Janet V.

Denhardt
Robert B. Denhardt
University of Southern California

The New Public Service Revisited 75th Anniversary

Article

Janet V. Denhardt is the Chester A.

Editor’s Note: Fifteen years ago, Janet and Robert Denhardt introduced a set of norms and practices they called
Newland Professor of Public Administration
the New Public Service. Their perspective was created as a counterbalance to the popularity of reinventing in the Price School of Public Policy at the
government and the larger wave of New Public Management that began in the 1980s. In this anniversary essay, University of Southern California and direc-
tor of the Price School’s Sacramento
the Denhardt’s scan the landscape of public administration to assess how the principles of New Public Service
Center. She is also a fellow of the National
have fared against the New Public Management. Academy of Public Administration. Her
JLP teaching and research interests focus on
governance, organizational theory, organi-
zation behavior, and leadership.
Abstract: The New Public Service describes a set of norms and practices that emphasize democracy and citizenship E-mail: [email protected]
as the basis for public administration theory and practice. This article revisits some of the core arguments of the
Robert B. Denhardt is professor and
New Public Service and examines how they have been practiced and studied over the past 15 years. The authors director of leadership programs in the Price
conclude that neither the principles of the New Public Service nor those of the New Public Management have become School of Public Policy at the University of
a dominant paradigm, but the New Public Service, and ideas and practices consistent with its ideals, have become Southern California. He also holds the title
of Regents Professor Emeritus at Arizona
increasingly evident in public administration scholarship and practice. State University and Distinguished Visiting
Scholar at the University of Delaware. He is

F
irst appearing as a Public Administration Review values and citizenship by public administrators will a past president of the American Society for
Public Administration and a fellow of the
(PAR) article in 2000 and later as a book, The have benefits in terms of building communities, engag- National Academy of Public Administration.
New Public Service (2011) presented a set of ing citizens, and making government work more effec- E-mail: [email protected]
ideals and related practices emphasizing democratic tively. The proponents of the New Public Management,
norms and citizen engagement in the conduct of on the other hand, argue that the use of market models
public administration. Offered as an alternative to and values is the best way to understand the role and
the New Public Management (NPM) popularized operations of government and to ensure efficiency.
by Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing Government
(1992), the New Public Service addressed core ques- Of course, public administration practice cannot be
tions about the nature of public service, the role of divided into two distinct camps: one reflecting market
administration in governance, and the value tensions values and the other reflecting democratic values.
surrounding bureaucracy, efficiency, equity, respon- There are differences, however, in the extent to which
siveness, and accountability. Our purpose was not to certain values are balanced or pursued relative to other
develop a set of novel ideas but rather to give voice values. For example, few would say that citizenship, a
to the traditional and significant democratic perspec- hallmark of the New Public Service, is unimportant.
tives we felt were becoming overshadowed by the New Yet there are differences in how much emphasis is
Public Management rhetoric of “fixing” a broken placed on fostering citizenship through dialogue ver-
government by running it like a business. sus offering individual “customer” choices. Likewise,
it would be a rare public servant who would say that
Certainly the 15 years since the New Public Service efficiency is not an important value. Rather, it is a
appeared in PAR have been both remarkable and question of the extent to which efficiency is, or is not,
tumultuous, creating new challenges and opportu- balanced with other values such as engagement and
nities for public service. In light of these dramatic community building.
changes, we now ask, how have the values of the New
Public Service been reflected in scholarship and prac- If values are often mixed and muddied in practice,
tice over the past 15 years? how and why might it be useful to argue one set of
values against another set of values? It is our conten- Public Administration Review,
Vol. xx, Iss. xx, pp. xx–xx. © 2015 by
At the risk of oversimplifying, the New Public Service tion in that doing so, we can make our assumptions The American Society for Public Administration.
argues that the explicit consideration of democratic more explicit and highlight potential value trade-offs DOI: 10.1111/puar.12347.

The New Public Service Revisited 1

that might not otherwise have been considered. It should be made Raadschelders and Lee observe, for example, that the success of
clear from the outset that we view both the New Public Service and NPM is based on the administrative capacity of government (see
the New Public Management as primarily normative rather than Brown and Potoski 2003; Yang, Hsieh, and Li 2009), that it has not
empirical arguments. While research can support and inform nor- paid adequate attention to politics, law and culture (Haruna 2003;
mative arguments, it cannot entirely resolve them. Accordingly, this Kassel 2008; Riccucci and Thompson 2008), that it is less efficient
article does not claim that the values of the New Public Service have and effective than expected (Leland and Smirnova 2009; Lenkowsky
“won” over the values of the New Public Management or vice versa. and Perry 2000; Moynihan 2006; Thompson 2000), and that
Instead, we summarize the research on the pursuit of New Public there remains a disconnect between theory and practice (Van Slyke
Service values and review the benefits of these approaches. We then 2003; Williams 2000). Some scholars maintain that legislative
ask, how does this research strengthen or weaken the normative and judicial constraints have been overlooked (Reed and Meyer
arguments for New Public Service values? 2004) and that NPM has eroded accountability to citizens and civil
society (Eikenberry and Kluver 2004; Kelly 2005; Romzek and
Certainly a great deal of important work has been published that Johnston 2005).
addresses the key questions raised by the New Public Service. This
research has moved the discussion forward, outward, and beyond This article demonstrates that in addition to its impact in the
to consider new conceptual frameworks and issues. Consider, for academic literature, there is also increasing evidence that the values
example, works that have built on the foundations laid by the New and norms advanced by the New Public Service are being played
Public Service, including Zeemering (2008) on the importance of out in practice. It appears that the dominance of the New Public
cross-boundary cooperation; Nabatchi and Mergel (2010) on the Management that we found in 2000 may not be as pronounced in
necessity for administrators to view governance in terms of networks 2014. As Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg observe, “Just as New
that present opportunities for citizen participation; Meijer (2011) Public Management supplanted traditional public administration in
on the ways in which Dutch citizens have used online services; the 1980s and 1990s as the dominant view, a new movement is now
Terry (2005) on the weakening of administrative institutions; Fung under way that is likely to eclipse it” (2014, 445).
