Are traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors now irrelevant?

Résumé du document

Modern ideas about governance in the public sector reflects the fact that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors are now irrelevant'. According to Rhodes, the traditional and hierarchical central government is no longer relevant in a context of international and internal linkages which limit the autonomy of the state. The shift from national markets to a more 'unique' global market would exert pressure on the national governments. Even if the reality of such a coherent international pressure is not obvious, this vision that that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors is now commonly shared. A strong public sector would not be affordable anymore, and a limited welfare state could only be secured by the introduction of private actors and values to get more effectiveness. The main model which 'has to' be implemented is the New Public Management, which aims to reorganize the public sector in order to bring its management closer to business methods.

Extraits

[...] So, one solution rather obvious would be to try to depoliticize the issue for good. But is it possible, as New Labour already portrays itself as pragmatic ? And is it possible to find any in politics which could be then implemented by an “apolitical” government ? The conclusions, after many years of kind of reforms, are not unanimous at all. As Pareto put it, there is not only one economical optima, but several, and politics begins where a choice has to be made. [...]

[...] So, the inevitability and clear profitability of this system is not obvious at all, where as it is also depicted this way by politicians. II. Ideology and “pragmatism” in public services governance The advantages of the blurring of boundaries are not as obvious as often depicted. And if the two sectors can from each other, they are still distinctive, and should perhaps remain. Then why is this belief in NPM so strong and shared? And why does it portray itself as inevitable? Are these changes “pragmatic”, or there assumptions? About the ability of the public sector to solve economic problems? [...]

[...] Introduction “Modern ideas about governance in the public sector reflect the fact that the traditional boundaries between the public and private sectors are now irrelevant”. According to Rhodes[1], the traditional and hierarchical central government is no longer relevant in a context of international and internal linkages which limit the autonomy of the state. The shift from national markets to a more global market (since the end of the 1970s) would be exerting pressure over the national governments which should adapt. [...]

[...] Are boundaries between the public and private sector still relevant? In what way does the international context exert pressures on states towards a blurring of boundaries between the public and private sectors, and is NPM relevant and efficient to implement it ? The global trend towards new public management is argued to be caused by new international pressures, transferring power from the state to markets. The welfare state should then be sacrificed in the name of competition, as fiscal austerity and orthodoxy are seen as the only way to tackle the growing capital mobility. [...]

[...] “Steering rather than rowing”[21]. It may be difficult to give a simple and definitive bilan from empirical studies, as the system is still hybrid. But the most important negative effects should be targeted. One way to reduce costs was to put pressures on a narrow range of performance targets[22], which fragmented the sector. The introduction of the market can limit the ability of the state to implement a collective rationality then. It can lead to overlapping and qualitative costs as much as quantitative costs to appear on a macro level[23]. [...]