The topic of public administration change is highly debatable in terms of future reforms. According to Agostino and Amoboldi (2015), the primary concern of current policy is the shift toward hybrid establishments that combines public and private organization. Moreover, the approach introduces new performance and public organization methodologies by controlling resources and money (Agostino & Amaboldi, 2015). At the same time, Bryer (2006) claims that the new public structure should associate with technical, rational, entrepreneurial, and citizen contributions. Another view supports that Traditional Public Administration transformed into New Public Management should be recreated as New Public Governance (Bryson et al., 2014). Moreover, it would be easier to balance the old and new rather than eliminate the previous system (Rhodes, 2015). It is also crucial to note cultural and organizational moments regarding the location (Kim & Han, 2017). Now, we observe gradual changes in public reformations toward new systems integrating with old ones.
The formation of a new system could be problematic due to diverse representations of the issue, and a would-be statesman would face numerous problems and complications. For example, as mentioned by Iacovino et al. (2015), one of the most critical challenges related to public policy settings is conflicting ideas, considerations, requirements, and cultural elements. Furthermore, Kim and Han (2017) declare that organizational culture also could lead to uncompromising and controversial decisions. Examples of South Korea and the Tuscany Region in Italy represent the cultural influence on public policy.
At the same time, a would-be statesman would also meet various opportunities introduced by the new system. For instance, it is said that technological advances are rather effective in reducing bureaucratism (Bryer, 2006). In addition, Bryer (2006) considers the balance between the needs and demands of contemporary public policy as an essential means to reach practical and cost-effective performance. Rhodes (2015) believes that it is time to return to statecraft, and to lead successfully, statesmen need to perceive every task as a test or challenge and prove their effectiveness. However, according to biblical principles, a Christian statesman should use a not compromised set of rules to guide private and public conduct, make the nation’s welfare their priority and stand for righteousness and truth in government. Future perspective including New Public Governance still requires complex investigations. Overall, despite the complexity and cultural transformation, New Public Governance represents good options for already existing public structures.
References
Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2015). The new public management in hybrid settings: New challenges for performance measures. International Review of Public Administration, 20(4), 353–369. Web.
Bryer, T. A. (2006). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479–500. Web.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. Web.
Iacovino, N. M., Barsanti, S., & Cinquini, L. (2015). Public organizations between old public administration, new public management and public governance: The case of the Tuscany region. Public Organization Review, 17(1), 61–82. Web.
Kim, J. S., & Han, S.-H. (2017). Erratum to: Examining the relationship between civil servant perceptions of organizational culture and job attitudes: In the context of the new public management reform in South Korea. Public Organization Review, 17(1), 177. Web.
Rhodes, R. A. (2015). Recovering the craft of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 638–647. Web.