Public sector reform has persisted for a sufficient length of time in several countries to examine patterns over the longer term. Australia and New Zealand are both early and long-term reforming countries that display distinctive features as well as being Anglophone countries identified with new public management. As third generation reformers, the products of more than two decades of reform activity are becoming clearer: the starker manifestations of new public management have less prominence now and a set of distinctive trends has emerged with commonalities across the two countries. The synthesis of elements in the third generation suggests that system integration and performance are central to the prevailing approach and that an emergent model is best represented in the mid-2000s as integrating governance. The article explores the constituent elements and significance of the new model and its relationship to earlier models.
Aucoin, P. (1990) `Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles Paradoxes and Pendulums', Governance3(2): 115—37.
2.
Aucoin, P. (2006) `Corporate Governance for the Public Sector: The Canadian Perspective', paper presented at the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector — From Theory to Practice Conference , Canberra, 8—10 March.
3.
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) ( 2005) State of the Service Report 2004—05. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
4.
Bogdanor, V. (ed.) (2005) Joined-Up Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Boston, J. and Eichbaum, C. (2006) `State Sector Reform and Renewal in New Zealand: Lessons for Governance', in Gerald E. Caiden and Tsai-Tsu Su (eds) The Repositioning of Public Governance: Global Experience and Challenges. Taipei: Taiwan National University.
6.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P. (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
7.
Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2006) `Performance: Its Measurement, Management, and Policy', in B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Policy , pp. 443—59. London: Sage.
8.
Campbell, C. and Halligan, J. (1993) Political Leadership in an Age of Constraint: The Australian Experience. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9.
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (eds) (2006) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
10.
Controller and Auditor-General (CAG) (2006 ) Report on Central Government: Results of the 2004—5 Audits. Wellington: Office of the Auditor General.
11.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) (2003) Annual Report 2002—03. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
12.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) (2004) Annual Report 2003—04. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
13.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2005) `New Public Management is Dead — Long Live Digital-Era Governance', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(3): 467—94.
14.
Gregory, R. (2006) `Theoretical Faith and Practical Works: De-Autonomizing and Joining-Up in the New Zealand State Sector', in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State , pp. 137—61. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
15.
Halligan, J. (1997) `New Public Sector Models: Reform in Australia and New Zealand', in J.-E. Lane (ed.) Public Sector Reform: Rationale, Trends and Problems. London: Sage.
16.
Halligan, J. (2003) `Australian Public Service: Redefining Boundaries ', in J. Halligan (ed.) Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.
17.
Halligan, J. (2006a) `Sustaining Innovation and Reconciling Complexities in Third Generation Reforming Systems: The Cases of Australia and New Zealand ', paper presented at the Continuing Transformations of Public Administration Conference, City University of Hong Kong, 21—2 March.
18.
Halligan, J. (2006b) `The Reassertion of the Centre in a First Generation NPM System', in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19.
Halligan, J. (2007) `Reform Design and Performance in Australia and New Zealand', in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds) Transcending New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.
20.
Halligan, J. and Power, J. (1992) Political Management in the 1990s. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
21.
Hood, C. (1990) `De-Sir Humphreyfying the Westminster Model of Bureaucracy: A New Style of Governance?', Governance3(2): 205—14.
22.
Hood, C. (1991) `A Public Management for All Seasons?', Public Administration69(1): 3—19.
23.
Hood, C. (1994) Explaining Economic Policy Reversals. Buckingham: Open University Press.
24.
Hood, C. and Peters, G. (2004) `The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 267—82.
25.
Kibblewhite, A. and Ussher, C. (2002) Outcome-focused Management in New Zealand', Journal of Budgeting2(4): 85—109.
26.
Laking, R.G. (1995) `Changing Ideas of Public Service in New Zealand ', Asian Journal of Political Science3(1): 93—103.
27.
McKay, K. (2003) `Two Generations of Performance Evaluation Management Systems in Australia', Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration110: 9—20.
28.
Management Advisory Committee (MAC) (2004) Connecting Government: Whole of
29.
Government Responses to Australia's Priority Challenges. Canberra : Commonwealth of Australia.
30.
Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) (2002) Report of the Advisory Group of the Review of the Centre. Wellington: State Services Commission.
31.
Norman, R. (2006) `“Managing for Outcomes while Accounting for Outputs”: Defining “Public Value” in New Zealand's Performance Management System', paper presented at the conference on A Performing Public Sector: The Second Transatlantic Dialogue, EGPA/ASPA , Public Management Institute, Catholic University of Leuven , 1—3 June.
32.
Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism andthe Public Services, 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
33.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
Prebble, M. (2005) `Annual Report of the State Services Commissioner ', in State Services Commission (ed.) Annual Report of the State Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2005, pp. 3—11. Wellington: SSC.
35.
Prebble, M. (2006) `Annual Report of the State Services Commissioner ', in State Services Commission, Annual Report of the State Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2006, pp. 4—9. Wellington: SSC.
36.
Richards, D. and Smith, M. (2006) `The Tensions of Political Control and Administrative Autonomy: From NPM to a Reconstituted Westminster Model', in T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, pp. 181—200. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
37.
Schick, A. (1996) The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of Change, A Report Prepared for the State Services Commission and the Treasury, Wellington.
38.
Schick, A. (2001) `Reflections on the New Zealand Model', based on a Lecture at New Zealand Treasury, August, URL: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/academiclinkages/schick/paper.asp
39.
Scott, G. (1997) `Continuity and Change in Public Management: Second Generation Issues', in State Services Commission (ed.) Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships, State Services Commission, Future Issues in Public Management. Wellington: SSC.
40.
Scott, G. (2001) Public Management in New Zealand: Lessons and Challenges . Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable.
41.
Shand, D. and Norman, R. (2005) `Performance Budgeting in New Zealand', paper presented at the IMF Fiscal Affairs Department seminar on Performance Budgeting, Washington, DC, 5—7 December.
42.
Shergold, P. (2004) `Plan and Deliver: Avoiding Bureaucratic Hold-up ', paper presented at the Australian Graduate School of Management/Harvard Club of Australia, Canberra, 17 November, URL: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/speeches/shergold/plan_and_deliver_2004-11-17.cfm
43.
Shergold, P. (2005) `Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service', Speech delivered at launch of Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service, Canberra , 1 June, URL: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/speeches/shergold/foundations_of_governance_2005-06-01.cfm
44.
State Services Commission (SSC) (1998) `Assessment of the New Zealand Public Service', Occasional Paper No. 1, Wellington.
45.
State Services Commission (SSC) (1999) `Looping the Loop: Evaluating Outcomes and other Risky Feats', Occasional Paper No. 7, Wellington.
46.
State Services Commission (SSC) (2002) Briefing for the Minister of State Services. Wellington : SSC.
47.
Talbot, C. and Johnson, C. (2007) `Seasonal Cycles in Public Management: Disaggregation and Re-aggregation', Public Money and Management27(1): 53—60.
48.
Treasury and State Services Commission (2005 ) Guidance and Requirements of Departments Preparing the Statement of Intent. URL: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/managing-for-outcomes
49.
Wanna, J. (2006) `From Afterthought to Afterburner: Australia's Cabinet Implementation Unit', Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis8(4): 347—69.
50.
Wintringham, M. (2003) `Annual Report of the State Services Commissioner ', in Annual Report of the State Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2003.
51.
Zifcak, S. (1994) New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in Whitehall and Canberra. Buckingham: Open University Press.
