{"title":"后新公共管理视角下的公共部门改革:回顾与文献计量分析","authors":"Marko Ropret, Aleksander Aristovnik","doi":"10.17573/cepar.2019.2.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to evaluate the impact of public sector reform on academic literature from the post-NPM perspective. There have been several investigations into post-NPM public governance models and their impact on public sector reform. Yet, the research problem faced when analysing post-NPM literature is the lack of studies examining the multitude of possible public governance models (PGM) with sufficient comprehensiveness, especially in Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. In order to effectively address the research problem, a bibliometric analysis was performed, following three objectives: (i) an investigation into the evolution of PGM literature, (ii) identification of the core publications and authors based on publication frequency, and (iii) a citation network analysis (a historiograph), indicating the relations among the most-cited publications. It involved the identification of 16,374 publications in the Web of Science database, narrowed down to the 100 most cited between 1994 and 2017, and the application of the HistCite bibliometric analysis software, covering descriptive statistics, bibliometric indicators, and historiographic citation analysis. The research results reveal a growing research interest in the topic, as supported by bibliometric indicators. In addition, important differences as regards coverage and diffusion of individual post-NPM models are indicated. Namely, most publications focus on the ‘governance’ paradigm and subsequent critical rethinking, as indicated by several post-NPM modernisation proposals. Furthermore, we have shown that such evaluation of governance and related doctrines may be biased in favour of subjective, pluralistic Western ideas about governance, presumably limiting their impact within the CEE and several other regions. Hence, the regions’ particularities in terms of governance (post-socialism, Rechtsstaat culture, EU membership, small states, etc.) must be further taken into account in the post-NPM literature.","PeriodicalId":369466,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy: Structure & Scope of Government eJournal","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Sector Reform from the Post-New Public Management Perspective: Review and Bibliometric Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Marko Ropret, Aleksander Aristovnik\",\"doi\":\"10.17573/cepar.2019.2.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to evaluate the impact of public sector reform on academic literature from the post-NPM perspective. There have been several investigations into post-NPM public governance models and their impact on public sector reform. Yet, the research problem faced when analysing post-NPM literature is the lack of studies examining the multitude of possible public governance models (PGM) with sufficient comprehensiveness, especially in Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. In order to effectively address the research problem, a bibliometric analysis was performed, following three objectives: (i) an investigation into the evolution of PGM literature, (ii) identification of the core publications and authors based on publication frequency, and (iii) a citation network analysis (a historiograph), indicating the relations among the most-cited publications. It involved the identification of 16,374 publications in the Web of Science database, narrowed down to the 100 most cited between 1994 and 2017, and the application of the HistCite bibliometric analysis software, covering descriptive statistics, bibliometric indicators, and historiographic citation analysis. The research results reveal a growing research interest in the topic, as supported by bibliometric indicators. In addition, important differences as regards coverage and diffusion of individual post-NPM models are indicated. Namely, most publications focus on the ‘governance’ paradigm and subsequent critical rethinking, as indicated by several post-NPM modernisation proposals. Furthermore, we have shown that such evaluation of governance and related doctrines may be biased in favour of subjective, pluralistic Western ideas about governance, presumably limiting their impact within the CEE and several other regions. Hence, the regions’ particularities in terms of governance (post-socialism, Rechtsstaat culture, EU membership, small states, etc.) must be further taken into account in the post-NPM literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":369466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy: Structure & Scope of Government eJournal\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy: Structure & Scope of Government eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2019.2.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy: Structure & Scope of Government eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2019.2.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
本文旨在从后npm视角评估公共部门改革对学术文献的影响。有几项调查是关于后新计划公共治理模式及其对公共部门改革的影响。然而,在分析npm后的文献时所面临的研究问题是,缺乏对多种可能的公共治理模式(PGM)进行充分全面考察的研究,特别是在中欧和东欧(CEE)国家。为了有效地解决这一研究问题,我们进行了文献计量分析,目标如下:(i)调查PGM文献的演变,(ii)根据发表频率确定核心出版物和作者,以及(iii)引用网络分析(历史记录),表明被引次数最多的出版物之间的关系。它涉及识别Web of Science数据库中的16,374篇出版物,缩小到1994年至2017年间被引用最多的100篇,并应用HistCite文献计量分析软件,包括描述性统计、文献计量指标和史学引文分析。研究结果表明,在文献计量指标的支持下,人们对这一主题的研究兴趣日益浓厚。此外,还指出了各个后npm模型在覆盖率和扩散方面的重要差异。也就是说,大多数出版物关注“治理”范式和随后的批判性反思,正如几个后npm现代化建议所表明的那样。此外,我们已经表明,这种对治理和相关理论的评估可能偏向于主观的、多元化的西方治理理念,可能会限制它们在中东欧和其他几个地区的影响。因此,这些地区在治理方面的特殊性(后社会主义、帝国主义文化、欧盟成员国、小国等)必须在后npm文献中进一步考虑。
Public Sector Reform from the Post-New Public Management Perspective: Review and Bibliometric Analysis
The aim of this article is to evaluate the impact of public sector reform on academic literature from the post-NPM perspective. There have been several investigations into post-NPM public governance models and their impact on public sector reform. Yet, the research problem faced when analysing post-NPM literature is the lack of studies examining the multitude of possible public governance models (PGM) with sufficient comprehensiveness, especially in Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. In order to effectively address the research problem, a bibliometric analysis was performed, following three objectives: (i) an investigation into the evolution of PGM literature, (ii) identification of the core publications and authors based on publication frequency, and (iii) a citation network analysis (a historiograph), indicating the relations among the most-cited publications. It involved the identification of 16,374 publications in the Web of Science database, narrowed down to the 100 most cited between 1994 and 2017, and the application of the HistCite bibliometric analysis software, covering descriptive statistics, bibliometric indicators, and historiographic citation analysis. The research results reveal a growing research interest in the topic, as supported by bibliometric indicators. In addition, important differences as regards coverage and diffusion of individual post-NPM models are indicated. Namely, most publications focus on the ‘governance’ paradigm and subsequent critical rethinking, as indicated by several post-NPM modernisation proposals. Furthermore, we have shown that such evaluation of governance and related doctrines may be biased in favour of subjective, pluralistic Western ideas about governance, presumably limiting their impact within the CEE and several other regions. Hence, the regions’ particularities in terms of governance (post-socialism, Rechtsstaat culture, EU membership, small states, etc.) must be further taken into account in the post-NPM literature.