Premium
Traditions and Public Sector Reform: Comparing Britain and Denmark
Author(s) -
Rhodes R. A. W.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
scandinavian political studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-9477
pISSN - 0080-6757
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9477.00023
Subject(s) - public sector , bureaucracy , marketization , new public management , dilemma , public administration , politics , decentralization , accountability , political science , government (linguistics) , democracy , constitution , civil society , political economy , sociology , law , philosophy , linguistics , epistemology , china
A governmental tradition is a set of beliefs about the institutions and history of government. In this article I argue the Anglo‐Saxon governmental tradition interprets public sector reform differently to the Rechtsstaat , participation tradition of Denmark, leading to different aims, measures and outcomes. In the Introduction, I define NPM arguing that is has become everything and is, therefore a meaningless term. I identify six dimensions to public sector reform: privatization, marketization, corporate management, regulation, decentralization and political control. In section 2, I describe the six dimensions of public sector reform in Britain and Denmark. In section 3, I explain the idea of a governmental tradition and argue the idea is essential to understanding the differences between Britain and Denmark. In section 4, I compare British and Danish governmental traditions, arguing the key differences lie in beliefs about the constitution, bureaucracy and state‐civil society relations. Finally, I provide a summary explanation of the differences and argue that traditions not only shape the aims, measures and outcomes of public sector reform but also lead to different interpretations of reform and its dilemmas. In Britain, the key dilemma concerns central steering capacity. In Denmark, the main dilemma is democratic accountability.