La Nueva Gestión Pública y su teoría de la organización: ¿son argumentos antiliberales? Justicia y equidad en el debate organizacional público

• Autores: David Arellano Gault , Enrique Cabrero Mendoza
• Localización: Gestión y política pública, ISSN-e 2448-9182, ISSN 1405-1079, Vol. 14, Nº 3, 2005, págs. 599-618
• Idioma: español
• Títulos paralelos:
  • New Public Management and its Theory of Organization: Are They Anti-liberal Arguments? Organizational Justice and Equity
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 9 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    La Nueva Gestión Pública (NGP) ha evadido una importante consideración en la literatura:

    la discusión sobre justicia y equidad. Es fácil encontrar autores que defiendan sus premisas sobre bases administrativas u organizacionales. También es posible encontrar análisis institucionales que buscan sustentar las iniciativas de la NGP en términos históricos e incluso culturales. Por suerte, ahora gozamos de una larga lista de artículos que realizan análisis empíricos de las consecuencias de la NGP en diferentes contextos. Las consecuencias organizacionales, morales, administrativas y éticas de la NGP son enormes y es necesario analizarlas con sumo cuidado.

    Este artículo trata de vincular los argumentos de la NGP con la discusión sobre justicia, equidad y ethos organizacional. A menudo, la NGP se parece a las versiones extremas de las críticas libertarias del liberalismo. A veces, algunos autores de la NGP parecen defender una visión autoritaria de la sociedad y la organización. Incluso podemos decir que su teoría de la organización a menudo es propensa a corroer el sentido del imperio de la ley fundamental en cualquier sociedad contemporánea.

  • English

    The NPM has mostly escaped an important consideration in the literature—the discussion on justice and equity. It is easy to find authors that defend its premises on administrative or organizational basis. It is also possible to find institutional analysis looking to support the NPM initiatives in historical, even cultural terms. Fortunately enough, we enjoy now a large list of articles making empirical analysis of the consequences of NPM in different settings. The organizational, moral, administrative and ethical consequences of NPM are enormous and require to be analyzed more carefully.

    This paper attempts to link the NPM arguments with the discussion of justice, equity and organizational ethos. NPM very often resemble extreme versions of libertarian critiques to liberalism. Sometimes, some NPM authors seem to advocate an authoritarian vision of society and organization. We can even say that its organization theory is very often prone to erode the sense of the rule of law necessary in any contemporary society.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Ackerman, B. (1980), Social Justice in the Liberal State, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  • Aucoin, P. (1999), “Administrative Reform in Public Management. Paradigmes, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums”, Governance, vol. 3, núm....
  • Barry, Brian (1989), Theories of Justice, California, California University Press.
  • Barry, Brian y R. Hardin (1982), Rational Man and Irrational Society?, Londres, Sage.
  • Barzelay, M. (1992), Breaking through Bureaucracy, California, California University Press.
  • Boston, J. et al. (1996), Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Buchanan, A. (1989), “Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism”, Ethics, vol. 99, julio, pp. 852-882.
  • Buchanan, J. y G.Tullock (1962), Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
  • Cohen, G. (2001), Si eres igualitarista ¿cómo es que eres tan rico?, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Dupuy, J. P. (1998), El sacrificio y la envidia, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Dworkin, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Dworkin, R. (1993), Ética privada e igualitarismo político, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Dworkin, R. (1996), La comunidad liberal, Bogotá, Universidad de los Andes.
  • Elster, Jon (1989), The Cement of Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Elster, Jon (1992), Local Justice, Londres, R. Sage.
  • Elster, Jon (1997), Egonomics, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Elster, Jon (1998), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Enteman, W. (1993), Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology, Madison, University of Wisconsin.
  • Gargarella, R. (1990), Las teorías de la justicia después de Rawls, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by Agreement, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1998), Facticidad y validez, Valladolid, Trotta.
  • Habermas, Jurgen y John Rawls (1996), Debate sobre el liberalismo político, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Hancher, L. y M. Moran (eds.) (1989), Capitalism, Culture and Regulation, Oxford, Clarendon.
  • Heclo, H. (1977), A Government of Strangers. Executive Politics in Washington, Washington, Brookings.
  • Hood, C. (1994), Explaining Economic Policy Reversals, Buckingham, Open University Press.
  • Hood, C. y M. Jackson (1991), Administrative Argument, Darmouth, Aldershot.
  • Ingraham, P. y D. Rosenbloom (1992), “The State of Merit in the Federal Government”, en P. Ingraham y D. Kettl, Agenda for Excellence. Public...
  • Kettl, D. (1999), The Global Public Management Revolution, Washington, Brookings.
  • Le Grand, Julian (1991), “The Theory of Government Failure”, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 21, núm. 4, pp. 423-442.
  • MacIntyre, A. (1984), After Virtue, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.
  • MacIntyre, A. (1988), Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Moe, T. (1980), The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups, Chicago, University of Chicago...
  • Niskanen, W. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago, AldineAtherton.
  • Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nueva York, Basic Books.
  • OECD (1992), Regulatory Reform, Privatization and Competition Policy, París, OCDE.
  • Ostrom, V. (1973), The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, Tuscaloosa, Alabama University Press.
  • Pogge, T. (1989), Realizing Rawls, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
  • Pollit, C. (2003), The Essential Public Manager, Berkshire, Open University Press.
  • Pollit, C. et al. (1998), Decentralising Public Service Management, Londres, MacMillan.
  • Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism, Nueva York, Columbia University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2003), Justice as Fairness. A Restatement, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Ryan, B. (2003), “Harder Yards Ahead: The Second Stage of the Public Sector Reform in New Zealand”, International Review of Public Administration,...
  • Sandel, M. (1982), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Nueva York, Anchor Books.
  • Sen, A. (2000), “Merit and Justice”, en K. Arrow (ed.), Meritocracy and Economic Equality, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
  • Schick, A. (1998), “Why Most Developing Countries Should not Try New Zealand’s Reforms”, The World Bank Research Observer, Washington, 13...
  • Tullock, G. (1970), Private Needs and Public Means, Nueva York, Basic Books.
  • Walzer, M. (1993), Las esferas de la justicia, México, FCE.
  • Young, M. (1962), The Rise of Meritocracy, Londres, Viking Press.