Exploring Strategy-Making in ‘Non-New Public Management’ Public Services Settings: The Case of European Union Agencies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author(s) the paper deals with a relevant and interesting topic. However, before acceptance, the paper needs some revisions:
- the paper has too many research questions, some of them different from one another, creating confusion to the reader. The author should look for consistency and avoid to present different RQ throughout the paper.
- the paper is motivated by the underutilized strategic management in public administration, but this is not supported, since it is just a statement made by the authors. Besides, the author acknowledge the fact that it is since a long time there is a discussion and debate about strategic management in public administration
- the methodology make reference to some interviews made, more details should be made in terms of number of interview in each agency, and to whom the interviews were made
- the paper presents the case of two agency, however the ETF is a foundation, please clarify
- the paper is claimed to be exploratory, but it claims to attempt to confirm some facts (p7), what are the facts to be confirmed= if the paper is confirmatory the hypothesis should be made explicit beforehand.
- some of the changes described in the paper do not seem a strategic change, but a policy change in the role and function attributed to the agency. Please explain
- The conclusions are not very surprising, that is that no market forces is needed to have a strategic management, and that no NPM reforms are needed. Just to remind, that some of the earliest strategic approached emerged in the context of the armed forces. In addition, the paper concludes that to have a strategic management an agency need be autonomous and some driving force (external/internal) need to intervene. The finding that the agency needs to be autonomous seems contrary to the fact that the two case study represented low-NPM context, where the agency had limited autonomy. There seems to be a contradiction here, please explain. The theoretical implications are quite confusing, since the author make very quick reference to strategic management model without actually engaging with it. You should try to link more the empirics with the strategic model referred to.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
Dear author(s) the paper deals with a relevant and interesting topic. However, before acceptance, the paper needs some revisions:
DEAR REVIEWER: MANY THANKS FOR THE PRECIOUS INDICATIONS TO REVISE AND IMPROVE THE PAPER. BELOW RESPONSES IN DETAIL. REVISIONS IN THE PAPER HAVE BEEN TRACKED FOR EASY OF DETECTION.
- the paper has too many research questions, some of them different from one another, creating confusion to the reader. The author should look for consistency and avoid to present different RQ throughout the paper.
THE INTRODUCTION SECTION HAS BEEN FOCUSED AROUND THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS: - (i) empirically, is strategic behavior evident in non-NPM public services settings, and if so, (ii) how should this strategic behavior be analyzed theoretically? – AND IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THE OTHER ARE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE KEY QUESTIONS
- the paper is motivated by the underutilized strategic management in public administration, but this is not supported, since it is just a statement made by the authors. Besides, the author acknowledge the fact that it is since a long time there is a discussion and debate about strategic management in public administration
INDEED THE POINT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT HAS, ON ONE HAND, SURFACED SINCE A RELATIVE LONG TIME IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, AND YET IT HAS REMAINED UNDER-UTILIZED AS A THEORETICAL SOURCE, AND NOTABLY IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT IN THE LITERATURE MOST APPLICATIONS OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT HAVE OCCURRED IN ‘HIGH-NPM’ SETTINGS, HENCE PAVING THE WAY FOR THE QUESTION ADDRESSED IN THE PAPER ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FINDS APPLICABILITY OUTSIDE THE (RELATIVELY NARROW) SET OF COUNTRIES WHERE NPM REFORMS HAVE LEFT A HEAVY MARK.
- the methodology make reference to some interviews made, more details should be made in terms of number of interview in each agency, and to whom the interviews were made
A TABLE IN APPENDIX REPORTS ON INTERVIEWS – PROFILES OF INTERVIEWEES HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BETTER IN THE METHODOLOGY SECTION
- the paper presents the case of two agency, however the ETF is a foundation, please clarify
INDEED THE OFFICIAL NAME “EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION” IS TOTALLY MISLEADING, AS ETF IS IN ALL RESPECTS AN AGENCY OF THE EU. THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFED IN THE TEXT OF THE PAPER
- the paper is claimed to be exploratory, but it claims to attempt to confirm some facts (p7), what are the facts to be confirmed= if the paper is confirmatory the hypothesis should be made explicit beforehand.
THE PAPER IS INDEED EXPLORATORY AND NOT HYPOTHESES TESTING, AND THIS IS NOW CLARIFIED. REFERENCE AT P.7 CONCERNS TRIANGULATION OF SOURCES AS METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, AND THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN TO CLARIFY.
- some of the changes described in the paper do not seem a strategic change, but a policy change in the role and function attributed to the agency. Please explain
CHANGES IN THE MANDATE AND ATTRIBUTED FUNCTIONS OF ETF ARE THE LEGAL EMBODIMENTS OF STRATEGIC CHANGES HAVING OCCURRED EARLIER AT THE AGENCY: THIS IS CLARIFIED IN THE TEXT
- The conclusions are not very surprising, that is that no market forces is needed to have a strategic management, and that no NPM reforms are needed. Just to remind, that some of the earliest strategic approached emerged in the context of the armed forces. In addition, the paper concludes that to have a strategic management an agency need be autonomous and some driving force (external/internal) need to intervene. The finding that the agency needs to be autonomous seems contrary to the fact that the two case study represented low-NPM context, where the agency had limited autonomy. There seems to be a contradiction here, please explain. The theoretical implications are quite confusing, since the author make very quick reference to strategic management model without actually engaging with it. You should try to link more the empirics with the strategic model referred to.
