https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0002 

Introduction and context: 

This article fits into the overarching and long-going discussion on the theoretical foundations of public management as a discipline, and its difference from traditional public administration.  The author tries to undo the complications relative to the definition of public management,  starting from its etimology and history. Other notable scholars such as H. Simon and L. E. Lynn have expressed their views on this sensitive debate, that is critical to understand the pillars and future evolution of this field. 

Key insights: 

Starting from a commonly shared definition of public management as "the study and practice of design and operation of arrangements for the provision of public services and executive government", the author analyzes public management by focusing on three dimensions: the word, the movement and the science. 

Hood's view can be summarized by saying that public management as a discipline is strongly dependent on argumentation and persuasion. Although it aspires to be a science, its subject-matter (organizations and decision-making) will always generate opposing world-views. 

• "The Word": when analyzing the evolution of terminology on the study of government functioning over the centuries, Hood does not dismiss the idea that "fashion" is setting the pace. The word "administration" was more popular during the 19th century, while in the second part of the 20th century the expression "public management" acquired more and more visibility, also thanks to the introduction of specific graduate school programs in the US. In the 2000's it was "governance" that acquired increasing popularity.  But is there a platonic essence of public management behind the different terms? Although he does not underplay the different focus of the study of government over time, he claims that argumentation plays a key role in the evolution of public management paradigms (see "Key for locks in administrative argument", Hood and Jackson 1994 for a more precise account of this)

• "The Movement": the author claims that the public management movement that emerged in the United States during the 1980s can be recognized as a distinct movement due to several defining characteristics: it stands in opposition to traditional public administration, promotes a specific worldview centered on managerial leadership and organizational efficiency, and employs a distinctive rhetorical style. It did not arise without opposition, especially from the supporters of a law-centered approach to government. 

• "The Science": the author argues that currently public management cannot be considered a science in the traditional sense of a "body of knowledge founded on strict experimental methods and rigorous logical reasoning". However, a growing group of scholars is pushing towards a more "systematic analysis" of the discipline, in three aspects: elaborating a better description of the phenomena it wants to study (for example the implementation of control systems in public organizations based on output and outcome vs input), collecting and analyzing comparative data (for example the comparison of administrative and bureaucratical reforms in different countries) and identifying  anomalies that challenge pre-existing theories. 

Relevance for current times: 

Undergraduate students interested in this field, when facing the decision to enroll in a graduate school might be confused when seeing program names such as "Public Policy and Administration", "Public Management" or "Government". Where is the difference? Why should I prioritize one or the other? Hood tries to explain us how argumentation has been central in the development of the discipline of public management, and how it will continue to play a key role in every situation when scientific principles cannot be purely applied. Students should be aware how different terms have evolved to signal different perspectives on the study of government, and how scholars might adhere to one or the other view. This does not mean that programs containing the word "administration" will apply exclusively concepts from the 19th century, but it is just a reminder that words matter, and their choice always has an underlying meaning. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0003

Introduction and context: 

Laurence E. Lynn is recognized as one of the leading scholars in public management and administration. I've chosen to highlight one of his articles early in this blog to offer an alternative perspective on the evolution of the field, after presenting C. Hood's views. While this  piece may not be among his most well-known works, I find it particularly insightful, especially in its treatment of historical aspects.

Key insights: 

L.E. Lynn argues that public management and public administration should be considered synonyms. By defining the field as "encompassing the organizational structures, managerial practices, and institutionalized values by which officials enact the will of sovereign authority, whether that authority is prince, parliament, or civil society", he says there should be no distinction between "management" and "administration" within the public sphere. There is however a clear difference between public and private management, due to the distinctive challenges arising from features of governmental institutions. 

He describes the evolution of public management as a field across several eras:

• Origins in the Chinese empire during the second century B.C.

• Development of cameralism as a new idea in the German states during the 17th century

• Emergence of bureaucracy by the end of the 19th century in most of Europe (with the British exception and its unique paradigm based on limited government and popular sovereignty)

• Scientific orientation elaborated by American thought-leaders, and clear separation between politics and administration

As the 20th century progressed into its second half, the debate grew increasingly polarized on which theory should be behind the core of public administration. In the 1970s, a pivotal shift occurred as prominent American universities advocated for a renewed role of public managers, emphasizing their importance in steering public administration effectively. This shift generated a significant change also in academic curricula, with a focus towards a "craft" type of education. Meanwhile, European scholars began to reconsider the prevailing legalistic framework, influenced both by American ideas and the economic crisis of the mid-1970s, which necessitated a greater focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness in government operations.

