« The New Public Management » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(9 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{Infobox Lecture
| image =
| image_caption =
| faculté =
| département =
| professeurs = [[Jean-Michel Bonvin]]<ref>[https://www.unige.ch/sciences-societe/ideso/membres/bonvin/ Page personnelle de Jean-Michel Bonvin sur le site de l'Université de Genève]</ref> <br> [[Frédéric Varone]]<ref>[https://unige.ch/sciences-societe/speri/membres/frederic-varone/ Page personnelle de Frédéric Varone sur le site de l'Université de Genève]</ref><ref>[https://unige.ch/sciences-societe/speri/files/7413/9644/3562/Varone-curriculum_vitae-042014.pdf CV de Frédéric Varone en français]</ref>
| assistants = 
| enregistrement =
| cours = [[Administration and Public Policy]]<ref>[http://wadme.unige.ch:3149/pls/opprg/w_det_cours.debut?p_code_cours=T207013&p_plan_is=0&p_langue=1&p_frame=N&p_mode=PGC&p_annee=2014&p_suffixe=&p_grtri=12294 Programme des cours - année académique 2014-2015 - Administration et politiques publiques I (T207013 CR)]</ref>
| lectures =
*[[What is a public administration?]] 
*[[Classical authors: Weber, Taylor and Fayol]]
*[[The Swiss Federal Administration: an overview]] 
*[[Sociological criticism of the bureaucratic model: Crozier and Friedberg]] 
*[[Psychosocial Critics: The School of Human Resources and theories of motivation]] 
*[[The administrative structures]] 
*[[The Public Service]] 
*[[Administration and political decision]] 
*[[Administration and Interest Groups]] 
*[[Administration and implementation of public policies]] 
*[[Auditing public administration: the Court of Auditors within the Geneva system]]
*[[The New Public Management]]
}}
New public management is a way of saying how to manage public administration or government-subsidized institutions so that they work as well as possible. The new public management starts with the question of why we need to reform public management in order to reform the Weber model.
New public management is a way of saying how to manage public administration or government-subsidized institutions so that they work as well as possible. The new public management starts with the question of why we need to reform public management in order to reform the Weber model.
{{Translations
| fr = La Nouvelle Gestion Publique
| es = La nueva gestión pública
}}


= Why reform the "bureaucratic model"? =
= Why reform the "bureaucratic model"? =


According to Max Weber, bureaucracy is the superior form of organization. Political neutrality is political and administrative separation. The administration must be at the service of the government and therefore apolitical, otherwise it will not be able to function properly. For Weber, the tasks are predetermined by texts known to everyone, such as laws, for example, there is a hierarchy of functions to ensure control at all levels, rules and decisions are to ensure equal treatment. Bureaucrats must also be competent and politically neutral. Job security is regarded by Weber as a guarantee of public service.
According to Max Weber, bureaucracy is the superior form of organization. Political neutrality is political and administrative separation. The administration must be at the service of the government and therefore apolitical, otherwise, it will not be able to function properly. For Weber, the tasks are predetermined by texts known to everyone, such as laws, for example, there is a hierarchy of functions to ensure control at all levels, rules and decisions are to ensure equal treatment. Bureaucrats must also be competent and politically neutral. Job security is regarded by Weber as a guarantee of public service.


The new public management criticizes Weber's model, because it is a very rigid model, unrealistic in particular as regards the gaps between the work required and the actual work and not very adaptable. This is the gap that Crozier and Friedberg had already shown with the vicious circle theory. For Crozier, for each new situation, there will be a new rule and therefore an inflation of rules, procedures, but also services, authorities and departments that will try to implement these rules and procedures, making the administration sprawling, which makes it an inefficient economic model. A critique is based on the notion of motivation referring to human resources management and Mayo. It's a monotonous job, with little use of creativity and a set of specifications. The other criticism stems from the notion of job stability and job security, which runs counter to Weber's claim that job stability is not a source of manipulation, but a source of "slipping". If the public servant knows that regardless of performance, he or she is going to keep his or her job, he or she would do little to increase his or her job or salary. This argument relates to the extrinsic aspect of the design, i. e. it is not the content of the work that motivates, but the benefits. To ensure that people are motivated, there must be benefits attached to the quality of their work. This was more in terms of stick, i. e. penalisation, than motivation. There is the idea of endangering people with the risk of job loss if performance is not achieved.
The new public management criticizes Weber's model because it is a very rigid model, unrealistic in particular as regards the gaps between the work required and the actual work and not very adaptable. This is the gap that Crozier and Friedberg had already shown with the vicious circle theory. For Crozier, for each new situation, there will be a new rule and therefore an inflation of rules, procedures, but also services, authorities and departments that will try to implement these rules and procedures, making the administration sprawling, which makes it an inefficient economic model. A critique is based on the notion of motivation referring to human resources management and Mayo. It's a monotonous job, with little use of creativity and a set of specifications. The other criticism stems from the notion of job stability and job security, which runs counter to Weber's claim that job stability is not a source of manipulation, but a source of "slipping". If the public servant knows that regardless of performance, he or she is going to keep his or her job, he or she would do little to increase his or her job or salary. This argument relates to the extrinsic aspect of the design, i. e. it is not the content of the work that motivates, but the benefits. To ensure that people are motivated, there must be benefits attached to the quality of their work. This was more in terms of stick, i. e. penalisation, than motivation. There is the idea of endangering people with the risk of job loss if performance is not achieved.


The theories of the public choice is in particular related to the theory of the agency. The public choice theory has a starting premise which is to say that everyone will try to seek an advantage that is proper. There is the idea of economic rationality, which is very strong. The premise is that everyone will seek to pursue their own interests as well as common ones. The duty officer will behave the same way. This means that every civil servant, every head of department will have in mind to maximize his interest, to try to have as many budgets as possible for his service, the most benefit to deliver or even as much prestige as possible. As a result, the public administration becomes much larger.
The theories of the public choice is in particular related to the theory of the agency. The public choice theory has a starting premise which is to say that everyone will try to seek an advantage that is proper. There is the idea of economic rationality, which is very strong. The premise is that everyone will seek to pursue their own interests as well as common ones. The duty officer will behave the same way. This means that every civil servant, every head of department will have in mind to maximize his interest, to try to have as many budgets as possible for his service, the most benefit to deliver or even as much prestige as possible. As a result, the public administration becomes much larger.
Ligne 25 : Ligne 54 :
These objectives cut across the political spectrum. Very often, new public management makes the most progress when "left" parties are in power. When the "right-wing" parties are in power, it is a much more radical vision raising opposition with left-wing parties that support this opposition. This is not systematic, but these are configurations that are frequently found. The bureaucratic model is inefficient in some respects. The "left" model proposes a rationalization. This is more a model of maintaining public services than a model of drastic reductions in the size of the state.
These objectives cut across the political spectrum. Very often, new public management makes the most progress when "left" parties are in power. When the "right-wing" parties are in power, it is a much more radical vision raising opposition with left-wing parties that support this opposition. This is not systematic, but these are configurations that are frequently found. The bureaucratic model is inefficient in some respects. The "left" model proposes a rationalization. This is more a model of maintaining public services than a model of drastic reductions in the size of the state.


= Principes et outils de la nouvelle gestion publique : un aperçu =
= Principles and Tools of New Public Management: An Overview =


Un best-seller du ''New Public Management'' est un livre de David Osborne et Ted Gaebler intitulé ''Reinventing Government, How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Changing the Public Sector'' publié en 1993. L’idée est de repenser en profondeur et radicalement à savoir réinventer le gouvernement.
A New Public Management best-seller is a book by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler entitled Reinventing Government, How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Changing the Public Sector, published in 1993. The idea is to radically and profoundly rethink the idea of reinventing government.


Ces auteurs distinguent onze principes « théoriques » d’où l’on peut dériver l’ensemble des outils du new public management :
These authors distinguish eleven "theoretical" principles from which all the new public management tools can be derived:
*{{citation|Lâche la rame et tiens le gouvernail}} : c’est la séparation des objectifs stratégiques et opérationnels. Les questions stratégiques doivent être du ressort des chefs de service et les questions opérationnelles par les agents de terrain. Une même personne ne doit pas s’occuper des deux ;
*It is the separation of strategic and operational objectives. Strategic issues should be left to the heads of service and operational issues to the field officers. One person should not care for both;
*{{citation|Le pouvoir aux usagers}} : mise sur pied de politiques orientées vers la communauté, c’est-à-dire contrôlées et parfois gérées par les usagers. Il faut remettre au centre les usagers. Le modèle précédent faisait le contraire ;
*Power to the users ": development of community-based policies, i. e. policies that are controlled and sometimes managed by the users. The users must be given back to the centre. The previous model did the opposite;
*{{citation|Vive la concurrence}} : introduction de la notion de « quasi-marché » ainsi que du benchmarking. Il faut sortir l’État du monopole public allant vers un quasi-marché qui est un marché des prestations publiques. Au sein même de l’administration, on va comparer les différents services entre-deux pour voir celui qui a la meilleure performance. Cela permet de déterminer les meilleures pratiques qui vont être appliquées en suite à l’ensemble des services ;
*Vive la concurrence ": introduction of the notion of" quasi-market "and benchmarking. The State must be removed from the public monopoly towards a quasi-market, which is a market for public services. Within the administration itself, we will compare the different departments in-between to see which one has the best performance. This helps to identify the best practices that will be applied to all services;
*<nowiki>« Priorité aux objectifs}}</nowiki> : introduction de la notion de « controlling » et passer du système légaliste à un système orienté résultat ;
*Priority to objectives ": introduction of the notion of" controlling "and transition from the legalist system to a result-oriented system;
*<nowiki>{{citation|Et si l’on s’intéressait un peu aux résultats»</nowiki> : introduction de la notion de « performance » et du « rendement ». L’administration publique doit devenir performante, être aussi efficiente et efficace que possible dans l’atteinte des résultats ;
*What if there was a little interest in results ": introduction of the notion of" performance "and" return ". Public administration must become effective, efficient and effective in achieving results;
*{{citation|Les besoins de l’usager d’abord}} : répondre aux besoins de l’usager et non de l’administration. C’est l’introduction de la notion de « bénéfice » pour les usagers ;
*User needs first ": meet the needs of the user and not the administration. This is the introduction of the notion of "benefit" for users;
*{{citation|Gagner de l’argent et pas seulement en dépenser}} : introduction de la notion de « bénéfice » dans le secteur public, mais aussi du concept de « value for money » ;
*Earning money and not just spending it ": introduction of the concept of" profit "in the public sector, but also the concept of" value for money ";
*{{citation|Prévenir vaut mieux que guérir}} : introduction de la notion d’« anticipation » ;
*Prevention is better than cure ": introduction of the notion of" anticipation ";
*{{citation|Moins de hiérarchie, plus de participation}} : introduction d’une nouvelle pyramide hiérarchique, ainsi que du concept d’« inclusion des usagers ». L’usager doit être partie prenante de l’administration publique ;
*Less hierarchy, more participation ": introduction of a new hierarchical pyramid, as well as the concept of" user inclusion ". The user must be a stakeholder in the public administration;
*{{citation|L’État au secours du marché, le marché au service de l’État}} : introduction d’un nouveau partenariat public-privé. L’idée est de dire que l’État et le marché devraient travailler dans le cadre d’un partenariat. Cela équivaut à recentrer les missions de l’État sur les usagers et la qualité des prestations et des services fournis ;
*The State to the rescue of the market, the market at the service of the State ": introduction of a new public-private partnership. The idea is to say that the state and the market should work in partnership. This is tantamount to refocusing the State's tasks on the users and the quality of the services provided;
*{{citation|Un nouveau modèle de gouvernement}} : recentrage des missions de l’État.
*A New Model of Government ": Refocusing State Missions.


== Principes et outils de la nouvelle gestion publique ==
== Principles and Tools of New Public Management ==


Dans ''La Nouvelle Gestion Publique : boite à outils ou changement paradigmatique'' publié en 1999 de Mönks, il y a quatre principes présentés de la nouvelle gestion publique :
In The New Public Management: Toolkit or paradigmatic change published in 1999 by Mönks, there are four principles of the new public management:


1) Améliorer la performance et l’efficacité de l’administration (le contribuable doit en avoir pour son argent) : ce principe est focalisé sur l’efficience. Il faut atteindre les objectifs, mais en étant le plus économe possible. Mönks insiste sur la performance. Il y a deux mécanismes suggérés dans le texte de Mönks :
1) Improving the performance and effectiveness of the administration (the taxpayer must get value for money): this principle is focused on efficiency. You have to achieve the objectives, but be as economical as possible. Mönks insists on performance. There are two mechanisms suggested in the Mönks text:
*{{citation|mettre sur le marché}} : introduction du plus grand nombre possible de mécanismes de marché (comparaison de la qualité et des coûts, appels d’offres compétitifs) et faire sous- traiter à des opérateurs privés. On va casser le monopole de l‘État et mettre la prestation sur le marché. À qualité égale ou comparable, c’est le moins cher qui doit décrocher le marché public. On sort du système de rente qui serait une conséquence de monopole de l‘État pour entrer dans un système de mise en concurrence qui très souvent n’est pas du tout transparent. La qualité est néanmoins beaucoup difficile à juger que le prix. Le risque de ce système est de privilégier les offres les « meilleurs marchés » et donc la difficulté est d’évaluer le choix. ;
*To put on the market ": introduction of as many market mechanisms as possible (comparison of quality and costs, competitive tendering) and subcontracting to private operators. We're going to break the state monopoly and put the service on the market. At equal or comparable quality, it is the cheapest that must win the public contract. We are moving away from the annuity system, which would be a consequence of the state monopoly to enter a system of competitive tendering, which very often is not at all transparent. However, quality is very difficult to judge that the price. The risk of this system is to favour the "best market" offers and therefore the difficulty is to evaluate the choice. ;
*{{citation|management par objectifs}} » : les contrats de prestations précisent les objectifs et laissent l’autonomie sur le choix des moyens. Les enveloppes budgétaires s’inscrivent dans une logique de résultats à savoir que l’enveloppe budgétaire doit suffire à atteindre les objectifs sinon cela soulève la mauvaise qualité du travail et demande à l’administration d’être un bon gestionnaire de l’argent. Les échéanciers permettent de définir à quelle date les objectives doivent être atteintes. Les indicateurs de performance précisant la quantité et la qualité des prestations. Mais il y a un risque de travailler pour les indicateurs, c’est-à-dire que les gens de terrain se focalisent sur les indicateurs de performance et se focalisent moins sur les autres aspects de leur travail.
*Management by objectives ": service contracts specify the objectives and leave the choice of means to be decided on independently. The budget envelopes are part of a logic of results, namely that the budget envelope must be sufficient to achieve the objectives or else it raises the poor quality of work and asks the administration to be a good money manager. Timeframes are used to define when the objectives should be achieved. Performance indicators specifying the quantity and quality of services. But there is a risk of working for indicators, i. e. people in the field focus on performance indicators and less on other aspects of their work.


