International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences

2012, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42 49.

ISSN 2304 1366
http://www.ijmess.com

New Public Management Approach and
Accountability

Mahboubeh Fatemi and Mohammad Reza Behmanesh
Attar Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran


A new paradigm for public management, called New Public
Management, has emerged since 1980s that is formed to confront
the present problems. This model is originated from the fusion
of economic theories and private sector management techniques.
The most important particulars of this model are decreasing
government size, the decentralization of management authority,
the emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness and economy. This
paper examines how New Public Management (NPM) impacts on
fulfilling different aspects of accountability in the public
sector. In the Traditional Approach of Accountability,
politicians and civil servants are liable to elected authorities
but in this approach, they should be liable to people.
Therefore, in NPM there is a shift of accountability from the
political to the managerial sphere and from input and processes
to output and outcomes. The results show under this approach,
operational and managerial accountability fulfill political and
financial aspects of accountability.

Keywords: Accountability, corporate responsibility, management

JEL: G34


Increasing awareness in society regarding
transparent functioning of government has
improve accountability concept. Now,
governments are forced to the systems of
budgeting, accounting and their financial
reporting which uncovered new approaches of
management. Administration government which
also called model of traditional fundamental
campaign which was based on an accurate
model of the bureaucracy and under control of
political leadership. Default fundamental pattern
of bureaucracy is that government officials must
be neutral which is motivating factor for their
general interests, non-interference in politics and
implementation of guidelines for politicians.
Model of Traditional administration government,
which is the strongest and most successful theory
of management in public sector, is being
replaced with other models (Hughes, 1998). The
reasons of replacing is that in pattern of
traditional tendency toward being bureaucratic, is
work on process rather than outcomes, and
emphasizing on instructions rather than emphasis
on results. Since 1970, many criticism about
incompetent bureaucracy was done such a way
that forced governments to focus formal
instructions to modify by results. Traditional
pattern theories and how to operate now is old
and in any way does not consistent with today's
changing community needs (Hughes, 1998).
Therefore a new approach for public
management, with title new public management
was evident. This approach was used for the first
time in 1980 when Prime Minister of England
Margaret Thatcher, with a neoliberal approach of
governance has formed the restructuring of the

Manuscript received September 22, 2012; revised October 30, 2012; accepted
December 1, 2012.
Corresponding author Email: [email protected]
43
Fatemi and Behmanesh
public sector especially under the reform
initiatives adopted by Thatcher in UK. In early
1990s, above term were used to describe public
sector reform in Britain and New Zealand. These
reforms include a conceptual plan was created
for the, structuring changes in organization and
managing government. In early 1990s, this
approach in the United States with situation
floating economic and difficulties in domestic
provide services, was accepted and remembered
it term "the People's Government . Problems
such as accumulated debt and environmental
changes external extreme, the role of public
sector has seriously questioned, and increased
pressure for change management in the public
sector (Yamamoto, 2003). According to
extension of this approach in the public sector,
the question is whether this perspective able to
performance public responsible as one of the
basic responsibilities accepted by governments,
in citizens as major supplier of financial resources
institutions the public sector? This paper is the
first introduces approach new public
management and principles and criticism has
been exerted on it and definition of responsible
and its variants have been described and finally,
has been investigated ability of this approach in
performance responsible public of governments.
Importance and origins of new public
management
Today many countries, consider the principles of
New Public Management (NPM) efficacious for
public sector reforms. This issue is evident by
growing number of countries that have suggested
these principles. Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development, World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) fans ardent this
reform throughout the world. The principles of
new public management, raised not only in
industrialized countries, members of the
Organization Economic Cooperation and
Development, such as Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, England and America, but also in
developing countries such as India, Jamaica and
Thailand are also considered new public
management. Recently, this principle also
presented to Asian countries through support
programs set up by the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF). With this
trend, there are many possibilities that above
approach will extend to other countries in the
future. The bureaucracy Because of intransigence
based on legal system and top-down decision-
making processes, is annoying (Yamamoto,
2003).
Formal bureaucracy have their own unique
benefits, but at the same time it does not focuse
to grow individuals, rather than taking risks,
escape from risk strengthen to managers, rather
than efficient use of resources, waste of
resources into teach managers and ultimately
increases your confidence but is slow in
movement. The 1970s have witnessed the
acceptance of policies reduced size of
government statrd a new period of theoretical
discussions between economists. The main
reason of reducing bureaucracy government as
defined by theorists were twofold. The first reason
is believed that the bureaucracy greatly restrict
individual liberty (Hughes, 1998). This discussion
turned to reduced the scope the government and
bureaucracy. The second reason, economists
44

