Public Organiz Rev

DOI 10.1007/s11115-017-0374-6

Looking for Public Administration Theories?

Hae-Ok Pyun 1 & Claire Edey Gamassou 2

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract Since the sixties, a number of Western countries have conducted a lot of
NPM type reforms in order to improve their public administration (PA). However, more
than forty years of NPM type reforms raise questions about whether these reforms
consist in an improvement of PA or if alternative theories could find their place in the
field of PA reforms. In order to answer these questions, the five main public adminis-
tration theories (New Public Administration, New Public Management, Public Value
Management, New Public Service and New Public Governance) have been selected,
and based on an original analysis of their incipits, some guidelines are proposed for
practitioners and students in PA.

Keywords Analysis grid . Comparative study . Guidelines in public reforms . Public

administration theories . Theoretical review

Introduction

Since the years 19601970, in a number of Western countries, the State has been accused
of not being able of solving problems, notably controlling public expenditure, ensuring
ever-growth (Passet 2010), taking into account minorities views. For many practitioners
and researchers (Marini 1971; Frederickson 1980; Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler
1992), it was principally the Public Administration (PA) which was responsible for these
problems, because it suffered from the Bbureaucratic phenomenon^ (Crozier 1963).
Therefore, a number of Bnew^ theories of PA were proposed and reforms have been
made. Among these Bnew^ theories of reform, New Public Management (NPM) seems
to have been very successful: most Western countries have made NPM type reforms
since 1980s (Hood 1991; Dunleavy and Hood 1994; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011).

* Hae-Ok Pyun
haeok.pyun@gmail.com

1
CRJ Pothier, Universit dOrlans, Orlans, France
2
Institut de Recherche en Gestion, Universit Paris-Est, Crteil, France
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

However, thirty years of NPM type reforms later, expenditures and public debts
evolution (OECD 2009, 2015) as well as 2008 and 2011s crises show that there seems
to be no real change in terms of PA performance. Moreover, Pollitt and Bouckaert
(2011) observe and compare different types of PA reforms and highlight the heteroge-
neity, in terms of undertaken steps as well as their effects and results. Yet, the lack of
experience makes it difficult to identify a main trend for the post-NPM. Since then,
researchers and political leaders are questioning the fate of the NPM and the Post-NPM.
Furthermore, since the Arab Spring, some directions appear to take shape. Notably,
making a state not only economic, efficient and effective, but also more human,
sustainable and social seems to be one of these other directions: the theme of World
Conference for Public Administration (KAPA, June 2014, Dae-Gwo, South Korea) was
about BThe Citizens Happiness^; the one of the 8th Challenge of 2016 and 2017
French National Annual Research Project is about BAn Innovative, Resilient and
Integrated Society^; the one of ASPAs Annual Conference (March 2015, Chicago,
USA) was about BA Stronger and More Equitable Society^, etc.
For Kuhn (1962, 1970), we should be in the crisis and look for another paradigm
able to replace the positivism and the economic rationale in PA field, because the NPM
doesnt seem to work. Indeed, first, the bureaucracy, by means of rationality, was
designed and implemented for the feudal to ensure the social stability (Weber 1956).
Second, the NPM, by means of market system, was conceived and set up in order to
face and replace the bureaucracy, because this later didnt work either. And now, the
market system doesnt work as well as it supposed to do. Actually, the market system
seems to make worsen racial and sexual discrimination, poverty, unemployment, social
inequity, which endangers social cohesion, essential for the society to keep on just as
Bellah et al. argued, B[] Our problem today are not just political. They are moral and
have to do with the meaning of life. [] Now [], we are beginning to understand that
our common life requires more than an exclusive concern for material accumulation.
[]^ (Bellah et al. 1985, p. 295)
From this point of view, the research question of this article is what other paradigms
of public administration could replace the NPM and make the society more sustain-
able, and equitable? To answer this research question, the aim of this paper is to draw/
thematic analyses of/five PA theories (see the Table 1 with number of quotation in
GoogleScholar) by means of an analysis grid based on four references in PA, that are
exposed in the following paragraph.
Of course, neither of these theories claim to be representative enough, nor does this
study claim to be sufficient in order to find the answer. Indeed, in PA field, there are
more than the five theories quoted above, and a synthetic work about theories of PA
already exist (Frederickson et al. 2012). This paper aims at listing some theories of PA,
comparing, and analyzing them from the point of visions of public good, a close notion
of paradigm of Kuhn in the field of PA. This first analysis may allow researchers and
practitioners to identify the next step to follow in PA in order to make the society more
equitable, and sustainable.

