چکیده:
The objective of this paper is to examine linkages between new public management and the process of globalization. Although, seldom has been explicitly paid to the linkage of the two subjects in the literature, one can find strong parallels between them, particularly with respect to the theme of globalization as the victory of economics over politics, and that of the parallel reforms of competition state including the introduction of market forces and flexibility into the public sector, and decentralization.The paper, first, maps out the development of the new public management both practically and conceptually, and then works out areas of commensurability. The paper argues that structure and agency are significant means for the evaluation of these areas. New public management is mainly concerned with the structure of the public sector and the way of affecting the manner of bureaucrats and politicians, while globalization is concerned greatly with the way that global forces change structure and the way that state actors react. It concludes that structuration is a useful method of analyzing the interplay between globalization and the implementation of new public management, by taking into account the fact that there is a continual process of interaction between structure and agent and that structures themselves ever-changing
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Although, seldom has been explicitly paid to the linkage of the two subjects in the literature, one can find strong parallels between them, particularly with respect to the theme of globalization as the victory of economics over politics, and that of the parallel reforms of competition state including the introduction of market forces and flexibility into the public sector, and decentralization.
Inspired by Self (1993: 156) we may list the following key prescriptions associated with public choice as: ●accurate listing and costing of all government functions ●to impose user charges where practicable ●to overcome the tendency of departments to be captured by bureaucrats and to make policy advice more contestable ● to increase the transparency and cost-effectiveness of the whole system in order to ensure that the latter two points are done properly, the followings are needed: -private incentive mechanisms like related pay -tighter control mechanisms like performance indicators - compulsory competitive tendering -bureau competition.
Competition desegregations incentivisation -Purchaser-provider split -market testing through compulsory competitive tendering -intra-governmental contracting -consumer-tagged financing -user control -public or private sector polarization - deregulation Corporatisation Micro-local agencies Independent institutions Decoupling linked policy system ‘Chunking up’ privatized industries deprofessionalisation Privatization of asset ownership Respecification of property rights Development charging technologies Capital market involvement Ani-rent-seeking policies Accounting methods changes In addition to the problem of overlapping, Dunleavy’s classification overemphasizes certain areas at the expense of others."