© ueraionl Review of Pb Admniortion Soo, vous Not THE NEW PUBLIC SERVICE: AN APPROACH TO REFORM ROBERT B. DENHARDT Arizona State University, USA JANET V. DENHARDT Arizona State Us sity, USA, \der evolving forms of governanee, government will play a different role in the steering of society, Yet goverament will still be judged by legal and political criteria, economic and ‘market criteria, and de: veratic and social criteria, The first of these was central to traditional public administration, the second is at the forefront of “the new public management,” and the third is central to “the new publi service.” Here we out the characteristies of the new pub- lie service and how is principles will guide future public administrators, Key Words: citizenship, publie service, governance ‘One of the most important developments in political life today is a dramatic change in the way that the rules and regulations, the programs and processes that guide society are being developed - or, to put it slighty differ- ently - a change in the way public policy is being devel- coped. In the past, government played a predominant role in what some have called the “steering of society” (Nelissen et al, 1999). That is not to say that other inter- ests were not represented, but government played a deci sive role. To use a spocts analogy, the playing field on Which the game of public policy formation occurred was ‘one proscribed by government and the primary players were elected public officials and policy advisors throughout government agencies. In tum, public admin- istrators, playing on the same field, though often some- Where near the sidelines, were Jargely concerned with the implementation of public policies. They were con- cemed with managing their organizations so that things would get done properly. ‘But time and circumstances have changed. The game of public policy formulation and implementation is no longer played primarily by those in government. Indeed, ‘you might even say that now the audience is no Ionger inthe stanes, but right there on the field, paticipating in every play. To put this more formally, there has been 2 reformulation of the steering mechanisms of society. Today many groups and many interests are directly involved in the development and implementation of public policy. ‘There are several reasons this has occurred. Fitst, the ‘welfare state has been reconfigured so that government itself is no longer the primary actor in the delivery of services. Second, the more fluid character of the market has opened new issues to public concem. And third, technology has made possible greater and greater public access to the policy process. Increasingly, what we will call “policy networks,” comprised of businesses, labor unions, non-profit erganizations, interest groups, gov- cemmental actors, and ordinary citizens now constitute the main arenas in which the game of public policy is played out. These policy networks constitute the new playing fields for the game of policy development. Ti fact, what we are witnessing is the development of many different policy networks = each serving its own substantive interests, whether transportation, social wel- fare, education, or whatever. Bach network focuses on its own policy area and, in many ways, defines the way in which policies will be developed in that area. The4 ‘The New Pub result is that one set of rales might define the way the defense” game is played, while another set of rules, might define how the “social welfare” game is played. But in cach arena, major developments in public policy, major developments in the steering of society are likely to occur through a difficult and convoluted process of bargaining and negotiation within that particular policy network. ‘Under these circumstances, the role of government is changing. As we witness a fragmentation of policy responsibility in society, we must also recognize that the traditional mechanisms of governmental control are no longer workable - or even appropriate. Traditional hier archical government is giving way to a growing decen- tralization of policy interests. Control is giving way to interaction and involvement. ‘What then is the new role of government? First, gov- emment will continue to play a role in establishing the overall legal and political rales through which various networks will operate, We might say that government will operate at the “meta-level” that is, government will in ratifying, codifying and legitimizing deci- sions that arise from within the various policy networks. Moreover, government will continue to play a signifi- cant role in establishing btoad principles of govemance that apply to ail, for example, setting the overarching rules ofthe game. Second, government will likely play @ role in resolving resource distribution and dependency issues within various networks, but especially between and among those networks. Goverament will aid in pro- tecting economic interests that are played out in the rea tionships between different sectors or poticy networks; it will play a role of balancing, negotiating, and facilitating relationships across network boundaries (often through the use of incentives rather than directives), and assuring that one sector doesn’t come to dominate others. Third, ‘government will be required to monitor the interplay of networks to assure that principles