Lynn describes a "globalization" of the field  following the 1990s, attributing this change to the emergence of a new framework: the New Public Management. Customer-orientation, managerialism and a focus on performance were the key characteristics of this new set of ideas, that quickly spread around the world, both within institutions and in academia.

The author concludes the article by trying to extract the essence of public management, regardless of national differences. Across the centuries it is the "relationship between bureaucracy and democracy, between administrators and people, between managerial responsibility and popular sovereignty and the rule of law" that has driven the discipline's evolution, among academics and practitioners.

Relevance for current times: 

In a world where political popularity changes at unforeseen speed, how is the field of public management evolving? After its moment of maximum popularity in the 1990's, New Public Management (the focus of the next post) suffered strong criticism. New paradigms such as "Governance" and "Digital governance", "Public value management" or "Agile public management" emerged more recently, each attracting considerable attention from scholars and professionals.

Equity, sustainability and technology are emerging as pivotal forces shaping the future of the field. Equity demands that public services integrate principles of justice, inclusivity and fairness more comprehensively. Sustainability calls for long-term orientation of policy and administrative actions. Meanwhile, technology offers new powerful tools for policy design and implementation, but also raises issues around privacy, control and sustainability. As we track progress in these critical areas, C. Hood's insight about the power of argumentation serves as a crucial reminder: while the technical aspects are paramount, the way in which new ideas are discussed and framed holds great power over their success.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x 

Introduction and context: 

This highly cited article by C. Hood introduces and captures the essence of one of the most popular and defining doctrines of public policy and administration: the New Public Management. Despite harsh criticism and attempts to reverse the main changes brought by NPM in public organizations, it cannot be denied that NPM - inspired reforms are still essential elements of modern public entities.

Post-NPM paradigms have all been characterized by a rejection of NPM values and ideas. However, I think it is beneficial to study and isolate its aspects that were effective, to build a more resilient future model (see Funck and Karlsson, 2023 for a more complete discussion on this point). Hood's main argument is that NPM ideas can be radically transformative, but might not be fit "for all seasons", more specifically they might not be compatible with different administrative values. I am going to summarize the key insights from the article, focusing particularly on the description and analysis of the features of NPM. 

Key insights: 

Hood's article can be divided into 3 parts: explanations of the rise of NPM, description of the defining doctrines of NPM and criticism.

1. Explanations for the rise of NPM:

NPM started to emerge during the late 70's in the UK. The author defines 4 administrative megatrends that seem to be linked to NPM:

1. Deceleration of government growth

2. Privatization of public sector

3. Automation in public services delivery through ICT

4. International agenda in public administration

Among the potential explanations for NPM success and rapid popularity, the author does not exclude political and social factors, such as the rise of the "New Right" in the UK, an increasingly richer and heterogeneous population, and the development of new technologies that reduced barriers between private and public sector. The strength of the movement was not only the novelty of its ideas but also the possibility it represented to go beyond the values of traditional public administration.

2. Defining doctrines:

1. 1. Presence of managers at the top of public organizations, with clear accountability

   2. Setting targets and quantitative indicators of success

   3. Performance-based rewards and resource allocation, focusing more on results than processes

   4. Breaking down of departments into smaller organizational units and decentralization to promote clear management

   5. Externalization and contracting, promoting competition for provision of public services

   6. More flexibility in hiring and firing, with introduction of private sector style and culture

   7. Cutting costs, stressing efficiency in operations

These ideas come mostly from private sector practices, but were inspired by new institutional economics and scientific management doctrines. Different countries adopted these principles to varying extents (ex.: Australia and New Zealand were among the first countries to implement NPM reforms, but differently from the UK).

3. Criticism:

The title of this article refers to the universality and general applicability of NPM reforms. Its supporters claimed that managerial challenges in the public sector were universal. However, opposers argued that administrative values define the design of national institutions in a way that cannot be modified by altering only the settings of the system. In the last section of the article the author identifies three alternative sets of administrative values: Sigma (based on efficiency), Theta (honesty and fairness) and Lambda (resilience and reliability). His conclusion is that NPM resonates more with Sigma-type values, therefore risking to reglect other dimensions in the long-term.

