The "United Kingdom is often seen as the birthplace of New Public Management (NPM)",
especially because of Christopher Hood’s 1991 paper where the term was first introduced.
Although the United States also made important contributions—like the work of Osborne and
Gaebler in 1992—it was the "UK’s experience under the Conservative government from 1979 to
1997" that strongly shaped how NPM developed in its early stages. Since then, NPM has
spread widely and become a major approach to public management in many parts of the world,
including "North America, Australasia, and the Pacific Rim". Global organisations like the "World
Bank and OECD" have also supported NPM-style reforms in several countries.
NPM represents a shift away from "traditional bureaucratic models". It focuses more on
"efficiency, results, decentralisation, and market-based methods" in managing public services.
But NPM isn’t just about turning public services into businesses. Some scholars argue that it
reflects a bigger change—from a system where the government alone managed everything, to a
more "plural and shared form of governance".
Different scholars have looked at both the "ideas behind NPM and how it works in real life":
* Some explain how NPM developed over time, both in the UK and globally. They say it’s not
only about markets but about changing how services are organised and delivered.
* Others link NPM to bigger "theories in public administration and political science".
* There is also evidence, like from the UK’s health sector, that shows how NPM has been put
into practice.
* A few researchers have created "typologies"—or different versions—of NPM to show how it
changes depending on the "national context".
* The UK’s "modernisation agenda" has been studied to see how much it matches or challenges
NPM principles. This gives useful insights for reforms in other countries too.
At the same time, several debates have raised concerns about NPM:
* Some scholars are critical of the heavy focus on "accounting and performance measures",
arguing that these tools might not fit well with the complex nature of public services.
* Others explore whether NPM has helped to reduce or has actually increased "social
exclusion". They suggest that future reforms should focus more on "building strong
relationships" rather than just efficient service delivery.
* There are also discussions around the "Best Value regime" in the UK, which shows
contradictions that might challenge the logic of NPM itself.
* Finally, there’s an ongoing debate about how NPM balances "efficiency, fairness, and social
justice". Some argue that these values can go together, but only if public managers actively
work to make that happen.
"" Introduction: Understanding the NPM Debate
The debate around New Public Management (NPM) continues to be highly relevant in both
academic and policy circles. It has influenced how public services are managed and delivered
across the world. The following discussion sets out to understand how NPM emerged,
especially in the UK, and how it fits into the broader historical and global context of public
administration. It also raises important questions about whether NPM is just a phase or a
continuing evolution in public sector management.
"" The Evolution of Public Management in the UK: A Four-Stage Model
Public management in the UK has gone through four major stages over the past 100 years.
Each stage reflects a change in how public services were viewed and managed. Although other
countries may have different trajectories, the UK model helps frame the general evolution of
public administration.
"" Stage One: The Minimal State (Late 19th Century)
In the late 1800s, the state played a very limited role in providing public services. The idea of
government intervention was seen as a necessary evil at best. Most services were offered by
the charitable sector or private providers. In the United States, this model was even considered
a social ideal, as observed by de Tocqueville.
However, this did not mean there was no state at all. This period marked the early development
of public administration principles. For example, Woodrow Wilson (1887) distinguished between
the constitutional structure of government and the administration of its functions—a foundational
idea in public administration.
"" Stage Two: Unequal Partnership (Early 20th Century)
In the early 1900s, there was a shift towards government involvement in service provision,
though still in partnership with charities and private organizations. This change was driven by
the rise of social reform movements, like Fabianism, which saw societal problems as collective
rather than individual.
This stage involved:
* A redefinition of social problems as public issues.
* A growing legitimacy for state involvement, especially in areas like sanitation.
* The creation of unequal partnerships, where the state was the dominant actor, but worked with
charities and private groups.
This period was often described using the metaphor of an “extending ladder”—with the state
providing basic services, and the voluntary and private sectors adding on extra support. The
charitable sector was valued for its flexibility and innovation.
"" Stage Three: The Welfare State (1945–1980s)
After World War II, the UK entered the era of the welfare state, influenced heavily by the ideas
of William Beveridge. This model was based on the belief that the private and charitable sectors
had failed due to being fragmented, poorly managed, and inefficient.
The state now promised to meet all citizen needs “from cradle to grave.” Services were run by
trained professionals, and this was the high point of classical public administration in the UK. It
emphasized objectivity, bureaucracy, and uniformity in service delivery.
"" Stage Four: The Plural State and the Rise of NPM (Late 1970s Onward)
By the late 1970s, dissatisfaction with the welfare model grew. Under Margaret Thatcher, a new
phase emerged, focusing on privatization and market-based reforms. The plural state model
shifted away from universal state provision toward a system where multiple actors (government,
private, and voluntary sectors) played a role in service delivery.
