Globalization, Domestic Politics and the Introduction of New Public Management in the Commonwealth Caribbean
| Date | 01 March 2002 |
| Author | Ann Marie Bissessar |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852302681006 |
| Published date | 01 March 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Globalization, domestic politics and the introduction
of New Public Management in the Commonwealth
Caribbean
Ann Marie Bissessar
The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which the adoption of New
Public Management (npm) in the public services of four islands of the Common-
wealth Caribbean was influenced by the forces of globalization. It evaluates the
extent to which the features of npm have been successfully introduced in these
countries and proposes that the countries under review may be classified along a
continuum. For instance, while many of the features of npm have been introduced
in Barbados, npm has not been introduced in Guyana. Both Jamaica and Trinidad
and Tobago, however, have had partial success in introducing some features of
npm. The article suggests, therefore, that while the primary catalyst for reforming
public management systems may be similar, yet the success in adopting them is
largely dependent on a number of factors operating within the domestic political
system such as the governmental structures, the ethnic composition of the society,
the way in which the governmental systems operate and the state of the economy
in the various territories.1
Globalization and small states
The islands of the Commonwealth Caribbean comprise a cluster of nations,
which had formerly been under colonial rule and which are now grappling with
issues such as redistribution and the administration of power. The goals of all
these states are similar, however, including concerns such as the maintenance of a
stable democratic system of government, a healthy economic climate and, with
the imposition of structural adjustment measures during the 1980s, the need to
attract new investment.
In order to attract investors, these countries adopted a number of measures such
as reform of the banking sector along with corresponding changes in the public
sector particularly in organizations involved with the regulation of trade and
investment. The new model of administration that was employed throughout the
public sectors in many Caribbean territories was commonly termed ‘New Public
Ann Marie Bissessar is attached to the Department of Behavioural Sciences, the
University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad. CDU: 382:65.012.3(100)
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), 113–125; 022640
02_IRAS68/1 articles 8/3/02 10:52 am Page 114
114
International Review of Administrative Sciences 68(1)
Management’ (npm). It was evident, however, that much of the impetus for
reform of the public sector was not endogenous in these countries. Rather, a
number of factors, better placed under the ‘umbrella’ of globalization, were
responsible for the reforms that were introduced during the 1980s and 1990s in
many Caribbean states. Globalization, as many writers have indicated, is not a
single phenomenon. Indeed a recent report by the OECD suggests that ‘it has
become a catch-all concept to describe a range of trends and forces changing the
face of the world in which we live’ (OECD, OCDE/GD (96) 64, p. 3).
There have, of course, been different conceptions of globalization. It has been
promoted as essentially driven by economic forces (Wriston, 1992; Guehenno,
1995; Ohmae, 1995), others contend that contemporary globalization is wholly
exaggerated and that the forces of internationalization depends on the regulatory
power of national governments to ensure continuing economic liberalization
(Boyer and Drache, 1996; Hirst and Thompson, 1996). Yet others are of the view
that globalization is a central driving force behind the rapid, social, political and
economic changes that are reshaping modern societies and world order (Giddens,
1990; Scholte, 1993; Castells, 1996). Rosenau (1990) suggests that globalization
is in fact a powerful transformative force which is responsible for a ‘massive
shake-out’ of societies, economies, institutions of governance and world order.
There is a broad consensus, however, that the globalized economy, with its
many super-structural changes, has had profound implications for public
administration (Farazmand, 1994; Mander and Goldsmith 1996). Hood (1991),
for instance, suggests that changes in the methods of administration in the public
services world wide, what he has referred to as npm or ‘managerialism’ in the
public services (Pollitt, 1990) or ‘entrepreneurial government’ (Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992), were due to four global mega trends:
1. the attempt by the various governments to slow down or reverse the growth
of the state in terms of overt spending and staffing;
2. the shift toward privatization and quasi-privatization and away from core
government institutions, with renewed emphasis on subsidarity in service provi-
sion;
3 the development of automation, particularly in information technology, in
the production and distribution of public services; and
4. the development of a more international agenda.
Others point to factors such as changing population structures, increasing
expectations of the change in public services by the public and mounting
criticisms of the way by which services were delivered (Pollitt and Bouckaert,
2000). While all these factors were important, one of the most influential factors,
particularly in the Caribbean and Latin America, has been the role of supra-
territorial governance organizations such as the International Monetary Organiza-
tion (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The downturn in the world economy in the 1980s led many countries not only
in the developed world but also in Latin America and the Caribbean to seek aid
02_IRAS68/1 articles 8/3/02 10:52 am Page 115
Bissessar: Globalization, domestic politics and NPM
115
from these lending agencies. These loans or aid were accompanied by a number
of conditions or measures referred to as structural adjustment measures. As La
Guerre (1994) has noted, however, the structural adjustment conditions that
accompanied these loans were not confined to the economic sphere alone but also
impacted on the public sector. Indeed, apart from regulatory policies to be imple-
mented, it was argued that the public sectors in the various countries should be
reduced and service delivery was to become more efficient. It was also suggested
that standards and measures were to be introduced and that governments should
contract out services that had become too costly. Indeed, it seemed that the condi-
tions introduced by the lending agencies were very much in keeping with the
general features of npm.
Another justification for the introduction of npm was that in order to attract
potential investors, governments were now forced to introduce efficient and
standardized systems of administration. It soon became evident, though, that the
choice of ‘new’ methods of administration became a regional obsession. Indeed,
the universality of npm could not be disputed. npm had been introduced in
countries like the USA (Grey and Jenkins, 1995; Levine, 1998), the UK (Rhodes,
1991), New Zealand (Mascarenhas, 1993; Walker, 1996) and Australia
(Wilenski, 1986) and therefore was considered a more than appropriate model for
the Caribbean and Latin American states as well.
It is clear, though, that the main features of npm were in keeping with many
of the conditions laid down by the IMF and World Bank. Some of the primary
features of npm included:
• greater parsimony in resource use and allocations;
• the breakup of the monolithic public sector into smaller units, which would
foster greater competitiveness and in the long run lead to reduced costs to the
public;
• npm emphasized privatization and the contracting out of service delivery;
and
• the almagamation of the normative orientation of traditional public adminis-
tration and the instrumental orientation of general management (Hood, 1991;
Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000).
Indeed, npm was reinforcing the notion that the role of the state should be
reduced, a concept which had been already introduced by the lending agencies. It
was also more than clear that features such as ‘managers being free to manage’,
the introduction of standards of performance and the emphasis on outputs were in
keeping with the objectives of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial