The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs.

Administration Debate
Author(s): Linda Kaboolian
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1998), pp. 189-193
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public
Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976558
Accessed: 08/03/2009 12:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

topromote
a constructive
is intended
andmeaningful
Thissymposium
between
scholars
in thepublicpolicyandsodialogue
Scholars
called'?raditional
bothacademic
wereaskedtoconpublicadministration"communities.
representing
provinces
thataddress
thebroadtopicof leadership,
" Whiletheauthors
tributearticles
andthenewPublicManagement.
democracy
a
PAR
tasks
in
ways,
the
their
readers
and
Articles
ofdifferent
variety
willfind essays
approached
engaging thought
provoking.
werereviewed
includedin thesymposium
Herbert
bya distinguishedpanel
ofscholars
including
Kaufman,
1996 Waldo
Awardwinner,
DavidH. Rosenbloom,
andGaryL. Wamsley,
formerPAReditor-in-chief
editor-in-chief
Administration
&
on
the
We
welcome
comments
Society.
your
symposium.
LarryD. Terry,
symposium
editor

eformmovements
in thepublicsector,codiby
Management"
R fied as the "NewPublic
cholars,providean opportunityfor the
adherents
of publicadministration
andof public
Challengingthe Boundadies
of the
management
to engageeachother.Thissymposium
presents
thereactions
of well-known
scholars
with
Management vs. AdniiistraonDebte
different
onthetheoretical
perspectives
andempirical
opportunities
andchallenges
presented
by theNew
PublicManagement.
All of the authors
havepubLinda
Kaboolian,
Harvard
University
lishedimportant
andlengthyworkselsewhere
that
morefullyelucidatetheirpositionson issuesthat
dividetheschoolof publicmanagement
fromthatof
publicadministration.'The
uniquequalityof the
symposium
is thatthesescholars
address
oneanother
in a conversation
disciplined
by focuson a specific
topic.

The

New

Public

Management:

The "NewPublicManagement":
New
Vine in OldBottles
The"NewPublicManagement"
labelsa seriesof
innovationsoccurringdomesticallyand abroad
(Organization
forEconomic
Cooperation
andDevelopment,1995a,1995b). The contemporaneous
of similar
appearance
publicsectorreforms
in countriesasvaried
in theireconomic
andpolitical
systems
as theUnitedStates,Korea,the UnitedKingdom,
Portugal,
France,Brazil,Australia,
Sweden,New
andCanada
Zealand,
is a natural
topicforscholarly
investigation
anddiscussion.Whethertheinnovationsrepresent
a "paradigm
shift"in ThomasKuhn's
(1962)senseis an empirical
questionlargelyunanswered.2Thatthe characteristic
elementsof the
innovations
seemfounded
on a setof shared
principlesappears
moreevident(Nagel,1997).

