teori yang digunakan pada administrasi publik...
Public Organiz Rev DOI 10.1007/s11 10.1007/s11115-017-0374-6 115-017-0374-6
Looking for Public Administration Theories? Hae-Ok Pyun 1 & Claire Edey Gamassou 2
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Since the sixties, a number of Western countries have conducted a lot of NPM type reforms reforms in order to improve improve their their public administ administratio ration n (PA). (PA). However, However, more than forty years of NPM type reforms raise questions about whether these reforms consist in an improvement of PA or if alternative theories could find their place in the field of PA reforms. In order to answer these questions, the five main public administration theories (New Public Administration, New Public Management, Public Value Management, New Public Service and New Public Governance) have been selected, and based on an original analysis of their incipits, some guidelines are proposed for practition practi tioners ers and stud students ents in PA.
Analysis is grid . Comp Comparativ arativee stud study y . Gui Guidel deline iness in pu publi blicc ref reform ormss . Public Keywords Analys administra admin istration tion theo theories ries . Theo Theoretica reticall review
Introduction Sincee th Sinc thee ye year arss 19 1960 60 – 1970 1970,, in a nu numb mber er of Wes este tern rn co coun untr trie ies, s, th thee St Stat atee ha hass be been en ac accu cuse sed d of not being able of solving problems, notably controlling public expenditure, ensuring ever-gro ever -growth wth (Pas (Passet set 2010 2010), ), tak taking ing int into o acc accou ount nt min minori oritie tiess’ vi views ews.. For man many y pra practi ctitio tione ners rs and researchers (Marini 1971 1971;; Frederickson 1980 1980;; Hood 1991 Hood 1991;; Osborne and Gaebler 1992), 1992 ), it wa wass pr prin inci cipa pall lly y th thee Pu Pub bli licc Ad Admi mini nist stra rati tion on (P (PA) A) wh whic ich h wa wass re resp spon onsi sibl blee fo forr th thes esee problems, prob lems, becau because se it suf suffered fered from the bur bureaucratic eaucratic phenomenon^ (Crozier (Crozier 1963). 1963). Therefore, a number of new^ theories of PA were proposed and reforms have been made. Among these new^ theories of reform, New Public Management (NPM) seems to have been very successful: most Western countries have made NPM type reforms since 1980s (Hood 1991 (Hood 1991;; Dunleavy and Hood 1994 1994;; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011 Bouckaert 2011). ). B
B
B
*
Hae-Ok Pyun
[email protected]
1
CRJ Pothier, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France
2
Institut de Recherche en Gestion, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
However, thirty years of NPM type reforms later, expenditures and public debt ’s evolution (OECD 2009, 2015) as well as 2008 and 2011 ’s crises show that there seems to be no real change in terms of PA performance. Moreover, Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) observe and compare different types of PA reforms and highlight the heterogeneity, in terms of undertaken steps as well as their effects and results. Yet, the lack of experience makes it difficult to identify a main trend for the post-NPM. Since then, researchers and political leaders are questioning the fate of the NPM and the Post-NPM. Furthermore, since the Arab Spring, some directions appear to take shape. Notably, making a state not only economic, efficient and effective, but also more human, sustainable and social seems to be one of these other directions: the theme of World Conference for Public Administration (KAPA, June 2014, Dae-Gwo, South Korea) was about The Citizens’ Happiness^; the one of the 8th Challenge of 2016 and 2017 French National Annual Research Project is about An Innovative, Resilient and Integrated Society^; the one of ASPA’s Annual Conference (March 2015, Chicago, USA) was about A Stronger and More Equitable Society ^, etc. For Kuhn (1962, 1970), we should be in the crisis and look for another paradigm able to replace the positivism and the economic rationale in PA field, because the NPM doesn’t seem to work. Indeed, first, the bureaucracy, by means of rationality, was designed and implemented for the feudal to ensure the social stability (Weber 1956). Second, the NPM, by means of market system, was conceived and set up in order to face and replace the bureaucracy, because this later didn ’t work either. And now, the market system doesn ’t work as well as it supposed to do. Actually, the market system seems to make worsen racial and sexual discrimination, poverty, unemployment, social inequity, which endangers social cohesion, essential for the society to keep on just as Bellah et al. argued, […] Our problem today are not just political. They are moral and have to do with the meaning of life. [ … ] Now [ … ], we are beginning to understand that our common life requires more than an exclusive concern for material accumulation . […]^ (Bellah et al. 1985, p. 295) From this point of view, the research question of this article is what other paradigms of public administration could replace the NPM and make the society more sustainable, and equitable? To answer this research question, the aim of this paper is to draw/ thematic analyses of/five PA theories (see the Table 1 with number of quotation in GoogleScholar) by means of an analysis grid based on four references in PA, that are exposed in the following paragraph. Of course, neither of these theories claim to be representative enough, nor does this study claim to be sufficient in order to find the answer. Indeed, in PA field, there are more than the five theories quoted above, and a synthetic work about theories of PA already exist (Frederickson et al. 2012). This paper aims at listing some theories of PA, comparing, and analyzing them from the point of visions of public good, a close notion of paradigm of Kuhn in the field of PA. This first analysis may allow researchers and practitioners to identify the next step to follow in PA in order to make the society more equitable, and sustainable. B
B
B
B
Construction of Analysis Grid
In order to construct an analysis grid, this paper refers to six visions of public good (Bellah et al. 1985), three clusters of administrative value (Strange 1988, pp. 1 – 6 by
Looking for Public Administration Theories? Table 1 PA theories analyzed
