Reforming the nations: a global study of the Need for Future Managerial Reforms in public administration

Abstract

This study deals with the Need for Future Managerial Reforms (NFMR) in public administration as perceived by university professors from around the globe. We explore and validate a new NFMR scale based on traditional principles of the New Public Management (NPM) doctrine (e.g. downsizing government, debureaucratization, decentralization, managerialism, and privatization). We also propose a global professional selection (GPS) approach to the study of need for future managerial reforms, validating it with a theoretical model, eight propositions, and four hypotheses. According to the model, managerial quality, satisfaction with public services, trust in public services and NFMR are mutually related but should be considered within the cultural dimensions of each nation. Using data from a sample of 2995 faculty members in 191 major universities from 45 nations, we demonstrate the validity of the NFMR scale and of several direct and indirect hypotheses based on the theoretical model, as well as the advantage of the GPS-controlled mediating model over a simple mediating model. The findings are discussed theoretically and practically, with their implications for the study of future NPM-style reforms and the recent trends in modern governance.

Points for practitioners

This study suggests that greater calls for managerial reforms, especially from the knowledgeable community, are valuable inputs that should be heard and echoed in government halls. Improving managerial quality may reduce calls for managerial reforms. Public managers should invest in increasing citizens’ satisfaction and trust as they reduce pressures on policy makers to initiate expensive reforms. Cross-country transitions of lessons and knowledge about managerial reforms should be carried out with caution as values and traditions affect the type of required reforms and their meaning for the public.

Keywords

global study managerial quality managerial reforms NPM satisfaction trust

Introduction

In recent decades, and especially with the rise (and decline?) of the New Public Management (NPM) approach, reforms in public administration and in the public sector have been the subject of many studies (e.g. De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Rieder and Lehmann, 2004). Questions about the antecedents of reforms, the planning of successful programs, the factors that might affect these reforms and their potential outcomes became major topics for theoretical debate and practical dilemmas. Today these questions are more relevant than ever in an innovation-seeking governmental arena and for those scholars and practitioners who try to foresee the next steps in the study of the discipline. Specific knowledge about reforms in public domains has grown both theoretically and practically (Curry, 2014), and one of the major issues has been the future of managerial reforms and their potential impact on good governance globally. Nevertheless, most of these efforts have explored specific case studies and the regional uniqueness of markets and programs. This approach has yielded only a partial understanding of the field with little global context.

This study seeks to fill a gap in the literature about public sector reforms in numerous ways. First, we devise and validate a scale for measuring the Need for Future Managerial Reforms (NFMR) based on several consensual principles of the NPM approach. Next, we develop a theoretical model and a set of hypotheses that examine correlates with NFMR. Finally, we derive implications with a closer eye on global differences among knowledgeable respondents from different cultures. These implications build on the rationale that nations and cultures differ in their approach to such changes (e.g. Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Raadscelders and Vigoda-Gadot, 2015) and that a GPS (global professional selection) approach is useful to the study of NFMR.

Managerial reforms in public administration: the state of the art

A reform in public administration refers to a major change, redesign, reconstruction or transformation of ideas, programs, tools and methods that may help foster a new approach to dealing with old or new problems facing the public sector (Askim et al., 2010; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Rieder and Lehmann, 2004). Studies have previously suggested that reforms involve a considerable shift in the government’s tendency to use public money or a change in structures or programs that no longer function properly or serve the national needs (De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Ha, 2004). Managerial reforms thus refer to changes that stem from the overall assessment of organizational or management capacities such as human resources and the human capital of bureaucracies as a strong vehicle for other changes in public policy (Bourgault and Van Dorpe, 2013).

But what do we really know about the state of the art of managerial reforms in public administration, about expectations from reforms, and about our ability to explain them in concrete, testable models? What are the available tools to measure managerial reforms empirically and look at them from a global viewpoint? In fact, we know very little, and there are very few such tools. According to the ISI web of knowledge¹ we found only 18 studies that argued for the need to conduct comparative research on managerial or NPM reforms in a global context of two or more countries (and no evidence for a meta-analysis on the topic). Among the most cited articles on the topic there was almost no evidence of a useful holistic scale for measuring managerial reforms.

Thus, our knowledge about managerial reforms is significant but also limited to a rather narrow scope and scale. Despite the prevalence of NPM discourse, only a few extensive global evaluations and empirical assessments of managerial and NPM-style reforms are reported in the literature. Global studies about the need for reforms are also missing. To date, most studies have focused on specific elements of NPM such as privatization or managerialism, and have used relatively small samples, most of which were national case studies or with a limited comparative agenda (e.g. Gualmini, 2008; Hansen, 2005). Overall, the studies concluded that decisions and the role of public administration are subject to the countries’ specific political, constitutional and cultural framework (Bouckaert et al., 2005; Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014). Hence, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ recommendation or generalization for managerial reforms, and such reforms are often custom-made solutions for each country separately, addressing its specific needs and challenges (Nemec, 2010).

Most studies also agree that the perspectives of external observers such as citizens or professional experts are important for leaning on reforms dynamics (e.g. Park and Joaquin, 2012; Vigoda-Gadot and Meiri, 2008). Past studies have focused on the views of public servants (Worrall et al., 2000), or on political and governmental data (Bouckaert et al., 2005). However, external observers may not be well informed about ongoing and future reforms. They generally rely on mass media sources that seem questionable and less accurate than factual information (Ladd, 2012). Engaging them in the evaluation of managerial reforms requires a tremendous effort by governments that are not willing to invest this effort (Weeks, 2000). However, this perspective has its advantages. Research shows that it adds value to the evaluation process and provides policy decision makers with better information about the needs of the people. This may allow governments to adjust policies in order to increase the satisfaction of end-users (Van Ryzin et al., 2004).

Moving from local to global and from past to future: hypotheses and model

Studies on managerial reforms have so far focused primarily on specific national contexts (e.g. Morgeson and Petrescu, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot and Mizrahi, 2008) and on past reforms with almost no global perspective. The examination of cross-national theories and the focus on future needed reforms is much less prevalent despite its potential contribution to the formation of new reforms and changes in the public sector (Ariely and Davidov, 2011; Bouckaert et al., 2005; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2010). Moreover, the success of managerial reforms should be measured not only by efficiency and outputs (which may or may not be measurable), but also in the desire of the public and experts to see further reforms or the lack of such desire, which implies that the goals of past reforms have been achieved or, alternatively, have been neglected. We argue that the perceptions of external stakeholders in the public arena are important in shaping actual outcomes of managerial reforms as they may reinforce the psychological atmosphere around it and set the stage for future changes in the cognitive sense of policy making. Based on this argument, it is important to extend our knowledge about expectations for future reforms (Kelly and Swindell, 2002; Lau, 2000), especially in a global and cross-national context. This is exactly the goal of our study. Thus, the next steps will be to suggest a scale of NFMR and a set of hypotheses that may explain it across cultures.

The literature about managerial reforms in the public sector usually takes a retrospective view, looking at past reforms and assessing their quality and impact on the organizations, on various types of services to citizens, and on the bureaucracy as a whole (Andersen, 2008; Bellé and Ongaro, 2014; Bourgault and Van Dorpe, 2013; Hansen, 2005; Jilke, 2015). Yet assessment of the need for future managerial reforms seems missing. We therefore propose a scale that is based on two major pillars. First, we suggest looking at specific public services that represent the core actions of government, those in the areas of (1) law enforcement agencies, (2) social welfare, (3) the environment, (4) public health, (5) public education, and (6) the state treasury and tax systems. In each of these sectors we focus on five core dimensions of managerial reforms: (1) downsizing government, (2) decentralization, (3) de-bureaucratization, (4) managerialism, and (5) privatization. We then constructed five statements reflecting each of these core dimensions and asked respondents to what degree they thought that changes were needed, in each public service. We expected that the new scale meets acceptable standards of validity and reliability, based on statistical analysis and acceptable reliability tests. The first hypothesis is thus:

H1: The proposed Need for Future Managerial Reforms (NFMR) scale will be valid and reliable.

We further expect that perceived managerial quality (MQ) affects the need for future managerial reforms (NFMR). In general, the better the perception of MQ, the fewer the expected calls for managerial reform, because people see no need to change systems that are functioning well. This impact may be direct or mediated by the respondents’ satisfaction with public services. It may also be affected by the global setting of cultural inputs such as the norms, values and traditions of the specific administrative environment (Painter and Peters, 2010). In addition, citizens’ trust in administrative and governmental institutions should be carefully analyzed for its role.