Construction of Analysis Grid

In order to construct an analysis grid, this paper refers to six visions of public good
(Bellah et al. 1985), three clusters of administrative value (Strange 1988, pp. 16 by
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

Table 1 PA theories analyzed

PA Theory One or two main references (Author, Publication Year,

Number of quotations in Google Scholar )

New Public Administration Marini 1971, GS: 465; Frederickson 1980, GS: 403
New Public Management Hood 1991, GS: 7612; Osborne and Gaebler 1992, GS: 175
Public Value Management Moore 1994, GS: 102; Moore 1995, GS: 2952
New Public Service Denhardt and Denhardt 2000, GS: 1237
New Public Governance Osborne 2006, GS: 605

Hood 1991, p.11), and two tables of comparing perspectives in PA, realized by
Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) and by Osborne (2006).

Six Visions of Public Good (Bellah et al. 1985)

Throughout their observation from 1979 to 1984, Bellah et al. note three pairs of
visions of public good in opposition that have developed as responses to the need for
citizens. Each pair consists in reaction to the previous couple of visions: BEstablishment
versus Populism^, BNeo-Capitalism versus Welfare Liberalism^, and BThe Adminis-
tered Society versus Economic Democracy^. The Establishment vision was primarily
associated with the industrial and financial elites who at the end of the nineteenth
century created and embedded a network of private institutions (e.g. universities,
hospitals, museums), which are almost now run by the government. By means of
large institutions and the politics of interest, its target is to Bguide and harmonize social
conflicts toward fruitful compromise through personal influence and negotiation^ (op.
cit., p.259). As for the Populist vision, based on the Begalitarian ethos^, it considers
Bthe people^ capable of governing their affairs. It is the Bgreat democratizer^.
Despite of these differences of these visions, there are two common understandings.
Firstly, they Blooked to the nation [] as a formative community, concerned to shape a
common life suited to the scale of modern social and economic forms.^ (op. cit., p.259).
Secondly, they believed that Brationality^ and Bscience^ should allow them to heal
social and political divisions and to make national society more efficient and rational.
However, in spite of these noble intents, they were so committed to rationality and
science that they lost the sight of their big picture in the reform movements and created
a public administration Bdelivering the [public] goods^.
Welfare Liberalism was developed as a response to the breakdown of the market. It
consists in the active governmental intervention in regulation and assistance of market.
Its aim is national harmony by means of sharing the benefits of economic growth.
Regarding Neo-Capitalism, based on free-market ideas, it was developed as a response
to the economic difficulties of 1970s and in opposition of Welfare Liberalism. Actually,
in 1970s, this later is in an era of limits, because welfare programs became too
expensive regarding economic growth and seemed to make citizens dependent rather
than self-reliant. Neo-Capitalism consists in reducing the regulation and the assistance
of market and introducing market system in public sector in order to diminish the
public expenditure and deficit, generated by welfare programs before. However, this
vision of Neo-Capitalism appears to affect its limits. Indeed, it leaves behind the
problems of poverty, unemployment, social inequalities. In other words, it lacks
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

Bcompassionate government^. In spite of these differences, they share three visions in

common. First, in the modern society, everyone must enjoy the physical security and
material well-being. Second, everyone has to be encouraged in ones choice. Third,
science, technology and professionalization are the best way for the modern society to
achieve these two goals above.
Criticizing some approaches of Welfare Liberalism and Neo-Capitalism, notably the
sacrifice of general welfare in favour of special interests, the Administered Society and
Economic Democracy are all looking for incorporating and transcending individual
interests in order to keep the society cohesive. In the same line with Welfare Liberalism,
the Administered Society seeks social harmony by means of the public administration,
an active government and partnership with a variety of actors. Very ironically, as a
result of this vision, attitude of privatization is increasing. As for Economic Democracy,
also termed Bdemocratic socialism^, like Populism, this vision is looking for
empowering citizens and integrating them in policy and decision making in order to
make the society more human and sustainable notably by means of hiring their experts,
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and so on. For instance, it is very
difficult to know the result of this vision, because of the lack of experiences. Here is the
criteria from Bellah et al.s analysis (see the Table 2).

Three Clusters of Administrative Values and Two Tables of Comparing

Perspectives in PA

In addition to the six visions of public good above, three other tables have been taken
into account. The first is the one related to three clusters of administrative values
(Strange 1988), realized by Hood (1991, p.11). According to this table, in public
management, there are three clusters of administrative values, Sigma, Theta and
Lambda type values. Firstly, Sigma-types values Bmatch resources to defined tasks
[] objectives, the setting of fixed and checkable goals must be central to any design
for realizing such values []^ (Hood 1991, p.12). Thus, there are twofold conse-
quences: the first is the output control system and the second is the separation of
thinking and executing activities.
Secondly, Theta-type values consist in the Bpursuit of honesty, fairness and mutu-
ality through the prevention of distortion, inequity, bias and abuse of office [, which]

Table 2 Criteria from Six visions of Public Good (Bellah et al. 1985)

Vision of public good 3 couples of vision quoted

Period 3 periods: 1880s 1928/19291970s/Since 1980

Genuine Ideas What are the ideas behind the vision?
Focus What is the ultimate target of vision?
Pilots Who is making decisions and managing the setting up?
(Government/Citizens/any others)
Main directions To reach the target, what are the grand strategies?
Means What are the methods and the ways of the setting up?
Main Features What are the characteristics of the way of the setting up?
Scale At what level is the vision set up? (National/Local/International)
Results What are the consequences of the setting up?
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

are institutionalized []^ (op.cit. p.12). To do this, the institution looks for socializing
public officials following Bpublic ethos^. As results, an organization with Theta-type
values focuses its control therefore on process, not output, makes public decision
making more democratic, and its goal is single rather than multiple. Thirdly, the
Lambda type values relates to Borganizational resilience^ (Weick 1993). As results,
in an organization with Lambda-type values, the control focuses on process and input
rather than output, objectives are multiple rather than single, management focuses on
cohesion rather than merit system, mistakes and errors are admissible. In this analysis,
these three clusters of administrative values have been used and main core value of
each theory of PA has been determined.
The second table is from Denhardt and Denhardt (2000). In their paper, they propose
new ways of thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of classic PA, NPM and
NPS. To do so, they compare them following 10 criteria (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000,
p.554). The third table in this analysis has been exposed by Osborne in 2006. In his
paper, he compares PA, NMP and New Public Governance along 7 criteria (Osborne
2006). In order to construct a synthetic grid of analysis, some criteria were added,
regrouped, and others have been deleted (see the Table 3).

Comparison of five Theories of PA

Following this analysis grid above, the argument of this paper is to compare five
theories of PA.

New Public Administration (NPA)

From the point of view of Bellah et al. (1985), even if NPA was born in 19601970s, its
background, issue, focus, main directions, means, pilot as well as main features match
the Administered Society. Actually, in 1960s1970s, the objectives and the rationale of
classic PA were already to be economic, efficient and productive (frankly speaking,
these are not the invention of the NPM at all). For NPA, in addition to these objectives
above, its objective is social equity. Actually, for the proponents of NPA, the problem
of current PA consists in its difficulties of being relevant to social changes and citizens
real needs. Thus, in addition to be economic, efficient and productive, PA has to
become more equitable in order to treat increasing social problems, satisfy citizens,
and keep society cohesive, in other words, return to the general welfare.
To do this, firstly, for the proponents of NPA, it is absolutely necessary to admit that
PA is now a part of public policy making just like politics. Indeed, in classic PA, based
on the theory of Weberian bureaucracy, PA was considered only as an instrument of
implementation of public policy. PA had to be subject to politics and in any way, PA
was never considered as a part of policy making. However, according to the proponents
of NPA, PA participates in policy making just like politics, because PA influences
politics by means of its knowing-how and the implementation of public policies. In
order to make the society more equitable, it is necessary to form a public governance by
integrating PA in political decisions making.
Secondly, current PA doesnt work because of its institutionally bad practices. Thus,
PA must identify them and change them. To do this, for the proponents of NPA, there is
no best way. Every way can be good, when it allows PA to accomplish its missions in a
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

Table 3 Construction of analysis grid

Criteria used in this grid Given criteria from three tables (Bellah et al. 1985 ; Denhardt
and Denhardt 2000 ; Osborne 2006)

Public Administration Theory Added

When was the theory formulated Period (Bellah et al. 1985)
for the first time?
Authors Added
Bibliographic references Added
Conception of the public interest Vision of public good (Bellah et al. 1985)
(Vision of Public Good) Conception of the public interest (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Genuine Ideas Genuine Ideas (Bellah et al. 1985)
Theoretical Roots Theoretical roots (Osborne 2006)
Primary theoretical and epistemological foundations
(Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Prevailing rationality and associated models of human
behavior (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Nature of the State Nature of the State (Osborne 2006)
Main Core Public Value Value base (Osborne 2006)
(Strange 1988, by Hood 1991) Assumed motivational basis of public servants and
administrators (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Organizational Model Assumed organizational structure (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
The recipient of the public service To whom are public servants responsive?
(Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Role of government Focus (Bellah et al. 1985)
Pilots (Bellah et al. 1985)
Focus (Osborne 2006)
Emphasis (Osborne 2006)
Relationship to external (non-public) organizational
partners (Osborne 2006)
Role of government (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Means Main directions (Bellah et al. 1985)
Means (Bellah et al. 1985)
Main Features (Bellah et al. 1985)
Governance mechanism (Osborne 2006)
Mechanisms for achieving policy objectives
(Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Approach to accountability (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)
Deleted Scale (Bellah et al. 1985)
Results and limits (Bellah et al. 1985)
Administrative discretion (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000)

relevant way: in order to satisfy citizens, if the professionalized and centralized

bureaucracy is better, PA should be professionalized, centralized and bureaucratic. If
the participatory decentralization model is better in order to treat some social problems,
PA should be participatory and decentralized. If collaboration with private sector,
notably PPP (Public-Private Partnership), is better in order to conduct construction
sites, PA should outsource the work. In other words, it is time to (re)innovate PA
institutionally. Nevertheless, the matrix model, more precisely the project management
is considered more relevant than the bureaucracy.
From this point of view, NPA refers to contingent structural theories (Burns and
Stalker 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967) as well as the theory of self-designing
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

organization (Weick and Berlinger 1989). Indeed, given empirical observations on

high-tech and heavy industries, they argue that it is the most relevant model of
organization in response to its environment. In a stable and predictable envi-
ronment, a bureaucratic organization is the most relevant model, whereas in a
turbulent and equivoque environment, a dynamic and resilient organization is
the most relevant model.
Thirdly, in order to (re)innovate classic PA and make it relevant to social changes,
NPA is problems oriented: it identifies and looks for solution. To this end, the
government and PA have to become BAgent Change^ managing routinization of
organizational changes and boundary relationships with citizens and other actors. In
change management, public managers are key, because the issue of change manage-
ment depends on how public managers lead changes. From this point of view, public
ethos is essential, as Bsocial equity^ in NPA matches Bsocial justice^ in terms of Rawls
(by Frederickson 1980, pp. 3742) which is fundamental for the common benefit.
According to this point of view, NPAs main core value is Theta-type.

New Public Management (NPM)

For NPM, given numerous social changes, PA doesnt work anymore because its
system is not good enough. Just like NPA, according to NPM, the organization
should cope with environmental changes. To do this, the government should be
effective, market oriented, mission driven, results oriented, customers driven,
anticipatory, decentralized. In other words, the government should steer rather
than row and empower rather than serve (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Concretely,
NPM type reforms are made following seven doctrines, notably greater emphasis
on output controls, shift to disaggregation of units in the public sector, shift to
greater competition in public sector, stress on private sector styles of management
practice, explicit standards and measures of performance, Heads-on professional
management in the public sector, and stress on greater discipline and parsimony
in resource use (Hood 1991).
From the point of view of Bellah et al. (1985), NPM joins the vision of
public good of Neo-Capitalism: its focus is to keep the material progress and to
allow the population to satisfy their personal needs. To do this, the government
looks for reducing the scope of public intervention at least by redefining the
scope of public duty and for steering service input and output principally by
means of market system. As for the organizational model, the decentralization
and the model of agencies are preferred. The population is an Binterest group^
or Baggregation of individual interests^ to satisfy.
Thus, the citizen becomes client or customer. Enthusiast for science and
technology, NPM creates and involves a number of indicators of measurement,
incentive systems and mechanisms of evaluation by experts. From all of these
points of view, NPMs principal core value is Sigma-type, even if Hood (1991)
argued that NPMs value were also a little bit Theta and Lambda type.
Furthermore, NPM proposes little collective answer to resolve the social prob-
lems like persistent poverty, unemployment and to make the society cohesive,
as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2011, or the recent conflict of Greece with
others members of EU are showing.
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

Public Value Management (PVM)

In 1994, believing in the key role of public manager in improving and changing
PA, Moore theorized PVM. Actually, if public value consists in collective prefer-
ence formulated by Bcitizenry^, it can be analyzed in terms of the relation between
governmental action and its impacts. These impacts can be, in their turn,
subdivided in two main types of values: the first is the substantial value of private
interests. This value involves the financial, political, social, and strategic impacts
which affect individuals and interest groups; the second is the intrinsic value of
society and democracy. This value includes the ideological impacts (effects on
beliefs, morals or ethics) and administrative impacts (effects on public trust,
image, integrity, legitimacy of public officials and institutions). These impacts
concern the political system and the very cornerstone of society. For Harrison
et al. (2012), collaboration, transparence and participation can produce both
intrinsic and substantial values.
For PVM, just like NPA and NPM, techniques of program evaluation and cost
analysis can be useful. However, it focuses on cost-effectiveness analysis rather than
cost-benefit analysis, which is preferred in NPM. From all of these points of view,
firstly, PVM joins the vision of public good of the Administered Society: public
executives and administrators are the strong leader in the production of public values,
which are defined by citizens; it is essential to define and produce public values, in
other words, collective preferences, because it allows to keep the permanent and
aggregate interests of the nation in a continuous way; different kinds of stakeholder
are integrated in decision making process under the joined-up models of government
and network governance forms,
Secondly, PVMs main core value is Theta type. Indeed, the consequence of Theta-
type values, that is to say Bkeep it honest and fair^ are very close to intrinsic public
values, trust, legitimacy, confidence in government; the organizational model designed
in PVM in an integrated organization which prevents particular groups from monop-
olizing public decisions and makes decision making process more democratic; PVM
focuses on how produce public values, in other words process and its control empha-
sizes on cost-effectiveness rather than cost-benefit.

