Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,450

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

From old public administration to new public management

Dunleavy, Patrick, Hood, Christopher·1994·Public Money & Management

Abstract

This article starts by looking at the now familiar idea of ‘New Public Management’ in the light of previous efforts at managerial reform, arguing that NPM has proved a fairly durable and consistent agenda. Then the major criticisms of NPM within and outside the public service are reviewed, demonstrating the tensions and contradictions among the major criticisms. To endure, NPM must be capable of accommodating different poles of criticism by modifying its agenda, attempting to identify the areas where drawbacks in NPM methods are most salient. Finally, some future challenges for NPM are discussed: the prospect of outcomes outside the conventional distinction of traditional and modern public management styles; the risk of inappropriate cloning; and quasi‐constitutional issues about the core competencies of public sector agencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09540969409387823

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,450

Metadata

Authors
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C.
Venue
Public Money & Management
Published
1994-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
9-16
ISSN
  • 0954-0962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9302
OpenAlex
W2066953573
Cited by
1,450
References
0
FWCI
53.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From old public administration to new public management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09540969409387823
The paper
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969409387823

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.