International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences

believe that the traditional bureaucratic pattern
without incentives is necessary; therefore,
efficiency is also lower (Hughes, 1998). These
ideas will lead to public choice theory. This
Theory is emphasized on the greater inefficiency
in government. Thus, inefficiency of government
can be reviewed models and corrected operations
and their activities is based on market concepts
of competition and efficiency and making-like
business of such institutions will resolved
(Babajani, 2010).
Principles of New Public Management
New public management approach is started by
setting objectives in terms of operational
budgeting and with resource allocation, whereas,
implementation efforts will continue to produce
and provide goods and services. In this
approach, emphasis on achieving results and
success rate through achieving the goals will be
measured (Babajani, 2010).
New public management founded based on a
series of principles these, can be expressed as
follows.
The first principle: Emphasis on management
skills for active, objectively and voluntary control
of organizations.
The second principle: Defining standards and
criteria for measuring performance through
determining the objectives and indicators
success.
The third principle: Emphasis on use of output
controls, instead of using input controls.
The fourth principle: Moving toward separation
units and decentralization in public sector.
The fifth principle: Moving toward greater
competition in the public sector that leads to
lower costs and better standards.
The sixth principle: Emphasis on private sector
management styles.
The seventh principle: Emphasis on efficiency,
effectiveness and economic efficiency to use the
resources (Hood, 1991).
These principles stated that managers in
governmental organizations should form more
active control and personal management to move
towards effective management (Yamamoto,
2003). According to these principles they should
perform their duties from the viewpoint of
accountability than determine obligations as
executives of public sector should have skills as
executive managers in the private sector have
professional skills (Yamamoto, 2003). New public
management does not emphasis on processes
(inputs) but on efficiency (outputs). The reason
for this is the difficulty in calculating the efficiency
of public services and controls according to
which public funds are spent. On the other hand,
accountability for outputs is specified clearly by
targets, success indicators and criteria for
performance measurement. Fourth principle
emphasize on decentralization of governments
and analysis governmental units integrated into
separate units. Separation activities policy
implementation from policy-making was one of
public sector reforms that is based on the
principle of decentralization new public
management (Yamamoto, 2003). The main
purpose of implementing such policy is
decentralization to create units of management
and delegate authority so that fast and flexible
45
Fatemi and Behmanesh
decisions can be made. The new public
management approach provides competition in
public sector, this competition can lead to
savings in use of resources and improvement in
the quality of public services.
New Public Management as a global approach
According to Hood (1991), this approach is the
result of combining two different ideas. The first
idea of conventional economics, which is based
on representation theory founded management
and the second idea, oriented management
which is the idea about reforming public sector
and is originated from private sector (Yamamoto,
2003).
Successive OECD studies show that NPM
approach is globally convergent. Key reforms
include more focus on results and added value
for money, the reform delegate options and
increase flexibility, strengthen accountability and
control, service oriented and customer oriented
and changed relationships with various levels of
government. Kettl (2000) also believed that
moving towards this approach were due to the
number of nations that had reform in a short
period in its agenda and were considered
because of the similar strategies adopted
(Yamamoto, 2003). Hood (1995) states that
these principles are not accepted equally by all
member countries of the organization for
economic cooperation and development. He says
Japan, United States, Germany and Switzerland
compared to countries like England and New
Zealand are countries that seem their
governments less focused on accepting these
reforms in the 1980s. (Hood, 1995)
Pollitt (2002) believe one reason for difference
is that different countries have different views in
terms the public sector and attitudes about
government roles and features. He also says
different governments, have not the capacity to
make reform.
The criticism on the new public management
Some criticism on the new public management
approach is as follows:
Economic foundation: Few researchers believed
that the economy as the foundation of the
economic system has correctness and the validity
for the private sector has, but its application in
the government has not results (Hughes, 1998).
Created field of corruption: New public management
may lead to increased corruption between policy
makers and heads of the bureaucrats who looks
abroad to privatization and outsourcing.
Nature of Different: Schick (1996) says this
approach limits the responsibilities of public
sector and will undermine values and the
collective interests (Schick, 1996). Metcalfe
(1998) believes that public management is not
done only by one organization, but also includes
cooperation between organization and
coordination centers at levels of government or
between commercial institutions, organizations
independent consultancy and other agencies.
Metcalfe (1998) also expressed that an important
feature and highlighted government has diversity
in organizations and agencies; shapes and sizes
are different and has several actions.
Ignoring the values: according to differences
in public and private management, this approach
has been criticized due to elimination of values
46

International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences

such as fairness, equality, honesty and being
impartial (Denhardt, 2000). Emphasis on the
problem less scrupulous, and recognizes reason
that created this problem by relying on external
controls and conservative management
duplication of to the private sector management
(Schick, 1996). Although measuring and prevent
loss of values and moral principles is very
difficult, but can be measured with rigor
(Yamamoto, 2003). Deleon and Green (2001)
stated that reducing laws and regulations and
increased flexibility will lead to administrative
corruption. In public sector, external political
forces affects internal management systems and
as a result it affects the policies and
management. Therefore, performance
measurement and accountability may be having
less effective tool for output controls the public
sector (Deleon and Green, 2001).
Accountability
The concept of accountability and the life history
is at equal footing as political and democratic
system has roots in the philosophy of political
literature. The modern systems based on concept
such as accepting the "right to know the facts"
and right answer for people (Bakhtaki,2007). In
other words, concept of accountability as one of
the most original tasks of government and right
accountability for citizens as one of the most
original citizenship rights in the public sector.
Public accountability is a sign of modern
democracies. If power holder s decisions or
their policies are not accountable, democracy will
remain only on paper. The reason is that public
accountability is a social norm, in the
communities who form their assumptions that
accountability is primary in any business. Concept
of accountability, something is far beyond the
concepts such as word like answer. What is
hidden in this important concept. It is necessary
to describe the purpose and concept of
public public accountability. General concept
of public accountability is at least about two
different features. The first feature related to
dominate it on all aspects of social life and the
second concerns those who have powers from
government and are allowed to spend public
funds. Public accountability is defined in the
dictionary as "The person s obligation to
describe and provide logical reasons about the
acts that are done" (Oxford Dictionary,2003). In
other words, accountability is a duty which in its
implementation persons, provided satisfactory
explanations for fulfilling responsibility that has
undertaken and provide necessary reports.
Accountability involved double duty doing, and
the obligation to provide the report.
Types of accountability
Traditional characteristics of structural and
services environment and government activities
leads to highlight role of the concept of public
accountability in financial reporting, accounting
systems and other components of internal control
system of the public sector and government.
The dimensions accountability can be
expressed as follows (Habibi, 2006):
The traditional accountability: This type of
accountability can be investigated from the
perspective of legal and management. Legally,
the person governs, will ask others to try in
47
Fatemi and Behmanesh
accordance with provisions of intellect. from the
perspective of managerial way, overcome
problem, assign responsibilities and creates a
hierarchical structure of accountability. This
structure was proposed by Max Weber.
The new accountability: In new pattern of relations
between citizens and administrative system rather
than that is established by the politicians is
directly connected. This model has two
fundamental faults, have likelihood of the humans
error and vulnerable to corruption.
Beyond the paradigm accountability: While
passing through traditional management pattern,
a kind of new attitude or new paradigm of public
management occurred for management of
government. This new model tries to assign more
tasks to the private sector. In new public
management pattern called beyond the
paradigm, managers have an entrepreneurial role
and show attitude to people that they believe in
authority of customer. Also, In this pattern
privatization, deregulation, minimum government
intervention, maximum role of market and
reduced size of government is considered.
Government would act as status navigator and
supervisor therefore there will be a direct
accountability in front of customers and
government is also accountable. In attitudes
beyond this paradigm (the new public service),
government has to act as servant and empower
citizens by creating shared values among them
(Habibi, 2006).
In relation to accountability in modern
democracies, there are three major problems.
First, relationship between political authority and
accountability entities is often poor. Second,
political officials often are incapable to define the
clear, precise objectives and criteria that is
essential for accountability, and third, the type of
organizational structure often does not allow
managers to approach politicians for
accountability. Other aspects of public
accountability can be used such as financial,
operational, political, and social accountability
(Babajani, 2008).
Financial accountability: In this level, managers of
organizations are liable to use public financial
resources clearly. According to framework of laws
and regulations and are accountable about their
decisions.
Operational accountability: This accountability is
carried out to achieve operational objectives
which are the pre-defined, in terms of efficiency
and effectiveness and use of financial resources
in order to achieve the goals.
Political accountability: The accountability against
entity that has political background.
Social Accountability: It is commitment, while
delegating powers to a formal relationship which
should be transparent.
Management accountability: This accountability
can be made against a senior manager
(Rashidpur, 2005).
Public accountability and the new public
management
In new public management approach two types
of accountability may be considered;
accountability to politicians and accountability to
customers. In this approach, there has been a
shift of accountability from political circles to
management and from inputs and processes to
outcomes and results. In approach mentioned
48