Citizens began demanding personalized services, choice, and a voice in how services were
delivered. At the same time, there was increasing criticism of public sector professionals and
trade unions, who were seen as inefficient or self-serving. Thatcher's solution was to introduce
market logic into the public sector. This included:
* Privatization of state-run enterprises.
* Promotion of the “enabling state”, where government plans and funds services but doesn’t
always deliver them.
* Emphasis on competition, choice, and efficiency.
"" The New Public Management (NPM): A Defining Shift
By the 1990s, this approach was formally recognized as New Public Management (NPM). It
represented a major shift from the traditional bureaucratic model. NPM challenged the
dominance of bureaucracy, focused on efficiency, and aimed to make public services more
responsive to users.
According to Christopher Hood (1991), NPM consists of several key features:
* Promoting entrepreneurial management instead of rigid bureaucracy.
* Setting clear performance standards and outcomes.
* Stressing output controls rather than just procedures.
* Decentralizing and disaggregating services for flexibility.
* Encouraging competition between providers.
* Adopting private sector management styles.
* Ensuring discipline in resource use.
An additional doctrine added later was the separation of political decision-making from service
delivery, meaning that politicians set policy, but service professionals manage operations.
"" Beyond Marketization: From NPM to Governance
However, this narrow focus on marketization began to shift with the arrival of New Labour in
1997. While still supporting the plural state, the focus moved towards community governance.
The role of the government evolved from direct provider to a coordinator of networks that
included NGOs, communities, and private firms.
This model emphasized negotiation and cooperation rather than just competition. Scholars like
Rhodes (1996) and Kickert (1997) argued that governance, rather than management, had
become the central task of public administration.
"" Conclusion: A Continuing Debate
The story of NPM is not just about privatization or reducing the state’s role. It is part of a larger
transformation in how public services are conceptualized and delivered. From a minimal state to
a welfare model, and now to a plural, networked form of governance, public management
continues to evolve.
NPM has undoubtedly changed public sector thinking—but whether it is the final word or just
another phase in a longer journey is still open to debate.
In the study of public management, much of the discussion has often focused on individual
national contexts—such as the UK. However, it is equally important to understand how these
ideas have developed and spread across the world. Internationally, the contrast between
traditional public administration and the newer model of New Public Management (NPM) has
become even more pronounced. Over the last two decades, many countries have experienced
significant transformations in how their public sectors are managed, moving away from
traditional approaches toward more managerial, efficiency-focused models.
Traditional public administration, which was largely based on incremental processes and routine
administration, began to be challenged by newer practices that emphasized results and
efficiency. Initially, these changes appeared in specific areas. For example, “management by
objectives” became popular in managing personnel, while “zero-based budgeting” was
introduced in financial planning. Over time, however, these individual reforms were brought
together under a broader approach known as NPM, which spread across all aspects of public
sector management. This approach became known internationally and is now widely recognized
as a model for reform in public management, closely linked with the rise of the plural
state—where multiple actors, including private and non-profit sectors, contribute to public
service delivery.
Importantly, NPM has not remained the same in all countries. It has evolved based on national
experiences. In the United States, early forms of NPM focused on reducing the size of
government by outsourcing services to private companies and promoting a business-like culture
in public organizations. This was influenced by management theories that emphasized
organizational excellence and entrepreneurship. Later, attention shifted to reforming
government within a more decentralized and pluralistic system. In European countries, reforms
evolved from strict output control methods to more flexible approaches that manage complex
networks and interactions between public agencies and other actors.
This shows that NPM is not a fixed model but one that adapts and changes depending on its
context. Supporters of NPM argue that it has brought clear benefits such as cost reduction,
improved service delivery, and better accountability within public and non-profit organizations. It
has been credited with addressing long-standing issues in the way public institutions are
managed and held accountable.
Despite its influence, NPM has also received a fair share of criticism. Many scholars have
questioned whether it truly offers a better alternative to traditional public administration. Critics
have raised concerns that NPM might be just another passing trend, that it reduces the
accountability of public services to citizens, and that it often fails to achieve the very goals it
promises—such as greater efficiency and effectiveness. Some have also questioned whether
the popularity of NPM is due to its actual success or simply because powerful international
organizations, like the World Bank and IMF, have promoted it as a one-size-fits-all solution for
public sector problems around the globe.