PA Theory
One or two main references (Author, Publication Year, Number of quotations in Google Scholar )
New Public Administration New Public Management Public Value Management New Public Service New Public Governance
Marini 1971, GS: 465; Frederickson 1980, GS: 403 Hood 1991, GS: 7612; Osborne and Gaebler 1992, GS: 175 Moore 1994, GS: 102; Moore 1995, GS: 2952 Denhardt and Denhardt 2000, GS: 1237 Osborne 2006, GS: 605
Hood 1991, p.11), and two tables of comparing perspectives in PA, realized by Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) and by Osborne (2006). Six Visions of Public Good (Bellah et al. 1985)
Throughout their observation from 1979 to 1984, Bellah et al. note three pairs of visions of public good in opposition that have developed as responses to the need for citizens. Each pair consists in reaction to the previous couple of visions: Establishment versus Populism ^, Neo-Capitalism versus Welfare Liberalism ^, and The Administered Society versus Economic Democracy ^. The Establishment vision was primarily associated with the industrial and financial elites who at the end of the nineteenth century created and embedded a network of private institutions (e.g. universities, hospitals, museums …), which are almost now run by the government. By means of large institutions and the politics of interest, its target is to guide and harmonize social conflicts toward fruitful compromise through personal influence and negotiation ^ (op. cit ., p.259). As for the Populist vision, based on the egalitarian ethos ^, it considers the people^ capable of governing their affairs. It is the great democratizer ^. Despite of these differences of these visions, there are two common understandings. Firstly, they looked to the nation [ … ] as a formative community, concerned to shape a common life suited to the scale of modern social and economic forms .^ (op. cit ., p.259). Secondly, they believed that rationality ^ and science^ should allow them to heal social and political divisions and to make national society more efficient and rational. However, in spite of these noble intents, they were so committed to rationality and science that they lost the sight of their big picture in the reform movements and created a public administration delivering the [public] goods^. Welfare Liberalism was developed as a response to the breakdown of the market. It consists in the active governmental intervention in regulation and assistance of market. Its aim is national harmony by means of sharing the benefits of economic growth. Regarding Neo-Capitalism, based on free-market ideas, it was developed as a response to the economic difficulties of 1970s and in opposition of Welfare Liberalism. Actually, in 1970s, this later is in an era of limits, because welfare programs became too expensive regarding economic growth and seemed to make citizens dependent rather than self-reliant. Neo-Capitalism consists in reducing the regulation and the assistance of market and introducing market system in public sector in order to diminish the public expenditure and deficit, generated by welfare programs before. However, this vision of Neo-Capitalism appears to affect its limits. Indeed, it leaves behind the problems of poverty, unemployment, social inequalities. In other words, it lacks B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
compassionate government ^. In spite of these differences, they share three visions in common. First, in the modern society, everyone must enjoy the physical security and material well-being. Second, everyone has to be encouraged in one ’s choice. Third, science, technology and professionalization are the best way for the modern society to achieve these two goals above. Criticizing some approaches of Welfare Liberalism and Neo-Capitalism, notably the sacrifice of general welfare in favour of special interests, the Administered Society and Economic Democracy are all looking for incorporating and transcending individual interests in order to keep the society cohesive. In the same line with Welfare Liberalism, the Administered Society seeks social harmony by means of the public administration, an active government and partnership with a variety of actors. Very ironically, as a result of this vision, attitude of privatization is increasing. As for Economic Democracy, also termed democratic socialism^, like Populism, this vision is looking for empowering citizens and integrating them in policy and decision making in order to make the society more human and sustainable notably by means of hiring their experts, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and so on. For instance, it is very difficult to know the result of this vision, because of the lack of experiences. Here is the criteria from Bellah et al.’s analysis (see the Table 2). B
B
Three Clusters of Administrative Values and Two Tables of Comparing Perspectives in PA
In addition to the six visions of public good above, three other tables have been taken into account. The first is the one related to three clusters of administrative values (Strange 1988), realized by Hood (1991, p.11). According to this table, in public management, there are three clusters of administrative values, Sigma, Theta and Lambda type values. Firstly, Sigma-types values match resources to defined tasks [ … ] objectives, the setting of fixed and ‘ checkable’ goals must be central to any design for realizing such values [ … ]^ (Hood 1991, p.12). Thus, there are twofold consequences: the first is the output control system and the second is the separation of ‘thinking’ and ‘executing’ activities. Secondly, Theta-type values consist in the pursuit of honesty, fairness and mutuality through the prevention of distortion, inequity, bias and abuse of office [ … , which] B
B
Table 2 Criteria from Six visions of Public Good (Bellah et al. 1985)
Vision of public good
3 couples of vision quoted
Period Genuine Ideas Focus Pilots
3 periods: 1880s – 1928/1929 – 1970s/Since 1980 What are the ideas behind the vision? What is the ultimate target of vision? Who is making decisions and managing the setting up? (Government/Citizens/any others) To reach the target, what are the grand strategies? What are the methods and the ways of the setting up? What are the characteristics of the way of the setting up? At what level is the vision set up? (National/Local/International) What are the consequences of the setting up?
