Findings Regarding the Application of the British National Public Performance Management Model

As I entered the third millennium, one of the issues that attracted my attention as much as the Ottoman Great State was undoubtedly England and its administrative structure. In this process, when the term National Public Performance Management (UKPY) entered the world literature for the first time, the naming of the new model was made. The following findings have been reached in this book study that I have prepared:

(For more data and books: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Dr-Selahattin-Ate%C5%9F/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ADr.+Selahattin+Ate%C5%9F )

• The first of these findings is that while the Public Performance Management (KPY) is being implemented in the United Kingdom (UK), the model has undergone some changes due to the historical and cultural values ​​of the country.

The New Public Management (NPM) approach, which is generally adopted in Anglo-Saxon countries, has started to use models such as performance management in the public more and more frequently due to internal reasons in developed countries and internal and external reasons in developing countries. This provides us with strong evidence that business management in the public sector has a meaning beyond theory and that business management is applied in practice. The implementation of this approach in the United Kingdom (UK) allows a different model to emerge, influenced by its historical, geographical, cultural, political and bureaucratic structure.

• Secondly, the implementation of the KPY at the national level as a result of a strong central government organization poses a serious autocratic threat to local governments.

The top-down organization of the country and the concentration of power openly threaten not only local governments but also local democracy. Again, the KPY, which is structured from above, openly threatens local governments and local democracy with a continuous and strong central authority. For this reason, local service decentralization organizations that have more or less established relations with the Ministries come to the fore. Although it is obligatory to establish boards of directors in ministries and non-ministerial units as an important element of the corporate governance approach in central government, it cannot be said that they can replace local governments.

• The third finding is that in this country, which is perceptually known for democracy, contrary to this perception, the governance practices of the UK Top-Down Public Performance Management (YAPY) Model are insufficient.

This is also one of the weakest aspects of the model. The need for a structuring based on the information society and demands and "customer satisfaction" makes all segments of the society, as well as individuals, important actors in every field, from the determination of services in public administration to the creation of delivery methods. The shift of focus from inputs to outputs with KPY has led to the neglect of intermediate processes. However, with the prominence of governance and results, processes and participation in processes gained importance again, necessitating high citizen participation in decision processes and KPY formation. This necessity convinced the central authority, which did not want to share power after a while. No matter how successfully NPM devices are implemented, its success is limited when it is not supported by governance. In order for KPY success in UK practice to be at a high pace and sustainable, communicative rationality must rise and participation must be effective at every stage. In this framework, it can be expected that governance, where the importance of the ruler-administered distinction has decreased, will gradually become dominant, even for pragmatist reasons. In this respect, the open government approach introduced in 2010 and the implementation of auditing in a part of the governance by opening it to the public means meeting a part of this expectation. However, it is understood that more time is needed for the implementation of governance from the decision stage.

• The fourth finding is on the implementation of not only the KPY but also the NPM with all its elements in the UK public administration.

Because the UK Public Service Reform Model (UK KHRM), which includes NPM policies, provides a favorable climate for the implementation of the YAKPY model.

• The fifth finding is related to the structures and dominance of the provincial organization of the central authority, similar to service decentralization organizations, instead of local administrations (municipality, special administration, village etc.) in the British public administration.

Since the delegation of authority is made towards the provincial organizations of the general administration and in a way to include the local organization, the structure of the provincial organization is fragmented and numerous.

• The sixth finding is about the change in KPY criteria.

As required by market and business management practices, economy, efficiency and effectiveness are the basic principles. The quality criterion also emerges in this way. However, the real lasting effect comes from the introduction of these new criteria, which are the result of the need for equality and fairness of the public administration and which are called by the same name, into the system.

• The seventh finding is on the importance of customer satisfaction.

Increasingly, the public-private and third sector instead of the monopoly state of the public service began to be given and privatization, market, import and competition elements. 

With the development of technology, the emphasis on inputs and processes in KPY shifts to results. This is a natural result of giving importance to the concept of customer satisfaction.

• The eighth finding is related to the criticism and the fact that KPY, implemented as a pure form of business management, has injured public commitment to some extent.

While practices and criticisms have led to some changes in the purpose and criteria of NPM and KPY, there has been a conceptual change as well: Private sector terminology has undergone a transformation with the concepts of public administration. YKY turns into the New Public Service (YKH), and customer satisfaction first turns into user and then citizen satisfaction.

• The ninth finding is on the extraordinarily strict use of reward and punishment.

While KPY is applied at institutional and individual level, carrots and sticks are used together. In accordance with this individual or institutional level, it may be remuneration and job loss according to individual performance, as well as placing additional appropriations in the corporate budget and closing the institution.

• The tenth, but not the last, issue concerns terminological development: National Performance.

The implementation of the BK YAKPY Model on a national scale opens a new level in the individual-team-institution performance framework: National Performance. The implementation of the BK YAKPY Model on a national scale also provides strong evidence for the understanding that reduces the distinction between public and private management to the problem of scale. The rise of the scale to the national level makes the Weberian organizational structure important again. Although the organization has become relatively flat, the concentration of power at the head of the pyramid remains important. However, the problem ceases to be scale and becomes a problem of political and administrative structuring.

• Finally, the dove wears the queen's crown, while the parliament bears the hawk's talons.

The Queen, who has legislative, executive and judicial duties besides religious authority, is the representative of soft power, and the Prime Minister, the representative of the unitary and strong central authority, which has been entrenched with years of single-party governments, is also the representative of hard authority. This is the balance and braking system in the structure of the island.