Bibliometric analysis of academic papers citing Dunleavy et al.’s (2006) “New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance”: Identifying research clusters and future research agendas
I trace the bibliometric evolution of “New Public Management Is Dead” by Dunleavy et al. to investigate how the seminal paper influenced the administrative reform debate. They suggested Digital-Era Governance as the main post-NPM idea. My bibliometric analysis discovers public value, administrative...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3955 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/5213/viewcontent/cho_2023_bibliometric_analysis_of_academic_papers_citing_dunleavy_av.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | I trace the bibliometric evolution of “New Public Management Is Dead” by Dunleavy et al. to investigate how the seminal paper influenced the administrative reform debate. They suggested Digital-Era Governance as the main post-NPM idea. My bibliometric analysis discovers public value, administrative reform trajectories, and digital government as influential themes. Unlike Dunleavy et al., the literature found the managerial reform wave is not linear, reform ideas are supplementary, and NPM remains a major toolkit. Future research should focus on reintegration and need-based holism, linking digital government to administrative reform, and the negative impact of digital government on democracy. |
|---|