In my view we are seeing something new emerge in the public domain. It is a form of public management that is a response not just to terrorism and global warming but also to the contradictions that exist within the practice of New Public Management. This new form of Strategic Government has become the paradigm of choice for governments representing the traditions of both left and right but it suits the instincts of the former more than the latter, particularly when linked to a commitment to the principles of sustainability associated with the economic, social and environmental triple bottom line.

But this is to move ahead of myself. Some definition and description is required.

If we turn to political terminology again, subtle but important shifts can be discerned.

Concepts like ‘strategic planning’, ‘joined-up government’, ‘collaboration’, ‘partnerships’, ‘sustainability’, ‘progress indicators’ have been superimposed onto those associated with the New Public Management.

The idea of comprehensive social change is back on the agenda. However, rather than just defining this change in terms of the values and institutions said to be fundamental to human welfare, governments are increasingly describing change with reference to economic, social, environmental and governance indicators, such as levels of employment, standards of health and education, biodiversity, air quality and degrees of citizenship. The argument is simple: if there is such a thing as ‘the good society’ then surely it will display these features.

In some cases – most notably in Tasmania under the leadership of the late Jim Bacon – the community has been consulted about these objectives and what would measure their achievement. This has given renewed currency to the concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘political engagement’.^[6]

What is also encouraging about the development is its problem solving approach to public policy and administration. Achieving targets requires focus, co-operation across government, and collaboration with the community. It is all about results rather than just inputs and outputs and the results being referred to are ‘whole-of-society’ results.

Public management is being localised (‘place management’) and personalised (‘case management’) as it is recognised that both locational and individual factors are at work in issues like poverty and social exclusion. It is not just a case of taking services to people but of involving people themselves in problem-solving and capacity-building. People are seen, then, not just as citizens and subjects, customers and clients, but as ‘co-producers’ in the new rights and responsibilities mix of modern politics.

Nor are these ideas only relevant to areas like welfare and health we also see them at work in transport, crime prevention, water and energy policy. The view that ‘the personal is the political’ is now established wisdom in respect of meaningful social change and the conservation of scarce resources.

All in all what we see is a more comprehensive definition of the objectives of public policy and management, the setting of society-wide targets, the involvement of the people in the setting of these targets and the implementation of policy, and more co-operation and co-ordination across government and with the private sector and community.

None of this represents a radical overturning of the changes of the last decades of the twentieth-century. Rather, it is a response to the contradictions created by that new contract/managerial state and a recognition of its limitations in the face of new issues and challenges.