New Public Service (NPS)

Before the crisis of legitimacy of classic public organization, Denhardt & Denhardt
suggest to find new ways to think about government, public organization and relation-
ship between public organization and citizens (Denhardt and Denhardt 1981). They
propose NPS as a possible alternative to the public choice perspective and the govern-
ment monopoly on the steering of society (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000). Defining
NPS as Bas set of ideas about the role of public administration in the governance
system that places citizens at the center^ (op.cit. 2000, p.550), NPS joins post-positivist
social science and the second generation of behavioralist with mains directions such as
Bserve, rather than steer^, Bthe public interest is the aim, not the by-product^, Bthink
strategically, act democratically^, Bserve citizens, not customers^, Baccountability isnt
simple^, Bvalue people, not just productivity^ and Bvalue citizenship and public service
above entrepreneurship^.
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

Denhardt and Denhardt (2000, p. 557) support the idea that one normative model
can prevail at any point in time, with others playing a lesser role within the context of
the prevailing view. From this point of view, they consider democracy, community and
the public interest more important than efficiency and productivity. And, more than the
NPM which is now predominant, as a normative model, the NPS is consistent with the
basic foundations of democracy provides a rallying point around and allows
envisioning a public service based on and fully integrated with citizen discourse
and the public interest .
From all of these points of view, firstly, NPS joins rather the vision of the Admin-
istered Society: it is up to public administrators and organizations to improve relation-
ship with citizens by serving citizen, contributing to building a collective, shared notion
of the public interest However, NPS appears close to the vision of Economic
Democracy. Indeed, NPS puts the human at the center and looks for meaningful society
and democracy by integrating citizens and collaborating with them. In this respect, to
some extent, NPS can be considered as a transition between the Administered Society
and Economic Democracy.
Secondly, NPSs main core value is Theta type: NPS aims to improve citizens trust
in PA. To do this, PA should serve, contribute to building the public interests, help
citizen articulate and meet their common interests, collaborate with citizen Therefore,
the control focuses on process of collaboration, public decision making is more
democratic by integrating citizen, the goal is the public interest, shared value among
citizen, and currency of success consists in trust and entitlements of citizen.

New Public Governance (NPG)

Osborne exposes the New Public Governance (NPG) as the theory that responds to the
need for a more holistic theory of Public Administration and Management (PAM)
one that moves beyond the sterile dichotomy of administration versus management
and that allows a more comprehensive and integrated approach to the study, and
practice, of PAM . The developed theory is an alternative discourse (Osborne 2006,
p. 380) to PA or NPM. It is based on Ba plural state, where multiple inter-dependent
actors contribute to the delivery of public services and a pluralist state, where multiple
processes inform the policy making system^ (Ibid, p. 381).
It Bseeks to understand the development and implementation of public policy^ and
Bfocuses upon inter-organizational relationships and the governance of processes^
(Ibid, p. 382). To do this, it takes into account both the environment of public service
and Public Service Organizations, and Blays emphasis on the design and evaluation of
enduring inter-organizational relationships, where trust, relational capital and rela-
tional contracts act as the core governance mechanisms^ (Ibid, p. 384). To this extent,
NPG is coherent with Bellahs Economic Democracy where citizens are seen as
empowered and a political vision has to dominate competing interests: that can be
reached by NPG through its focus on relationships and by coordinating activities of all
kind of organizations that take part to public service.
Osborne et al. (2012) and Lindsay et al. (2013), p. 193) identify inter-organizational
issues as the main dimension of public services in the contemporary context that NPM
has not faced. Osborne et al. (Ibid) argue for the development of a genuine Bpublic
service dominant^ approach instead of the usual manufacturing sector centered one.
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

Lindsay et al. (Ibid) support the idea that the increasing body of research and theory
about the evolution of the delivery of public services seek to reflect the reality rather
than to develop a normative framework. According to Wiesel and Modell (2014, p.
178), NPG logic is based on the conception of citizens as co-producers, whereas NPM
see them as customers or consumers.
NPG logic also differs from NPM in terms of legislative preference (enhancing
citizen orientation opposed to improving economic performance), structures and forms
or organizing (collaborative networks instead of competitive markets) and, consequen-
tially, in terms of main focus control (inter-organizational processes vs outputs) and key
performance aspects (effectiveness and citizen/customer satisfaction vs efficiency and
financial results). NPG has the potential to provide a framework to include the
evaluation of the voluntary sector. It Bcombines the strengths of PA and the NPM, by
recognizing the legitimacy and interrelatedness of both the policy making and the
implementation/service delivery processes^ (Osborne 2006, p. 384). Therefore, NPG
values are close to Lambda-type, because it aims at several goals at the same time and
can be seen as a flexible theory based on multiple connections and information
exchanges between different types of organizations.
Table 4 exposes the synthesis of all these points of view (see the table 4).

