Modern ideas about governance in the public sector reflects the fact that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors are now irrelevant'. According to Rhodes, the traditional and hierarchical central government is no longer relevant in a context of international and internal linkages which limit the autonomy of the state. The shift from national markets to a more 'unique' global market would exert pressure on the national governments. Even if the reality of such a coherent international pressure is not obvious, this vision that that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors is now commonly shared. A strong public sector would not be affordable anymore, and a limited welfare state could only be secured by the introduction of private actors and values to get more effectiveness. The main model which 'has to' be implemented is the New Public Management, which aims to reorganize the public sector in order to bring its management closer to business methods.
[...] Are traditional boundaries between public and private sectors no longer relevant ? Introduction “Modern ideas about governance in the public sector reflect the fact that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors are now irrelevant”. According to Rhodes[1], the traditional and hierarchical central government is no longer relevant in a context of international and internal linkages which limit the autonomy of the state. The shift from national markets to a more “unique” global market (since the end of the 1970s) would be exerting pressure over the national governments which should adapt. [...]
[...] Ideology and “pragmatism” in public services governance The advantages of the blurring of boundaries are not as obvious as often depicted. And if the two sectors can “learn” from each other, they are still distinctive, and should perhaps remain so. Then why is this belief in NPM so strong and shared? And why does it portray itself as inevitable? Are these changes “pragmatic”, or assumptions? About the ability of the public sector to solve economic problems? Or any belief or ideology? [...]
[...] Conclusion If blurred, traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors are still a reality and are still relevant, as we can consider these two sectors as complementary. If efforts have to be made by the public sector to improve its efficiency, its specific value is the more important of its asset, as it has a duty. Then the “modern” judgment about the relevance of this “old fashioned” public sector should be relativized, as this judgment is in parts wrong, and quite ideological. [...]
[...] The delivering of high quality and free services is still a democratic right[8]. First will be questioned the relevance of the blurring of boundaries between the two sectors. Then will be asked the reasons why a system, which benefits are not always clear, has appeared as an inevitable shift for many academics and politicians. This fact can prevent a debate which is necessary to improve a system which questions the traditional functioning of states and democracy in the Western World. [...]
[...] Then most of these costs are then borne by the workforce, through erosion of security and increasing pressures[25] due to the difficulty to improve costs in the long term[26]. It is specially true for the ancillary workers transferred to the private sector (not for the experienced staff)[27].It can have repercussions on quality as it can an undermine the public service ethos and good will among workers. The front-line staff should be one of the most important concerns in any reform. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
