Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose of the research
After extensive debate and implementation of various concepts of New Public Management (NPM)[1] during the last decade, public management scholars have recently turned to the evaluation of theoretical frameworks and reinvention efforts in a more critical and objective manner. NPM proponents focused on their attention on market efficiency, entrepreneurship and performance-based/benchmarking management in the public sector. There are four major elements of NPM, including use of market-like mechanisms, decentralization, improvement of service quality, and customer satisfaction. In particular, under the aegis of the Clinton Administration, reinventing government (reinvention) was initiated, popularized and diffused into various public agencies, different levels of government, and even other countries.
NPM and reinvention are very closely related and often used interchangeably but these two concepts are not necessarily identical. They are different in terms of the scope of and emphasis among various managerial reforms. Developed mainly in the European context, NPM is considered an umbrella concept of neomanagerialism that includes various managerial reforms for market-efficiency, decentralization, devolution, customer satisfaction, and quality improvement. The term “reinventing government” reflects a narrower application that indicates an American version of NPM emphasizing market efficiency, customer satisfaction, public entrepreneurship, and competition. Jones and hompson (1999)[2] summarize the difference between NPM and the American reinvention:
While a set of reinvention values –such as efficiency, cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction–has been forwarded by NPM proponents, an alternative set of administrative values–such as accountability, democratic procedure and equity–has been reemphasized in reaction to the entrepreneurial government paradigm. The tension between the reinvention values and the alternative administrative values seems to remain in the NPM literature and invites a dialectic reaction of reform calling for accountability, equity and other non-market indices.
1.2 The outstanding policy of HKSARG
In response to the managerial wave of reinvention, some have expressed caution by highlighting the threats to public accountability and democratic values. Public servants may have internalized a mixed sense of managerial values under these circumstances, where two different sets of contending values—i.e., the reinvention values (market efficiency, competition and outsourcing) and alternative administrative values (equity, accountability, control, and publicness)—coexist, if not altogether amiably.
Despite numerous analyses of the theories and practices of government reinvention through both normative studies and empirical studies, little research has been conducted to assess overall adoption and implementation of various managerial innovations with a broad sample base. Many of the extant studies have been done by using anecdotal and case-study methods and most of these have viewed reinvention at the federal level.[3] Recently, some attempts have been made to explore the implementation of government reinvention at different levels of government with multiple cases or a larger sample.
. There are some explicit objectives in this study: (1) the condition of outsourcing and the susceptibility of local government of systemic corruption; (2) the condition of the degree to which the service can be easily specified in terms of performance measures; and (3) the condition of the degree to which a service disruption would initiate a crisis of confidence in government (4) the condition of the number of potential providers of the services ( 5) the condition of the economic costs and benefits of transitioning to the outside provision of a service (6) the condition of the orangizational costs and benfits of transition costs and core competencies (7) the condition of the political and social costs and benefits of making the change.
1.3 Methodology
Based on the analysis of the conditions for successful outsourcing are that organization should know the importance of specialization , market discipline , flexibility and cost saving . Firstly, I will list out the condition required for successful outstanding laid down by Simon Domberger . Afterwards, I will list out the other conditions required for successful outsourcing laid down by Paul Seidenstat. Finally, the economic costs and benefits and organizational costs and benefits of transitioning to the outside provision of a services will be analyzed.
[1] For more information, see Pollitt (1993), OECD (1995), Minogue et. al. (1998), Jones and Thompson (1999), and Barzelay (2000).
[2] Jones and Thompson (1999) suggest five core concepts of NPM, including restructuring, reengineering, reinvention, realignment, and rethinking.
[3] Osborne and Gaebler (1992), interestingly, drew many of their illustrations from the municipal arena.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment