NPM Pollitt

Disaggregation+ competition+ incetivization

Why:

NPM a triumph over bureaucracy
was too big (structure dimensions)
too slow-moving,
too insensitive (slow to react ,adapt to changing needs)
insufficiently adaptable,
seriously underpowered as far as brains were concerned

Performance
Accountability (legitimacy)
Economic pressures + interdependency
Pollitt causes>
- choices of practitioners why? It promises to save money< it promises better control for
politicians
- Fashion the only show in town if the British are doing it then it must be important/good

Set of changes that are aimed at:
- Shift of focus from inputs and process to outputs and outcomes
- if a service can be accountable for what it achieves, we need worry far less about how it
achieves it
- measures of performance systems of evaluation- indicators
- lean, flat organizational forms; special services by special agencies (autonomy)
downsizing, desagregation
- |clear targets and a good system of performance indicators
- contracts/contract like relations instead of hierarchical relations
- competetive tendering, introduction of competition, market like mechanisms
(privatization, PPP)
- consumer orientation
- quality managemnt
- efficiency and individualism vs. equity and security
- externalization of services
- personalized services
- more autonomy for managers- letting managers manage
- deregulation
~
more action, fewer words








Impact

NPM were so confident of the benefits of the reforms that they were content to leave the results as matters
of faith rather than issues to be checked and evaluated
IT IS SO GOOD THAT YOUD DONT NEED TO TEST IT

Very difficult to evaluate because it has taken many forms, objectives of the reform are vague ( we want a
better system, better administration), system of changes is complex

Walking home from the criketers
- Why things are not going well the results dont tell you that (or why thins stand that way
they do not tell you anything about the causes)
- Can lead to demotivation - Complacency we cant really change anything
- It doesnt really take into consideration the causes
- Can lead to more bureaucracy
-
- difficult to evaluate was it good or bad?
- public ethos- public interest
- Less control (too much autonomy for managers)
- not so efficient - resources spent for change may be higher than the benefits
- more bureaucracy through constant performance measurement
- fragmentation of institutions