The rationale for this relationship builds on the idea that accepting change and becoming more engaged in politics is encouraged in times of crisis or difficulties (e.g. Hirschman, 1970). Furthermore, principal–agent theory (Lane, 2005) and social exchange theory (Vroom, 1964) suggest that actors in a relationship, be it principals or agents, administrators or citizens, expect to receive something from what they contribute to the relationship. Hence, administrators adopt a more favorable view on the citizens’ needs and values, and in return receive their legitimacy (Ledingham, 2001). The greater the criticism targeted at managerial quality, the less the satisfaction with and trust in public services and the greater the need for managerial reforms. Lau (2000) suggested that citizens are best at judging the quality of management reflected in government action, so they are also capable of indicating whether a reform in one sector is required and to what degree. If vox populi vox dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God), then listening to the voice of the people, especially the voice of knowledgeable people, is a crucial method for determining need for managerial reforms (Yang, 2007). In addition a meta-analysis by Andrews et al. (2011) found that the quality of public management positively affects performance indicators (internal objective or perceptional survey-based) in government. Finally, previous studies have found that management plays a major role in its effect on citizens’ satisfaction with and trust in public services (e.g. Van Ryzin et al., 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Research has also shown that perceived organizational politics, unethical behavior, and the illegitimate use of government resources increase citizens' suspicions about bureaucratic decisions, and eventually reduce satisfaction and trust in government (Villoria et al., 2013). In the same vein, Pandey and Scott (2002) and the recent experimental work of Tummers et al. (2015) suggests that red tape also has a strong negative effect on citizen satisfaction. Thus, we posit H2 and H3 to suggest that NFMR may be affected by a series of such variables testifying to the managerial quality in each cultural environment.

H2: NFMR will be strongly related with various facets of perceptions of managerial quality (MQ). It will be positively related with perceptions of organizational politics (OP) and with perceptions of red tape (RT). It will be negatively related with the quality of public personnel (QP) and with innovation and creativity (INN).

H3: NFMR will be negatively related with satisfaction with public services (SAT) and with trust in public service (TRS).

As suggested earlier, we also build on the global professional selection (GPS) approach, arguing that NFMR is subject to the cultural preferences and norms in a specific nation. Thus, we expect that a model lacking a GPS construct will be significantly inferior to a similar model that takes GPS into account. The rationale for this argument builds on a growing number of comparative studies in public administration (Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot, 2015) that point to cultural variations in response to government initiatives and reforms. The fact that various countries have implemented NPM-style reforms over the years with different levels of success supports this argument. Thus, citizens’ perceptions are largely subjective and are strongly affected by the norms and values of their nation/culture. Hence we propose our final hypothesis and the overall theoretical models (Figure 1) as follows:

H4: Global professional selection (GPS) will have a significant effect on NFMR. A mediating model (MQ→SAT→NFMR) that includes GPS will be superior to a similar indirect model that excludes GPS.

Figure 1.

Global examination of the need for future managerial reforms (NFMR) in public administration: Model and hypotheses.

Method

Sample and the GPS approach

The sample is based on academic scholars in major universities and nations across the globe. We focus on this group as representing valuable scientific knowledge that may have a serious influence on public opinion, on bureaucrats and on policy makers who may be involved in future public sector reforms. Previous studies (Mintzberg, 1979; Valenzuela, 2009) have highlighted the fact that intellectual and professional capacities such as and previous knowledge, skills, and unique competencies affect bureaucrats’ and managers’ decisions. We argue that professors are probably among the better informed citizens and therefore an interesting sample group. Moreover, such a sample may add to the representativeness of views on policy and reforms and to the generalizability of this and other research findings. While the general public usually relies on external, non-scientific sources of information when forming opinions on current policy issues, academics and scientists may base their opinions on closer familiarity with objective data. Our approach builds on Groot and Budding (2008) who used a fairly similar method to study NPM reforms by surveying a group of 105 practitioners who were actively involved in the Dutch and Belgium governments.

Hence, over a six-month period in 2014 we developed an extensive database of more than 150,000 e-mail addresses of professors from top universities in 45 nations.² We relied on the official Internet websites of the 5–10 leading academic institutions in each nation. The selection of the leading universities was based on the Shanghai ranking for universities worldwide (http://www.shanghairanking.com/). This approach is defined hereafter as the GPS method for looking globally at professional individuals and institutions. The invited participants came from all disciplines with a focus on public policy and administration (40 percent of the total sample were scholars from the social sciences, policy studies, politics and management). Although this method presents several challenges such as potential selection bias, we believe it has advantages that outweigh those limitations.

During November 2014 and February 2015 we conducted the first wave of the sampling, followed by two additional waves encouraging late respondents to complete the survey. An email with our request to participate in the study, including a direct link to a website where the research questionnaire was available (the link is available directly from the authors), was distributed. A total of 2995 completed responses were used in our final analysis (completion rate =66.3 percent based on the ratio between completed returned questionnaires and the number of receivers who opened our email and looked at the questionnaire; see Vicente and Reis, 2010). Final demographics included 45 nations, 191 universities, 25 disciplines, and 66 percent men. Average age was 52.54 years (SD = 13.08).

