The public sector has been transformed in many countries by opening up for non-public providers of public goods and by expecting private companies to work with the public sector with investments in infrastructure etc. The effects are contested in national debates over the public sector, where some see failure and others see success, depending on the choice of perspective and criteria etc.
The new situation has created a leadership dilemma. Politicians are expected to take a step back and let others play their roles. Otherwise politics may hinder the renewal of the public sector, which is one of the goals of the new policies. On the other hand, scandals and public outcry imply a continuing need for politics to play a role, not only in defining the rules of the game but also intervening when necessary.
The dilemma is worsened by the absence of an answer in the doctrines of new public management or economic neoliberalism. Many of the new policies are driven by macroeconomic policies which force politicians to limit government spending. They do not exclude a leadership role, but politicians in a country like Sweden seem generally reluctant or unable to find a new role when the context has changed.
This paper aims to investigate what politicians may and can do under the doctrines of new public management, especially when public services are provided by non-public actors, ranging from for-profit firms to local organizations of staff and/or users of the services.
The method of the paper is to investigate the thinking behind the new policies and to use normative and empirical theory to highlight assumptions and alternatives. The expected outcome is a map of options for political leadership in the new context.
There are at least four normative positions in this debate. The old consensus was that politics should control service production (the public sector) to achieve various political goals and that it could do so with the instruments that were available. Neoliberals argued the opposite, that governments should not control service production and that it couldn’t do so, due to government overload and capture by producer interests etc. More interestingly, there seems to be people who think that the government should be in control but can’t (the new left?), while others think it can but shouldn’t (the new right?). Elaborating the thinking behind these positions can be a fruitful way to understand some of the dilemmas faced by politicians.
Looking at how countries like Sweden ended up in contested policies can add an empirical understanding to how political options were formed and what alternatives are possible. There are at least three possible explanations. One is that dogmatic politicians stick to the original policy prescriptions of neoliberalism and don’t want to experiment with new conceptions of leadership. Another is that politics is controlled by decision-making processes in the central government, where budgetary concerns for short-term savings drive out other policy options. Thirdly, where these policies are driven by the European Union, such as the services directive, it may be rational for politicians to let civil servants take responsibility in order to avoid blame. Each of these mechanisms can lead to a leaderless situation.
Closer scrutiny of normative and empirical issues will give some evidence for a discussion of political leadership. Such leadership could remain isolated from private actors, but tougher, working with demands to be set in guidelines for procurement. It could also be collaborating with private actors, formulating visions for a common future. Thirdly, leadership could be to step back and let spontaneous order rule areas where private actors are taking over, finding rationality in little decisions. These options are likely to be ranked differently by the politicians and the public.
