Introduction¹

There has been plenty of academic production as of 1991 when the concept of New Public Management (NPM) was coined and began to be used in the classic ^{Hood’s (1991)} text and ^{Aucoin’s (1990)} work. The arrival of the new way of understanding public management has been gloably revised by a large number of authors and from diverse standpoints (^{Lane, 2000}; ^{Kettl, 2000}; ^{Ventriss, 2000}; ^{McLaughlin et al., 2002}; ^{Lynn, 2006}). In this review, it has been stated there are new ideas that have determined how public institutions are managed or administrated, the aggiornamento of public administrations, thus accomplishing, allegedly, better conduction. In like manner, the conditions for its implementation and potential costs are presented.

In the case of Latin America, academic literature has delivered a series of works that range from a sort of death certificate for this paradigm (^{Guerrero, 2009}) to other works that put forward that many of the changes generated in our public administrations, in recent times, do not necessarily are justified or related to the NPM “fad” (^{Cejudo, 2008}). The contribution from these perspectives is that they have evinced there cannot be a naïve attitude regarding a paradigm, essentially generated in developed countries with administrative histories and cultures utterly different.

What is interesting for someone concerned by the topics proper to public management is that notwithstanding the apprehensions in relation to the actual expression of NPM in Latin America, many of the administrative doctrines proper to this current have been implemented in our public administrations (^{Atrio and Piccone, 2008}; ^{Manning and Shepherd, 2009}; ^{Dussauge, 2009}). This occurs partly because academic times are not exactly the same as those of policymakers or decision-makers in the government. Critical visions on the modifications are not necessarily accounted for by those who seek to improve public administrations’ performance; these are also called “practitioners”.

We notice that many of the concepts proper to this new paradigm are present on the day-to-day State management. The legitimacy of these changes is supported on the need to modify the way things are made in public management, adapting these practices to the new social, economic and cultural reality (^{Barzelay, 1992}). As stated by ^{Arellano (2002: 58)} “NPM is in reality a proposal that is explained in the light of the consequences of the evolution and crisis of the specific forms of acting of public administration and its relation with the political system”. A more efficient State is sought, closer to the users’ needs, which are seen as clients looking for better attention.

But in this promise of a better State, from better public administration, one notices the imposition of ideas that can be very complex in weak administrative contexts or scantly consolidated administrative cultures, prone to bad administrative practices and even corruption. ^{Ramió (2001)} puts forward a schema regarding the potential implications conveyed by the adoption of these new ideas in various administrative contexts. This can lead us to think of the potential relation there may be between the adoption of these new administrative doctrines and the occurrence of management vices and problems.

The present document analyzes the implementation of NPM in Latin America and its relation with corruption, taking the Chilean administrative reality as an analysis framework. This way, we follow ^{Maesschalck (2004)}, who analyzes the impact of NPM on the public functionaries’ ethical frameworks from the adoption of new administrative doctrines, alien to the bureaucratic paradigm. A group of corruption cases were chosen due to their relation with some administrative doctrines of this public administration philosophy. Once this analysis is carried out, we will present some reflections on the theoretical dilemmas and the approximations proposed to give an account of them.

New public management in Chile

As a part of the analysis undertaken to give an account of this document’s objectives, it is necessary to reflect on the affirmation whether NPM has been implemented in Chile. Even if this can be matter of debate, product of the complex recognition of the bureaucratic paradigm that prevails in the country, it is necessary to recognize that the process to modernize public administration, which started in the mid 1990’s, has features essentially proper to the NPM discourse, as it is noticed in a number of researches in this regard (^{Ramírez, 2004}; ^{Waissbluth and Inostroza, 2006}; ^{Araya and Cerpa, 2009}; ^{Pliscoff, 2009b}; ^{Olavarría, 2010}; ^{Olavarria et al., 2011}; ^{Figueroa-Huencho et al., 2011}; ^{Morales, 2014}).

Three milestones have to be specially mentioned as they clearly express the “discourse” of NPM in Chile. The first one is related to a Strategic Plan for the Modernization of Public Management, implemented between 1997 and 2000, in which an agenda for changes in various spheres of public administration is defined, namely: improvement of planning systems, installation of better mechanisms to control management and measurement of public institutions’ activities.

This initial endeavor is supplemented and reinforced by two central milestones in the modernization process, the installation of a system to asses and control management by the Direction of Budgets (DIBUD) of the Ministry of Finance, which is set into motion in 2001, and the creation of the System of High Public Management in 2003, which starts operations in 2004 in the context of the creation of the National Direction of Civil Service.

Taking ^{Hood’s (1991)} administrative doctrines proper to NPM, it can be clearly recognized that in Chile changes in public administrative practices have been effected in the following entries: firstly, in the face of the idea of “letting managers manage”, proposed by Hood, in the Chilean case, a System of High Public Administration was implemented; it seeks to reinforce the public manager’s central role in development, installing a discourse on the topic.

Secondly, explicit administrative measures have been taken in order to evaluate performance and control the acting of public institutions, with various mechanisms such as the system to asses and control management, set up by DIBUD. Together with these doctrines, the intensive use of technology is crystal clear as well as a reference to private management techniques, for instance with the implementation of the Programs for Management Improvement (PMI) in 1998, which installed the logic of performance-based variable remuneration, proper to private management (^{Pliscoff, 2005}).

