Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public sectors in a number of countries, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, have undergone significant financial and non-financial reforms over the past two decades. These reforms reflect a dramatic ideological shift in the role, operation and management of the sector. This ideological shift is generally termed as New Public Management, however is it really new? There are a number of reforms in the past two hundred years which indicate that New Public Management is not really new but rather is a tried and, in areas, a tired approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify and examine of some of the New Public Management reforms through a theoretical lens based on Jeremy Bentham’s (1748 – 1832) work on utilitarianism, public administration and publicity [reporting]. The paper argues that many of today’s public sector financial accountability processes and procedures associated with recent public sector financial reforms reflect much of Bentham’s work. For example the adoption of accrual accounting by some governments and the increasing trend in the public sector in placing greater emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness in the management of government services and policies and rather than the delivery. The main finding of the paper is that Bentham’s work does assist in researching and reviewing the positive and negative impacts of New Public Management. This finding indicates that increased research on Bentham’s work may allow for better evaluation of recent public sector financial reforms and inturn could influence the development of appropriate public sector reforms in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".