PublicAdministration
Review. May/June
1998,Vol.58,No.3

189

Commonto reformmovementsin all thesecountriesis the use

of the economicmarketas a modelfor politicalandadministrative In
relationships
(Nagel,1997, 349). The institutionalreformsof the
New PublicManagementare heavilyinfluencedby the assumptions of the public choice approach,principal-agent
theory,and
transactioncost economics. Politicalrolessuch as voter,bureaucrat,electedrepresentative,
and interestgroups,as well as the relationshipsamongthem, are modeledusingmarketanalogies(Self,
1993, 3).
and service-delivery tralizingauthority,andincreasing
Similarly,policy-making,implementation,
the discretionof managers,is the
systemscan be analyzedas a seriesof transactions
with the charac- recommended
courseof action. In the publicsector,both domesteristicsof negotiatedcontracts,completewith concernsabout tic and abroad,deregulationhas taken the form of civil service
informationasymmetries,capture,rent-seeking,moralhazards, reforms,notablyin New Zealand,and delegationof authorityto
and the attendantproblemsof monitoringto ensurecompliance agency-based
managers(Horner,1994;Kettl,1997).
(Lane,1993, 33).
Whilethe reformmovementsvaryin depth,scope,andsuccess
by country,they are remarkably
similarin the goalsthey pursue
and the technologiesthey utilize. Each movementis drivento
The authorsof the paperspresentedin this symposiumconsidmaximizeproductiveand allocativeefficienciesthatarehampered er the consequencesof the New PublicManagementfor public
by "bureau-pathology"
that is, publicagenciesunresponsive
to the managers.This is by no meansa parochialinterestbut an oppordemandsof citizens,led by bureaucrats
with the powerandincen- tunityto revisitlong-standing
issuesaboutthe relationship
of pubtives to expandtheir administrative
empiresand "policyspaces lic managersto the publicinterest,politicalprocesses,and mecha(Nagel,1997, 350).3 While controlof administrative
bureaucra- nismsof accountability.
ciesby politicalleadershipis a traditionalconcernin representative All fiveauthorsaskif the marketorientationof the New Public
governmentsand the targetof many wavesof innovations,the Managementreformswill limit publicmanagersto an instrumeninstitutionalreformsassociatedwith the New PublicManagement tal role in the deliveryof politicallydefinedpoliciesor will allow
areunprecedented
in the formalseparationbetweenpolicymaking publicmanagersto engagein or designthe politicalprocessesthat
andservicedelivery(Light,1997). Thesearrangements
takediffer- shapepolicies.This questionremainsrelevantdespitethe factthat
ent forms,for example,in the UnitedKingdomandNew Zealand; the New PublicManagement
hasan explicitlynormativemodelof
however,theirpurposesarethe same(Thompson,1997, 10).
publicmanagers.Whilethe New PublicManagementencourages
Similarly,acrossthe reformmovementsit is possibleto observe public managersto be entrepreneurial
and to use incentivesto
the use of administrativetechnologiessuch as customerservice, guideandto enhancethe performance
of peopleandsystems,pubperformance-based
contracting,competition,marketincentives, lic managershavebeen excludedfrom the politicalarena(Peters,
andderegulation.Knittogetherinto a coherentwhole,thesetech- 1996). Underthe assumptionthat preferences
arefixedand best
nologiesreinforceeach other. An orientationto customerservice expressedthroughmarketmechanisms,publicmanagersaregiven
focusesmanagersand agencieson whatusersof the servicesdefine more discretionin deciding"how"public agencieswill achieve
as important(Barzelayand Kaboolian,1990; Osborneand Gae- their performancegoals than in defining "what"the public
bler,1992). Well-designedmeasuresfor the performance
of agen- prefers.4
cies and managersprovidedirectionon a dailybasisand increase
Howeverinstrumental
this approachmayappear,the modelof
accountabilityto political overseersfor performance(Eggers, the market-oriented
publicmanageris problematicfor democratic
1997). Market-like
arrangements
suchas competitionwithinunits governance,LarryTerryarguesin this symposium,becauseit
of governmentandacrossgovernmentboundaries
to the non-prof- impliesthatpublicmanagersaremotivatedby self-interest
and act
it andfor-profitsectors,performance
bonuses,andpenaltiesloosen opportunistically,
a starkcontrastto the idealof the "ethicalagents
the inefficientmonopolyfranchiseof publicagenciesand public who administerthe public'sbusinesswith the common good in
employeesJensen,1995; Donlevy,1994).
mind." The image of the entrepreneurial
public managerwill
The implementation
of the New PublicManagementcomesat affectmanagers'
legitimacy,
which,Terryargues,restson the pubthe same time that the role of managersin the privatesectoris lic'sconfidencethattheywill be faithfulto the publicinterestand
changing.In orderto achievethe performance
measuresforwhich can be held accountable
for theiractions. Moreimportantly,
this
they areaccountable,it is argued,managersneed to be liberated imagemayfurtherunderminetrustin government,alreadyat an
fromroutinesandregulationby thevariousadministrative
systems, all-timelow in the UnitedStates(Nye, Zelikow,and King, 1997).
e.g., procurement
and personnel(Peters,1987;Thompson,1997). Until we know more about how to ensureaccountability,
Terry
This advicehas been embracedby the public sector. The Gore rejectsthe modelof publicmanagerspresentedby the New Public
reporton reinventinggovernmentdescribesthe U.S. federalgov- Management.
ernmentas "filledwith good peopletrappedin badsystems:budCookandKellyjoin Terryin centeringtheirconcernsabout
get systems,personnelsystems,procurementsystems,financial the New PublicManagementon its consequencesfor democratic
management
systems,informationsystems"(NationalPerformance states. Publicadministration
by its nature,Cookargues,is a politiReview,1993, 2). "Deregulation"
thatis, relaxingthe rules,decen- cal institution,formedby the characterof the polity,in serviceto

order
toachieve
the
performance
measuresfor
which
areaccountable,
itisargued,
need
managers
they

tobeliberatedfrom
routines
andregulation
bythe
various
administrative
systems.

