New public management reform

The authors argue that the economic market is vital in reform movements in all countries. This is because of its use as a model for administrative and political relationships. The movement of reforms varies in degree of operation and end results by each country, but there is similarity in goals and technologies application. Public satisfaction through efficient allocation of resources and maximization of production is difficult to accomplish. This is due to the bureaucratic agencies that use their power in their own interest at the cost of the citizen. However, the application of administrative technologies such as competition, market incentives, regulation, and customer service is manageable to observe and draw some helpful conclusions.
Training managers and agencies on all information concerning customer service help them to realize what the users of the services perceive as crucial. In order to hold managers accountable for performance measures, the argument is freeing the managers from the various administrative controls (Peters, 1987). This is done by reducing the regulations governing them to achieve accountability in their performance. The new public management and its relationship to the public managers is also a matter to consider. This shows how the public managers are able to operate according to the interest of the public, mechanism of accountability and political processes. All five authors seek to know if public managers’ delivery of political policies is limiting due to the market orientation of the New Public Management.
Even though public managers get support from the New Public Management to adopt measures that boost the performance of systems and people, they face exclusion from the political arena (Peters, 1987). The encouragement of the public managers to be entrepreneurs helps to increase public confidence hence holding them accountable for any action that is of public interest. In another case, the public managers facilitate some different variety of choices, which people can choose from, and the right of the people to abandon the service delivery system if they want. The public managers have to ensure that every institution operates and organizes itself for the benefit of improving democracy. Political involvement is inevitable and all the managers in the public sector need to accept this as reality.
In contrast to this, Cook questions about the treatment of citizens as customers. This is because having a fixed preference for the individuals is in contrast with assumptions of political life by the public. The argument is that as much as peoples’ preference is by choice, referring citizens to customers may affect how they carry on their obligation as well as the relationship to others and politics.
From the relationship that exists between Public Management and Public administration, it is clear that any performance contracting needs resources, output measures and goals to pursue. The allocative decisions require political determination hence the public managers will engage in politics to efficiently deal in matters of the state. Holding the public managers accountable for their deeds is what all the authors agree. To hold the public sector accountable in New Public Management reform, there is the use of market forces. The measure of accountability, on the other hand, is satisfying the preference. For these new reforms to continue there should be competitive markets as well as the availability of information to the public about the choices. This calls for the intervention of public managers to assist the public in educating them about their choices or options. If the managers successfully teach the public and they understand what is best for them, they will improve their political accountability.