Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does it Matter?

Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm has been widely used in the social sciences even though its author was not sure about its applicability outside the hard sciences of nature. In the field of public administration and management, the approach known as ‘New Public Management ’ (NPM) has been seen by many as the new paradigm that is replacing the classic bureaucratic or Weberian paradigm of ‘public administration ’ (PA). However, there has been little reflection concerning the validity of using in this way the notion as it was developed by Thomas Kuhn. The question of whether or not NPM is a new paradigm merits attention for a number of reasons. First, does the introduction of ideas borrowed from business management and economics constitute a fruitful transfer or borrowing (Kuhn, 1970: 29) or a spurious one (Bendor, 1976; Ramos, 1978)? Second, the question of paradigms leads us to reflect on the degree of difference between the supposed new paradigm of NPM and the old one of PA. Is it a revolution that challenges the former paradigm and ultimately leads to its replacement? Finally, inquiring into paradigms informs us of the nature of knowledge in NPM and by extension PA. Here we enter into the realm of epistemology and raise a more universal question about social science: Are we really taking part in a ‘conversation that is aware of itself ‘ (McSwite, 1997: 4)? In what follows Kuhn’s theory is recalled, NPM is presented and analyzed in terms of it. In a third section NPM and PA are compared before an overall assessment is attempted in the conclusion. While we claim universality for our theoretical content, the practical difficulties cited, with which the traditional PA paradigm met, are mostly Canadian. Kuhn’s theory of paradigms and its application to the social sciences Kuhn’s theory was inspired by the desire to put order into the study of the external conditions giving rise to scientific discoveries. What emerged was a