Public Sector Reforms: Changing Contours on an NPM Landscape

• Author: Mariannunziata Liguori,Noel Hyndman
• Date: 01 February 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12078
• Published date: 01 February 2016

Financial Accountability & Management, 32(1), February 2016, 0267-4424

Public Sector Reforms: Changing

Contours on an NPM Landscape

NOEL HYNDMAN AND MARIANNUNZIATA LIGUORI∗

Abstract: Previous studies suggest that public sector accounting has moved from

Public Administration (PA) to New Public Management (NPM) ideas and, more

recently, towards a New Public Governance (NPG) approach. These systems are

presented as mutually exclusive and competing. Focusing on accounting changes in

the UK central government, this paper explores whether movements towards NPG

ideas can be identified at the level of political debate. No evidence is found that

NPM is a transitory state. Rather, the findings demonstrate that political debate

continues to utilise predominantly NPM arguments, with the three systems viewed

as containing complementary, rather than competing, schemes.

Keywords: accounting reforms, New Public Management, New Public Governance,

Central Government

INTRODUCTION

Public administration has the propensity to experience ‘identity crises’ (Waldo,

1968). Previous studies suggest that over the decades there has been a

continuous movement in public administration systems from traditional Public

Administration (PA) ideas to managerial ones, later labelled as New Public

Management (NPM), and more recently, towards a more participative approach

utilising partnerships and networks, referred to as New Public Governance

(NPG). Each of these systems is associated with its own accounting, budgeting

and performance measurement tools and techniques. The three systems are

often presented as mutually exclusive and competing (Rhodes, 1997; Pollitt

and Bouckaert, 2011; and Prestoff et al., 2012). However, the claim that there

has been a progressive movement along a continuum from PA to NPM, and

ultimately to NPG, has also been contested (Pollitt, 2007; and Lapsley, 2008).

While there have been a number of studies looking at the implementation

∗The authors are both from Queen’s University Management School, Queen’s University,

Belfast.

Address for correspondence: Noel Hyndman, Queen’s University Management School,

Riddle Hall, 185 Stranmillis Road, Belfast, BT9 5EE, UK.

e-mail: n.hyndman@qub.ac.uk

C

2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 5

6HYNDMAN AND LIGUORI

of accounting reforms associated with these systems (Connolly and Hyndman,

2006; and Christensen and Lægreid, 2007), little is known about the political

debate preceding these reforms and on whether this follows the direction some

of the literature would suggest.

The objective of this study is to explore whether a convincing movement

towards NPG ideas can be identified at the level of political debate; and to what

extent the ideas embedded within PA, NPM and NPG systems show themselves

in the political discussions regarding public sector accounting and budgeting

reforms. Has the emphasis of political debate on the three systems changed over

the last eighteen years? To what extent does this suggest a movement along a

continuum from PA towards NPG, with NPM merely a transitory state on the

journey? Has a movement along a continuum (if any) led to a replacement of

previous ideas? The paper focuses on the accounting, budgeting and performance

measurement changes that took place in the United Kingdom (UK) central

government from the 1990s and, through a document analysis, explores the

extent to which the language used in the documents mirrors any of the old and

new public administration reform vocabularies. In particular, we investigate,

over time, the relative use, and change in use, of the language related to PA,

NPM and NPG.

The paper aims to contribute to the on-going discussion on public sector

reforms and their evolution towards an increasingly NPG-like approach

(Osborne, 2006 and 2010; Pollitt, 2007; and Lapsley, 2008). The findings

suggest that the political debate regarding accounting reforms in official

UK political documents has predominantly, but not exclusively, utilised NPM

arguments, with little evidence of a ‘NPG-era’ even in the later periods. In

particular, while PA, NPM and NPG are often, although not always (Pollitt and

Bouckaert, 2011), presented in the literature as mutually exclusive, competing

schemes, the results of this research suggest that in political debate they

are viewed as complementary, with decisions taken that result in layering,

rather than replacement, of systems. On the basis of the analysis, there is

very limited evidence to support the claim that NPM is a transitory state in

the evolution from a regime of traditional PA to NPG. The paper is organised

as follows: the following section reviews existing literature on the three public

administration systems (namely PA, NPM and NPG); then the methods and the

document analysis are presented; finally, after a section discussing the emerging

results, the conclusions present final remarks and identify further research

avenues.

PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND IDEAS OVER THE LAST EIGHTEEN YEARS

Since 1970 many governments have engaged in reform processes aimed at

bringing business concepts, techniques and values into the public sector (Pollitt

and Bouckaert, 2011). This movement has been termed NPM and often resulted

in major shifts in accounting, budgeting and performance measurement systems

C

2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd