Reforms are a common political strategy, but they are rarely as innovative or effective as advertised. NPM favors privatization and outcomes metrics, which may have consequences that politicians may find beyond the scope of reform. Countries that have heavily privatized and instituted extensive managerialism may find that calls to reform the bureaucracy may get them re-elected but may not afford them any authority to affect policy. More and more wealthy philanthropists are determining policy priorities, private (nonprofit and for-profit) organizations are implementing policy objectives, and case workers enacting policy are affecting the flavor of policy. Because outcomes metric limit learning to a considerable extent, change (or reform) that may have a constructive impact on the policy objective are increasingly less likely. Outcomes metrics only offer information that allows for the limited evaluation of compliance and not a better understanding of the cause-effect relationships we intend to affect with policy interventions. 

Post NPM, we are going to have to look at how to impact the value and measurement of social wealth in social entrepreneurship. 

Here are some resources:

Osberg, Sally. 2006. Wayfinding without a compass: Philanthropy’s changing landscape and its implications for social entrepreneurs. In Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change. Alex Nicholls (Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 309-328.

https://28b3dd4c-a-e2cc6547-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/jpmsp.com/new-jpmsp/JPMSP%2018-1%20Ochs.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coH5nkXA41AxnwjbHBNJossbV8GYytu7Hve8_HfckAPKuEgaEkj0fqSJKEkXwl6V5RGS6kVpwVlRNsilbmgYquf2eGukGul8eP8soAXJqZ0NQ4eA4uxPsYGvzM0rva6-AJICi-0qcsWP540NlS9K_fSbpIYXXBz_BJwT19gBPReMwhIml1WrkmueUBASCWOg5vRBHrbI6XwP6nfo7Om_6x438u4hw%3D%3D&attredirects=0 

Zahra, S., E. Gedajlovic, D. Neubaum, and J. Shulman. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes, and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 24(5):519-534.

Maybe towards implementing them in practice. In many countries NPM reforms were declared but never carried out.

Second, NPM moved towards "neo-Weberian state" concept, figuring out that NPM was partially wrong or at least misleading in the equalization of state and economy.

So, maybe towards serious evaluation of the NPM effect in the sense of improving the state functioning - this one is serious work for 15 years, or do as science often does - make up new buzz-words to get new government-funded project with no real life changes.

Living in Slovenia, which  promoted NPM in mid 90s during the transition period i am very disappointed over the effect and desire to change research concepts faster than getting some real effects of those concepts which are in use at any present moment.

In other words, I believe NPM is not outdated, but became pain in the neck since further use of this concept would show in many cases sub-optimal results.

Dear Holona,

Thank you greatly for insightful comments. " Thank you also for the publications...good reading!

Kind regards, Neale

Dear Uros,

Thank you for your comments. Kind regards, Neale

Dear Chin,

Thank you for your insights. Kind regards. Neale

Hi Neale:

I'm back again with another "out on a limb" response to your question regarding public sector reform. My answer will be found in the attached article which you should read at your leisure (if you afford yourself that luxury :-)).

If you want the "short answer" it can be found in the final section of the article but I fear that without muddling through the preceding pages you will automatically reject the "short answer."

Either way, enjoy the journey my friend. 

Dear Jay,

An interesting read...

Neale:

That article appeared in a sociology textbook sandwiched between an excerpt from Karl Marx and one from Max Weber ... go figure ... :-).