New Modes of Control in the Public Service

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding whether recent changes in the organization of the public services in the UK and elsewhere constitute a paradigm shift towards a post‐bureaucratic form. This article argues that in Britain three fundamental but interlocking strategies of control have been implemented over the last decade. First, there has been a pronounced shift towards the creation of operationally decentralized units with a simultaneous attempt to increase centralized control over strategy and policy. Second, the principle of competition (often attached to the development of market relations but sometimes not) has become the dominant method of co‐ordinating the activities of decentralized units. Third, during the most recent period there has been a substantial development of processes of performance management and monitoring (including audits, inspections, quality assessments and reviews), again a phenomenon largely directed towards operationally decentralized units. Taken together these three strategies do not describe a simple movement from a bureaucratic to a post‐bureaucratic form, rather they combine strong elements of innovation with the reassertion of a number of fundamentally bureaucratic mechanisms. This may be a peculiarly British phenomenon, certainly the excessive elements of centralization and formalization appear to depart from the ideal‐type of the post‐bureaucratic organization. It is argued that this‘British trajectory’can best be understood in terms of the continued relative decline of the British economy and the Conservative response to it, i.e. the drive to create a‘high output, low commitment’workforce.

Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism

“…Similarly, conditions of service (including job security and progression) were typically severely worsened by the transfer of provision to the private sector (see Standing, 2002, on the spread of 'labour insecurity'). At the same time, controls over the quality, level and conditions of provision typically became attenuated in the process of privatisation, raising new problems of contracting, regulating and inspecting 'at arm's length ' (Clarke and Newman, 1997;Hoggett, 1996;Walsh, 1995). This is not intended to romanticise either the experience of working for, or being served by, public service professional-bureaucracies, but to acknowledge the new problems created by privatisation processes.…”

Quand les directeurs des services sociaux départementaux se saisissent du management : des représentations et des pratiques singulières et équivoques

“…Rien n'est moins sûr. De nombreuses approches critiques et néo-institutionnalistes (dans la foulée des travaux déjà cités de Hood, Pollitt et Bouckaert) ont pointé les nombreuses faiblesses de ces conclusions : elles s'appuient sur des notions et des indicateurs souvent mal déinis et ambigus ; les signes attestant de la conversion managériale de certains responsables publics peuvent indiquer l'évolution des modalités du management public sans se traduire nécessairement par une adhésion aux valeurs du NPM ; et la managérialisation de l'action publique conduit souvent moins au dépassement effectif des rigidités administratives ou à l'importation dans l'administration publique de valeurs et d'outils éprouvés dans l'entreprise privée qu'au renouvellement de formes plus anciennes de management public (Gibert 2008 ;Hood 1991Hood , 1994Hood , 2000 ou de contrôle bureaucratique (Bezes 2005(Bezes , 2007Hoggett, 1996). En outre, les Critical Management Studies (Allard-Poesi et Loilier, 2009 ;Alvesson et Willmott, 1996 ;Fournier et Grey, 2000 ;Huault et Golsorkhi, 2009) nous rappellent que le management n'a pas un sens prédéini une fois pour toutes : l'essence du management dépend surtout de ce que les acteurs engagent effectivement et concrètement dans leurs discours et leurs pratiques.…”

Counselling and professionalism: A phenomenological analysis of counsellor experience

“…In this way, Noordegraaf (2000) contests that executive demands for quality control, outcome and performance review become reinterpreted as the promotion of professionalism. Hoggett (1996) sees the rule bound logic of managerialism merely as competition, a necessary condition for exercising control. However, Broadbent, Jacobs, and Laughlin (1999) consider such practices as advancing individualism, undermining the cohesion of team-working and collegial support.…”