The emergence of post-NPM initiatives: Integrated Impact Assessment as a hybrid decision-making tool
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852317694947 |
| Author | Jean-Sebastien Marchand,Maude Brunet |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Article
The emergence of post-NPM
initiatives: Integrated Impact
Assessment as a hybrid
decision-making tool
Jean-Sebastien Marchand
Ecole nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), Montreal,
Canada
Maude Brunet
HEC, Montreal, Canada
Abstract
Despite the criticism levelled at it, New Public Management (NPM) seems to be endur-
ing. Post-NPM initiatives remain relatively theoretical and are slow to take root at the
heart of the governmental apparatus. Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), a tool for
decision-making at national level, seems to be providing new answers. IIA has developed
from NPM regulatory relief initiatives, but its objectives and effects are more in line with
post-NPM principles. This article aims to explore the concept of IIA, its development
and the implications of its institutionalization. A comparative analysis of IIA practice is
carried out for four approaches: three at the national level (France, United Kingdom
and Switzerland) and one at the supranational level (European Commission). IIA
appears as a hybrid NPM and post-NPM tool, the use of which allows the implemen-
tation of certain post-NPM principles. The article concludes on future avenues for
research.
Points for practitioners
Administrations often have to deal with issues related to evidence-based decision-
making, transparency and the proliferation of statutory sectoral impact assessments.
In a context of limited resources, Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) can be an attract-
ive solution. However, a careful analysis of its development makes it possible to better
understand what its institutionalization actually implies. The practice of IIA makes it
possible to systematize consultation with stakeholders, but varies according to the
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2019, Vol. 85(2) 319–336
!The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020852317694947
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Corresponding author:
Jean-Sebastien Marchand, E
´cole nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) Centre de recherche – Ho
ˆpital
Charles-Le Moyne (CR-HCLM) Universite
´de Sherbrooke – Campus Longueuil, Montreal, Canada.
Email: jean-sebastien.marchand@enap.ca
methods used and the administrative structures in place. IIA could serve as a
decision-making tool that adds a public interest component and better reflect public
values in a decision-making situation.
Keywords
decision-making, impact assessment process, hybridization, New Public Management,
post-NPM, public administration, public sector reform
Introduction
A decade ago, Dunleavy et al. (2006) announced the end of New Public
Management (NPM). However, not only are the practices and values related
to the NPM currently enduring, but post-NPM initiatives remain rather norma-
tive and are slow to take root in the heart of public administration (Moulton,
2009: 897; Perry, 2007: 8). Moreover, when they do take root, they tend to
coexist with enduring NPM approaches (Christensen and Fan, 2016: 2; Park
and Joaquin, 2012: 516), or to exist parallel with and outside the core of the
governmental apparatus (Kolltveit, 2015: 36). The institutionalization of
Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in some public administrations brings new
answers.
IIA is a decision-making tool, whose practice at the national level has been
growing over the last decade. IIA has mainly developed in OECD countries and
in Europe, notably in France, the United Kingdom and Switzerland (Achtnicht
et al., 2009: 321; Hertin et al., 2007: 10; Jacob et al., 2008: 12). It is presented as an
approach resulting from NPM initiatives, but whose objectives and effects are more
in line with post-NPM principles. Little scientific literature exists on IIA at the
national level in public administration. This article aims to explore the develop-
ment and practice of IIA, as well as to understand the implications of its institu-
tionalization for public administration. This article presents IIA as a hybrid
decision-making tool, whose institutionalization allows the implementation of cer-
tain post-NPM principles.
Drawing on the literature, a review of documents and secondary data from
stakeholder interviews, we propose a comparative analysis of four different
approaches to IIA: three at the national level (France, United Kingdom and
Switzerland) and one at the supranational level (European Commission). This
article is divided into four parts. The first part presents IIA, its definition, and
explores the context of its development within the framework of NPM. The
second part explains the method. The third part presents the comparative analysis
of the four selected cases. The fourth part presents a discussion of the findings
that can be drawn from the institutionalization of IIAs. We note that the IIA at
the national level appears as a hybrid NPM and post-NPM form, and represents
the implementation of the theoretical principles of some post-NPM initiatives.
The article concludes with suggestions on future avenues for research.
320 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial