Suchergebnisse

Over recent decades, a number of managerial reform initiatives in continental Europe have aimed at moving away from the traditional Weberian model of public administration. Such shifting bases of legitimacy are brought about by changes in the institutional logics in place, which not only provide frames of reference but also social identities and vocabularies of motive for the actors in the field. In this article, we approach the expanding research on public service motivation (PSM) by employing an institutional prism. Based on an executive survey in a continental European context, we examine the assumption that high PSM is associated with the traditional ethos and social identity in the public sector. What we find is that a Weberian legalistic-bureaucratic logic supports neither a high attraction to policy-making nor a high level of compassion. A managerial orientation, on the other hand, entails significantly higher scores on these two dimensions, as well as on overall PSM. Adapted from the source document.

Over recent decades, a number of managerial reform initiatives in continental Europe have aimed at moving away from the traditional Weberian model of public administration. Such shifting bases of legitimacy are brought about by changes in the institutional logics in place, which not only provide frames of reference but also social identities and vocabularies of motive for the actors in the field. In this article, we approach the expanding research on public service motivation (PSM) by employing an institutional prism. Based on an executive survey in a continental European context, we examine the assumption that highPSMis associated with the traditional ethos and social identity in the public sector. What we find is that a Weberian legalistic‐bureaucratic logic supports neither a high attraction to policy‐making nor a high level of compassion. A managerial orientation, on the other hand, entails significantly higher scores on these two dimensions, as well as on overallPSM.

__Abstract__ Performance management has permeated public sector organizations worldwide over the last decades. At its core is the idea of using such information for decision making in a systematic form. Externally, performance information can be used to showcase performance, to give account, or to compare and benchmark. Internally, it can be used to monitor internal developments or to improve operations. A link between performance measurement and the use of this information in decision making is often assumed. Yet, until recently, the actual use of performance information was not very high on the public management research agenda. It is now a common observation that governments have invested substantially in collecting data, yet know relatively little about what drives performance information use.

Infrastructure only tends to be noticed when it is absent, declining, or decrepit, or when enormous cost overruns, time delays, or citizen protests make the headlines. If infrastructure is indeed a fundamental driver of economic growth and social development, why is it so difficult to get right? In addressing this perennial question, this volume-the fourth edition in an annual series tackling different aspects of governance around the world-makes the case for a governance perspective on infrastructure. This implies moving beyond rational economic analysis of what should be done towards an analysis of the political, institutional, and societal mechanisms that shape decision-making about infrastructure investment, planning, and implementation. Engaging with theories from sociology, political science, and public administration, and drawing on empirical analyses bridging OECD and non-OECD countries, the contributions to this volume dissect the logics of infrastructure governance in a novel way, providing timely analyses that will enrich both scholarly and policy debates about how to get infrastructure governance right

Management tools are often argued to ameliorate public service performance. Indeed, evidence has emerged to support positive outcomes related to the use of management tools in a variety of public sector settings. Despite these positive outcomes, there is wide variation in the extent to which public organizations use management tools. Drawing on normative isomorphism and contingency theory, this article investigates the determinants of both organization‐oriented and client‐oriented management tool use by top public sector executives. The hypotheses are tested using data from a large‐N survey of 4,533 central government executives in 18 European countries. Country and sector fixed‐effects ordinary least squares regression models indicate that contingency theory matters more than normative isomorphism. Public executives working in organizations that are bigger and have goal clarity and executive status are more likely to use management tools. The only normative pressure that has a positive impact on management tool use is whether public sector executives have a top hierarchical position.

Abstract. This paper analyses determinants of public managers´ internal and external use of performance information. Using a sample of over 3100 top public sector executives in six European countries, we find evidence for significant country variations, with a more limited use of performance information in France and Germany. It was also found that the use of performance information is mainly determined by organizational factors rather than managers' individual socio-demographic characteristics. The analysis also found considerable differences in patterns of use between policy fields and a lower use of performance indicators in central government ministries. Finally, the implementation of performance management instruments in an organization has an overall strong effect on the actual use of performance information.