of democracy and social equity are maintained within specific networks ‘and in the relationships between and among the different networks. Government must assure that democratic process are maintained and that ultimately the public interest is served. Now just as the steering of society is changing, so ‘are the roles and responsibilities of elected and appoint- ed public officials changing - and changing in exactly parallel ways. Not surprisingly, each of the three roles ‘we have just described - those associated with legal or politicel standards, those associated with economic or ¢ Service: An Approach 10 Reform Vol. 8, No, ‘market considerations, and those associated with democ- rratie or social criteria - are reflected in popular approaches to understanding the role of government and especially public administration today. As the steering of society has changed, the role of public officials and the standards by which administrative performance will bbe judged have also changed. How have these three new roles of govemment been translated into schools of theory and practice and how do they affect the standards or expectations for assessing govemmental performance? The fist ofthese schools of theory and practice - that associated with legal and polit- ica standards - is the most familiar and most easily characterized. According to this school, public officials are involved in designing and implementing policies focused on limited, politically defined objectives. They are bound by the law and by political realities. They are concemed developing programs through the traditional agencies of government. In turn, these policies are car- ried out by administrators staffing the various agencies of government. The question of accountability - the question of how administrators know that theit work is consistent with the wishes of the people - is answered by the accountability of administrators to democratically lected politcal lenders. The school of theory and prac- tice associated with this approach is simply traditional or orthodox public policy and public administration “The next two approaches have emerged much more recently. The second, which has to do with economic and market considerations, is based in a view of polit cal life which sees the role of government as continuing to steer, but doing so by acting as a catalyst to unleash the forces of the market and in creating mechanisms and incentive structures to achieve policy objectives through private and non-profit agencies. The approach, to accountability reflected in this viewpoint is one which suggests that ultimately the accumulation of indi- ‘vidual self-interests will fesult in outcomes desired by broad groups of citizens, which this approach calls “eustomers.” The school of theory and practice assoct- ated with this approach goes by many names ~ among, them “managerialism,” “neo-managcrialism.” “econom- jc rationalism,” “reinventing government,” and “the reinvention movement” - but we will call it by its most recent and most embracing name, the New Public Man- agement. “The third emerging (or perhaps re-emerging) role of government focuses on democratic and social criteria. This view suggests that the public interest is paramountJuly 2008 ‘and that the public interest is the result of a dialogue about mutual or overlapping interests. Tt sees the role of government as brokering interests among citizens and ‘other groups so as to create shared values. This might mean, for example, building coalitions of public, pri- vate, and nonprofit agencies to meet mutually agreed upon needs. The approach to accountability reflected in this approach suggests that public servants must attend ‘© law, community values, political norms, professional standards and citizen interests. The school of theory and practice associated with this approach we will call the New Public Service. ‘Today the second of these three approaches, the New Public Management, has largely captured the attention and imagination of those in government and public administration around the world, focusing our attention of a particular set of ideals and practices including priva- tization, performance measurement, and customer ser- vice. But the third of these approaches, the New Public Service, is ultimately more deeply rooted in democratic ideals and deserves greater attention. ‘What is today termed the New Public Management has its roots in practical developments in government worldwide, in the set of ideas generally referred to as reinventing government, and in a conceptual link to the publie choice perspective in political theory. At the prac- tical level, the fiscal crises of the seventics and eightios, |ed to a variety of efforts to produce govemments that “work better and cost les.” The issue was framed larg ly in economic terms. Consequently, fiscal austerity measures, efforts to improve public productivity, and experiments with altemative service detivery mechs- nisms, including contracting out and privatization, were all based on economic rationalism, an effort to find solu- tions to governmental problems based in economic analysis. ‘These ideas were capuured especially well by David ‘Osbome and Ted Gaebler’s Book, Reinventing Govern- ment (1992; see also Osbome and Plastrik, 1997). Osborne and Gaebler provided ten principles through which “public entreprencurs” might