(2013) on the importance of transparency; Nalbandian (2008) on
the heightened need for citizen engagement in increasingly complex The New Public Service was organized around seven core argu-
local governance contexts; and Durant and Ali (2013) on continu- ments related to the role of the public service in facilitating
ing citizen estrangement despite administrative reforms. These are citizenship and promoting democratic governance. In the sections
but a few examples of the wealth of critical analysis that continues that follow, we distill these arguments into four main questions
to test and add to the tenets of the New Public Service. in order to present an update on the development of related
theory and practice since the original publication: (1) Does citizen
One way to evaluate the impact of the New Public Service is by engagement work? (2) How have the values of the public interest
looking at its presence in the academic literature. As Bryson, Crosby, and collaborative leadership been expressed in practice? (3) Has
and Bloomberg note, while there are several value-based frame- the reliance on market models of entrepreneurship and privati-
works that emphasize citizenship and democracy (e.g., Boyte 2005; zation decreased? (4) Are we rowing, steering, or serving? We
Bozeman 2007; Osborne 2010; Stoker 2006), the “‘New Public conclude with an assessment of possible future directions for the
Service’ certainly appears to be the leading contender” (2014, 452). field of public administration as it struggles to match its practices
This growing body of literature does not necessarily mean, however, and its ideals.
that the New Public Management has not retained much of its hold
over the day-to-day work of public administration practitioners. Does Citizen Engagement Work?
In the New Public Service, we suggested that the work of public
Certainly the New Public Management has had a significant and servants cannot accurately be described as simply responding to
often positive effect on government practices. While it may not the demands of “customers” for speedy and efficient solutions to
have lived up to the expectations of those who argued that it would individual problems. Rather, we argued that public service should
“fix” the problems of government, its mark on focus on creating opportunities for citizenship
the public sector remains clearly visible and by forging trusting relationships with mem-
valuable. Efficiency is a laudable value that Public service should focus bers of the public and working with them to
will undoubtedly remain a hallmark of public on creating opportunities for define public problems, develop alternatives,
administration practice (Callahan 2010; Rho citizenship by forging trusting and implement solutions.
2013; Terry 2005). relationships with members of
Does Citizen Engagement Work?
the public.
It is also the case, however, that the field of Have citizen engagement strategies been used
public administration’s ardor for New Public and resulted in benefits to citizens and com-
Management has noticeably cooled over the last decade. According munities? The answer is a resounding yes. Evidence shows that when
to Raadschelders and Lee’s evaluation of PAR articles from 2000 deliberative processes are used to create two-way communications
to 2009, the New Public Management “dominated the study and and agencies are responsive to what they hear, there are positive
practice of public administration and practice of public administra- gains in terms of citizenship, trust, and the quality of decisions. For
tion over the past three decades.” They also point out, however, that example, Beierle and Cayford analyzed the results of 239 cases of
“[d]uring the past decade . . . NPM increasingly met with criticism public engagement in environmental policy making and found that
of its limitations and disadvantages” (2011, 25). it “frequently produces decisions that are responsive to public values
2 Public Administration Review • xxxx | xxxx 2015
and substantively robust, but it also helps to resolve conflict, build but public managers’ attitudes had the greatest explanatory power:
trust, and educate and inform the public” (2002, 74). They further “the most important factor in citizen involvement decisions is the
found that the process used makes all the difference. “Processes in attitude public managers hold towards the value of participation.”
which agencies are responsive, participants are motivated, the qual- On the other hand, when public participation is done grudgingly or
ity of deliberation is high, and participants have at least a moderate as a marginal addition, “the most that can be hoped for . . . is that
degree of control over the process are more successful” (74). they do no harm” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, 75).

In examining citizen engagement practices around the world, Innes Coursey, Yang, and Pandey (2012) looked at data from the National
and Booher found that when collaborative processes were used, the Administrative Studies Project and found that a manager’s public
benefits became clear. There are numerous examples of collabora- service motivation and perceived commitment to citizen participa-
tive dialogue in budgeting that have resulted in “agreements that tion “affect managerial attitudes towards participation in both direct
were otherwise politically impossible. Dialogue has also been shown and indirect ways.” In other words, recruiting and retaining public
to defuse racial tensions, build social capital, and enhance civic servants who have high levels of public service motivation, particu-
capacity” (2004, 427). larly when they perceive a high level of organizational support for
participation, is likely to lead to desirable participation outcomes.