Main directions Means Main Features Scale Results
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
are institutionalized [ … ]^ (op.cit . p.12). To do this, the institution looks for socializing public officials following public ethos^. As results, an organization with Theta-type values focuses its control therefore on process, not output, makes public decision making more democratic, and its goal is single rather than multiple. Thirdly, the Lambda type values relates to organizational resilience ^ (Weick 1993). As results, in an organization with Lambda-type values, the control focuses on process and input rather than output, objectives are multiple rather than single, management focuses on cohesion rather than merit system, mistakes and errors are admissible. In this analysis, these three clusters of administrative values have been used and main core value of each theory of PA has been determined. The second table is from Denhardt and Denhardt ( 2000). In their paper, they propose new ways of thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of classic PA, NPM and NPS. To do so, they compare them following 10 criteria (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000, p.554). The third table in this analysis has been exposed by Osborne in 2006. In his paper, he compares PA, NMP and New Public Governance along 7 criteria (Osborne 2006). In order to construct a synthetic grid of analysis, some criteria were added, regrouped, and others have been deleted (see the Table 3). B
B
Comparison of five Theories of PA
Following this analysis grid above, the argument of this paper is to compare five theories of PA. New Public Administration (NPA) From the point of view of Bellah et al. ( 1985), even if NPA was born in 1960 – 1970s, its background, issue, focus, main directions, means, pilot as well as main features match the Administered Society. Actually, in 1960s – 1970s, the objectives and the rationale of classic PA were already to be economic, efficient and productive (frankly speaking, these are not the invention of the NPM at all). For NPA, in addition to these objectives above, its objective is social equity. Actually, for the proponents of NPA, the problem of current PA consists in its difficulties of being relevant to social changes and citizens ’ real needs. Thus, in addition to be economic, efficient and productive, PA has to become more equitable in order to treat increasing social problems, satisfy citizens, and keep society cohesive, in other words, return to the general welfare. To do this, firstly, for the proponents of NPA, it is absolutely necessary to admit that PA is now a part of public policy making just like politics. Indeed, in classic PA, based on the theory of Weberian bureaucracy, PA was considered only as an instrument of implementation of public policy. PA had to be subject to politics and in any way, PA was never considered as a part of policy making. However, according to the proponents of NPA, PA participates in policy making just like politics, because PA influences politics by means of its knowing-how and the implementation of public policies. In order to make the society more equitable, it is necessary to form a public governance by integrating PA in political decisions making. Secondly, current PA doesn ’t work because of its institutionally bad practices. Thus, PA must identify them and change them. To do this, for the proponents of NPA, there is no best way. Every way can be good, when it allows PA to accomplish its missions in a
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E. Table 3 Construction of analysis grid
Criteria used in this grid
Given criteria from three tables (Bellah et al. 1985 ; Denhardt and Denhardt 2000 ; Osborne 2006)
Public Administration Theory When was the theory formulated for the first time? Authors Bibliographic references Conception of the public interest (Vision of Public Good) Genuine Ideas Theoretical Roots
Added Period (Bellah et al. 1985)
Nature of the State Main Core Public Value (Strange 1988, by Hood 1991) Organizational Model The recipient of the public service Role of government
Means
Deleted
Added Added Vision of public good (Bellah et al. 1985) Conception of the public interest (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Genuine Ideas (Bellah et al. 1985) Theoretical roots (Osborne 2006) Primary theoretical and epistemological foundations (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Prevailing rationality and associated models of human behavior (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Nature of the State (Osborne 2006) Value base (Osborne 2006) Assumed motivational basis of public servants and administrators (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Assumed organizational structure (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) To whom are public servants responsive? (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Focus (Bellah et al. 1985) Pilots (Bellah et al. 1985) Focus (Osborne 2006) Emphasis (Osborne 2006) Relationship to external (non-public) organizational partners (Osborne 2006) Role of government (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Main directions (Bellah et al. 1985) Means (Bellah et al. 1985) Main Features (Bellah et al. 1985) Governance mechanism (Osborne 2006) Mechanisms for achieving policy objectives (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Approach to accountability (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000) Scale (Bellah et al. 1985) R esults and limits (Bellah et al. 1985) Administrative discretion (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
relevant way: in order to satisfy citizens, if the professionalized and centralized bureaucracy is better, PA should be professionalized, centralized and bureaucratic. If the participatory decentralization model is better in order to treat some social problems, PA should be participatory and decentralized. If collaboration with private sector, notably PPP (Public-Private Partnership), is better in order to conduct construction sites, PA should outsource the work. In other words, it is time to (re)innovate PA institutionally. Nevertheless, the matrix model, more precisely the project management is considered more relevant than the bureaucracy. From this point of view, NPA refers to contingent structural theories (Burns and Stalker 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967) as well as the theory of self-designing
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
