Managerialism

Managerialism is most often presented (here and elsewhere) as a ‘threat to democratic accountability’ (p. 5), the latter being ‘side-lined’ by the former (p. 161). Mattei re-affirms this tenet early in the book and returns regularly to it; she defines, for example, the ‘problem in terms of accountability regimes rather than relationships’ between actors (p. 51). She portrays the shift in managerialism from a rhetorical and symbolic function to one based on long-term institutional change (p. 6).

Mattei could have highlighted areas where managerialism might work in concert with democratic accountability, possibly in terms of user and citizen engagement. However, the book says remarkably little about the role of individuals within wider structures and processes. This is important since one of the merits of autonomy is the way in which relations with users and the public can be improved (as in the case of English Foundation Trust hospitals); instead, she is unable to conclude whether users have ‘sufficient authority’ to hold institutions to account (p. 37), but does note that apathy seems to predominate (p. 146). Similarly, more could have been made of the engagement with professionals, given their contrasting trajectories (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Larkin and Saks1994; Moran, Reference Moran1998).

Managerialism can help explain the shift towards new forms of performance in public services across Europe, defined as a shift from input-based accountability to performance-based measures (p. 149). Yet, this does not present fully the resistance to and conflict over competing measures. She recognises that managerialism forms part of a silent revolution (p. 163), but the struggle to usurp performance management over alternatives is not well covered. For example, Mattei cites German, French and Italian hospitals, which have not challenged old hierarchical accountability regimes in favour of retaining political accountability (p. 147). However, it is interesting to note the inconclusive link between managerialism and (improved) performance (which, she argues, helps to explain mimetic isomorphism (p. 144)).

Autonomy

Recent decentralisation in many European countries has revolved around the notion of autonomy (Saltman et al., Reference Saltman, Bankauskaite and Vrangbaek2007). Such moves stem from the forms of managerialism that have been instituted (a form of entreperenurialism, according to Mattei). Autonomy holds out the prospect of greater (organisational and professional) responsiveness to service users.

However, it must be noted that some forms of decentralisation do entail greater democratic accountability and central–local relations are not wholly weighted towards decentralisation. Yet, it remains to be seen how long this fashion remains in the face of, for example, a poor economic outlook or the political tolerance of poorly performing autonomous organisations. Likewise, commitments to solidarity (e.g. equity) across most European welfare systems might be sorely tested if, as a result of autonomy, significant differences emerge.

Mattei analyses different forms of autonomy, but hints at (rather than develops fully) the tension inherent in explaining such patterns. For example, the tension concerns the formal/technical ability of autonomy (governments granting autonomy to organisations and/or the structural capacity to run autonomous organisations) and the willingness to exercise such autonomy (pp. 158–9). The ambiguity in autonomy is present (p. 156) but the contexts in which they are articulated and expressed are crucial. The dissonance between ability and willingness explains, for example, the retention of prevailing patterns and processes. She could also have emphasised more the linking of autonomy to performance, as a form of conditional decentralisation. Finally, she might have also examined the decentralisation (a) beyond the organisation to the individual, and (b) to the independent (private and non-governmental) sector.

Convergence

The similarities between patterns of change, the author claims, are the focus of the book, rather than differences (p. 2). This early statement of intent is explored further later in the book. She firmly places herself in the camp that adheres to notions of convergence between national welfare systems.

Her particular stance in explaining convergence draws on ‘institutional isomorphism’ (p. 143), much of it coercive or mimetic in nature. She argues that convergence is adopted as a means ‘organisational survival and legitimacy’ (p. 144), notably in terms of sustaining the ‘myths’ of management and entrepreneurialism. She claims that explanations of ‘internally induced administrative modernization’ (p. 3) offer greater analytical potency than exogenous shocks. She cites the changing role of head teachers vis-à-vis other teachers and organisational autonomy as one of several examples of such convergence.

Whilst she presents a sophisticated argument, she does underplay the notions of divergence and path dependency. Aspects of convergence and divergence co-exist, with the factors affecting the former being different to those affecting the latter. Notwithstanding her claim that the focus of convergence thesis is on organisational fields, it is intriguing that apparent convergence (implying less diversity) seems to be gaining hold in an aspect (autonomy) which, by its very nature, offers the prospect of greater diversity in institutional practice.

Given the global economic climate, it seems likely that the NPM tensions between managerialism and accountability identified in this book will be exacerbated over the next few years. Hence, the book's ‘message’ is and will be highly salient to European welfare systems. Its comparative perspective will offer revealing insights into both difference and similarity. Paolo Mattei sought to construct a bridge between social policy and public administration (p. 5); she has done remarkably well to link the different disciplines in analysis of four countries and two sectors.