There is also debate about whether NPM represents a globally unified model or whether it
varies greatly across different national contexts. Some researchers argue that it is misleading to
see NPM as a single, coherent set of ideas. Instead, they suggest that it is a diverse and
complex collection of reforms that look different depending on where and how they are applied.
This diversity has led to the development of frameworks to better understand and compare how
NPM reforms work in different places.
Another concern is whether NPM can truly be considered a new and complete paradigm for
managing public services, or if it is simply a development within the broader tradition of public
administration. While some believe that NPM offers a clear alternative to bureaucratic systems,
others suggest that the two approaches may still be connected, or even compatible in some
ways.
As public management continues to evolve globally, several new developments are worth
paying attention to. For example, the UK has focused on community governance and
modernization, mainland Europe has emphasized managing public networks, and countries in
East Asia have followed different models that reflect their unique political and social structures.
The question remains whether these are just variations of NPM or entirely new approaches that
challenge its core principles.
Finally, a critical issue in the global debate on NPM is whether the same management
techniques used in the private sector can really be applied to the public and non-profit sectors.
These sectors have different expectations, especially regarding accountability to the public,
which may not align with the goals and methods promoted by NPM.
**Key Highlights**:
* NPM marks a shift from traditional, bureaucratic public administration to a more managerial,
efficiency-driven approach.
* Reforms under NPM began in specific areas but gradually became a more unified,
international trend.
* NPM has evolved differently in various countries depending on their political and social
environments.
* Supporters claim it improves efficiency, service delivery, and accountability in public services.
* Critics argue that NPM weakens democratic accountability and may not deliver on its
promises.
* Debate continues over whether NPM is a global model or a set of diverse, context-specific
reforms.
* Questions remain about NPM’s coherence as a theoretical model and its ability to replace or
coexist with traditional public administration.
* New developments like community governance and East Asian models may challenge or
expand the scope of NPM.
* There is ongoing concern about applying private-sector management tools to the public sector,
especially due to unique accountability requirements.
The idea of New Public Management (NPM) originally emerged as a scholarly tool meant to
help explain and structure debates about the changing nature of executive government and
public sector management. It was developed by political scientists in countries like the UK and
Australia, who were observing significant reforms in the way public organizations were being
designed and run. Initially, NPM was introduced as a new way of thinking about organizational
structure in the public sector—especially with regard to efficiency, performance, and
results-oriented management.
NPM was not just a casual idea; it was treated as a serious theoretical argument, built upon
existing principles of management and administration. Its early definition drew upon earlier
doctrines of organizational design and updated them to fit new public sector realities. In this
sense, NPM was seen as both a conceptual framework and a practical philosophy—one that
promoted specific ideas about how public organizations should be structured and managed.
As time passed, the term NPM took on broader meanings. Some scholars began to define it
through the lens of new institutional economics, suggesting that NPM involved applying
economic principles such as efficiency, competition, and choice to public sector management.
Others used the term more loosely, to describe a general pattern of reforms or policy decisions
in the public sector. Because of this variation, NPM today functions more as a widely recognized
label rather than a single, clearly defined concept.
This diversity in meaning creates challenges for scholars trying to study or explain NPM. When
designing research or making arguments about it, scholars must decide how they are using the
term and which interpretation they are drawing from. This step is important for ensuring clarity
and contributing meaningfully to academic discussions. However, making this decision is not
always easy, as a full and detailed account of NPM's intellectual background has not yet been
developed.
In its early years, NPM was closely linked to two related ideas: **administrative argument** and
**administrative philosophy**. Though similar, these ideas had different foundations—one based
on the theory of argumentation and the other rooted in empirical political science. Both shared
common elements such as organizational doctrines and ideas about how public services should
be structured, which is why they were often described metaphorically as "Siamese
twins"—distinct but inseparably connected. Together, they helped shape how NPM was
understood and discussed in its initial stages.
These two strands—argument and philosophy—continue to influence how NPM is interpreted in
academic writing. Over time, different scholars have emphasized one or the other, or combined
both perspectives, to explain the rise of NPM and its practical implications. This mixture has
contributed to both the richness and the confusion surrounding the term. Despite these
challenges, understanding the twin nature of NPM’s conceptual origin is crucial for any serious
analysis of public sector reform and management today.
H&J used this model to make three important points:
NPM is a structured point of view, not a random or incoherent set of ideas. It is organized
around a consistent argument about government design.
NPM has substance, because it is grounded in administrative values that, even if debatable, are
rational and recognizable (particularly sigma-type values).
NPM can be critiqued, especially when other values (like fairness or system resilience) are
prioritized over efficiency. This opens up space for critical dialogue, rather than outright
dismissal.
