Revisiting Trade Unions’ Response to New Public Management: A Case From Zambia

• Author: Clever Madimutsa,Leon G. Pretorius
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017713230
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017713230

Public Personnel Management

2017, Vol. 46(3) 288 –307

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0091026017713230

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Revisiting Trade Unions’

Response to New Public

Management: A Case

From Zambia

Clever Madimutsa1 and Leon G. Pretorius2

Abstract

This article discusses the strategic responses by public-sector unions to new public

management (NPM) reforms in Zambia. The article is based on a qualitative research

methodology focusing on the Civil Servants and Allied Workers Union of Zambia. The

study shows that public-sector workers in developing countries are more vulnerable

to the effects of externally imposed NPM reforms, which include job cuts. However,

the implementation of these reforms faces opposition especially from trade unions.

In line with the assumptions of strategic choice theory, union responses to NPM

reforms are strategic. Despite the high vulnerability of public workers in developing

countries, their unions use strategies that can also be observed in developed countries

to mitigate the negative consequences of NPM reforms on the public sector. These

strategies follow a three-stage process, namely, opposing the reforms, negotiating

for favorable reform measures, and shifting from centralized structures to networks.

Keywords

new public management, public sector, trade union, strategic response

Introduction

The public sector the world over has been undergoing reform since the 1980s. The

reforms have taken two forms. The first is new public management (NPM) while the

second is post-NPM reforms (Christensen & Lægreid, 2007). In general terms, the

1University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

2University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa

Corresponding Author:

Clever Madimutsa, Department of Political and Administrative Studies, University of Zambia,

P.O. Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia.

Email: cmadimutsa@yahoo.co.uk

713230PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017713230Public Personnel ManagementMadimutsa and Pretorius

research-article2017

Madimutsa and Pretorius 289

reforms attempt to promote efficiency and effectiveness of public institutions by

adopting private-sector strategies. These include downsizing, restructuring, human

resource management, decentralization, outsourcing, commercialization, performance

management, and partnerships (Ayee, 2008; Dzimbiri, 2008).

The NPM paradigm originated in developed countries, particularly in the United

Kingdom. From the United Kingdom, it moved to the United States, Australia, and

New Zealand. Later on, it moved to Scandinavia and Continental Europe. Eventually,

every country in the world got influenced by this paradigm in one way or another

(Lane, 2000). However, this paradigm presents significant challenges for democratic

governance (Edigheji, 2008; Manning, 2001; Zafra-Gómez, Bolívar, & Muñoz, 2012).

It also affects the employment relationship in the public sector. The effects include job

losses and reductions in union membership and income (Anderson, Griffin, & Teicher,

2002; Brewster, Dempsey, & Hegewisch, 2001). The other effect is promotion of

industrial conflict (McDonald & Pape, 2002).

The negative effects of reforming the public sector force trade unions to make strat-

egies to adapt to the changing circumstances. Kochan, Katz, and McKersie (1994)

argue that when they get affected by the reform of industrial relations, trade unions and

other key actors make strategic decisions to achieve their goals. According to Kochan

et al., strategic decisions are made at three levels of industrial relations activity. These

are policy-making, collective bargaining, and workplace levels. Union strategies at

policy-making level include political, representation, and organizing strategies. At

collective bargaining level, the focus of unions is on bargaining strategies. At work-

place level, unions make strategies relating to employment contracts, employee par-

ticipation, and the design of jobs (Kochan et al., 1994). Martin (1997) identifies 14

issues that trade unions focus on in the context of public-sector reform. These are

being offensive, dialogue, values and objectives, diversity, leadership and employee

empowerment, efficiency, employment security, flexibility, incentives, performance

measurement, career development, ethics, training, and equal opportunities.

The literature shows that despite being put in a difficult situation, trade unions are

able to respond strategically to the reform of the public sector. They do so both before

and after the implementation of the reforms. Before the implementation of the reforms,

unions respond by opposing them. This strategy was used in France (Pollitt &

Bouckaert, 2011). The unions can also decide to participate in the process of setting

the reform agenda for the benefit of their members. This strategy has been used in

Australia (Connoley, 2008). After implementation, trade unions can make strategic

decisions to mitigate the effects of the reforms. There are various options at this stage.

Brewster et al. (2001) state that European trade unions responded to the reform of the

public sector by forming mergers and alliances both in the public and private sectors

and decentralizing their structures. Similar responses have been reported in Australia

(Anderson et al., 2002). The other responses by unions in Europe include using elec-

tronic systems to recruit members, delivering various services to members, and

enhancing communication between members and the leadership (Waddington, 2005).

Like their counterparts in the developed world, trade unions in developing countries

respond strategically to economic and institutional reforms. Webster (2006) indicates