bring about massive. governmental reform, principles that remain at the core of the New Public Management, Linda Kaboolian (1998) notes that the New Public Management advo- cates administrative technologies such as customer ser- vice, performance-based contracting, competition, mar- eet incentives, and deregulation. “Market-like arrange ments such as competition within units of government and across government boundaries to the non-profit and: Robert B. Derhardt an Soret V, Denard 5 for profit sectors, performance bonuses, and penalties loosen the inefficient monopoly franchise of public agencies and public employees.” (Kaboolian, 1998, 190) Cortespondingly, the New Public Management empha- sizes approaches such as privatization, performance measurement, strategic planning, and other managerial- ist approaches. Christopher Hood writes that the New Public Management moves away from traditional ‘modes of legitimizing the public bureaucracy, such as processual safeguards on administrative discretion, in favor of “trust in the market and private business meth cds. ... The ideas ... (are) couched in the language of economic rationalism.” (Hood, 1995, 94; See also Boston, 1996; Lynn, 1996; Polit, 1990) “What is important for our purposes is that the New Public Management has sought management reform in ‘government not only through the introduction of new techniques (though that has occurred), but through the imposition of a new set of values, specifically a set of values largely drawn from the private sector (Terry, 1998). Certainly there isa longstanding tradition in pub- lic administration supporting the idea that “government should be run like a business.” For the most part, this recommendation has meant that government agencies should adopt those practices, ranging from “scientific management” to “total quality management” that have bbeen found useful in the private sector. The New Public ‘Management takes this idea one step further, arguing, that government should not only adopt the feefmiques of ‘business administration, but should adopt certain bust ness valves as well. Letus briefly examine two Key principles of the New Public Management, a reliance on the market model and ‘an emphasis on the entrepreneurial sprit, Osbome and Gaebler (1992, Ch. 10), for example, suggest that, wher- ever possible, the market model should be applied to government, cither through creating competition between the public and private sectors, comp among private firms vying for public contracts, compet- tion among public agencies (e.g. between public schools), or competition among governmental units pro- viding services to intemal “customers.” fa any case, underlying the market model of government is an article of faith, a belief thatthe free play of market forces will bring self-interested participants - individuals, social groups, agencies, firms - into an equilibrium that repre- sents in some way the maximum achievable social ‘good. It implies that participants will pursue their own self-interest competitively rather than attempting to dis-6 “The New Publ Service: An Approach o Reform cover a general public interest and collaborate in achiev- ing it, As deLson and Denardt (2000) poist out, no one can argue that competition does not have benefits in some situations. In sports and in business, competition, often does lead to improvement. Using a similar logic, proponents of the New Public Management argue that market-oriented governmental programs have many advantages over conventional ones, “They are decentral- ized, competitive and responsive to changing conditions; they empower customers to make choices and they Tink resources directly to results; and they allow government to leverage its power, achieving major changes by applying incentives srategically” (1). Whether applied to governmental contracting, the choice of schools for ‘one’s children, or the selection of low-income housing, the recommendation of the New Publie Management is to ietthe cbb and flow of the market guide not only indi- vidual choices, but ultimately the direction of society as awhole. ‘But such an approach fully excludes the process of democratic deliberation. In the pages of the Public ‘Administration Review, Yohn Kamensky, one of the ‘most thoughtful architects of America’s effort to “rein- vent government,” ties the New Public Management directly to public choice theory, quoting the New Zealander, Jonathan Boston, as follows: “The central tenet of the public choice approach is that all human behavior is dominated by self-interest” (Kamensky, 1996, 251). Kamensky correctly notes that “public choice theories have tended to reject concepts like “public spirit” ‘public service,” and so forth.” And these are not ideas we can afford to ignore in a democratic society ‘Another important element of the reinvention move- rent and the New Public Management i its enthusiasm for what Osborne and Gaebler call “entrepreneurial gov- cemment,” which they define as “usfing} resources in new ways to maximize productivity and effectiveness” (1992, xix), But entrepreneurship connotes more than simple resourcefulness, “Specifically, it entails creativi- ty and innovation, a strong focus on ends (outcomes, mission) rather than means, and a proactive stance toward problems (prevent [them] before they eme rather than simply offering services afterward.” (p. 