npm report final

8/8/2019 Npm Report Final

1/30

New Public

ManagementPresented by:

Ethel N. MendiolaUlysses Quinton

Dada Villanueva

PA 201 Class, UP-NCPAG


2/30

Presentation Outline

I. What is NPM?

II. Emergence of NPMIII. NPM: Steering not rowing

IV. NPM in the Philippines

V. NPM and Governance


3/30

I. DEFINITION OF NPM

A new paradigm that has emerged aimed at fostering aperformance-oriented culture in a less centralized public

sector (OECD, 1995) characterized by: A closer focus onresults; REPLACEMENT OF HIGHLY CENTRALIZED,HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE BY DECENTRALIZEDMANAGEMENT WHERE DECISIONS AND SERVICEDELIVERY ARE MADE CLOSER TO THE POINTS OF

DELIVERY { DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION};DEVELOPING COMPETITION (to improve quality ofservice and delivery) CHRISTOPHER HOOD


4/30


MANAGERIALISM (Christopher Pollitt) public

administrators are called managers

POST-BUREAUCRATIC PARADIGM (Michael

Barzeley) move away from traditional brcxy

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT (Osborne and

Gaebler) entrepreneural govt

REENGINEERING - Hammer and Champy


5/30

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (Wolfgang

Meyer) OR MARKET-BASED PUBLIC

ADMINISTR

ATION (Lan and Rosenbloom )

>Commercialization

>Privatization

>Contracting-Out

>Build-Operate-Arrangement



6/30

Various definitions of NPM have some points in

common:

>major shift from traditional PA = results & personal

responsibility>moving away from classic bureaucracy = flexibility

>more systematic evaluation of programs

>more on steering than rowing

>commercialization of governmentfunctions

>value for money and cost-effectiveness



7/30

II. EMERGENCE OF NPM

WHERE ORIGINATED?

WHEN ORIGINATED?

WHY SHIFT FROM TRADITIONAL PA

TO NPM?


8/30


Started in 1970s in UK under Thatcher

government

Also practiced in The Netherlands,France, Germany, Switzerland and Spain,

among others in the 1980s


9/30


Reasons for shifting to NPM: situation in

1970s

1. Traditional PA simply didnt work anymore2. Declining revenue

3. Economic problems in 1970s

4. In search for a government that works better

but costs less

5. Financial distress

6. Private sector was successful with its own

management techniques


10/30


Reasons for shifting to NPM: situation in

1970s

7. Dissatisfaction within public administration

8. Over-bureaucratization

9. Displeasure of citizens

10. More democracy/participation

11. Competition to attract business Globalization

and other developments


11/30


Reasons for shifting to NPM: Traditional

PA vs. NPM

>Traditional PA: highly-hierarchical, very centralized,rule-bound

>NPM: highly decentralized, structure is flat and

lean, service delivery is closer to the people, public

managers are more empowered thus more flexible> NPM offers a more realistic approach than TPA

>TPA: structure is too rigid and cumbersome and

slow for the new era of instant communication


12/30


Reasons for shifting to NPM: Traditional

PA vs. NPM

>NPM: do away with tight hierarchical control bydelegating the discretion to lower levels


13/30


Countries that practiced NPM

> UK underThatcher Government (late 19th

century)

> The Netherlands and the Tilburg Model in

1980s

Situation: economic recession, opacity, lack of

productivity and hierarchy in the government.

Reform: rearranging responsibilities and

introducing a decentralized structure (Tilburg

Model); introduction of output budgeting,

performance indicators


14/30



> FRANCE and the Act of Decentralization in

1982 Situation: centralist governance and strong elitist

career civil service; administration is built on a

complex system of administrative law; local

governments had no regulatory and legislative

power; lack of local democracy

Reform: local autonomy thru 1982 Act of

Decentralization; decentralization & devolution of

tasks & responsibilities to lower levels of admin.


15/30



> GERMANY and the New Steering Model in

1980s Situation: classical hierarchical; traditional

principles of the civil service; dissatisfaction of

city managers, politicians, and other civil

servants; Reform: development of the so-called New

Steering Model (internal organizational

reform,management contracts, decentralized

responsibility, budgeting,and accounting)


16/30



> SWITZERLAND and the Results-Oriented

Public Management in 1990s Situation: dissatisfaction with the old model,

financial pressure, deficiency in input, opacity,

inflexibility, bureaucracy and over-control of

operative decisions Reform: Results-Oriented Public

Management


17/30



> SPAIN in 1978

Situation: transformation from a highly-

centralized state into a democratic politically

decentralized state after the Franco era

Reform: organizational redesign, budgeting byobjectives, human resource reorganization (e.g.

City of Barcelona, One-Stop-Shop policy in

1995); principles of accounting were

introduced


18/30

EMERGENCE OF NPM

IN SUMMARY, NPM WAS CREATED TO REMEDYA PATHOLOGY

OF TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY THAT IS HIERARCHICALLY

STRUCTUREDA

NDA

UTHORITY-DRIVENA

ND TOCONSTRUCTA GOVERNMENT THAT IS COST-EFFICIENTAND

MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLES NEEDS. THE

REFORM RESULTED TO SAVINGS, IMPROVED PROCESSES,

IMPROVED EFFICIENCY, GREATER EFFECTIVENESS,AND

MORE CAPACIOUS/FLEXIBLE/RESELIENTADMINISTRATIVE

SYSTEMS. HOWEVER, NPM IS JUST IN ITS INFANCYANDJUST LIKE ANY OTHER THEORIESAND PARADIGMS, IT

ENCOUNTERED PROBLEMS & CRITICISMS DUE TO SOME OF

ITS WEAKNESSES


19/30

III. NPM: Steering not Rowing

Theoretical Bases of NPM (Hughes)

o Economics

Public choice Results, Efficiency and Measurement

o Private Management

Focus on results and objectives

Owen Hughes. Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (2ndEdition). 1998


20/30

TRIPARTITE APPROACH to PA


21/30

III. NPM: Steering not Rowing

3Es plus RELEVANCE, CLIENT-

ORIENTEDNESS AND EQUITY (Pilar)

Public Service Values:

o Administrative and political accountability

o Nationalism and Good Governance

o Public-Private Partnership in Poverty Alleviation


22/30

Core Principles of NPM(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)

1.Steer, rather than row

2.Empower communities to solve their own

problems

3.Promote and encourage competition ratherthan monopolies

4.Be driven by mission rather than rules

5.Be results-oriented by funding outcomesrather than inputs


23/30

Core Principles of NPM(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)

6.Meet the needs of the customer rather thanbureaucracy

7.Concentrate on earning money rather than justspending it

8. Invest in preventing problems rather than incuring crises

9.Decentralize authority than build hierarchies

10. Solve problems by influencing market forcesrather than creating public programs


24/30

PROBLEMS CONFRONTING

PA IN RP

BLOATED CIVIL SERVICE

As of 1999, a total of 1.473 million personnel were

employed in government.

65 percent of all government employees are assigned

to national government agencies and only 27 percent

to LGUs.

35 percent - 40 percent of the national government

expenditures are channeled to personnel services


25/30


26/30


PA IN RP

DETERIORATING INVESTMENT CLIMATE

Causes:

weakness of the legal and regulatory framework limited recourses available to resolve disputes

high level of political intervention in the

commercial sector

Greater cost of power and labor as opposed toother neighboring countries in the region

CORRUPTION


27/30


PA IN RP

PROBLEMATIC CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS

Election fraud

Absence of modernized election system


28/30

NPM in the Philippines

The role of technical consultants in the formulation of

reform interventions led to the introduction of some

NPM concept in the Philippines.

many of the NPM inspired reform initiatives in the

Philippines are hastened by the presence of IT

infrastructures

structural adjustment programs of multilateral lending

institutions like the World Bank, ADB and the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) have contributed to

the growth of NPM in the Philippines.


29/30

Did NPM lead to

better governance?


30/30

Thank You!

npm report final

Documents