Conclusion

The aim of this paper is to compare five theories of PA and to draw a map. To do this,
an analysis grid has been built based on the work of Bellah et al. (1985), Strange
(1988), Denardt (1981) and Osborne (2006). This analysis of five theories shows that
there are three mega-trends: the first one is theoretically predominant, the second one
practically predominant and the last quite new which seems to be the next step in PA
reform.
Firstly, in theory, from the 1970s, the vision of the Administered Society and Theta
type values seem to have been predominant: three among the five theories (NPA, PVM
and NPS) join the vision of the Administered Society and Theta type values. In other
words, we are looking for getting back to the traditional values, thats to say, the general
welfare and the social harmony. For NPA, its throughout social equity, for PVM, by
creating shared public values, and for NPS, by serving and integrating citizens that the
general wellbeing can be found. The collaboration with and the integration of citizens
and private as well as non-benefic groups in decision making are at the center, even if
PA and government stay leaders in making public policy and implementation.
Secondly, in reality and really curiously-, Neo-Capitalism and Sigma type values
has been predominant up to today throughout NPM type reforms. By means of market
system and reduction of public intervention, this trend is supposed to get better
individual material wellbeing. Ironically, its still up to the government, neither the
market, nor citizens, to make decisions and steer NPM type reforms. Thirdly, even
though the vision of Economic Democracy emerged in 1980s, as NPG shows, this
vision with Lambda type values are quite new, but powerful in PA. Actually, since the
Arab Spring, most Western societies looks for integrating citizens and other actors in
decision making and public policy implementation. ICT can contribute to this trend and
in this respect, NPG, and more particularly Be-governance^ are supposed to be the next
Table 4 Comparison of five theories of PA
Public New Public Administration
Administration (NPA)
Theory
When was the 1971
theory
formulated for
the first time?
Authors Marini & Frederickson
Bibliographical Marini et al. (1971), Toward a Hood (1991), A public man-
references New Public Administration,
The Minnowbrook
Perspective (from the young
researchers conference in
Minnowbrook in 1968),
Chandler Publishing
Company, US.
Frederickson (1980), New
Public Administration, Uni-
versity of Alabama Press.
Frederickson (1996), Compar-
ing the Reinventing Govern-
ment Movement with the
NPM, in Public administration
review, vol. 56, no. 3,
May/June.
Conception of the A more equitable society (The
public interest Administered Society)
New Public Management
(NPM)
1991
Hood, Osborne & Gaebler
Moore (1994), Public Value as
agement for all seasons?,
Public Administration, vol. 69,
pp. 319.
Osborne and Gaebler (1992),
Reinventing government,
how the entrepreneurial spirit
is transforming the public
sector, reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company
The aggregation of individual
interests (Neo-Capitalism)
Public Value Management
(PVM)
1994
Moore
Denhardt (1981), Toward a
the focus of strategy, Austra-
lian Journal of Public
Administration, vol.53,
September, pp. 296303.
Moore (1995), Creating public
value, strategic management in
government, Harvard
University Press
OFlynn (2007), From New
Public Management to Public
Value: Paradigmatic Change
and Managerial Implications,
Australian Journal of Public
Administration, vol.66, n3,
pp. 353366.
Harrison et al. (2012), Open
Government and e-
-Government: Democratic
Challenges from a public
Value Perspective, Information
Polity, 17, pp. 8397.
Collective preferences (The
Administered Society)
New Public Service (NPS) New Public Governance
(NPG)
2000 2006
Denhardt & Denhardt Osborne
Osborne (2006), The
Critical Theory of Public New Public
Organization, PAR, Governance?, Public
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
Nov/Dec 1981, pp.628365. Management Review,
Denhardt and Denhardt (2000), Vol.8, Issue 3.,
The New Public p.377387
Service: Serving Rather than
Steering, Public Administra-
tion Review 60 (6):
54959.
Denhardt and Denhardt (2001),
The New Public
Service: putting Democracy
first, National Civic Review,
vol.90, n4, Winter 2001.
Pp. 391399.
Shared values (The All public service
Administered Society) (Economic Democracy)
Table 4 (continued)
Public New Public Administration