20) But most important, the idea of entrepreneurship su ‘gests the individual goverment agent acting based on his or her ovn self-interest (or that of the agency). ‘If this were my money, would I spend it this way?” (@eLeon and Denhardt, 2000: 92) Again, the viewpoint Vol. 8, No.1 represented here is one that gives precedence to the ‘entrepreneurial skills of the single individual over the powers of established instivutional processes or the: slower and more hesitating, but more involving and per- haps more democratic efforts of groups of citizens (Terry, 1993). Again, no one can argue that using resources in new ways to maximize productivity and effectiveness is an unworthy goal, But although entrepreneurial activity on the part of government has these obvious benefits, itis also worth noting that it has liabilities as well. On the credit side of the ledger, entrepreneurs create and inno- vate: on the debit side, they may take excessive risks or run roughshod over people and principles. “While the public desires creative solutions to public problems anki Tikes savings produced through innovative thinking (and even occasional risk-taking), the notion of accountabili- ty is extremely important as well, a model most voters and legislators scem to hold. As a practical matter, in real organizations, entrepreneurial managers pose a dif- ficult and risky problem: they can be innovative and productive, but their single-mindedness, tenacity and ‘willingness to bend the rules make them very difficult to control. They can become ‘loose cannons" (deLeon and Denhardt, 2000, 92). As a theoretical concera, the notion of public managers acting purely as if dhe pub- lic’s money were their own, that is, being motivated by strict sel-interest, flies in the face ofa tong and impor- tant tradition of accountability and responsiveness in democratic public administration. Most important, it nies the public a role in determining the expenditure of public funds and the design of public programs. A far Detter recommendation would be to treat the publi money a8 if it were the public’s money. To summarize this point, growing from practical developments at home and abroad as well as theoretical rools in public choice economics, the New Public Mian- agement has had a significant impact on government ‘around the world, Ideas such as customer service, per- formance measurement, privatization, and market model are increasingly a part of the language of government. But these developments raise important questions for public officials and for the public, especially as they draw on not just business techniques, but also business values. And while some techniques have proven helpful, the quick translation of business values into the public sector raises substantial and troubling questions that public officials should consider with great care. ‘There is a third approach, the third set of standardsJuly 2008 Robert B, Denard and Janet V. Denar 7 by which we might assess administrative performance in changing world, that which we call the New Public Service. Michael Sandel, writing in Demoeracy’s Dis- contents (1996), traces two traditions in democratic political life. The first, which Sandel says has largely prevailed in recent history, describes the relationship between state and citizens in terms of procedures and ight. In this view, government fulfills its responsibility to citizens by assuring that procedures are in place to guarantee that government operates according to demo- ‘ratie principles - through voting, representation, due process and other devices - and that the rights of individ~ uals, such as the right of free speech or the right to pri- vacy, are protected. In this view, the citizen's roe is to develop the capacity to choose those pursuits that are consistent with his or her interest and to respect the rights of others to do the same thing. This view is one based in a philosophy of self-interest, one that holds that ‘government exists merely to mediate the specific per sonal and collective interests of those in society, to pro- vide an arena in which self-interests can be played out and adjudicated. Obviously, this perspective is fully consistent with public choice economics and the New Public Management. ‘An alternative view of democratic citizenship sees the individual as much more actively sharing in self ‘government. The role of the citizen is one that looks beyond self-interest to the larger public interest; itis one that takes @ broader and more long term perspective, ‘Obviously, such an interpretation of democratic citizen- ship asks much more of the individual. Among other things, it requires, as Sandel puts it, “a knowledge of public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a concer for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake.” Sandel, 1996, 5-6) ‘A key is the idea of a common undertaking in which all citizens can and must be involved. This collective enterprise, which is often called the public interest, is not just the accumulation of private interests, nor even the juxtaposition of “enlightened” self interests. Indeed, this ideal moves well beyond a polities based on the self interest of the individual. “in fact, it has little to do with ‘out private interests, since it concems the worid that lies beyond the self, that was there before our birth and that will be