Other critics of NPM say that the movement has been characterized only by a change in language, and no substantial change in government functioning. A third criticism is that NPM reforms did not reach the objective of reducting costs per unit of service, and only contributed to create a new elite class of public managers. 

Relevance for current times: 

One of the key debates linked to NPM reforms is the distinction between private and public sector. Is it right to introduce private sector elements in public sector organizations? Is a focus on efficiency hurting the equity and fairness that characterizes government entities?

More cinic views might point out that an equity-driven public sector is just a romanticized vision. A convergence in practices and expectations has been continuing since the 1980's, but key distinctions between public and private remain and should remain. Not only in the kind of individuals that are attracted to work in government, but also in the mission of the organizations and mindset of its managers. Transparency, inclusion, equity and ultimately resilience should always play a leading role.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1396 

Introduction and context: 

This article, published by Oxford University Press, is a fundamental piece in pinpointing some critical definitions in the public sector strategy literature. The first author, J. Bryson, published a highly influential book in 1988 titled Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, which constitutes the basis of this new article, co-authored with B. George, a rising PA/PM scholar.

This topic bridges theory and practice in public management; while managers frequently engage in strategy-making in their day-to-day jobs, academics have sought to theorize processes and models, highlight success factors, and explain the differences between corporate and public sector strategy.

The main contribution of this piece is to provide students and academics with a comprehensive list of definitions and categorizations of concepts related to strategic management that can be utilized to correctly frame and apply them.
I have collected and summarized the definitions here, with direct quotes when necessary.

Key insights: 

Strategy:  "Concrete approach to aligning the aspirations and the capabilities of public organizations or other entities in order to achieve goals and create public value."

Strategist: Individuals, teams, or organizations involved in the process of strategy-making. Four types are identified based on two characteristics: aspirations and capabilities: the dreamer, the savvy strategist, the reactor and the underachiever. 

Strategizing: "Consists of the activities undertaken by public organizations or other entities to deliberately and emergently (re)align their aspirations and capabilities, thus exploring how aspirations can actually be achieved within a given context—or else need to be changed—taking into account current capabilities and the possible need to develop new capabilities or to change the context." This definition clarifies that the authors define strategy as a practice, not as an object or a given. This implies that there is no fixed or defined process for strategizing.

Strategic planning: "Reasonably deliberate and deliberative approach to strategizing by public organizations or other entities that focuses on strategy formulation and typically includes (a) analyzing existing mandates, mission, values, and vision; (b) formulating updated mission, values, and vision statements; (c) analyzing the internal and external environment to identify strategic issues; and (d) formulating concrete and implementable strategies to address the identified issues."

The authors also identified several existing approaches to strategic planning:

• Harvard Policy Model: Adapted from the private sector, this approach seeks to find the best fit between the organization and its environment by analyzing the organization's SWOT, the priorities of senior decision-makers (in this case, elected leadership), and the social obligations of the organization.

• Logical incrementalism: Involves developing incremental changes within the organization, taking into account existing direction and realistic political limitations.

• Stakeholder management: Strategic planning is considered effective only if it can satisfy the needs of stakeholders. Engagement with key parties is essential in this approach, but the authors highlight that simple participation in the planning process is not enough to ensure higher performance.

• Strategic negotiations: Recognizes that power is shared across many actors in the public decision-making process, requiring a long negotiation process.

• Strategic issues management: Focuses on the identification of key issues that need direct attention, even outside of the regular strategic planning process, which occurs infrequently.

• Strategic planning as a framework for innovation: Uses the planning process as a means to foster innovation within the organization, encouraging a more entrepreneurial culture.

The remaining two approaches focus on what should be the content of public sector strategies:

• Portfolio approach: suitable for larger and ramified organizations, it consists in grouping entities within the main organization based on strategically significant dimensions, to plan more efficiently and tailor strategies to the characteristics of the portfolio.

• Competitive analysis: Considers public entities as organizations operating in a competitive environment where businesses and other enterprises are also active.

Strategic management: "Approach to strategizing by public organizations or other entities which integrates strategy formulation and implementation and typically includes strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continuous strategic learning."

Here, strategic management is defined as a broader concept, of which strategic planning is only the starting point. The authors proceed to identify six "ideal" ways in which strategic management is institutionalized:

• Integrated units of management / layered / stacked: Involves creating an integrated set of strategies across different levels of the organization, aiming to plan and control all aspects related to the internal and external environment.