2) Adopter une organisation du travail plus flexible : c’est passer du modèle pyramidal rigide à un modèle plus souple qui laisse plus de place aux gens de terrain qui sont fonctionnaires de l’administration publique :
2) Adopting a more flexible organisation of work means moving from the rigid pyramid model to a more flexible model that leaves more room for the people in the field who are civil servants in public administration:
*séparer les rôles et responsabilités entre politiques qui fixent les objectifs et l’administration publique chargée de l’exécution : le politique fixe des objectifs très larges, la haute administration publique va les traduire en objectifs plus précis dont dépend l‘efficacité opérationnelle ;
*Separating roles and responsibilities between policies that set objectives and the public administration responsible for implementation: the policy sets very broad objectives, the senior public administration will translate them into more precise objectives on which operational effectiveness depends; give more operational responsibilities to local actors who must nevertheless be accountable for their results: there is the development of monitoring tools. These are tools that make it possible to have a much more precise vision of the work, but which requires a lot of time. These tools make it possible to benchmark and compare individuals among themselves. Indicators provide information on ways of working and indicators provide information on results. This makes it possible to identify best practices. There is a risk of imposing working methods, rules and procedures such as in the bureaucratic model. There would be some kind of backtracking;
*donner plus de responsabilités opérationnelles aux acteurs locaux qui doivent cependant rendre des comptes sur leurs résultats : il y le développement des outils de monitoring. Ce sont des outils qui permettent d’avoir une vision beaucoup plus précise du travail, mais qui demande beaucoup de temps. Ces outils permettent de faire du benchmarking qui permet de comparer les individus entre eux. Des indicateurs donnent des informations sur les manières de travailler et des indicateurs donnent des informations sur les résultats. Cela permet d’identifier les « best-practices ». On risque d’imposer des manières de travailler, des règles et des procédures telles que dans le modèle bureaucratique. Il y aurait une forme de retour en arrière ;
*abolish hierarchical levels: the idea is to have a more flexible work organisation which is not the bureaucratic pyramid with a hierarchical view of work and without initiative. With the new public management, individuals must take initiatives, be creative, develop new ways of working and for this reason we will give priority to teamwork with pre-established specifications. They must be accountable and answerable for a number of objectives. There is operational autonomy, which can sometimes be presented as an instrumentalised autonomy. It is about understanding, learning and innovation on the ground. Very often, in new public management, if the teams are horizontal, it works less well, which is why we tend to introduce team managers. One person is in charge of piloting the group.
*supprimer les échelons hiérarchiques : l’idée est d’avoir une organisation du travail plus flexible qui n’est non pas la pyramide bureaucratique avec une vision hiérarchique du travail et sans initiative. Avec la nouvelle gestion publique, les individus doivent prendre des initiatives, être créatifs, développer de nouvelles méthodes de travail et pour cela on va privilégier le travail d’équipe avec des cahiers des charges préétablis. Ils doivent rendre des comptes, devant répondre à un certain nombre d’objectifs. Il y a une autonomie opérationnelle, très encadrée qui peut être parfois présentée comme une autonomie instrumentalisée. Il s’agit de comprendre, d’apprendre et d’innover sur le terrain. Très souvent, dans la nouvelle gestion publique, si les équipes sont horizontales, cela marche moins bien c’est pourquoi on a tendance à introduire des gestionnaires d’équipe. Une personne est en charge de piloter le groupe.
*questioning the status of civil servant: in order to motivate the civil servant, he or she will have to be put at risk, which means questioning the status of the civil servant. With the LPers, the civil servant may be dismissed and at least part of his or her salary must be linked to performance. Since the implementation of the LPers in Switzerland, 5% of the salary is linked to performance. We individualize part of the salary. This practice can raise a number of problems, namely the link between job security and quality of work, does it really mean that people must be genuinely insecure to motivate them, is it a link that can be observed empirically, can we imagine, as Weber said, that job security is a way of providing ontological security so that we can really do a good job? One may wonder whether endangering public servants is really the best way to increase public service motivation. Public service motivation is an intrinsic motivation, endangering will increase extrinsic motivation while for intrinsic motivation, endangering is ambiguous. One might also wonder what the long-term effect of questioning the status of civil servant is. In the short term, one can imagine that people are making more effort and commitment to achieve better results, but this can create long-term fatigue and pressure that can lead to phenomena that will affect the quality of work. These phenomena are observed in the field of social work and health.
*remise en question du statut de fonctionnaire : pour motiver le fonctionnaire, il va falloir le mettre en danger ce qui signifie remettre en cause le statut du fonctionnaire. Avec la LPers, le fonctionnaire peut être licencié et au moins une partie de son salaire doit être lié à sa performance. Dans le cadre de la poste en Suisse, depuis la mise en œuvre de la LPers, 5% du salaire est lié à la performance. On individualise une partie du salaire. Cette pratique peut poser un certain nombre de problèmes à savoir le lien entre sécurité de l’emploi et qualité du travail, est-ce qu’il faut véritablement insécuriser les gens pour les motiver, est-ce un lien qu’il est possible d’observer empiriquement, peut-on imaginer comme le disait Weber que la sécurité de l’emploi est une manière de donner une sécurité ontologique afin de pouvoir faire véritablement du bon travail. On peut se demander si la mise en danger des fonctionnaires est véritablement la meilleure manière d’augmenter la public service motivation. La public service motivation est une motivation intrinsèque, la mise en danger va augmenter la motivation extrinsèque alors que pour la motivation intrinsèque, la mise en danger est ambiguë. On peut aussi se demander quel est l’effet de la remise en cause du statut de fonctionnaire sur le long terme. À court terme, on peut s’imaginer que les gens font plus d’effort et s’implique plus afin d’obtenir de meilleurs résultats, mais cela peut instaurer une fatigue à long terme et une pression pouvant mener à des phénomènes qui vont nuire à la qualité du travail. On observe ces phénomènes dans le domaine du travail social et de la santé.
*Individualisation of contracts and working conditions: we will individualise the objectives in order to improve the quality of work. The way in which this will work is that the person's mission, i. e. his or her objectives, will be set out in a specification or agreement of objectives, and at the end of the year an evaluation will take place of these objectives, which may have financial consequences. This type of instrument was used in the postal service. A 2005 study showed that in all post offices in Switzerland, the vast majority of employees were evaluated at 100% pay, i. e. category B, a few rare cases had the letter A which increased pay or C which reduced pay. A "normal" curve appeared. The public administration does not produce in most cases any benefits, the salary package is based on 100% for all employees. This means that rewarding employees means penalizing others. In other words, since budget availability is decided in advance, there is no budgetary possibility to finance on merit. The post office insisted on the impossibility of implementing the merit pay system. The idea of individualising contracts can be counterproductive to teamwork. To earn more wages, you have to be more deserving than others who work in the same team. There may be perverse effects that can be observed because of this.
*individualisation des contrats et conditions de travail : on va individualiser les objectifs pour améliorer les qualités du travail. La manière dont cela va fonctionner est qu’on va fixer dans un cahier des charges ou une convention d’objectifs la mission de la personne à savoir ses objectifs, et en fin d’année, une évaluation va avoir lieu de ces objectifs pouvant avoir des conséquences financières. Dans le cadre de la poste, on a appliqué ce type d’instrument. Une étude datant de 2005 a montré que dans tous les bureaux postaux de Suisse, l’immense majorité des employés était évaluée au salaire de 100%, à savoir la catégorie B, quelques cas rarissimes avaient la lettre A qui majorait le salaire ou C qui minorait le salaire. Une courbe « normale » apparaissait. L’administration publique ne produit dans la plupart des cas pas de bénéfices, l’enveloppe salariale est basée sur la base de 100% pour l’ensemble des employés. Cela signifie que pour récompenser des salariés, il faut en pénaliser d’autres. En d’autres termes, comme la disponibilité budgétaire est décidée à l’avance, il n’y a pas de possibilité budgétaire afin de financer au mérite. Dans le cadre de la poste, on a insisté sur l’impossibilité de mettre en place le système du salaire au mérite. L’idée d’individualisation des contrats peut aller à l’encontre du travail en équipe. Pour gagner plus de salaires, il faut être plus méritant que les autres qui sont ceux qui travaillent dans la même équipe. Il peut y avoir des effets pervers qui peuvent être observés à cause de cela.
*for subsidised institutions, performance-based renewable benefits contract: all institutions that receive state funding, like the worker, will have to prove their effectiveness if they wish their funding to be renewed. It means putting institutions at risk through service contracts. Generally, the amount of funding provided is reduced. There is the same leverage as for individuals, i. e. it is by putting institutions in financial precariousness that we will encourage them to achieve the results they expect.
*pour les institutions subventionnées, contrat de prestations renouvelable en fonction de la performance : toutes les institutions qui bénéficient d’un financement de l‘État, au même titre que le travailleur, vont devoir faire la preuve de leur efficacité si elles souhaitent que leur financement soit renouvelé. C’est mettre en dangers les institutions au travers de contrats de prestations. En général, on diminue le montant du financement octroyé. Il y a le même levier que pour les individus, c’est-à-dire que c’est en mettant les institutions d’en une précarité financière qu’on va les inciter à obtenir les résultats attendus d’elles.