there after oar death, and that finds its embodi- ment in activities and institutions with thei own intrin sic purposes which may be often at odds with our short term and private interests.” (D’Entreves, 92, 154) in this political tradition, only as citizens act with reference t0 the public interest, the broader interest of the communi ty, can they move from a lonely, isolated existence to cone of virtue and folfllment. The process of contribu ing to community is what ultimately makes one whole (Mansbridge, 1990). This perspective most clearly undergitds the New Public Service. Certainly theorists and practitioners in political s ence and public administration have picked up this theme, Many have focused on civic engagement and have explored the variety of ways that public organiza- tions might create greater spaces for dialogue and del cration involving elected officials, “bureaucrats,” and citizens (King et al. 1998; Stivers, 1994). Cheryl King ‘and Camilla Stivers conclude their edited volume Gov- ‘emment is Us (1998) by suggesting several changes that ‘would help bring a new focus on citizens and citizenship by public administrators. First, in contrast to the tradi- tional administrative “habit of mind,” they suegest that administrators see citizens as citizens (rather than mere- ly voters, clients, or “customers”), that they share ‘authority and reduce control, and that they trust in the efficacy of collaboration. Second, in contrast to manage- rialist calls for greater efficiency, they seck greater responsiveness and a corresponding increase in trust on the part of citizens through active investments in citizen involvement on the part of governments and administra tors. (See also Box, 1998; King et al, 1998; Thomas, 1995; Bryson and Crosby, 1992) One especially interesting treatment of these issues comes from the policy literature, which is generally iased toward issues of market, choice, and self-interest In a recent book, Peter deLeon (1997) suggests that the policy sciences have strayed from their original intent of supporting democratic processes and may have in fact contributed to a dectine in democracy. deLeon suggests 2 “participatory policy analysis” that would engage ana~ lysts and citizens in a mutual quest for solutions to important public problems, Such an approach might per- mit the development of a more democratic model of the policy sciences, The pivotal questions facing the policy sciences, according to defeon, are “empty without a democratic vision,” (1997, 11) a lesson of great impor tance as we consider new mechanisms for the steering of society In the “real world” a number of important experi- ments in citizen engagement have occurred. One of the most widely cited is the “Citizens First!" program in Orange County, Florida (Chapin and Deahardt, 1993; Denhardt and Gray, 1998). That project aims to improvethe relation between citizens and their government. On the one hand, people acting as citizens must assume personal responsibilty for what happens in their neigh- borhoods and their communities. And, on the other hand, to the extent that people are willing to assume the role of citizens, those in government must be willing to listen - and to put the needs and values of citizens first. ‘The idea of “Citizens First” starts with a distinction between customers and citizens, When people act as customers they tend to take one approach; when they act as citizens they take another. Basically, customers focus con their own fimited desires and wishes and how they can be expeditiously satisfied. Citizens, on the other hhand, focus on the common good and the long term con- sequences to the community, The idea of “Citizens First!” is to encourage more and more people to fulfill their responsibitities as citizens and for goverment to be especially sensitive to the voices of those citizens ~ not merely through elections but through all aspects of the design and implementation of public policy. Despite the obvious importance of constantly improving the quality of public sector service delivery, ‘we're more than a little uncomfortable with the notion that government should first or exclusively respond! to the selfish, short term interests of “customers.” In some ‘ways, the idea just doesn’t fit. Certainly the “customers” of government are much harder to define than the cus- tomers of the local hamburger stand. In fact, itis often because the interests of various “customers” are in ‘opposition that government is called upon to act in the. first place. And of course there are some instances in which “customers” of government simply don’t want the service government provides - like traffic citations, ‘Most important, in the private sector, those cus- tomers with the most money and most influence are accorded special treatment by the market. Such an approach would be ludicrous as public policy. Henry Mintzberg, the Canadian management theorist, has pointed out the variety of relationships that citizens have to their govemments — customers, clients, citizens, and subjects — and suggests that the label customer is pat ticularly confining. “I am not a mere customer of my government, thank you,” he writes. “T expect something more than arm’s-length trading and something less than the encouragement to consume” (1996, 77). As citizens ‘we expect government to act in a way that not only