• Strategic issues management: Based on the creation of a central analysis team that monitors data to identify issues that need to be strategically addressed by the organization.

• Contract approach: Involves creating a series of contracts that bind individual entities at lower levels to a specific set of objectives, negotiated at a central level.

• Collaboration approach: Based on forming networks that share power and resources and constantly collaborate to define issues and prompt strategic actions.

• Portfolio management: (See portfolio management in the strategic planning section)

• Goals or benchmark approach: Developed by setting goals derived from competitors or comparable entities to support implementation.

Relevance for current times: 

Strategic planning is mandated by law for several government entities. However, some of the difficulties associated with it are often overlooked. First, public managers must cope with ambiguous goals and difficult performance measurement, which characterize public organizations. Moreover, planning becomes more difficult when political leaders have short mandates and governing parties—who should be "steering" the boat—are often clueless about the country's long-term strategic objectives. When the highest level of leadership lacks a clear vision, it becomes more challenging to effectively perform the "strategic management" function in government.

What can we propose, then, to ensure that strategic planning results in real impact rather than merely producing countless pages of documentation?
As the authors of the paper suggest, there is still much to study regarding how to create credible and effective strategies and which approaches are best suited for specific conditions.

Other research has investigated the impact of strategic planning on organizational performance (particularly effectiveness), finding a positive and significant effect (George, Walker, and Monster, 2019). This gives us hope that studying and promoting best practices for strategizing in the public sector can still provide a valuable contribution to society.

Introduction and context: 

Wilson's book about bureaucracy can be considered one of the cornerstones of public administration literature, and despite its publishing year, it still contains relevant and thought-provoking insights on bureaucratic behavior that I consider universally relevant.

I happened to read this volume at the same time as Reinventing Government by Osborne and Gaebler, and I was intrigued by the strong exchange between the two.
While they share the same topic (public organizations and their behaviour), the tone and objective is substantially different. Wilson takes an academic approach; he describes what is generally true about government agencies and the reasons behind the behaviour of civil servants and managers. Osborne's book is a manifesto of his movement, through which he proposes a new way of organizing and managing government agencies, attempting to reform a system that has been in place for decades.

I will dedicate the next blog post to a brief summary and review of Reinventing Government, with a focus on its criticism, which is also part of Wilson's preface to the latest edition of his book. For this post, I will focus on sections and chapters of Wilson’s book that I found particularly interesting, encouraging readers to explore the full chapters, which include several real-world cases and examples.

Key insights: 

Chapter 2 - Organization matters: The success of public organizations depends on how well they tackle three key issues: performing their critical task, securing agreement among most actors on the definition of that task, and acquiring the freedom of action and political support needed to redefine the task if necessary.

Wilson argues that tasks are often more important than goals when goals are vague and difficult to measure, as in the case of public agencies. The definition of a critical task and agreement on it can instill a sense of mission that supports the organization’s activities.

Chapter 4 - Beliefs: The imperatives and constraints of a given situation shape the way tasks are performed more than the specific attitudes of workers. With this thesis, Wilson attempts to show why politicians should worry less about civil servants trying to obstruct their plans, a common concern among politicians from all parties. Psychological evidence suggests that behavior is influenced less by personal opinions and more by the rewards and penalties associated with alternative courses of action. 

Chapter 7 -Constraints: Government agencies often suffer from negative popular stereotypes. However, Wilson argues that these perceptions are not always reflected in reality. What are the main constraints public entities face compared to private sector organizations? Some key challenges include:

• The inability to retain and distribute earnings to members of the organization.

• Difficulty in allocating resources according to the preferences of the administrator.

• The obligation to serve goals that are not chosen by the organization itself.

These factors lead to a management style that is often "constraints-driven" rather than "efficiency-driven." Wilson presents an interesting hypothetical scenario, describing what would happen if the Registry of Motor Vehicles were managed like a McDonald's. Suppose the manager wanted to improve service; this might require raising costs (which is difficult, as legislators have little incentive to fund a more efficient registry), replacing personnel (almost impossible for civil servants), or increasing training (which also requires funding). Even if the manager successfully increases efficiency despite these limitations, the gains do not translate into higher earnings for the agency. In fact, if service improves too much, there is a risk that citizens from other areas will flock to the Registry, increasing workload and straining resources in a way that damages other constituencies. The optimal service level, therefore, becomes one where everyone is only moderately dissatisfied.

