Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article focuses on how common-sense knowledge is enacted by middle managers in order to make sense of contemporary public administration. Specifically, the article demonstrates how managerialization and market logics is embedded in actors’ perceptions of public administration and becomes manifested through understandings and legitimations. The article presents an analysis of conversational data from middle management positions within a Swedish government agency. The analysis demonstrates how actors categorize a traditional hierarchy together with contemporary ideas of consumerism. It is also demonstrated how actors draw on legitimations of authority and mythopoesis in order to make sense of and to understand their managerial role within the agency. As such, the article contributes to contemporary public administration literature and its discussion regarding the effects of embedding marketization logics on actor and organizational levels as well as to ethnomethodologically informed literature within the social science and humanities.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Almqvist, Roland M.
    2001 “’Management by contract’: a study of programmatic and technological aspects.” Public Administration – an international quarterly79 (3): 689–706. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9299.00275
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00275 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnaboldi, Michela, Irvine Lapsley, and Ileana Steccolini
    2015 “Performance Management in the Public Sector: The Ultimate Challenge.” Financial Accountability & Management31 (1): 1–22. doi:  10.1111/faam.12049
    https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12049 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, Gwen
    2013 “Street-level policy entrepreneurship.” Public Management Review17 (3): 307–327. doi:  10.1080/14719037.2013.806577
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806577 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Carolyn D.
    1984 “The “search for adultness”: Membership work in Adolescent-adult talk.” Human Studies7 (1): 301–323. doi:  10.1007/BF02633660
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02633660 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2000 “Locating culture in action: Membership categorization in texts and talk.” InCulture and text: Discourse and Methodology in Social Research and Cultural Studies, edited byAlison Lee and Cate Poynton, 99–113. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbour, Rosaline S.
    2001 [1999] “Are focus groups an appropriate tool for studying organizational change?” InDeveloping Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, edited byRosaline S. Barbour and Jenny Kitzinger, 114–127. London: Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckman
    1967The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, Peter, and Stanley Pullberg
    1966 “Reification and the Sociologial Critique of Consciousness.” The New Left Review35 (1): 56–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg
    2014 “Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management.” Public Administration Review74 (4): 445–456. doi:  10.1111/puar.12238
    https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke, Kenneth
    1966Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method: Univ of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cardoso, Sónia, Teresa Carvalho, and Rui Santiago
    2011 “From Students to Consumers: reflections on the marketisation of Portuguese higher education.” European Journal of Education46 (2): 271–284. doi:  10.1111/j.1465‑3435.2010.01447.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01447.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen, Tom, Amund Lie, and Per Lægreid
    2008 “Beyond new public management: agencification and regulatory reform in Norway.” Financial Accountability & Management24 (1): 15–30. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0408.2008.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke, John, Sharon Gewirtz, and Eugene McLaughlin
    eds. 2000aNew Managerialism, New Welfare?London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000b “Reinventing the Welfare State.” InNew Managerialism, New Welfare?, edited byJohn Clarke, Sharon Gewirtz and Eugene, 1–26. McLaughlin. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Clarke, John, and Janet Newman
    1997The managerial state: power, politics and ideology in the remaking of social welfare. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Deem, Rosemary
    1998 “’New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom.” International Studies in Sociology of Education8 (1): 47–70. doi:  10.1080/0962021980020014
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014 [Google Scholar]
  17. Deem, Rosemary, and Kevin J. Brehony
    2005 “Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education.” Oxford Review of Education31 (2): 217–235. doi:  10.1080/03054980500117827
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827 [Google Scholar]
  18. Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt
    2015 “The New Public Service Revisited.” Public Administration Review75 (5): 664–672. doi:  10.1111/puar.12347
    https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347 [Google Scholar]
  19. Desmond, Elaine
    2017 “Risk definition and the struggle for legitimation: a case study of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, India.” Journal of Risk Research20 (1): 135–150. doi:  10.1080/13669877.2015.1042504
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1042504 [Google Scholar]
  20. Doolin, Bill
    2001 “Doctors as managers: New Public Management in a New Zealand hospital.” Public Management Review3 (2): 231–254. doi:  10.1080/14616670010029601
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670010029601 [Google Scholar]
  21. Eagleton, Terry
    1991Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eglin, Peter, and Stephen Hester
    2003The Montreal masscre: A story of membership categorization analysis. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fairclough, Norman
    1993 “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities.” Discourse & Society4 (2): 133–168. doi:  10.1177/0957926593004002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1995Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Language in social life series. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak
    1997 “Critical discourse analysis.” InDiscourses as a Social Interaction, edited byTA Van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fountain, Jane E.
    2001 “Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service.” Governance14 (1): 55–73. doi:  10.1111/0952‑1895.00151
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00151 [Google Scholar]
  27. Frederickson, George H.
    1999 “The Repositioning of American Public Administration.” Political Science and Politics32 (4): 701–711. doi:  10.2307/420159
    https://doi.org/10.2307/420159 [Google Scholar]
  28. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Prentice-Hall Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gewirtz, Sharon, and Stephen Ball
    2000 “From ‘Welfarism’ to ‘New Managerialism’: Shifting discourses of school headship in the education marketplace.” Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education21 (3): 253–268. doi:  10.1080/713661162
    https://doi.org/10.1080/713661162 [Google Scholar]
  30. Glenngård, Anna H.
    2016 “Experiences of Introducing a Quasi-Market in Swedish Primary Care: Fulfilment of Overall Objectives and Assessment of Provider Activities.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration20 (1): 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gore, Albert
    1993From red tape to results: Creating a governmet that works better and costs less, report from the National Performance Review. Washington: US Government.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1994Creating a government that works better & costs less. Summit, N.J.: Silicon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
    eds. 1997Culture in Action: Studies in membership categorization analysis, Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Washington: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Holmgren Caicedo, Mikael, Maria Mårtensson, and Kristina Tamm Hallström
    2017 “The development of the management accountant’s role revisited: An example from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.” Financial Accountability & Management. doi:  10.1111/faam.12156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12156 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hood, Christopher
    1991 “A public management for all seasons?” Public Administration6 (3): 3–19. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9299.1991.tb00779.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x [Google Scholar]
  36. 1995 “The ”new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.” Accounting, Organizations and Society20 (2–3): 93–110. doi:  10.1016/0361‑3682(93)E0001‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W [Google Scholar]
  37. 2000The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198297653.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297653.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hood, Christopher, and Ruth Dixon
    2015A government that worked better and cost less? : evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687022.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687022.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hyndman, Noel, and Irvine Lapsley
    2016 “New public management: The story continues.” Financial Accountability & Management32 (4): 385–408. doi:  10.1111/faam.12100
    https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12100 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kaboolian, Linda
    1998 “The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. Administration Debate.” Public Administration Review58 (3): 189–193. 10.2307/976558
    https://doi.org/10.2307/976558 [Google Scholar]
  41. Karlsson, Tom S.
    2014Manager and Civil Servant: Exploring actors’ taken-for-granted assumptions in public administration. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2017aNew Public Management: Ett nyliberalt 90-talsfenomen?Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017b “Shaping NPM: Social Democratic Values at Work.” InModernizing the Public Sector: Scandinavian Perspectives, edited byIrvine Lapsley and Hans Knutsson, 37–52. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2019 “Searching for managerial discretion: How public managers engage managerialism as a rationalization for increased latitude of action.” Public Management Review21 (3): 315–333. doi:  10.1080/14719037.2018.1473475
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473475 [Google Scholar]
  45. Keenoy, Tom, Cliff Oswick, and David Grant
    1997 “Organizational discourses: Text and context.” Organization4 (2): 147–157. doi:  10.1177/135050849742001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/135050849742001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2016 “Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies.” Discourse & Society27 (3): 308–321. doi:  10.1177/0957926516630901
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630901 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lapsley, Irvine, and Peter Skærbæk
    2012 “Why the Public Sector Matters.” Financial Accountability & Management28 (4): 355–358. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0408.2012.00550.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2012.00550.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Le Grand, Julian
    1991 “Quasi-Markets and Social Policy.” The Economic Journal101 (408): 1256–1267. doi:  10.2307/2234441
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2234441 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lynch, Kathleen
    2006 “Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education.” European educational research journal5 (1): 1–17. doi:  10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mackerron, Gordon, and Frans Berkhout
    2009 “Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy.” Journal of Risk Research12 (7–8): 989–1008. doi:  10.1080/13669870903126085
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903126085 [Google Scholar]
  51. Markóva, Ivana, Per Linell, Michèle Grossen, and Anne Salazar Orvig
    2007Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mautner, Gerlinde
    2005 “The entrepreneurial university. A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword.” Critical Discourse Studies2 (2): 95–120. doi:  10.1080/17405900500283540
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900500283540 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2010Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855997
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855997 [Google Scholar]
  54. Megginson, William L., and Jeffry M. Netter
    2001 “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization.” Journal of Economic Literature39 (2): 321–389. doi:  10.1257/jel.39.2.321
    https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.39.2.321 [Google Scholar]
  55. Milward, Brinton H., Keith G. Provan, and Barbara A. Else
    1993 “What does the ”Hollow State” look like?” InPublic Management: The state of the art, edited byBarry Bozeman, 309–322. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Modell, Sven
    2004 “Performance Measurement Myths In The Public Sector: A Research Note.” Financial Accountability & Management20 (1): 39–55. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0408.2004.00185.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00185.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Modell, Sven, and Fredrika Wiesel
    2008 “Marketization and Performance Measurement in Swedish Central Government: A Comparative Institutionalist Study.” Abacus44 (3): 251–251. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑6281.2008.00262.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2008.00262.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Morgan, David L.