pro- ‘motes the consumption of services (though Mintzberg, also asks, “Do we really want our governments...hawk- ing products?") but also promotes a set of principles and ‘The New Public Service: An Approach to Reform Vol. 8 No.1 ideals that are inherent in the public sphere. Citizens ‘cannot be reduced to customers without grave conse- quences for the notion of democratic citizenship. ‘We know that people today don’t trust goverment. But that’s not because it doesn’t work well. That could bbe cured by improvements in efficiency - and interest ingly that’s just what the “ran government like a busi- ress” movement is trying to do - to increase trust by increasing efficiency. But that will not be enough. The real reason people don’t trust government is because they don’t see government as being responsive, espe- cially with respect to matters of ethics and integrity. While the customer service orientation may lead us to answer the phone by the third ring, it hasn’t taught us to responsive to the needs ofthe caller. So those associated with the New Public Service have raised important objections to government adopt- ing the values of business. Practices are one thing. But, fas we have seen, many of the contemporary efforts to “reform” the management of government have gone well beyond adopting the practices of business manage- ment. Instead, what we have called the New Public Management seems to have accepted a wide variety of business values, for example, sel-interest, competition, the market, and the entrepreneurial spit But what about questions like participation, delibera- tion, leadership, expertise, responsibilty, justice, equity, ic, In the United States, the Bible of the New Public Management is the book Reinventing Government. But if'you check the index of that book, you'l find nota sine gle one of these terms ~ not justice, not equity, not par- ticipation, not even leadership. And you won't find either “citizens” or “citizenship.” Isn't it pecutiar that governmental reform could be discussed in such a sub- al and influential way without suggesting any active role whatever for citizens or citizenship? To restore the confidence of citizens in government, public institutions must appear to be responsive. And the best ‘way to appear to be responsive is to be responsive. ‘This has important implications for the role of gow emment. Traditionally government has responded to needs by saying “yes, we ean provide that service” or “no, we can't.” I's been what one official called the “vending machine” model of government. You put your money in and hope you the right thing comes out - and if it doesn’t you kick the machine a few times. In the future elected officials and managers will need t respond to the ideas of citizens not just by saying “yes ‘or “no,” bat by saying such things as “Let’s worksuly 2008, together to figure out what we're going to do, then to ‘make it happen.” In a wor'd of active citizenship, public officials will increasingly play more than a service delivery role- they will play a conciliating, a mediating or even an adjudicating role, And these new roles will require new skills - not the old skills of management control, but new skills of brokering, negotiating and conflict resolution. The Key issues for the future of gov- emment and the public service are responsiveness and integrity, In a recent book, we outlined the principles of the New Public Service in this way: 1) The primary role of the public servant is helping citi zens articulate and mest their shared interests rather than attempting to control or ster society in new direo- sions. 2)Public administrators must make creating a collective, shared notion of the public interest paramount. The goat {snot fo find quick solutions driven by individual choie- cs, Rather, it ig the creation of shared interests and shared responsibility 3)Policies and programs meeting public needs can be most effectively and responsibly achieved through col- lective efforts and collaborative processes. 4) The public interest is the resalt of a dialogue about shared values rather than the aggregation of individual self-intezest. Therefore, public servants should not merely respond to the demands of “customers,” but rather focus on building relationships of trust end collaboration with and among citizens. 5) Public servants must be attentive to more than the market; they must also attend to statutory and constivu- tional law, community values, pottical norms, profes- sional standards, and citizen interests. 6)Public organizations and the networks in which they participate are more likely to be successful in the Tong, run if they ate operated through processes of collabo- tation and shared leadership based on respect forall people 17) The public interest is beter advanced by public servants and citizens committed to making meaningful contribu- tions to society rather than by entrepreneurial managers acting as if public money were their own. (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000) In conclusion, govemment today and in the future will be buffeted by enormous forces of change, pro- ‘Robert B, Denantrand Janet V. Denbardt ’ foundly affecting the work of public officials. New ways: of steering society will require us to consider new san- dards of assessing administrative performance, includ= ing not only the traditional legal and