Traditional Approaches to Citizen Participation Do Not Work This suggests that the normative component of the New Public
The reverse argument also seems to be confirmed: if citizen engage- Service has important implications for practice. If public manag-
ment is done in an inauthentic manner, based on a mistrust of citi- ers question the traditional assumptions and methods of citizen
zens and one-way communication, with restricted access and little participation and instead value citizen engagement and dialogue
follow-through, not only will it not “work,” but also it may damage as essential to democratic governance, they may be more likely to
citizenship and trust and reduce the capacity of the governance (1) use approaches that are more intensive and (2) be more respon-
system (Innes and Booher 2004). Legally mandated public hearings sive to what citizens say. Research suggests that their doing so will
and comment periods do “not achieve genuine participation,” fail likely have positive effects on decision making, citizenship, and
to make people feel heard, seldom improve decisions, and do not governance.
involve a broad cross-section of the public. Worse, these approaches
antagonize the public and create greater polarization (Innes and What Approaches Work Best?
Booher 2004, 419). Fortunately, practice has shown that there are many effective
approaches to citizen engagement, and the
Unfortunately, most of what is called citizen argument for increased citizen involvement
participation is not the sort of deliberative Most of what is called citizen continues to gain ground. While there have
dialogue and engagement that is advocated participation is not the sort long been barriers and resistance to direct citi-
by the New Public Service. So, in a sense, of deliberative dialogue and zen participation in the governance process, we
those who claim that citizen participation have now reached a point that Roberts (2008)
engagement that is advocated
does not work are absolutely correct if they has termed “the age of citizen engagement.”
are referring to the traditional mechanisms. by the New Public Service. Public servants and their agencies have come a
Conversely, when done well, citizen dialogue long way from the federally mandated citizen
and engagement has the opposite effect: it builds citizenship, trust participation requirements of the 1960s and 1970s and employ a
and capacity. variety of approaches and mechanisms for involving citizens in all
phases of governmental decision making and action. As a result,
This makes it very difficult to interpret the findings of studies “citizen engagement is no longer hypothetical: it is very real, and
that purport to measure the effects of public “participation” when public administrators are central to its evolution” (Roberts 2008, 4).
participation is defined as everything from a public hearing to filling
out a survey and/or attending a series of neighborhood meetings. In a 2010 International City/County Management Association
When all of those approaches are included (e.g., Wang 2001), it is (ICMA) white paper titled Connected Communities, a wide variety
not surprising that the results are mixed. of successful approaches to citizen engagement were documented
(Svara and Denhardt 2010). The authors found that governments
Why Do the Reasons for Seeking Citizen Engagement Matter? at all levels are becoming increasingly creative in their attempts to
Of course, while evidence shows the effectiveness of citizen engage- develop dialogue and to interact with citizens. A few examples of
ment, the arguments behind the New Public Service are, as we have these approaches provide a glimpse of the methods being used to
already said, clearly normative. How important are these values in authentically involve citizens in policy making and resource alloca-
decisions about how to use citizen engagement strategies? Are citizen tion decisions.
engagement initiatives used for management or political expediency
or because it the right thing to do? Yang and Callahan (2007) sug- For example, surveys are used to solicit citizen opinions and ideas
gest that there are three possible drivers: (1) the presence of pressure on budgets, to evaluate programs, and to gauge preferences on
to do so from external stakeholders; (2) the nature of managerial the type of engagement activities citizens prefer (Glaser, Yeager,
attitudes regarding the value of participation; and (3) perceived and Parker 2006). The surveys in the 1980s were generally neither
obstacles, including resource, capacity, and structural barriers. representative nor systematic. Since that time, survey techniques
Based on a survey of local governments, these researchers found have become much more sophisticated, and when used sequentially
that citizen involvement efforts do reflect all three of these drivers, or in combination with other tools, a survey is an effective method
The New Public Service Revisited 3
for engaging citizens. Surveys have been used to set budget priori- How Have the Values of the Public Interest and
ties, gauge support or dissatisfaction with programs or services, and Collaborative Leadership Been Expressed in Practice?
obtain ideas about the type of citizen engagement activities citizens Advocates of the New Public Management claimed that the public
prefer (Glaser, Yeager, and Parker 2006). The Deliberative Polling interest is either irrelevant or nonexistent, favoring instead a reliance
process developed at Stanford University uses a multistage process on individual choice as it is exercised in a market. The aggregation
including both surveys and facilitated dialogue. of individual choices based on self-interest was assumed to the best
means to determine and achieve policy objectives. Public servants
Online technologies and social media have transformed citizen were encouraged to act as entrepreneurs and to take action to ensure
engagement and created new levels of transparency in the last market-like efficiency.
decade. In 2011, the United States and seven other governments
(United Kingdom, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, In the New Public Service, on the other hand, the search for a
and South Africa) initiated Open Government Partnership pro- shared view of the public interest is based on an open, inclu-
grams to provide their citizens with access to government data sive, and informed discussion of values. Over the last decade,
that had not been readily accessed previously (Fung 2013). In the the ideal of the public interest—defined by Perry and Wise as
United States, President Barack Obama’s commitment to open “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives primar-
government ushered in a new era of citizen access through the ily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (1990,
Internet. 368)—has been explored in a variety of ways. It has been found,
for example, that citizen trust and confidence in government
A 2011 assessment of public participation in federal agencies under are built on the perception that governmental policy is focused
the Open Government Directive included examples from federal on the public interest. Research by Glaser, Parker, and Payton
departments using crowdsourcing, online contests, online town (2001) and Glaser, Denhardt, and Hamilton (2002) supports
halls, wikis, and a wide variety of social media to solicit input, build this contention; when government agencies visibly concentrate
relationships, and encourage collaboration (Lukensmeyer, Goldman, their efforts on increasing the well-being of the community and
and Stern 2011, 17–18). Technology and social media are being the public interest, citizens’ trust and willingness to pay for civic
used at the state and local government levels as well. Nabatchi and investments increase.
