IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rrpaxx/v6y2001i2p15-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Public Management in the UK: Enduring Legacy or Fatal Remedy?

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver James

Abstract

In assessing developments in the UK subsequent to the New Public Management (NPM) reforms of the 1980s and 1990s an important question is whether the structures and practices created by the NPM reforms are enduring or whether, as so often is the case in administrative reform, they are quickly being replaced. There is some evidence that certain parts of the NPM reform have been ‘fatal remedies’ -the reforms originally intended to solve problems of public sector performance have led to side and perverse effects, creating the conditions for their own demise. These processes have been reinforced by changes because of policy makers’ altered priorities. The ‘fatal remedies’ have been especially found in some aspects of competitive NPM structures and in disaggregated corporate units involving splitting ‘policy’ from ‘service delivery.’ However, many parts of NPM, especially disaggregated units more generally and the use of private providers appear to be a more enduring legacy. In some of these areas, rather than removing NPM structures, new mechanisms have been developed to ameliorate some of their undesirable side-effects, particularly through the increased use of regulation of government.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver James, 2001. "New Public Management in the UK: Enduring Legacy or Fatal Remedy?," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 15-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:6:y:2001:i:2:p:15-26
    DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2001.10804976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12294659.2001.10804976
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/12294659.2001.10804976?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood & Oliver James & George Jones & Colin Scott & Tony Travers, 1998. "Regulation Inside Government: Where New Public Management Meets the Audit Explosion," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 61-68, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roy Valiant Salomo & Krisna Puji Rahmayanti, 2023. "Progress and Institutional Challenges on Local Governments Performance Accountability System Reform in Indonesia," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.
    2. Olov Olson & Christopher Humphrey & James Guthrie, 2001. "Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 505-522.
    3. Lee, Bill, 2010. "The individual learning account experiment in the UK: A conjunctural crisis?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 18-30.
    4. Michael, Bryane & Gubin, Alexey, 2012. "Compliance Audit of Anti-Corruption Regulations: A Case Study from Carpatistan Customs," MPRA Paper 44693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Power, Michael, 2021. "Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: organizations and the logic of the audit trail," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100243, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Kristian Krieger, 2013. "The limits and variety of risk‐based governance: The case of flood management in Germany and England," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 236-257, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:6:y:2001:i:2:p:15-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRPA20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.