The impact of the new public management: Challenges for coordination and cohesion in European public sectors (review essay)

New Public Management has been around for a quarter of a century in European public sectors, yet despite the movement’s emphasis on indicators and evidence, there have been surprisingly few encompassing evaluations. In this paper, we provide an overview of academic evaluation and impact studies of entire NPM-style reform programmes. We distinguish between two sets of NPM-style changes and reforms. One is that of specific managerial innovations within public organisations. The other consists of changes to the role of government and citizens as a result of NPM ideas. We conclude that a majority of academic research has focused on the first set of changes, while approaches to the second set has been mainly of a critical nature with relatively limited attention for empirical studies

COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe.

Background and aims of the survey The COCOPS project aims to assess the impact of New Public Management-style (NPM) reforms on public administrations in Europe, as well as, more particularly, on public services attending to citizens’ service needs and on social cohesion. The research explores trends and development of future public sector reform strategies, especially given the context of the financial crisis, by drawing lessons from past experience, exploring trends and studying emerging public sector coordination practices. The research is comparative and evidence-based, drawing on both existing data and innovative new quantitative and qualitative data collection, at both national and policy sector levels. As one of the largest comparative public management research projects in Europe, the project therefore intends to provide a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing the European public sector of the future. The consortium implementing the research consists of a group of leading public administration scholars from eleven universities in ten countries. The project is funded through the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme as a Small or Medium-Scale Focused Research Project, and runs from January 2011 to June 2014. More information on the project is available at www.cocops.eu. The third phase of COCOPS (or its ‘Work package 3’) is a cornerstone of the project, as it produces an original, large-scale survey exploring the opinions and perceptions of public sector managers in ten Europe countries with regards to NPM reforms. The work package thus provides novel quantitative data regarding NPM reforms and their impacts in Europe, coming from the actors involved at close range in the conception and especially in the implementation of reforms: public sector executives across Europe active in the areas of (as delineated in the project’s reference points) general government, employment and health. Moreover, the data resulting from the survey constitutes a building block for other project phases which, based on an analysis of trends and opinions identified by the civil servants surveyed, try to establish innovative practices in tackling unintended consequences of NPM reforms, effects of the financial crisis and also possible scenarios for the future of the public sector

What determines whether top public sector executives actually use performance information?

__Abstract__ Performance management has permeated public sector organizations worldwide over the last decades. At its core is the idea of using such information for decision making in a systematic form. Externally, performance information can be used to showcase performance, to give account, or to compare and benchmark. Internally, it can be used to monitor internal developments or to improve operations. A link between performance measurement and the use of this information in decision making is often assumed. Yet, until recently, the actual use of performance information was not very high on the public management research agenda. It is now a common observation that governments have invested substantially in collecting data, yet know relatively little about what drives performance information use

Internal and external use of performance information in public organisations: Results from an international executive survey

Abstract. This paper analyses determinants of public managers´ internal and external use of performance information. Using a sample of over 3100 top public sector executives in six European countries, we find evidence for significant country variations, with a more limited use of performance information in France and Germany. It was also found that the use of performance information is mainly determined by organizational factors rather than managers’ individual socio-demographic characteristics. The analysis also found considerable differences in patterns of use between policy fields and a lower use of performance indicators in central government ministries. Finally, the implementation of performance management instruments in an organization has an overall strong effect on the actual use of performance information

Institutions or Contingencies? A Cross‐Country Analysis of Management Tool Use by Public Sector Executives

Management tools are often argued to ameliorate public service performance. Indeed, evidence has emerged to support positive outcomes related to the use of management tools in a variety of public sector settings. Despite these positive outcomes, there is wide variation in the extent to which public organizations use management tools. Drawing on normative isomorphism and contingency theory, this article investigates the determinants of both organization‐oriented and client‐oriented management tool use by top public sector executives. The hypotheses are tested using data from a large‐N survey of 4,533 central government executives in 18 European countries. Country and sector fixed‐effects ordinary least squares regression models indicate that contingency theory matters more than normative isomorphism. Public executives working in organizations that are bigger and have goal clarity and executive status are more likely to use management tools. The only normative pressure that has a positive impact on management tool use is whether public sector executives have a top hierarchical position