Mergel (2010) highlight best practices, including a program called
the Virginia Idea Forum, through which citizens submit, discuss, The public interest is also important in understanding what draws
and collaborate on ideas for improvement. At the local level, Bryer individuals to the public service and motivates them to perform
(2010) points to a program called Manor Labs in Manor, Texas, effectively over time. In 1996, Perry suggested that there are four
where citizens are awarded points called “innobucks” for submitting dimensions to measuring public service motivation: (1) attraction
ideas. Wikis are being used to create “virtual charettes,” as in the San to policy making, (2) commitment to the public interest, (3) com-
Jose planning process (Nabatchi and Mergel 2010). Technology has passion, and (4) self-sacrifice. This framework served as a catalyst
been used facilitate large-scale dialogues as well, such as after the for extensive subsequent research. In 2010, Perry, Hondeghem,
September 11 terrorist attacks (Civic Alliance 2002, 1). and Wise reviewed 20 years of research and concluded that, while
there were methodological and other issues, there was general
While technology has played an important role, there has also been support for the idea that public service motivation leads people
success in using small groups and face-to-face interaction, such as in to choose public service work and that it is positively related to
Delray Beach, Florida, where citizens talked about sustainability and performance.
budget issues, and in Alachua County in the same state, where small
groups worked on an interactive budget simulation to help establish The Public Interest and Public Choice
priorities. In citizen academies, such as in Redwood City, California, Advocates of the New Public Service contend that the concept of
citizens meet with city officials and attendance has remained high the public interest is central to public administration and related
over time. In Montgomery, Ohio, the Citizens Learning Academy work. Ironically, early public choice theorists actually seemed to
uses simulations and hands-on learning and an understanding of agree with the New Public Service on this point. These public
trade-offs in policy decisions related to taxes, economic develop- choice theorists were much more resistant to dismissing the role
ment, and other issues. Finally, citizen engagement approaches of the public interest in arrangements involving privatization and
based on the arts are being employed to attract people who might coproduction. For example, Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren stated
not typically be involved in civic activities express ideas that they in 1961 that cooperative arrangements work when they “produce a
find difficult to communicate. A wide variety of tools can be used greater return to all parties concerned, if the appropriate set of public
to create these kinds of opportunities, including art, dance, theater, interests is adequately represented among the negotiators (1961, 833;
and storytelling (Goldbard 2010). emphasis added). In a review of Vincent Ostrom’s work by Michael
McGinnes and Elinor Ostrom, the authors observe that the close
In short, citizen engagement, which does not rely on traditional, association between Vincent Ostrom and public choice is ironic,
legally mandated participation mechanisms and instead embraces given his strong critique: “Public choice theory brings to the study
authentic dialogue, has been shown to produce positive effects on of politics a relentless focus on the importance of efficiency in
decision making, citizenship, and governance. Citizen engagement public policy . . . In a polycentric order, individuals or communi-
has become increasingly importance in governance at all levels, ties might decide, for whatever reason, to sacrifice efficiency for the
providing a significant and growing counterpoint to models based pursuit of other goals, such as accountability, fairness, or physical
solely on “customer service” and the market. sustainability” (2012, 19–20).
4 Public Administration Review • xxxx | xxxx 2015
As Bozeman (2007) put it, in working to Such circumstances demand something other
create a collective, shared notion of the public Public administrators should than command and control leadership—
interest, public administrators should seek not seek not quick fixes to prob- something more like flexible, adaptive, and
quick fixes to problems derived from individ- lems derived from individual shared leadership.
ual choices but rather provide help in creating
choices but rather provide help
shared interests and responsibility. This is in Has the Reliance on Market Models
sharp contrast to the emphasis on self-interest in creating shared interests and of Entrepreneurship and Privatization
inherent in the New Public Management responsibility. Decreased?
model, which suggested that public managers The New Public Management emphasized
should maximize productivity and effective- decentralization, privatization, and competi-
ness by exercising more latitude in decision making, similar to that tion in order to achieve efficiency and best respond to customer
exercised in the private sector. As Osborne and Gaebler stated, “the demands. The New Public Service, on the other hand, suggests
idea was to get them thinking like owners” and to ask, “If it this that privatization and the values of business entrepreneurship may
were my money, would I spend it this way?” (1992, 3). The New devalue the public interest and values such as equity, representative-
Public Service, on the other hand, emphasizes that public money ness, and fairness.