3) Orientation vers le client et la qualité des prestations : les usagers de l’administration publique ne sont plus des bénéficiaires ou des assujetties devenant des clients de l’administration publique, il faudra prendre en compte leur point de vue. Il y a aussi une orientation vers la qualité des prestations. Qu’est-ce qui définit un travail de qualité dans le domaine de l’administration publique ? La notion de « qualité », lorsqu’on parle de l’administration publique est une notion qui est complexe. On distingue trois outils :
3) Customer orientation and quality of services: users of the public administration are no longer beneficiaries or taxpayers becoming clients of the public administration, it will be necessary to take into account their point of view. There is also an orientation towards the quality of services. What defines quality work in the field of public administration? The notion of "quality" in public administration is a complex one. There are three tools:
*enquête de marché et de satisfaction : on va demander aux clients d’évaluer la qualité des prestations, le but étant d’améliorer la qualité des services qui sont rendus. Tout va dépendre de la qualité des enquêtes de satisfaction. Les enquêtes de satisfaction laissent une grande marge de manœuvre aux managers. On peut utiliser le client comme un outil disciplinaire afin de discipliner l’administration publique. Il est possible d’interpréter l’insatisfaction du client de manière instrumentale. La qualité est interprétée comme étant la satisfaction du client.
*market and satisfaction survey: customers will be asked to evaluate the quality of services, with the aim of improving the quality of the services provided. Everything will depend on the quality of satisfaction surveys. Satisfaction surveys give managers a lot of room for manoeuvre. The client can be used as a disciplinary tool to discipline public administration. It is possible to interpret customer dissatisfaction in an instrumental way. Quality is interpreted as customer satisfaction.
*certifications (ISO, EDUQUA ou autres) comme garantie de la qualité du travail effectué : les institutions qui cherchent à obtenir des financements cherchent à obtenir des signaux de la qualité du travail effectué en leur sein. Les certifications sont le signal privilégié dans la plupart des cas. Pour obtenir la certification, il faut donner la preuve que dans toutes les situations possibles, l’institution sait comment réagir. L’outil de certification et un outil bureaucratique. C’est un paradoxe, car c’est un outil de certification paradoxalement bureaucratique au service de la nouvelle gestion publique. Très souvent, les certifications n’ont pas grand-chose à voir avec le travail réel effectué dans l’administration publique ou les institutions. C’est un outil marketing. On va évaluer plus la qualité de l’organisation que la qualité du service.
*certifications (ISO, EDUQUA or others) as a guarantee of the quality of the work carried out: institutions seeking funding seek to obtain signals of the quality of the work carried out within them. Certification is the preferred signal in most cases. Certification requires proof that in all possible situations, the institution knows how to respond. The certification tool and a bureaucratic tool. It is a paradox, because it is a paradoxically bureaucratic certification tool for new public management. Very often, certifications have little to do with the actual work done in public administration or institutions. It's a marketing tool. The quality of the organization will be evaluated more than the quality of the service.
*cercles de qualité en vue d’une amélioration continue des prestations : on met en place dans les institutions des lieux de débat où on peut discuter de la qualité pouvant être utilisée par tout le monde et servant à améliorer la qualité de la prestation. Un effet pervers possible est de savoir quel est leur impact. Un des effets pervers est d’utiliser les cercles de qualité comme outil d’expression de la frustration.
*quality circles for continuous improvement of services: there are places in the institutions where quality can be discussed and debated, which can be used by everyone to improve the quality of services. A possible perverse effect is to know what their impact is. One of the perverse effects is to use quality circles as a tool for expressing frustration.


4) Orientation vers le citoyen : c’est un modèle très théorique qu’on rencontre peu dans la réalité. L‘idée est de dire que le citoyen devrait devenir coproducteur de la prestation publique, pas seulement parce qu’on l’a sollicité dans une enquête de marché ou de satisfaction, mais parce qu’il intervient et s’exprime sur la conception et la manière dont le service est délivré. L’administration va impliquer le citoyen. On va vers une prise de décision plus participative où le citoyen est coproducteur du service public. L’intérêt de l’orientation vers le citoyen serait que lorsqu’on définit la qualité des prestations, ce n‘est plus l’instance qui décide, mais c’est l’entièreté des personnes concernées qui déciderait de ce que devrait être la prestation de l’administration publique.
4) Citizen orientation: this is a very theoretical model that is rarely encountered in reality. The idea is to say that citizens should become co-producers of public services, not only because they have been asked to do so in a market or satisfaction survey, but also because they are involved and express themselves on the way in which the service is designed and delivered. The administration will involve the citizen. We are moving towards more participatory decision-making where citizens are co-producers of public services. It would be in the interest of a citizen-oriented approach if, when defining the quality of services, it were no longer the body that would decide, but rather the entirety of the persons concerned who would decide what the provision of public administration should be.


== Modèles de la nouvelle gestion publique ==
== Models of New Public Management ==


Ce tableau montre qu’il n’y a pas de paradigme unique est que très souvent dans la littérature on distingue plusieurs modèles de la nouvelle gestion publique. La plupart des typologies correspondant généralement aux quatre modèles précédents.
This table shows that there is no single paradigm is that very often in the literature there are many different models of new public management. Most typologies generally correspond to the four previous models.


