How_to_measure_the_autonomy_of_managerial_levels_in_the_public_administrations.pdf

7/27/2019 How_to_measure_the_autonomy_of_managerial_levels_in_the_public_administrations.pdf

1/26

1

HOW TO MEASURE THE AUTONOMY OF

MANAGERIAL LEVELS IN THE PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION

Effects estimation of the recentItalian public

administration reform: a case study

Abstract

This paper deals with the issue of the relationship between politics and

public administrations adopting new public management criteria, or

rather between political and managerial level , in order to identify the

real capacity of public managers to carry out independent choices

regarding operations felt as the more appropriate to reach strategic

goals designed by political authority. Therefore, when the political

level ask to the managerial level to have responsibility of in policy

implementation and its results, what are the drivers that allow to a

public manager to reach assigned goals in a certain political context?

How politics permit public managers at ones own discretion in

operate?

By definition and measurement of the concept of managerial

autonomy (as capacity to organize activities in an independent way)

in public contexts, the paper give some answers at these questions

and it estimates the effects of National Laws designing role and

responsibility of public manager in Italy, assumed as a case study.


2/26

2

Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the effects

produced by reforms of public management, the research verifies the

correspondence between the finality of the Law (autonomy of public

manager) and the real result as consequence of its design and

implementation. For this purpose Organization analysis and Legal

analysis are integrated with System Dynamics methodology,

understanding complexity that requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Keywords New public management, managerial autonomy, public policy; policy

design; system dynamics

Introduction

In the last twenty years the public administration has undergone

remarkable changes in many countries linked to the altered socio-

economic context of modern post-industrial societies. Innovations are

geared towards the introduction into the public sector of private

management instruments, with a view to improving efficiency,

effectiveness and financial stability. Therefore some reforms have the

objective of prompting a shift from a simple model based on simple

following procedures to a managerial model based on performance

and achievement of goals.

Particularly in countries as United Kingdom or Italy, reforms aim to

change the traditional bureaucratic approach of the public


3/26

3

administration, in accordance with the New public management

principles. Previously those public systems had an organizational and

managerial structure on the lines of a bureaucratic model and did not

possess the necessary capacity to deal with the new needs of society;

but the rising complexity to deal projects and planning, the lack of

financial resources and European politico-economic integration

required a process of modernization in public administration.

The theory and practice of New Public Management has represented,

over the last twenty years, one of the most significant events for the

evolution of public administration in various developed countries.

The New Public Management makes claims to being universal; in

fact, initiatives inspired by this thinking way are common enough

throughout the OCSE countries and have reached most

Commonwealth countries ( Borins 1998; Hood 1991, 1995a:166-170).

The spreading of this vision could be seen as an epochal breaking

point in the way the public sector is conceived, although doubts still

exist regarding the components, the peculiar characteristics and the

definition from itself. Indeed, the initials New Public Management

represent a wide-scale formula, with various meanings are

attributed. These range start from the general idea of modernization

of the public sector just to the narrower meaning of rationalization of

the public administration.

The basic features of the New Public Management principles might be

synthesized into three fundamental elements(Osborne e Gaebler

1993:277):


4/26

4

1. Re-definition of the boundaries between State and market throughprivatization and externalization.

2. Re-formulation of the macro-structure of the public sector through thedelegating of state functions (at the lower organizational level) to

within the macro-structure (this phenomenon could be denominated

institutional decentralization or external decentralization).

3. Re-definition of operational rules characterizing the way in which thepublic sector carries out its functions and achieves its goals.

With reference to re-definition of operational rules to achieve

objectives, the main innovation introduced in this field take in

consideration the recognition of the principle of distinguishing

between politics and administration: moving from a bureaucratic

model based on procedures to a managerial model based on

performance and, by the end, the privatization of the employee

relationship in the public sector.

The new relationship between politics and administration necessitated

providing politicians with orientation skills and public executives with

managerial skills in order to avoid political interference and to fully

achieve managerial accountability in the sphere of management

(Marcon 1996, 1997; Mussari 1994a).

The independent management of public executives distinguishes the

old conception of public administration from the new one. In fact, the

previous decision-making process was plainly managed by politicians,

while executives could not be rendered accountable for their activities.

The new model, on the other hand, envisages public executives with

greater managerial autonomy, and at the same it implies that


5/26

5

managers have full responsibility for results achieved in the

execution of their duties. In this context, therefore, is important to

know the drivers that allow to reach assigned goals, as the way how

politics permit public managers at ones own discretion in operate.

Managerial autonomy in public contexts

The concept of autonomy (often synonymous of independence in the

modern Anglo-Saxon world) comes from the word autonomos,

used in the ancient Greek civilization. It means to make behavior

rules at ones own discretion, however to be self made man in

thinking and action in a certain field of human activities; but I doesnt

means autarchy (or autarky in an economic way) that indicates a

statement of self-sufficiency without dependant relationship with the

rest of the worlds. Least of all it isnt a state of anarchy, that means

absence of authority or rules.

To make something in autonomy means overall to decide consciously

how to do on purpose, in freedom and with responsibility. Freedom as

rational wish (Husserl, Scheler) or rightful will and responsibility

(from the Latin respondeo, that means to answer to someone ) as

capacity of a person to assume duties toward another one, paying in

case of unsatisfying performance.

For a manager working in autonomy means to set up the most

effective organization (by its own mental judgment, criteria and

professional vision) to reach goals and tasks assigned, independently

of others wishes and interests that could limit its rational choices. In a

public context this freedom to choice operative means is extremely

worth considering responsibility that politics give to executive levels


6/26

6

with reference to achievement of strategic goals defined at the

political level. In fact turnover and spoil system of public managers

take in consideration this level of responsibility: distinguishing

strategic choices by politics for one hand and operative choices for

another. The former to satisfy needs of society and the second to

reach desired results of politics by independent bodies and

professionals. Human resources even recruited by a private work

contract aimed to a project or for a limited horizon time.

Academic researches aimed to evaluate the level of autonomy in

public administration show up three dimensions of this concept (

Barbieri, 2007). They are:

1. Autonomy in human resources management2. Autonomy in financial resources management3. Autonomy in policy definition and implementation

Considering that usually the policy definition is done at political level

and that implementation is a result of all operations, to evaluate the

level of autonomy of a public manager with the task to reach some

strategic goals seems may be more useful distinguish three kind of

action power with reference to:

a) Autonomy in human resources management and recruitmentb) Autonomy in financial resources planning and controlc) Autonomy in purchasing strategy

These typologies of autonomy represent dimensions which give us

clear indications on what a public manager needs to organize own

activity if he is responsible (with duties in charge) of goals

achievement. If a manager has not the power to choose a competent


7/26

7

staff, approving or sanctioning the way as members do their job, how

may he warrant good end results?

If a financial budget to realize a policy does not cover costs of its

effective implementation how will strategic goals be achieved? And if

a manager has not the power to decide about quantity and quality of

equipments, logistics, real estate uses and internal design, how could

he run fundamental activities for policy?

Altogether a consistent and significant managerial autonomy level is

given by autonomy in human resources management and recruitment,

combined with autonomy in financial resources planning and control

and autonomy in purchasing strategy. The lack or the weakness of

one of these dimensions decreases the comprehensive worth of the

level. Thais means that a major autonomy in human resources

management and recruitment raises in positive the managerial

autonomy level as a larger autonomy in financial resources planning

and control does or a greater autonomy in purchasing strategy.

MANAGERIAL

AUTONOMY LEVEL

Autonomy in humanresources management and

recruitment

Autonomy in financialresources planning and

control

Autonomy in

purchasing strategy

+

+

+

Fig.1 Causal diagram explaining the effects of the managerial autonomy

dimensions on total level


8/26

8

However these dimensions of autonomy must be appreciate by

indicators, able to survey quantitative data, to estimate their

contribution on the growth of the managerial autonomy level.