PoliticsorAdministration?

190

PublicAdministration
Review* May/June
1998,Vol.58,No.3

in addition
to publicschools)ortherightto optoutof theservice
delivery
Dissatisfied
system.
customers
can"exit"(e.g.,livein
Public
managers
under
theNew
Public
Management
gatedcommunities),
buttheextentto whichcitizensacceptchoices madeby agents,suchas electedofficialsandpublicmanagers,
arange
reforms
can
ofchoices
provide
fomwhich
customers
whenthesechoicesdo not represent
theirpreferences,
andremain
in
civic
life
is
to
engaged
the
of
a
maintenance
key
democratic
canchoose
vouchers
topublic
(e.g.,
inaddition
or state.
schools)
Not allvisionsof theconstitutive
in theNew
publicmanager
theright
tooptoutoftheservice
delivery
system.
PublicManagement
reforms
aredire. Behnsupports
publicmanof the regime. Normativemodelsof agersplayinga constitutive
the healthand improvement
rolebutis lessconcerned
aboutthe
institutionsdesignedto solve outcomes
of theseactivities,
publicmanagement
thatpublicmanagers
notonly
notwithstanding,
arguing
problemsand providegoodsandserviceshaveformativeeffectson canimprove
theperformance
of publicinstitutions,
butalsomake
societyand aretherebyconstitutive.The job of publicmanagersis government
moredemocratic.
Behnpresents
an activistimagein
to be vigilantabout the effectsof variousinstitutionalarrange- starkcontrast
to Terry's
callforthe"conservator"
publicmanager.
mentson the relationships
and processesthatarenecessary
for the In Behn's
view,publicmanagers
havean obligation
to remediate
healthof the democracyand to acceptthatpoliticalengagementis the"failures
of governance"
thatstemfromthe structure
of deciinevitable. But this engagementshouldbe circumscribed
by the sion-making
processes,humanfrailtiesof leaders,politics,illconstitutional
of the polity.
requirements
informed
citizens,andinattentive
electedofficials.Behnseesno
Kellyagreesthatthe originsof institutional
formsarethe politi- reasonto predictfewerfailuresunderthe New PublicManagecal, social,and economicsystemsof the regime. Moreover,she ment;therefore,
willrequire
governance
to engage
publicmanagers
definesthe goal of theseformsas the developmentandsustenance in constitutiveactivities.
of an "inclusivedemocraticpolity" thatprovidesall its adult...citiFinally,
Lynntoo agreesthatpublicmanagers
willbe constituzens with full rights,duties and responsibilities
and a sense of tive. Despiteattempts
of theNewPublicManagement
reforms
to
belongingas an equalpartnerentitledto the benefitsandburdens keepthemapartfrompolitics,thenature
of performance
contractsocietyoffers.
ing requires
of outcomegoals,outputmeasures,
negotiation
and
Kellyarguesthatthe rational-choice
of the New resources.Theseareultimately
underpinnings
allocative
decisionsthatwill be
PublicManagement
areproblematic
to the continuedlegitimacyof politically
determined.
To theextentthatthecontracts
areused,
democraticinstitutionsin heterogeneoussocietiesattemptingto publicmanagers
will be engagedin politicsandwill shapethe
maintainan inclusivepolity. In the lightof evidencethatminority character
of thestate.