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
Ligne 73 : Ligne 101 :
! Ferlie et al. (1996) !! Mönks (1998) !! Bolgiani (2002)
! Ferlie et al. (1996) !! Mönks (1998) !! Bolgiani (2002)
|-
|-
| '''Modèle de l’efficience''' : concurrence et performance productive (contrats de prestations) || Modèle efficient || TModèle du marché
| '''Efficiency Model''': competition and productive performance (service contracts) || Efficient model || Market Model
|-
|-
| '''Modèle du downsizing et de la décentralisation''' : décentralisation des responsabilités administratives et amaigrissement de l’administration || Modèle de la flexibilité organisationnelle || Modèle décentralisé
| '''Model of downsizing and decentralization''': decentralization of administrative responsibilities and thinning of the administration || Organizational Flexibility Model || Decentralized model
|-
|-
| '''Modèle de la recherche d’excellence''' : culture favorable aux processus d’apprentissage et au leadership || Modèle qualitatif ||  
| '''Research Excellence Model''': culture supportive of learning processes and leadership || Qualitative model ||  
|-
|-
| '''Modèle d’orientation « service public »''' : qualité du service et satisfaction de la clientèle || Modèle participatif || Modèle de qualité
| '''Public service orientation model''': quality of service and customer satisfaction || Participatory model || Quality Model
|}
|}


= Forces et faiblesses de la NGP =
= Strengths and weaknesses of the NPM =


Dans ''La bureaucratie libérale. Nouvelle gestion publique et régulation'' publié en 2004, Giauque se base sur deux études empiriques. Il aboutit à un point de vue manichéen de la nouvelle gestion publique avec un discours, mais une réalité catastrophique à l’opposé du discours. La manière dont la gestion publique est mise en œuvre fait qu’on n’atteint pas les promesses.
In The Liberal bureaucracy. New public management and regulation published in 2004, Giauque is based on two empirical studies. It leads to a Manichean view of the new public management with a discourse, but a catastrophic reality at the opposite end of the discourse. The way in which public management is implemented means that promises are not kept.


La nouvelle gestion publique met l’accent sur l’autonomie opérationnelle des services. Giauque n’obverse pas une autonomie opérationnelle, mais une forte dépendance vis-à-vis des pouvoirs publics et des décisions budgétaires. On n’est pas autonome sur le plan opérationnel, mais dépendant parce que le budget et la survie dépendent de l’atteinte des objectifs définis par d’autres. Dans les cas étudiés par Giauque, les objectifs ont été définis de manière tellement stricte que les manières de travailler sont dictées par la manière dont les objectifs ont été définis. On retrouve une dépendance très forte vis-à-vis des pouvoirs politiques.
The new public management emphasizes the operational autonomy of services. Giauque is not obstructing operational autonomy, but a strong dependence on public authorities and budgetary decisions. We are not operationally autonomous, but dependent because budget and survival depend on the achievement of objectives set by others. In the cases studied by Giauque, the objectives have been defined so strictly that the ways of working are dictated by the way in which the objectives have been defined. There is a very strong dependence on political powers.


La nouvelle gestion publique valorise les initiatives individuelles, mais lorsque que l’initiative est risquée, le compromettent observé est que les gens ne prennent pas d’initiatives. Il y a des comportements de retrait, l’initiative est potentiellement une source de mise en danger.
New public management values individual initiatives, but when the initiative is risky, the observed compromise is that people do not take initiatives. There are withdrawal behaviours, the initiative is potentially a source of danger.


Au niveau du discours, il y a un accent fort sur la qualité des services, la nouvelle gestion publique permet d’améliorer la qualité des services, mais quand on regarde la base sur laquelle les prestations sont évaluées, dans beaucoup de cas, les prestations sont évaluées sur leur coût. On insiste sur la qualité des prestations, mais dans les faits, on arrive souvent à mettre l’accent plus sur l’efficacité, la maitrise des coûts et la volonté de dépenser le moins possible. Il y a souvent une contradiction qui peut se mettre en place et exister entre les deux éléments à savoir comment faire de la qualité avec un coût qui est moindre. Il y a toute une tension à examiner si on analyse empiriquement les conséquences de la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle gestion publique. Souvent, l’administration publique est contrôlée sur le respect des budgets plutôt que sur la qualité des prestations.
At the level of discourse, there is a strong emphasis on the quality of services, the new public management makes it possible to improve the quality of services, but when we look at the basis on which services are evaluated, in many cases the services are evaluated on their cost. The emphasis is placed on the quality of services, but in practice it is often possible to put more emphasis on efficiency, cost control and a willingness to spend as little as possible. There is often a contradiction that can arise and exist between the two elements of how to make quality at a lower cost. There is a great deal of tension to consider if the consequences of implementing new public management are empirically analysed. Often, public administration is controlled on the respect of budgets rather than the quality of services.


Giauque a aussi regardé les indicateurs de performance qui étaient utilisés afin d’évaluer la qualité des travailleurs et des prestations effectuées par les membres de l’administration publique. Il a souvent observé un décalage entre l’indicateur de performance et la réalité du terrain. Il peut y avoir un décalage entre la volonté de promouvoir la qualité des prestations et les indicateurs de performance qui ne permettent pas de faire des prestations de qualité que dans certains cas.
Giauque also looked at the performance indicators that were used to assess the quality of workers and the services provided by members of the public administration. He often observed a mismatch between the performance indicator and the reality on the ground. There may be a mismatch between the desire to promote the quality of services and performance indicators that do not allow for quality services to be provided only in certain cases.


La nouvelle gestion publique met en avant la personnalisation des prestations. Améliorer la qualité cela signifie répondre à la demande des prestataires. Dans un contexte où très souvent on insiste sur la réduction des budgets, on aboutit non pas à une personnalisation des prestations, mais à une standardisation des prestations.
The new public management emphasizes the personalization of services. Improving quality means meeting the demand of service providers. In a context where very often the emphasis is placed on reducing budgets, the result is not so much a personalisation of services as a standardisation of services.


On veut récompenser les plus méritants, mais comme les enveloppes salariales sont déjà définies, on n‘a pas les moyens de le faire et les salaires au mérite ne peuvent pas être mis en œuvre. D’autre part, il y a la volonté de favoriser l’implication, mais il y a une incertitude liée à la mesure individuelle des performances, mais comme ces personnes sont dans l’incertitude, pour ne pas se mettre en danger, ils ne vont pas prendre d’initiative.
We want to reward the most deserving, but since salary envelopes are already defined, we cannot afford to do so and merit-based salaries cannot be implemented. On the other hand, there is a willingness to encourage involvement, but there is uncertainty linked to the individual measurement of performance, but since these people are uncertain, in order not to endanger themselves, they will not take the initiative.


La volonté de la nouvelle gestion publique est de mettre en concurrence les personnes et les services avec l’idée de créer une émulation positive. En réalité, c’est un esprit de compétition qui va s’installer, une émulation négative.
The will of the new public administration is to put people and services in competition with the idea of creating positive emulation. In reality, it is a spirit of competition that will become established, a negative emulation.