Variables and data analysis

Details on the variables are presented in Appendix 1.³ The analysis involved exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, correlation and regression analysis, as well as a bootstrap analysis with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Findings

Testing the NFMR scale

Several approaches were used for testing H1. First, 10 public administration scholars suggested improvements for the scales. Next, we conducted a pilot study of 314 other academics that completed our questionnaire. Based on their answers, we revised the scales again and these were used in our study. Moreover, EFA and CFA were performed for the NFMR scale. It yielded support to a five-factor model of NFMR, with internal reliabilities greater than α = .90 for each factor and a total explained variance of 72.24 percent.

Figure 2 depicts a CFA of all of the observed items using SEM. The two-stage, five-factor model was again supported with a good-fit model and acceptable fit indices (CFI = .92; NFI = .915; RMSEA = .068; SRMR = .047). Path coefficients were all significant, with the most notable values of .85 for privatization, .80 for managerialism, and .77 for downsizing. The coefficients for decentralization and debureaucratization were somewhat lower but still significant (.42 and .31, respectively). Based on these findings we concluded that H1 is quite strongly supported and that the NFMR scale is valid and reliable, justifying further analysis.

Figure 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Need for Reforms Scale (standardized estimates).

Multivariate analysis and global reflections

Tables 1–2 present an analysis of the revised theoretical model, with an emphasis on H2 and H3, and a preliminary examination of H4. First, based on Table 1 we found encouraging zero-order correlations among the research variables. NFMR was significantly and quite strongly related with all of the MQ facets, that is OP, QP, INN and RT (r = .35; p<.001, r = −.29; p<.001, r = −.26; p<.001, r = .30; p<.001, respectively). These findings provide strong support for H2. In addition, satisfaction with public services (SAT) was negatively and quite strongly related with NFMR, and positively related with trust in public services (r = −.20 and; p<.001, r = .76 respectively), supporting H3. Finally, in most cases, facets of GPS (national and cultural origin) were related with NFMR. With the exception of Germanic respondents and respondents from post-colonial nations/cultures (e.g. India and Israel), the GPS factor demonstrated a relationship with NFMR for Anglo-American respondents, East Asian respondents, Latin American respondents, Napoleonic respondents and Scandinavian respondents (r = −.13; p<.001, r = .11; p<.001, r = .14; p<.001, r = .14; p<.001, r = −.14; p<.001, respectively). Finally, with the exception of the strong correlation between SAT and TRS that is very typical and well documented in the literature, the lack of significant strong correlations (r<.59) among all of the research variables testifies to the lack of multicollinearity in the model. An additional correlation analysis of the NPM sub-scales found that downsizing, decentralization, debureaucratization, managerialism and privatizations are all related in the eyes of the respondents, who regarded them as aspects of the puzzle of NPM reforms. The correlations were strong and significant (.22<r<.63; p<.001) but still indicate a lack of multicollinearity.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations and reliabilities for the research variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Need for Managerial Reforms (NFMR)	2.63	.70	(.75)
Satisfaction (SAT)	3.15	.89	−.20***	(.85)
Trust (TRS)	3.20	.80	−.24***	.76***	(.85)
MQ:
Organizational politics (OP)	2.80	1.03	.35***	−.49***	−.54***	(.81)
Quality of public personnel (QP)	2.86	.82	−.29***	.45***	.50***	−.51***	(.75)
Innovation (INN)	2.91	.88	−.26***	.53***	.54***	−.51***	.59***	(.64)
Red tape (RT)	3.86	.79	.30***	−.30***	−.31***	.38***	−.32***	−.36***	(.63)
GPS:
Anglo-American	–	–	−.13***	.07***	.08***	−.14***	.12***	.16***	−.11***	(––)
East Asian	–	–	.11***	−.03	−.03	.06***	−.03	−.03	.003	−.08***	(––)
Germanic	–	–	.02	.11***	.07***	−.04*	.01	.05*	.01	−.22***	.04*	(––)
Latin American	–	–	.14***	−.28***	−.29***	.19***	−.15***	−.17***	.09***	−.17***	−.03	−.08***	(––)
Napoleonic	–	–	.14***	−.17***	−.17	.20***	−.11***	−.24***	.22***	−.34***	−.06***	−.15***	−.12***	(––)
Post-colonial	–	–	.02	−.16***	−.15***	.18***	−.22***	−.15***	.11***	−.28***	−.05**	−.13***	−.10***	−.20***	(––)
Scandinavian	–	–	−.14***	.34***	.35***	−.30***	.25***	.27***	−.26***	−.32***	−.006**	−.15***	−.12***	−.23***	−.19***	(––)
Personal:
Age	52.54	13.08	−.06**	.01	.002	−.11***	.06**	.01	−.01	.08***	−.07***	−.03	−.03	−.10***	.08***	−.001	(––)
Gender	.33	.471	−.03	−.04*	−.05**	.03	−.002	.003	−.03	−.02	−.01	−.02	.03	.01	−.01	.01	−.16***

N = 2976 – 2910; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Table 2.

