Skip to main content
Articles | Emerging Perspective in Social and Politics | Volume 1 - Issue 2 - 2026 | 105−116 | https://doi.org/10.53623/epsp.v1i2.1265
© 2026 by the author(s), and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License

New Public Management, Digital Governance, and Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from Public Sector Reforms in Developing Economies

Author(s): Aisha M. Suleiman 1 , Chukwudi E. Nwosu 2
Author(s) information:
1 Ahmadu Bello University, Sokoto Road, Samaru, Kaduna State, Nigeria
2 University of Nigeria, Nsukka Road, Ihe Nsukka 410001, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria

Corresponding author

Emerging Perspective in Social and Politics

Volume 1 - Issue 2 - 2026

 About the journal
Submit your article

Public-sector reform has accelerated substantially across developing economies over the past two decades, driven by the parallel adoption of New Public Management (NPM) principles and rapid advances in digital governance (DG). Despite extensive theoretical debate, empirical evidence integrating NPM adoption, DG, organizational performance (OP), and public trust and accountability (PTA) within a unified analytical framework remains limited, particularly in developing-country contexts. This study examined the direct and indirect relationships among these constructs using a cross-sectional survey of 360 civil servants from four Nigerian ministries. Structural equation modelling (SEM), complemented by hierarchical multiple regression, was employed to test the proposed relationships. The results showed that NPM adoption (β = 0.389, p < 0.001) and DG (β = 0.342, p < 0.001) significantly and positively predicted OP. In turn, OP significantly predicted PTA (β = 0.274, p < 0.001) and mediated the relationship between public-sector reform mechanisms and PTA. DG also exerted a stronger direct effect on PTA than NPM adoption, indicating that digital transformation may strengthen transparency and accountability beyond the effects of managerial reform alone. These findings extend the public administration literature by demonstrating how managerial and digital reforms jointly contribute to organizational performance and governance outcomes. The study highlights the importance of integrating NPM-oriented institutional reforms with digital governance initiatives to strengthen public-sector performance, accountability, and public trust in digitally transitioning developing economies.

Read Full-Text
Previous article
Next article

Hood, C.; Dixon, R. (2015). What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: Higher costs, more complaints. Governance, 28, 265‒267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12150.

Osborne, S.P. (2010). Delivering public services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12, 1‒10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030903495232.

Lapuente, V.; Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33, 461‒475. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12406.

Aucoin, P. (2012). New political governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance, 25, 177‒199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01569.x.

Pollitt, C.; Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis – into the age of austerity. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19, 516‒518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1159599.

Andrews, M.; Wescott, C. (2016). Mechanisms of public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 36, 14‒24. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1751.

Christensen, T.; Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration – theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11, 407‒423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4.

Hammerschmid, G.; Van de Walle, S.; Andrews, R.; Mostafa, A.M.S. (2019). New public management reforms in Europe and their effects: Findings from a 20-country top executive survey. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85, 399‒418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317751632.

Mazzucato, M.; Kattel, R. (2020). COVID-19 and public-sector capacity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36, S256‒S269. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa031.

Dunleavy, P.; Margetts, H.; Bastow, S.; Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467‒494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.

Mergel, I.; Edelmann, N.; Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.

Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, T.A.; Luna-Reyes, L.F. (2018). Beyond technocracy: How smart government can deliver on the promise of digital transformation. Information Polity, 23, 1‒10. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170417.

Janssen, M.; Rana, N.P.; Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K. (2018). Trustworthiness of digital government services: Deriving a comprehensive theory through interpretive structural modelling. Public Management Review, 20, 647‒671. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1305689.

Meijer, A.J.; Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 392‒408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308.

Cordella, A.; Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 279‒286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005.

Walker, R.M.; Brewer, G.A.; Boyne, G.A.; Avellaneda, C.N. (2011). Market orientation and public service performance: New public management gone too far? Public Administration Review, 71, 707‒717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02410.x.

Boyne, G.A. (2002). Public and private management: What's the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97‒122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00284.

Van Ryzin, G.G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 745‒760. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq092.

Bouckaert, G.; Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of 'good governance'. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 329‒343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003.

Torfing, J.; Peters, B.G.; Pierre, J.; Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1, 1‒16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mvw052.

Ansell, C.; Torfing, J. (2016). Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review, 18, 76‒94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.963458.

Bryson, J.M.; Crosby, B.C.; Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74, 445‒456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238.

Andrews, R.; Beynon, M.J.; McDermott, A.M. (2016). Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 239‒258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu054.

Klijn, E.H.; Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: Past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40, 587‒606. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655431.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Citizens' perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 285‒305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj018.

Jilke, S.; Van de Walle, S.; Kim, S. (2016). Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 76, 702‒710. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12610.

Busuioc, E.M.; Lodge, M. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29, 247‒263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12165.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S.; Meijer, A.J. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 137‒157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048.

Bannister, F.; Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet, 3, 1‒30. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1076.

Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879‒903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Read Full-Text
About this article

SUBMITTED: 17 June 2026
ACCEPTED: 09 October 2026
PUBLISHED: 21 October 2026
SUBMITTED to ACCEPTED: 114 days
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53623/epsp.v1i2.1265

Cite this article
Suleiman, A. M. ., & Nwosu, C. E. . (2026). New Public Management, Digital Governance, and Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from Public Sector Reforms in Developing Economies. Emerging Perspective in Social and Politics, 1(2), 105−116. https://doi.org/10.53623/epsp.v1i2.1265
Citations
0
Share this article