should not be spent by public servants acting as if they were spend-
ing their own money. Rather, public servants are accountable to Looking at the history of privatization and contracting paints a
democratic processes and institutions, and there should be a “vastly picture of less successful privatization and contracting than the
increased enhanced capacity for citizen involvement in the policy New Public Management predicted. Every five years since 1982,
process” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011, 102). the ICMA has conducted a survey on alternative service delivery
arrangements in local government in the United States. Since the
The Public Interest, Networks, and Collaborative Leadership survey began, the most common form of service delivery has been
Because of the wide range of stakeholders and perspectives involved through public organizations. In 1992, when Osborne and Gaebler’s
in most public issues, it is increasingly necessary to use collective, book was published, 50 percent of services were provided public
collaborative approaches to operate programs targeting public employees. By 2002, the percentage of directly provided public
needs. One indicator of this trend is the publication of a special services had increased to 59 percent. Five years later, in 2007,
issue of PAR (2006) on “Collaborative Public Management.” For 52 percent of services were publicly provided. So, with the exception
purposes of the symposium, the editors defined collaborative public of a modest decrease in contracting in 2002, the level of contracting
management as the process of facilitating and operating in multio- has remained fairly constant over the past three decades.
rganizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved
or easily solved by single organizations. “Collaborative means to This does not tell the whole story, however. What has changed is
co-labor, to cooperate to achieve common goals, working across whom government is contracting with, the nature of those con-
boundaries in multi-sector relationships” (O’Leary, Gerard, and tracts, and the fact that contracting includes both contracting out
Bingham 2006, 7). and contracting back in. From 1992 to 1997, for instance, “on
average, governments newly contract out six services and contract
Certainly since we first wrote about the New Public Service, the back in four services” (Hefetz and Warner 2004, 172). In an analysis
design and implementation of public policy has moved even of 26 case studies of contracting back in, Ballard and Warner (2000)
further away from a single governmental unit acting alone or in found that in most cases, poor service quality, difficulties with con-
close concert with one or two others to a complex system featuring tract specifications, and the challenges of monitoring were the rea-
complex governance networks comprising a plurality of actors— sons for bringing services back in house. In summarizing the results
public, private, and nonprofit—each bringing their own special of their research, Hefetz and Warner state that the data “support the
interests, resources, and set of expertise. Sørensen and Torfing define new public service that argues public managers do more than steer
a governance network as “1. a relatively stable horizontal articula- a market process; they balance technical and political concerns to
tion of interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors; 2. secure public value” (171).
who interact through negotiations; 3. which take place within a
regular to, normative, cognitive and imaginary framework; 4. that It is not just local government managers in the United States who
is self-regulating within limits set by external agencies; and 5. which are reversing the trend toward privatization. The United Kingdom
contributes to the production of public purpose” (2007, 9). and New Zealand were among the first adherents to New Public
Management and market-based approaches to government. Both
If this is the case, traditional leadership models emphasizing hier- enacted legislation requiring compulsory competitive contracting
archical power, authority based on position, in an effort to promote extensive privatiza-
and strict managerial control seem ill suited Traditional leadership models tion. New Zealand, in particular, served
for the modern governance system. And, not as an exemplar for proponents of the New
surprisingly, these same models are being
emphasizing hierarchical power, Public Management in the United States
called into question in other sectors as well. A authority based on position, (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Since that
2010 IBM study of public and private chief and strict managerial control time, the United Kingdom and Australia
executive officers from around the world seem ill suited for the modern have both abolished the requirement for
pointed to the turbulence and complexity of governance system. competitive bidding on service contracts,
the newly globalized world in which we live. and New Zealand’s prime minister is focused
The New Public Service Revisited 5
on rebuilding the capacity of government for service delivery. The their shared goals rather than attempting to control or steer society
idea behind privatization is that it would give consumer citizens in new directions. We noted, however, that ensuring accountability
more voice through market choice. The problem is that, in practice, for those goals is anything but simple. In our view, public servants
governments typically contract with only one or two providers. In need to pay close attention not only to the market but also to a long
the case of the former, choice is neither increased nor decreased. list of other concerns, including local, state, and federal laws, profes-
As a result, “the citizen consumer does not see a choice of provid- sional standards, and the political climate, as well as community
ers” and thus may have no more choices than when the service is values and citizen interests.
publicly provided (Warner 2008, 167). Warner concludes that the
experiment to “increase the role in local government service delivery Public administrators have long struggled with how to measure
. . . has failed to deliver adequately on efficiency, equity or voice.” outcomes of public programs that can have multiple and some-
This does not indicate a return to what we call “old public adminis- times conflicting goals coupled with the increasingly intractable
tration.” Rather, “it heralds the emergence of new balanced position and “wicked” nature of public problems. Especially pertinent to the
which combines use of markets, democracy, and planning to reach discussion here, performance measurement tools have traditionally
decisions which may be both efficient and more socially optimal” neglected the potential role of citizens in developing measures that
(171). are meaningful and useful as well. They have similarly neglected the
need to measure the impact of public programs on citizenship.
The government’s use of full contracts and mixed contracts has also
shifted. Full contracts are arrangements where the service is com- Authors such as Callahan (2010) and Woolum (2010) argue that we
pletely contracted out to a nongovernmental entity. Mixed con- ought to give citizens the opportunity to play a role in how govern-
tracts use a combination of public and private employees. “Mixed ment evaluates its provision of services. In this way, the process
delivery has been a source of consternation for market advocates, measures what truly matters to the public. Of course, what citizens
who view such redundancy as potentially inefficient and unneces- want to see measured and what agency staff want to see measured
sary” (Warner and Hefetz 2008, 163). As Warner and Hefetz found might be different, but it is valuable to consider both perspectives.
