Search Results

This chapter has five purposes. First, to provide a general theoretical orientation and framework to analyse changes in UK higher education at the institutional, organizational, and individual academic and manager-academic levels. Second, to provide an analytical narrative about the emergence and subsequent development of ‘New Managerialism’ (NM). Third, to review the discursive strategies and control technologies embodied in different formulations of NM and New Public Management (NPM). Fourth, to identify and assess the endemic contradictions, tensions, and conflicts within and between these discursive strategies and control technologies, as well as their broader implications for longer-term institutional change and organizational innovation. Fifth, to provide an initial interpretation of the process of ‘hybridization’ in public services domains and organizationals, and its wider significance for the development of universities as ‘knowledge-intensive organizations’.

As political leaders decided to make radical changes in the conduct of public administration, the centralized and hierarchical form of bureaucracy improved into a more flexible, responsive, market-based, and client-oriented form of public management. In this event, political change is also evident since the state attempts to open up its functions to competition to better accommodate citizens or ‘clients’. This change represents a ‘paradigm shift’ from the Weberian model of public administration to the ‘new managerialism’ — the process where states undergo bureaucratic reform by internalizing core values and practices that can be attributed to the private sector. This chapter includes a discussion about the evolution and spread of various managerialist ideas, the role of management consultants and the state on the politics of managerialism, and introduces the plan of the book and how the study uses primary data and quantitative evidence.

This chapter explores how the sedimentation of varieties of New Managerialism have suffused the accounts of manager-academics about their work, roles, and identities. It considers the two models of management — neoliberal and neo-technical — and their bearing upon manager-academics' working lives. Drawing upon data from the ESRC New Managerialism project, the chapter examines responses to change in the UK higher education sectors and the extent to which NM has been accepted and internalized (or rejected) by contemporary manager-academics. It addresses four major themes: the identities of manager-academics, generic principles and values about the role of academics in the university, practical characteristics of everyday life in universities, and how academics are turned into manager-academics and their understandings of their careers.

This chapter addresses two themes: what are manager-academics' perceived learning needs and what is the process by which manager-academics learn? Data collected as part of the ‘New Managerialism’ research project has been used to explore these themes in depth, focusing on interviewees from management roles and reflecting on their personal journeys whilst occupying those roles. It is argued that while there is a definite place for formal training of manager-academics, informal learning with and from peers is also significant in professional learning.

This chapter examines the way in which the victim of crime, the ‘forgotten party’ of the criminal justice system has started to regain something of the standing of an interested party with recognised rights in the justice system. A number of causal narratives are involved in this gradual process of change. First, there have been outside influences with statements and declarations of individual rights from the United Nations, North America and Europe which saw the eventual enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1998. Second, the ‘new managerialism’ of recent Conservative and Labour governments gave rise to the idea of the citizen as a customer in a market of services delivered by the state. Third, is the notion of reintegrative shaming, modelled on Maori justice in New Zealand, and intended to lead to a rapprochement in which the victim is no longer so fearful or angry and the offender better understands the impact of his actions and is reunited with the moral community rather than outlawed from it.

This introduction discusses the theme of this volume, which is about the two paradigms designed to control corruption in India. These include the older paradigm which is in ferment, and the new one which offers a solution to the paradigmatic puzzle. The older paradigm, that is, merit-based bureaucracy, has failed to control corruption, and public bureaucracy in India today is rated as one of the most corrupt in the world. The alternative public management model or ‘new managerialism’ emphasizes that corruption is best fought when systematic efforts are made to inform citizens about their rights and entitlements, and empower them to resist corruption, thus, giving them the leading role in anti-corruption efforts.

Adherents of the “new managerialism,” Wannabe University's administrators seek to improve organizational rationality to maximize economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. To accomplish this rationalization, they are modifying the administrative structure of the University by engaging in centralization. Some changes have been accomplished through a gradual concentration of power; others by seemingly sudden fiat. This chapter discusses the politics of centralization. It focuses on the “academic restructuring” (the elimination of three schools), the departure (retirement, firing, and career movement) of most of the deans, and some of the methods that professors use to deal with administrative fiats, which include both direct and indirect bureaucratic methods and ritual compliance.