234 9: Th eories of Governance
sector. Because of this, those working within a governance framework are inter-
ested in keeping public service provision under government control. Th e form of
control may be altered to push government closer to society, and this may mean
delegating a greater public policy role to the private sector. Ultimately, however,
governance seeks to keep a clear line of responsibility and control between pub-
lic services and public offi cials. In contrast, NPM is focused on bringing about
a sweeping change of the public sector. Although governance seeks to develop
strategies that retain the government’s capacity to control public-sector resources,
NPM is interested in public management models primarily as a way to replace the
Weberian organizational orthodoxy of traditional public administration.
Yet again, the empirical evidence supporting this argument is lacking. Most
notably, Hill and Lynn (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the governance and
management literature from 1990 to 2001. Examining over 800 articles in 70
journals, the authors found that the Weberian notion of hierarchical bureaucratic
structure is actually quite persistent. Despite the claim by NPM that hierarchy
and centralization are detrimental to “good” governance, Hill and Lynn’s research
clearly demonstrates that “the American political scheme remains hierarchical
and jurisdictional” (189). As Hill and Lynn write, the “shift away from hierar-
chical government and toward horizontal governing (hence the increasing pref-
erence for ‘governance’ as an organizing concept) is less fundamental than it is
tactical” (189). Analysis of emergency management following Hurricane Katrina
in 2005 demonstrated there is a strong need for stable networks and cooperative
relationships between public and private actors (Koliba, Mills, and Zia 2011).
Fift h, and perhaps this is most important, Peters and Pierre argue that gover-
nance does not have the ideological baggage as NPM. At its root, governance does
not share the same ideals or the core motivation to bring about a market-based
cultural revolution in the public sector that characterizes NPM. NPM is an attempt
to unilaterally impose corporate values, objectives, and practices on public service
provision, a project that fi nds strong favor and support in conservative circles.
Governance does not share these ideological goals. It poses serious questions
about what government should do and how it can do this better, but governance
does not unilaterally reply with market-based institutional reform. Governance
is as likely to give public-sector agencies more power and force them to engage
in greater cooperative arrangements with the private sector (a point we return to
later in the chapter) as to strip those agencies of their power and force the creation
of a competitive market for public goods and services.
As states and localities face fi scal stress, we are seeing more examples of such
partnerships. For example, in 2011, the state of Iowa replaced its state Depart-
ment of Economic Development with a public-private partnership consisting
of the Iowa Economic Development Authority (public) and the Iowa Innova-
tion Corporation (private) under the umbrella “Iowa Partnership for Economic
Progress.” Th is public function remains while the private agency encourages do-
nations and investments on behalf of the state (Clayworth 2011). In the United