Of course, this is not always the case for government functions. Wilson introduces key differentiations in agency activities and levels of constraints, which are further explored in Chapter 9.

Chapter 9 - Compliance: This chapter provides a brief explanation of how principal-agent models function in government settings and highlights why managers are essential, despite the many limitations they face in a public sector context.

The issue of shirking is more complex in government agencies for three reasons:

1. The output is often unobservable or unknowable.

2. Agents have multiple principals whose preferences change frequently with the political cycle.

3. Agents operate within their own political and professional norms.

After introducing these significant challenges, Wilson explains why bureaucrats still perform their jobs effectively: One reason is that civil servants may have an intrinsic motivation to do their job well. Another reason is that managers can control rewards, fostering a sense of mission among workers through purpose, status, and solidarity.

According to Wilson, the optimal managerial approach varies depending on the characteristics of the organization. He categorizes public agencies into four types, based on two dimensions: observability of outputs (what workers do) and observability of outcomes (the results achieved).

• Production organizations (observable output and outcome, e.g., Postal Service): In these organizations, the role of the manager closely resembles that of private sector entities. Results can be quantified, and efficiency can be improved more easily, provided that resources are available. A potential managerial challenge is "gaming" performance targets.

• Procedural organizations (observable output, unobservable outcome, e.g., juvenile reformatories, armed forces during peacetime): Due to bureaucratic constraints, management in these organizations tends to focus on standardized processes and professional norms. Standard operating procedures are pervasive in such settings.

• Craft organizations (unobservable output, observable outcome, e.g., armed forces at war): Managers cannot directly observe workers' activities but can assess final results (e.g., a battle won). In such cases, it is essential to foster a strong sense of mission and professional autonomy to prevent misconduct and corruption.

• Coping organizations (unobservable output and outcome, e.g., diplomats, police): Effective management is nearly impossible in these settings. Leaders must rely on individual talent and monitoring systems.

Relevance for current times: 

Wilson does not shy away from offering his own perspective on public management as a discipline. He (cynically) describes it as engaging with "a world of settled institutions designed to allow imperfect people to use flawed procedures to cope with insoluble problems" (Chapter 20). He also emphasizes the challenges of implementing scientific methods in a field where, at the time, empirical evidence was underutilized.

He concludes by discussing possible ways to improve government organization. Without delving into the details of his recommendations—many of which are very US-centric and somewhat outdated—I want to highlight one of his key insights on government criticism. He states:

"Many of the difficulties we experience in dealing with government agencies arise from the agencies being part of a fragmented and open political system... Politicians and judges have no incentive to make it happen (change), and partly because there are certain tasks a democratic government must undertake even if they cannot be performed efficiently. The greatest mistake citizens can make when they complain about the bureaucracy is to suppose that their frustration arise simply out of management problems; they do not - they arise out of governance problems". (Chapter 20)

I find this message incredibly powerful, as it provides a well-reasoned response to the increasingly frequent and superficial criticisms of government from global political leaders. With public trust in government steadily declining, Wilson's message could be key to shifting public perception toward a more positive view of public institutions. 

Introduction and context: 

This piece can be considered different from the others presented in the previous posts. It is less scientific or academic and more of a "manifesto". The rhetorical element here is predominant.

But public management is also rhetoric, especially when we talk about  reforms, in which language and communication can play a critical role.

The motivation behind the book is clear: putting into writing the principles that guided the government reform efforts led by David Osborne, a key consultant in the initiative launched by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in 1993.

The authors lay out their vision at the outset, advocating for a "third way"—not a simple debate between more or less government spending, but a focus on efficiency: "doing more with less." 

To shield themselves from criticism and party affiliations, they remark many times in their book that they do not wish to address "what" governments do, but "how" they do it. Later on, they elaborate on another idea: they argue for a government more focused on "steering" rather than "rowing". In their words, government becomes a "skillful buyer" that invests its energies in policy decisions rather than service delivery. Without explicitly calling for a smaller government, the reforms they discuss ultimately pushed in the direction of a leaner state with less direct service provision.

