Is the New Public Management still useful to understand public administrations around the world? A case study from Morocco

Introduction

The New Public Management (NPM) wave of reforms that started in late 1970s (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011:11) was, and still today, subject to debate and theory proliferation among scholars and practitioners, particularly in some Anglophone countries, namely United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

NPM principles have been implemented rapidly around the world as a result of several actors, including but not limited to, Bretton woods’ institutions reform recipes for developing countries (Common, 1999: 89). Insofar as countries undertook reform initiatives under NPM label with deep differences in content (Common, 1999; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Christensen, 2012a), this arises the question to what extent NPM is still useful for understanding and labelling public administration around the world. To provide some elements of answer, we will proceed in three steps. Firstly, a brief overview of NPM and its principles will be provided to set the framework of the next two points. Secondly, the case of Moroccan public sector reforms is used as a detailed example to understand under which label reform initiatives were conducted and the degree of NPM. Finally, critics against NPM and potential competition or complementarity with post-NPM models will be analysed and through findings from the Moroccan example and other countries.

NPM principles have been implemented rapidly around the world as a result of several actors, including but not limited to, Bretton woods’ institutions reform recipes for developing countries.

NPM: A brief overview

NPM is an apolitical combination of ideas, theories and practices brought to the public administration from the private sector. Notwithstanding its wide influence over public administration reform initiatives around the world, NPM has not been considered as a new paradigm (Hood, 1991; Hood, 1995 ; Common, 1999; Massey and Pyper, 2005; Pollitt, van Thiel and Homburg, 2010). Moreover, NPM is no longer a new concept since a broad knowledge of theories and practices have been constructed and developped by authors and practitioners, mainly from Anglophone countries. In the following paragraphs, a brief description of NPM’ major assumptions and key implementation features is given.

Beyond the label of applying private sector management practices to public administration, three major assumptions lie behind the diverse facets of NPM, they concern government, public servants and public managers, and citizens:

● Government: NPM individualistic theoretical background assumes that government officials are not neutral and tend to use their power to serve their self-interest and the interests of influential groups (Massey and Pyper, 2005; Flynn, 2007). As a consequence, government intervention in delivering public service should be limited to a minimum level, and rather than being a direct provider, government should act as a competition facilitator of public tendering, privatisation, and public private contracting relationships (Massey and Pyper, 1998; Common, 1999). Insofar as necessary, a direct public intervention in providing public services should be decentralized via specialised, flexible, specialized, and autonomous entities(Hood, 1991, Hood, 1995; Massey and Pyper, 1998; Common, 1999; Pollitt, Van Thiel and Homburg, 2010)

● Public servants and public managers: NPM assumes that the systems of recruiting, training, promoting and rewarding in the public sector have to be similar to those in the private sector. Indeed, clear tasks and responsibilities, development of business-like skills and capabilities, performance measurement indicators, and accountability for results are emphasised (Hood, 1991; Hood,1995; Common, 1999; Pollitt, van Thiel and Homburg, 2010). At the upper level, public managers should be given power over professional public servants, sufficient leeway to manage their organisations efficiently and effectively, and become accountable for results rather than solely following rules, guidelines and bureaucratic procedures (Hood, 1991; Hood,1995; Massey and Pyper :1998; Common, 1999).

● Citizens: In addition to the market logic adopted for the public service, and the empowerment of public managers, citizens are considered as customers of the public administration; Public service needs to be delivered by qualified and trained public servant according to the same level and standards of private sector delivery. The underlying aim is to satisfy the narrower and more individualistic citizen’s interests rather than universal ones (Pollitt, Van Thiel and Homburg, 2010: 5).

NPM principles have been first implemented by the ‘circle of trailblazers’ constituted of United Kingdom, United States, Australia and New Zealand (Christensen 2012a: 643). Other members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted different implementing strategies leading to a phenomenon qualified by Christensen as a ’window-dressing’ (Christensen, 2012a:645) under which each country has its own version of NPM adapted to its cultural, political, and social context (Hood:1995; Pollitt and Bouckaert: 2011). Among the OECD members and in other continents, diverse approaches emerged either under the label of NPM or other models of public sector modernisation.

These approaches will be analysed in terms of coexistence of different reform ethos in the third of this essay. In the following paragraphs we will be looking at the case of Morocco, a country which is far demographically and economically from being part of the developed Anglophone countries, and try to answer the question to what extent NPM describes the trend of past and ongoing reforms of public sector in this African country.

Is NPM sufficient to describe public sector reforms in Morocco?

Signs of application of NPM practices appears within the first voluntary wave of public service disaggregation between 1963 and 1970 resulting in the establishing of large and specialised agencies, inter alia, the national railway office (ONCF) and the national electricity office (ONE). Following a chronic economic crisis in Early 1980s, the deeper and structural reforms inspired by NPM principles were launched through the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) strictly enforced by the Moroccan government under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We tried to classify reform waves in Morocco in four major time slices since 1980s. Further elements of answer about NPM and public reforms in Morocco are detailed at the end of this historical overview :

Signs of application of NPM practices appears within the first voluntary wave of public service disaggregation between 1963 and 1970 resulting in the establishing of large and specialised agencies, inter alia, the national railway office (ONCF) and the national electricity office (ONE)

● 1983-1993: Under the SAP, reforms focused essentially on macroeconomic stabilisation, and Moroccan public sector reform from an NPM perspective. For instance, restructuring Moroccan customs, ‘increasing the number of hospitals autonomously managed’, and carrying out a study to analyze ‘sectors where the State’s activity may be reinforced or relayed, partially or totally, by the private sector’ were among the planned actions of the SAP (African Development Bank, 1997:3-4).

● 1993-1999: This period has seen three important reform accelerators. First, an economic nationwide upgrading programme was launched in 1993 as a result of large concertation with trade unions and business representatives. Second, an association agreement was signed with the European Union in 1995 (Noureddine el Aoufi, 1999: 23). Third, the former opposition leaded by the socialist party formed a new government in 1998 after reaching a political consensus with the late King Hassan II. The new ‘left’ government continued in sustaining structural reforms under the label of downsizing the public expenditure and moralising the public life (Noureddine el Aoufi, 1999: 27). During this period, the first outsourcing contract of water and electricity distribution, and public lightning was concluded between the city of Casablanca and the French company Lyonnaise des Eaux in 1997 (Cour des comptes, 2014:5). The death of the later King Hassan II in July 1999 opened up a new era of political and economic reforms under the reign of Mohammed VI.

● 1999-2011: The enthronement of the King Mohammed VI was the starting point for the new concept of Governance; ‘Improvements in electoral processes, struggling against corruption, press freedom, poverty alleviation programs, and advancement in areas such as judicial reforms, democracy and governance‘ constituted the core reforms for the new King (Mansouri, 2005: 37). Moreover, significant reforms inspired by NPM principles have been implemented during this period. For Instance, two new outsourcing contracts of water and electricity distribution were signed by the French company Veolia with the city of Rabat in 1999, and Tangier in 2002. The year 2001 saw the conclusion of one of the biggest privatisation contracts in Morocco; thirty five percent of the capital of Itissalat al maghrib, a public owned telecommunication company, was acquired by the French company Vivendi following an international tender. The establishment of large strategic and independent agencies began in 2002, with the creation of Tangier Med Special Agency (TMSA) to lead the construction of the port of Tangier Med, and in 2010 the Moroccan Agency for Sustainable Energy (MASEN) was established to oversee the Moroccan ambitious programme of solar renewable energy.

The amendment of the constitution in 2011 constituted a turning point in Moroccan political and social history which brought new challenges for the public administration reform in the country.

● 2011-2017: The new constitution reshaped the relationship between the King, the government, and the citizens. It established also a new framework for the public sector reforms. In fact, a whole title about the ‘good governance’ was introduced and principles such as quality, equity, transparency and the rendering of accounts and of responsibility in public sector were clearly announced (Bulletin officiel, 2011). In addition, for the first time in Moroccan history, citizens’ right to present motions in legislative matters and petitions to public powers were enshrined (Bulletin officiel, 2011: 1906). The principle of advanced regionalisation was also mentioned as one of the pillars of the political regime (Bulletin officiel, 2011).

