Oleksandr Ghromadetskyi


The article revises the neo-liberal postmodern approach to public administration within the scientific paradigm by Ch. Fox and H. Miller. Within the framework of the relevant scientific construct, the researchers identified three leading approaches (neo-liberalism, constitutionalism and communitarianism) designed to replace the outdated model of the modern (orthodox) government. The justification for the postmodern public administration could contribute to the modernization of public management practices in the world in general and in Ukraine in particular. The systematization of the imperatives of the neoliberal approach to public administration is one of the stages of the above-mentioned justification.

 The purpose of the paper is to reveal the content and application potential of the neoliberal approach within postmodern public administration, to research its main ideas and tools. Methodological basis of the study consists of logical methods (synthesis, analysis, induction, etc.), as well as special ones (historical, systemic, comparative).

As a result of the study, it was found that the content of the neoliberal approach to public administration deals with marketization of the public sector in order to conduct de-bureaucratization and efficiency improvements. The main tools in the process are performance evaluation and audit, contracting out, privatization, implementation of incentive system, and management. Compared with the orthodox model of public administration, the neoliberal counterpart has certain advantages, in particular, the refusal to prevail standardized rules and regulations in favor of outcomes. Nevertheless, at the same time, the neoliberal approach remains faithful to the rational traditions of reality perception. Despite significant practical results, the shortcomings of the neo-liberal postmodern model of public administration (opportunities for corruption and overestimation of the efficiency measuring system) were described.


post-modern public administration; bureaucratic public administration; neoliberalism; rationalization; modernization


Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Box, R. (1999). Running Government like a Business: Implications for Public Administration Theory and Practice. American Review of Public Administration. 29(1), 19-43.

Dźwigoł, H. (2015a). Business Management. Oxford: Alpha Science International Ltd.

Dźwigoł, H. (2014). Menedżerowie przyszłości a zarządzanie strategiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 70, 93-104. [in Polish].

Dźwigoł, H. (2016). Modelling of restructuring process. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 99, 89-106.

Dźwigoł, H. (2015b). Warsztat badawczy w naukach o zarządzaniu. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 83, 133-142.

Dźwigoł, H. (2018). Współczesne procesy badawcze w naukach o zarządzaniu. Uwarunkowania metodyczne i metodologiczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [in Polish].

Dźwigoł, H. (2015c). Założenia do budowy metodyki badawczej. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 78, 99-116.

Dźwigoł, H. (2013). Zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem w warunkach XXI wieku. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej. [in Polish].

Dzwigol, H., & Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2018). Scientific Research Methodology in Management Sciences. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(25), 424-437.

Foucault, M. (1994). The Birth of Biopolitics. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press.

Fox, C., & Miller, H. (2015). Postmodern Public Administration. Routledge.

Horn, M. (1995). The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kettl, D. (1997). The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 16(3), 447

Lindblom, Ch. (2001). The Market System: What It Is, How It Works and What to Make of It. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Lynn, L. (1996). Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers

Marszałek-Kawa, J., Chudziński, P., & Miśkiewicz, R. (2018). Gospodarka globalna w świetle wyzwań Industry 4.0 [Global Economy in the Light of Industry 4.0 Challenges]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszalek. [in Polish].

Miller, H., & Simmons, J. (1998). The Irony of Privatization. Administration & Society. 30(5), 513–532

Morgan, D., & England, R. (1988). The Two Faces of Privatization. Public Administration Review. 48(6), 979

Pesch, U. (2003). Exploring the Public/Private Dichotomy: An Evaluation of ‘The Intellectual Crisis of American Public Administration’ and ‘The Government is Us’. Retracing Public Administration. Oxford: Elsevier

Pollin, R. (2005). Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity. London: Verso

Thompson, F. (2003). Why a New Public Management? Why Now? Review of Public Personnel Administration. 23(4), 328–335


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Oleksandr Ghromadetskyi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN (Print) : 2449-7320

ISSN (Online) : 2449-8726