Cet article évalue la perception, par les hauts responsables du secteur public, de l'impact des réformes de type « nouvelle gestion publique » dans les pays européens. À partir des données d'une enquête menée dans 20 pays européens, nous examinons le lien entre cinq importantes réformes mises en œuvre dans le cadre de la nouvelle gestion publique (réduction des effectifs, création d'agences, externalisation, orientation client et adoption de pratiques d'emploi flexibles) et quatre aspects de la performance du secteur public : coûts et efficience, qualité des services, cohérence et coordination de l'action publique, et égalité d'accès aux services. La modélisation par équations structurelles révèle que l'assimilation des usagers des services à des clients et la flexibilité de l'emploi sont positivement corrélées à l'amélioration de ces quatre aspects de la performance. L'externalisation et la réduction des effectifs sont toutes deux positivement corrélées à l'amélioration de l'efficacité, mais la réduction des effectifs est également associée à une baisse de la qualité des services. Il n'existe pas de lien entre la création d'agences autonomes et la performance. Cela permet de penser que les décideurs qui entendent moderniser le secteur public doivent accorder la priorité aux réformes managériales au sein des administrations publiques plutôt qu'aux transformations d'ordre structurel. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Cet article apporte aux praticiens un éclairage approfondi sur la manière dont les hauts responsables du secteur public perçoivent l'impact des réformes de type « nouvelle gestion publique » sur un certain nombre d'aspects de la performance. Il leur permet de mieux appréhender la relation entre les stratégies de réformes et leurs résultats dans l'administration européenne et de comparer leurs expériences à celles des hauts responsables d'autres pays.

__Abstract__ Like most other areas of the world, the public sector in Europe has undergone significant reform in the past two decades, shaped in part by a broader New Public Management (NPM) paradigm, but one that also introduces a unique European flavour to this form of public management. Whilst NPM and public administration in Europe shares similarities with other cases, the added complexity of differing starting points and the EU layer provide interesting insight into the nature of public administration. This chapter will draw on a large-scale survey of top European executives in central government, in order to develop a comprehensive picture of the perceptions of NPM reforms and their effects over the last five years. Focusing on a cross-selection of EU countries (plus Norway),2 the chapter will present findings about choice of policy instruments, relevance of different reform trends and their general success and impact within the case countries. The chapter will first provide a general overview of the state of the public sector in the European countries under study before turning to how the public sector and its reform are perceived by top executives. This will focus on key trends in the public sector in terms of both NPM and post-NPM reforms, including usage of different policy instruments and the prevalence of trends regarding issues such as transparency, cooperation, digital/e-government, downsizing, red tape, citizen participation, contracting out and others. The chapter will look at the importance of these trends in the various case countries and across Europe before examining the nature of these reforms. Finally, the perceived success and overall impact of these reforms will be assessed, along with a brief examination of the impacts of the fiscal crisis on reforms in Europe. Throughout, the chapter will explore convergences and divergences in these issues across the European countries under study, before providing some conclusions about the state of the public sector, its reform and prospects for its future.

__Abstract__ The COCOPS project takes a holistic approach to studying the present and future of public sector reform, coordination and cohesion in European public administrations. Through a meta-analysis of literature on New Public Management (NPM) reforms and an assessment of how these relate to the role and scope of the public sector, the project examines the state of the art in existing research. Large-scale surveys and interviews of different actors in the public sector – top public sector executives, academics, public sector trade unions and consultants – allowed COCOPS researchers to assess the current state of the public sector in selected countries and Europe as a whole. This was coupled with in-depth analyses of certain reform-related trends such as citizen choice, voice and satisfaction with public services, social cohesion and the effects of the financial crisis. Finally, these strands of research were brought together to paint a comprehensive picture of the public sector in Europe and to develop scenarios and opportunities for the future of the public sector.

__Abstract__ Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future (COCOPS), as one of the largest comparative public management research projects in Europe, intends to provide a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing the European public sector of the future and to systematically explore the impact of New Public Management (NPM)-style reforms in Europe. The project brings together public administration scholars from eleven universities in ten countries1 and is funded as part of the European Union's 7th Framework Programme; it runs from January 2011 until June 2014.2 The research is comparative and evidence-based, drawing on both existing data and innovative new quantitative and qualitative data collection. A cornerstone of the project is the COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe, an original survey of public sector senior executives in ten European countries, and currently the largest of its kind implemented in Europe. The survey explores the executives' perceptions, experiences and opinions with regard to their work context and public administrative reforms and the impact of these factors on public sector performance more generally; particular attention is given to the employment and health policy sectors.

__Abstract__ Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future (COCOPS), as one of the largest comparative public management research projects in Europe, intends to provide a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing the European public sector of the future and to systematically explore the impact of New Public Management (NPM)-style reforms in Europe. The project brings together public administration scholars from eleven universities in ten countries1 and is funded as part of the European Union's 7th Framework Programme; it runs from January 2011 until June 2014. The research is comparative and evidence-based, drawing on both existing data and innovative new quantitative and qualitative data collection. A cornerstone of the project is the COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe, an original survey of public sector senior executives in ten European countries, and currently the largest of its kind implemented in Europe. The survey explores the executives' perceptions, experiences and opinions with regard to their work context and public administrative reforms and the impact of these factors on public sector performance more generally; particular attention is given to the employment and health policy sectors.