    1996 “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology22:129–152. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 [Google Scholar]
  59. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler
    1992Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spririt Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Osborne, Stephen
    2010 “Delivering Public Services: Time for a new Theory?” Public Management Review12 (1): 1–10. doi:  10.1080/14719030903495232
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030903495232 [Google Scholar]
  61. Paroutis, Sotirios, Max Mckeown, and Simon Collinson
    2013 “Building castles from sand: Unlocking CEO mythopoetical behaviour in Hewlett Packard from 1978 to 2005.” Business History55 (7): 1200–1227. doi:  10.1080/00076791.2013.838038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2013.838038 [Google Scholar]
  62. Paulsson, Gert
    2012 “The Role of Management Accountants in New Public Management.” Financial Accountability & Management28 (4): 378–394. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0408.2012.00552.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2012.00552.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Pollitt, Christopher
    1993Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s?2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2016 “Managerialism redux?” Financial Accountability & Management32 (4): 429–447. doi:  10.1111/faam.12094
    https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12094 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pollitt, Christopher, and Sorin Dan
    2011 The impacts of the New Public Management in Europe: A meta-analysis. COCOPS work package 1, Delivarable 1.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Power, Michael
    1997The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rhodes, Rod A. W.
    1994 “The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain.” The Political Quarterly65 (2): 138–151. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑923X.1994.tb00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1994.tb00441.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Sacks, Harvey
    1972a “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing Sociology.” InStudies in Social Interaction, edited byD. N. Sudnow, 31–74. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1972b “On the analyzability of stories by children.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited byJ. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 325–345. New York: Hold, Rineheart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1992Lectures on Conversation. Edited byGail Jefferson. Vol.2, Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 “A tutorial on membership categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics39:462–482. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stokoe, Elizabeth
    2009 “Doing Actions with Identity Categories: Complaints and Denials in Neighbor Disputes.” Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies29 (1): 75–97. doi:  10.1515/TEXT.2009.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.004 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2010 “I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women.” Discourse & Society21 (1): 59–82. doi:  10.1177/0957926509345072
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509345072 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2012 “Moving forward with membership Categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis.” Discourse Studies14 (3): 277–303. doi:  10.1177/1461445612441534
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
  76. Suddaby, Roy, and Royston Greenwood
    2005 “Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.” Administrative science quarterly50 (1): 35–67. doi:  10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  77. Uttley, Matthew
    1993 “Contracting-Out and Market-Testing in the UK Defence Sector: Theory, Evidence and Issues.” Public Money & Management13 (1): 55–60. doi:  10.1080/09540969309387750
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969309387750 [Google Scholar]
  78. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in discourse and communication.” Discourse & Communication1 (1): 91–112. doi:  10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  79. Waring, Justin, and Simon Bishop
    2013 “McDonaldization or Commercial Re-stratification: Corporatization and the multimodal organisation of English doctors.” Social Science & Medicine82 (0): 147–155. doi:  10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.023 [Google Scholar]
  80. Watson, D. R.
    1978 “Categorization, authorization and blame-negotiation in conversation.” Sociology12 (1): 105–113. doi:  10.1177/003803857801200106
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200106 [Google Scholar]
  81. Weber, Max
    1978Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Vol.1: Univ of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilkinson, Sue
    2006 [1997] “Focus Group Reseach (sic!).” InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, edited byDavid Silverman, 177–199. London: Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Wynen, Jan, and Koen Verhoest
    2013 “Do NPM-Type Reforms Lead to a Cultural Revolution Within Public Sector Organizations?” Public Management Review17 (3): 356–379. doi:  10.1080/14719037.2013.841459
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841459 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zucker, Lynne G.
    1977 “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence.” American Sociological Review42 (5): 726–743. doi:  10.2307/2094862
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2094862 [Google Scholar]
  85. 1991 “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence.” InThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited byWalter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 83–107. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Zuckerman, Miron, and Kathleen C. Gerbasi
    1977 “Dimensions of the I-E Scale and Their Relationship To other Personality Measures.” Educational and Psychological Measurement37:159–175. doi:  10.1177/001316447703700116
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700116 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error