Giovanni Fattore
Bocconi University, Italy
Giovanni Fattore is associate professor
of health care and public management
at Bocconi University (Policy Analysis and
Public Management Department), Italy.
Previously, he was research officer at the
London School of Economics. His research
focuses on health policy and public
management reforms. He holds a degree in
economics from Bocconi University and did
postgraduate studies at the Harvard School
of Public Health and the London School of
Economics.
E-mail: giovanni.fattore@unibocconi.it
Hans F. W. Dubois is a research
officer at the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Condi-
tions (Eurofound) in Dublin. Previously,
he was assistant professor at Kozminski
University in Warsaw and worked with the
European Observatory for Health Systems
and Policies in Madrid. He holds a doctorate
in business administration and manage-
ment from Bocconi University and studied
economics and medical biology at the
University of Amsterdam.
E-mail: Hans.Dubois@eurofound.
europa.eu
Antonio Lapenta is an economist and
public management specialist. He holds a
doctorate in health care management and
economics from Magna Græcia University of
Catanzaro, Italy, and has conducted training
and research for the Public Management
Department at Bocconi University from
2004 to 2008. He served as strategic
advisor to the Bolivian Health Minister for
the creation of a National Health System.
He is currently an international consultant
and advisor for government institutions.
E-mail: Antonio.lapenta@yahoo.com
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 218–227. © 2012 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02497.x.
218 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012
Antonio Lapenta
Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Italy
Hans F. W. Dubois
European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions, Ireland
Measuring New Public Management and Governance
in Political Debate
New Public Management (NPM) recently has been
compared and contrasted with public governance (PG) to
illustrate shifts in conceptions of public administrations
and in reform agendas. The authors develop measures
to capture the relevance of NPM and PG in textual
discourse and investigate the extent to which they have
entered the political debate. Content analysis of electoral
programs for the 2005 Italian regional elections reveals
that even in this legalistic country, considerable attention
was paid to both NPM and PG issues. An important
explanatory variable in preference for NPM or PG
is party ideology, highlighting often-ignored within-
country dynamics. Furthermore, the authors show how a
methodological approach adapted from mainly political
science and business research can be exploited in the field
of public administration.
N
ew Public Management (NPM) and public
governance (PG) are two core sets of ideas
in the field of public administration. In a
provocative article, tellingly titled “The New Public
Governance?” Stephen P. Osborne (2006) argues that
NPM actually has been a transitory stage in the evolu-
tion from traditional public administration to what he
calls New Public Governance.
We investigate whether the theoretical interest in PG
is expressed in the broader society, as reflected by the
political debate. We also explore whether reference to
NPM and PG issues depends on candidates’ ideologi-
cal roots. The interest in NPM and PG tends to be
generalized to the country level of analysis. Inclusion
of a proxy for ideological background could reveal
whether within-country differences and dynamics are
of significant magnitude. Furthermore, we make an
attempt to develop specific measures for these two
often referred to but rarely measured sets of issues.
The article is organized as follows: In the next section,
we discuss recent developments in the NPM/PG
debate and explore core ideas that fall under these two
broad labels, setting the conceptual basis of the meas-
ures presented and discussed in the following sections.
Next, we argue that content analysis of electoral
programs is an appropriate approach for our analysis.
We discuss this in light of broader applications of
content analysis to various types of texts in public
administration research. The 2005 regional elections
in Italy are identified as a relevant, critical case. We
move on, carefully describing the procedure that we
applied to measure reference to NPM and PG issues
in these political documents. Descriptive statistics are
presented and statistical analysis is applied to test for
differences in prevalence. The results are discussed
and, finally, conclusions are drawn.
The New Public Governance?
NPM and PG have received considerable academic
attention over the last few decades, referred to as “the
two grand narratives of public management reform”
(Andresani and Ferlie 2006, 416). We present a brief
literature review of both NPM and PG in turn and
discuss how the second is gaining ground.
“New Public Management” is an umbrella term
(e.g., Hood 1991). Scholars as well as professionals
often have used the expression to refer to distinctive
themes, styles, and patterns of public service manage-
ment reforms of the last two decades (Barzelay 2001).
While some see NPM and PG as two different para-
digms, we agree with those who see the two concepts
as different sets of ideas. NPM’s origins lie in a mar-
riage of new institutional economics (public choice,
transaction cost, and principle–agent theory) and
scientific management–based business philosophies
(Hood 1991). NPM’s principal focus is intraorganiza-
tional processes and management, and it emphasizes
the economy and efficiency of those service units in
producing public services (Osborne 2006). The litera-
ture offers a large number of investigations into the
components of NPM (Ferlie et al. 1996; Hood 1991;
Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Following Andresani
and Ferlie (2006), NPM ideas stress a combination
of empowered and entrepreneurial management
rather than traditionally autonomous public sector
professionals and administrators. It favors the use of
quasi-market forces rather than planning. Furthermore, it stresses participation of representatives from all stakeholders (Bovaird and
performance measurement, monitoring and management, and audit Loeffler 2002). Networks can include public and private (for profit
systems (Andresani and Ferlie 2006). and nonprofit) organizations and citizens. Existing quasi-legislative
and quasi-judicial new governance processes provide ways to engage
NPM reforms are typically top-down in nature, driven by a “reform- individual citizens, the public, and organized stakeholders in the
ist” central government trying to get the most out of large opera- work of government (Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005).
tional agencies and functions. NPM aims to enhance government As opposed to NPM, the PG approach overcomes the traditional
performance by promoting the “three Es” (economy, efficiency, and dichotomy between policy and administration (Hansen and Ejersbo
effectiveness) and by introducing management principles that often 2002). More generally, classical management tools require an evolu-
have been transferred from business. The common prescription for tion and upgrade to be applied to networked settings, as public
governments is to downsize and outsource. In the popular notion of interest should be pursued by managing institutional networks
one of Osborne and Gaebler’s (1992) principles of entrepreneurial in which governmental entities do not always have a pivotal role
government, governments should seek to improve performance by (Bourgon 2007; Metcalfe and Richards 1990). Governance struc-
“separating steering from rowing.” Governments should concentrate tures can be seen as dynamic relationships that are influenced by the
on steering (policy management) while reducing their involve- decisions and actions of public managers. These relationship struc-
ment in rowing (operational management). Steering organizations tures—through which public policy is made and implemented—are
set policy, deliver funds to operational bodies (public and private), multiple and reciprocal: multiple in the sense that many different
and evaluate performance, but they seldom play an operational interactions influence governance structures, and reciprocal in that
role themselves. NPM focuses on single government entities, and it public managers not only are subject to governance structures but
promotes competition between government agencies and contracted also play important roles in creating, executing, and changing the
providers. In NPM, the traditional policy–administration dichot- dimensions of governance (Feldman and Khademian 2002).
omy is restored, with a clear line between management and policy.
