FROM NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO DIGITAL GOVERNANCE: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM RESEARCH (2005 – 2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEMP.935060Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Digital Transformation, Governance, New Public Management, Public Service ReformAbstract
Public service reform has move beyond a narrow focus on administrative efficiency towards more collaborative, citizen-centred and digitally enabled forms of governance. Yet the literature has not clearly shown how these reform logics have evolved together, particularly whether New Public Management (NPM) has been replaced or continues to shape newer collaborative and digital approaches. This study addresses that gap through a bibliometric analysis of 9,679 English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus from 2005 to 2025. The final dataset was obtained after screening 26,201 records using stated inclusion and exclusion criteria and was analysed with VOSviewer. Publication output increased from 189 articles in 2005 to 671 in 2024, with 2025 representing a partial year. The United Kingdom was the leading contributing country (1,650 publications), followed by the United States (1,480). The International Journal of Public Administration was the most productive journal (334 articles), while Public Administration Review recorded the highest total citations among the listed journals (16,586). Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified NPM as the most frequent and strongly connected theoretical keyword (370 occurrences; total link strength 716). Five thematic clusters were identified: governance and accountability; human capital and capacity building; institutional frameworks; socioeconomic governance; and digital transformation and e-government. The publication pattern also reflects four broad developmental phases, while recent themes show a shift towards artificial intelligence, co-creation and digital transformation. Based on these findings, the study proposes an Evolution of Public Service Reform Framework comprising three overlapping dimensions—Institutional Reform, Human and Governance Capital, and Digital Transformation and Innovation. The framework contributes by showing reform as a cumulative process in which managerial, collaborative and digital logics coexist and interact rather than simply replacing one another.
Downloads
References
Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American review of public administration, 38(2), 130-148. DOI: 10.1177/0275074008314203
Alford, J., & Yates, S. (2016). Co‐Production of public services in Australia: The roles of government organisations and Co‐Producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(2), 159-175. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8500.12157
Andrews, M. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development: Changing rules for realistic solutions. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139060974
Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.001.0001
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203795958
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11(4), 959-975. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Ayeni, V. (Ed.). (2002). Public sector reform in developing countries: A handbook of commonwealth experiences (No. 14). Commonwealth Secretariat.
Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M., & Juznic, P. (2014). Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1491-1504. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review, 11(1), 15-33.
Borins, S. F. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Bovens, M. A. P., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook public accountability. Oxford handbooks. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001
Boyne, G. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of public administration research and theory, 13(3), 367-394. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mug023
Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public management review, 8(4), 493-501. DOI: 10.1080/14719030601022874
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 74(4), 445-456. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12238
Christensen, T., & Fan, Y. (2016). Post-New Public Management: a new administrative paradigm for China?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316633513
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges. Public organization review, 11(4), 407-423. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4
Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21525
Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438-450. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 133, 285-296. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Drechsler, W., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). The New Public Management then and now: Lessons from the transition in Central and Eastern Europe. In M. de Vries & J. Nemec (Eds.), Implementation of New Public Management Tools: Experiences from Transition and Emerging Countries (pp. 33–49). Bruylant.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(3), 467-494. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui057
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2015, September 3–6). Design principles for essentially digital governance. 111th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Elsevier. (2023). Scopus content coverage guide. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 22(2), 338-342. DOI: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2017). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. In Debating public administration (pp. 7-26). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315095097-2
Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance?. Governance, 26(3), 347-368. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12035
Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
Greve, C., Rykkja, L. H., & Lægreid, P. (2016). Nordic administrative reforms. Lessons for Public Management. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-56363-7
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross‐national comparative experiment. Public administration review, 73(4), 575-586. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12047
Grindle, M. (2010). Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing career civil service systems in Latin America. Working Paper Series rwp10-025, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Gupta, A. K., & Lamsal, B. P. (2023). From traditional to innovative public service: a review of paradigm shifts. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления, (6), 137-156. DOI: 10.17323/1999-5431-2023-0-6-137-156
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public money and management, 25(1), 27-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), 3-19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less?: Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central Government. OUP Oxford. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687022.001.0001
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street‐Level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public administration, 85(2), 279-299. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x
Kettl, D. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Jhu Press.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587-606. DOI: 10.1332/030557312X655656
Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Pandey, N., & Christopher Westland, J. (2021). 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1), 1-40. DOI: 10.1007/s10660-020-09441-6
Lægreid, P., & Verhoest, K. (Eds.). (2010). Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Laking, R., & Norman, R. (2007). Imitation and inspiration in public sector reform: lessons from Commonwealth experiences. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(4), 517-530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307083455
Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665-1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141-166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0496.2010.01507.x.
Lodge, M., & Hood, C. (2012). Into an age of multiple austerities? Public management and public service bargains across OECD countries. Governance, 25(1), 79–101.
Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International review of administrative sciences, 75(2), 255-269. DOI: 10.1177/0020852309104175
Meijer, A., Lorenz, L., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: Using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public administration review, 81(5), 837-846. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government information quarterly, 36(4), 101385. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101385.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery, 8(5), 336-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
OECD (2017), Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270879-en
OECD (2020), “Digital Government Index: 2019 results”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 03, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. DOI: 10.1080/14719030600853022
Osborne, S.P. (Ed.). (2010). The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684
Page MJ, et al. (2021). BMJ, 372:71. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know?. International business review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
Pestoff, V. (2013). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. In Co-production (pp. 11-27). Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/14719030601022882
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis — new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ramos‐Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic management journal, 25(10), 981-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397
Torfing, J., Andersen, L. B., Greve, C., & Klausen, K. K. (2020). Public governance paradigms: Competing and co-existing. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford university press. DOI: 10.23860/MGDR-2018-03-03-08
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12000
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), 1333-1357. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21(2), 367-386. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muq043
Wang, B., & Christensen, T. (2017). The open public value account and comprehensive social development: An assessment of China and the United States. Administration & Society, 49(6), 852–881.
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector—applications and challenges. International journal of public administration, 42(7), 596-615. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429-472. DOI: 10.1177/109442811456262
