The Value New Public Governance has as a Theoretical Construct in Public Expenditure Management

A Gwiza*, D B Jarbandhan (Orcid 0000-0003-2707-5777)

School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

*PhD candidate at the University of Johannesburg

Email (corresponding author) vainj@uj.ac.za

Abstract

The current global experiences of new collaborations, participatory, and liberal forms of governance systems are increasingly demanding a systematic reconfiguration of public expenditure and management (PEM) systems, processes and praxis. At the moment, there is no consensus with regards to the importance, scope as well as the implications of these prevailing PEM reforms. The New Public Governance (NPG) is widely believed as the latest development in providing a conceptual pillar as well as theoretical foundation to explore this transformative nature of PEM. This paper presents NPG as a theoretical construct; and interrogates its value in exploring the nature and context of emerging PEM issues. Revelations of the study point to a growing adoption of the NPG in both theory and practice, albeit with mixed results. Evidence aground reveals that, whilst NPG has been widely applied in exploring the modern and growing complex PEM issues, it is not the solution to fully comprehend the emerging complex government expenditure management issues. There is evident knowledge gap which calls for a de-mystification of this new theoretical construct; and explore its empirical value in the study of contemporary fiscal reforms. Consequently, the paper advances the argument that a hybrid theoretical construct can be more effective in providing a solid theoretical base in exploring the extant global complex PEM challenges. The thesis of a hybrid governance theory is anchored on, among others, citizen participation, innovation, inter-organizational linkages and mutual trust to address the contemporary public administration and governance challenges.

Key words: New public governance, reforms, theory, expenditure, public finance

1

1. Introduction

Discussions and contestations in judging the performance of government and public service delivery remain topical in the media and public fora. These debates are globally witnessed; and signal an increasing public scrutiny of governments’ system, processes and praxis. They also point to a renewed public interest in exploring the changing role of government; and the subsequent implications on public spending. A number of factors ranging from rising cases of health pandemics, economic instability, political unrest, anthropogenic factors, changes in demographic patterns and structures, ever-dynamic public values and preferences, information and technological (IT) revolution, and a plethora of other inhibitive factors are, in effect, a compelling case for governments to re-configure their expenditure management systems and processes.

Over the past years, several governments have embarked on a number of fiscal reform interventions with a view to come up with new and better ways of providing quality, adequate and less expensive goods and services which satisfy diverse citizens’ values and preferences. It is against this background that public expenditure management PEM as a fiscal reform measure has been widely credited; and has drawn a lot of attention as a discipline and practice. In an effort to explain this global fiscal reform effort, a variety of theories, approaches and models have been widely applied. These theoretical approaches lay the necessary foundation to interpret the context and dynamic nature of PEM as a contemporary practice and distinct field of academic field. This paper analyses the value of NPG as a theoretical construct in PEM.

Before going deeper with the discussion, it is imperative to fully understand the conceptual basis of a theory as applied in this particular study. Udo-Akang (2012:89) argues that the importance of theory in research cannot be underestimated. The debate on what constitutes a theory remains contested amongst researchers (Gelso 2006:45; Henderikus 2007:10). Several scholars and theorists have presented varying views in an attempt to clarify the meaning and relevance of this concept. Sunday (2013:12)’s definitions points to a set of interactive concepts, definitions as well as propositions which describe events or situations through clarification of the existing relationships amongst variables.

The general impression derived from the above definition is that a theory forms the basis for effective decision making; allowing application of knowledge and practice (Nel 2013:14). It also emerges from the above constructs that a theory generates research and research generates and refines theory (Gelso 2006:18). Harlow (2009:8) cements the above assertion, arguing that a theory takes into account the competing research paradigms, suggesting and determining the most applicable system of a set of constructs for dictating and fully appreciating research phenomena. In this context, the research explores the role of New Public Governance (NPG) as a competing theoretical construct in PEM. It serves a theoretical pillar against which the changing role and approaches to government expenditure management can be or is being exercised by contemporary governments. NPG seeks to understand the plural nature of government and how this renewed governance arrangement helps in articulating complex and multiple inhibitive factors in quality public goods and service delivery.

This article analyses NPG as a global governance reform effort with a view to explore the benefits derived from its widespread adoption particularly with regards to improving and strengthening PEM. Importantly, the fundamental role of the NPG paradigm comes out of an objective comparison with other preceeding theoretical constructs in PEM. From an empirical point of view, this article advances the idea of adopting a hybrid theoretical construct as a panacea in studying the growing complex and multiple factors compromising fiscal prudence (which form the core of PEM).

2. Conceptual orientation: Public expenditure management

Literature survey on PEM indicates no universal definition of the concept. Historically, PEM has been restricted to the study of public finance (Achmad 2012:15; Ghiasi 2014:2). However, until recently, the definition of PEM has expanded to cover studies of many forms of government intervention; the idea being to address market failure as well as ensuring distributional equity (Office of Fair Trading 2009:2; Ghiasi 2014:2). The definition provided by the Department of International Development (DfID) (2001:12)

2

is considered apt for this paper, where the term ‘public expenditure management’ entails “the process of allocating and managing public resources in order to achieve fiscal discipline, strategic prioritisation as well as realisation of value for money”. Emerging from the above definition is that PEM is a very useful government tool in the control and management of government expenditures to promote sustained economic growth as well as improving the quality of public goods and service provision (World Bank Internet Source n.d).