Key insights: 

Their critique of the American bureaucracy is sharp, tracing its historical evolution. Some passages are still very actual, as if they could have been written in 2025:

"But the bureaucratic model developed in conditions very different from those we experience today. It developed in a slower-pace society… in an age of hierarchy…in a society where people worked with their hands, not their minds…in a time of mass markets…when we had strong geographic communities. Today all that has been swept away. We live in an era of breathkaking change. We live in a global marketplace…in an information society, in a knowledge-based economy…of niche markets…In this environment bureaucratic institutions developed during the industrial era increasingly fail us. Today's environment demands institutions that are extremely flexible and adaptable….that are responsive to their customers…that lead by persuasion…that empower citizens rather than simply serving them. In the last years the clash between old and new has only intensified. The result has been a period of enourmous stress in American government…Our information technologies and knowledge economy give us opportunities to do things that we never dreamed possible…we must pick up the wreackage of our industrial-era institutions and re-build."

The 10 Principles of Reform

Through 5 years of efforts, they distilled ten core principles followed by the most virtuous American public organizations:

1. Promote competition among service providers

2. Empower citizens to take control

3. Measure success by outcomes, not inputs

4. Be guided by missions, not rigid rules

5. Redefine citizens as customers

6. Prevent problems before they emerge, rather than reacting

7. Earn money, don’t just spend it

8. Decentralize authority 

9. Prefer markets to bureaucracy

10. Engage all sectors to solve community problems

These constitute a new paradigm for "reforming government" but also an analytical tool, that can be used to analyze any kind of public enterprise and propose changes based on the direction proposed.

Case Studies: Reform in Action

In different chapters they describe concrete examples of change for each of the key principles, showing how best performers in the country are reforming government.

• Competition in service provision (Chapter 3)

  • Privatization of service delivery is only one possible way of increasing competition. Other forms can be to create competition between public and private providers or even between several public entities

  • Example: New York Sanitation Department (1980s). Internal repair shops for their vehicles were inefficient, so the department started publishing financial performance charts for each shop, just as if they were private businesses. The transparency drove employees to compare to the market and improve their service, saving $2.4 million annually.

• Mission-driven government (Chapter 4)

  • Governments have a tendency to create new rules and entities that soon become obsolete and constitute an obstacle for efficiency. For example, spending limits introduced in 1930s got removed only in 1980s (Minnesota Agencies) or detachments created in wartimes continue to be funded in the UK). The authors identify 3 possible ways to reduce the risk of obsolete regulations: sunset laws, review commissions and zero-based budgeting. They underline the importance of designing a "mission-driven budget system" to shift from a "spend it or lose it" paradigm to a "save and invest it" one.

  • Example: Fairfield, California (1978). Instead of traditional budgeting, they implemented mission-driven budgeting: the city council determined only broad categories of spending, without line items, and each department was allowed to keep the money not spent each year. This system allowed the city to drastically reduce spending while maintaining high levels of services, and was soon adopted by a lot of other American municipalities.

• Citizens as customers (Chapter 6)

  • Most government agencies do not get funds from their own customers, differently from a business. Agencies get funds from the legislature and elected boards. That is why it is so difficult to get public bureaucracy to be customer-oriented: often they are not incentivized to make the customer happy. Public entities can apply private sector methodologies such as Total Quality management to improve their customer orientation.

  • Example: Fox Valley Technical College, Wisconsin. They implemented a Total Quality approach, restructuring operations to align with student needs. 

• Markets over bureaucracy (Chapter 10)

  • When confronted with a problem, governments instinctly react with the creation of a new program. Instead, the authors argue, they should focus more on structuring a market in a smart way, creating the incentives that will lead people to behave in the way that benefits the most the community (I hear the echoes of the libertarian paternalism idea promoted by Thaler and Sunstein in "Nudge"). However, they stress that this does not mean to leave things to the market, but to intervene purposefully to create public-oriented market rules. 

  • They also provide a checklist of "What it takes to make a market work" and several examples of government actions in this area.

Relevance for current times: 

Public bureaucracies are facing increasing criticism worldwide, marking a new wave of government reforms aimed at enhancing efficiency and reducing "waste" within public entities. A key example of this is the American Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. Similarly, in Argentina, Federico Sturzenegger is spearheading a ministry focused on deregulation and state transformation.

In light of these recent initiatives, it is reasonable to reflect on past reform efforts and ask: were they successful?
The Reforming Government movement, for instance, faced significant criticism in academic circles for failing to fulfill its promises and for being founded on flawed assumptions.

