Search

As a legacy of Imperial China, the Taiwan civil service entrance examination (CSEE) represents the hallmark of a unique exam-centred meritocracy, in which government agencies and public managers are deprived of selection power. This system diverges from the trend of managerialism in Anglo-Saxon countries. This paper argues that the evolution of meritocracy in Taiwan has been built around the CSEE and has contributed to a top-down state-building approach. The current system is a product of a long-term power struggle among the Examination Yuan, government agencies, and civil service examinees. In contrast to the popular framework of patronage versus merit, the policy debate in Taiwan is better framed as whether or not recruitments are made on the basis of competitive examination. The value of ‘equality’ is upheld at the expense of the value of ‘competence’.

This article places the experience of public psychiatric institutions for the long term mentally ill in the context of New Public Management (NPM). This managerialist school of thought has been in widespread ascendancy since the 1970s. Some key characteristics of deinstitutionalisation and NPM are outlined. We then present some historical data about the temporal process of deinstitutionalisation in Queensland's public psychiatric institutions. The time series analysis provided is of a single state since Australia's public health care system is state-based. Although NPM is not a coherent set of principles or doctrines, it is argued that ideology and the reality may be contradicting. Some of NPM's particular emphases are empirically analysed, in particular the view that administration/management expenditures are to be reduced, while emphasising workers ‘at the coal face’. The empirical results provide no evidence of a ‘parsimonious’ approach to management: parsimony occurs only for nursing staff. Relative expenditures on managerial functions have increased.

This article seeks to understand the role of being a senior manager in Indigenous community governance, particularly though not exclusively in remote Aboriginal communities. It argues against the tendency of would-be reformers of Indigenous community governance to focus on the competence and ethical qualities of those who occupy these roles and asks instead how can isolated managerialism in Indigenous community governance be overcome? The article begins with an overview of Ralph Folds' analysis of relations between Pintupi settlements and the larger Australian polity. While taking much from Folds' analysis, the article argues that ultimately he relies too heavily on the idea of antithetical worldviews across the settlement interface, on a problematic distinction between the official and private uses of publicly allocated resources and on too idealist a view of the Australian state. The article argues that the state's allocation of public resources inevitably involves a flow of private benefits and that public purposes and private benefits are not different phenomena, but rather different perspectives on state action. In contrast to Folds' idealism about the state, the article outlines a more thoroughly realist or materialist analysis of being a good senior manager in Indigenous community governance. In its concluding section, the article makes some suggestions for overcoming isolated managerialism in Indigenous community governance oganisations.

In an increasingly volatile, uncertain and complex world governments internationally are seeking new frameworks to think about future directions which can guide policy choices that can be turned into realities. This article presents an insiders' case study of the initial development of the Victorian Labor government's Growing Victoria Together, launched in November 2001; it expresses the vision, policy priorities and its key progress measures. It has been developed to guide medium-term policy choices, communicate directions to citizens and engage stakeholders to think collaboratively about the future. The article notes the emerging international interest in alternatives to public policy paradigms based on economic rationality, market decision-making and organisational managerialism and outlines the steps and actions involved in developing its public release and the first stages of implementation. It concludes by reflecting on lessons which can be learned from this experience for exploring new strategic policy frameworks.

In reviewing the liberal economic reforms of the last two decades, the paper makes a distinction between three groups of reforms. One involved the improvements in the administration of government functions (managerialism, outsourcing and privatisation). Another involved the adoption of more direct or market-based methods of policy intervention (such as budget subsidies, incentives, taxes and transfers in lieu of regulation, protection and financial controls). These two groups of reforms were economic-driven: they sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. Although many mistakes in design and implementation were made, they largely achieved their intended objectives. With sensitive implementation, the reforms achieved a better balance between efficiency and equity than in most other countries. A third group of reforms embodied a new set of policy paradigms (such as downgrading of full-employment and unconditional need-based welfare relative to other policy goals). They offered few efficiency or economical benefits and were mainly driven by idealogy.

The role of Auditors-General has expanded in recent decades, particularly with the development of performance auditing. Performance auditing originated in the managerialist concern for monitoring results, but in some respects Auditors-General have found themselves at odds with managerialism, particularly where outsourcing and privatisation have reduced the level of public accountability. Performance auditing has also increased the potential for Auditors-General to clash openly with elected governments, though for the most part they confine their scrutiny to the activities of public servants. Auditors-General have more authority to confront governments over matters of propriety than over efficiency and effectiveness issues.

While any discussion of ministerial responsibility must in part focus on ministerial resignations, finding out when ministers resign is only the tip of the iceberg. A full assessment of ministerial responsibility would look at the relations between ministers and their senior bureaucrats, as discussed in Bill Blick’s article. It would look at the impact of managerialism on ministerial accountability, especially in the light of privatisation and contracting out. It would assess the impact of other mechanisms of accountability, including the senate. The subject of this article must always be put into a broader context. This article concentrates on ministerial resignations drawing on evidence from Britain, Canada, the federal government in Australia and the government of New South Wales. When do ministers resign?