Resources and responsibilities among individuals and organizations The interest in NPM-inspired management tools has not evaporated
should be allocated accordingly (Metcalfe and Richards 1990). and is likely to stay (Ferlie and Fitzgerald 2002), but it is being chal-
lenged more than before. After two decades of public sector reforms
Similar to NPM, “public governance” also is an umbrella term, and inspired by NPM principles, the attention of scholars moved toward
there are many forms of governance (Kooiman 1993). The theoreti- PG approaches. The study of governance is growing in popularity
cal underpinnings of “new governance” ideals are constructed both (Van Kersbergen and Van Waarden 2004). Were this academic inter-
from supposed virtues of markets and third sector alternatives to the est to reflect a development in society true, we should be able to
state, as well as from the belief in the virtue of competition, choice, encounter references to PG issues in the political debate.
and multiagent collaboration (Considine and Lewis 2003). The
public administration/management/policy literature has highlighted Now that the possibility of a new PG movement has been
in particular the network governance model (Acevedo and Common raised, it is important not to overstate its diffusion, by present-
2006; Newman 2001; Pierre and Peters 2000; Rhodes 1997, 2000). ing it as a global development, before investigating it outside the
Anglo-American/Commonwealth world. In England, moderniza-
Here, clients, suppliers, and producers are linked together as copro-
ducers (Considine and Lewis 2003). When we use the term “public tion (Newman 2002) and/or governance (Newman 2001; Rhodes
governance,” we refer to this form of governance. PG developed 2000) rhetoric indeed was present in key New Labour policy and
from different academic disciplines, in particular organizational “ideological” documents (Ferlie and Fitzgerald 2002). While there
sociology and network theory (Osborne 2006). A common feature have been voices suggesting that PG issues might become more
of the PG approach is that the focus of analysis shifts from single popular than NPM issues in continental Europe (Andresani and
Ferlie 2006) and maybe elsewhere in the world, research takes an
entities to include interorganizational networks. Second, emphasis is
put on collaboration rather than competition. Anglo-American focus. To give some counterweight, we choose a
strongly legalistic context. While observations are context specific, as
PG implies an interaction between government and society— always, if we are able to measure and assess the issues at stake in an
between public, private, and voluntary actors—and attention “unfavorable environment,” they are likely to be observed elsewhere.
to a wider range of outcomes (Acevedo and Common 2006). In particular, our context is the 2005 regional elections in Italy,
The diffusion of administrative action, the a country that widely has been recognized
multiplication of administrative partners, for its legislative, “Napoleonic” administra-
and the proliferation of political influence Because of their nature, tive tradition (Capano 2003; Mussari 1997;
outside government’s circles are at the heart NPM issues are expected to Ongaro 2006). In other words, we apply a
of PG. It requires improved skills in negotia- be relatively popular among critical case strategy (Patton 2002) by focus-
tion and coordination. While understanding stakeholders that favor smaller ing on a context in which NPM and PG are
the use of hierarchy and authority, public relatively unlikely to prevail.
government. For PG issues,
administrators also must manage complex
networks, relying more on interpersonal and the reverse might well apply, Furthermore, the NPM versus PG discus-
interorganizational processes (Kettl 2002). as it is more concerned with sion tends to generalize at the country level.
The budget formulation, for example, was enhancing outcomes than with Within-country variance often is neglected.
seen as a top-down exercise in NPM, while streamlining budgets. Because of their nature, NPM issues are
with the PG approach, it requires the active expected to be relatively popular among
Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate 219
stakeholders that favor smaller government. For PG issues, the
reverse might well apply, as it is more concerned with enhancing
outcomes than with streamlining budgets. In addition, we can test
whether there are differences between challenging and incumbent
parties. It is expected that, all else being equal, incumbents have
a better understanding of their administrations and NPM issues.
Voters may easier relate public administration performance to
incumbents than to challengers. Incumbents thus are more likely
to be attacked on the current state of the public sector. This would
imply higher rates of both NPM and PG terms for the challenger,
promising reform.
In conclusion, our research questions are as follows:
1. Is the theoretical interest in the public management/admin-
istration literature on PG expressed in the broader society’s
interests, as reflected by political programs?
2. Is the theoretical interest in NPM expressed in the broader
society, even in a legalistic country such as Italy, as reflected
by political programs?
3. Does reference in political programs to NPM and/or PG
issues differ depending on candidates’ ideological roots?
4. Does reference in political programs to NPM and/or PG
issues differ depending on candidates’ status, whether
incumbent or challenger?
Content Analysis of Electoral Programs
Content analysis is a research method that uses a set of categoriza-
tion procedures to make valid and replicable inferences from textual
data. Nevertheless, content analysis is more than a technique in that
it embodies a theoretical perspective that seeks to assign a major
role to communication. Content analysis was applied on a day-to-
day basis during the First and Second World Wars to radio mes-
sages and other textual material from the enemy. It was not until
the late 1940s that it was applied in science (Janowitz 1969). We
were unable to find any review of the use of content analysis in the
field of research on the administration of public entities. Conse-
quently, we performed an explorative literature review ourselves
and contrasted it with the findings of Duriau, Reger, and Pfarrer’s
(2007) thorough review of research on the administration of private
entities.
Duriau, Reger, and Pfarrer (2007) present a meta-analysis of 98 publi-
cations in the field of business administration and management using
content analysis methods. Their literature search involves 15 promi-
nent journals in the field over the years 1980–2005. They search
within these journals using the keywords “content analysis” and “text
analysis.” Subsequently, the authors make a thorough comparison
of these studies, with regard to issues such as the studies’ data source
(mostly annual reports, 30.6 percent, and trade magazines, 18.4
percent), broad methodological approach (77.6 percent quantitative,
15.3 percent qualitative, 7.1 percent mixed methods), data analysis
(84.7 percent report some form of frequency count), and reliability
(62.2 percent use multiple raters and report interrater reliability).
