as adoption of ineffective process for policy
reformations, prevalent political circumstances, strong and stringent bureaucratic code of
conduct and path dependency attributes.
Country's
Commitme
administrat nt Political
ive
System and
infrastruct
Beliefs
ure
Functionin
State
g and
Competenc
responsibili
ies
ty of IDAs
Civil
Legal
Framework Factors Soceity
Status
economic
Corruption
developme
Levels
nt
Technologi
Market cal
Structures Infrastruct
Innovative ure
NPM
Strategy
References
Bakvis, Herman, and Mark D. Jarvis. 2012. From New Public Management to New Political
Governance: Essays in Honour of Peter C. Aucoin. London: MQUP.
Bockel, Jeroen van, and Mirko Noordegraaf. 2013. “Identifying Identities: Performance ‐ driven, but
Professional Public Managers.” International Journal of Public Sector Management, April.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Casey, John, and Margaret Mitchell. 2007. “Requirements of Police Managers and Leaders from
Sergeant to Commissioner.” Training and Education, no. March:1–18.
Chittoo, Hemant B., Needesh Ramphul, and Bhissum Nowbutsing. 2009. “Globalization and Public
Sector Reforms in a Developing Country.” Culture Mandala: Bulletin of the Centre for East-
West Cultural & Economic Studies2 8 (2):30–51.
Damanpour, F., and M. Schneider. 2008. “Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in
Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 19 (3):495–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun021.
Diefenbach, Fabian Elias. 2011. Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector: When Middle Managers
Create Public Value. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.
Ehsan, M., and Naz. 2003. “ORIGIN, IDEAS AND PRACTICE OF NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT:
LESSONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.” Asian Affairs 25 (3):30–48.
Elias Sarker, Abu. 2006. “New Public Management in Developing Countries.” International Journal
of Public Sector Management 19 (2). Emerald Group Publishing Limited:180–203.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610650437.
Engida, Tadesse Getacher, and John Bardill. 2013. “Reforms of the Public Sector in the Light of the
New Public Management: A Cases of Sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of Public Administration
and Policy Research 5 (1):1–7.
Ferdousi, F. 2015. “Factors Affecting Implementation of New Public Management in Bangladesh.”
International Journal of Management Sciences 5 (5):315–28.
Ferlie, E., A. Pettigrew, L. Ashburner, and L. Fitzgerald. 1996. The New Public Management in
Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haque, M Shamsul. 2003. “New Public Management: Origins, Dimensions, and Critical
Implications.” Public Administration and Public Policy I.
Haynes, Philip. 2015. Managing Complexity in the Public Services. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Jooste, Stephan F. 2008. “A New Public Sector in Developing Countries.” California.
Kalimullah, Nazmul Ahsan, K. Alam, and M. Nour. 2012a. “New Public Management: Emergence
and Principles.” BUP Journal 1 (1):1–22.
Kalimullah, Nazmul Ahsan, Kabir M. Ashraf Alam, and M. M. Ashaduzzaman Nour. 2012b. “New
Public Management: Emergence and Principles.” BUP JOURNAL 1 (1):1–20.
Larbi, G. 2003. “OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT REFORM.” 112.
Leicht, K. T., T. Walter, I. Sainsaulieu, and S. Davies. 2009. “New Public Management and New
Professionalism across Nations and Contexts.” Current Sociology 57 (4):581–605.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392109104355.
Mongkol, Kulachet. 2011. “The Critical Review of New Public Management Model and Its
Criticisms.” Research Journal of Business Management 5 (1):35–43.
https://doi.org/10.3923/rjbm.2011.35.43.
O’Flynn, Janine. 2007. “From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and
Managerial Implications.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 66 (3):353–66.
Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies
Ajay Kumar Gautam
9688
(Pg. 9679-9688)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x.
Osborne, S. 2006. “The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8 (3):377–87.
Paradeise, Catherine, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie. 2009. University Governance:
Western European Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Polidano, C. 1999. “The New Public Management in Developing Countries.” 13.
Rahman, Md. Mizanur, Leslie Sue Liberman, Vincentas Rolandas Giedraitis, and Tahmina Akhte.
2013. “The Paradigm from Traditional Public Administration to New Public Management
System in Bangladesh: What Do Reform Initiatives Stand For?” Advances in Economics and
Business 1 (3):297–303.
Raju, K. D. 2007. Genetically Modified Organisms: Emerging Law and Policy in India. New Delhi:
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
Rosta, Miklós. 2011. “What Makes a New Public Management Reform Successful? An Institutional
Analysis.” Budapest.