organization (Weick and Berlinger 1989). Indeed, given empirical observations on high-tech and heavy industries, they argue that it is the most relevant model of organization in response to its environment. In a stable and predictable environment, a bureaucratic organization is the most relevant model, whereas in a turbulent and equivoque environment, a dynamic and resilient organization is the most relevant model. Thirdly, in order to (re)innovate classic PA and make it relevant to social changes, NPA is problems oriented: it identifies and looks for solution. To this end, the government and PA have to become Agent Change^ managing routinization of organizational changes and boundary relationships with citizens and other actors. In change management, public managers are key, because the issue of change management depends on how public managers lead changes. From this point of view, public ethos is essential, as social equity^ in NPA matches social justice^ in terms of Rawls (by Frederickson 1980, pp. 37 – 42) which is fundamental for the common benefit. According to this point of view, NPA’s main core value is Theta-type. B
B
B
New Public Management (NPM) For NPM, given numerous social changes, PA doesn ’t work anymore because its system is not good enough. Just like NPA, according to NPM, the organization should cope with environmental changes. To do this, the government should be effective, market oriented, mission driven, results oriented, customers driven, anticipatory, decentralized. In other words, the government should steer rather than row and empower rather than serve (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Concretely, NPM type reforms are made following seven doctrines, notably greater emphasis on output controls, shift to disaggregation of units in the public sector, shift to greater competition in public sector, stress on private sector styles of management practice, explicit standards and measures of performance, ‘Heads-on professional management ’ in the public sector, and stress on greater discipline and parsimony in resource use (Hood 1991). From the point of view of Bellah et al. (1985), NPM joins the vision of public good of Neo-Capitalism: its focus is to keep the material progress and to allow the population to satisfy their personal needs. To do this, the government looks for reducing the scope of public intervention at least by redefining the scope of public duty and for steering service input and output principally by means of market system. As for the organizational model, the decentralization and the model of agencies are preferred. The population is an interest group ^ or aggregation of individual interests ^ to satisfy. Thus, the citizen becomes client or customer. Enthusiast for science and technology, NPM creates and involves a number of indicators of measurement, incentive systems and mechanisms of evaluation by experts. From all of these points of view, NPM ’s principal core value is Sigma-type, even if Hood ( 1991) argued that NPM ’s value were also a little bit Theta and Lambda type. Furthermore, NPM proposes little collective answer to resolve the social problems like persistent poverty, unemployment and to make the society cohesive, as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2011, or the recent conflict of Greece with others members of EU are showing. B
B
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
Public Value Management (PVM) In 1994, believing in the key role of public manager in improving and changing PA, Moore theorized PVM. Actually, if public value consists in collective preference formulated by citizenry^, it can be analyzed in terms of the relation between governmental action and its impacts. These impacts can be, in their turn, subdivided in two main types of values: the first is the substantial value of private interests. This value involves the financial, political, social, and strategic impacts which affect individuals and interest groups; the second is the intrinsic value of society and democracy. This value includes the ideological impacts (effects on beliefs, morals or ethics) and administrative impacts (effects on public trust, image, integrity, legitimacy of public officials and institutions). These impacts concern the political system and the very cornerstone of society. For Harrison et al. (2012), collaboration, transparence and participation can produce both intrinsic and substantial values. For PVM, just like NPA and NPM, techniques of program evaluation and cost analysis can be useful. However, it focuses on cost-effectiveness analysis rather than cost-benefit analysis, which is preferred in NPM. From all of these points of view, firstly, PVM joins the vision of public good of the Administered Society: public executives and administrators are the strong leader in the production of public values, which are defined by citizens; it is essential to define and produce public values, in other words, collective preferences, because it allows to keep the permanent and aggregate interests of the nation in a continuous way; different kinds of stakeholder are integrated in decision making process under the joined-up models of government and network governance forms, … Secondly, PVM’s main core value is Theta type. Indeed, the consequence of Thetatype values, that is to say keep it honest and fair ^ are very close to intrinsic public values, trust, legitimacy, confidence in government; the organizational model designed in PVM in an integrated organization which prevents particular groups from monopolizing public decisions and makes decision making process more democratic; PVM focuses on how produce public values, in other words process and its control emphasizes on cost-effectiveness rather than cost-benefit. B
B
New Public Service (NPS) Before the crisis of legitimacy of classic public organization, Denhardt & Denhardt suggest to find new ways to think about government, public organization and relationship between public organization and citizens (Denhardt and Denhardt 1981). They propose NPS as a possible alternative to the public choice perspective and the government monopoly on the steering of society (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000). Defining NPS as as set of ideas about the role of public administration in the governance system that places citizens at the center ^ (op.cit . 2000, p.550), NPS joins post-positivist social science and the second generation of behavioralist with mains directions such as serve, rather than steer ^ , the public interest is the aim, not the by-product ^ , think strategically, act democratically^ , serve citizens, not customers ^ , accountability isn ’t simple^ , value people, not just productivity ^ and value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship ^. B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