Here, I summarize the perspectives of Wilson, who examined the "REGO" movement in the introduction of his updated edition of Bureaucracy, and Pollitt & Bouckaert, who analyzed public management reform in their book first published in 2000. Their insights offer valuable lessons for contemporary reformers, helping them to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Wilson’s critique can be encapsulated in the statement: "It will be difficult to make it work."
He argues that public entities have limited incentives to improve efficiency since their outcomes are often difficult to measure. Additionally, attempts to introduce competition among them are hindered by their inherent pursuit of autonomy. While the idea of applying an entrepreneurial mindset to public administration is appealing in theory, it may ultimately prove impractical.

Pollitt and Bouckaert, on the other hand, take a more measured stance: "It might work, but there will be side effects."
Critics of traditional bureaucracies—such as Osborne and Gaebler—often emphasize their downsides, including rigidity and centralization, while overlooking their strengths. Bureaucracies, for example, provide continuity and uphold principles of equity. When shifting to a new paradigm, it is crucial not to disregard what is left behind. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272 

Introduction and context: 

This post delves into one of the core concepts in the public administration literature: street-level bureaucracy. The idea of "street-level" bureaucrats, as opposed to administrators isolated from society, was introduced by M. Lipsky in 1980. He described them as civil servants who engage in direct contact with citizens. This category includes a large number of public sector workers, such as teachers, police officers, and social workers, among others.

Because of the nature of their work and their continuous interaction with citizens, these professionals often develop relationships that are not only professional but also emotional and personal.

These are the aspects that Maynard-Moody and Musheno explore in their seminal article on street level bureaucrats. They argue for a more nuanced understanding of the concept; one that also considers how these workers conceptualize their own roles and the importance of discretion in their everyday decisions.

Key insights: 

The authors carefully trace the dominant academic narrative of street-level bureaucrats as "State-Agents" back to Lipsky’s original definition. They then contrast this with an alternative perspective that emerged from their own field research, which they label as "Citizen-Agents." Below is a brief summary of these two contrasting views:

1. Street level bureaucrats as "State-Agents" - Scholarly view: 

○ Discretion is inevitable due to nature of the job: they cannot be completely controlled by their principals (elected officials)

○ They are guided by self-interest but they can also be idealists 

○ Their actions are part of policy-making and have a strong influence on policy results

○ Discretion is a danger to be controlled, although it is challenging. But in some cases it can also be a positive source of responsiveness

2. Street level bureaucrats as "Citizen-Agents" - Practitioners' view: 

○ Their judgement of the context goes before the rules (with something that authors call “pragmatic improvisation”)

○ Their relationship with the citizen is central for their behaviour

○ They don’t see themselves as part of the process of policymaking

○ The role of elected officials is marginal for them

These conceptions seem to emerge as competing and incompatible. However, the authors strongly argue that there is not a unique truth. Actually, together they can give a more complete understanding of the functioning of the modern state. Teachers and policeman are both State- and Citizen-Agents, and despite the framing of their role, they cannot escape from the constraints of elected officials and regulations. What emerges is a desire to be recognized also as Citizen-Agents, a view that valorizes their judgement and abilities. 

Methodology:

The authors employ qualitative methods within an interpretivist framework. Their focus is on the meaning that emerges from stories told by street-level bureaucrats themselves. They collected 162 first-person stories across five American public organizations, including schools, rehabilitation centers, and police stations.

The strength of this method lies in the freedom it gives interviewees to express their own views and understanding of their roles. However, as the authors acknowledge, this approach risks overemphasizing dramatic or non-routine events at the expense of everyday norms.

Relevance for current times: 

Street level bureaucrats lived their moment of highest popularity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Their precious job in several areas of public services delivery was recognized and praised publicly by politicians and institutions. However, as soon as the emergency period ended, everything went back to the same routine. For many healthcare and education workers, this means having to deal with increasing pressures and demands, while resources are shrinking. 

The narrative of Citizen-Agents highlights the need of street level bureaucrats to be recognized as more independent and valuable actors in the large state machine. It underscores the strength of their motivation and drive in performing key functions in our society. I believe that a third narrative of street level bureaucrats is possible. One that highlights their role both as part of a set of institutional rules and embedded in relationships with citizens. I like to call this "Society-Agents", and I believe this view should become dominant in the public opinion, in order to recognize more strongly their precious role.