political standards ‘we associate with the Old Public Administration, but also market and economic criteria associated with the New Public Management, and democtatic and social criteria associated with the New Public Service. Out recent preoccupation with the New Public Management has pulled our attention to questions of market and mica~ surement, yet ultimately the most important criteria for assessing administrative performance would be to ask how effectively our work has advanced the public inter est. While it’s important to maintain a concem for legal and politcal standards and economic criteria, itis imper- ative that we place at the center of our work a concept of | the public service based on and fully integrated with zen discourse and the public interest. We should put democracy first. REFERENCES, Boston, Jonathan et al. 1996, Public Management: The ‘New Zealand Model. New York: Oxford Universi ty Press. Box, Richard. 1998, Citizen Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Bryson, John, and Barbara Crosby. 1992, Leadership for the Common Good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chapin, Linda W., and Robert B, Denhardt. 1995. “Putting ‘Citizens First!” in Orange County, Flori- ia.” National Civie Review 84(3): 210-215. deLeon, Linda, and Robert B. Denhardt. 2000. “The Political Theory of Reinvention” Public Adminis. tration Review 602): 89-97. deLeon, Peter. 1997. Democracy and the Policy Sei- ences, Albany: State University of New York Press. Denhardt, Janet V. and Robert B, Denhardt, 2003. The New Public Service. Amonk. NY: M.E, Sharpe. Denhardt, Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering.” Public Administration Review 606): 249-258,0 ‘The Now Public Service: An Approach to Reform Denhardt, Robert B. and Joseph E. Gray. 1998. “Target- ing Community Development in Orange County, Florida.” National Civie Review 87(3): 227-235. <'Entreves, Maurizio Passerin. 1992. “Hannah Arendt and the Idea of Citizenship.” In Chantal Moutfe (ed), Dimensions of Radical Demoeraey. London: Verso, 145-168. Hood, Christopher. 1995. “The "New Public Manage- ment’ in the Eighties.” Accounting, Organization sand Society 200-3): 93-108. Kaboolian, Linda, 1998, “The New Public Manage- ment.” Public Administration Review 58(3): 189- 198. Kamensky, John, 1996. “Role of Reinventing Govern- ‘ment Movement in Federal Management Reform.” Public Administration Review 56(3): 247-256. King, Cheryl Simrell; Kathryn M. Feltey; Bridget O'Neill. 1998. “The Question of Participation: ‘Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration.” Public Adiinistration Review 38 (4): 317-326. King, Cheryl, and Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-government Era, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ine. Lynn, Lawrence E. 1996. Publie Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Mansbridge, Jane, ed. 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mintzberg, Henry. 1996. “Managing Government, Gov- eming Management.” Harvard Business Review 74Q3): 75-83. en, Nico, Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videe, Armold Godtfroij, and Peter deGoede. 1999. Renew- ing Government. Utrecht: The Netherlands: Intemational Books, Osdome, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Osborne, David, with Peter Plastrik, 1997. Banishing Bureaucracy, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pollitt, Christopher. 1990. Managerialism and the Pub- lie Service. Cambridge, England: Basil-Blackwell Vol 8,No. 1 Sandel, Michzel. 1996, Democracy's Discontent, Cam- bridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Stivers, Camilla, 1994, “Citizenship Ethies in Public “Administration.” In Handbook of Administrative Euthies, edited by Tery Cooper. New York: Marcel Dekker. Tery, Lamy D. 1993. “Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Enttepre- neurship with Democracy.” Pablie Administration Review 53(4): 393-395. Terry, Larry D. 1998, “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.” Public Administration Review 58(3): 194-200. ‘Thomas, John Clayton. 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Civic Review, Copyright 2001. Robert B. Denharat is Professor in the School of Pub- lic Affairs at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 35287, U.S.A. and Visiting Scholar at the University of Delaware. Dr. Denhardt is a Past President of the Amer- ican Society for Public Administration and a member of the National Academy of Public Administration, Dr. Denhardt has published sixteen books, including The New Public Service, Managing Hinan Behavior in Public and Non-Profit Organizations, Theories of Pub= lic Organization, Public Administration: An Action Ori- ‘entation, In the Shadow of Organization, The Pursuit of Significance, Executive Leadership in the Public Ser vice, The Revitalization of the Public Service, and Pollu- tion and Public Policy. Janet V. Denhardt is Professor in the Schoo! of Public ‘Affairs at Arizona State University. Her teaching and research interests focus on onganization theory, organi- zational behavior, and leadership. Her most recent book, The New Public Service, was preceded by Managing Human Behavior in Public and Non-Profit Organiza- tions and Street-Level Leadership: Discretion and Legit- imacy in Front-Line Public Service, published by the Georgetown University Press.