Administration (NPA)
Theory
(Vision of
Public Good)
Genuine Ideas Too much trust in expertise and The bankruptcy of bureaucracy
organizational capability and
too little questioning of
bureaucratic ways ;
Difficulty of current public
organization to respond to
turbulence and critical
problems ;
Breakup of relationship between
youth and age in public
administration
Theoretical Roots Second generation of
behavioralist and probably
Structural Contingency
Theories, based on
post-positivist social science
with mainly Heuristic ap-
proach and Eclectic methodol-
ogy
Nature of the State Unitary
Main Core Public
Value (Strange
1988, by Hood
1991)
New Public Management
(NPM)
The transactions cost theory and
principal-agency theory
Scientific management
movement
Disaggregated
Public Value Management
(PVM)
Guide for public executives Reaction to the NPM economic
Reaction to the weakness of the
NPM approach
Clash of new institutional and
neo-classical economic con-
ceptions of human behavior
with collective forms of orga-
nizing and operating
Behavioralist social science
Leadership and management
theories principally based on
heuristic approach and eclectic
methodology
Post-Competitive
Plural and Pluralist
Theta-type values: Collective
preferences
New Public Service (NPS)
approaches in the delivery of
public service
Theories of democratic
citizenship: varied approaches
to knowledge including
positive, interpretive critical,
and postmodern ;
Models of community and civil
society
Organizational humanism and
discourse theory
Strategic rationality, multiple
tests of rationality (political,
economic, organizational)
Plural and Pluralist
New Public Governance
(NPG)
The legitimacy and
interrelatedness of both
the policy making and
the
implementation/service
delivery processes
Organizational sociology
and network theory:
(Ouchi, 1979; Powell,
1990);
Organizational social
capital literature within
organizational strategy
(Tsai 2000); Relational
marketing litterature
(Grnroos, 1994)
Plural and Pluralist
Lambda-type values:
Neo-corporatist
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
Table 4 (continued)
Public New Public Administration
Administration (NPA)
Theory
Theta-type values: Public Sector
ethos, efficacy, efficiency, and
social equity
Organizational Matrix Model, notably project
structure management:
decentralization of public
organization with democratic
and participatory work-group
and autonomous teamwork;
flatter hierarchies, contracting
out, systems of coproduction
The recipient of the Citizen, Consumer and Customer
public service
Role of Forming governance by Steering Service inputs and
government accepting Public
Administration in
Policy-making and Policy Im-
plementation
steering organizational changes
in order to be more relevant to
social evolution
managing boundary-exchange
Means Oriented problems and tending The market and classical or
to acting,
BAgent-Change^ to manage
organizational changes and
boundary relations of
New Public Management
(NPM)
Sigma-type values: Efficacy of
competition and the
market-place
Intra-organizational manage-
ment:
decentralization of public
organizations with primary
control remaining within the
agency
Customer
outputs (acting as a catalyst to
unleash market forces):
neo-classical contracts
(Creating mechanisms and
incentive structures to
achieve policy objectives
Public Value Management
(PVM)
Theta-type values: Public
Whole of government or Collaborative structures with
joined-up models of governing
and network governance forms
Stakeholders
Bcitizenry^ (Alford 2002,
quoted in OFlynn 2007,
p.360)
Defining, creating and
producing public values in
order to satisfy citizens,
political and juridical
overseers:
steering networks of providers
for public value
Providing service, evaluating
outcome of public values and
establishing trust, legitimacy
and confidence in
government:
New Public Service (NPS)
service, desire to contribute to
society
Inter-Organizational
leadership shared internally
and externally
Client and Citizen
Serving (negotiating and
brokering interests among
citizens and community
groups, creating shared
values)
Building coalitions of public,
nonprofit, and private
agencies to meet mutually
agreed upon needs ;
New Public Governance
(NPG)
Governance
Looking for Public Administration Theories?
Citizen and Customer
Collaborating (preferred
suppliers, and often
inter-dependent agents
within ongoing
relationships, Osborne
2006)
Trust or relational
contracts.
Emphasis on the design
and evaluation of
enduring
Table 4 (continued)