PEM focuses on the fundamental role of the state in the economy to realise good corporate governance through profound macro-economic policy reforms, and gradual response to the digital era (WB 2001:17). In this regard, this definition emphasises, among others; improved performance; adequate linkages between policy making, effective planning and budgeting; enhancement of a well-functioning accounting and financial management system; and appropriate linkages between budgeting and other systems of the government (WB’s PEM Handbook 1998:3). The above definition also points to a renewed focus on the role of institutional arrangements (governance) in influencing budget outcomes which are at three basic levels: aggregate fiscal discipline; high level of prioritisation in resource allocation; and prudent use of limited resources by spending units (WB’s PEM Handbook 1998:3; Shah 2007:48). This entails good governance as a precursor for sound public financial performance during the budgeting process (Shah 2007:48). In this case, management praxis and systems of public expenditure (policies, priorities, institutions and actions) are useful in measuring the quality and success of governments in contemporary politics (Allen and Tommasi 2001:23).

From a theoretical perspective, PEM’ can be understood as a modern fundamental tool of fiscal reforms which incorporates basic activities of administration of funds to deliver quality public goods and services to society (Zhou 2012:33). This observation is in line with Ghiasi (2014:1) who regards PEM as a modern government approach utilised in allocating public monies through collective choice. The recurring transformative nature of the public financial management discipline is, in itself, a compelling case for governments to fully adopt and utilize new governance forms to address emerging complex public expenditure management issues. Pursuant to the above, NPG is globally accredited as a latest theoretical construct to guide discussions and deliberations on the most appropriate and empirically based answers to emerging PEM issues. Detailed decipher of the NPG paradigm is largely possible if put in an appropriate theoretical framework as illustrated below.

3. Theoretical Framework

This section is a brief discussion of the main theory guiding this paper.

3.1. Social Network Theory

The growing global realization is that organizations do not operate in a vacuum. Indeed, they function in a relatively wider dynamic environment which influences their normal operations (Aldrich 1979:12). However, for their survival especially in the face of complex challenges, networking with each other becomes a necessity. A number of researches have been carried out; and their findings have shown how organisations are covertly or overtly involved in networks or relationships for different reasons. Accordingly, a number of theories have been propounded to predict these causal relationships. In particular, the resource dependence theory suggests that organizations do not operate independently (Lena and Leiria (2011:344). They need each other for survival as well as adaption to specific environmental circumstances (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978:17). On the other hand, the institutional theory advances the argument that institutional norms greatly affect the behaviours of organisations (DiMaggio and Powell 1983:150; Hannan and Freeman 1984:152). Equally, management scholarship suggests that organisations form alliances with other players for resource sharing, healthy information exchange, knowledge acquisition, technology transfer, social authorisation and legitimacy which are pivotal in guaranteeing a competitive advantage (Stuart, Hoang and Hybels 1999:320). Accordingly, the critical role of social networks cannot be overlooked for growth and survival of public entities if they are to remain relevant to citizen and other relevant stakeholders.

3

Varying definitions of social network theory are awash in governance literature. However, for the purpose of this study, the researcher considers the definition provided by Lauman, Galaskiewicz and Marsden (1978:458). The above scholars define social network theory as:

“an explanation of a social system in which a finite set of organizations (e.g., suppliers, distributors, financial institutions, universities, governments) directly or indirectly connect to each other by various social relationships (e.g., strategic alliance, interlocking, personal relationship, affiliation) and whose structural pattern will constrain or facilitate member organizations' behaviors through various mechanisms (e.g., information flow, knowledge sharing, resource complementarities)” (Lauman, Galaskiewicz and Marsden 1978:458) .

The foregoing points to the fact that a social network theory entails a body of knowledge explaining social structure which is made up of organisations or individuals who are joined together in particular patterns; and are largely dependent on each other. These social networks or inter-organizational linkages are fundamental for survival and growth of contemporary organizations (Dyer and Singh 1998:664). Therefore, the social network theory allows us to appreciate the value of NPG in exploring contemporary PEM issues in light of the noticeable organizational inter-dependence and adaptation requirements on governments for them to survive in low resource settings.

Haveri (2006) argues that NPG is grounded in organizational sociology and network theory (Casady, Eriksson, Levitt, and Scott 2019:04). The scholar considers the progressive, disjointed and undefined public management and administration discipline in the twenty-first century which requires networking. In this case, networks are associated with governance which relates to horizontal ties between state and non-state organisations with a view to improve public policy making and implementation (Klijn and Koppennjan 2012:10). The Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements typify these networks existing between government and other relevant stakeholders in PEM. PPPs are defined as contractual agreements established between the government and the private sector to provide public services, utilities or equipment (Word Bank 2013 cited in Chikwavara and Bvirindi 2019:6).

The PPP arrangements are usually undertaken to support development interventions because government alone is incapable to do that due to resource limitations. Maposa and Munanga (2021:3) buttress that fiscus inadequacies are the major factor forcing many governments to engage in PPPs. Therefore, these PPPs are a win-win undertaking for both parties. Related to this study, the primary aim of network governance is, therefore, to promote effective management of relationships among various key players in PEM. These critical players include government sector (e.g Treasury, Public Audit Offices, Parliament, Permanent Secretary, Accounting Officers, Central Bank e.t.c) and non-state actors (e.g business community, academics, donors, lending institutions, civil society, the general public, philanthropy organisations e.t.c). The definition, key features and value of NPG as the core of this paper are detailed in the ensuing sections.

3.2. New public governance defined

The NPG model is well documented in governance literature. Several terms have been used to explain its meaning in both theory and practice. Some have presented a faint difference to relate NPG as an interaction process as well as its guidance. A number of terms have been used interchangeably such as the “New Governance” (Rhodes 1996) “Network Management” (Agranoff and McGuire 2001:296; Mandell 2001), Public Governance (Skelcher, Mathur and Smith 2005:578), “Meta-Governance “(Sorensen and Torfing 2007:30:56; Torfing 2012). Whilst the above names appear different, they all point to a growing transformation of public management and administration systems. Osborne (2006:384) terms this governance shift as the NPG paradigm which underscores networks. According to Klijn (2012:6), this paradigm relates to the practical application of public policy to address diverse citizens’ critical needs. These diverse needs are addressed through effective networks of actors. Thus, the NPG movement is viewed equally as governance networks (Rhodes 1996) associated with various patterns of social interactions between mutually dependent state and non-state actors who are build up around complex public management and governance issues (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004:69-70). Emerging from the above

4

quote is that NPG encompasses all various interaction processes taking place within the context of mutually inclusive networking actors. In the PEM context, the NPG paradigm underlines the necessary collaborations amongst the government institutions, the private sector, development partners and the public in PEM. It therefore entails the extant complementarities between state and non-state actors in resource mobilisation to meet diverse needs and wants of citizens. This interactive relationship promotes public involvement at every stage of PEM.

3.3. Evolution of the new public governance theory

The advent of NPG is always related to the perceived loopholes of both the traditional public administration (TPA) and the new public management (NPM) (van Gestel, Kuiper and Hendrikx 2019:2). As such, the NPG serves a renewed theoretical orientation which seeks to transform contemporary governance approaches away from the deep-rooted hierarchies associated with TPA (Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald and Pettrigrew 1996:56). Some researchers view this approach as a substitute of NPM, for its unique consideration of government as a collaborative partner, instead of being a hierarchical actor (van Gestel et al. 2019:2). Also, the subsequent adoption of the free market systems by many governments had also its own share of criticisms. In particular, Skelcher (2000:13) posits that the NPM led to the government becoming more fragmented. The implication has been that several public and private organisations had to merge in order to provide quality public goods and services. Nevertheless, the major setback with this new governance arrangement was that this market system fundamentally sought to expand the networks which it was designed to supplant. That is why Bevir and Rhodes (2011:205) explain that:

Fragmentation created new networks but also … increased the membership of existing networks, incorporating both the private and (the) voluntary sectors … government swapped direct for indirect control, so that central departments are no longer either necessarily or invariably the fulcrum of a network. The government can set the limits to network actions: after all, it still funds the services. But it has also increased its dependence on multifarious networks (Bevir and Rhodes 2011:205).

What was globally noticed was that institutionalisation of the marketization process entailed an ever-growing interaction processes which were even more complex. It comprised various actors with diverse backgrounds and value standpoints. These partners enjoyed a great deal of autonomy from government. Thus, in a bid to address the NPM flaws, it therefore became a compelling case for governments to have an alternative governance approach. This new governance call resonates with the prediction made by Warren G in 1960s. He predicted the emergency of a short-term adaptive and rapidly changing organisation system. These new organisation systems were made up of task teams which were relatively strangers with unique backgrounds and skills competencies; and were grouped according to the problems to be addressed. This dream proved real as most countries across the globe underwent a new governance era; but one ‘without government’ (Rhodes 1996:655). In view of Runya, Qigui and Wei (2015:11), the NPG model presents itself as a theoretical construct that adapted more to the current public governance system; of which PEM is part and parcel of the process. In these wider inter-organisational networks, there were also some networks which began to gain popularity (Rhodes 2007:1245). These were essentially regarded as an alternative way of addressing the loopholes of freem market and top-down governance approaches which no longer serve purpose in the current growing complex and global world (Jessop 2003:101–02).

4. The value of NPG in public expenditure management

The NPG movement presents diverse defining characteristics which are different from those of old schemas. The most distinct advantage related to NPG is, obviously, its capacity to provide a theoretical justification on the changing role of state. NPG entails a radical departure of governance systems and praxis from a strongly centralised forms (Rhodes 2007; Dickinson 2016). Relatedly, PEM calls for this decentralised approach towards management and control of government expenditure in the context of worsening resource limitations. To date, NPG reforms are evident across nations because they are widely considered to have the possibility of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency to public service provision

5

(van Gestel et al. 2019:2). All relevant players within state and non-state institutions are accommodated to provide vibrant PEM mechanisms. That is why Newman (2004:71) posits that:

“The predominant focus is on the increasing significance of governance through networks as an alternative to markets and hierarchy … The state, it is argued, can no longer assume a monopoly of expertise or resources necessary to govern, and must look to a plurality or interdependent institutions drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors (Newman 2004: 71)”.

Osborne (2006:380) further argues that, “the NPG approach entails both a plural state, where multiple interdependent actors contribute to the delivery of public services, and a pluralist state, where multiple processes inform the policy-making system... Out of these two governance forms underpinned by a sense of pluralism, the main focus of NPG is to enhance inter-organizational relationships…”. As highlighted before, the PPPs arrangement explains this nature of interactions between government and non-state institutions in delivering public goods and services. Developing countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia, Nigeria have witnessed remarkable improvements in health service delivery through PPPs. In particular, Zimbabwe introduced PPPs in 2009 as an alternative funding model for improving public health service delivery as well as construction of new and renovation of existing healthcare infrastructure (Dube and Kunaka 2019:360).

Thus, NPG recognises the interaction of different actors, with government playing a facilitating role in the governance process. It, therefore, follows that the synergies amongst critical players (public, private, social) in the governance matrix are critical to achieve their own set goals; and also realising the most fundamental factor that one player (especially the government) is inadequate to achieve them. Empirical evidence indicates that government is sorely crippled to provide public goods and services in a more economic, effective and efficient manner. There is critical need for development community, private players, citizens to close this lacuna (in terms of funding, skill-base, material and technical assistance e.t.c) to improve and sustain the quality of public welfare. In fact, proponents of this paradigm advance the argument that the modern social world is characterised by people who are operating in a new social arrangement which demands a novel and agile governance framework. This renewed social order calls for a new socio-political interactive governance and, equally important, a “network governance” too which capitalises in innovation in public goods and service delivery. Importantly, the results-based financing (RBF) approach to PEM exemplifies this innovation underlined in NPG. In the Zimbabwean health sector, government collaborated with relevant non-state actors to address the resource and other materials shortages in health service delivery. In particular, that RBF was adopted as part of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements; and this is a positive step in strengthening institutional capacity for PEM (European Training Foundation 2020:60). Empirical evidence aground reveals that the RBF initiative has gone a long way in utilising technology and innovation in strengthening health systems in Zimbabwe. In effect, the capacity of health facilities is being developed to enhance fiscal prudency in the management and control of health-related financial resources (Aroni 2012:23).

NPG is widely acknowledged for its unique call to utilise modern stream of management theory, which is premised on the ‘relational organization’. This is totally different from NPM which has an output and intra-organizational orientation (Osborne 2006:384). As argued before, the NPG paradigm is deeply entrenched in pluralism, where multiple inter-dependent actors are actively involved in policy making and execution. Importantly, the NPG’s main thrust is largely on inter-organizational associations in the contemporary society. It also emphasises efficiency and effectiveness in public spending whose net impact is enhanced public goods and service output and outcomes. Robinson (2015:9) argues that the state is plural based on the fact public service provision is done by many actors who dependent on each other. The state is also pluralistic in that multiple processes arising from various stakeholder and inputs influence and enrich public policy making. Therefore, proponents of the NPG paradigm argue that in this new social order, the government is now considered as part of other critical players entrusted with policy making and public goods and service delivery. It is no more the principal force dictating PEM in particular and public policy making and implementation in general (Weber and Khademian 2008:338). The same observation was coined by Villanueva (2015:130) that, “…the socio-political approach, based on a social change theory, leads to infer that the government has ceased to be a self-sufficient and independent

6

actor in setting and achieving by itself all the most important social aims and goals. The reason for this is that NPG puts in place several forms of concerted partnerships with social actors to attain supplementary capabilities, resources and support” (Villanueva 2015:130).

In the afore-going, the value of NPG in understanding the complex modern world has been extensively discussed. It emerged from the discussion that the NPG paradigm capitalises on the strengths of TPA and the NPM, by respecting the legality as well as the multi-pronged policy design and implementation framework in the context of technological revolution. In effect, this new theoretical construct breaks new ground by recognising and outlining the PEM shortfalls associated with the plural world (Osborne 2006:384). In explaining the role of Information Technology in PEM, approaches such as Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) also deserve acknowledgement. By definition, IFMIS describes computerised government financial management systems (Mfandaedza and Wynne 2010:12). This definition is similar to the one given by Edwin (2008:2). He defines IFMIS in the public sector as more essentially “the computerization of public financial management (PFM) processes, from budget preparation and execution to accounting and reporting, with the help of an integrated system for financial management of line ministries, spending agencies and other public sector operations”. The computerization move is welcomed in dealing with complex financial resource management issues (e.g corruption) in a country (Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) 2005:25).

With the emerging knowledge-based economy of the twenty-first century, IT revolution gains its relevance that dwarfs other types of development (Mfandaedza and Wynne 2010:9). Previous research on IFMIS views this shift as being fundamental to Africa in leapfrogging intermediate stages of development in general and PEM in particular (Mfandaedza and Wynne 2010:9). Essentially, IFMIS is often viewed as a necessary pre-condition toward sound PEM because all its approaches influence the system (Ghiasi 2014:16). The NPG model underscores the imperative need to fully utilise modern technologies to address previous PEM challenges such as, but not limited to, corruption, wastage, errors and tedious management practices. Consequently, the NPG paradigm lays the necessary theoretical and conceptual foundation against which research can be undertaken to inform and guide the practice of PEM in the contemporary world.

5. Criticism of the NPG paradigm

Even though NPG has been widely acknowledged; and that its frames of references have been extensively utilised by several countries, it has also its own challenges. Critiques argue that the model does not, in itself, provide a firm theoretical and conceptual basis to address the growing complex public administration issues. Even Osborne (2010:06) posits that NPG is just a conceptual tool utilised to assist our appreciation on global and complex public sector management challenges. The model suffers from lots of shortcomings and is highly criticised in its process of getting mature. Some of the critics of NPG are summarised below.

5.1. Lack of clear accountability

Fundamental questions have been raised on the NPG model on issues of accountability. It is widely assumed that the insurgency of this new model sought to disperse the subjects but in the process, this resulted in unclear responsibility. Peters and Pierre (1998:226) also further the argument that accountability serves as the weakest point in the process of managing organisational culture. Related to the above critique, Haque (2000:599) presents three aspects of “accountability” missing in the NPG model; and these are standards, agents and means. Additionally, the free market governance approach has several loopholes. The approach doesn’t necessarily guarantee the accountability which is in line with PEM critical to protect citizen’s preferences and rights. In fact, the accountability for profit fails to guarantee the accountability to wealth and justice; yet PEM seeks to address all of these fundamentals.

5.2. Over-emphasis of decentralisation of power

The NPG model is further criticised due to its over-emphasis on decentralization of power. In particular, Runya et al. (2015:18) pose the following questions in support of the above critic: who takes

7

responsibility; what is the legal ground for accountability system? The NPG theory fails to answer these questions. The general impression is that there is an inherent conflict arising from the consideration of decentralization and accountability concurrently. Perhaps the alternative is to strengthen the relationship and belief of all key players in practice as well as coming up with strong social contracts that control actors’ social behaviours. Contextually, the social contract might need a core-shared sense of responsibility between state, the private sector, the voluntary organisations in the management and control of limited public resources. Such complementarities would entail opening doors for constructive criticism by non-state actors on government operations so that issues of accountability are clearly and adequately articulated.

5.3. Lack of efficiency

The NPG model is also criticised due to lack of efficiency which, according to Castells (2008:87) is one of the four crises to face. The NPG movement is anticipated to result in pluralism which, on the other hand, makes it moribund in addressing social problems. From a different angle, Runya et al. (2015:18) argue that the TPA paradigm underscores the need for integrity in the public sector. Whilst this integrity is huge and laid off, the source of “inefficiency” challenge lies with the state. The NPM model is concerned with the manner in which the “lean government” enhances efficiency in the process of providing goods and services to citizens. A lean government is one priority of PEM. However, commenting on the NPG paradigm, decentralization is the central linchpin. Even though decentralisation which, among others, stresses the need for sharing power between government and other relevant actors, there is often unclear accountability in the administration system. The resultant shuffling will, regrettably, affect sound PEM in enhancing efficiency and effective public goods and service delivery.

5.4. Lack of trust between government and citizens

NPG is also challenged due to its legal shortcomings. According to Runya et al. (2015:18), extant legal defects associated with the NPG model deepen the conflict between citizen and government. There is always a growing mutual mistrust between government and citizens especially in authoritarian regimes. Even in these contemporary democracies, votes are no longer a mission for governments because of the noticeable unpredictability of the decision variable as well as other critical issues. Subsequently, the issue of distance and, of course, opaqueness between citizens and representatives take effect. As Caputo (2004) postulates, the global survey conducted in the last few decades points to a growing mutual distrust among political groups, politicians, democratic organizations; and this results in serious legal implications. Weak and fragmented PEM in contemporary governments is largely a product of deepening mutual mistrust between government and non-state actors. The two camps run parallel, making real collaborations (through funding, technical assistance and material support) very difficult. In most developing countries like Zimbabwe, the three decade long sour relationship between the government and western societ remains a major worry in improving PEM. Donor assistance from development partners continue to dwindle and this further worsen government’s already limited fiscal space. Thompson (2000:27) posits that the resultant legal crisis is worsened due to exposure of all various sorts of political scandals. Whilst decentralization (the central linchpin of NPG) promotes network that is critical to strengthen engagement, there is always distrust as a result of what Runya et al. (2015:18) described as the “information asymmetry” among private sector, development partners and other relevant governance partners. Based on the above, the most fundamental question raised would be the need to know how the public will can be well expressed and also legally represented in PEM systems and processes.

5.5. Failure to work under authoritarian regimes

Different from the critics afore-given, this paper also identifies three local problems associated with NPG because of context-specific factors in most developing countries: cultural diversity, variation in social formation as well as the polarised civil society. This makes NPG a less important theoretical tool as it overlooks the three factors which PEM aims to address. In effect, NPG model as a creation of western society talks about democracy as one of its key building blocks. However, the case with most governments in developing countries is predominance of authoritarianism. Such countries have

8

democratic constitutionalism only appearing on paper as little or no room is left for meaningful participation of citizens, Civil Society Organisations (CSO) and other development partners. PEM is premised on inclusivity in the budgetary process to address diverse needs of the public. In fact, the fundamental role of NPG as a theoretical tool to successfully guide PEM largely depends on the availability of a vibrant civil society that will set a tone for public participation in public governance matters. Absence of a strong and well-developed civil society makes it hard to come up with an effective PEM system which actively responses to the various needs of citizens. Therefore, NPG as a paradigm lacks the necessary capacity to change this deep-rooted autocratic culture to improve and strengthen PEM.

Problems raised above fall under three categories: a) Distortion of the social mentality of public governance which must be available; b) dissimilation of the subject’s role of public governance; c) and breakdown of the normal mechanism of public governance. The NPG movement underscores the need to come up with a code of conduct for proper governance where actors have diverse and competing values and perceptions (Runya et al. 2015:18). Nevertheless, in the context of the society of relations, the notion of ethnics, clans and humanity get rid of this code; and this is arguably one of the major setbacks in improving NPG in most developing countries.

6. Implications for adopting the hybridity governance model in PEM

Existing multi-faceted organizational collaborations that govern activities of government are in response to the several modern public policy issues which are relentless and complex in nature; and these problems are often referred to as wicked problems (Robinson 2015:12). These problems, accordingly to Robinson (2015:12), are difficult to address using a single solution as well as technical fixes undertaken by individual government agencies working alone. Many researchers have observed the shortfalls of singular public administration and management arrangement in view of growing global complexities. Weber and Khademian (2008:336) define wicked problems as “those problems which cut across hierarchy and authority structures within and between organizations and across policy domains, political and administrative boundaries, and political group interests”. Challenges encountered by one part of the world, whether political, social, economic or technological, have relatively similar repercussions elsewhere that are often hard or rather impossible to foresee, and difficult to judge (Robinson 2015:12).

The growing realisation in the academic research community is that wicked problems call for interventions that come from collaborations across diverse organizations and specialisms. In this light, various networks of public, private and civic society organizations are evidently becoming a critical tool for enhancing the government capacity in resolving the growing complex public problems for the benefit of citizens. However, the continuous dynamic external context under which government agencies function is also an equally important factor that shapes these new organizational set-ups and, consequently, this has a strong bearing on the scope and role of modern public management and governance approaches. Some scholars have brought to light the importance of a growing dynamic and complex inter-woven global economy as well as the problems of linking the government to a changing global environment (Abonyi and Slyke 2010:38). All these unfolding public administration and governance scenarios call for a cross-pollination of the governance models; and analysts have called this renewed thinking a “hybridity governance approach” (Robinson 2015:11; Bourgon 2011:16). Goldsmith and Eggers (2004:7) support the above idea, stating that:

…one-size-fits-all solutions have given way to more customized approaches as the complicated problems of diverse and more mobile populations increasingly defy simplistic solutions… Rigid bureaucratic systems that operate with command-and-control procedures, narrow work restrictions and inward-looking cultures and operating models are particularly ill-suited to addressing problems that often transcend organizational boundaries” (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004:7).

Bourgon acknowledges the necessity for a hybrid governance arrangement as it draws from membership synergies (Bourgon cited in Robinson 2015:13). Emerging from the present scholarly literature, however, is the real absence of a comprehensive account of the various problems created by the hybridity governance model, or the relevant skills and competencies anticipated for effective managers and leaders

9

(van der Heijden 2015:24). For instance, even though there is well documentation of examined diverse skills and competencies required for effective organisational inter-relationships and the jurisdictional overlapping, and, equally important, the different conditions for effectiveness of these various forms of collaborations with service providers, there falls short of a comprehensible conceptual and theoretical model which combines these relationships together. Neither is there any proper guidance regarding meaning of the effective management and governance of complex service delivery systems in reality. This ensuing section attempts to de-mystify the hybridity governance forms. It also discusses the critical considerations that might help to strengthen the application of hybridity as an alternate post-NPM governance feature which can be fully utilised in strengthening PEM.

7. Towards a decentred governance

Existing governance scholarship has advocated for a radical shift from earlier governance forms towards a decentred governance approach. According to Rhodes (2016:07), a decentred governance approach relates to the shifting of the governance architect by concentrating on the actors’ own understanding of events and issues, and devise pragmatic ways of dealing with such issues for the good of citizens. Put differently, a decentered governance entails a radical departure from a hierarchical focus on the critical role of central elites to a more participatory approach when analyzing the beliefs and practices of citizens (Rhodes 2016:07). It explores the various ways in which such situated actors transform the existing demarcations between the state and non-state actors by continuously adjusting the governance practices as their beliefs change in line with the dilemmas encountered (Rhodes 2016:07). Thus, a decentred approach upholds a different perception altogether regarding the state authority and its fundamental roles.

Proponents of a decentred governance share the common belief that governance processes are not clearly distinct as usually suggested in the mainstream literature (Robinson 2016:48). Rhodes (2007:1257)’s earlier assertion is that, ‘if governance system is arranged differently, contingently and constantly, it is difficult to have a specific tool kit for managing it’. The above assertion contradicts with modern governance theories who have tried to present important governance characteristics and generalise these properties as a common feature of all unfolding governance scenarios. Such a generalisation holds water only if we all agree that the state has some kind of real importance that exists from an ontological perspective. Therefore, this line of thinking deviates from a decentred governance position which, in essence, seeks to address the three problems shared by both first and second waves of governance namely: essential properties, instrumental knowledge, and reunification (Rhodes 2016:6). Previously, Rhodes (2007:1250) had also underlined that it is not the essentialist structures that matter under the decentred governance approach, but rather the appreciation and the know how people have about actions, practices and institutions in the public governance processes and systems . In practice, the key message from the above assertion on the performance of governments is the need to move away from the classical thinking about public sector reform fuelled, essentially, by structural factors. There is need to have a new focus on governance systems and practices that are largely informed by the personal agency of actors.

8. Reinventing the PEM governance relationships

The above section provided the necessary ground to discuss ways of exploring various governance forms applicable in PEM. However, there is little or no sufficient explanation pertaining to the necessary conditions for individuals and institutions to improve PEM in the complex hybrid governance approach in real terms. Firstly, there is need to consider the basic requirement, that in an endeavour to manage hybrid governance forms, there is always need to have in mind that the days of stability as well as certainty have since been long overdue. According to Rhodes (2016:50), a hybrid governance context presupposes that there are potential multiple and rival systems that interact with each other at any given time. PEM is not immune to this unfolding scenario. Therefore, established relationships between government and non-state actors in PEM are inherently dynamic and, at times, contradictory. Therefore, the various arrangements put in place to govern these relationships will consistently transform with time. Perhaps the critical issue of concern here is the degree of transformation towards these relationships in PEM. Currently, there is a growing discussion regarding the relationships between the government and the external forces in PEM where all players are viewed as critical in improving and sustaining the national

10

fiscus. In particular, community organisations are under excessive pressure to show their importance following the government shift from grant-based funding systems towards contracting-out in order to provide particular services to the general public. Reacting to this phenomenon, some analysts argue that these changes are, consequently, inimical to the context as well as the existence of the sector.

9. A vibrant workforce competency and capacity

The final, but not least, condition in the hybridity governance arrangement points to the imperative for the refinement of skills and competencies of the workforce. In PEM, the general observation is that the skills and competencies of the traditional public officials entrusted with public monies can no longer suit the new demands of the current dynamic and complex public management and governance context. Even if one attempts to critically examine the major determinants for recruitment and selection systems and practices under the earlier schemas, there is no doubt to conclude that such processes are always informed by professional roles. This does not work anymore under the hybrid arrangements. According to Rhodes (2016:54), navigation of the complex world requires a plethora of ‘softer’ and more competent workforce, with high capacity to communicate narratives effectively, enhancing collaborative analysis of global governance events. PEM would mean leveraging on wide pool of skills, competencies from various players to improve and strengthen PEM capacities.

It, therefore, implies that both the public and community-based organisations involved in PEM must re-consider the skills and competencies of their employees from a strategic perspective so that they remain relevant and survive in a more dynamic and complex world. Reflecting on earlier governance arrangements, civil service has been developed over a long period of time with the ultimate desire to execute specific public programs and services, albeit without critical consideration of the workforce’s ability and competencies from a broader viewpoint. Several governance analysts have suggested the necessity for reconsidering traditional values of government, however with a renewed emphasis. Pursuant to the above, Mulgan (2012:21) underlines the need for the relational state, which binds governance system all kinds to rebuild public trust. In its newest form, the relational state serves as the outcome of specific 21st century situations which are compelling governments to systematically focus largely on the effectiveness of their collaborations with the public. Equivalently, Rhodes (2014:67) underscores the critical role of a people-centred approach to management; and also that public officials must reconfigure the establishment of this initiative. Therefore, effective navigation of the hybridity governance model requires changes in the PEM workforce skills and capabilities that, at best, adapt to the growing complex environments. Importantly, aspects such as recruitment, management as well as the development of the workforces in both government and business sectors must be re-invigorated to empower all actors in developing and applying these types of skills.

10. Conclusions

The extant public governance and management reforms scholarship provided a real picture of unfolding PEM perspectives in the contemporary world. The overarching observation is that traditional public financial management principles have, over the years, been substituted by better arrangements which sound more effective, economic and efficient to improve the quality of public goods and service delivery. Following the successive nature of the governance forms, available literature points to the fact that the private sector management principles were borrowed ideally to address the inert flaws of TPA . However, when the promises of the market system failed to materialize, new forms of governance emerged. Ostensibly, the inherent weaknesses of the later paved way to the emergence of a new discourse of collaborative relationships as a remedy. Continued re-surfacing of public expenditure issues, under the label ‘wicked problems’, became a compelling case for governments to think of other better ways of improving and strengthening PEM systems and processes. The NPG paradigm is the latest development in this regard. However, this theoretical construct, fails to address the current complex PEM issues in isolation. There is utmost need for a holistic governance approach to address contemporary PEM issues.

11

This paper attempted to give the real meaning, genesis and value of NPG in PEM . Throughout the discussion, it came out that changes in public financial management is not necessarily as distinct and straightforward as presented typically in extant body of academic literature. The opposite is true where there are evident interwoven theoretical paradigms working simultaneously in PEM. Whilst this hybridity arrangement dominates, there is a worrisome absence of a coherent theoretical explanation that should guide governments to survive as they muddle through the global dynamic and complex environment. This paper maintained that the NPG theory is not, in itself, the solution in addressing emerging complex PEM issues. Finally, this study recommends the utmost need for governments to embrace hybridity in their PEM approaches. This inclusive PEM arrangement allows a compensatory behavior where the strength of one approach will address the weaknesses of the other and vice-versa.

References

Abonyi, G. and Van Slyke D.M. 2010. Governing on the edges: Globalization of production and the challenges to public administration in the twenty-first century. Public Administration Review. Special Issue on the Future of Public Administration.70(1): 33-45.

Achmad, F.N. 2012. Public expenditure management reform in Indonesia: An assessment of the roles of the treasury and other institutions, Doctoral Thesis: Birmingham University. Available online at: https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/dba2bdb2-1632-4350-8d28-dce05996a36f/1/Thesis-Achmad-2012.pdf (Accessed on 15 August 2015).

Allen, R. and Tommasi, D. (eds). 2001. Managing government expenditure: A reference book for transition countries. Paris: OECD SIGMA.

Aldrich, E. 1979. Organizational environment. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

12

Agranoff, R. and Mcguire, M. 2001. Big questions in public network management research, In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(1): 295-326.

Aroni, A. 2012. Health management capacity building (an integral component of health systems’ improvement): A literature review as part of the European Health Management Association’s health workforce activities under the Operating Grant (EHMA-FY2012). European Health Management Association. Available online at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/chafea_pdb/assets/files/pdb/20113303/20113303_d8_02_report_en_ps.pdf (Accessed on 23 December 2019).

Bevir, M. and R. A. W. Rhodes. 2011. ‘The stateless state.’ In the SAGE handbook of governance, Ed. M. Bevir, 203–17. London: Sage Publications.

Bourgon, J. 2011. A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century. Montreal and Kingston: Mcgill-Queen’s University Press.

Caputo, D. 2004. La DemocraciaEnAmerica Latina. PogramaDe NacionesUnidasPara El Desarrollo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Aguilar, Altea, Alfaguara.

Casady C.B., Eriksson k., Levitt. R.E., and Scott, W.R 2019. (Re)defining public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the new public governance (NPG) paradigm: An institutional maturity perspective. Public Management Review. Available online at: file:///C:/Users/ICT/Downloads/ReDefiningPPPsinNPG_Revised_Final1.pdf Accessed on 12 August 2021)

Castells, M. 2008. The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Aannlas of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616(1): 78-93.

Chikwawawa, C and Bvirindi, J. 2019. Exploring the feasibility of public private partnerships in the healthcare sector in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 9(11): 4-15

Department for International Development (DfID). 2001. Understanding and reforming public expenditure management: Guidelines for DfID. London: DfID.

Dimaggio, P., and Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 48(2). 147-160.   

Dickinson, H. 2016. From new public management to new public governance: The implications for a new public service, (Book Chapter): The three sector solution: delivering public policy in collaboration with non-profits and business. The Australian National University: ANU Press.

Dube, L.Z. and Kunaka, P. 2019. Emergent views on public private partnership in public hospitals in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Development and Sustainability. 8(6): 357-366.

Dyer, J., and Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review. 23(4): 660-679.

Edwin, R.B. 2008. Integrated financial management information system: A Practical Guide. United State Agency for International Development: USAID.

European Training Foundation. 2020. Public–private partnerships for skills development: A governance perspective. Vol.2 Case studies. Availble online at: https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/public-private-partnerships-skills-development-governance (Accessed on 13 March 2021).

13

Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, Land A. Pettrigrew, A. 1996. The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gelso, C. J. 2006. Applying theories to research: the interplay of theory and research in science. In Leong, F.T., &Austin J. T. (Eds.). The Psychology research handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Ghiasi, M. 2014. The role of public expenditure management in the budget systems. International SAMANM Journal of Marketing and Management. 2(2): 1-19.

Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D Eds. 2004. Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Cambridge, Mass: Ash Center and Brookings Institution Press.

Haveri, A. 2006. Complexity in local government change: Limits to rational reforming. Public Management Review. 8(10): 31 – 46.

Harlow, E. (2009). Contribution of a theory “Encyclopedia of case study research. Available online at: http://www.sagereference.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/casestudy/Article_n89.html (Accessed on 12 September 2017).

Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review. 49(2): 149-164.         

Haque, S. 2000. Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. Journal of International Review of Administrative Sciences. 66(1): 599-617.