groupsmay not haveassimilatedor may haverejectedseemingly
is theirconcernthatpublicmanagers
Unitingtheseauthors
be
universalnorms about individualismand profit maximization, accountable.
Discussions
of accountability
too oftenfocuson the
publicagenciesmaybe evaluatedas unresponsive,
of mechanisms
unjust,andille- characteristics
andprocesses
ratherthanon subgitimate. Kelly'sproposed remedyis any set of institutional stance.Incontrast,
theauthors
revisittheissuesof forwhatpublic
arrangements
thatprovidedescriptive,
symbolic,andthereforesub- managers
areaccountable
andto whom. TheNewPublicManstantiverepresentation.
Sheis agnosticon thevalueof servicepro- agementreformsuse marketforcesto hold the publicsector
vision by public ratherthan privateentities,valuinginsteadthe accountable
andthesatisfaction
of preferences
as themeasures
of
extentto which the decisionmakersand serviceprovidersmirror accountability.
In orderforthissystemto proceed,
certaincondithe compositionof the citizenry.
tions,suchas theexistence
of competition,
mustexistandinfor"Customerservice"reformsimplementedby the New Public mationaboutchoicesmustbe available.Kellyworries
aboutthe
Managementprovidea case in point for the concernsaboutthe robustness
of bothof theseconditions
in thepublicsector.Behn
constitutivenatureof publicmanagement.Cook, referencing
the joinsKellyin viewingthecitizenry
asboundedin theirrationality,
formativeeffectsof the New Deal programs,questionsthe unin- lacking
theinformation,
skill,orattention
necessary
to understand
tendedconsequences
of treatingcitizensas customers."Customer," thefullrangeof choicesandtechnologies
to solvesocialproblems.
a commercialrole, assumesan individualistorientationand fixed Behncallsthis"civic
failure"
andargues
thatpublicmanagers
need
in contrastwith the "public"assumptionsof political to help"educate"
preferences
thecitizenry
abouttheiroptions.If publicmanlife. Politics,Cookargues,is as muchaboutchangingpeople'spref- agersdo thiswell,bywhichBehnmeanstheyareexplicitabout
erencesand developingcollectivepurposesas it is aboutgetting theirgoalsandstrategies,
theirleadership
will increase
political
preferencessatisfied. Reinforcementof the "customer"
role may accountability.
affectthewaycitizensseethemselves
andtheirobligations,
rightsin
thepoliticalregime,andrelationships
to others.
Kellyadmitsthe valueto publicmanagers
of the "customer
service"strategyin addressing
the heterogeneous
tastesof diversecitiThevalueof thissymposium
is thatthediscussion
amongvarizenry. But, Kellynotes, it is one thing to satisfyindividualcus- ousschoolsof thoughtwithinthefieldsof publicadministration
tomers,anotherto be accountablefor broadergoals. If political andmanagement
abouttheNewPublicManagement
willresultin
processesdo not providefull satisfactionto citizens,publicman- a comprehensive
researchagenda. Lynnis enthusiasticaboutthe
agersunderthe New PublicManagementreformscan providea possibilities
presentedby the New PublicManagement
for empirirangeof choicesfromwhichcustomerscan choose(e.g.,vouchers cal researchand theorybuilding,thoughhe warnsus that this set