Multiple regression analysis: the impact of MQ, SAT, TRS and GPS (dummy variables) on NFMR (Standardized β Coefficients).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Gender	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03
Age	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03	−.03
MQ:
Organizational politics (OP)	.20***	.20***	.20***	.20***	.20***	.21***	.20***
Quality of public personnel (QP)	−.11***	−.11***	−.11***	−.11***	−.11***	−.12***	−.11***
Innovation (INN)	−.03	−.04	−.04	−.04	−.03	−.04	−.04
Red tape (RT)	.18***	.19***	.18***	.19***	.18***	.19***	.19***
Satisfaction (SAT)	.05	.05	.05	.06*	.05	.05	.05
Trust (TRS)	−.04	−.03	−.03	−.02	−.03	−.03	−.03
GPS:
Anglo-American (N = 946)	−.06***	–	–	–	–	–	–
East Asian (N = 43)	–	.08***	–	–	–	–	–
Germanic (N = 261)	–	–	.02
Latin American (N = 172)	–	–	–	.08***	–	–	–
Napoleonic (N = 574)	–	–	–	–	.05***		–
Post-colonial (N = 413)	–	–	–	–	–	−.07***	–
Scandinavian (N = 535)	–	–	–	–	–	–	.002
R ²	.172	.175	.169	.174	.171	.173	.168
Adjusted R²	.169	.173	.166	.171	.168	.171	.166
F	65.64***	67.15***	64.26***	66.40***	65.12***	66.22***	64.01***

N = 2853; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Table 2 presents results of the regression analysis with GPS control. The MQ indicators were significantly related with NFMR, which was quite strongly and positively affected by OP (β = .20 to β = .21; p<.001) and RT (β = .18 to β = .19; p<.001), and negatively affected by QP (β = −.11 to β = −.12; p<.001). These findings provide very strong support for H2, especially for the MQ factors of OP, QP, and RT, but not for INN. However, the direct relationship between NFMR, SAT and TRS was mostly unsupported, thereby refuting H3. Finally, a test of the impact of GPS on NFMR generally produced encouraging findings. With the exception of Germanic and Scandinavian respondents, the GPS impact was significant for most of the other sub-groups (β = −.06; p<.001, β = .08; p<.001, β = .08; p<.001, β = .05; p<.001, β = −.07; p<.001, for Anglo-American, East Asian, Latin American, Napoleonic, and post-colonial respondents, respectively). The explained variance for all seven models was solid (.175>R²>.168). These findings provide partial but quite strong support for H4.

To further support H4 we used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The fit of two competing models (Table 3) was compared, and we estimated the path coefficients of the superior model (Table 4). Model 1 is the revised theoretical model excluding GPS, and Model 2 is the same model including GPS. As Table 3 indicates, Model 2 is superior to Model 1 in two major indices: χ²/df and RMSEA. For χ²/df, Model 1 = 101.96 and Model 2 = 13.85. Whereas both are above the cut-off point of 2, Model 2 is still much better than Model 1, because its value is much closer to the cut-off point. Even more important is the value of RMSEA. For Model 1 RMSEA = .184 and for Model 2 RMSEA = .066, whereas the traditional acceptable criterion is below .08. Thus, Model 2 is clearly superior to Model 1. The major implication of these findings is that H4 is strongly supported and that the revised theoretical model is much better when national and cultural considerations are embedded in it than without them. These findings are further supported in Table 4 that presents a bootstrap analysis of the direct and indirect effects of MQ on NFMR through SAT and TRS, with GPS controlled. As the table illustrates, with the exception of East Asia we found a direct relationship between aspects of MQ and NFMR.

Table 3.

Comparing two versions of the revised model^# (GPS as a control variable) with Structural Equation Modeling: Fit indices and R².

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	NFI	RMSEA	R² (NFMR)	N *
Revised Model 1: Without GPS	407.82	4	101.96	.949	.948	.184	.162	2983
Revised Model 2: With GPS	387.91	28	13.85	.935	.932	.066	–	–
Anglo-American							.157	946
East Asian							.117	43
Germanic							.299	261
Latin American							.177	172
Napoleonic							.056	574
Post-Colonial							.140	413
Scandinavian							.201	535

Superior fit indicator is underlined.