Therefore, in order to identify right indicators, in first place a

scientific approach needs a organizational analysis of activities

susceptible of autonomy. In practice each single activity, that may be

developed in autonomy, represent a leverage point essential to a

responsible public management.

It is obvious that in a public context the amount of leverage points

available for the public manger is a result of political strategies in the

matter of the workflow in the public administration. In some

countries, like in Italy, they are allowed by Law.

The estimation of the managerial autonomy level

The first dimension of the managerial autonomy level is given from

the autonomy in human resources management and recruitment.

Scientific literature in the management field showed up the peculiar

importance of human resources quality for a good achievement of

results. Even if there is a lack of equipment, quality of a motivated

workgroup can compensate this deprivation. Theories and strategies

of management in this field are various and more or less complexes,

but in an organizational way we can identify four macro area of

intervention:

a) Planningb) Recruitmentc) Control


9/26

9

d) MotivationIn the phase of Planning a responsible manager must define

quantity and quality of human resources indispensables to run up

activities expected by his plan in the time. Therefore leverage points

on this phase are the definition of positions, that means number of

human resources to employ and the definition of professional skills

required, that means abilities of human resources to employ.

In the phase of Recruitment, on the base of professional skills

required, the manager have to choose the member of his staff by a

selection of eligible candidates to positions, considering workload

and the tasks with the objectives to reach in the time.

The phase of Control presume a definition of evaluation criteria, in

order to appreciate the performance of a employee and a monitoring

system for their assessment; while the so called phase of

Motivation take in consideration the possibility to give productivity

bonus or, better, promotion prospects or to fine in the worst of the

case or to suspend from office and to dismiss in extremis.

Other dimension of the managerial autonomy level is given from the

autonomy in financial resources planning and control. Planning,

because it is no possible to develop some activities without a correct

estimation of implementation cost and expenditures in the time.

Indeed a public manager could not be responsible of policy results

when politics make it, defining the financial budget also, without his

expertise involved in the policy design process.

Leverage points in financial resources planning and control are

referred to capacity of budget definition, prices definition (if users


10/26

10

have to pay a quota in order to benefit of public services ), with

vision and power in outsourcing policies, contractors management and

funds for expenditures, shifting financial resources when is required

by unexpected events ; as the reduction of expenditures, if some

opportunities arises (availability of effective equipments, re use of

implemented solutions etc).

By the end, the dimension related to autonomy in purchasing strategy

is referred at the possibility to choose location of offices, to decide

the size and the structure of property, to organize office systems

(heating system, furniture etc) and to buy equipments providing to

offer facilities to employees also (as cafeteria, crche etc).

For each dimension, by the analysis of activities showed below, we

can infer a set of indicators that give us the capacity the measure the

decision power, constituent the level of managerial autonomy. In the

whole we are able to get:

Indicators of autonomy in human resources management and

recruitment

1. Definition of positions2. Definition of professional skills3. Selection of candidates4. Workload definition5. Tasks assignment6. Evaluation criteria definition7. Assessment of employee8. To give productivity bonus9. To let promotion prospects


11/26

11

10. To fine11.To suspend from office12.To dismiss

Indicators ofautonomy in financial resources planning and control

13.Budget definition14.Pricing15.Outsourcing policies16.Control of funds for expenditures17.Control of expenditures

Indicators of autonomy in purchasing strategy

18.To choose location of offices19.To decide size and structure of property20.To organize office systems21.To buy equipments22.To offer facilities

If we give a balanced weight to each dimension and indicators, with a

numerical value between 0 (absence of autonomy) and 100 (full

autonomy) we get a useful tool able to survey the relevance of the

managerial autonomy in a quantitative way. Objectivity and

reproducibility of results are safeguarded.

By this way is possible to analyze public policies introducing

managerial criteria in public administration with reference to

operative independence of management. A system dynamics

approach can be useful to this purpose, considering a stock as level of

managerial autonomy and a flow as variable increasing that flow.


