ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2026-4161
Current Organisation
RMIT University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Date: 06-08-2012
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 12-2002
DOI: 10.1108/09604520210451867
Abstract: In the past government organisations have paid little attention to service quality or responsiveness to clients. This changed with the movement termed “new public management”, which occurred in most developed nations around 1990. This paper briefly examines the concept of quality and its application to the public sector and discusses e‐government, the latest manifestation of attempts to improve quality in government. The paper also reports on a survey of senior personnel across the three levels of government in Australia. The results of the survey and other published research materials suggest, that the impact of e‐government on service delivery is modest and not well distributed. While there has been widespread adoption of e‐government measures, these have generally been lacking in sophistication and have been disproportionately beneficial to city dwellers without addressing problems of equity and access.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 24-03-2016
Abstract: We add new data to the long-standing debate about the interface between politics and administration, deploying theory and evidence indicating that it varies. It can be either a “purple zone” of interaction between the red of politics and the blue of administration, or a clear line. We use survey responses from 1,012 mostly senior public managers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, along with semi-structured interviews with 42 of them, to examine the extent to which public managers perceive that they “cross” the line or go into a zone, and the ways in which they do so. Our inclusion of a zone as well as a line recasts how roles and relationships between politicians and administrators can be conceived. Moreover, it raises questions about how particular contingencies affect whether public managers perceive and work with a line or a zone.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-09-2014
DOI: 10.1111/PADM.12125
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-1995
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 24-07-2013
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-1992
Publisher: Emerald (MCB UP )
Date: 2001
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 14-08-2017
DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-06-2017-0174
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to conduct a conceptual survey of transformation in the management of the public sector over the past 30 years. The paper provides a comparison of the bureaucratic form of public administration with more flexible forms of public management. The major change from an administrative model is that public managers are personally responsible for the delivery of results from that starting point different countries have implemented reforms in their own way. The 30-year timeframe points to the need to reconceptualize ideas of New Public Management (NPM) argued here to have been unhelpful for understanding public management. The importance of NPM has been exaggerated previously. The argument here is that public management includes an enduring set of reforms, NPM does not.
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 21-01-2010
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 06-2008
Abstract: New Public Management has now been “new” for more than 15 years, and public administration scholars are calling for new approaches, such as networked governance or collaboration. However, these approaches share with their predecessors the problem that they tend toward a one-best-way orientation. Instead, the authors argue, the next phase should be what they call “public value pragmatism.” In other words, the best management approach to adopt depends on the circumstances, such as the value being produced, the context, or the nature of the task. They illustrate a decision framework for determining the most appropriate approach for different types of circumstances. The emerging literature also tends to be unclear about the level of the public sector to which it applies. The authors distinguish three levels—programs, organizations, and whole public sectors—and put forward some propositions about how public value pragmatism might apply at each level.
No related grants have been discovered for Owen Hughes.