in their analysis of the ICMA data, in 1992, there were twice as For example, the Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment project
many fully privatized contracts as there were mixed contracts. By in Iowa included the following: “Are the measures helpful to citizens
1997, the situation was reversed. There were one and a half times as in evaluating the performance of the service? Can an ordinary citi-
many mixed contracts as full contracts. During this time period, full zen understand the measure?” Woolum cites programs in Denver,
contracts dropped from 33 percent to 18 percent of service delivery. Colorado; Derby, Kansas; and Vancouver, Washington, that are
Mixed contracts, on the other hand, went from 18 percent in 1992 involving citizens in their performance measurement programs and
to 24 percent. That means that by 2002, public services were less “giving citizens a voice in identifying priorities and goals and deter-
likely to be provided by purely outside contracts than in 1992 and mining indicators of success” (2010, 102).
that there was a “dramatic rise in mixed public–private delivery”
(Warner and Hefetz 2008, 155). In considering performance measurement programs in the United
States, Callahan suggests that the best programs seek ongoing
In analyzing these data, Warner and Hefetz arrive at some interest- community input, present data by theme or issue area rather than
ing conclusions. “By remaining directly engaged in service delivery, department, use plain language, use measures to learn and improve,
governments can assure that contractors maintain efficient processes, and make appropriate use of forums and Web technologies to share
high quality, competitive costs, and citizen satisfaction” (2008, 162). information. She highlights the “plain language reporting” that
Their review of the empirical evidence suggests that the private characterizes the State of Washington’s Government Management
delivery does not save money over time. Part of the reason for this Accountability and Performance program; New York City’s “My
is the cost of monitoring. As Rho found in studying contracting Neighborhood Statistics,” which allows citizens to easily compare
in public education, “the results using the data over the 12-year service delivery in different neighborhoods; and the TrackDC Web
period repeatedly confirmed that more contracting generates greater site in Washington, D.C., which lets users easily access budget and
bureaucracy, because of the demands to monitor contracts” (2013, spending data (Callahan 2010).
332). They suggest that, while privatization remains a “political
project,” city managers recognize the need to balance efficiency Others have emphasized the importance of not only involving
concerns with citizen satisfaction and the costs and challenges of citizens in developing performance measurement strategies but also
monitoring private contractors. measuring the impact of public programs on citizenship. Drawing
from policy feedback theory, Wichowsky and Moynihan state
Are We Rowing, Steering, or Serving? that there is “empirical evidence that certain
New Public Management advocates Osborne An increasingly important role policies have measurable effects on political
and Gaebler recommended that government of the public servant is to serve participation, social capital, sense of civic
move increasingly away from a service delivery belonging, and political efficacy” (2008,
role (which they call “rowing”) and instead to
citizens and communities by 908). They make a compelling argument that
policy development (which they call “steer- helping citizens articulate and performance measurement systems should
ing”). In the New Public Service, we argued meet their shared goals rather incorporate measures of how public policies
that an increasingly important role of the than attempting to control or and programs influence citizenship outcomes
public servant is to serve citizens and commu- steer society in new directions. such as political efficacy, social trust, and civic
nities by helping citizens articulate and meet engagement.
6 Public Administration Review • xxxx | xxxx 2015
In short, while public servants sometimes “row” in providing direct increasing civic engagement and involvement in the governance
service, they “steer” in terms of creating the parameters of and process.
processes of decision making, and increasingly, their role is one of
serving citizens and networks of governance. They are accountable While research cannot resolve normative questions about govern-
not only for direct service delivery and rulemaking but also for ance, further inquiry into the implicit values and practical effects
developing citizenship and helping broad networks of organizations various approaches using multiple and varied measures may lead
and individuals find common ground for public action. to a greater understanding of what works best under what set of
circumstances. It is our contention, however, that from a norma-
Conclusion tive standpoint, there is more room in the New Public Service
As much as advocates of the New Public Management and the New for the lessons of New Public Management than the other way
Public Service both might want to stake claim to “the answer,” gov- around. Particularly to the extent that New Public Management
ernment and governance has always been and will always be compli- relies on public choice and “a relentless focus on the importance of
cated. If there were easy answers to the problems and challenges we efficiency” (McGinnis and Ostrom 2012, 19), value-based models
face, someone would have developed the solutions to them already. such as the New Public Service will continue to provide a needed
It is not a matter of one model being right and the other one being counterpoint.
wrong. Rather, it is question of the extent to which certain values,
such as efficiency, are balanced or pursued relative to other values, Public servants operate in the context of competing values in a com-
such as democracy and the collective public interest. plex and an ever changing environment. A professional ethos can be
defined as a set of values and a framework for action that not only
The pursuit of New Public Service values is not without barriers describes the characteristics of an organization but also motivates
and potential problems. Not all expressions of the public interest those who belong to it. In the public service, we can talk about a
that emerge from political process and dialogue are “equally morally bureaucratic ethos focused on the values of efficiency, expertise,
compelling” (Moore 2014, 474). Moreover, public dialogue can be efficacy, and loyalty and a democratic ethos focuses on citizen-
dominated by well-resourced special interests and partisan activ- ship, democracy and social equity. We agree with Salminen and
ists who are skilled at framing issues (Jacobs 2014). Besides, there Mäntysalo that a professional public service ethos can begin bridge
are times when market models may be appropriate. The market is the gap between bureaucratic and democratic values “by creating a
an efficient way to direct governmental activity and expenditures logic of appropriateness . . . pertaining to quality and performance”
toward the satisfaction of individual preferences. (2013, 169). A professional ethos is not purely objective but rather
recognizes that judgments about values and how they should be
Nonetheless, we argue that we should continue to question whether balanced, advocated, and reconciled are necessary and should be
individuals making judgments about their own interests are the best guided both by personal values and the values and ethics of the
or only arbiters of public value. There is no denying the “challenges profession as a whole. These judgments necessitate both an ongo-
of a networked, multi-sector, no-one-wholly-in-charge world” and ing dialogue and a strong framework of public service ethics. We
the need to “embrace values beyond efficiency and effectiveness— consider these debates part of an ongoing dynamic that animates
and especially democratic values” (Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg theory and practice and defines the current challenges and opportu-
2014, 445). While the market is efficient, “the correct arbiter nities for the public service.