The amendment of the constitution in 2011 constituted a turning point in Moroccan political and social history which brought new challenges for the public administration reform in the country

This simple historical overview of reform waves in Morocco is indicative of how far NPM could be used to understand all the actions undertaken for more than three decades. Clearly, the NPM is a major explanatory factor of the reforms, but still does not help to understand the full picture. Thus, Three preliminary findings could be made: First, Moroccan version of NPM seems to focus on outsourcing and agencification. Second, the majority of Moroccan ministries and large public offices are still functioning under the classical bureaucracy in parallel with the large, modern public agencies. Third, the concept of ‘good governance’ and the principles of a participatory democracy were enshrined in the new constitution, which adds a new layer of public management practices to the existing bureaucratic and NPM models.

Clearly, the NPM is a major explanatory factor of the reforms, but still does not help to understand the full picture

NPM and post-NPM models: complementarity rather than competition

The NPM might be insufficient to explain the full picture of public reforms in Morocco, and this comes in support of previous and ongoing critics against this theory since, at least, two decades. The following paragraphs present some critics toward NPM:

● Fragmentation of public entities and the divergence of objectives within the public sector may result in conflict and ‘destructive behaviors’ within the public sector (Flynn, 2007:357).

● Competition regimes are unlikely to ensure the desired results in terms of cost reduction and increased efficiency (Flynn, 2007:357).

● Unfounded claim of being a universal and uniform model for modernising the public sector around the world. NPM was implemented as a tailored toolkit rather than a one size fits all theory (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011; Pollitt, van Thiel and Homburg, 2010; Christensen, 2012a).

Critics against the universality of NPM are more relevant when looking at experiences of modernisation in continental Europe , Nordic countries, and Africa. Governments in these areas have built their own framework of reform combining NPM principles and local inherited cultural and political structures. For example, Germany adopted what Pollitt and Bouckaert (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011:22) name the New Weberian State model (NWS), which is a combination of Weberian bureaucracy and some businesslike principles. Whilst Sweden remained attached to its ‘Swedish way’ allowing heavy government expenditure and a central control over the public sector (Hood,1995:105). In Africa, the situation is literally different, since the weight of political regimes and complexity of institutional mechanisms are highly influencing the nature and the pace of public sector reforms in many countries, leading focus on two main issues: enforcing law, building sustainable civil society participation process, and encouraging gradual implementation of NPM principles ( Hope, 2001:123).

Critics against the universality of NPM are more relevant when looking at experiences of modernisation in continental Europe , Nordic countries, and Africa

In addition to these country-specific models, post-NPM theories emerged under labels such as ‘joined-up government’, ‘horizontal government’, and ‘New Public Governance’ (NPG) (Christensen, 2012a:645).Three main factors lie behind this new tendency. First, the weakening of political control over the public sector through NPM fragmentation and decentralization practices. Second, the events occurred in the world (terrorist attacks, tsunamis, climate change and so forth) speeded up government interventionism, inter-governmental coordination and information sharing. Third, the increasing competition between countries to position themselves in the international networks, and enhance their economic competitiveness under globalisation pressure (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Christensen, 2012a; Christensen, 2012b).

The major issues singled out by these post NPM perspectives are coordination, cooperation, good governance, and horizontal processes allowing and sustaining social actors participation in policy-making and implementation (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Christensen, 2012a).As a consequence, two kinds of networks are considered for a good governance: a vertical network within the public sector, and an horizontal network gathering government, citizens and social actors (Peters,1998).This coordination within and across networks at both policy and implementation level (Peters,1998: 308) is challenging since issues like building trust, leadership and legitimacy are crucial in designing and sustaining these collaboration systems (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2015 :648).

To what extent NPM is still representative of public sector reforms around the world since the emerging post NPM principles are seen as potential alternatives?. Looking closely at the relationship between diverse reform models within the public administration could be of help in this matter. The fact that NPM didn’t radically replace the classical bureaucratic system, and the coexisted of these two approaches within the public sector is creating potential ‘trade-offs’ to be considered (Pollitt, van Thiel and Homburg, 2010 :7). Another perspective is to consider public modernisation theories as ‘menus’ from which countries grab and implement tailored measures fitting their social, cultural and political context (Common, 1999; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). This results in hybrid models that could not be qualified as one hundred percent dominated by NPM, NWS or NPG model. For instance, Wiesel and Modell (Wiesel and Modell, 2014) in their study of Swedish transport infrastructure policy argue that the coexistence of potential contradictory approaches is not only a proof of non-linearity of change in the public sector, but a necessity for a smooth integration of new ways of thinking and decision-making in a specific environment (Wiesel and Modell, 2014; Christensen, 2012a).