Questions,Not Answers

Symposium:
Leadership,
Democracy
andtheNewPublicManagement

191

willfadefromthescene,asmanyothers only be conductedin this way. The New Zealandcaseis perhaps

reforms
of administrative
insofaras the NewPublicManage- the best documentednon-U.S. example;however,comparative
beforeit have. Nevertheless,
intothepolitical workdemandsthe developmentand evaluationof multiplecases
mentrepresents
theinfusionof market
principles
world,muchworkis neededthatmovesthe bodyof empirical (Evans,Grimes,Wilkinson,andTeece,1996).
Finally,the discussionin this symposiumraisesthe important
knowledge
fromdescriptive
casestudiesto morecomparative
and
questionof the appropriate
unit of analysis.This is an enduring
systematic
analysis.
The authorsin thissymposium
bringtheirowndisciplinaryproblemin publicmanagementresearch(Kaboolian,1996). Not
theNewPublicManagement.surprisingly,
perspectives
to thetaskof analyzing
the traditionaldivisions,describedas the "figure"of
Lynnargues
thatto understand
andeffectsof newinsti- the publicmanageror the "ground"of politicsand institutional
operations
tutionalarrangements,
workshouldbe guidedby both arrangements,
are representedhere (Lynn,1996). Behn would
empirical
the"logicof markets
He presents
andthelogicof governance."
a have us focus on the public manageras a leader. Within this
usefulsummary
of the economictheoriesof organizations
and framework,
strategywouldbe importantinsofaras it was an exerbehavior
to applyto thisendeavor.CookandKellymakecontri- cise of leadership.Cook, on the otherhand,would focuson the
butionsfromthe"logicof governance."
regimeand politicalcontextprimarily,but would join Kelly in
In thecallto usethe"logicof governance,"
Lynn,Cook,Kelly, examiningorganizationalarrangementsin some circumstances.
andTerryarechallenging
to linkthe politicalcontext Lynnjoins Behn in consideringthe role of publicmanagersbut
researchers
withinstitutional
Theseauthors
arrangements.
agreethattherole beginswith a set of morecriticalquestionsaboutthe centralityof
of publicmanagersand systemsof publicadministration
are the publicmanagerto the performance
of publicorganizations
in
endogenous
to specificpolitical
systems.Cookasksthatwe"bring the New PublicManagementreforms. Lynnthen moveson to
the regimebackin"andunderstand
howmanagement
reforms economic,institutional,and organizational
arrangements
such as
reflectorcontrast
withtheimageof thestateandpublicadminis- rules,incentives,andhierarchies.
trationrepresented
in the foundational
documentsof nations.
Thesedocuments
defineimportant
of thepolitybutclearly Conclusion:
aspects
Something
leavelatitudefor a varietyof institutional
arrangements.
Lynn
ForandFromEveryone
reminds
usthatthemotivations
forthemarket-oriented
reforms
of
theNewPublicManagement
arepoliticalaswellaseconomic.It
The New Public Managementprovidesscholarsof public
is important
forus to understand
whyparticular
reforms
suchas administration
and publicmanagementtwo extraordinary
opporthoserepresented
in theNewPublicManagement
ariseatparticu- tunities. The first is to see the unfolding of an international
larpointsin theeconomic
andpolitical
lifeof thestate.
reformmovementdefinedby clearlyenunciatedprinciples. A
Bridging
economicandpoliticaltheory,Terrysuggests
thatwe phenomenonof this magnitudeis a naturalobject of empirical
addthelogicof productive
arrangements.
Managerial
techniques,inquiryto scholars.The secondopportunityis to engagein theoTerryremindsus, areinfluenced
by prevailing
ideologiesabout reticallygroundedempiricalworkandtheorybuildingthatcrosses
productive
arrangements.
The"neo-managerialist"
ideologyof the the boundariesof the disciplinesthathavestudiedthe publicsecNew PublicManagement
reformsexistsin the privatesectoras tor. To the extentthatthe debatesbetweenpublicadministration
wellas the public. Thesetechniques
reflectimportant
interests and publicmanagementareconstructsof the reformmovements
andvalues,forexample,
theriseof information
processing.
How- of the Progressive
Eraand the riseof policyanalysisin the 1960s,
ever,techniques
aresocialconstructs,
andit is important
to inquire and areframednarrowlyby disciplinaryconsiderations,compreasto whoseinterests
arebestservedbytheadoption
of onesetover hensiveunderstanding
of the New PublicManagementas well as
others.Whenappliedto publicadministration,
thelogicof pro- of futureand pastreformmovementsand theorybuildingwill be
ductionmakesthelinkto questions
of governance
byhighlightinglimited. The promiseof New PublicManagementand the discustheprivileging
of market
mechanisms
andefficiency
overcompet- sion begunin this symposiumis to move beyond these limitaingvalues.
tions.
in theattemptto linkpoliticsandadministration
Implicit
is the
needto expandworkbeyondlongitudinal
studiesof the United
LindaKaboolianis associateprofessorof publicpolicyat the
Statesto morecomparative
work. Lynn's
ambitious
agendacan JohnF.KennedySchoolof Government,HarvardUniversity.
Notes
1. Behn(1991),Cook(1996),KellyandDuerst-Lahti
(1995),Lynn(1996), 3. Fora discussion
of theseconcerns,see Downs(1967),Niskanen(1971),
andTerry(1995).
Peters(1987),andTullock(1965).
2. Nevertheless,
seeMathiasen
(1996)fora vigorousargument
thattheNew 4. Compare
thisviewwithReich(1990).
PublicManagement
doesrepresent
a paradigm
shift.