Some prevailing doctrines in NPM

In view of deepening into the analysis of the doctrines prevailing in NPM in Chile, ^{Hood’s (1991)} work will be taken as a referent to recognize three that are particularly proper to this paradigm and which, as previously exposed, have been implemented in the context of the modernization process of Chilean public management. Indeed, these doctrines are quite different from the previous approximations of progressive or bureaucratic public administration.

The first is the assignment of contracts as a tool to manage the provision of services or tasks previously carried out by public entities or functionaries. The second is the idea of “letting managers manage”, which in practical terms translates into an increase in public managers’ discretion levels. Finally, another central aspect of NPM is pressure for results, being one of the favorite management instruments the use of incentives to reach goals.

Corruption and public management in Latin America

Corruption has been an almost omnipresent topic in the public discussion in Latin America in recent decades (^{Weyland, 1998}). Transparency International figures define the region, except for some particular cases, as one with the highest perception of corruption in society. Usually, the debate on corruption revolves around the relation of politics and corruption, an issue that immediately brings to mind the cases of Fujimori, Collor de Melo, Abdalá Bucaram and other high representatives involved in corruption cases. As pointed out by ^{Morris and Blake (2009)}, ever since the return to democracy in the 1980’s, unfortunately the topic of corruption has been virtually present in all the region. Somehow, it was assumed that the wave of democratization and the alleged economic successes after the structural reforms must have generated lower corruption levels, something that with the review of the literature and the Latin American citizens’ experience is far from being so (^{Rehren, 2009}).

However, beyond journalistic or even case-study analyses, it is interesting that researching on corruption, from an academic standpoint, is absent. Few are the scientific works on this respect, not only because of the complexity, but also because in these topics normative discourses mix with empirical or factual ones.

Along the same line, ^{Morris and Blake (2009)} order the academic literature that deals with this topic in three large blocks: institutional influence of corruption, the role of culture and public opinion, and efforts and measures against corruption. A review of the last twelve years of the most prestigious journals in our environment in the region: Reforma y Democracia, and Gestión y Política Pública, shows us that even if this academic interest is present, it is neither dominant nor proportionally majoritarian (^{Gorrochategui, 2000}; ^{Caiden, 2004}; ^{Villoria, 2006}; ^{Merat and Deubel, 2006}; ^{Berthin, 2008}; ^{Martínez-Cousinou and Andersson, 2009}; ^{Heller, 2009}; ^{Pliscoff, 2009a}; ^{Peña-Mancillas, 2011}; ^{Vertiz, 2000}; ^{Mohabbat, 2001}; ^{Anechiarico, 2010}).

The analysis becomes harder if we try to focalize our study on the existing relation between public administration and corruption; because somehow, it has been assumed, as stated in the presented literature, that one source of corruption is public administration itself. However, what occurs when the source of corruption is the very public administration? What circumstances have to take place for corruption to occur, not necessarily stimulated from the outside? In this analysis ^{Thompson’s (1999)} classic statement is adopted, which accepts the ethical character of public functionaries, denying the so called ethics of neutrality and structure.

In like manner, ^{Caiden (2004)} underscores the individual character of the corrupt actor, who eventually will come into conflict with public ethics, due to any justification that derives from the punishment-benefit calculation, a learnt practice, the probability of being caught red-handed or to any of the explanatory theories of corruption (^{Fernández, 1999}).

From the organizational viewpoint, the process that makes the organization be a generator of corruption is called “normalization of corruption in organizations”, which according to ^{Ashforth and Anand (2003: 3)}, responds to three processes they define as pillars: 1) institutionalization; 2) rationalization; and, 3) socialization. The first process keeps a relation with adopting practices opposed to morals as parts of the organizational routine. The second refers to use socially constructed justifications to engage in a corruption act. Thirdly, socialization is handing down these behaviors to the newly arrived. Such dimensions interrelate to generate “normalized corruption”, as displayed in figure 1. ²

In the following lines we will analyze some cases of corruption, which will help us ascertain the probable relation between administrative doctrines and corruption in Chile.

Conclusions

Once the proposed analysis has concluded, we noticed that three NPM essential doctrines produce, from a conceptual or theoretical standpoint, a set of paradoxes or dilemmas, which intending to accomplish a goal end up generating new realities as complex or more than those intended to prevent.

But, in which way are these dilemmas being approached in new theoretical frameworks? Or, what are they stating, a new vision in respect to the gaps or grey areas that appear from NPM doctrines? In this context it is interesting to consider three theoretical models that have been proposed mainly in the academia, and which are conceived as reflection spaces to produce a new public management model.

According to the model proposed by ^{Kooiman (2004)}, governance is understood as a social phenomenon in which government and the private sector participate. This way, interactive government is understood as “the agreements with which both public and private actors try to solve social problems or create social opportunities (^{Kooiman, 2004: 2}). This way, the division lines between public and private sectors are becoming increasingly blurry.