Before we focus on the particular data source that we used in this
article (electoral programs), we review the use of the method more
broadly in the field. For private, competing organizations, an
important factor in legitimizing their activities and their existence is
220 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012
making a profit. Public organizations lack this element and, from an
institutional perspective, have relatively more to gain from textual
output. Thus, it is not surprising that the public sector produces a
relatively large textual output. The nature of public sector accounta-
bility provides us with another explanation for this abundance. Com-
munication with citizens is expected to be more common than in the
private sector, where the role of citizens as stakeholders is likely to be
less pronounced. Content analysis uses such verbal and written com-
munications as its principal data input. Logically, one would expect
public sector researchers to gratefully exploit these (generally publicly
available) textual resources and widely apply content analysis.
We performed an explorative literature review to get a general
impression of the use of content analysis in public sector research.
The search strategy that we applied was equal to Duriau, Reger,
and Pfarrer’s (2007), in that we used the same keywords: “content
analysis” and “text analysis.” We searched 17 public management/
administration/policy journals: Climate Policy, Governance, Interna-
tional Journal of Public Administration, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, International Public Management Journal, Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Public Administra-
tion and Development, Public Administration, Public Administration
Review, Public Policy Research, Public Management Review, Public
Money and Management, Public Policy and Administration, Policy
Studies Journal, and Publius. The time span of our search is from
1980 (or since the journal has been included in databases) to April
2009. We excluded two studies that did not perform a content
analysis themselves but used the results of other researchers’ content
analysis as secondary data (Bertelli 2006; McHenry 1986). Other
studies applied content analysis in the form of systematically coding
and analyzing transcribed interview data or questionnaire responses
(e.g., Bryer 2009; Wright and Taylor 2005). Finally, in some cases.
“content analysis” referred to a through literature review of academic
articles or textbooks (e.g., Dunn 1988; Walsh et al. 1996). We
excluded these studies, as our focus is on textual analysis of public
sector documents.
To our surprise, public sector studies using content analysis methods
are scarce. Our literature search, which was similar in scope to that
conducted by Duriau, Reger, and Pfarrer (2007) on private sector
research, identified only 22 relevant studies. This amounts to about
one-fourth (22 of 98) of the number of studies identified by Duriau,
Reger, and Pfarrer. While we arguably were somewhat stricter in terms
of excluding literature reviews, the 30 studies that Duriau, Reger,
and Pfarrer identify for one source category alone (annual reports)
easily outnumber the total number we encountered. This is in sharp
contrast to the massive body of research that we were expecting to
encounter, in a field so widely associated with textual output. In itself,
this is a highly interesting observation that needs further research.
Table 1 gives a brief overview of the public sector content analysis
studies that we identified. Data sources for these studies include
texts as diverse as official public administration documents, collec-
tive bargaining agreements, speeches, and submitted parliamentary
questions. The application of the method has been global, and most
studies take a qualitative approach. The relatively large number of
studies published over the past five years suggests that the method is
gaining in popularity in public sector research.
Table 1 Content Analysis in 17 Public Sector Research Journals, 1980–2009
Author Year Publication Title Textual Source Country Context
Beierle and Konisky 2000 “Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Case studies, project reports, etc., from cases U.S.
Environmental Planning” of environmental planning
Douglas 1987 “Collective Bargaining and Public Sector Supervisors: Collective bargaining agreements U.S.
A Trend Toward Exclusion?”
Jreisat 1988 “Administrative Reform in Developing Countries: A Official country statements submitted to a Iraq, Jordan, Morocco,
Comparative Perspective” conference Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Syria, North Yemen
Carnevale 1993 “Federal Service 2000: Staff Training and Labor– Federal collective bargaining agreements U.S.
Management Cooperation”
Blake et al. 1998 “The Nature and Scope of State Government Ethics 39 state governments’ codes of ethics U.S.
Codes”
Ward and Spenneman 2000 “Meeting Local Needs? Case Study of a Final project document, two promotional Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu
Communication Project in the Pacific Islands” project documents
Houston and Richardson 2000 “The Politics of Air Bag Safety: A Competition among Official record of one U.S. House and two U.S.
Problem Definitions” U.S. Senate hearings
Hall 2002 “Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How Floor speeches from the 103rd and 104th U.S.
People in Government Are Discussed on the Floor Congresses
of the House”
Rittberger and Richardson 2003 “Old Wine in New Bottles? The Commission and the Environmental action programs European Union
Use of Environmental Policy Instruments”
Svensson and Wood 2004 “Codes of Ethics Best Practice in the Swedish Public 27 public sector units’ codes of ethics Sweden
Sector: A PUBSEC-Scale”
Cheung 2005 “What’s in a Pamphlet? Shortfalls and Paradoxical Performance pledges of public organizations Hong Kong
Flaws in Hong Kong’s Performance Pledges”
Higgins 2005 “Contemporary Public Library Provision in England: Public library inspection reports U.K.
A Content Analysis of the Highest and Lowest
Scoring Inspection Reports”
Erakovic and Wilson 2006 “The Interaction of Market and Technology in Annual reports New Zealand
Radical Transformation: The Case of Telecom New
Zealand”
Needham 2006 “Policing with a Smile: Narratives Of Consumerism in Prime minister’s speeches, central U.K.
New Labour’s Criminal Justice Policy” government department papers (white and
green papers and strategy documents),
local government corporate plans
Schuh and Miller 2006 “Maybe Wilson Was Right: Espoused Values and Their Agency mission statements, Speeches of U.S.
Relationship to Enacted Values” Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton,
and George W. Bush, plus a subject matter
analysis of executive orders, and a survey
of senior executives
Penner, Blidook, and 2006 “Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Oral parliamentary questions Canada
Soroka Representation of Partisan Agendas in the
Canadian House of Commons”
Jewell and Bero 2006 “Public Participation And Claimsmaking: Evidence Notice and comment submissions U.S.
Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in to California’s 1997 passage of an
California’s Ergonomics Rulemaking” ergonomics standard
Lim and Tang 2007 “Urban E-Government Initiatives and Environmental Government Web sites South Korea
Decision Performance in Korea”
Drumaux and Goethals 2007 “Strategic Management: A Tool for Public Government strategic plans Belgium
Management? An Overview of the Belgian
Federal Experience”
Marcuccio and Steccolini 2009 “Patterns of Voluntary Extended Performance Government extended performance reports Italy
Reporting in Italian Local Authorities”
Kapucu, Augustin, and 2009 “Interstate Partnerships in Emergency Management: News reports, government documents, U.S.
Garayev Emergency Management Assistance Compact in after-action reports from various
Response to Catastrophic Disasters” institutions
Kloot 2009 “Performance Measurement and Accountability Annual reports of 2006, for three firefighting Australia
in an Australian Fire Service” services

As far as the analysis is concerned, compared to private sector
research, our literature search revealed that few studies take a quanti-
tative approach to content analysis. Exceptions in public administra-
tion research include Marcuccio and Steccolini (2009) and Erakovic
and Wilson (2006), who analyze frequencies; Beierle and Konisky
(2000), who report correlations; and Hall (2002), who applies
(logistic) regression. While quantitative approaches naturally have
their limitations, they can provide important complementary analy-
sis, as indicated by broad application beyond public sector research.
Another trend that can be observed is that the textual sources reflect
Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate 221
the topics of interest at the time, from relatively greater use of
bargaining minutes in the 1980s to the early 1990s, to ethical codes
in the later 1990s and 2000s, and performance reports in the 2000s.
The use of Web site data is likely to increase with the massive expan-
sion of governmental Web sites.
Most important for our study, we were unable to find any research
in the field that applies content analysis to electoral programs. One
of the articles reviewed (Bertelli 2006) does make use of secondary
data drawn from content analysis of electoral programs. It measures
political party preferences toward quangos, drawing on a book manner, and adopts the principles and laws establishing autonomy
by Budge et al. (2001) that maps policy preferences. Ever since and decentralization. Implementation was delayed, and it was only
Lasswell, Leites, and Fadner (1949) pioneered the content analysis in the mid-1970s that 15 regions were established and started to act.
of electoral programs, this has become popular in political science Regional parliaments have been elected by popular vote ever since.
research and a common approach in this discipline. Political science Over the past 30 years, regional governments have grown in size and
even knows a “Manifesto Research Group” that created a coding scope in highly relevant policy domains such as health care, social
book, with standard categories used to code party election programs. services, housing, industrial development, professional education,
and, more recently, policing and education.
While electoral programs might not be the most obvious textual
input for public administration research, it is relevant for the field Since 2000, regions have been governed by a directly elected
insofar as electoral programs refer to public administration issues. A governor who chairs the regional cabinet, which is approved by the
similar argument can be made for several of the other textual sources regional parliament. In April 2005, citizens of 14 Italian regions
that we found in the public administration literature (table 1), such renewed regional councils and elected for the second time their
as prime minister’s speeches. We think that electoral programs can governors. In these regions, accounting for about 80 percent of the
be content-analyzed in a way to generate valuable data for pub- Italian population, all but two outgoing governors ran for a second
lic administration research as well. On the one hand, what-to-do mandate and were challenged by only one principal candidate.
arguments in public management rely on rhetorical power (Hood These 28 incumbents and challengers constitute our sample.
1998). On the other hand, political programs in particular provide
us with a view on whether the academic debate on certain public Methods
administration issues reflects interest in society. Electoral programs The first step of the analysis is to document whether NPM and
are widely available and can be expected to reflect a politician’s PG issues are present at all in the programs of each candidate. We
position regarding issues better than a single speech. They also tend collected the candidates’ political programs from their Web sites,
to contain less anti-opponent rhetoric and more policy intentions checking their official Web site twice: five and three weeks before
than verbal communications in the heat of upcoming elections. election day. At the first check, four incumbents’ programs were
Most importantly, political programs—at least to a certain extent— already available on the Internet compared to nine challengers’
reflect what citizens find important at a certain programs. Two weeks later, all candidates had
moment in time. Politicians are unlikely to their political programs available on their
refer to such issues in their programs if voters [A]t least to some degree, own Web sites, with the exception of two
are in fact totally ignorant of them. Candidates candidates who were running in different
electoral programs may well
choose the rhetorical campaign strategy that regions. Most of the candidates presented a
they believe will give them the best chance of communicate visions about the program that was intended as a formal docu-
winning the election, although there inevitably future of government actions ment stating their aims, principles, and plans.
will be a great deal of uncertainty associated that may mobilize resources Otherwise, in some cases, there were candi-
with this choice (Lau and Pomper 2002). So, inside and outside public dates who uploaded only a one-page docu-
when politicians refer to NPM or PG issues administration. ment containing highlights of their political
in their political programs, this reflects the plans on their own Web site. In these cases,
expected values of their political target groups. we considered these one-page documents
Furthermore, at least to some degree, electoral programs may well relevant for the analysis. We converted the 26 electoral programs
communicate visions about the future of government actions that into Microsoft Word documents.
may mobilize resources inside and outside public administration. As
far as politicians are true to their intentions (Pierson 2000), electoral Our next step was to read the programs and extract all sentences
programs thus provide us with a look into the potential future. that referred to any issue related to the management of government
organizations or to public (government) governance. A “sentence” is
Context defined as a unit of language having a subject, an object, and a verb.
Another advantage of our context is that Italian regional elections The end of each sentence is represented by a full stop. The extracted
held in 2005 contrasted two candidates who were part of either a sentences were collected in a grid including four columns: (1) NPM,
“center-left” or a “center-right” coalition. “Left” and “right” mean (2) PG, (3) uncertain, and (4) NPM and PG. Next, we analyzed this
very different things in different countries or even in different classification in order to reassign all of the sentences to NPM or PG.
places within one country. In our Italian context, the label “left” As a general rule, we classified in the NPM category sentences that
is attached to candidates who are part of a coalition that gener- concerned primarily the internal perspective of the organization,
ally favors relatively large government, promotes, social services while we privileged the other category when the focus was mainly
and tends to be supported by labor unions. “Right,” in our Italian on the relations between public organizations and its stakeholders.
context, refers to a coalition that is more pro-market and tends to Some of the sentences were eliminated, as they were considered not
be supported by relatively conservative elements of the Catholic to be substantially related to any of the two issues. Some others were
Church. put in one of the two columns if one of the two issues was promi-
nent relative to the other. Sentences were attributed to NPM when
Italian regions were granted a degree of autonomy in the 1948 they referred to internal operations and to efficiency criteria. Instead,
constitution, which recognizes and promotes local autonomy, they were referred to PG when they primarily concerned with inter-
ensures that services are provided in a maximally decentralized organizational relations and with decision-making processes.
222 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012
Table 2 Candidates’ Most Frequently Used Word Roots agreement. In a subsequent phase, sentences that were rated differ-
NPM PG
ently by the authors were reviewed jointly once again, one by one.
Slightly different operationalizations of the categories or simple
ROOT MEANING ROOT MEANING
typing errors during the classification process were the most com-
BUROCRA- Bureaucracy To COINVOL- To involve Participation
bureaucratize mon causes of first-stage disagreement. After the second stage, there
CONTROLL- To audit COLLABOR- To collaborate still remained about 2 percent disagreement, which indicates some
EFFICAC- Efficacy CONCERTA- Concerted action inherent ambiguity.
EFFICIE- Efficiency CONDIV- To share
INNOV- To reform CONSENS- Agreement
To renew
We then counted the number of words attributed to the two catego-
MODERN- To update INTESA Agreement ries reported in each document and calculated their relative frequen-
SEMPLIFIC- To simplify PARTECIP- To participate cies (number of designated words over total number of words). The
SNELL- To simplify PARTENAR- Partnership computing procedure was performed electronically and double-
To lean
TRASPAREN- Transparency RETE Network Net
checked. After aggregating these data, we compared the frequency of
words between coalitions and between challengers and incumbents.
Note: Root in Italian, meaning in English.
Overall, the most-used roots refer to bureaucracy, participation, and
In order to help researchers classify sentences, we prepared a list of network. In qualitative, contextual terms, the first term generally is
words that have direct relevance for NPM and PG issues. We used used to underscore the intention to move away from bureaucratic
the roots of these words as the element to be identified in the docu- procedures and behaviors. The other two mainly refer to the external
ments, as the root is the essential core of a word, from which all relationships of public organizations.
potential words based on that root can be derived. Table 2 shows the
relevant roots of the words that refer to public administration. Each To verify the reliability of our measure, all extracted sentences also
root was used to identify the phrases that were potential candidates were evaluated according to a different approach. The research team
for the grid (NPM and PG categories), but the final decision about was asked to rank these sentences using a scale ranging from 0 to 10.
the attribution to each category was made in accordance with the Zero was assigned to extracted sentences focusing exclusively on
meaning they have in the programs. NPM themes and 10 for sentences exclusively focusing on PG
issues. Intermediate values were expected to reflect a mix of contents
In order to control and limit the errors inherent in the subjective, between the two themes. Mean scores were used to test differences
judgmental process of classifying sentences, various measures between coalitions and between incumbents and challengers.
were taken. The task was first performed by each author working
independently. Discrepancy between the classifications performed Results
by the authors was 10 percent. Interrater reliability, measured Candidate characteristics are presented in the first four columns
by Cohen’s Kappa, amounts to 0.798. This suggests substantial in table 3. The table also presents the first results of the analysis:

Table 3 New Public Management and Public Governance in Electoral Programs

Incumbent/ Total Document Length Words Contained in Words Contained in % NPM
Candidate Coalition* Challenger** Winner*** (words) NPM Sentences % NPM PG Sentences % PG + PG
Abramo C-R I 0 31,186 1,456 4.67 399 1.28 5.95
Antichi C-R C 0 11,188 739 6.61 306 2.74 9.34
Bocchino C-R C 0 1,035 140 13.53 16 1.55 15.07
Fitto C-R I 0 17,385 369 2.12 298 1.71 3.84
Formigoni C-R I 1 15,545 994 6.39 369 2.37 8.77
Galan C-R I 1 4,900 106 2.16 298 6.08 8.24
Ghigo C-R I 0 13,449 116 0.86 317 2.36 3.22
Laffranco C-R C 0 18,090 707 3.91 655 3.62 7.53
Latronico C-R C 0 7,963 39 0.49 207 2.60 3.09
Massi C-R C 0 155 10 6.45 0 0.00 6.45
Monaco C-R C 0 2,003 103 5.14 76 3.79 8.94
Pace C-R I 0 2,951 119 4.03 140 4.74 8.78
Storace C-R I 0 4,471 869 19.44 103 2.30 21.74
Bassolino C-L I 1 572 65 11.36 30 5.24 16.61
Bresso C-L C 1 15,973 720 4.51 1,496 9.37 13.87
Burlando C-L C 1 3,565 0 0.00 182 5.11 5.11
Carraro C-L C 0 12,181 211 1.73 851 6.99 8.72
De Filippo C-L I 1 5,183 638 12.31 667 12.87 25.18
Errani C-L I 1 15,562 141 0.91 1,077 6.92 7.83
Loiero C-L C 1 30,335 1,211 3.99 2,912 9.60 13.59
Lorenzetti C-L I 1 15,670 400 2.55 1,352 8.63 11.18
Marrazzo C-L C 1 48,758 553 1.13 2,028 4.16 5.29
Martini C-L I 1 10,317 257 2.49 715 6.93 9.42
Sarfatti C-L C 0 21,912 552 2.52 211 0.96 3.48
Spacca C-L I 1 1,118 48 4.29 119 10.64 14.94
Vendola C-L C 1 16,662 676 4.06 574 3.44 7.50
*C-L = center-left, C-R = center-right. ** I = incumbent, C = challenger. *** 1 = yes, 0 = no.

Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate 223

the number of words in all candidate’s political programs and the
percentage referring to NPM and PG issues, respectively.
When aggregating all of the words in the documents (table 4), 8.1
percent of all words are embedded in either NPM or PG sentences.
NPM themes constitute a lower share of all words in the electoral
programs than PG themes (3.4 percent versus 4.7 percent).
Incumbents refer to NPM themes more frequently than challengers
(4.0 percent versus 3.0 percent), while the reverse is observed for
PG issues (4.3 percent versus 5.0 percent). Overall, challengers refer
more frequently to public administration issues (8.0 percent versus
8.3 percent). Although these differences appear modest, they are all
statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
More marked differences appear when the two center-left and
center-right candidates are compared. Candidates in the center-left
coalition refer more often to public administration themes (8.9
percent versus 6.9 percent) and refer to PG themes more than twice
as much compared to their center-right rivals (6.2 percent versus
2.4 percent). They prefer PG themes to NPM themes (6.2 percent
versus 2.8 percent). Center-right candidates prefer NPM themes to
PG themes (4.4 percent versus 2.4 percent), and, while they refer
less frequently to PG issues than the center-left coalition, they seem
to refer more to NPM issues (4.4 percent versus 2.8 percent). These
differences are supported statistically, with chi-square values well
beyond their critical value even at the 1 percent level.
While the foregoing results seem convincing, a potential criticism is
that programs with relatively many words have a disproportionate
impact. We calculated the mean percentages of words embedded in
NPM and PG sentences for our sample. The overall mean percent-
age of words embedded in both NPM and PG sentences is about
1.7 percent higher than when calculated as a rate of all, aggregated
programs: 9.8 percent. We can conclude from this that large docu-
ments contain relatively fewer references to NPM and PG issues.
Next, we move to the statistical analysis of differences between groups.
As we have no reason to believe variances within the subgroups
(incumbent versus challenger, center-left versus center-right) to be
equal, we apply a t-test for unequal variances using Stata 9.1. Results
suggest that the differences for NPM, and for public administration
issues in general, are too small to produce significant results in our
small sample (n = 26). Interestingly, PG is highly correlated with the
broad ideological background of the candidates. In particular, refer-
ence to PG is higher for the center-left coalition compared to the cent-
er-right coalition (p = .0002). Our choice to use a t-test for unequal
variances was justified, as indicated by the Satterthwait degrees of
freedom of 17.33. Differences for NPM were not significant. All of
these results were supported by jackknife estimations. This procedure
Table 4 Words Embedded in New Public Management and Public Governance
Sentences (percent of total)
NPM PG NPM&PG
Incumbent 4.0 4.3 8.3
Challenger 3.0 5.0 8.0
Center-left 2.8 6.2 8.9*
Center-right 4.4 2.4 6.9*
Total 3.4* 4.7* 8.1
*Discrepancies are attributable to rounding.
224 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012
Table 5 Results of Qualitative Analysis (scale 1–10, where 1 = only NPM themes
and 10 = only PG themes)
Incumbent Challenger Total
Center-right 4.3 3.6 3.9
Center-left 5.5 7.1 6.3
Total 4.9 5.5
takes into account potential biases. Correcting for the other independ-
ent variable (which we did not do in the previous categorical analysis),
whether the candidate was an incumbent, did not make much differ-
ence. Only after taking the average PG rates as the independent vari-
able, (M)ANOVA—with α = 5 percent—gave a significantly negative
coefficient for our incumbency dummy (p = .046), after an interaction
term was added. We find it important to triangulate our results by
using this range of statistical tests, as we felt unsure whether our data
would satisfy all assumptions of the different tests. Our worries were
mitigated by the fact that the estimations provide similar results.
Besides triangulation in terms of model use and level of analysis
(aggregate words versus candidate averages), we also contrast our
results with those obtained by the more qualitative approach. It
differs in two ways from the ones presented earlier. First, sentences
were used as the unit of analysis instead of words. Second, the
qualitative measure described in the method section was used. This
approach again shows PG issues to be more common than NPM
issues, especially among center-left candidates (table 5). While
the scores of challengers and incumbents reflect a similar attitude
toward NPM and PG themes, there is a marked difference in the
score between center-left and center-right candidates: for the former,
PG themes are prevalent (6.3), whereas for the latter, PM issues
prevail (3.9).
Discussion
The first thing to note is that both NPM and PG issues were promi-
nent in the political programs of the principal candidates for the
2005 regional Italian elections. While there is considerable variation
among individual politicians (words embedded in NPM and PG
sentences ranged from 3.09 percent to 25.18 percent among differ-
ent candidates), none of them ignores the issues. The fact that the
rate of words associated with NPM or PG is relatively high in short
documents highlights the tendency to dedicate at least some text to
these issues, regardless of the length of the program. As political pro-
grams tell us something about which issues are perceived to be rel-
evant to voters, both NPM and PG issues are alive in Italian society,
which usually characterized by its legislative, “Napoleonic” adminis-
trative tradition (Capano 2003; Mussari 1997; Ongaro 2006).
The measures we developed for NPM and PG reveal that both sets of
issues appear frequently in almost all candidates’ electoral programs.
Consequently, theoretical interest in the concepts seems to be
justified, not only in the Anglo-American part of the world, but also
in a country where NPM and PG rhetoric might be less obvious.
It is a legitimate concern that electoral programs might reflect
rhetorical claims typical for the right (decrease bureaucracy) or the
left (participation). Such rhetoric, it can be argued, may be presented
to attract certain categories of voters rather than to communicate a
clear orientation for future policy making. Nevertheless, rhetoric is
an essential element of political communication, as it concerns the
complex relations between expectations (by voters) and intentions faced some obstacles but overall proceeded smoothly. Obviously, this
(by prospective governors) in the fussy domain of electoral races. While is not sufficient to prove method validity. The article was not designed
electoral programs are highly rhetorical by nature, they are also an to validate content analysis techniques. Nevertheless, triangulation
essential element of the discourse on public administration. In addi- methods provide some evidence in this respect. For example, results
tion, the results are consistently in agreement for other concepts that of the quantitative and qualitative analysis were similar. By providing
are less apt to mobilize constituencies on traditional ideological claims. evidence that two different measurement systems (words count and
researchers’ rating) obtained similar results, we have produced evidence
Overall, PG themes are more popular than NPM themes. Politicians of criterion validity (Drucker-Godard, Ehlinger, and Grenier 2001).
prefer words such as “network” and “participation” to words such as
“efficiency” or “responsibility.” This seems to be partly attributable Conclusions
to the nature of political communication: PG issues are closer to the Our analysis contributes to the literature in multiple ways. First, it
act of voting than NPM ones. Also, as a way to increase the involve- shows that both NPM and PG issues are prominent even in political
ment of citizens in decision making, PG issues communication in a country that is character-
appear more beneficial in earning constituents’ ized by a legalistic administrative tradition.
Overall, PG themes are more
confidence. On the other hand, this provides Contrary to expectations, this is true even
some evidence for Andresani and Ferlie’s popular than NPM themes. for NPM, and, as expected, more so for PG.
