Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/977437?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review
The New Public Management has championed a vision of public managers as the entrepre-
neurs of a new, leaner, and increasingly privatized government, emulating not only the prac-
tices but also the values of business. Proponents of the New Public Management have devel-
oped their arguments largely through contrasts with the old public administration. In this com-
parison, the New Public Management will, of course, always win. We argue here that the
better contrast is with what we call the --New Public Service,' a movement built on work in
democratic citizenship, community and civil society, and organizational humanism and dis-
course theory. We suggest seven principles of the New Public Service, most notably that the
primary role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interests
rather than to attempt to control or steer society.
Public management has undergone a revolution. Rather focus on their responsibility to serve and empower citi-
than focusing on controlling bureaucracies and deliveringzens as they manage public organizations and implement
services, public administrators are responding to admon- public policy. In other words, with citizens at the forefront,
ishments to "steer rather than row," and to be the entrepre-the emphasis should not be placed on either steering or
neurs of a new, leaner, and increasingly privatized govern- rowing the governmental boat, but rather on building pub-
ment. As a result, a number of highly positive changes have lic institutions marked by integrity and responsiveness.
been implemented in the public sector (Osborne and Gaebler
1992; Osborne and Plastrik 1997; Kettl 1993; Kettl and
Robert B. Denhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona
Dilulio 1995; Kettl and Milward 1996; Lynn 1996). But as
State University and a visiting scholar at the University of Delaware. Dr.
the field of public administration has increasingly abandonedDenhardt is a past president of the American Society for Public Administra-
the idea of rowing and has accepted responsibility for steer-tion, and the founder and first chair of ASPA's National Campaign for Public
Service, an effort to assert the dignity and worth of public service across the
ing, has it simply traded one "adminicentric" view for an- nation. He is also a member of the National Academy of Public Administra-
other? Osborne and Gaebler write, "those who steer the boattion and a fellow of the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Dr.
Denhardt has published 14 books, including Theories of Public Organiza-
have far more power over its destination than those whotion, Public Administration: An Action Orientation, In the Shadow of Orga-
row it" (1992, 32). If that is the case, the shift from rowing nization, The Pursuit of Significance, Executive Leadership in the Public Ser-
vice, andThe Revitalization of the Public Service. He holds a doctorate from
to steering not only may have left administrators in charge the University of Kentucky. Email: rbd@asu.edu
of the boat-choosing its goals and directions and charting
Janet Vinzant Denhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Ari-
a path to achieve them-it may have given them more power zona State University. Her teaching and research interests lie primarily in or-
to do so. ganization theory andorganizationalbehavior. Herbook(with Lane Crothers),
Street-Level Leadership: Discretion and Legitimacy in Front-Line Public Service,
In our rush to steer, are we forgetting who owns the was recently published by the Georgetown University Press. In addition, Dr.
boat? In their recent book, Government Is Us (1998), KingDenhardt has published numerous articles in journals such as Administration
and Society, American Review of Public Administration, Public Productivity
and Stivers remind us of the obvious answer: The govern- and Management Review, and Public Administration Theory and Praxis. Prior
ment belongs to its citizens (see also Box 1998; Cooper to joining he faculty at Arizona State, Dr. Denhardt taught at Eastern Wash-
ington University and served in a variety of administrative and consulting po-
1991; King, Feltey, and O'Neill 1998; Stivers 1994a,b; sitions. She holds a doctorate from the University of Southern California. Email:
Thomas 1995). Accordingly, public administrators shouldjdenhardt@asu.edu
tion and neomanagerialism) that seek, at their core, to use son, the New Public Management will always win. We
would like to suggest instead that the New Public Man-
private-sector and business approaches in the public sec-
agement should be contrasted with what we term the "New
tor. While there have long been calls to "run government
Public Service," a set of ideas about the role of public ad-
like a business," the contemporary version of this debate
ministration in the governance system that places citizens
in this country was sparked in the 1990s by President
at the center.
Clinton's and Vice President Gore's initiative to "make
While there have been many challenges to the New
government work better and cost less." Modeled after con-
Public Management and many alternative ideas promi-
cepts and ideas promoted in Osborne and Gaebler's 1992
nently advanced by scholars and practitioners, there have
book Reinventing Government (as well as managerialist
been no attempts to organize these efforts and underscore
efforts in a variety of other countries, especially Great Brit-
their common themes. This article is an effort to do so.
ain and New Zealand), the Clinton administration cham-
First, it briefly summarizes the foundations and major ar-
pioned a variety of reforms and projects under the mantle
guments of the new public management as it contrasts with
of the National Performance Review. In part, what has dis-
the old public administration. It then describes an alterna-
tinguished these reforms and similar efforts at the state
tive normative model we call the "New Public Service."
and local level, from older versions of the run-government-
This new model further clarifies the debate by suggesting
like-a-business movement is that they involve more than
new ways of thinking about the strengths and weaknesses
just using the techniques of business. Rather, the New Pub-
of all three approaches. We conclude by considering the
lic Management has become a normative model, one sig-
implications of placing citizens, citizenship, and the pub-
naling a profound shift in how we think about the role of
lic interest at the forefront of a New Public Service.
public administrators, the nature of the profession, and how
and why we do what we do.
Yet many scholars and practitioners have continued to The New Public Management and the
express concerns about the New Public Management and Old Public Administration
the role for public managers this model suggests. For ex-
Over the past decade and a half, the New Public Man-
ample, in a recent Public Administration Review sympo-
agement (again, including the reinvention movement and
sium on leadership, democracy, and public management,
the new managerialism) has literally swept the nation and
a number of authors thoughtfully considered the opportu-
the world. The common theme in the myriad applications
nities and challenges presented by the New Public Man-
of these ideas has been the use of market mechanisms and
agement. Those challenging the New Public Management
terminology, in which the relationship between public agen-
in the symposium and elsewhere ask questions about the
cies and their customers is understood as based on self-
inherent contradictions in the movement (Fox 1996), the
interest, involving transactions similar to those occurring
values promoted by it (deLeon and Denhardt 2000;
in the marketplace. Public managers are urged to "steer,
Frederickson 1996; Schachter 1997); the tensions between
not row" their organizations, and they are challenged to
the emphasis on decentralization promoted in the market
find new and innovative ways to achieve results or to priva-
model and the need for coordination in the public sector
tize functions previously provided by government.
(Peters and Savoie 1996); the implied roles and relation-
In the past two decades, many public jurisdictions and
ships of the executive and legislative branches (Carroll and
agencies have initiated efforts to increase productivity
Lynn 1996); and the implications of the privatization move-
and to find alternative service-delivery mechanisms based
ment for democratic values and the public interest (McCabe
on public-choice assumptions and perspectives. Public
and Vinzant 1999). Others have suggested that public en-
managers have concentrated on accountability and high
trepreneurship and what Terry (1993, 1998) has called
performance and have sought to restructure bureaucratic
"neomanagerialism" threaten to undermine democratic and
agencies, redefine organizational missions, streamline
constitutional values such as fairness, justice, representa-
agency processes, and decentralize decision making. In
tion, and participation.
many cases, governments and government agencies have
We would like to suggest that, beyond these separate
succeeded in privatizing previously public functions,
critiques, what is missing is a set of organizing principles
holding top executives accountable for performance goals,
for an alternative to the New Public Management. We re-
establishing new processes for measuring productivity
ject the notion that the reinvented, market-oriented New
and effectiveness, and reengineering departmental sys-
Public Management should only be compared to the old
tems to reflect a strengthened commitment to account-
Assumed motivational basis of Pay and benefits, civil-service Entrepreneurial spirit, ideological Public service, desire to contribute
public servants and protections desire to reduce size of government to society.
administrators
unconstrained
service," or "no, we can't," the New Public Service sug- and authentic discourse concerning the di-
rection
gests that elected officials and public managers society
should re-should take. Based on these deliberations,
a broad-based
spond to the requests of citizens not just by saying yes or vision for the community, the state, or the
nationout
no, but by saying, "let's work together to figure can be established and provide a guiding set of ideas
what
we're going to do, then make it happen." In(or ideals) for
a world ofthe future. It is less important for this pro-
active citizenship, public officials will increasingly cess to result in a single set of goals than it is for it to
play
more than a service delivery role-they will play a con- engage administrators, politicians, and citizens in a pro-
ciliating, a mediating, or even an adjudicating cess of thinking
role. (Inci- about a desired future for their commu-
dentally, these new roles will require new skills-not nity and their nation.
the
old skills of management control, but new skills of In addition to its facilitating role, government also has
brokering, negotiating, and conflict resolution.) a moral obligation to assure solutions that are generated
2. The public interest is the aim, not the by-product. Publicthrough such processes are fully consistent with norms of
administrators must contribute to building a collective, justice and fairness. Government will act to facilitate the
shared notion of the public interest. The goal is not to solutions to public problems, but it will also be respon-
find quick solutions driven by individual choices. sible for assuring those solutions are consistent with the
Rather, it is the creation of shared interests and shared public interest-both in substance and in process. In other
responsibility. words, the role of government will become one of assur-
The New Public Service demands that the process ofing that the public interest predominates, that both the so-
establishing a vision for society is not something merely lutions themselves and the process by which solutions to
left to elected political leaders or appointed public admin-public problems are developed are consistent with demo-
istrators. Instead, the activity of establishing a vision orcratic norms of justice, fairness, and equity (Ingraham and
direction is something in which widespread public dialogue Ban 1988; Ingraham and Rosenbloom 1989).
and deliberation are central (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Luke In short, the public servant will take an active role in
1998; Stone 1988). The role of government will increas-creating arenas in which citizens, through discourse, can
ingly be to bring people together in settings that allow forarticulate shared values and develop a collective sense of