Neoliberalism and New Public Management: decision-making and accountability in a public–private partnership

Lachlan McDonald-Kerr, G. Boyce
{"title":"Neoliberalism and New Public Management: decision-making and accountability in a public–private partnership","authors":"Lachlan McDonald-Kerr, G. Boyce","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-01-2020-4392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate public disclosures and accountability for government decision-making in the case of a major prison project delivered through a Public–Private Partnership (PPP) in the State of Victoria (Australia).Design/methodology/approachThe study explores a unique case to provide insights into public disclosures for PPPs in a jurisdiction that is a recognised leader in PPP policy and practice. The analysis is theoretically framed by an understanding of neoliberalism and New Public Management, and draws on data from case-specific reporting, media reporting and public policy, to examine interconnections between accounting, public discourse and accountability.FindingsThe analysis shows how publicly available information relating to key government decisions routinely lacked supporting evidence or explanation, even though areas of subjectivity were recognised in public policy. Accounting was deployed numerically and discursively to present potentially contestable decisions as being based on common-sense “facts”. The implied “truth” status of government reporting is problematised by media disclosure of key issues absent from government disclosures.Social implicationsUnder neoliberalism, accountingisation can help depoliticise the public sphere and limit discourse by constructing ostensible “facts” in an inherently contestable arena. By contrast, democratic accountability requires public disclosures that infuse a critical dialogical public sphere.Originality/valueThe paper shows how neoliberalism can be embedded in public policies and institutional practices, and buttressed by the use of accounting. The analysis illuminates the persistence and “failing forward” character of neoliberalism, whereby crises are addressed through further neoliberalisation.","PeriodicalId":132341,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-01-2020-4392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate public disclosures and accountability for government decision-making in the case of a major prison project delivered through a Public–Private Partnership (PPP) in the State of Victoria (Australia).Design/methodology/approachThe study explores a unique case to provide insights into public disclosures for PPPs in a jurisdiction that is a recognised leader in PPP policy and practice. The analysis is theoretically framed by an understanding of neoliberalism and New Public Management, and draws on data from case-specific reporting, media reporting and public policy, to examine interconnections between accounting, public discourse and accountability.FindingsThe analysis shows how publicly available information relating to key government decisions routinely lacked supporting evidence or explanation, even though areas of subjectivity were recognised in public policy. Accounting was deployed numerically and discursively to present potentially contestable decisions as being based on common-sense “facts”. The implied “truth” status of government reporting is problematised by media disclosure of key issues absent from government disclosures.Social implicationsUnder neoliberalism, accountingisation can help depoliticise the public sphere and limit discourse by constructing ostensible “facts” in an inherently contestable arena. By contrast, democratic accountability requires public disclosures that infuse a critical dialogical public sphere.Originality/valueThe paper shows how neoliberalism can be embedded in public policies and institutional practices, and buttressed by the use of accounting. The analysis illuminates the persistence and “failing forward” character of neoliberalism, whereby crises are addressed through further neoliberalisation.
新自由主义和新公共管理:公私伙伴关系中的决策和问责制
本文的目的是调查维多利亚州(澳大利亚)通过公私合作伙伴关系(PPP)交付的一个重大监狱项目的公开披露和政府决策问责制。设计/方法/方法本研究探讨了一个独特的案例,为在公私合作政策和实践方面处于公认领先地位的司法管辖区的公私合作公开披露提供见解。分析的理论框架是对新自由主义和新公共管理的理解,并借鉴了具体案例报告、媒体报道和公共政策的数据,以检查会计、公共话语和问责制之间的相互联系。研究结果分析表明,尽管公共政策中承认了一些主观性,但与政府关键决策相关的公开信息通常缺乏支持性证据或解释。会计被运用到数字和话语上,将潜在的有争议的决定呈现为基于常识性的“事实”。政府报告隐含的“真实”地位因媒体披露政府披露缺失的关键问题而受到质疑。社会影响在新自由主义下,会计化可以帮助公共领域去政治化,并通过在一个内在可争议的领域构建表面上的“事实”来限制话语。相比之下,民主问责制要求公众披露信息,为公共领域注入关键的对话。原创性/价值本文展示了新自由主义如何嵌入公共政策和制度实践,并通过使用会计来支持。分析阐明了新自由主义的持久性和“前进失败”的特征,从而通过进一步的新自由主义化来解决危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信