Tout ce que dit Giauque dresse un panorama de la nouvelle gestion publique négative. Une vision moins manichéenne est de dire que la nouvelle gestion publique est dans un champ de tension qui va dépendre du contexte, de l’exemple empirique et de l’étude particulière face à laquelle on se trouve. Ce champ de tension est marqué par trois éléments :
Everything Giauque says paints a picture of the new negative public management. A less Manichean view is to say that the new public management is in a field of tension that will depend on the context, the empirical example and the particular study we are facing. This voltage field is marked by three elements:
*une volonté de réduire les coûts et la volonté d’améliorer la qualité des prestations : dans beaucoup de cas, la dérive qu’on observe est que comme les coûts sont facile à observer et à mesure, on va insister sur les coûts et comme la qualité est beaucoup plus difficile à mesurer, il y une tendance à mettre l‘accent plutôt sur la maîtrise des coûts que sur la notion plus évasive qu’est la qualité ;
*a desire to reduce costs and the willingness to improve the quality of services: in many cases, the drift we observe is that because costs are easy to observe and measure, we will insist on costs and because quality is much more difficult to measure, there is a tendency to focus more on controlling costs than on the more evasive notion of quality;
*une tension entre les directives institutionnelles et les attentes des usagers : toute personne qui est dans une institution ou travail dans une administration publique reçoit des directives. Cette personne dans le même temps se trouve face à un usager qui peut avoir des attentes tout à fait différentes. Comment faire si les attentes institutionnelles ne sont pas les mêmes que les attentes des clients. C’est une situation qui peut très souvent arriver. Lorsqu’on travaille dans une administration publique, on peut se poser la question de savoir qui est le « client roi » à savoir l’institution ou le bénéficiaire. L’institution à plus de moyens de sanction que le bénéficiaire. Ce qu’on observe fréquemment est une tendance à mettre plus d’accent sur les directives institutionnelles que sur les attentes des usagers.
*A tension between institutional directives and user expectations: anyone who is in an institution or working in a public administration receives directives. At the same time, this person is faced with a user who may have quite different expectations. How to proceed if institutional expectations are not the same as client expectations. This is a situation that can happen very often. When working in a public administration, the question arises as to who is the "king client", i. e. the institution or the beneficiary. The institution has more means of sanctioning than the beneficiary. What is frequently observed is a tendency to place more emphasis on institutional guidelines than on user expectations.
*volonté de promouvoir l’implication des personnes et un système qui fait qu’on peut perdre son emploi : on peut avoir peur, être marqué par des situations d’angoisses et d’incertitude qui fait qu’on ne va pas oser prendre d’initiatives. C’est comment impliquer et motiver les personnes tout en les mettant dans un contexte d’insécurité et de mise en danger qui fait qu’on peut les inciter à se replier sur eux-mêmes.
*willingness to promote the involvement of people and a system that makes it possible to lose one's job: one can be afraid, be marked by situations of anxiety and uncertainty that prevent one from taking initiative. It is how to involve and motivate people while putting them in a context of insecurity and danger that makes it possible to encourage them to withdraw into themselves.


= References =
= References =

Version actuelle datée du 9 juin 2021 à 09:02

The New Public Management
Professeur(s) Jean-Michel Bonvin[1]
Frédéric Varone[2][3]
Cours Administration and Public Policy[4]

Lectures


New public management is a way of saying how to manage public administration or government-subsidized institutions so that they work as well as possible. The new public management starts with the question of why we need to reform public management in order to reform the Weber model.

Languages

Why reform the "bureaucratic model"?[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

According to Max Weber, bureaucracy is the superior form of organization. Political neutrality is political and administrative separation. The administration must be at the service of the government and therefore apolitical, otherwise, it will not be able to function properly. For Weber, the tasks are predetermined by texts known to everyone, such as laws, for example, there is a hierarchy of functions to ensure control at all levels, rules and decisions are to ensure equal treatment. Bureaucrats must also be competent and politically neutral. Job security is regarded by Weber as a guarantee of public service.

The new public management criticizes Weber's model because it is a very rigid model, unrealistic in particular as regards the gaps between the work required and the actual work and not very adaptable. This is the gap that Crozier and Friedberg had already shown with the vicious circle theory. For Crozier, for each new situation, there will be a new rule and therefore an inflation of rules, procedures, but also services, authorities and departments that will try to implement these rules and procedures, making the administration sprawling, which makes it an inefficient economic model. A critique is based on the notion of motivation referring to human resources management and Mayo. It's a monotonous job, with little use of creativity and a set of specifications. The other criticism stems from the notion of job stability and job security, which runs counter to Weber's claim that job stability is not a source of manipulation, but a source of "slipping". If the public servant knows that regardless of performance, he or she is going to keep his or her job, he or she would do little to increase his or her job or salary. This argument relates to the extrinsic aspect of the design, i. e. it is not the content of the work that motivates, but the benefits. To ensure that people are motivated, there must be benefits attached to the quality of their work. This was more in terms of stick, i. e. penalisation, than motivation. There is the idea of endangering people with the risk of job loss if performance is not achieved.

The theories of the public choice is in particular related to the theory of the agency. The public choice theory has a starting premise which is to say that everyone will try to seek an advantage that is proper. There is the idea of economic rationality, which is very strong. The premise is that everyone will seek to pursue their own interests as well as common ones. The duty officer will behave the same way. This means that every civil servant, every head of department will have in mind to maximize his interest, to try to have as many budgets as possible for his service, the most benefit to deliver or even as much prestige as possible. As a result, the public administration becomes much larger.

What will lead to success is the element of information asymmetry. The people who have the information can present the situation of this service in such a way that the budget increase becomes indisputable. This asymmetry of information can be used to pass on budget or staff increases. Those above do not know the needs of the service because they are at a higher level than those directly related to the users and they must trust the information transmitted by people close to the field. Heads of service also have the possibility of using the power of intermediation, i. e. trying to create parliamentary coalitions to defend increases in the budget of a service. The ability to create coalitions of interest or coalitions of intermediaries will be able to defend the increase in the budget. According to the supporters of the public choice, this is inevitable.

Because of these elements, the fact that each person seeks to pursue his or her own interests, there is a divergence of interests, a conflict between bureaucrats who are always going to pursue their own interests and representatives of the political power who have in mind the common good and the general interest. The result that can be observed is that we are going to have an overproduction of bureaucratic goods and services because they are going to have extra budgets, produce more goods, increase quality, leading to an overcost, a problem of efficiency, an overproduction and an over-quality through goods, products or services that are of a higher quality than what we would need. There is a magnification of the mass of goods, a magnification in terms of production and quality that would be excessive compared to what is really necessary. Public Choice supporters say that you can talk about rent when you talk about these behaviours. Heads of service would have a rent resulting from a monopoly on the supply of public goods and services. Since there is a monopoly situation, there are no competitors and no matter what happens, there is no risk of losing the provision of the service. The state will produce goods at a much higher cost than the market could do. The state is not driven to rationalize and optimize. It is a system where we are going to appropriate pensions that come from the state's monopoly situation.

The public choice proposes to reduce the size of the state, on the other hand, if the state produces too much because it is in a monopoly position, then we have to get out of the state monopoly by opening up the state to market practices. There is an idea of state subordination to the market, which must be implemented in two ways:

  • an internal subordination: the State itself, within it, must operate in the same way as if it were a market with, in particular, the transparency of funds or cost accounting. The functioning of the state must be made subject to the market.
  • External subordination: the State must compete with external market players. This competition is seen as a means of encouraging and improving the efficiency and quality of services produced within the government.

The objective of these reforms is to counterpoint what the bureaucracy does and do something completely different. The bureaucracy is hierarchical and therefore a much more horizontal model of cooperation is needed. Where there is security and stability of employment, it will be necessary to call job security into question and arrive at a new status for civil servants. The idea is to say that the public servant should not have automatic security, performance must be taken into account. The guidelines and procedures must be applied to everyone according to the bureaucratic model, but there is a need to move towards another form of public administration that individualises programmes emerging from the idea of standardisation in order to move towards a much more individualised view of public policies. We move from a beneficiary who is conceived of as a "user" to a beneficiary who is conceived of as a "client". Where there is a monopoly, competition has to be introduced, which means that the public administration cannot do what it wants because it can be compared to other services.