(2006) suggestion that continental Europe is Politicians prefer words such as Second, we apply a newly developed, con-
more receptive to PG than to NPM. “network” and “participation” crete measure for NPM and PG issues. This
to words such as “efficiency” or is refreshing for often-discussed but little
Another observation concerns the nature of “responsibility.” measured sets of ideas, even though our meas-
NPM and PG. It has been contested that NPM ures can be challenged and improved. Third,
is a “paradigm” (Gow and Dufour 2000). A the fact that ideas with both NPM and PG
characteristic of paradigms is that if one sees issues from inside a par- backgrounds comfortably coexist in political programs of individual
ticular paradigm, it is hardly possible to see the world from any other candidates reinforces the view that it is more appropriate to approach
paradigmatic side (Kuhn 1962). The fact that all but two candidates NPM and PG as sets of ideas rather than paradigms. Fourth, we
in our sample used both NPM and PG terms supports Gow and investigated two factors that might play a role in relative reference to
Dufour’s claim that “paradigm” might be strong terminology for NPM and PG issues: whether the candidate is an incumbent and to
NPM and PG. the broad political stream that the candidate belongs to. As hypoth-
esized, statistical analysis suggests that mainly political ideology
Next we move to more specific, within-group differences. As matters, in particular for PG issues, with the center-left being more
expected, NPM seems more popular with the political right than inclined to refer to these. There is also some evidence that the center-
with the center-left coalition. The reverse right tends to refer more to NPM issues, but
holds true for PG. Scholars thus should be less to both issues overall. Being incumbent
cautioned not to generalize in cross-country As expected, NPM seems more proved less important in explaining variance
comparisons. Attention to within-country in NPM and PG usage. This provides some
complexities would provide a fuller picture.
popular with the political evidence that both NPM and PG issues are
The most-quoted terms by the two coali- right than with the center-left used by politicians as an expression of ideology
tions symbolize the difference. The center- coalition. rather than as an establishment-challenging
right candidate most often used the term tool. In general, these results show that
“bureaucracy,” generally used to stress a country-level reference to preference for PG
willingness to overcome the bureaucratic model. This reference is versus NPM issues tends to be overly simplified. Within-country
consistent with NPM ideas and jargon and reveals an inward focus. dynamics are complex and should not be ignored. Finally, and
The most quoted term by the other coalition was “participation.” perhaps most important, we showed how an underexplored method
Here the focus is on a term that, although generic, is very relevant can be a useful instrument in public administration research. This
in the debate about how to improve the governance of public article is one of the few quantitative content analysis contributions in
administrations. the field. It is remarkable that public administration research lags in
exploiting this method, especially because the public sector is charac-
In contrast to the ideological background of the candidates, being terized by relatively large textual output. Furthermore, to our knowl-
an incumbent or challenger does not show a clear pattern in differ- edge, this is the first time that political programs have been used for
ential reference to PG and NPM issues. This provides some evidence such content analysis in the field of public administration. We show
that both NPM and PG issues are used as an expression of ideology that such documents can provide highly relevant information to
rather than an establishment-challenging tool. It should be noted the field, reflecting resonance of public administration concepts in
that the first, ideological expressions, are more likely to be taken as society, complementing mainstream public administration research
serious plans concerning future direction than the second, which are with a focus on actual reforms. While exploring political discourse
more election rhetoric. on NPM and PG is important for public administration research, we
envisage that other types of public administration documents may
Methodologically, our results appear encouraging. The collection of be analyzed through content analysis as well. These include technical
material from the Internet, manipulation to make it electronically reports, strategic plans, circulars, directives, and texts presented on
usable, coding and classification procedures, and interpretation of data public administration Web sites.
Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate 225
References
Acevedo, Beatriz, and Richard Common. 2006. Governance and the Management
of Networks in the Public Sector: Drugs Policy in the United Kingdom
and the Case of Cannabis Reclassification. Public Management Review 8(3):
395–414.
Andresani, Gianluca, and Ewan Ferlie. 2006. Studying Governance within the British
Public Sector and Without: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Public
Management Review 8(3): 415–31.
Barzelay, Michael. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy
Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beierle, Thomas C., and David M. Konisky. 2000. Values, Conflict, and Trust in
Participatory Environmental Planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
19(4): 587–602.
Bertelli, Anthony M. 2006. Delegating to the Quango: Ex Ante and Ex Post Ministe-
rial Constraints. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administra-
tion 19(2): 229–49.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O’Leary. 2005. The New
Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in
the Work of Government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547–58.
Blake, Richard, Jill A. Grob, Donald H. Potenski, Phyllis Reed, and Pat Walsh. 1998.
The Nature and Scope of State Government Ethics Codes. Public Productivity
and Management Review 21(4): 453–59.
Bourgon, Jocelyne. 2007. Responsive, Responsible and Respected Government:
Towards a New Public Administration Theory. International Review of Adminis-
trative Sciences 73(1): 7–26.
Bovaird, Tony, and Elke Loeffler. 2002. Moving from Excellence Models of Local
Service Delivery to Benchmarking of “Good Local Governance.” International
Review of Administrative Sciences 68(1): 9–24.
Bryer, Thomas A. 2009. Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator
and Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review 69(2): 271–83.
Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric
Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and
Governments. New York: Oxford University Press.
Capano, Giliberto. 2003. Administrative Traditions and Policy Change: When Policy
Paradigms Matter. The Case of Italian Administrative Reform during the 1990s.
Public Administration 81(4): 781–801.
Carnevale, David G. 1993. Federal Service 2000: Staff Training and Labor–
Management Cooperation. International Journal of Public Administration
16(6): 865–89.
Cheung, Anthony B. L. 2005. What’s in a Pamphlet? Shortfalls and Paradoxical
Flaws in Hong Kong’s Performance Pledges. Public Management Review 7(3):
341–66.
Considine, Mark, and Jenny M. Lewis. 2003. Bureaucracy, Network or Enterprise?
Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and
New Zealand. Public Administration Review 63(2): 131–40.
Douglas, Joel M. 1987. Collective Bargaining and Public Sector Supervisors: A Trend
Toward Exclusion? Public Administration Review 47(6): 485–97.
Drucker-Godard, Carole, Sylvie Ehlinger, and Corinne Grenier. 2001. Validity and
Reliability. In Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, edited by
Raymond-Alain Thietart et al., 196–221. London: Sage Publications.
Drumaux, Anne, and Christophe Goethals. 2007. Strategic Management: A Tool for
Public Management? An Overview of the Belgian Federal Experience. Interna-
tional Journal of Public Sector Management 20(7): 638–54.
Dunn, Delmer D. 1988. The Impact of Administrative Behavior on Public Adminis-
tration Textbooks. Public Administration Quarterly 12(3): 369–84.
Duriau, Vincent J., Rhonda K. Reger, and Michael D. Pfarrer. 2007. A Content
Analysis of the Content Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research
Themes, Data Sources, and Methodological Refinements. Organizational
Research Methods 10(1): 5–34.
226 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012
Erakovic, Ljiljana, and Marie Wilson. 2006. The Interaction of Market and Technol-
ogy in Radical Transformation. The Case of Telecom New Zealand. International
Journal of Public Sector Management 19(5): 468–89.
Feldman, Martha S., and Anne M. Khademian. 2002. To Manage Is to Govern.
Public Administration Review 62(5): 541–54.
Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn Ashburner, Louise Fitzgerald, and Andrew Pettigrew. 1996. The
New Public Management in Action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ferlie, Ewan, and Louise Fitzgerald. 2002. The Sustainability of the New Public
Management in the U.K. In New Public Management: Current Trends and Future
Prospects, edited by Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P. Osborne, and Ewan Ferlie,
341–53. London: Routledge.
Gow, James I., and Caroline Dufour. 2000. Is the New Public Management a
Paradigm? Does It Matter? International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(4):
573–97.
Hall, Thad E. 2002. Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How People in Gov-
ernment Are Discussed on the Floor of the House. Public Administration Review
62(2): 242–51.
Hansen, Kasper M., and Niels Ejersbo. 2002. The Relationship between Politi-
cians and Administrators. A Logic of Disharmony. Public Administration 80(4):
733–50.
Higgins, Paul. 2005. Contemporary Public Library Provision in England: A Content
Analysis of the Highest and Lowest Scoring Inspection Reports. Public Policy and
Administration 20(4): 76–89.
Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administra-
tion 69(1): 3–19.
———. 1998. The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Houston, David J., and Lilliard E. Richardson. 2000. The Politics of Air Bag Safety:
A Competition Among Problem Definitions. Policy Studies Journal 28(3):
485–501.
Janowitz, Morris. 1969. Harold D. Lasswell’s Contribution to Content Analysis.
Public Opinion Quarterly 32(4): 646–53.
Jewell, Christopher, and Lisa Bero. 2007. Public Participation and Claimsmaking:
Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California’s Ergonomics
Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 625–50.
Jreisat, Jamil E. 1988. Administrative Reform in Developing Countries: A Compara-
tive Perspective. Public Administration and Development 8(1): 85–97.
Kapucu, Naim, Maria-Elena Augustin, and Vener Garayev. 2009. Interstate
Partnerships in Emergency Management: Emergency Management Assistance
Compact in Response to Catastrophic Disasters. Public Administration Review
69(2): 297–313.
Kettl, Donald F. 2002. The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for
Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kloot, Louise. 2009. Performance Measurement and Accountability in an Australian
Fire Service. International Journal of Public Sector Management 22(2): 128–45.
Kooiman, Jan, ed. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions.
London: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lasswell, Harold. D., Nathan Leites, and Raymond Fadner. 1949. Language of Politics
Studies in Quantitative Semantics. New York: George W. Stewart.
Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. 2002. Effectiveness of Negative Campaign-
ing in U.S. Senate Elections. American Journal of Political Sciences 46(1): 47–66.
Lim, Joon H., and Shui-Yan Tang. 2007. Urban E-Government Initiatives and
Environmental Decision Performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 18(1): 109–38.
Marcuccio, Manila, and Ileana Steccolini. 2009. Patterns of Voluntary Extended Per-
formance Reporting in Italian Local Authorities. International Journal of Public
Sector Management 22(2): 146–67.
McHenry, Dean E. 1986. Stability of the Federal System in Nigeria: Elite Attitudes
at the Constituent Assembly toward the Creation of New States. Publius 16(2):
91–111.
Metcalfe, Les, and Sue Richards. 1990. Improving Public Management. London: Sage
Publications.
Mussari, Riccardo. 1997. Autonomy Responsibility and New Public Management.
In International Perspectives on the New Public Management, edited by Lawrence
R. Jones and Kuno Schedler, 185–202. London: JAI Press.
Needham, Catherine. 2009. Policing with a Smile: Narratives of Consumerism in
New Labour’s Criminal Justice Policy. Public Administration 87(1): 97–116.
Newman, Janet. 2001. Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society.
London: Sage Publications.
———. 2002. The New Public Management, Modernization and Institutional
Change: Disruptions, Disjunctures and Dilemmas. In New Public Management:
Current Trends and Future Prospects, edited by Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P.
Osborne and Ewan Ferlie, 77–91. London: Routledge.
Ongaro, Edoardo. 2006. The Dynamics of Devolution Process in Legalistic Coun-
tries: Organizational Change in the Italian Public Sector. Public Administration
84(3): 737–70.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepre-
neurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Osborne, Stephen P. 2006. The New Public Governance? Public Management Review
8(3): 377–87.
Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed.
London: Sage Publications.
Penner, Erin, Kelly Blidook, and Stuart Soroka. 2006. Legislative Priorities and
Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of
Commons. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7): 1006–20.
Pierre, Jon, and B. Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate 227
Pierson, Paul. 2000. The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and
Change. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13(4):
475–99.
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
———. 2000. Governance and Public Administration. In Debating Governance:
Authority, Steering and Democracy, edited by Jon Pierre, 54–90. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Rittberger, Berthold, and Jeremy Richardson. 2003. Old Wine in New Bottles? The
Commission and the Use of Environmental Policy Instruments. Public Adminis-
tration 81(3): 575–606.
Schuh, Anna Marie, and Geralyn M. Miller. 2006. Maybe Wilson Was Right:
Espoused Values and Their Relationship to Enacted Values. International Journal
of Public Administration 29(9): 719–41.
Svensson, Göran, and Greg Wood. 2004. Codes of Ethics Best Practice in the
Swedish Public Sector: A PUBSEC-Scale. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 17(2): 178–95.
Van Kersbergen, Kees, and Frans van Waarden. 2004. Governance as a Bridge
between Disciplines: Cross-Disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in
Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy.
European Journal of Political Research 43(2): 143–71.
Walsh, Kieron, Vivien Lowndes, Kathryn Riley, and Jackie Woollam. 1996.
Management in the Public Sector: A Content Analysis of Journals. Public
Administration 74(2): 315–24.
Ward, Wesley, and Dirk Spennemann. 2000. Meeting Local Needs? Case Study
of a Communication Project in the Pacific Islands. Public Administration and
Development 20(3): 185–95.
Wright, Gillian H., and Andrew Taylor. 2005. Strategic Partnerships and
Relationship Marketing in Healthcare. Public Management Review
7(2): 203–24.
Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.