CLARIFYING CONVERGENCE. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform

Abstract

Both academics and practitioners have disagreed among themselves about whether and to what extent the developed world is witnessing a convergence in the forms of public management. Some of this disagreement may be attributed to the formidable empirical problems facing those who wish to make global or near-global generalizations. To a considerable extent, however, the divergences of view may be attributed to a more subtle cause – an inadequate conceptualization of the notion of ‘convergence’ itself. This article sets out to remedy that deficiency by discussing ‘convergence’ and proposing a multi-layered definition of the concept. This approach carries with it the implication that different aspects of convergence require substantially different research strategies. It also holds out the probability that convergence and enduring difference can co-exist in one jurisdiction at one time – depending on the level at which the analysis is being conducted. The article concludes with a preliminary examination of the substantive question of actual convergence, comparing the adequacy of different theoretical approaches.