Talk:New Public Management

message: ekh 02:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: P dunleavy. I see the part about this digital era stuff seems to be added by the author himself. It seems quite noteable so I wont remove it, but someone with knowledge on NPM should consider if it really should be in the NPM article. Is Dunleavy et al's contribution so noteable that it should be mentioned here?pertn 09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the authors of critics of NPM are editing Wikipedia articles about their opposition to insert their view, it's pretty sad. 158.143.137.9 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all what I implied. I have later come across the works of this author several places, so I think he is clearly noteable enough, and also that the text is OK, so it's only about WP policy. 
pertn (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: self promotion?

message: This article contains only criticism with no overview or early history. It also does not properly cite sources. Vagary (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite Needed

message: The authors site  Hood (1991)  but this is wrong.
For instance a search for "new public management" in jstor.org give plenty of hits dated long before 1991.  
The earliest paper, I could spot that fits the NPM context in the Wikipedia article, is: 
----
David C. Korten, Strategic Organization for People-Centered Development, Public Administration Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1984), pp. 341-352
"Toward a new public management" (pg 347) 
----
I think that the opening statement in the Wikipedia article should be rephrased or edited accordingly. 
Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.49.229 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hood (1991) described NPM as something that had arisen over the previous 15 years.  Consequently, I share your doubt that the term was not coined sooner.  I don't know when the true first reference occured, but it might be reasonable to say that Hood formally conceptualised NPM in 1991.   This is softer than arguing Hood was the first to do so.  Ddcorkum (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some more research and found evidence to the contrary.  The first page in New Public Management: Canada in comparative context by Aucoin (1995) appears to indirectly credit Hood with labelling NPM. It doesn't explicitly state that Hood was first to use the term, however. Ddcorkum (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest use of the term New Public Management 

message: Dr. Christiaens has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Christiaens has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : S. S. Ada & J. Christiaens, 2013. "Local Governmental Accounting Reform: The Case of Turkey," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 13/859, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
ExpertIdeas (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Christiaens's comment on this article 

message: This article is well thought out and effectively uses it's resources to make points about public management. 
I wouldn't say to change anything, it is very well written.
Sepsy1056 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is hard to comprehend, and non-encyclopedic words like "I" and "we" are occurring outside a clear citation. The article is written like a political essay or a journal article, and doesn't fit in with the Wikipedia style. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 02:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: The current condition of the article lacks sources to give adequate information; it is biased, and neglects to give the reader a solid grasp of the content that they are reading.  This article has not been edited since  2010, which leads our group to confirm our conclusion that it has been neglected from this time that it has been written.  In order to better this article, we believe to rewrite this article and have it published in a non-subjective manner.  We would also like to add new research that is up to date to express the changes made over time in Public Management.  New ideas and techniques arise everyday, and it is imperative to make sure this article is able to keep up with the times.  We would also like to add more information on the subject so that the subject can be easier to grasp by any education level, whether it be high school students or someone seeking their doctorate’s degree.  We would also like to add sub-sections of problems and the effects on society and what are the different models.  
To provide the reader with a more concise and accurate description of new public management we strive to add more detail to the piece. In an effort to increase detail and understanding on these particular subjects we will add the following subject matter to add meaning to the article. A history of new public management will be given detailing the origins of this ideology, the effectiveness of these methods overtime and the types of societies which utilized this method. The Benefits of New public management and the Problems with New public management will be presented to further understand both possibilities and failures of this system. The different models used by new public management will be presented in a respectable fashion. And finally the lasting effects on society that this ideology can have. The existing article addresses a number of topics, but never clearly defines them or explains to the reader exactly what they mean. This can make researching the subject or any of the subtopics the author never clearly addresses confusing and stressful. The layout of the existing article does not even suggest that there are subtopics, but the author addresses these topics in manner where they should be considered subtopics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danzy2317 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARTICLE EVALUATION 

message: Below is a peer review of changes during the F15 POSI 3318 course.
Comprehensiveness:
The lead paragraph introduces the topic well including a practical application but does not address the rest of the article.
I interpret this article to mean that New Public Management differs from traditional public management in that it is more business-like with clients and product options instead of fixed regulations, a concept taken from the private sector. As well, the concept differs from that of New Public Administration, which focused more on the presence of PA in academia. 
The contributions provided are sufficient in their argument/informative point, but another example or two of the application of NPM would be helpful in understanding where this concept can be used.
The section on Comparisons with NPA lacks any references, but the rest of the contributions appear to be managed by pre-existing sources. The in-line citation should be formatted to a normal citation seen on Wikipedia, as done elsewhere throughout the article.
The article focuses on the topic of NPM and avoids derailment.
It does include scholarly citations, just not appropriately formatted yet.
The article calls on the expertise of a variety of scholars.
The contributions are inline with the rest of the article. 
The distinction between NPM and NPA is clarified. 
Sources:
The Comparison to NPA section lacks references.
The present references are reliable but more are needed.
Some sources are cited in-line, which needs to be converted to a proper wikipedia citation.
The article does not overreach from source's boundaries.
The only unsourced values/opinions seem to just be lacking the citation, but are actually sourced.
Neutrality:
The article is neutral.
Opinions are not stated as facts, though hard to determine with lack of citations.
No significant assertions are made as arguments to facts.
The sections are appropriately balanced, with no one taking precedents besides History, because it just has quite a bit of useful content. 
Readability:
For the most part the article is well written, but does contain simple errors that appear to be due to merging conflicts.
Sentences are clear but contain grammatical errors. 
The entry does not appear to have been proof read, as simple but elongated errors still exist.
The article is accessible by all with a summaritive tone.
The article avoids complex language. 
The article structure is clear and paragraphs are organized.
The article is appropriately sectioned.
More hyperlinks to other articles are needed.
No images are used.
An example of implementation of new public management was provided (Italy), which is important for credibility. As well, the compare/contrast of new public administration keeps terms obvious.
There are a few parts of the article with poor grammar and/or duplicate words, probably due to error while merging the new content over.
Good job guys!
KCGrimes (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Reviews 

message: Content
 Intro is somewhat short but clearly states what NPM is. All the other sections seem to be long and full of information! The section differences between private and public sectors I feel like could be broken up into two different sections inside that topic. 
Readability
 It is all very clear and easy to understand. Well written and good sentence structures. Very neutral tone. 
Sourcing
 Each section lacks sources, I believe I saw about 2 per section. The further reading part is full of links. I think more sources will come though the more you continue to add to the article!
Overall
 Overall the article is good so far! Easy to read, like said above I feel like once more content is added it all will tie together nicely! Good Job!
MorganMoore14 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: After reading through this article, I have to confess that I'm still not 100% sure of what New Public Management actually is.  I don't understand the description in the introduction where it is defined as being a "discussion and investigation."  I think the content throughout the article could be more simply explained and easier to grasp.  I think several internal links could be inserted into the page for notable figures and concepts (linking to Margaret Thatcher's page, for example).  The first sentence of the second paragraph of the History and Development section is unclear - it isn't a complete sentence and doesn't make sense.  I'm not sure what term is being talked about.  Later in the article, there is a sentence that says, "At the time of this writing there are few indications that..." and there isn't any way to know when "at the time of this writing" refers to.  I would instead say something like, "As of Fall 2015 there are few indications that..." That is more specific and gives people a better idea of how recently the page was updated.  In the Difference Between Public and Private Sectors section, I-statements and personal opinions were given, and this is something that has to be avoided if the article is going to remain neutral.  Convey what the author (in this case, someone named Lynn) is saying and don't provide an analysis.  You're literally just sharing what other people have shared.  In the Issues section, under Criticisms, there are various typos that need to be corrected for the sentences to be coherent.  Moreover, because there is a section devoted to criticisms of new public management, I think there needs to be a specific section talking about the benefits, otherwise the article is biased and unbalanced.  Also, authors and their ideas need brief introductions, otherwise the information being used feels detached and like it's being thrown into the article with no context.  I also think there are far too many further reading suggestions.  I think this article could include more information, and then so many further reading suggestions might not be needed.  I think this article has good bones and a good foundation, but I think it needs more development. H.k.d.29 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review