What does ‘new public management’ mean? New public management theories developed as a new logic for the organisation of public services. Core principles here are effectiveness, efficiency, and a client oriented approach of services. So this relates to a more economic logic. Whereas prior to the emergence of new public management organisations in the public sector, were mostly organised based on more substantive principles. For the judiciary, for example, relating to the independence and impartiality of the institution. So with new public management, classic principles, and those more economic principles had to be combined which sometimes leads to tensions. When and why did new public management show up in the Netherlands? New public management theories developed first in the UK and Australia in the 1960s and 1970s. These theories became popular in the Netherlands from the 1980s onwards, when they were applied in reforms of public services and also the institutions of government starting with ministries and municipalities. But then later on also including the judiciary. And important public services, they also started affecting education and health services for example. What is the influence of ‘NPM’ on the judiciary in the Netherlands? In the Netherlands, new public management theories have informed reforms of the judicial system in the 1980s and 1990s. This is most clearly visible in the establishment of the National Council for the Judiciary, which functions since 2002. This council is composed of two judges and two managers, and it has as its function to take care of the budget for the courts of first instance, and the courts of appeal. Prior to the establishment of the council, each court had to negotiate separately with the Minister of Justice, now the council has taken up this function and annually distributes the budget among the courts. The Council for the judiciary also has another task, which relates more to the substantive quality of judicial performance. This task consist in supporting initiatives aimed at enhancing judicial procedures and to uniform application of the law. How is the budget distributed to the courts? The Council for the Judiciary distributes and monitors the budgets among the courts. In order to do this, the council has developed a model with production norms or targets, that the courts should meet. This means that for each type of case, a specific amount of time is allotted, less time for simple cases and more time for complex cases. Now, there we see that within the courts, this model is perceived by some judges as restricting them in guaranteeing the substantive quality of judgment. Because it means that a judge has to make a decision in a case on whether for example to hear witnesses, but then that will take extra time, whereas at the same time, the efficiency of the procedure should be taken into account. And that makes it difficult for judges to deal with this production norms. Are there also advantages to be mentioned of this way of controlling? The idea behind the reforms of the Dutch judiciary was to ensure that the judiciary meets demands from the society. And from within the society, there's an increased demand for fast procedures, which deliver real solutions for citizens. As well as for transparency of court procedures. There we see that with the reforms based on new public management theories, these principles are mapped to a greater extent. That means that having a greater management layer and some more control of what the courts are doing is basically necessary in order to ensure that there is this transparency and similarity between the way in which cases are dealt with by courts. So that we could see as a positive effect of the reforms and of the new public management theories. What recommendations do you have for policy makers and professionals? For managers and professionals, I consider that the new public management only works if they cooperate and if they've worked together. So what we have seen, for example in the judiciary, is that communication between court managers and individual judges is very important and that the professionals are taken on board in policy making. So my main recommendation would be, to have an intellectual exchange, and to cooperate in further policy making and measures, aimed at adequate functioning of the service that is delivered.