the coexistence of potential contradictory approaches is not only a proof of non-linearity of change in the public sector, but a necessity for a smooth integration of new ways of thinking and decision-making in a specific environment

In other words, three factors sustain the assumption that, whilst NPM is not the only existing theory explaining the public sector reforms, it is still influencing reform initiatives around the world. First, the coexistence of differences in cultures, institutional foundations, and ways of thinking about the public sector in the world has fostered the adoption of several distinctive models in continental Europe, Scandinavian countries, Asia, and Africa (Hood, 1995, Common, 1999; Hope, 2001; Massey, 2009; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). Second, countries approach classical, NPM and post NPM models as menus used for specific purposes in a specific context, and public reform initiatives might contain elements of competing theories and paradigms (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011: 25). Third, the primary concern for some developing countries might not be to establish complex coordination networks with citizens and social actors, but simply setting clear efficiency, effectiveness and accountability framework in their public sector through the adoption of NPM principles.

Conclusion

To sum up, the aim of this essay was to analyse to what extent NPM is still preponderant in understanding public administrations. Using examples from Morocco and other countries, we argued that NPM is a widespread model within the public sector, but not the only existing perspective. Cultural, social and political context of each country, and the coexistence of classical, NPM, and postNPM ethos, makes it difficult to assume that NPM has radically replaced the previous ethos, or that the new approaches are linearly changing public administration and shifting it from NPM perspective to governance and coordination networks. This was the case of Morocco, a country where NPM reforms are prevailing in some areas while new waves focusing on coordination and good governance are emerging and growing gradually. Finally, in order to enrich the existing knowledge on reform models implementation around the world, there is a need for enlarging the scope of cross-country comparative studies by including cases from developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

References

● African Development Bank, (1997), Kingdom of Morocco Completion Report: Consolidation of the Structural Adjustment Programme 1993-1994, country department north region.

● Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C , Stone, M.M. (2015). Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review. 75(5), 647- 63.

● Bulletin officiel, (2011), Dahir n° 1-11-91 du 27 Chaabane 1432 (29 Juillet 2011) portant promulgation du texte de la constitution, N° 5964 bis, pp 1902-1928.

● Christensen, T., (2012a), ‘ Global Ideas and Modern Public Sector Reforms: A Theoretical Elaboration and Empirical Discussion of a Neoinstitutional Theory ‘, American review of public administration, Vol 42, No 6: pp.635– 653.

● Christensen, T., (2012b), Post-NPM and changing public governance, Meiji Journal of political Science and Economics, Vol 1,pp.1–11.

● Common, R., (2001), Public Management and Policy Transfer in Southeast Asia, Aldershot, Ashgate

● Cour des comptes, (2014), la gestion déléguée des services publics locaux synthèse, October 2014.

● El Aoufi, N. (2002), ‘Les réformes économiques en perspective : de Abdellah Ibrahim à Abderrahmane Youssoufi ‘, Critique économique, No 8, pp. 13-37

● Hood, C. 1995. The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol 20, issues 2-3: pp 93- 109.

● Hood, C. 1991. A public management for all seasons?, Royal Institute of Public Administration: Public administration, Vol 69, spring 1991: pp 3-19.

● Hope, K. R. (2001), The new public management: context and practice in Africa, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 4, pp.119–134.

● Mansouri, B. (2005), ‘ Understanding reforms: A country case study of Morocco’ final draft, Global Development Network, January 2005.

● Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2011), Public Management Reform: a comparative analysis, (3d Ed), Oxford University Press

● Massey, A., and Pyper, R., (2005), Public Management and Modernization in Britain, Basingstoke, Palgrave.

● Massey, A. (2009), ‘Policy Mimesis in the Context of Global Government’, Policy Studies, July 2009.

● O’Flynn, J. (2007), ‘From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications,’ The Journal of Australian Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3 pp. 353-366.

● Peters, B.G. 1998. Managing Horizontal Government: The Politics of Coordination. Public Administration 76 (2): 295-311.

● Pollit, C., Van Thiel, Homburg, V. (Eds). 2010. New Public Management in Europe: Adaptions and Alternatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

● Wiesel, F & Modell, S. 2014. ‘From New Public Management to New Public Governance: Hybridization and Implications for Public Sector Consumerism’, Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2)