Denhardt and Denhardt (2000, p. 557) support the idea that one normative model can prevail at any point in time, with others playing a lesser role within the context of the prevailing view. From this point of view, they consider democracy, community and the public interest more important than efficiency and productivity. And, more than the NPM which is now predominant, as a normative model, the NPS is consistent with the basic foundations of democracy « provides a rallying point around » and allows envisioning « a public service based on and fully integrated with citizen discourse and the public interest ». From all of these points of view, firstly, NPS joins rather the vision of the Administered Society: it is up to public administrators and organizations to improve relationship with citizens by serving citizen, contributing to building a collective, shared notion of the public interest … However, NPS appears close to the vision of Economic Democracy. Indeed, NPS puts the human at the center and looks for meaningful society and democracy by integrating citizens and collaborating with them. In this respect, to some extent, NPS can be considered as a transition between the Administered Society and Economic Democracy. Secondly, NPS’s main core value is Theta type: NPS aims to improve citizen ’s trust in PA. To do this, PA should serve, contribute to building the public interests, help citizen articulate and meet their common interests, collaborate with citizen … Therefore, the control focuses on process of collaboration, public decision making is more democratic by integrating citizen, the goal is the public interest, shared value among citizen, and currency of success consists in trust and entitlements of citizen. New Public Governance (NPG) Osborne exposes the New Public Governance (NPG) as the theory that responds to the need for « a more holistic theory of Public Administration and Management (PAM) – one that moves beyond the sterile dichotomy of ‘ administration versus management ’ and that allows a more comprehensive and integrated approach to the study, and practice, of PAM ». The developed theory is « an alternative discourse (Osborne 2006, p. 380) » to PA or NPM. It is based on a plural state, where multiple inter-dependent actors contribute to the delivery of public services and a pluralist state, where multiple processes inform the policy making system ^ ( Ibid , p. 381). It seeks to understand the development and implementation of public policy ^ and focuses upon inter-organizational relationships and the governance of processes ^ ( Ibid , p. 382). To do this, it takes into account both the environment of public service and Public Service Organizations, and lays emphasis on the design and evaluation of enduring inter-organizational relationships, where trust, relational capital and relational contracts act as the core governance mechanisms ^ ( Ibid , p. 384). To this extent, NPG is coherent with Bellah’s Economic Democracy where citizens are seen as empowered and a political vision has to dominate competing interests: that can be reached by NPG through its focus on relationships and by coordinating activities of all kind of organizations that take part to public service. Osborne et al. (2012) and Lindsay et al. (2013), p. 193) identify inter-organizational issues as the main dimension of public services in the contemporary context that NPM has not faced. Osborne et al. ( Ibid) argue for the development of a genuine public service dominant ^ approach instead of the usual manufacturing sector centered one. B
B
B
B
B
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
Lindsay et al. ( Ibid ) support the idea that the increasing body of research and theory about the evolution of the delivery of public services seek to reflect the reality rather than to develop a normative framework. According to Wiesel and Modell ( 2014, p. 178), NPG logic is based on the conception of citizens as co-producers, whereas NPM see them as customers or consumers. NPG logic also differs from NPM in terms of legislative preference (enhancing citizen orientation opposed to improving economic performance), structures and forms or organizing (collaborative networks instead of competitive markets) and, consequentially, in terms of main focus control (inter-organizational processes vs outputs) and key performance aspects (effectiveness and citizen/customer satisfaction vs efficiency and financial results). NPG has the potential to provide a framework to include the evaluation of the voluntary sector. It combines the strengths of PA and the NPM, by recognizing the legitimacy and interrelatedness of both the policy making and the implementation/service delivery processes ^ (Osborne 2006, p. 384). Therefore, NPG values are close to Lambda-type, because it aims at several goals at the same time and can be seen as a flexible theory based on multiple connections and information exchanges between different types of organizations. Table 4 exposes the synthesis of all these points of view (see the table 4). B
Conclusion The aim of this paper is to compare five theories of PA and to draw a map. To do this, an analysis grid has been built based on the work of Bellah et al. ( 1985), Strange (1988), Denardt (1981) and Osborne (2006). This analysis of five theories shows that there are three mega-trends: the first one is theoretically predominant, the second one practically predominant and the last quite new which seems to be the next step in PA reform. Firstly, in theory, from the 1970s, the vision of the Administered Society and Theta type values seem to have been predominant: three among the five theories (NPA, PVM and NPS) join the vision of the Administered Society and Theta type values. In other words, we are looking for getting back to the traditional values, that ’s to say, the general welfare and the social harmony. For NPA, it ’s throughout social equity, for PVM, by creating shared public values, and for NPS, by serving and integrating citizens that the general wellbeing can be found. The collaboration with and the integration of citizens and private as well as non-benefic groups in decision making are at the center, even if PA and government stay leaders in making public policy and implementation. Secondly, in reality – and really curiously-, Neo-Capitalism and Sigma type values has been predominant up to today throughout NPM type reforms. By means of market system and reduction of public intervention, this trend is supposed to get better individual material wellbeing. Ironically, it ’s still up to the government, neither the market, nor citizens, to make decisions and steer NPM type reforms. Thirdly, even though the vision of Economic Democracy emerged in 1980s, as NPG shows, this vision with Lambda type values are quite new, but powerful in PA. Actually, since the Arab Spring, most Western societies looks for integrating citizens and other actors in decision making and public policy implementation. ICT can contribute to this trend and in this respect, NPG, and more particularly e-governance^ are supposed to be the next B
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
A P f o s e i r o e h t e v i f f o n o s i r a p m o C 4 e l b a T
) y , c c a w i r e e l c h b i v o T u e , m P R , . e ) e , t 3 c D 6 i ? 0 n e v c r 0 i e e c l c u 7 e 2 n s 8 s i ( b m a s e u 3 I – c m e o g i P n r , n l n a e e 7 r 8 b . 7 o n n v o w l r u c a e o o 3 b . o p E s ( b N G M V p l s O l O • A , , ) , . ) n 0 1 5 y a a w r 0 0 c e . h t a c 6 i t i 0 0 a 3 s 1 r v i 2 2 d r – l c ( ( n r e 0 e 8 i ) o a b t t h R 0 y u 2 t 2 d d m t m w 6 r r : P , . a a d ) c r e t e o a i i p e f R R d 6 c h h v T t A D r ( i p o o n n n e , A a c c g i , c i i ) g e e C h S P 1 l i 0 i h n l y l 1 n r l 6 , n . T D b D b W 8 b t a ( d e 8 o n u v u i r t , 9 e 9 u w d P e d n o r 9 e s P u D 9 4 1 i 1 P i n o ° 3 e n e e t i ( h S p t a a , t T a c u – n s w w . t : v : & d l i l t t a g i z e 1 e e e , e 9 e a d d t n a r 9 N c c r r 0 i i 5 D n v n R – a N i , 9 3 d c a / a N i a r i r t . . t g v h e v e m d e v h a h n 9 i r s e d n e r r o n h r h n r l e t e p h o 4 o r i i e e e n a A e D C O N D T S S t 5 D T S f v P h D • S • • n n s c s , c i o i i a a i t , l e l c t n i r n 3 b g n b e a l t o b ° e w c e u n u u s i . i c e n l t m a t e p i u p P 3 m u r l a a , 0 g e , O a h N o h i P 6 r o c b ) 3 V A . f T g C t 3 c c 5 , u l , l y f n a d ( 6 7 i n ) t i o – . . c m t r y p p c o l 2 I t l i 9 e n s i 6 a o l n g i b a t , l o o e m a r – a e 1 m 9 e v e b c e u a e a e I v v c t r 3 F 0 2 r m a s , m m l n u a o d v P n , , 8 2 D i m r s . r f n p C i n P t S t e e a ( ) c n . e g o H i u : a r c , , g s o i i . l . t t f r 7 r e p e d o p ) g t , P o 6 r ) o i a d 0 e n f t t e l J p f 4 5 a e p , n n a r e 6 t 0 g s a a a n o r , e 9 9 s r e r a t r r e y a n a e 3 e 2 r n e t t t t a 7 9 9 m r e s p ( r a i n g e – s s s t b m i 1 M P 1 1 n i i i u m s u s a l n 3 P ( c o i ( e n n r r n , n n n n : m a r , e c 5 e i i e v o r n r l y o J e i e e e e M e i e t l s t l 3 v f e v t t r r y i u u i m o l s m m . r v u i a l l c d e b o h n o r e i n l u d o G r a d a o l e F e o a v u l a d p o p n o h o a ’ l o M t l A S M v g U O P V a A A p H G - C V P o A C • • • M • , 9 t 6 , i r ) i g l . n l 2 n a , c i a ? , o 9 t p s i u ) h l m v r l 9 d n m s s s i e c n n a b , 1 i e i i l l l ( v u r i i o b : a b m u p u l s i o r t d e i e n e A t a a b e n r l p P i u a e n e h b a G p s r t M y e f t v e r C l s , o a o e l i g p l & A a n G g e n g o s n n i i r , e e e i r t ) o N g i n d m . d m o d n 1 t n r W f r n a i ( e a 9 y t o a o e t 9 g 9 n n f r s n e A b t n 1 e s a s 1 e c – e e , o h s r t r s n n p v i e i g O ( r l 3 o i a o r m n d t r d m g , b e . w t e c t o a d e o b d u p o g e o a P p s R h i s s A C n o e i o H O h T • H • n - - i a , o r g t n e a i d n n r a h r p n s . o u n r e a i e t T t v t i , o w s ( ) w e U y i e m o o h , s r ) e , 8 n r o a y t n i t N o P C G h e c y 3 6 s h T i t t e g n , , i n 9 . i m o i e , i g ) ) n k t e t a n i o ) 1 c d n r i w a 0 6 c s i 1 a o o n r m e h t t 8 9 m n i m o t o k s S f 7 s a i , n s c n 9 9 c o d r . 1 i b 1 e e i n 9 i 6 l r e l b r k l f o 1 S n a 5 d ( c o b i l ( v b e ( A b u U ( n m e u l . . d c w . i a o i n n e r A e m o s l t P r e , P e r i o o v e o v d r a l n e f t b y i r s s e b u o v R i t s n o n n F t n e A k k h i u i q w c , l e P e c u a c c e M n e y , o d i c i J r i i p w t & n M p a n n r i h / r t i t l e e e e y s i M s i m n r a m w n h e r e b i a r d n i e P v g e h o d o d e s u r i e a N e e e e n r r r T P r M C C P v i m N r M A m a M F F M • A • •
e c n a n r e v o G c i l b u P ) G w e P N N (
6 0 0 2
) S P N ( e c i v r e S c i l b u P w e N
0 0 0 2
t n e m e g a n a M e u l a V ) c M i l b u V P P (
4 9 9 1
t n e m e g a n a M c i l b u P ) M w e P N N (
1 9 9 1
n o i t a r t s i n i m d A c i l b u P ) A w e P N N (
1 7 9 1
n o i t a r t s i n y c r i i l o m e b u d h P A T
r o ? e l f a e m i c s d h t e i t h e t t c s a s p a y l a r s r n u i w r r f r g e o m e o o r n e e f i h e l o e h h t t f t h u b i r W A B
e t h t s e f e o r t n n i o c i t i l p b e c u n o p C
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
e c n a n r e v o G c i l b u P ) G w e P N N ( ) S P N ( e c i v r e S c i l b u P w e N t n e m e g a n a M e u l a V ) c M i l b u V P P ( t n e m e g a n a M c i l b u P ) M w e P N N ( n o i t a r t s i n i m d A c i l b u P ) A w P e ) N N ( d e
u n i t n o c (
4 e l b a T
n o i t a r t s i n y c r i i l o m e b u d h P A T
h e t d c i o n b a v r f e g e s s o n / d s i s s n n k a s o e a i e c t n m t y a o r c d p a e y n t c e a i m l y l i r m t e o e i e r l p r v g i e p e l e e l t e n h h m d i t t i e h T c f i o m y r o e n v o i c e e l d e M h P t N n e c e i i h v t s e r e h o s t c a c n i o l o r i b p t u p c a a e p R e h a t d r g n f o r s a n i o l o o e v c v f s a a i s t c h o n e u e s g o i n i c m b t k e m o n u a r x t n n t a f e e i o i t a o s r w c c h e i n e m e u l i c e p v l a b h i h o t t o a u w f c r c p o e d i o e n t p n s l r l s s a f o n p o a a n f o l c g o o i c i e t n - t h M h c d t i o s p i P i a e i a e u e N l n c w z n G R C
y n y l g i a l , l o g n h : l t l e e o e i r o y a t i r i i t w a u w ) c r t c a o o t l a 4 e o o e s P e r s s h r 9 e l t 9 ; l u R 9 l t a t t a a ; l i 1 k a n 7 ) n n r r , o 0 g s e o o 9 o i i t i i t 1 0 o t t n w i , l a a a o z 0 t r ; i z t z l 2 i e i e i ) h a n n n t a i c k n 0 n i ö a r a a u r 9 d p s g a G g g 9 r O T r n r a a ( 1 c o ( m ( O O •
•
: s t e s t u i i s l l t a a r a v u l e r P p o p r y d t o n a c a d o l b e a r u m a N l P L
l s e l , i , v d e l i h n a l a c c a c p c ) i a i t d m i t t l a i o l i g r n r n l s u n c a i p c o o i i i n p t m p t e d y ( a t a a a , v ; i u r i l z y d t n m y i c t i t i e c e t u u n o i y l n r n l s i p r m h r a r i a a l m a o g e r n l e n e r e i d a m r o i g e o o a t d v h : o n o u t t d n t , l f p c i o a e a i c r l , m o i e P r i t f t h s c f d s o y a e s w i z r v o e s n u o o m t s i n i i o g p l e t r e n o a n i e n s i e z c t o k t a i l d c o d s t o s s a e g o i i n c o r e r h c t p a o s r d t t e a u T O S l M • P • • • c i t n c t o e n l e e e d c c v i e e n t m s e c e i a d e g c n b l l s a a o n y l h a a l l C i c t a m p a e c s : i s v o i o l i e r s d c t a y i n u p r t n t l g i a s r p u a s e i l o a l p p p c l P v e c a i o r n m s e i h d d t o e e s o p i i s r o n r i y r e v C a e h r t f t o a d t l u e e e a h a s a e r t r e e h o t h m e u h p B L P l P T • • • • • • d n y a c a y r r c o u e y r a t h o t e n e r t e h s u t o b e c y m f g c s o a n n n y o e a t i c g d t t a e c m n p t l a u e a c s a r i g n p f m k i e i a e t r n c r v a t n g n i e o b g e r i a c h p m e s i h T S T • D • d n l e n o e e a d d n c o w y e a o n c t l t s h i e e i p l b y i t c t f a t b l e a y c d b r i i l o l s e b n u c c i p a m b i i o o p l n c h u t b g r ; p i c a p x e s t n t i i p f i s n p s e a i i t g n s p r c r e o n o n c e n a r c i u n n d o n c i i o i r e o y i a s e t n l d r t o t d a c t l n e t o u e t n w a H s s a s E o s c n n t g t o i i e a u a ; l n s c e i a a y f r C u i t i v r a r l l b i o q t o e f t i o i t l e n d d a a , i n r t t s c i a r r t h s n o n s a a e y r a a n s e i c c l o e t a m z z i o t i l e u p i i u n i t u u n l l e u h i m h r n g v t p c c - h u b o t a c a b y t m a l a a e d k i u e r r u s t y m h f a n o g g o r o r i a h o t f r r u r r o e o g d e t o b i o t u p r y a o i o o t b S T p w p o c n T D e B • S U • • e t s t a c e d ) t l i o o g d S o o b s n o a u e a f R H o e r h P t o G l t e S y d a I ( b n f c c i o , ) o r i e o e 8 t i l 1 n s e u C e i l i b r 8 9 r a u u 9 9 o n V u i t e ( P n V 1 1 e a a h G T N M
