Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand

Theories of democratic government traditionally have relied on a model of organization in which officials act impartially, accept clear lines of accountability and supervision, and define their day–to–day activities through rules, procedures, and confined discretion. In the past 10 years, however, a serious challenge to this ideal has been mounted by critics and reformers who favor market, network, or “mixed–economy” models. We assess the extent to which these new models have influenced the work orientations of frontline staff using three alternative service types—corporate, market, and network—to that proposed by the traditional, procedural model of public bureaucracy. Using surveys of frontline officials in four countries where the revolution in ideas has been accompanied by a revolution in methods for organizing government services, we measure the degree to which the new models are operating as service–delivery norms. A new corporate–market hybrid (called “enterprise governance”) and a new network type have become significant models for the organization of frontline work in public programs.

[1]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Some remarks on the Typological procedures in social research , 1937 .

[2]  O. Williamson Markets and Hierarchies , 1975 .

[3]  Murray Edelman,et al.  Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail , 1977 .

[4]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[5]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[6]  T. Moe The New Economics of Organization , 1984 .

[7]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[8]  Michael Barzelay,et al.  Breaking through bureaucracy : a new vision for managing in government , 1992 .

[9]  D. Osborne,et al.  Reinventing Government: How the En-trepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector , 1992 .

[10]  Avner Ben-Ner,et al.  Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting , 1993 .

[11]  J. L. Grand,et al.  The theory of quasi-markets , 1993 .

[12]  W. Bartlett,et al.  Quasi-markets and social policy , 1993 .

[13]  R. Mayntz Modernization and the logic of interorganizational networks , 1993 .

[14]  J. Kooiman,et al.  Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions , 1993 .

[15]  R. Moe,et al.  THE REINVENTING GOVERNMENT EXERCISE: MISINTERPRETING THE PROBLEM, MISJUDGING THE CONSEQUENCES , 1994 .

[16]  James A. Davis,et al.  Constructing social research , 1994 .

[17]  K. Bailey,et al.  Sociology and the New Systems Theory. , 1994 .

[18]  M. Considine Market Bureaucracy? Exploring the Contending Rationalities of Contemporary Administrative Regimes , 1996 .

[19]  F. Naschold,et al.  Public Sector Transformation: Rethinking markets and hierarchies in government , 1996 .

[20]  B. Coe How Structural Conflicts Stymie Reinvention , 1997 .

[21]  Joop Koppenjan,et al.  Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector , 1997 .

[22]  B. Dabscheck Human Rights and Industrial Relations , 1998 .

[23]  Donald F. Kettl,et al.  The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links , 1997 .

[24]  V. Fournier,et al.  Too Much, Too Little and Too Often: A Critique of du Gay's Analysis of Enterprise , 1999 .

[25]  Mark Considine,et al.  Governance at ground level: The frontline bureaucrat in the age of markets and networks , 1999 .

[26]  A. Giddens The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy , 1999 .

[27]  Mark Considine,et al.  Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work , 2001 .