|
Call for papers
A conference co-sponsored by IPSA’s RC27 The Structure and
Organization of Government and The Quality of Government Institute,
University of Gothenburg
New Public Management and the Quality of Government
November 13-15, 2008
Conference program (pdf)
Conference theme: New Public Management and the
Quality of Government
During the past couple of decades, New Public Management (henceforth
NPM) has been implemented as a model of administrative reform in a large
number of countries. It is not difficult to see that NPM has changed, in
some countries profoundly, the modus operandi of the public bureaucracy
and public service delivery in an “anti-Weberian” direction. There is
currently a debate among experts on administrative reform about the
gains and losses of NPM as a philosophy of administrative modernization.
NPM advocates point at increased efficiency and customer empowerment as
examples of the success of market-based reform, while skeptics voice
concerns about the loss of the political and public specificity of the
public bureaucracy and the resultant loss of a keystone of democratic
governance.
From a very different perspective, many economists and also some
political scientists interested in developing and the so called
transition countries have emphasized the importance of what is called
high quality government institutions that resemble a more traditional
Weberian style bureaucracy. One example is the World Bank Research
Institute which nowadays stress the importance of establishing
institutions for “good governance”. Some scholars have recently argued
that it is time to rediscover or even to defend the virtues of "bureacucracy".
In this line of reasoning, economic and to some extent social
development is said to depend on the existence of government
institutions that are impartial, rule-bound, predictable and
transparent. Things like the rule of law, procedural fairness,
accountability and protection of property and human rights are said to
be the most important factors for establishing quality of government (henceforth
QoG).
The purpose of this conference is not so much to offer yet another
opportunity to pursue the inner logic of these two debates, but rather
to address the broader question about the relation between the NPM and
the QoG approaches. The rationale for this conference is that there is a
curious lack of interaction between these two approaches to governance.
More specifically, in order to facilitate a broader understanding of how
NPM and QoG fits with different political, social and economic
conditions we hope to attract experts on/from a wide variety of
countries in terms of their experience about institutional arrangements.
A large number of developed states have gone far down the NPM road.
These cases are obviously of interest to an understanding if and how NPM
can contribute to an enhanced quality of government or if there are
conflicts between these two administrative ideals. The specific research
question in this context is to what extent NPM can be said to perform
better than rivaling model of public sector organization and management.
The conference theme “New Public Management and the Quality of
Government” suggests that there is a good definition of the “quality of
government” readily available. The literature suggests that there is a
plethora of definitions of quality of government. In January 2007 a
major research program was launched at the Department of Political
Science titled the Quality of Government Institute, which will provide
the institutional framework for the program. The research organized
within the program takes a broad definition of quality of government,
but the common theme is a pursuit of those factors which strengthen that
quality. Such factors include anti-corruption policies, reform aiming at
increasing government transparency and accountability, and other reforms
which, in some way or other, contribute to that quality. NPM, as a
reform package for the public service, could be one set of factors which
enhances the quality of government, but other aspects of NPM could be
seen as more problematic for QoG. We want this conference to address the
key question of whether there is a conflict between NPM and QoG, or if,
conversely, NPM is an instrument to enhance QoG.
We believe that the community of public management scholars is now in
a position to assess more critically the contribution of NPM to good
governance and to the quality of government. What political, social,
institutional and economic preconditions are necessary for NPM to make
such contributions? It is easy to see how NPM can enhance bureaucratic
efficiency and effectiveness in developed and mature democracies with a
sophisticated institutional infrastructure. In developing or transition
countries, that has never had a Weberian-style bureaucracy, the
introduction of NPM may be more problematic
More specifically, we want the conference to be forum for scholarly
exchange and debate on issues such as:
- problems with implementing NPM in national contexts with a
recent experience of non-democratic regimes such as the countries in
Central and Eastern Europe or in the South-East Asian region
- the performance of NPM and its relation to QoG in developing
countries
- the contributions, as well as the challenges, of NPM to the
quality of government
- the conceptual and empirical linkages between NPM and QoG
Schedule:
Proposals should be received by the organizers no later than on June
15, 2008.
Acceptation will be notified to authors on July 1, 2008 .
Deadline for papers is November 10, 2008.
Organizer:
The Quality of Government Institute
Department of Political Science
University of Gothenburg
Box 711
SE-405 30 Gothenburg
Sweden
Contacts:
Jon Pierre
Bo Rothstein |
