112 5: Th eories of Public Management
c. Neutral competence/professional expertise
d. Entrepreneurshipl/advocacy- Doctrines of purpose
a. Carry out the law
b. Maintain orderly and reliable institutions
c. Facilitate change
d. Add value
Another way to think about the doctrines of public management is to turn to
the enduring questions of management: Under what circumstances are neutral
competence and professional expertise more important than political respon-
siveness? What, on the other hand, are the circumstances under which political
responsiveness is more important than neutral competence and professional
expertise? What are the technological, geographic, and managerial issues that
determine whether an organization should centralize or decentralize? What
ought to be the criteria or standards for appointment and promotion in public
employment? How much discretion should be allowed to street-level bureau-
crats and their managers? Th ese, and similar questions, summarized previously
as doctrines, were addressed by the early principles and the contemporary doc-
trines. Th e questions are essentially the same, but the answers are very diff erent.
Table 5.2 compares the answers to these questions found in traditional and con-
temporary principles.
Th e infl uential modern literature on management in public administration
powerfully illustrates how the principles are reemerging. Virtually all of it uses
the logic of rhetoric, selective case-based empirical “evidence,” and a kind of mis-
sionary zeal (Graham and Hays 1993; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999; Osborne and
Gaebler 1992; Barzelay 1992; Cohen and Eimicke 1995). Very oft en missionar-
ies, not to mention politicians, consultants, and academics, fi nd their work easier
if there is a devil, an evil empire, or a straw man. In public management the-
ory, the devil is BUREAUCRACY. Preferred doctrines of public management
are suggested as ways to “banish bureaucracy or to reinvent government: how
the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to
statehouse, city hall to the Pentagon” (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Th ese doc-
trines are argued, just as the principles were eighty years ago, on the observation
of so-called best practices rather than on replicable social science (Osborne and
Gaebler 1992; Cohen and Eimicke 1995). Nevertheless, the modern principles of
entrepreneurial public management are now nearly a hegemony in the practices
of public administration.
Th ese doctrines have been given, or have taken, the name New Public Man-
agement (NPM) and are sometimes referred to as the “new managerialism.” Th ey
have a particularly strong base in Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand,
as well as in the United States. Th e Organization for Economic Co-operation and