Professionalisation in the public services is regarded as essential but the concept is ambiguous and organisationally weak. Moreover, if not jeopardised by managerialism, public service professionalisation today faces some major barriers or limitations. Nonetheless, the public service may be able to maintain greater professional status with increased emphasis on job security, occupational closure and horizontal organisation. The prospects for such conditions may now seem remote, but with this criteria in mind Australia will neglect the professionalism of its public service very much to its cost.

Much that is written on product costing is prescriptive. Such literature suggests normative ways to accomplish the tasks of identifying, classifying, determining and using product costs. Some critics might argue that this is managerialist, top — down thinking which should be rejected. Others might suggest that normative, prescriptive approaches ignore complex social factors such as the exercise of power and influence, or that the outputs of health, welfare and education are not products at all and are not therefore amenable to a product costing process. We explore some aspects of this debate through the analysis of a case study of the Tasmanian health sector in which a product costing process was conducted in three hospitals. We conclude that a number of benefits to identified stakeholders — in this case bureaucrats, hospital managers and clinical staff — can emerge from a product costing process. We briefly locate the discussion in the context of some characteristics of organisational learning.

This article outlines and explores the differences and connections in the ideas underpinning the reform of public institutions in Australian society over the past two decades. In particular, the article asks whether public institutions have been renewed or eroded through the changes of the 1980s and 1990s and whether the changes were as inevitable as some advocates and analysts claim. Some ideas and theories appropriate to the future role of government and public institutions in Australia beyond the current consensus are explored. The article offers afresh analysis of public sector reform in Australia and contributes to the ongoing debate about alternatives.

Managerialism has made a substantial contribution to providing a more cost conscious, efficient and effective public service. But the Victorian case also raises concerns about whether managerialist techniques will be pursued within a wider constitutional, political and legal framework which recognises the need for discussion, debate and accountability in democratic policy-making.

This article examines the fate of public sector appeal systems under the managerialist reform agenda. Is new managerialism wedded to a particular shape of appeal system? Is it wedded to the dismantling of this traditionally distinctive feature of public sector employment in Australia? To explore these questions, this article examines the roles which public sector appeal systems play in human resource management and their implications for public sector reform. It then compares traditional appeal rights and processes with those currently operating in the state, Commonwealth and Northern Territory public services. The article also discusses the implications of the dramatic changes in some jurisdictions, including Victoria and Western Australia, for the effectiveness of appeal processes, and human resource management in the public sector.

Commentators have predicted bureaucratic organisations would undergo substantial change as a result of social and economic pressures. We ask whether reforms to the Australian public service over the 1983–93 period exemplify this process. We use the methods of organisational analysis to characterise the direction of change, basing our assessment on the standard structural variables of complexity, formalisation and centralisation, together with a cultural variable. We find evidence that, overall, departments of state in the APS were becoming less bureaucratic in their structure, culture and internal function in the 1983–93 period. However, the effect was not uniform across departments, or unambiguous — formalisation, for example, increased in some respects and decreased in others. Centralisation increased overall, despite devolution of some decision-making.

In providing this conference summation I have chosen to highlight six themes well represented during proceedings: (1) managerialism; (2) institutional scepticism; (3) markets and networks; (4) empowering the customer; (5) national governments and globalisation; and (6) legitimacy and the new tribes. As the conference included over 55 papers and four simultaneous strands it was impossible to cover everything — so these reflections are informed by personal preferences.

One of the components associated with the widely heralded shift to ‘new managerialism’ in the public sector has been an increased emphasis on coordination between government departments as a means to enhance effective service provision. This article examines the capacity for coordination to fulfil this objective. Drawing upon a case study of coordination in youth affairs in Western Australia, the article examines the process by which the coordination mechanisms become enveloped in the ‘politics of non-decision-making’. By this is meant that a set of power relationships create tensions at a number of levels — between commonwealth and state government agencies; between state government agencies and within individual agencies — which act to prevent effective decisions from being taken. The implications of this case study for the capacity of ‘new managerialism’ to produce effective policy outcomes in complex social policy areas is highlighted. Evidence from this study suggests that, in an era of restricted resources and heightened competition within the public sector, agencies are pushed to more clearly define their boundaries.

Against claims that public sector reforms have made the functions of managers similar to those in private firms, critics of the managerialist model point to constraints on public sector managers that make their decisions on resource allocation and policy development different from those affecting corporations. Through an examination of policy formulation, program management and decision-making in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, this article demonstrates that managerialist program planning, outcome orientation and performance measurement have been introduced, but that this has not precluded an expansion in non-market oriented routine, non-discretionary decision-making involving bureaucratic legal rationality within a legislative and regulatory framework. While some clients have been defined and assessed in terms of economic criteria, they access departmental processing not in terms of market signals, but according to their compliance with the Migration Act and Migration Regulations. Managerialism has not occurred at the expense of classical administrative practices, rather managerialist and legal bureaucratic forms have both grown and influenced political calculations on policy-making.