To this end, we will introduce private sector management rules. The State must be subject to the same rules as business rules, including proving that it is efficient and effective, and accountability is required to ensure transparency in the use of funds. It is also necessary to introduce competition so that the administration can show that it is better than others in order to retain the privilege of providing the service. If various service providers or suppliers of goods are put in competition with each other, this will make it possible to obtain the best possible supply of that good or service, particularly in terms of costs. Will be introduced flexibility in the mode of administration of the public administration becoming much less functioning according to a pyramidal structure to be more horizontal and it will provide personalized services in line with the needs of people. On the other hand, the quality of services must be improved. For the proponents of new public management, in order to provide better quality services, it is necessary to adopt private management rules and to make public management more flexible. It is the combination of these different means that will help to optimize the structure. There is also a need to give more flexibility and flexibility to field staff not only as implementers and responsible for their actions. It is the transformation of a rule-based management system as the bureaucratic model does to a results-based management system. The new public management will not insist on how to work, but on the results achieved. People will be held accountable and if they do not achieve results, they can be punished.

The theory of the agency relates to situations in which people are bound by a contract. A person wants to outsource tasks to someone else. The person who delegates is called the "principal," and the people who are supposed to work for the principal are the "agents. Agency theory is concerned with the relationship between the "principal" and the "agents" who will accomplish the mission. There is a strong emphasis on asymmetry of information between the agent who is familiar with the field conditions and the principal. The officer knows much more about the task at hand than the principal. The question is how to ensure that the agent carries out his task as efficiently as possible, in the manner expected by the principal and how to control. If we drive by results and make sure that people internalize the need for results, it is the agent himself who becomes the guarantor of the achievement of results. The idea is to empower people and make sure that it is their adherence to the outcome that makes it the result of the services requested. This refers to extrinsic motivations. This is not based on the content of the work, but on the benefits. The new public management is attempting to respond to this problem through the policy of possible results and financial sanctions.

These objectives cut across the political spectrum. Very often, new public management makes the most progress when "left" parties are in power. When the "right-wing" parties are in power, it is a much more radical vision raising opposition with left-wing parties that support this opposition. This is not systematic, but these are configurations that are frequently found. The bureaucratic model is inefficient in some respects. The "left" model proposes a rationalization. This is more a model of maintaining public services than a model of drastic reductions in the size of the state.

Principles and Tools of New Public Management: An Overview[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

A New Public Management best-seller is a book by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler entitled Reinventing Government, How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Changing the Public Sector, published in 1993. The idea is to radically and profoundly rethink the idea of reinventing government.

These authors distinguish eleven "theoretical" principles from which all the new public management tools can be derived:

  • It is the separation of strategic and operational objectives. Strategic issues should be left to the heads of service and operational issues to the field officers. One person should not care for both;
  • Power to the users ": development of community-based policies, i. e. policies that are controlled and sometimes managed by the users. The users must be given back to the centre. The previous model did the opposite;
  • Vive la concurrence ": introduction of the notion of" quasi-market "and benchmarking. The State must be removed from the public monopoly towards a quasi-market, which is a market for public services. Within the administration itself, we will compare the different departments in-between to see which one has the best performance. This helps to identify the best practices that will be applied to all services;
  • Priority to objectives ": introduction of the notion of" controlling "and transition from the legalist system to a result-oriented system;
  • What if there was a little interest in results ": introduction of the notion of" performance "and" return ". Public administration must become effective, efficient and effective in achieving results;
  • User needs first ": meet the needs of the user and not the administration. This is the introduction of the notion of "benefit" for users;
  • Earning money and not just spending it ": introduction of the concept of" profit "in the public sector, but also the concept of" value for money ";
  • Prevention is better than cure ": introduction of the notion of" anticipation ";
  • Less hierarchy, more participation ": introduction of a new hierarchical pyramid, as well as the concept of" user inclusion ". The user must be a stakeholder in the public administration;
  • The State to the rescue of the market, the market at the service of the State ": introduction of a new public-private partnership. The idea is to say that the state and the market should work in partnership. This is tantamount to refocusing the State's tasks on the users and the quality of the services provided;
  • A New Model of Government ": Refocusing State Missions.

Principles and Tools of New Public Management[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In The New Public Management: Toolkit or paradigmatic change published in 1999 by Mönks, there are four principles of the new public management:

1) Improving the performance and effectiveness of the administration (the taxpayer must get value for money): this principle is focused on efficiency. You have to achieve the objectives, but be as economical as possible. Mönks insists on performance. There are two mechanisms suggested in the Mönks text:

  • To put on the market ": introduction of as many market mechanisms as possible (comparison of quality and costs, competitive tendering) and subcontracting to private operators. We're going to break the state monopoly and put the service on the market. At equal or comparable quality, it is the cheapest that must win the public contract. We are moving away from the annuity system, which would be a consequence of the state monopoly to enter a system of competitive tendering, which very often is not at all transparent. However, quality is very difficult to judge that the price. The risk of this system is to favour the "best market" offers and therefore the difficulty is to evaluate the choice. ;
  • Management by objectives ": service contracts specify the objectives and leave the choice of means to be decided on independently. The budget envelopes are part of a logic of results, namely that the budget envelope must be sufficient to achieve the objectives or else it raises the poor quality of work and asks the administration to be a good money manager. Timeframes are used to define when the objectives should be achieved. Performance indicators specifying the quantity and quality of services. But there is a risk of working for indicators, i. e. people in the field focus on performance indicators and less on other aspects of their work.

2) Adopting a more flexible organisation of work means moving from the rigid pyramid model to a more flexible model that leaves more room for the people in the field who are civil servants in public administration:

  • Separating roles and responsibilities between policies that set objectives and the public administration responsible for implementation: the policy sets very broad objectives, the senior public administration will translate them into more precise objectives on which operational effectiveness depends; give more operational responsibilities to local actors who must nevertheless be accountable for their results: there is the development of monitoring tools. These are tools that make it possible to have a much more precise vision of the work, but which requires a lot of time. These tools make it possible to benchmark and compare individuals among themselves. Indicators provide information on ways of working and indicators provide information on results. This makes it possible to identify best practices. There is a risk of imposing working methods, rules and procedures such as in the bureaucratic model. There would be some kind of backtracking;
  • abolish hierarchical levels: the idea is to have a more flexible work organisation which is not the bureaucratic pyramid with a hierarchical view of work and without initiative. With the new public management, individuals must take initiatives, be creative, develop new ways of working and for this reason we will give priority to teamwork with pre-established specifications. They must be accountable and answerable for a number of objectives. There is operational autonomy, which can sometimes be presented as an instrumentalised autonomy. It is about understanding, learning and innovation on the ground. Very often, in new public management, if the teams are horizontal, it works less well, which is why we tend to introduce team managers. One person is in charge of piloting the group.
  • questioning the status of civil servant: in order to motivate the civil servant, he or she will have to be put at risk, which means questioning the status of the civil servant. With the LPers, the civil servant may be dismissed and at least part of his or her salary must be linked to performance. Since the implementation of the LPers in Switzerland, 5% of the salary is linked to performance. We individualize part of the salary. This practice can raise a number of problems, namely the link between job security and quality of work, does it really mean that people must be genuinely insecure to motivate them, is it a link that can be observed empirically, can we imagine, as Weber said, that job security is a way of providing ontological security so that we can really do a good job? One may wonder whether endangering public servants is really the best way to increase public service motivation. Public service motivation is an intrinsic motivation, endangering will increase extrinsic motivation while for intrinsic motivation, endangering is ambiguous. One might also wonder what the long-term effect of questioning the status of civil servant is. In the short term, one can imagine that people are making more effort and commitment to achieve better results, but this can create long-term fatigue and pressure that can lead to phenomena that will affect the quality of work. These phenomena are observed in the field of social work and health.
  • Individualisation of contracts and working conditions: we will individualise the objectives in order to improve the quality of work. The way in which this will work is that the person's mission, i. e. his or her objectives, will be set out in a specification or agreement of objectives, and at the end of the year an evaluation will take place of these objectives, which may have financial consequences. This type of instrument was used in the postal service. A 2005 study showed that in all post offices in Switzerland, the vast majority of employees were evaluated at 100% pay, i. e. category B, a few rare cases had the letter A which increased pay or C which reduced pay. A "normal" curve appeared. The public administration does not produce in most cases any benefits, the salary package is based on 100% for all employees. This means that rewarding employees means penalizing others. In other words, since budget availability is decided in advance, there is no budgetary possibility to finance on merit. The post office insisted on the impossibility of implementing the merit pay system. The idea of individualising contracts can be counterproductive to teamwork. To earn more wages, you have to be more deserving than others who work in the same team. There may be perverse effects that can be observed because of this.
  • for subsidised institutions, performance-based renewable benefits contract: all institutions that receive state funding, like the worker, will have to prove their effectiveness if they wish their funding to be renewed. It means putting institutions at risk through service contracts. Generally, the amount of funding provided is reduced. There is the same leverage as for individuals, i. e. it is by putting institutions in financial precariousness that we will encourage them to achieve the results they expect.