THE PAPER NOW MORE EXTENSIVELY REPORTS ON THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE THAT UNDERPINS THE CLAIM THAT A RELATIVELY HIHG LEVEL OF AUTHONOMY IS DETECTED ASO IN LOW-NPM CONTEXTS LIKE EU ONES.
REGARDING THE THEORETICAL POINT, THE ARGUMENT THAT STRATEGY IS IN A SENSE “PERENNIAL” TO PUBLIC ORGANISATIONS (AS THE EXAMPLE OF THE ARMY, WHERE THE NOTION OF STRATEGY ORIGINATED, SHOWS), AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS MAY FACILITATE OR INHIBIT THE ADOPTION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT MODELS IS NOW OUTLINED, AS ARE OUTLINED THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WHICH MAY ENABLE TO ADOPTION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT MODELS IN LOW-NPM CONTEXTS.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of: Exploring Strategy Making in ‘Non-New Public Management’ Public Services Settings: The Case of European Union Agencies
This paper explores the concept of strategy making in the settings which are not able to or willing to adopt the New Public Management (NPM) idea and its tools. It concentrates on the European Union Agencies, particularly those who perform low level of NPM practices.
First of all, the paper offers a novel perspective by presenting original and topical arguments alongside the empirical findings in a narrative style. The author(s) also presents these ideas successfully by addressing why NPM reforms and its implementation in some countries or contexts are not as successful as others. As this point is one of the heating and most complex discussions in the public management literature, especially when strategic management practices matter, it is appreciated that the author(s) tries to deal with this wicked problem.
Abstract gives a clear idea on what the paper is all about. I suggest author(s) to be more precise about the presentation of the empirical study results in the abstract just as they did well for the arguments and contribution of the paper. In the section 2, literature review, some prominent scholars and turning points in strategic management literature are argued. However, it is not pointed whether the author(s) would like to focus on generic strategic management research or public sector strategic management one. That’s why, I believe that the author’s discussion on strategic management literature is limited and suggest author(s) to discuss the proliferation of strategic management, specifically in the context of public sector more deeply. Here, it would be useful to apply some sources like; ‘Joyce, P., and Drumaux, A. (2014). Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives. New York: Routledge. –and- Joyce, P. (1999). Strategic management for the public services. USA: Open University Press.
Minor points:
In the line 32, United Kingdom was written two times as United Kingdom and the UK. Please correct it.
I couldn’t be quite sure about what the author(s) meant in the lines of 324, 328, 374 when they wrote ‘the then’. Please check them if there is any typo.
Both in-text referencing style and bibliography of the paper are not proper. According to the requirements of the journal, please reformat them.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
This paper explores the concept of strategy making in the settings which are not able to or willing to adopt the New Public Management (NPM) idea and its tools. It concentrates on the European Union Agencies, particularly those who perform low level of NPM practices.
First of all, the paper offers a novel perspective by presenting original and topical arguments alongside the empirical findings in a narrative style. The author(s) also presents these ideas successfully by addressing why NPM reforms and its implementation in some countries or contexts are not as successful as others. As this point is one of the heating and most complex discussions in the public management literature, especially when strategic management practices matter, it is appreciated that the author(s) tries to deal with this wicked problem.
Abstract gives a clear idea on what the paper is all about. I suggest author(s) to be more precise about the presentation of the empirical study results in the abstract just as they did well for the arguments and contribution of the paper.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS ABOVE. THE ABSTRACT HAS NOW BEEN REVISED ACCORDINGLY TO CLARIFY THE POINT,
In the section 2, literature review, some prominent scholars and turning points in strategic management literature are argued. However, it is not pointed whether the author(s) would like to focus on generic strategic management research or public sector strategic management one. That’s why, I believe that the author’s discussion on strategic management literature is limited and suggest author(s) to discuss the proliferation of strategic management, specifically in the context of public sector more deeply. Here, it would be useful to apply some sources like; ‘Joyce, P., and Drumaux, A. (2014). Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives. New York: Routledge. –and- Joyce, P. (1999). Strategic management for the public services. USA: Open University Press.
THANK YOU. THE POINT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY INCORPORATING THE SUGGESTED REFERENCES AND EXPANDING THE DISCUSSION ON THE PROLIFERATION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT MODELS BY MORE SYSTEMATICALLY CONIDERING THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT LITERATURE WHICH ORIGINATED FIRMLYL WITHIN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
Minor points:
In the line 32, United Kingdom was written two times as United Kingdom and the UK. Please correct it.
AMENDED, THANKS
I couldn’t be quite sure about what the author(s) meant in the lines of 324, 328, 374 when they wrote ‘the then’. Please check them if there is any typo.
CLARIFIED THAT IT REFERS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE TIME, THANKS
Both in-text referencing style and bibliography of the paper are not proper. According to the requirements of the journal, please reformat them.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for this revised version of the paper.
The paper has solved the issues raised. There is still remains the need for a professional proof-editing to improve the level of English.
Best regards
Author Response
Sir,
the paper has been entirely copy-edited for the English language and the revised version submitted.
Best regards
the authors