of public value has to be a collective public—imperfectly formed
by the processes of democratic governance” (Moore 2014, 475). Authors’ Note
And there is reason for optimism about the realization of those A substantial amount of the material contained in this article
democratic values: “recent research demonstrates a surprising degree has been integrated into The New Public Service, fourth edition,
of public participation in deliberation regarding public policy”; published by Routledge in 2015.
two-thirds report engaging in “public talk” about public issues, and
an impressive 25 percent attend organized forums to participate in References
face-to-face deliberation” (Jacobs 2014, 492). Ballard, Michael J., and Mildred E. Warner. 2000. Taking the High Road: Local
Government Restructuring and the Quest for Quality. In Power Tools for Fighting
Neither the principles of the New Public Service nor the principles Privatization, 6/1–6/53. Washington, DC: American Federation of State,
of the New Public Management can be shown to have become County and Municipal Employees.
a dominant paradigm, but the New Public Service, and ideas Beierle, Thomas C., and Jerry Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation
and practices consistent with its ideals, have become increasingly in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
evident in public administration scholarship and practice. The Boyte, Harry C. 2005. Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and
present state of theory and practice might be best characterized as Politics. Public Administration Review 65(5): 536–46.
a more nuanced view of public administration responsive to both Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic
democratic and market-based values. In our first book, we argued Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
that one set of values—either the New Public Management or the Brown, Trevor L., and Matthew Potoski. 2003. Contract-Management Capacity in
New Public Service—ultimately had to take precedence and that, Municipal and County Governments. Public Administration Review 63(2): 153–64.
in our view, the practices of the New Public Management should fit Bryer, Thomas. 2010. Across the Great Divide: Social Media and Networking for
within the ideals of the New Public Service. To this point, however, Citizen Engagement. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner
we see more of a blending, with scholars and practitioners sub- in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and
scribing to some aspects of both. However, the direction is toward Janet Denhardt, 73–79. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

The New Public Service Revisited 7

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. Public Value Lenkowsky, Leslie, and James L. Perry. 2000. Reinventing Government: The Case of
Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New National Service. Public Administration Review 60(4): 298–307.
Public Management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445–56. Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., Joe Goldman, and David Stern. 2011. Assessing Public
Callahan, Kathe. 2010. Next Wave of Performance Measurement: Citizen Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans.
Engagement. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2012. Reflections on Vincent Ostrom,
Janet Denhardt, 102–5. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation. Public Administration, and Polycentricity. Public Administration Review 72(1):
Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York. 2002. Listening to the City: Report 15–25.
of Proceedings. http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/0207LTCreport.pdf [accessed Meijer, Albert J. 2011. Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual
January 13, 2015]. Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to
Coursey, David D., Kaifeng Yang, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Public Service Public Service Support. Public Administration Review 71(4): 598–607.
Motivation (PSM) and Support for Citizen Participation: A Test of Perry and Moore, Mark H. 2014. Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical
Vandenabeele’s Reformulation of PSM Theory. Public Administration Review Basis. Public Administration Review 74(4): 465–77.
72(4): 572–82. Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a
Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2011. The New Public Service: Serving, Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77–89.
Not Steering. 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Nabatchi, Tina, and Ines Mergel. 2010. Participation 2.0: Using Internet and Social
Denhardt, Robert, B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 2000. The New Public Service: Media Technologies to Promote Distributed Democracy and Create Digital
Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–59. Neighborhoods. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in
Durant, Robert F., and Susannah B. Ali. 2013. Repositioning American Public Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and
Administration? Citizen Estrangement, Administrative Reform, and the Janet Denhardt, 80–87. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.
Disarticulated State. Public Administration Review 73(2): 278–89. Nalbandian, John. 2008. Predicting the Future: Why Citizen Engagement No
Eikenberry, Angela M., and Jodie D. Kluver. 2004. The Marketization Longer Is Optional. Public Management 90(11): 35–37.
of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil Society at Risk? Public Administration O’Leary, Rosemary, Catherine Gerard, and Lisa Blomgren Bingham. 2006.
Review 64(2): 132–40. Introduction to the Symposium on Collaborative Public Management. Public
Fung, Archon. 2013. Infotopia: Unleashing the Democratic Power of Transparency. Administration Review 66(6): 6–9.
Politics and Society 41(2): 183–212. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepre-
Glaser, Mark A., Janet Vinzant Denhardt, and Linda K. Hamilton. 2002. neurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Community v. Self-Interest: Citizen Perceptions of Schools as Civic Investments. Osborne, Stephen P., ed. 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on
Journal of Public Administration Theory and Practice 12(1): 103–27. the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routledge.
