1.3 Evolution of Public Administration Models and PSR
During the post-war era, the structures of the welfare state in Europe and the
United Kingdom were set in terms of a general or “one-size-fits-all” approach
to public service delivery. This means that public services were designed to
serve the public, and not cater for private interest. Drawing on principles of
bureaucracy, reflected as meritocracy and hierarchy, this old public adminis-
tration model depended on established rules and centralized control.
In the early 1980s, these structures began to crumble under varied
requirements from citizens for more responsive, modern, and customized
private sector-type services (Julius, 2008), as consumerism, which was pre-
viously consigned to the private sector, gained traction in the public sector
(Clarke et al., 2007). The perceived inadequacies in the traditional public
administration model exposed a need for PSR, enacted via New Public
Management (NPM). NPM was evident in most of the English speaking
North American systems, and particularly in Australia, Britain, Canada, and
New Zealand, that is the four key Westminster governments (Aucoin, 2017).
It incorporated various private sector management practices to improve
performance (Asenova et al., 2007), including internal and external compe-
tition (Ahmad et al., 2018; Heald and Steel, 2018). PSR within the NPM
context is driven by service users’ demands for better services, resulting in the
development of service delivery targets and performance monitoring of
public service providers, for example, in schools and health care (Wiesel and
Modell, 2014). NPM has therefore been a key driver of PSR.
Yet, public administration and NPM largely ignored value-creation
concerns during public service provision. They focused more on efficiency
and effectiveness of service provision in terms of outputs as distinct from
outcomes (Rosenbloom and McCurdy, 2006; Denhardt and Denhardt,
2011). The New Public Governance (NPG) doctrine was developed to
address the shortcomings of these older models of public service provision
(Osborne, 2006; Koppenjan and Koliba, 2013), paving the way for yet
another era of PSR. The public administration model has been criticized for
its inefficient, over-bureaucratized approach to decision-making on service
delivery and transformation (Pedersen and Johannsen, 2018). The NPM’s
focus on efficiency and effectiveness also posed risks of inequality because
accountability and equality values may be ignored (Maravic and Reichard,
2003). In contrast, the NPG involves the integration of value creation into
service provision, especially within the democratic context of public gov-
ernance (Moore, 1995, 2013, 2014; Boyte, 2005; Stoker, 2006; Bozeman,
2007; Alford and Hughes, 2008; Osborne, 2010a, 2010b; Williams and
Shearer, 2011; Fisher, 2014; Kalambokidis, 2014; Denhardt and Denhardt,
2015; Van der Wal et al., 2015). It emphasizes flexible administration
whereby citizens and public employees collaborate on socio-economic issues
and PSR, including co-design, co-delivery, and co-production of public
services (Bryson et al., 2014).
Background to Public Service Reform 3