Entre finalités de service public et production mesurable : La redéfinition de la « valeur publique » dans le modÈle néo-zélandais d'administration

Abstract

In the 1990s New Zealand was a veritable laboratory of public policy. Examining this period, the author attempts to analyse the two main objectives that were successively set for New Zealand's government and which could be usefully applied in other contexts. On the one hand, they aimed to act according to clearly defined and measurable objectives (output or production) and, on the other, to react in regard to socio-econd̀mic objectives (outcomes or finality). Each type of objective has its pros and cons. The first allows government action to be measured clearly and allows for a regular evaluation by ad hoc organisations and/or the parliament. But, it could result in losing sight of hard to measure public values. Then, while the second takes these considerations into account, it often leaves administrators with nd̀ indication of how to achieve them, running the risk of getting bogged down or a "rhetoricalisation" of public policy. The author concludes that the two types of objectives must be combined. The former must be considered a necessary mode of action, oriented towards the realization of public service values thanks to setting intermediate outcomes. In the 1990s New Zealand was a veritable laboratory of public policy. Examining this period, the author attempts to analyse the two main objectives that were successively set for New Zealand's government and which could be usefully applied in other contexts. On the one hand, they aimed to act according to clearly defined and measurable objectives (output or production) and, on the other, to react in regard to socio-econd̀mic objectives (outcomes or finality). Each type of objective has its pros and cons. The first allows government action to be measured clearly and allows for a regular evaluation by ad hoc organisations and/or the parliament. But, it could result in losing sight of hard to measure public values. Then, while the second takes these considerations into account, it often leaves administrators with nd̀ indication of how to achieve them, running the risk of getting bogged down or a "rhetoricalisation" of public policy. The author concludes that the two types of objectives must be combined. The former must be considered a necessary mode of action, oriented towards the realization of public service values thanks to setting intermediate outcomes.