Public New Public Administration New Public Management Public Value Management New Public Service (NPS) New Public Governance
Administration (NPA) (NPM) (PVM) (NPG)
Theory

organization in order to make
PA more relevant to social
evolution
With very eclectic methodology Market-driven- the accumula-
(decentralization,
neighborhood control,
democratic and participatory
group work, contracting,
delegation, performance target,
routinization of changes,
professionalization, loyalty
toward project,)
through private and nonprofit including and involving a wide Multi-faceted- public servants inter-organizational
agencies, Denhardt and of stakeholders in government must attend to law, commu- relationships, where
Denhardt 2000) activities: functional matching nity values, political norms, trust, relational capital
professional standards, and and relational contracts
tion of self-interests will result citizen interests act as the core gover-
in outcomes desired by broad nance mechanisms
groups of citizens (or cus- (p.384)
tomers)
Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

step to reform in depth PA and government. In other words, a new government is just
now reinventing.
All these points of view lead us to three questions. First, BTo what extent are these
theories scientific?^ In other words, has any of these five theories been tested in terms
of Popper (1959)? For us, the answer is Bnot entirely yet^. Actually, these PA theories
seem to us rather like ideal types of the organization of the modern public administra-
tion (Weber 1956) than scientific corpus in Poppers terms. To some extent, it does not
really matter if all of these theories are more or less scientific in Poppers terms,
because, as Weber already wrote, the ideal type is necessary to compare the reality
with, to understand reasons of differences between them and, eventually to find how to
get them alike. From this point of view, all of these PA theories are absolutely necessary
because they show us some directions to take in order to get a better society.
The second question is BAre the vision of Economic Democracy, NPG and e-
governance really new?^ In other words, Bwill they really allow to reform in depth
PA and government and to make the society more sustainable and equitable?^. In its
conclusion, to the question Is reinventing government just old wine in new bottles? ,
Frederickson (1996) answers mostly, yes and concludes that there is no doubt that
the coming generation will create a version of public administration they regard to be a
new paradigm (Ibid, p. 269) because, and he refers to John Dewey (1927), each
generation must construct its own reality . In other words, it is only the package that
changes, not the content. Indeed, Bellah et al.s six visions of the public good show that
if the focus, main directions and means change with socio-economic evolution, pilots
change very few. There is an iteration between institutions and other actors than
institutions. To sum up, the key question is the one of power-sharing.
The final question is just about this power-sharing and decision-making processes.
In other terms, BAre executives/politicians really willing to share the power?^ If they
are, BTo what extent are they ready to share the power and how to share it?^ Actually,
none of these theories ask these questions, while they are essential in PA theory,
because last PA theories concern precisely how to share the power and organize it.
As Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) argued, current public policy problems seem to come
principally from the politicians, not from the public administration. Because this later
role is only to help politicians to implement and set up public policies which have been
made by politicians. Thus, we believe that before talking about how to share the power
and organize it, we need to ask to politicians this crucial question, BAre you really
willing to share the power?^

References

Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public
Administration Review, 62(3), 337346.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart,
individualism and commitment in American life. USA: Perennial Library.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. New York: Oxford University.
Crozier M. (1963). Le phnomne bureaucratique. Editions du Seuil.
Denardt R.B. (1981), Toward a Critical Theory of Public Organization, Public Administration Review,
November/December 1981, pp. 628-635. United Kingdom
 Pyun H.-O., Gamassou C.E.

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public
Administration Review, 60(6), 549559.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2001). The new public service: putting democracy first. National Civic
Review, 90(4), 391400.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Arthens: Swallow Press.
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. H. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public
money and management, 916.
Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration. US: University of Alabama Press.
Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the NPM. Public
Administration Review, 56(3).
Frederickson, H. G., et al. (2012). The public administration theory primer (Second ed.). US: Westview press.
Grnroos, Ch. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 420
Harrison, T., Guerrero, S., et al. (2012). Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a
public value perspective. Information Polity, 17, 8397.
Hood, C. H. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 319.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second ed.). USA: Enlarged, International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 147.
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P., & BOND, S. (2013). The new public governance and employability services in
an era of crisis; challenges for third sector organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, 92(1), 192
92(1), 207.
Marini, F. et al. (1971). Toward a new public administration, the Minnowbrook perspective. US: Chandler
Publishing Company.
Moore, M. H. (1994). Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53,
296303.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value, strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
OECD. (2009). Government at a Glance 2009. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2015). Government at a Glance 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OFlynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and managerial
implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353366.
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377387.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming
government. Reading: Adison Wesley Public Comp.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management?: toward a
(public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135158.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A Conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms.
Management Science, 25(9), 833848.
Passet R. (2010). Les grandes reprsentations du monde et de lconomie travers lhistoire, Editions Les liens
qui Librent.
Pollitt, C. H., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform, a comparative analysis: new public
management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Popper K. R. (1959). La logique de la dcouverte scientifique. Translated in French 1973, Payot.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw, L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 295336). JAI London
Strange, S. (1988). States and markets. London: Pinter.
Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 925939.
Weber M. (1956). Economy and society. Translated in English 1978, University of California.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of Sensemaking in organizations: the Mann gulch disaster. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38(1993), 628652.
Weick, K. E., & Berlinger, L. R. (1989). Career improvisation in self-designing organizations. In M. B. Arthur,
D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 313328). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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), 175205.
Looking for Public Administration Theories?

Hae-Ok Pyun is an associate professor at the Universit dOrlans and research fellow of the Centre de
Recherche Juridique de Pothier (CRJ Pothier). She works on public management, especially human resources
in the public sector and public administration theories.

Claire Edey Gamassou is associate professor at Universit Paris-Est and research fellow of the Institut de
Recherche en Gestion (IRG).