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
e c n a n r e v o G c i l b u P ) G w e P N N ( ) S P N ( e c i v r e S c i l b u P w e N t n e m e g a n a M e u l a V ) c M i l b u V P P ( t n e m e g a n a M c i l b u P ) M w e P N N ( n o i t a r t s i n i m d A c i l b u P ) A w P e ) N N ( d e
u n i t n o c (
4 e l b a T
n o i t a r t s i n y c r i i l o m e b u d h P A T
l a n o i t e a z c i n n a a n g r r e O o - v r G e t n I o t y e l t l h u t a i b i r w n r c t e i t s l n e n b o r i u c u t d P o c e t : r u s a l r e y t e r h l i s u s s a l e e a n p r v d i v , i e t h t e s e a y x r r t p c i e e e o d y i t v b - r c a a d a e e n t l s o s l l a e o h C T s g n m i r n o r f e e v c o r g n o f a t o n r n s e e l e v m o d n g r o e k m r v o o g p u t - w f e o d n e e n d l i o j o n a h W
r e m o t s u C d n a n e z i t i C
s e t d n n r e e n r o r e g t b e a s f f o t e g r n n O d , e p i s ( n d o p a n i g , e g h n n s i p s r o t e n e a i d r n i o ) l i o r t p h e b a 6 t 0 p t l i a 0 u l n w e l s i r 2 o C
n e z i t i C d n a t n e i l C
g n y o i t d e d m r n n a a u a s h m t s g s n m e g i r t o n e i a c t t i t n d i n a o e r g g a c e n , ) s n i s ( r s n p e e e g k u z u i n o l o i t r r i v b c g a v r e S
n g i s l e f o a d n n e o o i h i t t a . n t a l u g e o l r s t n c r s a i v i r o a e s r t u t a n d d s h u r o p n n T c m a e • E , c i l y l b l u p e a u t t f u ; o a s v m d i s r t n e o p e e e i t d i m n l n a a o n o o p t , t c i s u f e d g o i n r i e p c n e d l n e r i g g u o n a a B •
s r e n d i i , , 7 v , s 2 s o e 0 r 0 n u 0 l l p 0 d e a 2 a z 2 n f c i v i a t n o d n r c i i c d g s e i r y o l n f y j u k i r u b l l t f F u ’ s d o l a a A i e p t s ( w v O r n r t a : c g a s e i c e n , i n s r d l n i l y l o r e g a b t c ) o n d g c e n u r i i e 0 h e n u t s t p r i e d e n i 6 z r i o l e i o d r k 3 t f e u . r r o v i a c q p e p o p o e o t f t S D s
d n y g c n a a i s t e m a i u i t u l l a a g v l e v e i c t , i n , l e s b c e u i u t c v p r n r t e : g e n s f o i n d e i f e h g n s o m n m i i l r c n o d b e i c a t v d v t u s n o r o e a o g P
o t t s y l d a : t ) n a a s c e s t c a r u s o p f a n i g t e e n k c i r t i a c v a r m e ( s h S t s u a g p e n t l i r u e o n u e t S
r o d n e a s l a v s s i c o t i t t c c m s a s s e s i j r e a t l n b r c n a u o t o h c d c y c n c e u i r a l a l t m c s t o e i p s g e k s n v r e a i i t a l t v c a n e - e m o i e r h c e e C n c h T n ( i a
^
B
• •
e f h y e t o r g a i y n a c i c n m h l a i a t b r i c i u p m e f p h w f h E t l a f t g n o i n : d s o w i n i n n e t i o s u a e a a i l n t c n z a o m a i a o l i v i n e z t t i r p a a i l e t l z g t a r y p i e r r e o e : c t y n p k t r o t t n n a r n m n e g a a a m o r e e r c o o g t t e s c m I m d o c a m n u g i • • C S r d e t r c p n n c i g ; o u m t a o t e n i k a o o i c , j t r t r r t o e y c s o c c r g c c S n p i u u a o w l r d k t C c i e r b m i y o m n l e o o r u d c l b b p p d w a e n f a f t c u i o f t a h , c P e o o i y s t s r : f u , n n w o e o r e s i y o t , : o a h s m e l c t y i m u a e n t n u t d p o c l r c i s o i e a m a a i u c n n o z f t r e i v i i f m t q t a o o e l s r t e e M e i z e a C a i y u g h r , l p t n p a r s , s x a a i y n a , n t n o i r e t d d e c t g t e a h t a t a m c z t a u e r e o s M o n a n a l o i t e i d f h • • • C T e h t e f c l i o a v t r n n e o e e s i r i t u a p i c t i z l c i c b u e n r r u a s g t e p r h O T
•
•
•
•
- s o g e t e m n t i I g g n d n d n a y n g a v a n e c a a h e h i e t l n c l c s y a o e l e x f b r e d P a g o n m e n e n a d y r c o o a r i s t h s n n n o n t i a c a o a c i i a n m d m l t n n z e e l o g n r i b l a e i o i a g l n t e u i n n u b b t n n u v o a o P a r k l a i o e r o g b o o r t a i o , r t t h t p g g y a s v g g a o r t m r n i C e i z a d n g n n e n i t i i t g e l i y d e n t d t n i p g n n a c r c n i i i a e n m l m o c a u m c e a e g e r n d g e r i o r l o c o a n r o o a A P p e i s t o b t F s m O A ^
•
t n e m n r f o e v e o l o g R
•
• •
s n a e M
B
•
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
e c n a n r e v o G c i l b u P ) G w e P N N ( ) S P N ( e c i v r e S c i l b u P w e N t n e m e g a n a M e u l a V ) c M i l b u V P P ( t n e m e g a n a M c i l b u P ) M w e P N N ( n o i t a r t s i n i m d A c i l b u P ) A w P e ) N N ( d e
u n i t n o c (
4 e l b a T
n o i t a r t s i n y c r i i l o m e b u d h P A T
s t l c a r t a i e e l r r t p s a e a n v o n m h c o o w l c g i s i t e a n l a , r n a a z s o i o h n p c i i n t o a e h e c a i t l s g h a m ) e r t l n o 4 o r e - i r s , e 8 r t t a c 3 e a s d n t . t l u a p n e i r r t n a c a n ( s - , t u s d n a n m m r v a r o m , e s n o s c l d c , a r i a l c d w i b t a n i l u s a t p o l o s s t t p l e d r , d a s e e t t n n e e e n o u t i i c l t s a a a s f v e n - t e i f s z t y i l o u t t r i u m i n p c M •
e t g d n e i i n h w m c t a n r a e g v m n o i l g a v l n n o o i i v t n s c r i e n d d u l f n o : a h s g e i e n k t i i a d t v i s u t l f c c o a n i •
t l t d i f a s a u o o l e r r s r u p b l u l n i y c d m o u b r c n n a c w o s d ( d t a t e s n d r s e e i a r n r a s h ) t e e e e h 0 t t z d n i a n s i t n i 0 v e 0 e i c e f D 2 i r l f t v p s , d e m r o ) s o d h e r f c i s a t g t r c o u s p e h u e n u k n o o n e r o r e o r g a h n g m o t a D M i t i t •
, y t e e g k y g o r a l l y o , r a o t a d t t , l m i a a c s g e o o p e y c t o i n , h s i l g o t c t n r l i o n e a t c e o r , ) a r t a d m , t m n a r h r n t r t o c p o n c n o o f i n i t f t , … o o c d r a t n a c i o i v c i n e z c t d e e a k , p n l j e a l l n c z o , i o i o a c r n o e i r e l i n r h t t t o o a o o n a r e p y a a r i i r o o r r t w z t z o i s i d i e c t b n a s n n o p u v e h g e r i m l a t f u a c e g h m l o e i o u o g w t d e e r e r r A v i o o o P e W ( n d g d r p t •
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