Therefore, there would be a change in the relation between the State and private sector, going from a unidirectional model (governors-governed) to a bidirectional one, in which aspects, problems and opportunities of the government system as well as the system to govern are considered. In praxis, the participation of the private sector together with public sector has experienced a noticeable growth in recent decades.

Nowadays, we witness a conspicuous paradigm shift, from a vision that classified the solution of public problems by the State, the rationale that maximizes profits for the private sector and charity works or philanthropy by non-profit private-sector organizations. However, more often than not there appear new ways that challenge the rigidity of these typologies in the figure of organizational arrangements, in which the private sector solves public problems and the public sector noticeably influences the function of private firms.

In addition to this, non-profit private organizations or NGO’s that perform different actions in each stage of the cycle of specific public policies, beginning to configure the sphere of social society. From this model, vices, for example, of contract assignment are put aside since the private actor is seen as an active actor for the solution of public problems. This way, governance will allow developing institutional devices such as evolution in favor of a higher participation in public affairs, enabling timely accountability, reducing spaces for opacity that can be caused by NPM guidelines.

Another theory recently stated and which helps account for one of the weakest aspects of NPM is the New Public Service (NPS). This theoretical approximation, developed by ^{Denhardt and Denhardt (2000)}, is proposed as a different vision for two ends, traditional or progressive public administration and NPM. For the authors, NPS seeks to evince that public functionaries are not defined as servants of a hierarchical boss, nor do they have to concern to offer a determinate service to the “clients” of public management, but have to act as articulators of the various interests of a society. They do not leave the bureaucratic model aside, nor do they discard it for NPM, they focus on the ethical framework of political tasks to justify the administrative doctrines to be considered by public actors (^{Maesschalck, 2004}).

As noticed in the case of Correos de Chile, insisting on locating the results of the changes in public management with excessive centrality in the results can take to disconnect this performance from the values that should be sought and observed by State management. Reinforcing the ethical frames in order to reinforce a new relation between citizens and public managers places the debate on changes and modernization at a different level, more aligned with what is required at present.

Postmodern Public Administration appears as the antithesis of positivism rejecting main epistemological suppositions on behavior in social sciences. The trend of Postmodern Public Administration bases upon differences between modernity, where knowledge was based on reason, and postmodernity itself, the logic reason, loses supremacy. Postmodernists describe life as hyper-reality, in which a process of meaning destruction takes place. According to ^{Baudrillard (1984)}, the ideals of truth, rationality, certainty and coherence have lost centrality. ^{Farmer (1995)} takes the suppositions of postmodernity to public administration, pointing out that precepts proper to modernity permeate the bureaucratic scaffolding, thus changing such precepts necessarily modifies public administration.

Postmodernists are closer to an open criticism to the pyramidal State, reject the Nation-State as a theoretical construct, and thereby deny that public administrators are agents of the State and public interest and underscore their necessary relation with citizenry. According to ^{Frederickson and Smith (2003: 152-153)}, postmodern public administration points out that public managers as well as the agencies will never be able to be neutral or objective. Therefore, postmodern public administration emphasizes work teams and networks, in view of reducing the structures’ hierarchies.

This is related with which ^{Fox and Miller (1995)} propose by pointing out that the focus has changed from bureaucracy to citizenry. Modern bureaucracy’s opacity modifies in postmodern administration governed by means of dialogues and transparency that allow fusing the functionary and citizen in the same amalgamation. The manager’s discretion in this theoretical frame is thought not from what the manager considers pertinent, but what comes from the relation between the manager and citizens.

In this context, as political recommendations to account for potential problems conveyed by implementing any of the prevailing NPM doctrines, some actions in the following three spheres can be proposed. Firstly, at the time of assigning contracts, it is fundamental that public offices reinforce the teams that act as counterpart of the private entities that provide the community with services.

This implies reinforcing the monitoring capabilities, either with better professionals or procedures in order to verify that the acting of privates fits to the public needs intended to be solved. Secondly, and in a very similar line, it is key that governments reinforce staff in charge of management control to produce useful relevant and pertinent information to reach the intended goals. Without management control, public institutions will be adrift in terms of the actual impact of their actuation.

Finally, it is fundamental that governments articulate a public policy on the functionaries’ ethical reinforcement. This implies an induction, training and reinforcing process for all public functionaries in aspects related to public ethics. Together with this, regulations and procedures have to be updated regularly so that they work to prevent behaviors against public ethics and to reinforce the ethical references of those who exercise public function.

It is essential to give continuity to this work to approach with greater accuracy to the dynamics proper to NPM in terms of other administrative doctrines and so, of other spheres of administrative reforms that can also generate a propitious environment for corruption. It would be fundamental in this way to deepen into other cases of corruption that might reveal if changes in the ways of public management are product of new theoretical frameworks, or else are the expression of individuals who because of their training or circumstances will be corrupt, regardless of the organizational public frames where they are.

In like manner, it would be interesting as a future research topic to compare the cases studied in this document with similar cases in other public administrative contexts. With this, it might be disclosed if indeed the new administrative doctrines help setting up practices harmful to common good, or if there are other factors that explain the existence of functionaries that stray from righteous acting.