Prior to the reform efforts of the 1980s, a large number of post-colonial nations relied

heavily on the doctrines of Development Administration (DA). Development Administration

came into use in the 1950s to represent those aspects of public administration and those
changes in public administration, which are needed to carry out policies, projects, and
programs to improve social and economic conditions (Gant, 2006). An instrumental means
for defining, consolidating, and implementing national goals in developing countries, DA
emerged shortly after the Second World War (Minocha, 1983). Furthermore, the core
philosophy of DA was strict adherence to laid down rules and hierarchy. However, according
to Ohemeng, Development Administration limited the role of the state to that of a passive
overseer of law and order in the comfort of laid down principals (2017).
Based on the Principle Agent theory, New Public Management (NPM) perspectives evolved
simultaneously, since at least the mid-1970s. In the PA-theory, the principal is an actor that
may represent a certain interest – for example the public interest. The agent is another
actor that is supposed to carry out some action or actions for the principal – for example
provide some public services. However, sometimes the agent resorts to pursuit of his or her
self-interest instead of the interest that the principal had in mind. This is also known as the
“agency” problem.
During the 1980s many countries worldwide attempted to reform their public bureaucracies
by replacing the traditional system of Public Administration with what Hood (1991)
commonly referred to as New Public Management. The ideological justifications for
introducing NPM was based on the doctrines of the 'new right' which placed increasing
reliance on market forces and a reduced role for the state. The primary goal of NPM was to
transform the traditional public administration in order to develop a more efficient, more
adaptive and because of that a more effective operation. According to the supporters of the
NPM, market coordination – in the decisive majority of the cases – is more capable of an
effective allocation than bureaucratic coordination. Moreover, NPM placed greater
emphasis on the stronger application of proven management techniques and can be linked
to the conservative, neo-liberal economic movement (Pollitt, 1993). The main thrust of NPM
reforms has been, de facto, that market and network forms of co-ordination – especially
market forms – should wherever possible be substituted for hierarchical co-ordination.”
(Bouckaert, 2000). The introduction of NPM was thus a universal movement which
emphasized competition between service providers, a new mix of reform involving state and
market, decentralization, freedom of choice to citizens and new managers who were "free
to manage" (Aucoin 1990).
The main tenets of NPM included organizational restructuring by way of delegation of
responsibility and the reduction of political hierarchy, which is manifested through flexible
managerial roles. A second tenet of NPM is management instruments that are output-
orientated and emphasize efficiency by establishing performance agreements and
standards. An example of an output-orientated instrument is performance-related pay.
Budgetary reforms enacted by closer private sector financial instruments and regulation is
another feature of NPM. NPM also promotes participation, which refers to the involvement
of the citizens of a country in planning and decision making. The penultimate tenet of NPM
is customer orientation and quality management. Proponents of this theory suggests that
the state gain legitimacy in service delivery through re-engineering and innovation of
processes. The final feature of NPM is marketization and privatization that is realized by
reducing the public sector by way of budget cuts and retrenchment. The theory purports
that efficiency gains can be achieved through competition, private partnerships, and
contracting out processes too costly to accomplish locally.
NPM gave rise to the widely used and celebrated phrase ‘steer instead of row’, which was
borrowed by the PNM during the privatization of approximately thirty state-owned
enterprises in the 1990s. According to Osborne and Gaebler, the private provision of public
services is what enables government’s role to change from steering to rowing (1992).
However, NPM is criticized in the public debate for providing perverse incentive structures,
overwhelming and ineffective evaluation structures, a dehumanizing work environment, and
for deprofessionalizing a number of occupations in the health, education, research and
administration sectors.

Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles,

Paradoxes and Pendulums. Governance, 3(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0491.1990.tb00111.x

Ohemeng, F. L. (2017). Development Administration. Global Encyclopedia of Public

Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-31816-5_934-1

Pollitt, C. [1993]: Occasional Excursions: A Brief History of Policy Evaluation in the UK.
Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 46., No. 3., pp. 353-362.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, Vol. 69., No.
1., pp. 3-19.

Minocha.O.P. (ed),: Advanced Development Administration for the Executives of

Government of Gujrat,January24 to February 5, 1983 P.6