192

Public
Administration
Review* May/June
1998,Vol.58,No.3

References
and
InternationalPublic ManagementJournal 1(3). Available from
Banelay,Michael,andLindaKaboolian(1990)."Structural
Metaphors
andManagePublicManagement
Education."
Journalof PolicyAnalysis
http://www.willamette.org/ipmn/research/journal/journal2.html.
ment9(4):599-610.
Nagel,JackH. (1997). "Radically
Reinventing
Government:
Editor'sIntroCounts.
MA:Harvard
Behn,RobertD. (1991).Leadership
Uniduction."
Cambridge,
JournalofPolicyAnalysis
andManagement
16 (3):349-356.
versityPress.
NationalPerformance
Review(1993). FromRedTapeto Results:
a
Creating
Cook,Brian(1996). Bureaucracy
andSelf-Government:
theRole
Government
thatWorks
Reconsidering
BetterandCostsLess.Washington,
DC:U.S.GovinAmerican
Politics.
MD:JohnsHopofPublicAdministration
Baltimore,
ernmentPrintingOffice.
kinsUniversity
Press.
Niskanen,WilliamA. (1971). Bureaucracy
and Representative
Government.
Donlevy,JohnW. Jr.(1994).Intergovernmental
PublicService.
Contractingfor
Chicago,IL:RandMcNally.
LosAngeles:ReasonFoundation.
Nye,JosephS. Jr.,PhilipD. Zelikow,andDavidC. King,eds.(1997). Why
Downs,Anthony(1967).InsideBureaucracy.
Boston,MA:LittleBrown.
PeopleDon't TrustGovernment.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Eggers,WilliamD. (1997). Performance
LosAngeles:ReaBasedContracting.
Press.
sonPublicPolicyInstitute.
for EconomicCooperation
Organization
and Development(1995a).GoverEvans,Lewis,ArthurGrimes,BruceWilkinson,and DavidTeece (1996).
nancein Transition:
PublicManagement
in OECDCountries.
Reforms
"Economic
Reformin New Zealand1984-95:ThePursuitof Efficiency."
Paris:Organization
forEconomicCooperation
andDevelopment.
JournalofEconomic
Literature)XXKJV
(December):
for EconomicCooperation
1856-1902.
Organization
and Development(1995b).Public
Horner,Constance(1994). "Deregulating
the FederalService:Is the Time
ManagementDevelopments:
for EcoUpdate1994. Paris:Organization
thePublicService:
Right?"In JohnJ. DiIulioJr.,ed., Deregulating
Can
nomicCooperation
andDevelopment.
Government
BeImproved?
DC:TheBrookings
Washington,
Institution. Osborne,DavidandTed Gaebler(1992).Reinventing
Government:
Howthe
A ToolforAchieving
in
Jensen,Ron (1995).ManagedCompetition:
Excellence
Entrepreneurial
Spiritis Transforming
thePublicSector.Reading,MA:
Government.
Alliancefor ReinventingGovernment.Availablefrom
Addison-Wesley.
http://www.alliance.napwash.org/alliance/index.html.
Peters,B. Guy (1987). "Politiciansand Bureaucrats."
In Jan-ErikLane,
Kaboolian,
Linda(1996)."Disciplinary
Foundation:
In Donald
Sociology."
andPublicChoice.
Bureaucracy
BeverlyHills:Sage.
F. KettlandH. BrintonMilward,TheStateofPublicManagement.
Balti(1996). "Modelsof Governance
for the 1990s."In DonaldF.
more,MD:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity
Press.
KettlandH. BrintonMilward,TheStateof PublicManagement.
BaltiKelly,RitaMaeandGeorgiaDuerst-Lahti,
eds.(1995).Gender
Power,Leadmore,MD:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity
Press.
AnnArbor,MI:University
ership
andGovernance.
of MichiganPress.
Reich,Robert(1990). PublicManagement
in a Democratic
Society.EngleKettl,DonaldF. (1997). "TheGlobalRevolutionin PublicManagement:
woodCliffs,NJ:Prentice
Hall.
DrivingThemes,MissingLinks."Journalof PolicyAnalysis
andManage- Self,Peter(1993).Government
bytheMarket?ThePoliticsof PublicChoice.
ment16 (3):446-462.
London:WestviewPress.
Kuhn,Thomas(1962). TheStructure
Revolutions.
of Scientific
Chicago,IL: Terry,LarryD. (1995). Leadership
ofPublicBureaucracies:
TheAdministrator
University
of ChicagoPress.
as Conservator.
ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Lane,Jan-Erik
(1993). ThePublicSector.
London:Sage.
Thompson,James(1997). "Quasi-Markets
and StrategicChangein Public
Light, Paul C. (1997). The Tidesof Reform:MakingGovernment
Work
Organizations."
Presentedat the FourthNationalPublicManagement
1945-1995.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity
Press.
Research
Conference,
Athens,GA.
Lynn,Laurence
E. Jr. (1996). PublicManagement
asArt,Science
andProfes- Tullock,Gordon(1965).ThePoliticsofBureaucracy.
Washington,
DC:Public
sion.Chatham,
NJ:ChathamHouse
AffairsPress.
Mathiasen,
DavidG. (1996)."TheNew PublicManagement
andItsCritics."

Symposium:
Leadership,
Democracy
andtheNewPublicManagement

193