Henderikus, S. 2007. Theoretical psychology. The international handbook of psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jessop, B. 2003. Governance And Metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony’, In Bang, H. P. (Ed.) Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Klijn, E.H. 2012. Public management and governance: A comparison of two paradigms to deal with modern complex problems In D. Levi Faur (Ed) The handbook of governance . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koppenjan, J.F.M. and Klijn, E.H. 2004. Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

Klijn, E and Koppenjan, JFM. 2012. Governance network theory: Past, present and future. Journal of Policy and Politics. 40(4): 587-606.

Laumann, E., Galaskiewicz, J. and Marsden, P. 1978. Community structures as inter-organizational linkages. In R. Turner, J. Coleman, &R. Fox (Eds.). Annual Review of Sociology. 4 (1): 455-484.

Lena M., P. and Leiria, A.V. 2011. Using social networks theory as a complementary perspective to the study of organizational change. BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev. 8 (2) Curitiba.

Mandell, M.P. (Ed.) 2001. Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management, Westport: Quorum Books. 

Maposa, L. and Munanga, Y. 2021. Public-private partnerships development finance model in Zimbabwe infrastructure projects. Open Access Library Journal. 8(4): 1-24. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104211 (Accessed on 12 June 2021).

14

Mfandaedza, H. and Wynne, A. 2010. The experience of medium-term expenditure framework and integrated financial management information systems reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: What is the balance sheet? African capacity building foundation occasional paper no.9. Available online at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/2973/op009-2010-222017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed on 15 July 2017).

Mulgan, G. 2012. ‘Government with the people: The outlines of a relational state.’ In The relational state, Eds G. Cooke and R. Muir, 20–34. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Nell, D. 2013. Systematic risk management and strategic control in private partnership: PhD, Public and Management Governance (Unpublished). University of Johannesburg. Available online at http://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed on 13 April 2017).

Newman, J. 2001. Modernizing governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.

Newman, J. 2004. ‘Modernizing the state: A new form of governance?’ In remaking governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere, Ed. J. Newman, 119–38. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Office of Fair Trading. 2009. Government in markets: Why competition matters – a guide for policy makers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284451/OFT1113.pdf (Accessed on 2 June 2021).

Osborne, S. P. 2006. The New Public Governance? Journal of Public Management Review. 8(3): 377-388.

Osborne, S. P. 2010. The New public governance: Emerging perspectives on theory and practice of public governance. Routledge: London.

Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. 1998. ‘Governing without government: Rethinking public administration’, Journal of Public Administration and Theory. 8(1): 223-42.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.         

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. “The new governance: Governing without government,” Journal ofPolitical Studies. 44(1): 652-667.

Rhodes, R. A. W. 2007. ‘Understanding Governance: Ten years on.’ Journal of Organization Studies 28(1): 1243–64.

Rhodes, R. A. W. 2014. Recovering the ‘craft’ of public administration in network governance: Plenary address to the International Political Science Association. World Congress: Montreal.

Rhodes R. A. W. 2016. Theory and practice of governance: The next steps. Available Online At:http://www.raw-rhodes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TheoryPractice-Governancedocx.pdf (Accessed on 23 February 2012).

Robinson M, 2015 “From old public administration to the new public service: Implications for public sector reform in developing countries”. Global centre for public service excellence, United Nations Development (UNDP) Program. UNDP.

Runya, X., Qigui, S and Wei S.I. 2015. The third wave of public administration: The new public governance. Journal of Canadian Social Science11(7): 11-21.

Skelcher, C. 2000. ‘Changing images of the state: Overloaded, hollowed-out, congested.’ Journal of Public Policy and Administration. 15(3): 3–19.

15

Skelcher, C., Mathur, N and Smith, M. 2005. ‘The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy.’ Journal of Public Administration 83, 573-96.

Shah, A. 2007. Budgeting and budgetary institutions: Public sector governance and accountability series. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). 2005. Public financial management. Available online at: https://www.sida.se/contentassets/b02a481abb744d8f87eeebc595c1ab60/public-financial-management_1413.pdf. (Accessed on 15 July 2017).

Sorensen, E. and Torfing, J. (Eds.), 2007. Theories of democratic network governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Stuart, T., Hoang, H., and Hybels, R. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44(2): 315-349.         

Sunday, C. 2013. The role of theory in research: PET applications paper. University of the Western Cape. Available online at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/The%20role%20of%20theory%20in%20research.pdf (Accessed on 22 April 2017).

Thompson, J. B. 2000. Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge, UK Polity.

Torfing, J. 2012. Governance and meta-governance In: D. Levi-Faur (Ed.) 2012.

Udo-Akang, D. 2012. Theoretical constructs, concepts, and applications. American International Journal of Contemporary Research. 2(9): 89-97.

Van Der Heijden, J. 2015. ‘Interacting state and non-state actors in hybrid settings of public service delivery.’ Journal of Administration and Society. 47(2): 99–121.

van Gestel, N., Kuiper, M and Hendrikx, W. 2019 Changed Roles and Strategies of Professionals in the (co)Production of Public Services. Journal of Administrative Sciences. 9(59): 1-15.

Villanueva, A. 2015. The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Journal of Public Governance. 1(1): 126-134.

Weber, E. P. and Khademian A.M. 2008. wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Journal of Public Administration Review. 68(2):334–349.

World Bank: Internet Source (n.d) Chapter 4: budget classification, presentation and programming. Available online at: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/april2003seminar/Course%20Readings/01.%20Overview/OECD%20Reference%20Book%20%20Chapter4.pd.( Accessed on 8 June 2021).

World Bank. 1998. Public expenditure management handbook. Washington, D.C. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ The World Bank.

World Bank. 2001. Public Expenditure management and accountability: evolution and current status of World Bank. Poverty reduction and economic management network operation policy and country services network. Available Online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/IDA/Resources/Seminar%20PDFs/evolution.pdf (Accessed: 12 June 2016).

Zhou, G. 2012. Three decades of public expenditure management in Zimbabwe. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2(3): 33-54.

16