PART I

The Evolution of Traditional Institutions

Other disciplines have sometimes questioned the value of studying

institutions and structures rather than values or the ultimate outcomes
of public policies. Yet it is clear that the study of institutions and struc-
tural arrangements has always been one of the cornerstones of public
administration studies. The four chapters in Part One of this book make
it clear why those structures and institutions are important. In different
ways, they all demonstrate how the changing nature of governance and
the role of the state reflect the way in which organizations have been
changing. In particular, all of the chapters examine the impact of vari-
ous aspects of NPM on government organizations. They remind us that
organizations are not static; they change – sometimes quite rapidly – to
reflect changes in their environment, such as the latest trends in man-
agement. They even change to reflect crises such as the sponsorship
scandal (which will be mentioned several times in this section).
Peter Aucoin is one of the most prolific and insightful commentators
on NPM. In chapter 1, he begins by placing NPM in its historical con-
text by focusing on its antecedents, which include the Glassco Commis-
sion and the general expansion of government in the 1960s and 1970s.
Aucoin also helps us understand the Canadian approach to NPM by
setting it in an international context. Clearly, a phenomenon like NPM
can mean different things in different milieux.
Aucoin reminds us that NPM focuses on public servants as managers
and not simply administrators. He cautions, however, that public ser-
vants are managing the public’s business; thus there are constraints on
their ability to make autonomous decisions. His concern is that NPM
has emphasized efficient management but not necessarily political con-
trol over public servants. He argues that a reaction to this has led to
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/10/19 9:33 AM
14 Part I

what he calls New Public Governance (NPG), which emphasizes strong

– Aucoin suggests excessive – political control of the bureaucracy. This
has resulted in a bureaucracy that is too close to politicians and too will-
ing to do their bidding. His example is the sponsorship scandal. In his
prescription, he references Kernaghan’s work to argue for greater
empowerment of public servants so that they are properly subservient
to their political masters without, however, being politicized.
In chapter 2, Paul Thomas tackles the important but elusive concept
of accountability. He concedes that much has already been written
about it, but he adds that the concept is continuing to change, as sug-
gested by the use of the word ‘swirling’ in the chapter title. He addresses
the paradox that governments have added more and more accountabil-
ity mechanisms in the face of concerns by the opposition parties, the
media, and the general public; yet whatever mechanisms are intro-
duced, they are never enough to satisfy the growing demand for more
accountability.
Thomas points out that accountability in Westminster systems of
government has traditionally been based on ministerial responsibility;
yet one of the responses to demands for more accountability has been to
focus on the kind of managerial accountability that is a part of NPM. He
suggests that managerial accountability is a good complement to min-
isterial accountability but cannot be a substitute for it.
He takes us back to basics to discuss what accountability means and
what its main components are. He then raises the concern that govern-
ments keep responding to calls from the public and the media to intro-
duce more accountability by adding more accountability mechanisms,
but not necessarily in a thoughtful or systematic way. The result is cer-
tainly more accountability mechanisms, but not necessarily a better
system of accountability (with the emphasis on ‘system’). He laments
what he calls ‘multiple accountability disorder’ (MAD).
In chapter 3, to illustrate the practical difficulty of separating policy
and administration, David Good draws on his extensive experience as a
senior public servant to construct a hypothetical discussion between a
minister and a deputy minister.
He uses this to frame a discussion of the evolving nature of ministe-
rial responsibility, public service anonymity, and political neutrality. He
discusses how many of the changes discussed in the first two chapters
have had a strong impact on these concepts. NPM has introduced
greater transparency in the operations of government – transparency
that now requires public servants to be more visible in public consulta-
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/10/19 9:33 AM
 The Evolution of Traditional Institutions 15

tions, by appearing before Parliamentary committees, among other

highly visible tasks. Furthermore, the emphasis on partnerships, citi-
zen-centred service delivery, and horizontal coordination of policy
making and delivery across several departments presents challenges to
traditional ideas of ministerial responsibility.
These continual changes have required a constant rethinking of the
concepts of ministerial responsibility, public service anonymity, and
political neutrality. However, Good argues that it is important to reaf-
firm the following three tenets:

1 It is ministers, not public servants, who answer to Parliament for

policy decisions and politically contentious matters, and they do so
in a manner that safeguards the political neutrality and anonymity
of public servants.
2 Public servants avoid activities (e.g., criticizing their minister in pub-
lic) that harm or seem to harm their impartiality or the impartiality
of the public service.
3 Public servants provide advice to ministers in confidence and avoid
activities that involve them in public debate or political controversy.

The final chapter in this section is Michael Duggett’s review of how

one aspect of NPM has been implemented in a number of different
countries. Drawing on articles that appeared in the International Review
of Administrative Sciences while Ken Kernaghan was editor, he demon-
strates that privatization is a global trend that has gone beyond any one
ideology or the specific needs of any one government. He argues that
privatization went from being a mere technical issue to a politically
charged one and then back to a more technical one.
However, the wide adoption of privatization has not limited the con-
troversy associated with it. It has sometimes been seen as positive, the
belief being that emulating the private sector is bound to improve effi-
ciency. Other times it has been seen as a method of ‘human degradation
via contractual employment, lower wages, harder and less permanent
work; and in a society with ever more police and security machineries;
a culture only of individual consumer-pursuit, public sector debt, and a
decaying infrastructure.’ In the end, Duggett concludes that privatiza-
tion has clearly had an impact, though it has not resulted in the huge
changes that were envisaged by some.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/10/19 9:33 AM