12/26

12

Level of managerialautonomy

Rate increasing theautonomy

Fig.2 Stock and flow diagram explaining dynamic of level of managerial

autonomy

Analysis by system dynamics show up the effect of the flow on the

level of managerial autonomy, but moreover it make clear how this

flow is related to entity of dimensions defined previously.



Autonomy in humanresources

management andrecruitment

Autonomy infinancial resources

planning andcontrol

Autonomy inpurchasing strategy

Fig.3 Stock and flow diagram explaining effect of variables on the rate

increasing the autonomy

Autonomy of the public manager by Law: the Italian case

In 1993, the Italian legislator (inspired from New Public Management

principles) with the Legislative Decree 29/93 aimed to introduced

private management tools into the public sector with a view to

improving its efficiency, effectiveness and financial stability. In

particular, with regard to the relationship between politicians and

public managers, the decree 29/93 aimed to give to public managers

the same powers as private company managers by ensuring to


13/26

13

management a level of autonomy from political bodies. In fact on this

regard the previous regulation (D.p.R 748/72) recognized in

politicians the power to influence managerial action considerably.

The presidential decree n. 748/72 aimed to recognize precise

competences in managers, but it did not face the hierarchical

relationship which linked public executives and politicians. The

political authorities were able to influence management activities

through their power to lay down precise instructions for managers,

their power of revocation and modification of a managers actions and

their power to substitute the manager in the execution of his or her

duties. That situation led to inefficiency in public management and an

improper allocation and use of resources.

Therefore the legislative decree n. 29 /93 stipulated a clear distribution

of skills between politicians (orientation competences) and executives

(management competences) and modified the hierarchical relationship

between them through the elimination of the above-mentioned powers

, which allowed politicians to influence managerial activity. Process

reform had been starting.

The objectives of the reform were finally implemented by the

legislative decree 165/01, which coordinated and regulated all

provisions concerning public employees, and by the legislative decree

150/09. In other words the growth of autonomy lack, decreasing the

managerial autonomy level of public managers, required law

intervention to balance this negative effect.


14/26

14

MANAGERIAL

AUTONOMY LEVEL

Lack of autonomy

Intervention by

Law

-

-

-

B1

Fig.4 Causal loop diagram explaining the hypothesis of balancing effect of the

reform by Law

What are the results of this reform? May policy analysis study

coherence between purpose of legislator and results of his action by

law?

For this purpose, in order to qualify and quantify the impact of this

reform on managerial autonomy level of public managers, we will use

the set of indicators for dimension obtained by the previous

Organizational analysis. Nevertheless, first of all, it is necessary to put

a weight on each on them, in terms of percentage of assumed

autonomy available by activity put into effect, as in the model

showed below.

Autonomy in human resources

management 36%

Autonomy in financial resources

planning and control 34%

Autonomy in purchasing 30%

Full autonomy 100%

Indicators of autonomy in human resources management and recruitment (36% )

1. Definition of positions 3%


15/26

15

2. Definition of professional skills 3%3. Selection of candidates 3%4. Workload definition 3%5. Tasks assignment 3%6. Evaluation criteria definition 3%7. Assessment of employee 3%8. To give productivity bonus 3 %9. To let promotion prospects 3%10. To fine 3%11. To suspend from office 3 %12. To dismiss 3 %

Indicators ofautonomy in financial resources planning and control (34%)

13. Budget definition 6,8%14. Pricing 6,8%15. Outsourcing policies 6,8%16. Control of funds for expenditures 6,8%17. Control of expenditures 6,8%

Indicators of autonomy in purchasing strategy (30%)

18. To choose location of offices 5%19. To decide size and structure of property 5%20. To organize office systems 5%21. To buy equipments 5%22. To offer facilities 5%

Fig.5 Model of indicators to survey level of managerial autonomy in a public

context

By a system dynamics approach policy analysis show up feedbacks of

intervention by Law on dimensions above considered. Dynamics of

the structure underlying legislator policy are studied integrating

organizational analysis and legal analysis, to verify the hypothesis of


16/26

16

balancing effect of the reform, against the lack of autonomy in public

management.

MANAGERIAL

AUTONOMY LEVEL

Lack of autonomy

Intervention by

Law

-

-

-

B0


recruitment

Autonomy in financial

resources planning andcontrol

Autonomy in

purchasing strategy

+

-

+

-

+

-

B1 B2 B3

Fig.6 Causal loop diagram on effects that intervention by Law ought to

produce on problem (Lack of autonomy) or reform results expected

ANALYSIS OF LAW EFFECTS ON THE AUTONOMY IN

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND RECRUITMENT.

Indicator 1: Definition of position and professional skills

In order to the first profile of autonomy above considered, concerning

the autonomy in human resources management and recruitment, this

work analyzes what kind of autonomy the discipline ensures to

managers in the definition of position and professional skills.

On this regard the decree 150/09 introduces new provisions that

increase the level of autonomy of public managers.


17/26

17

These are the art. 6 co. 4-bis. which provides that managers

individuate professional profiles necessary to carry out their

institutional tasks with the aim to prepare the planning of the

personnel requirements ; and the art. 16 co 1 lett. a bis which

stipulates that managers propose resources and professional profiles

necessary to carry out the tasks of the structure.

- But in contrast to policy finality, the legislative decree 165/01introduced a provision which engraved negatively on managers

autonomy. In fact the art. 4 co. 1 lett. c) of the legislative decree

165/01 provided that politicians have the competence in order to the

individuation of human, material and financial resources to assign to

managerial structures .

Indicator 2: Selection of candidates.

About the selection of resources and the conferment of managerial

appointment a positive effect on managers autonomy is produced by

the art. 19 co. 5 of the d.lgs 165/01 which stipulates that the manager

having a general managerial position confers the managerial

appointment to managers assigned to his office.

- However there are also some norms of the same decree which engravenegatively on manager autonomy. These are the art. 19 co. 4 that

allows politicians to confer general managerial positions; the art. 19

co. 6 which allows politicians to confer managerial appointments to

external managers and, lastly, the art. 19 co. 8 which provides the

spoil system for top management positions.


18/26

18

Indicator 3: Workload definition and tasks assignment

- The d.lgs 165/01 engraves positively on this profile because the art.co. 1 lett.b) stipulates that general managers confer to simple manager

the appointments and the responsibility of specific projects, define the

goals that simple managers have to achieve and assign the

consequential resources.

Indicator 6 and 7: Evaluation criteria definition and assessment of

employee

In order to this profile the discipline introduced by the reform increase

the autonomy of public managers. On this regard the art. 16 co. 1 lett.

e) of d.lgs 165/01 statues that general managers run, coordinate and

check the activities of simple managers.

Moreover the d.lgs 150/09 has introduced a new prevision , the art. 17

co. 1 lett. e-bis) which provides that managers carry out the evaluation

of personnel assigned to their offices .

Indicators 8 and 9: To give productivity bonus and to let promotion

prospects

On this regard the decree 150/09 introduce a provision that increase

the managers autonomy, this is the art. 17 co. 1 lett. e-bis) which

provides that managers carry out evaluation of personnel assigned to

own offices in order to correspond benefits and merit award.

- On the other hand, about the profile of career growth of theprofessional executives the d.lgs 165/01 contains provisions that

decrease managers autonomy. In fact the art. 23 states that only


19/26

19

managers who have held a general managerial position or equivalent

duties for at least three years, may be incorporated on the higher

managerial level.

Actually a position conferred by politicians (who have the power to

confer top manager and general manager positions) might have direct

consequences on the managers career progression.

Indicators 10, 11 and 12: to fine, to suspend from office, to dismiss

About this profile the d.lgs 150/09 increase managers autonomy by

introducing two new provisions ( the article 55 bis and the article 55

quater) which allow public manager to inflict to personnel of his

office several sanctions such as fines, disciplinary lay-off and

dismissal.

ANALYSIS OF LAW EFFECT ON THE OF AUTONOMY IN

FINANCIAL RESOURCES PLANNING AND CONTROL

Indicator13: Budget definition

- Under this profile the d.lgs 165 /01 contains provisions that engravenegatively on managers autonomy. In fact the art. 4 co. 1 lett c)

statues that politicians have the competence to individuate financial

resources to destine to managerial structure , while the art. 17 co. 1 lett

e) provides that managers have only the competence to manage the

financial resources assigned to their structures.

Indicator 14: Pricing


20/26

20

- On this regard the d.lgs 165/01 contains a provision that decreases theautonomy of professional executives. Actually the art. 4 co. 1 lett d)

statues that politicians have the competence to define tariffs and fees

which engrave on outside parties.

ANALYSIS OF LAW EFFECTS ON THE AUTONOMY IN

PURCHASING STRATEGY

- About this aspect the d.lgs 165/01 contains provisions that engravenegatively on managers autonomy. In fact the art. 4 co. 1 lett c)

statues that politicians have the competence to individuate

instrumental resources to destine to managerial structure, while the

art. 17 co. 1 lett e) provides that managers have only the competence

to manage the resources assigned to their structures.

CONCLUSION: REVIEW OF FEEDBACK COUNTERACTIG

THE REFORM PURPOSE

Analysis does not verify the hypothesis of balanced effects on

intervention by Law on problem, that means reducing the lack of

managerial autonomy in public sector introducing measures able to

reinforce autonomy in human resources and recruitment, financial

planning and control and purchasing strategy. On the contrary, we

realize as Law introduce some limits to them, reinforcing the problem.


21/26

21

MANAGERIAL

AUTONOMY LEVEL

Lack of autonomy

Intervention by

Law

-

-

-

B0


recruitment

+

-

B1

Limits of Law

Limits in human resourcesmanagement and

recruitment

Limits in financialresources planning and

control

Limits in purchasing

strategy+

+

+

+

+

+

R1R2R3

Fig.7 Causal loop diagram representing real effects of intervention by Law

If some measures let more autonomy to public managers in the field of

human resource management (as capacity of assessment, sanctioning

and motivating) others are designed in order to reserve action power

only at political level. Then, in spite of general purpose the end result

of this reform is quite modest.



Autonomy in human

resources

management and

recruitment

To fine

To suspend

To dismiss

To give productiviybonus

To let promotions

prospect

Evaluation criteriadefinition

Assessment ofemployee


22/26

22

Fig.8 Stock and flow diagram representing tangible effects of intervention by

Law

The quantitative estimation of the managerial autonomy level in the

Italian public administration, since to 1993 (when private management

tools was introduced into the public sector) give us an indication of

growth of 24% until now. The value of this estimation is given by the

total weight of all indicators, resulting positive in relationship with

Law.

1st qt 2nd qt 3rd qt 4th qt0

25

50

75

100

Non-commercial use only!

Fig 9. Growth of the managerial autonomy level by reform law


23/26

23

References

1. Anselmi, L. (1994, August) Interesse pubblico, criteri di economicite privatizzazioni, Azienda Pubblica (2), 381-391.

2. Barbieri, D., Lorganizzazione dello Stato tra autonomia e policycapacity, 250, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino.

3. Berti, L. (1998) Affari di fine secolo: le privatizzazioni in Italia.Citoyens (Roma, EDIESSE).

4. Bianchi, C., ( 2004), Sistemi di programmazione e controllo perlazienda Regione, Milano, Giuffr, 163.

5. Bianchi, M. (1994, August) Difficolt e fallimenti delleprivatizzazioni in Italia: considerazioni e casi di patologia

organizzativa, Azienda Pubblica(2), 345-379.

6. Borgonovi, E., ( 2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per leamministrazioni pubbliche, V ed., Milano, Egea.