3) Customer orientation and quality of services: users of the public administration are no longer beneficiaries or taxpayers becoming clients of the public administration, it will be necessary to take into account their point of view. There is also an orientation towards the quality of services. What defines quality work in the field of public administration? The notion of "quality" in public administration is a complex one. There are three tools:

  • market and satisfaction survey: customers will be asked to evaluate the quality of services, with the aim of improving the quality of the services provided. Everything will depend on the quality of satisfaction surveys. Satisfaction surveys give managers a lot of room for manoeuvre. The client can be used as a disciplinary tool to discipline public administration. It is possible to interpret customer dissatisfaction in an instrumental way. Quality is interpreted as customer satisfaction.
  • certifications (ISO, EDUQUA or others) as a guarantee of the quality of the work carried out: institutions seeking funding seek to obtain signals of the quality of the work carried out within them. Certification is the preferred signal in most cases. Certification requires proof that in all possible situations, the institution knows how to respond. The certification tool and a bureaucratic tool. It is a paradox, because it is a paradoxically bureaucratic certification tool for new public management. Very often, certifications have little to do with the actual work done in public administration or institutions. It's a marketing tool. The quality of the organization will be evaluated more than the quality of the service.
  • quality circles for continuous improvement of services: there are places in the institutions where quality can be discussed and debated, which can be used by everyone to improve the quality of services. A possible perverse effect is to know what their impact is. One of the perverse effects is to use quality circles as a tool for expressing frustration.

4) Citizen orientation: this is a very theoretical model that is rarely encountered in reality. The idea is to say that citizens should become co-producers of public services, not only because they have been asked to do so in a market or satisfaction survey, but also because they are involved and express themselves on the way in which the service is designed and delivered. The administration will involve the citizen. We are moving towards more participatory decision-making where citizens are co-producers of public services. It would be in the interest of a citizen-oriented approach if, when defining the quality of services, it were no longer the body that would decide, but rather the entirety of the persons concerned who would decide what the provision of public administration should be.

Models of New Public Management[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This table shows that there is no single paradigm is that very often in the literature there are many different models of new public management. Most typologies generally correspond to the four previous models.

Ferlie et al. (1996) Mönks (1998) Bolgiani (2002)
Efficiency Model: competition and productive performance (service contracts) Efficient model Market Model
Model of downsizing and decentralization: decentralization of administrative responsibilities and thinning of the administration Organizational Flexibility Model Decentralized model
Research Excellence Model: culture supportive of learning processes and leadership Qualitative model
Public service orientation model: quality of service and customer satisfaction Participatory model Quality Model

Strengths and weaknesses of the NPM[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In The Liberal bureaucracy. New public management and regulation published in 2004, Giauque is based on two empirical studies. It leads to a Manichean view of the new public management with a discourse, but a catastrophic reality at the opposite end of the discourse. The way in which public management is implemented means that promises are not kept.

The new public management emphasizes the operational autonomy of services. Giauque is not obstructing operational autonomy, but a strong dependence on public authorities and budgetary decisions. We are not operationally autonomous, but dependent because budget and survival depend on the achievement of objectives set by others. In the cases studied by Giauque, the objectives have been defined so strictly that the ways of working are dictated by the way in which the objectives have been defined. There is a very strong dependence on political powers.

New public management values individual initiatives, but when the initiative is risky, the observed compromise is that people do not take initiatives. There are withdrawal behaviours, the initiative is potentially a source of danger.

At the level of discourse, there is a strong emphasis on the quality of services, the new public management makes it possible to improve the quality of services, but when we look at the basis on which services are evaluated, in many cases the services are evaluated on their cost. The emphasis is placed on the quality of services, but in practice it is often possible to put more emphasis on efficiency, cost control and a willingness to spend as little as possible. There is often a contradiction that can arise and exist between the two elements of how to make quality at a lower cost. There is a great deal of tension to consider if the consequences of implementing new public management are empirically analysed. Often, public administration is controlled on the respect of budgets rather than the quality of services.

Giauque also looked at the performance indicators that were used to assess the quality of workers and the services provided by members of the public administration. He often observed a mismatch between the performance indicator and the reality on the ground. There may be a mismatch between the desire to promote the quality of services and performance indicators that do not allow for quality services to be provided only in certain cases.

The new public management emphasizes the personalization of services. Improving quality means meeting the demand of service providers. In a context where very often the emphasis is placed on reducing budgets, the result is not so much a personalisation of services as a standardisation of services.

We want to reward the most deserving, but since salary envelopes are already defined, we cannot afford to do so and merit-based salaries cannot be implemented. On the other hand, there is a willingness to encourage involvement, but there is uncertainty linked to the individual measurement of performance, but since these people are uncertain, in order not to endanger themselves, they will not take the initiative.

The will of the new public administration is to put people and services in competition with the idea of creating positive emulation. In reality, it is a spirit of competition that will become established, a negative emulation.

Everything Giauque says paints a picture of the new negative public management. A less Manichean view is to say that the new public management is in a field of tension that will depend on the context, the empirical example and the particular study we are facing. This voltage field is marked by three elements:

  • a desire to reduce costs and the willingness to improve the quality of services: in many cases, the drift we observe is that because costs are easy to observe and measure, we will insist on costs and because quality is much more difficult to measure, there is a tendency to focus more on controlling costs than on the more evasive notion of quality;
  • A tension between institutional directives and user expectations: anyone who is in an institution or working in a public administration receives directives. At the same time, this person is faced with a user who may have quite different expectations. How to proceed if institutional expectations are not the same as client expectations. This is a situation that can happen very often. When working in a public administration, the question arises as to who is the "king client", i. e. the institution or the beneficiary. The institution has more means of sanctioning than the beneficiary. What is frequently observed is a tendency to place more emphasis on institutional guidelines than on user expectations.
  • willingness to promote the involvement of people and a system that makes it possible to lose one's job: one can be afraid, be marked by situations of anxiety and uncertainty that prevent one from taking initiative. It is how to involve and motivate people while putting them in a context of insecurity and danger that makes it possible to encourage them to withdraw into themselves.

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. ↑ Page personnelle de Jean-Michel Bonvin sur le site de l'Université de Genève
  2. ↑ Page personnelle de Frédéric Varone sur le site de l'Université de Genève
  3. ↑ CV de Frédéric Varone en français
  4. ↑ Programme des cours - année académique 2014-2015 - Administration et politiques publiques I (T207013 CR)
Récupérée de « https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=The_New_Public_Management&oldid=51001 »