Total N for sub groups of Model 2 is 2944 due to missing values.

Table 4.

Bootstrap SEM analysis of total, direct, and indirect effects of MQ on NFMR through SAT and TRS (Standardized path coefficients) for the revised theoretical model with a GPS control.

Variables	Anglo- American	East Asian	Germanic	Latin American	Napoleonic	Post- colonial	Scandinavian
Total effect on NFMR
Organizational politics	.09*	−.19	.44***	.27**	.13*	.24***	.25***
Quality of personnel	−.15***	.03	.03	−.04	−.11	−.06	−.13**
Innovation	−.02	.10	−.13	−.17*	.04	.12*	−.07
Red tape	.25**	−.10	.09	.08	.12**	.09	.18***
Direct effects on NFMR
Independent Variable
Organizational politics	.11*	−.24	.41***	.26**	.12*	.30***	.24***
Quality of personnel	−.16***	.10	.03	−.04	−.11	−.08	−.13*
Innovation	−.04	.17	−.09	−.16	.04	.06	−.06
Red tape	.25**	−.12	.08	.08	.12**	.12*	.18**
Mediators
Satisfaction	.15***	−.26	−.17*	−.08	−.01	.29***	−.04
Trust	−.09	.02	.10	.07	−.01	−.03	.03
Indirect mediating effects on NFMR
Organizational politics	−.02*	.05	.03	.002	.002	−.054***	.005
Quality of personnel	.01**	−.07	−.003	−.005	−.002	.02	−.003
Innovation	.03*	−.07	−.04	−.013	−.003	.06***	−.005
Red tape	−.001	.03	.007	.004	.000	−.037**	.000

p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Number of bootstrap resamples: 2000.

Moving where from here? Summary and implications

How important are expectations about and the need for future managerial reforms in the public sector? Can we measure these expectations effectively? How effective is the GPS approach and what lessons can be learned from our model? The goal of this study was to deal with these questions. Overall, we feel that the importance of NFMR is demonstrated here, its measurement potential is illustrated, and the GPS approach adds to our knowledge regarding NFMR and some of the factors that may affect it.

We followed a growing number of recent studies expressing interest in this area. For example, based on a 10-country examination of future reforms, Curry (2014) pointed to global changes, exogenous factors and the financial crisis that will likely continue to shape public administration in the future. He argued that e-government and e-governance, network governance and stakeholder engagement would affect future reforms that will be accompanied by problems of accountability, transparency and trust. He also maintained that the ‘shifts in management have led to consideration of what lies beyond NPM. While strategic planning, evidence-based policy-making and performance measurement and management play a role, again there are questions about whether this represents a true break from NPM or merely a refinement or fragmentation of the idea’ (Curry, 2014: 3).

Our findings try to further elaborate on these questions. We support the validity of the NFMR scale and most of the hypotheses suggested in the model. Theoretically, we further point to the negative impact of several facets of managerial quality on NFMR. The strongest effect was for perceived organizational politics (OP), fairness and justice, but the quality of personnel (QP) and perceived red tape (RT) also had a major influence. The findings for perceived innovation (INN) were insignificant, implying that a perceived lack of innovation and creativity is not sufficient to drive calls for managerial reforms. In addition, a test of mediation with SEM revealed indications of an indirect effect of managerial quality facets on NFMR through satisfaction but not through trust. In other words, managerial quality has both direct and indirect effect on NFMR among knowledgeable citizens, and the strongest indirect path works better through satisfaction. Moreover, in some national and cultural contexts, satisfaction has a quite robust mediating effect that should be studied and interpreted further. The contextual factor is indeed important as studies denote the different understanding of NPM style reforms across the globe (e.g. Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Raadschelders and Vigoda-Gadot, 2015). For example, a cultural and contextual difference suggests nations with a rationalistic view towards NPM (often found in central and east Europe and in developing countries) and other nations with a more institutionalist approach (often found in other large parts of Europe). The cultural differences, as suggested by Minkov and Hofstede (2011) and by Hofstede et al. (1993) may thus be important when looking at managerial reforms and their evolvement across nations and cultures. Support for this line of thinking can also be found in the superiority of the GPS-controlled model over the simple, general model. This indicates that NFMR is subject to the effect of contexts, values and norms as reflected in the perceptions of knowledgeable citizens and experts about specific public services in their nations. Thus, future studies should take these cultural and contextual dissimilarities and test them empirically using other theoretical and empirical models.

Therefore, we believe we contribute to the evolving knowledge on managerial and post-managerial changes in the public sector across nations (e.g. Curry, 2014; Durant, 2010; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2005). The future of neo-liberal ideology in public administration has been questioned and may have reached maturity. Some have argued that the NPM trend will continue, but others have predicted its decline (e.g. Moynihan, 2008). Curry (2014: 18–19) suggested that the idea of NPM has been challenged by ‘system shocks such as the financial crisis … networks, collaboration and service quality tendencies…’. ‘While NPM is often seen to be on the wane, there is less consensus about whether there is an evolution or a revolution’ in this reform.

From a contextual point of view it is also notable that many of our respondents expect and even welcome future NPM-style/managerial reforms in various sub-fields of the public sector. With few exceptions, the average scores for support for NFMR worldwide were medium to high. The stronger NFMR values, across NPM aspects and across sub-sectors, were in East Asian and Latin American nations compared with other nations. Moreover, we found greater emphasis on NFMR in social welfare services compared with other public sub-sectors. There is also limited support for privatization initiatives and the downsizing of government especially in Anglo-American nations, but also in most of the other nations.

Finally, our findings accord with the contention that NPM-style reforms are received differently in different parts of the world (e.g. Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Raadscelders and Vigoda-Gadot, 2015). Explanations for NFMR are thus culture-dependent and the global-GPS approach we used here only emphasizes the differences among nations and the difficulties in findings similarities in understanding managerial reforms globally. Thus, the findings provide another modest insight into the global future of NPM and other managerial-style reforms in the years to come. Talks about future changes in public administration and policy, such as New Public Governance (NPG) or collaborative governance ideas, should be reconsidered in light of such findings. Perhaps it is too early to announce the death of managerial reforms in the public sector. It is much more realistic to talk about the reassessment of new and newer doctrines and ideologies for running the state.

The limitations of the study are mostly based on the fact that the NFMR scale that was used here for the first time still needs to be replicated in other studies. We also used a unique web-based sample method that should be replicated. Finally, our findings are based on cross-sectional and self-reported data. This technique may result in source bias or common method error. Despite these limitations, we believe that this study adds to our knowledge on managerial reforms from a global perspective and future studies may use it to develop the field further.

Footnotes

Notes

Eran Vigoda-Gadot is Professor of Public Administration and Management at the School of Political Science, The University of Haifa, Israel. He is the former Head of the School and the founder of the Center for Public Management and Policy (CPMP). Vigoda-Gadot is the author and co-author of more than 100 journal articles and book chapters, 11 books and symposiums as well as many other scholarly presentations and working papers. Member of the Editorial board of JPART, ARPA, PAR, PPMR and other journals in the field and active in public administration research and practice in Europe and in the Americas.

Noam Cohen is a Doctoral student at the School of Political Science, The University of Haifa, Israel. His work focuses on public sector reforms, performance and citizens’ response to government decisions.

Yariv Tsfati (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2001) is Associate Professor and Chair at the Department of Communication, University of Haifa. His research focuses on trust in media, the third person effect, and campaign effects. He served as chair of the Political Communication Division of the International Communication Association, as editor of the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, and as Associate Editor of the Journal of Communication.

Appendix 1: Variables 4

References

Andersen

(2008) The impact of public management reforms on student performance in Danish schools. Public Administration 86(2): 541–558.

Andrews

Boyne

Walker

(2011) The impact of management on administrative and survey measures of organizational performance. Public Management Review 13(2): 227–255.

Ariely

Davidov

(2011) Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the world value survey. Social Indicators Research 104(2): 271–286.

Askim

Christensen

Fimreite

Laegreid

(2010) How to assess administrative reform? Investigating the adoption and preliminary impacts of the Norwegian welfare administration reform. Public Administration 88(1): 232–246.

Bellé

Ongaro

(2014) NPM, administrative reforms and public service motivation: Improving the dialogue between research agendas. International Review of Administrative Sciences 80(2): 382–400.

Bouckaert

(2007) Cultural characteristics from public management reforms worldwide. Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management 16: 29–64.

Bouckaert G, Van de Walle S and Kampen JK (2005) Potential for comparative public opinion research in public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(2): 229–240.

Bourgault

Van Dorpe

(2013) Managerial reforms, public service bargains and top civil servant identity. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79(1): 49–70.

Curry D (2014) Trends for the future of public sector reform: A critical review of future-looking research in public administration. The COCPUs project, EU FP-7.

10.

De Vries

Nemec

(2013) Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management 26(1): 4–16.

11.

Durant

(2010) Parsimony, ‘error’ terms, and the future of a field. Public Administration Review 70: s319–s320.

12.

