Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00594.x Byline: R.A.W. Rhodes (*), John Wanna ([dagger]) Author Affiliation: (*)University of Tasmania ([dagger])Australian National University

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x Byline: R.A.W. Rhodes (*), John Wanna (*) Keywords: bureaucracy; public value; public interest; public management; Westminister Abstract: In various guises, public value has become extraordinarily popular in recent years. We challenge the relevance and usefulness of the approach in Westminster systems with their dominant hierarchies of control, strong roles for ministers, and tight authorising regimes underpinned by disciplined two-party systems. We start by spelling out the core assumptions behind the public value approach. We identify two key confusions; about public value as theory, and in defining 'public managers'. We identify five linked core assumptions in public value: the benign view of large-scale organisations; the primacy of management; the relevance of private sector experience; the downgrading of party politics; and public servants as Platonic guardians. We then focus on the last two assumptions because they are the least applicable in Westminster systems. We defend the 'primacy of party politics' and we criticise the notion that public managers should play the role of Platonic guardians deciding the public interest. The final section of the article presents a 'ladder of public value' by which to gauge the utility of the approach for public managers in Westminster systems. Author Affiliation: (*)The Australian National University

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2006.00482.x Byline: Mark Bevir (1), R. A. W. Rhodes (2) Author Affiliation: (1)University of California (2)Australian National University

New public management techniques are substantively different in Britain and Australia. The UK public sector reform utilizes at least bureaucracy, networks and markets as governing structures, while Australia's marketization lacks strong executive positions, utilizes constitutional constraints on leadership, and relies on no working majorities in parliament. Australian government is learning indirect management skills.

Government must manage the mix of governing structures such as markets, hierarchies and networks through diplomacy. Government must acquire the skills in indirect management if it is to be successful in new public management. The government must be able to cope with complexity, reestablish trust relations and employ patience, perseverance and persuasion.