Editorial Note
| Author | Kenneth Kernaghan |
| Published date | 01 March 2002 |
| Date | 01 March 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852302681010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Editorial note
Kenneth Kernaghan
This issue of IRAS examines several central questions in the study and practice
of public administration and management. We begin with an article by Tony
Bovaird and Elke Löffler on moving from excellence models of local service
delivery to benchmarking of ‘good local governance’. The authors contend that
traditional benchmarking criteria no longer meet the needs of localities and they
outline criteria for a new model that takes account of the emerging needs of local-
ities in the new century. The article draws on international experience in innova-
tive local governance to provide a lengthy list of benchmarking criteria that might
be applied to define and identify good local governance.
In the next article, Lionel Chaty and Carlo Girlanda examine a major compo-
nent of the French government’s programme for entering the information society.
They focus on the use of new information and communication technologies for
modernizing public services through two major projects — networked adminis-
tration (AdER) and local information systems (lis). The AdER project aims to
decompartmentalize the government by interconnecting the ministries’ networks
so that all employees can communicate with one another by electronic mail. An
lis is an electronic mail system that links the various government services in a
single French département. There are two opposing camps on the likely impact of
these innovations — one camp hails the innovations as a radical break with
the past and as the emergence of a network society; and the other foresees more
modest change and emphasizes continuity. The authors outline the potential
benefits and pitfalls of these innovations and provide helpful advice on the impli-
cations of their implementation.
Richard Mulgan addresses the contentious issue of the effect on democratic
accountability of the purchaser–provider split in the ‘executive agencies’ of
Westminster-style governments. He sets a discussion of this issue in relation to
Australia’s Centrelink within a broader examination of developments in the UK
and New Zealand. He clarifies the varying — and confusing — interpretations of
the concepts of responsibility, accountability and responsiveness as a basis for
assessing the implications of the purchase–provider separation for the doctrine of
ministerial responsibility. He concludes that the anticipated accountability bene-
fits of the separation have not been realized — or even resolutely pursued.
Kenneth Kernaghan is Professor of Political Science at Brock University, Canada.
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200203)68:1]
Copyright © 2002 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol.68 (2002), 5–7; 023175
02_IRAS68/1 articles 8/3/02 10:52 am Page 5
To continue reading
Request your trial