Groot

Budding

(2008) New public management’s current issues and future prospects. Financial Accountability & Management 24(1): 1–13.

13.

Gualmini

(2008) Restructuring Weberian bureaucracy: Comparing managerial reforms in Europe and the United States. Public Administration 86(1): 75–94.

14.

(2004) Budgetary and financial management reforms in Korea: Financial crisis, New Public Management, and fiscal administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(3): 511–525.

15.

Hansen

(2005) Evaluation in and of public-sector reform: The case of Denmark in a Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies 28(4): 323–347.

16.

Hirschman

(1970) The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics 22(03): 329–343.

17.

Hofstede

Bond

Luk

(1993) Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organization Studies 14(4): 483–503.

18.

Jilke

(2015) Choice and equality: Are vulnerable citizens worse off after liberalization reforms? Public Administration 93(1): 68–85.

19.

Kelly

Swindell

(2002) A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review 62(5): 610–621.

20.

Kuhlmann

Wollmann

(2014) Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

21.

Ladd

(2012) Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

22.

Lane

(2005) Public Administration and Public Management: The Principal–Agent Perspective, London and New York: Routledge.

23.

Lau

(2000) Government of the Future, Paris: OECD.

24.

Ledingham

(2001) Government–community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 27(3): 285–295.

25.

Minkov

Hofstede

(2011) The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 18(1): 10–20.

26.

Mintzberg

(1979) The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

27.

Morgeson

Petrescu

(2011) Do they all perform alike? An examination of perceived performance, citizen satisfaction and trust with US federal agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(3): 451–479.

28.

Moynihan

(2008) Public management in North America: 1998–2008. Public Management Review 10(4): 481–492.

29.

Nemec

(2010) New Public Management and its implementation in CEE: What do we know and where do we go? NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 3(1): 31–52.

30.

Painter

Peters

(2010) Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

31.

Pandey

Scott

(2002) Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12(4): 553–580.

32.

Park

Joaquin

(2012) Of alternating waves and shifting shores: The configuration of reform values in the US federal bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(3): 514–536.

33.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Raadschelders

Vigoda-Gadot

(2015) Global Dimensions of Public Administration and Governance: A Comparative Voyage, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

35.

Rieder

Lehmann

(2004) Evaluation of New Public Management reforms in Switzerland: Empirical results and reflections on methodology. Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management 13: 395–414.

36.

Tummers L, Weske U, Bouwman R and Grimmelikhuijsen S (2015) The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: An experimental study. International Public Management Journal, forthcoming.

37.

Valenzuela

(2009) Variations in media priming: The moderating role of knowledge, interest, news attention, and discussion. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(4): 756–774.

38.

Van Ryzin

Muzzio

Immerwahr

Gulick

Martinez

(2004) Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American customer satisfaction index model to New York City. Public Administration Review 64(3): 331–341.

39.

Vicente

Reis

(2010) Using questionnaire design to fight nonresponse bias in web surveys. Social Science Computer Review 28(2): 251–267.

40.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2007) Citizens’ perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(2): 285–305.

41.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2009) Building Strong Nations: Improving Governability and Public Management, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

42.

Vigoda-Gadot

Meiri

(2008) New Public Management values and person–organization fit: A socio-psychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel. Public Administration 86(1): 111–131.

43.

Vigoda-Gadot

Mizrahi

(2008) Public sector management and the democratic ethos: A longitudinal study of key relationships in Israel. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 79–107.

44.

Vigoda-Gadot

Schwabski

Shoham

Ruvio

(2005) Public sector innovation for the managerial and the post-managerial era: Promises and realities in a globalizing public administration. International Public Management Journal 8(1): 57–81.

45.

Vigoda-Gadot

Shoham

Vashdi

(2010) Bridging bureaucracy and democracy in Europe: A comparative study of perceived managerial excellence, satisfaction with public services, and trust in governance. European Union Politics 11(2): 289–308.

46.

Villoria

Van Ryzin

Lavena

(2013) Social and political consequences of administrative corruption: A study of public perceptions in Spain. Public Administration Review 73(1): 85–94.

47.

Vroom

(1964) Work and Motivation, Chicago: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

48.

Weeks

(2000) The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Administration Review 60(4): 360–372.

49.

Worrall

Cooper

Campbell-Jamison

(2000) The impact of organizational change on the work experiences and perceptions of public sector managers. Personnel Review 29(5): 613–636.

50.

Yang

(2007) Making performance measurement relevant? Administrators’ attitudes and structural orientations. Public Administration Quarterly 31(3): 342–383.

51.

Yang

Holzer

(2006) The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review 66(1): 114–126.