Modern public sector management faces greater challenges today than ever before. The public are requiring outcomes that exhibit efficiency, integrity and equity from all levels of the public sector, and new managerialism is trying to achieve these disparate outcomes under increasing scrutiny. Focus is increasingly upon achieving and motivating organisational vision or ethos that will enable the desired principles and other outcomes to be pursued in an otherwise less regulated public sector. This paper examines behaviour in the public sector workplace in terms of Maslow's scale of human needs, for two reasons. First, while it is only one of several theories of human motivation, it was uniquely specific about what causes people to do what they do; and second, the theory represented a prescription for the achievement of the perfect “self-actualised” public servant for whom public duty and personal motivation became synthesised into one.

This article considers the relationships between ministers and chief executives in the New South Wales Liberal-National government. It looks at how ministers have set about taking charge of the public service against the background of the new political and economic realities confronting the state government. Senior ministers have consciously sought to limit their dependence on public servants and they have used a range of strategies to do so. They have remoulded the public service in a new “managerialised” form. Policy-making has been further internalised into ministerial offices and party circles and away from departments. The role of cabinet has been strengthened to impose a new corporate purpose as a counterbalance to traditional departmental interests. New incentive systems, based on contract employment and performance agreements, have been introduced to focus public service loyalties on the goals of the government. Advocates of managerialism, usually career public servants, have been appointed to key positions. Ministerial advisers have been used as countervailing sources of advice and as extensions of ministerial authority. Many ministers themselves have assumed an involved style of ministerial management of departments.

The debate over managerialism has been the most controversial issue in Australian public administration journals in recent years. Although most articles have been critical, there have been responses in favour of the changes by senior public servants. One unfortunate consequence of this debate has been the appearance of a gap between academic public administration and public service practice. This paper argues that, from several angles, the work now carried out by public services is management rather than administration. It argues that managerialism is a long-overdue reform to a model which has outlived its usefulness. The traditional model of public administration was an irrelevance for many years; it was never efficient or effective and deserved to be replaced. However, public management does not necessarily mean the widespread and uncritical adoption of practices from the private sector. What it should mean is that a distinctive public management needs to be developed. This should take account of the differences between the sectors, but still recognise that the work being done by public servants is now managerial rather than administrative.

Corporate Management is in trouble. In the early 1980s when this approach first began to dominate thinking about reform, it was claimed that a new and comprehensive decision-making framework based on total-system efficiency would be put in place. A new age of leaner organisations, clearer objectives and greater accountability was promised. However the practical achievements of the framework which made these promises have so far been small, the costs high, and the means employed controversial. As a consequence the Corporate Management approach is currently suffering a crisis of confidence.

Despite dramatic change in the Australian public sector, little attention has been paid to organisational culture. With the importation of private sector strategies and structures the traditional values of public administration have been eroded. Public organisations and their members have experienced consequences of “culture shock”, even “cultural revolution”. Managerialism is an introduced culture which has been criticised by some academics and public servants. It is seen as inappropriate to the distinctive values and operating context of the public domain, as purporting to value-free technique while in effect operating as the mystifying ideology of a dominant elite. Managerialism has been constructed, it is argued, on simplistic and now superseded concepts of rational “management man”, goal setting and planning. While managerialism is not the culture which will endow public organisations with new meaning and propel them to excellence, it can expect to increase its hold in the absence of the development of new models of the culture of public organisation. While new public sector cultures will need to be organisation-specific, to accommodate the differentiation between and within public organisations, an overarching framework of public sector values and principles will be required. One of the distinctive features of most public sector organisations is die number and diversity of their stakeholders. A multi-cultural model of public sector culture is proposed, which construes this diversity of subcultures as an instrument of strategic flexibility.

Doctrines of public administration are in ferment. Proponents of the newer public management challenge defenders of the traditional public service. Academic commentators frequently oppose both the newer managerialism and the traditional apolitical professionalism. The net effect is to distort the call for better public management. One useful step out of the mess is backwards—toward a recovery of the fundamentals of democratic political theory, of that original sense of the governing partnership between public servant and politician. In the 1950s, Fritz Morstein Marx called it resourceful public administration. By reviving this older sense of public resources, we tap a fundamental but frequently ignored vein of public administration theory. Through “the other Marx” we rediscover his mentor, John Stuart Mill, from whom we still have much to learn about our greatest administrative resource—our people, both politicians and public servants. Both Marx and Mill give us salutary examples on how to ask the basic questions of principle, which we tend to bypass in our pursuit of pragmatic arrangements.

In view of a rather one-sided recent debate, “managerialism” in bureaucracy calls for a defence. The alternate paradigm, which is said to turn on legal as opposed to economic rationality, has not been systematically dealt with by the anti-managerialists. The functions to which it refers have always in practice been only a small element of public sector activity. The new artifacts of administration are properly viewed as a public sector reflection of wider thought on organisations and quality of working life. They have some common origins with contemporary private sector practice rather than being derived by copying the private sector. Management and policy skills are not mutually exclusive; indeed the contrary is true. Finally, in relation to broadly accepted ethical norms, modern public administration compares well with that which has gone before.