7. Borins, S. (1998) Lessons from the New Public Management inCommonwealth nations, International Public Management Journal,

1(1), 37-58.

8. Cassese, S., ( 2003) , Il rapporto tra politica e amministrazione e ladisciplina della dirigenza, Il Lavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni.

9. Clarich, M. (1994, August) I contesti istituzionali delle privatizzazionitra progetto e realt, Azienda Pubblica(2), 189-195.

10.Christensen, T. e P. Laegreid (1998), Administrative Reform Policy:the Case of Norway, International Review of Administrative Science,

64: 457-475.


24/26

24

11.Guyomarch, A. (1999), 'Public Service', 'Public Management' and the'Modernization' of French Public Administration, Public

Administration, 77 (1): 171-193.

12.Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L. & Pettigrew, A. (1996) TheNew Public Management in Action (Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress).

13.Hood, C. (1991, Spring) A public management for all seasons? PublicAdministration (special issue on "The New Public Management,"

edited by R. A. W. Rhodes), 69(1), 3-19.

14.Hood, C. (1995a, Spring) Emerging issues in public administration,Public Administration, 73, 165-183.

15.Marcon, G. (1996, August) Il controllo di gestione nel nuovoordinamento finanziario e contabile degli enti locali, Azienda

Pubblica(2), 273-309.

16.Marcon, G. (1997, 25-26 September) Italy's local government budgetreform: a managerial drive bounded by bureaucratic hysteresis.

ESRC/CIMA Workshop (Edinburgh).

17.Marcon, G. & Panozzo, F. (1998) Reforming the reform: changingroles for accounting and management in the Italian health care sector,

The European Accounting Review, 7(2), 185-208.

18.Marino, C., ( 2009), On the relationship between the political andmanagerial levels in the Italian public administration reform ,

Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 28 E SI/2009

pp. 246-262.

19.Merloni, F., (2006) Dirigenza pubblica e amministrazione imparziale,Bologna: Il Mulino.


25/26

25

20.Merusi, F. (2002), Le leggi del mercato: innovazione comunitaria eautarchia nazionale, Bologna, Il Mulino.

21.Messori, M., Padoan, P. C. & Rossi, N. (1998) Proposte Perl'Economia Italiana (Roma, Editori Laterza).

22.Mussari, R. (1994) Il Management Delle Aziende Pubbliche: ProfiliTeorici (Padova, CEDAM).

23.Naschold, F. (1996) New Frontiers in Public Sector Management:Trends and Issues in State and Local Government in Europe (Berlin,

Walter de Gruyter).

24.Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1993) Reinventing Government: How theEntrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (New York,

PLUME, Penguin Books USA Inc.).

25.Peters, B. G. (1996), The Future of Governing: Four EmergingModels, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas.

26.Peters, B. G. (1997), Policy Transfers between Governments: theCase of Administrative Reforms, West European Politics, 20 (4): 71-

89.

27.Peters, B. G. e J. Pierre (1998), Governance without government?Rethinking public administration, Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 8 (2): 223-244.

28.Pollitt, C., C. Talbot, J. Caulfield & A. Smullen. (2004). Agencies:how governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations.

Basingstoke, Palgrave/Macmillan.

29.Puppe, C. 1995 Freedom of choice ad rational decisions. Socialchoice and welfare Volume 12


26/26

30.Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997), Understanding governance. Policynetworks, governance, reflexivity and accountability, Buckingam,

Open University Press.

31.Sterman , J. 1989 Modeling managerial behavior. Misperception offeedbacks.Management Science 35.

32.Tomkins, A. (2000), Transparency and the Emergence of a EuropeanAdministrative Law, Yearbook of European Law, 19: 217-256.

33.Torres, L. (2004), Trajectories in public administration reforms inEuropean Continental countries, Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 63 (3): 99-112.

How_to_measure_the_autonomy_of_managerial_levels_in_the_public_administrations.pdf

Documents

Transcript of How_to_measure_the_autonomy_of_managerial_levels_in_the_public_administrations.pdf