International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences

efficiency and performance is the main focus of
accountability. However, efficiency is not
guaranteed for social and political correct
judgment and to perform management
accountability may also lead to reduced political
accountability (Christensen, 2002).
Traditional bureaucratic model with emphasis
on limited freedom, the implication of
accountability results in respecting the rules has
been a successful model in management.
Proponents of the New Public Management
believe that increase in customer options will lead
to freedom of managers and empowerment of
political control. Today, managers in public
sector around the world are looking to greater
freedom requir more attention to increase the
accountability. So, system with freedom of
managers without increasing the accountability
can be developed by reducing powers of
politicians. The traditional model of management
of public sector increase the freedom and
authorities of managers which expand the scope
of their accountability (Christensen, 2002).
In financial accountability, the government
and owners of right units convince that the
budget has to comply with laws and regulations;
resources according to legal permission may be
earned and used in order to achieve the
objectives and implementation of programs and
approved activities considering legal restrictions
and prevailing annual budget. In the area of
operational responsibility of accountability,
government and units should base their
performance on operational aspects such as
efficiency and effectiveness while using financial
resources (Babajani, 2008). In the new public
management approach the main focus is on
getting results and achieving the goals.
Therefore, this approach focus on performance
and operational accountability of governments
and against the people (Babajani, 2010).

CONCLUSION
The new public management as one of the
approaches dominant in public sector
management, uses series of strategies.
Improving the performance of public sector
institutions increased the competence of these
institutions. In this approach, management
methods private sector, including components
such as privatization, reduced government size,
outsourcing and customer focus is used and with
the flexibility and softened in management
structure and evaluation and performance
measurement. Efficiency and effectiveness can
consider in the public sector. Mentioned
approach is also considered in terms of
accountability, so that in this approach, two types
accountability has been raised, accountability to
politicians and accountability to customers (the
people). In this approach criticism also discussed
relation to accountability that can speak criticism
on more accountability than the performance
without regard to political accountability because
looking to management accountability may occur
reduce sense of political accountability. Thus,
under this approach, performance the public
accountability of governments towards citizens of
the management aspects are done, but
subsequently may be occur undermine
accountability of political and despite the
importance the effectiveness and efficiency that
49
Fatemi and Behmanesh
provides the possibility of performance
operational accountability, are not considered
financial aspects of accountability.

REFERENCES
Babajani, J. (2010). Challenges of public sector financial
reporting. Hesabras, 48: 96-97.
Babajani, J. (2008). The Analysis theatrical and legal basis of
2008 budgeting new approach of view accountability,
Hesabdar, 194: 4-5.
Bakhtaki, B. (2007).The role of accountability in promotion
quality of public services. Accounting Knowledge and
Research, 9: 35.
Christensen, T. (2002). Symposium on Accountability,
Publicity &Transparency New Public Management: Puzzles
of Democracy and the Impudence of Citizens. The Journal
of Political Philosophy, 10 (3): 286 288.
Deleon, P. & Mark, T. (2001). Corruption and the new public
management. In Johns, L. R., James, G. & Peter S. (Eds),
Learning from International Public Management Reform :
621. Elsevier Science.
Denhardt, J.V. & Denhardt, R.B. (2000). The New Public
Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration
Review, 60 (6): 549-550.
Habibi, A. (2006). Standards of new accountability.
www.aftabir.com.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?
Public Administration, 69: 4-5.
Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary public management: A New
Global Paradigm? Public Policy and Administration, 10 (2):
98-105.
Hughes, A. (1998). New governmental management,
Routledge, New York.
Metcalfe, L. (1998). Accountability and effectiveness:
designing the rules of accounting game. Paper presented in
International Conference on Accounting for the New Public
Management, Venice, 1-11.
Pollitt, C. (2002). Agency Fever? Analysis of an International
policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis,
277-278.
Rashidpur, A. (2005). Accountability and accountable
government. Tadbir on Management, 16 (160): 22.
Schick, A. (1996). The Spirit of reform: Managing the New
Zealand state sector in a time of change. The State
services Commission and the Treasury, 25-26.
Yamamoto, H. (2003). New Public Management-Japans
Practice. Institute for International policy Studies,1-10.