Perspectives on New Public Governance: A Term Worth Legitimizing?

Piotr Popęda; Bartłomiej Hadasik

doi:10.17573/cepar.2025.1.08

Authors

Piotr Popęda University of Economics in Katowice, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7342-6024
Bartłomiej Hadasik University of Economics in Katowice, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6604-1970

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2025.1.08

Keywords:

New Public Governance, NPG, legitimization of theory, public management, public administration, literature review

Abstract

Purpose: New Public Governance (NPG) has gained significant attention in the public management literature, yet its precise nature and legitimacy remain unclear. This study assesses the status of NPG and examines whether its legitimacy as a concept, theory or paradigm has been established. Design/Methodology/Approach: A two-pronged methodological approach is employed: the first prong comprises a thematic-realist review of legitimacy theory, situated in relation to the literature on NPG theory legitimacy; the second entails a bibliometric analysis, conducted as a semi-systematic literature review, to trace its scientific impact. The study explores whether the term ‘NPG’ indicates potential for practical application, the direction of its development and its classification within the ‘concept–theory–paradigm’ framework.
Findings: The research concludes that NPG is a distinct, contemporary strand with its own characteristics and potential for theoretical development. However, scientific clarity within the ‘concept-theory-paradigm’ triad has not yet been achieved, necessitating further research.
Academic contribution to the field: This study fills a research gap by positioning NPG within public management and assessing its potential for further substantive development. It contributes to discussions on the legitimacy and trajectory of NPG as an evolving framework.
Originality/Significance/Value: This is the first study to comprehensively assess whether NPG can progress towards becoming a fully established theoretical framework in public management. The findings encourage further scholarly exploration and conceptual development in this field.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), pp. 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bergdahl, E. and Berterö, C.M. (2023). Creating theory: Encouragement for using creativity and deduction in qualitative nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 24, p. e12421. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12421

Bilhim, J.A. and dos Santos, G.C. (2017). Tension between independence and political control: Portuguese regulatory entities. Revista Quaestio Iuris, 10(3), pp. 1736–1759. https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2017.28048

Broccardo, L., Culasso, F. and Mauro, S.G. (2019). Smart city governance: exploring the institutional work of multiple actors towards collaboration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(4), pp. 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-05-2018-0126

Brock, K.L. (2020). Government and Non-profit Collaboration in Times of Deliverology, Policy Innovation Laboratories and Hubs, and New Public Governance. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(2), pp. 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00 145-0

Casady, C.B. and Peci, F. (2021). The institutional challenges of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in transition economies: lessons from Kosovo. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), pp. 1949–1965. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1860791

Casady, C.B. et al. (2020). (Re)defining public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the new public governance (NPG) paradigm: an institutional maturity perspective. Public Management Review, 22(2), pp. 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577909

Chandra, Y., Shang, L. and Roy, M.J. (2022). Understanding healthcare social enterprises: A new public governance perspective. Journal of Social Policy, 51(4), pp. 834–855. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279421000222

Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2016). The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613321

Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H. and Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Davide, F. (2021). Perspectives for Digital Social Innovation to reshape the European Welfare Systems: An introduction. In Emerging Communication: Studies in New Technologies and Practices in Communication. IOS Press.

de Moraes, B.F., Lunardi, F. C. and Correia, P.M.A.R. (2024). Digital access to judicial services in the Brazilian Amazon: Barriers and potential. Social Sciences, 13(2), p. 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020113

Eubank, E E. (1936). European and American sociology: Some comparisons. Social Forces, 15(2), pp. 147–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/2570952

Evans, B. and Veselý, A. (2014). Contemporary policy work in subnational governments and NGOs: Comparing evidence from Australia, Canada and the Czech Republic. Policy and Society, 33(2), pp. 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016j.polsoc.2014.04.003

Evans, B. and Wellstead, A. (2014). Tales of Policy Estrangement: Non-governmental Policy Work and Capacity in Three Canadian Provinces.

Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(2), pp. 7–28. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2014v5n2a164

Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2014). Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public Services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), pp. 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920

Glock, H.-J. (2010). Wittgenstein on concepts. In A. Ahmed, ed., Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–108.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750939.006

Greenhalgh, T. et al. (2011). Protocol – realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-115

Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), pp. 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8

Grubb, A. and Frederiksen, M. (2022). Speaking on behalf of the vulnerable? Voluntary translations of citizen needs to policy in community co-production. Public Management Review, 24(12), pp. 1894–1913. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945665

Hattke, F. and Martin, H. (2020). Collective action during the Covid-19 pandemic: The case of Germany’s fragmented authority. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 42(4), pp. 614–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1805273

Jayasinghe, K. et al. (2020). Enacting “accountability in collaborative governance”: lessons in emergency management and earthquake recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquakes. Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting and Financial Management, 32(3), pp. 439–459. https://doi. org/10.1108/jpbafm-09-2019-0143

Jing, Y. (2015). New public governance: A regime-centered perspective. International Review of Public Administration, 20(3), pp. 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2015.1041988

Koshlakov, D. M. and Shvyrkov, A. I. (2020). Conception and Philosophy of Science. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 57(2), pp. 124–141. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057226

Krogh, A. H. and Triantafillou, P. (2024). Developing New Public Governance as a Public Management Reform Model. Public Management Review, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2313539

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Kurtines, W.M. and Silverman, W.K. (1999). Emerging views of the role of theory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28(4), pp. 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2804_18

Lane, R. (1996). Positivism, Scientific Realism, and Political Science: Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 8(3), pp. 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692896008003003

Liddle, J. (2018). Public Value Management and New Public Governance: Key Traits, Issues and Developments. In E. Ongaro and S. Van Thiel, eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_49

Lindqvist, K. (2019). Dilemmas and paradoxes of regional cultural policy implementation: Governance modes, discretion, and policy outcome.

Administration and Society, 51(1), pp. 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009 5399715621944

McChesney, K. and Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance through mixed methods research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), pp. 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2019.15 90811

McGregor, C. (2019). A paradigm framework for social work theory for early 21st century practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(8), pp. 2112–2129. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz006

Melnyk, S.A. and Handfielf R.B. (1998). May you live in interesting times… the emergence of theory-driven empirical research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), pp. 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 6963(98)00027-8

Mierauskas, P. and Smalskys, V. (2013). Principles of organisation of the protected area system in the context of new public governance. Public Policy and Administration, 12(2), pp. 236–247.

Nesti, G. (2020). Defining and assessing the transformational nature of smart city governance: insights from four European cases. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(1), pp. 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318757063

Neves Pereira, F. et al. (2017). New public management and New public governance: A conceptual analysis comparison. Espacios, 38(7), pp. 6–30.

Noone, J, Salignac F. and Saunders I. (2021). How can collaborative practices be supported in an era of new public governance? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 80(3), pp. 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12465

O’Reilly, D. and Reed, M. (2010). ‘Leaderism’: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88(4), pp. 960–978.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01864.x

Osborne, S.P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), pp. 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022

Osborne, S.P. (Ed.). (2010a). The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684

Osborne, S.P. (2010b). Introduction: The (New) Public Governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. P. Osborne, ed., The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684-7

Osborne, S.P. et al. (2014). Sustainable public service organisations: A Public Service-Dominant approach. Society and Economy, 36(3), pp. 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1556/socec.36.2014.3.1

Paley, J. (2006). Nursing Theorists and Their Work, sixth edition. Nursing Philosophy, 7(4), pp. 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.0 0276.x

Page, M.J. et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), p. 89. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Paré, G. and Kitsiou, S. (2017). Methods for literature reviews. In Handbook of eHealth evaluation: An evidence-based approach [Internet]. University of Victoria.

Pedersen, E.L. (2007). Theory Is Everywhere: A Discourse on Theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(1), pp. 106–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X06296872

Pinho de Oliveira, M.F. and Hernández, G. (2023). Open government governance and sustainable development: A vision in the post-COVID-19 era. Revista Quaestio Iuris, 16(1), pp. 25–57. https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2023.66173

Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2017). Qualitative data analysis. In D.F. Polit and C.T. Beck, eds., Nursing research, generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice, pp. 530–556. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.

Popęda, P. and Hadasik, B. (2024). New Public Governance as a new wave of the public policy: theoretical approach and conceptualization of the trend. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 13(1), pp. 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-09-2023-0089

Popper, K. (2002). Logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics.

Poulter, J. (2005). Integrating theory and practice: a new heuristic paradigm for social work practice. Australian Social Work, 58(2), pp. 199–212. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1447-0748.2005.00204.x

Reed, P.G. (2018). A paradigm to produce practice-based knowledge: Philosophical and practical considerations. In P.G. Reed and N.B. Crawford Shearer, eds., Nursing knowledge and theory innovation: Advancing the science of practice, pp. 199–214. Springer.

Rey, G. (2018). Concepts. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-W008-1

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x

Salvador, E.J. and de São Pedro Filho, F. (2023). Multifaceted tool for control of Plan of Hiring Annual. Revista De Gestão E Secretariado, 14(7), pp. 11396– 11413. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v14i7.2240

Sharma, R. and Kumar, R. (2023). Increasing public participation to ensure holistic view in educational policies/action plans. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 69(3), pp. 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/00195561231177039

Solesvik, M. (2018). The rise and fall of the resource-based view: paradigm shift in strategic management. Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.29141/2073-1019-2018-19-4-1

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), pp. 826–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643181

Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, M. and Howlett, M. (2018). Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy and Society, 37(3), pp. 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676

Stam, H.J. (1991). Theory & Psychology: The Re-Emergence of Theory in Psychology. Theory and Psychology, 1(1), pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391011001

Stanica, C.M. and Aristigueta, M. (2019). Progress toward New Public Governance in Romania. International Journal of Public Leadership, 15(3), pp. 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-01-2019-0004

Thyer, B.A. (2001). Research on social work practice does not benefit from blurry theory: A response to Tomi Gomory. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), pp. 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2001.10779036

Torfing, J. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Torfing, J. and Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), pp. 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250

Vallentin, S. (2022). Trust, power and public sector leadership: A relational approach. Routledge.

Van der Wal, Z. and Demircioglu M.A. (2020). Public sector innovation in the Asia- Pacific trends, challenges, and opportunities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(3), pp. 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12435

Wacker J. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), pp. 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9

Walker, L.O. and Avant, K.C. (2005). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Prentice Hall: Pearson.

Wang, Q. and Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), pp. 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003

Weng, S. and Christensen, T. (2019). The community philanthropic foundation: A new form of independent public service provider for China? Public Policy and Administration, 34(2), pp. 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718784642

Young, S.L. and Tanner, J. (2023). Citizen participation matters. Bureaucratic discretion matters more. Public Administration, 101(3), pp. 747–771. https:// doi.org/10.1111/padm.12867