step to reform in depth PA and government. In other words, a new government is just now reinventing. All these points of view lead us to three questions. First, To what extent are these theories scientific? ^ In other words, has any of these five theories been tested in terms of Popper (1959)? For us, the answer is not entirely yet ^. Actually, these PA theories seem to us rather like ideal types of the organization of the modern public administration (Weber 1956) than scientific corpus in Popper ’s terms. To some extent, it does not really matter if all of these theories are more or less scientific in Popper ’s terms, because, as Weber already wrote, the ideal type is necessary to compare the reality with, to understand reasons of differences between them and, eventually to find how to get them alike. From this point of view, all of these PA theories are absolutely necessary because they show us some directions to take in order to get a better society. The second question is Are the vision of Economic Democracy, NPG and egovernance really new? ^ In other words, will they really allow to reform in depth PA and government and to make the society more sustainable and equitable? ^. In its conclusion, to the question « Is reinventing government just old wine in new bottles? », Frederickson (1996) answers « mostly, yes » and concludes that « there is no doubt that the coming generation will create a version of public administration they regard to be a new paradigm » (Ibid, p. 269) because, and he refers to John Dewey ( 1927), «each generation must construct its own reality ». In other words, it is only the package that changes, not the content. Indeed, Bellah et al. ’s six visions of the public good show that if the focus, main directions and means change with socio-economic evolution, pilots change very few. There is an iteration between institutions and other actors than institutions. To sum up, the key question is the one of power-sharing. The final question is just about this power-sharing and decision-making processes. In other terms, Are executives/politicians really willing to share the power? ^ If they are, To what extent are they ready to share the power and how to share it? ^ Actually, none of these theories ask these questions, while they are essential in PA theory, because last PA theories concern precisely how to share the power and organize it. As Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) argued, current public policy problems seem to come principally from the politicians, not from the public administration. Because this later role is only to help politicians to implement and set up public policies which have been made by politicians. Thus, we believe that before talking about how to share the power and organize it, we need to ask to politicians this crucial question, Are you really willing to share the power? ^ B
B
B
B
B
B
B
References Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337 – 346. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart, individualism and commitment in American life. USA: Perennial Library. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. New York: Oxford University. Crozier M. (1963). Le phénomène bureaucratique. Editions du Seuil. Denardt R.B. (1981), Toward a Critical Theory of Public Organization, Public Administration Review, November/December 1981, pp. 628-635. United Kingdom
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549 – 559. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2001). The new public service: putting democracy first. National Civic Review, 90(4), 391 – 400. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Arthens: Swallow Press. Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. H. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public money and management , 9 – 16. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration. US: University of Alabama Press. Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the NPM. Public Administration Review, 56 (3). Frederickson, H. G., et al. (2012). The public administration theory primer (Second ed.). US: Westview press. Grönroos, Ch. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 4 – 20 Harrison, T., Guerrero, S., et al. (2012). Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17 , 83 – 97. Hood, C. H. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3 – 19. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second ed.). USA: Enlarged, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1 – 47. Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P., & BOND, S. (2013). The ‘ new public governance’ and employability services in an era of crisis; challenges for third sector organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, 92(1), 192 – 92(1), 207. Marini, F. et al. (1971). Toward a new public administration, the Minnowbrook perspective. US: Chandler Publishing Company. Moore, M. H. (1994). Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53, 296 – 303. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value, strategic management in government . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. OECD. (2009). Government at a Glance 2009. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2015). Government at a Glance 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66 (3), 353 – 366. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377 – 387. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government . Reading: Adison Wesley Public Comp. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management?: toward a (public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135 – 158. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A Conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833 – 848. Passet R. (2010). Les grandes représentations du monde et de l’économie à travers l’histoire, Editions Les liens qui Libèrent. Pollitt, C. H., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform, a comparative analysis: new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press. Popper K. R. (1959). La logique de la découverte scientifique. Translated in French 1973, Payot. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 295 – 336). JAI London Strange, S. (1988). States and markets. London: Pinter. Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 925 – 939. Weber M. (1956). Economy and society. Translated in English 1978, University of California. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of Sensemaking in organizations: the Mann gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1993), 628 – 652. Weick, K. E., & Berlinger, L. R. (1989). Career improvisation in self-designing organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 313 – 328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance? Hybridization and Implications for Public Sector Consumerism Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2), 175 – 205.
Looking for Public Administration Theories? Hae-Ok Pyun is an associate professor at the Université d’Orléans and research fellow of the Centre de Recherche Juridique de Pothier (CRJ Pothier). She works on public management, especially human resources in the public sector and public administration theories. Claire Edey Gamassou is associate professor at Université Paris-Est and research fellow of the Institut de Recherche en Gestion (IRG).