Glaser, Mark A., Lee E. Parker, and Stephanie Payton. 2001. The Paradox between Ostrom, Vincent, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. The Organization
Community and Self-Interest: Local Government, Neighborhoods, and Media. of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political
Journal of Urban Affairs 23(1): 87–102. Science Review 55(4): 831–42.
Glaser, Mark A., Samuel J. Yeager, and Lee E. Parker. 2006. Involving Citizens in the Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of
Decisions of Government and Community: Neighborhood-Based vs. Government- Construct Reliability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Based Citizen Engagement. Public Administration Quarterly 30(1): 177–217. Theory 6(1): 5–22.
Goldbard, Arlene. 2010. The Art of Engagement: Creativity in the Service of Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise. 2010. Revisiting the
Citizenship. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda
Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and for the Future. Public Administration Review 70(5): 681–90.
Janet Denhardt, 106–11. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation. Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public
Haruna, Peter F. 2003. Reforming Ghana’s Public Service: Issues and Experiences in Service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367–73.
Comparative Perspective. Public Administration Review 63(3): 343–54. Raadschelders, Jos C. N., and Kwang-Hoon Lee. 2011. Trends in the Study of
Hefetz, Amir, and Mildred Warner. 2004. Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining Public Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public
the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process. Journal of Public Administration Review, 2000–2009. Public Administration Review 71(1): 19–33.
Administration Research and Theory 14(2): 171–90. Reed, Christine M., and Kyle P. Meyer. 2004. Medicaid Managed Care for Children
IBM. 2010. Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive with Special Health Care Needs: Examining Legislative and Judicial Constraints
Officer Study. Somers, NY: IBM Global Business Services. http://public.dhe. on Privatization. Public Administration Review 64(2): 234–42.
ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03297usen/GBE03297USEN.PDF [accessed Rho, Eunju. 2013. Contracting Revisited: Determinants and Consequences of
January 15, 2015]. Contracting Out for Public Education Services. Public Administration Review
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. Reframing Public Participation. 73(2): 327–37.
Planning Theory and Practice 5(4): 419–36. Riccucci, Norma M., and Frank J. Thompson. 2008. New Public Management,
Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2014. The Contested Politics of Public Value. Public Homeland Security, and the Politics of Civil Service Reform. Public
Administration Review 74(4): 480–94. Administration Review 68(5): 877–90.
Kassel, David S. 2008. Performance, Accountability, and the Debate over Rules. Roberts, Nancy. 2008. The Age of Direct Citizen Participation. New York: M. E.
Public Administration Review 68(2): 241–52. Sharpe.
Kelly, Janet M. 2005. The Dilemma of the Unsatisfied Customer in a Market Model Romzek, Barbara S., and Jocelyn M. Johnston. 2005. State Social Services
of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 65(1): 76–84. Contracting: Exploring the Determinants of Effective Contract
Leland, Suzanne, and Olga Smirnova. 2009. Reassessing Privatization Strategies 25 Accountability. Public Administration Review 65(4): 436–49.
Years Later: Revisiting Perry and Babitsky’s Comparative Performance Study of Salminen, Ari, and Venla Mäntysalo. 2013. Exploring the Public Service Ethos.
Urban Bus Transit Services. Public Administration Review 69(5): 855–67. Public Integrity 15(2): 167–86.

8 Public Administration Review • xxxx | xxxx 2015

Sørensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfing, eds. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Wichowsky, Amber, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. Measuring How
Governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Administration Shapes Citizenship: A Policy Feedback Perspective on
Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Performance Management. Public Administration Review 68(5): 908–20.
Governance? American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41–57. Williams, Daniel W. 2000. Reinventing the Proverbs of Government. Public
Svara, James H., and Janet Denhardt. 2010. Connected Communities: Local Administration Review 60(6): 522–34.
Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building. Woolum, Janet. 2010. Citizen-Government Dialogue in Performance Measurement
Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation. Cycle: Cases from Local Government. In Connected Communities: Local
Terry, Larry D. 2005. The Thinning of Administrative Institutions in the Hollow Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building,
State. Administration & Society 37(4): 426–44. edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 102–5. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for
Thompson, James R. 2000. Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Innovation.
Performance Review. Public Administration Review 60(6): 508–21. Yang, Kaifeng, and Kathe Callahan. 2007. Citizen Involvement Efforts
Van Slyke, David M. 2003. The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder
Services. Public Administration Review 63(3): 296–315. Pressures, and Administrative Practicality. Public Administration Review 67(2):
Wang, Xiaohu. 2001. Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities. Public 249–64.
Performance and Management Review 24(4): 322–36. Yang, Kaifeng, Jun Yi Hsieh, and Shiun Tzung Li. 2009. Contracting Capacity and
Warner, Mildred E. 2008. Reversing Privatization, Rebalancing Government Reform: Perceived Contracting Performance: Nonlinear Effects and the Role of Time.
Markets, Deliberation and Planning. Policy and Society 27(2): 163–74. Public Administration Review 69(4): 681–96.
Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2008. Managing Markets for Public Zeemering, Eric S. 2008. Governing Interlocal Cooperation: City Council Interests
Service: The Role of Mixed Public–Private Delivery of City Services. Public and the Implications for Public Management. Public Administration Review
Administration Review 68(1): 155–66. 68(4): 731–41.

The New Public Service Revisited 9