Management Models for Public Administration in the Swiss Cantons: An Overview of the Current Status

1. Introduction

In the 1990s, the concept of New Public Management (NPM) began to gain ground in the public sector. The objective was to modernise the public sector and guarantee the effective use of available resources. In particular, the German-speaking region of Switzerland identified the necessity and importance of public-sector reforms. In April 1996, the Federal Council gave the green light to the implementation of the FLAG management model. The reform comprised two principal management instruments: performance mandates and lump-sum budgets. Subsequently, the aforementioned instruments were introduced in federal administrative units. In 1997, the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSchweiz) and the Federal Office of Topography (swisstopo) initiated an experimental phase with FLAG. The trial proved successful, and FLAG was ultimately introduced and incorporated as an official management programme within the federal administration in 2002 (Weil, 2017).

Since the mid-1990s, a significant number of cantons have adopted concepts and ideas from the New Public Management (NPM) movement. This has resulted in the implementation of results-oriented public management at a cantonal level. The available evidence suggests that the reform intensity was greater at cantonal level than at commune or federal level. In Switzerland, the cantons enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy, including with regard to the organisation of their administration (Bundesrat, 2013). It is thus to be expected that the ideas of the New Public Management reforms will have been implemented in different ways, resulting in some heterogeneity (Lienhard et al., 2015). New Public Management has been the subject of in-depth academic research, which has covered its economic, political science and legal aspects (e.g. Schedler & Proeller, 2011; Ritz & Thom, 2019; Chappelet 2019; Haldemann, 2016; Mastronardi & Schedler 2004; Lienhard, 2005; Kettiger, 2000). The implementation of New Public Management models has been evaluated in detail at a federal level and in the cantons (e.g. Ritz, 2003; Ritz, Sinelli & Neumann, 2016).

In January 2017, the Swiss Federal Administration introduced a new management model, known as the “New Management Model” (Neues Führungsmodell für die Bundesverwaltung, NFB). The objective of the model was to enhance administrative management at all levels and to increase the transparency and control of services. The model incorporates a number of instruments designed to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and budgetary control. The administration is organised in a manner that is oriented towards the achievement of results and the attainment of defined targets. Moreover, the budget has been augmented with a long-term performance budget, which is structured into administrative units and service groups. In order to afford the administrative units a greater degree of autonomy, with regard to the use of funds, lump-sum budgets represent a crucial component of the NFB. Furthermore, annual performance agreements were concluded between departments and offices as part of a target- and result-oriented approach to administrative management. In essence, the NFB represents a further evolution of the existing FLAG model (EFV, 2022) by combining impact orientation and the rule of law (Lienhard, 2015).

At both national and cantonal levels, the reforms of administration have been influenced by certain approaches and ideas of New Public Management. Furthermore, the existing FLAG model has been modified and replaced by the NFB at federal level. The question thus arises as to which public management model is applied in the cantons.

The aim of this study is to analyse the current state of implementation of New Public Management (NPM) in the Swiss cantons, explicitly considering its development within the broader context of federal-level reforms and international trends. In addition, the study examines how NPM has been applied at federal level and compares it with international approaches.

The following chapters will first outline the theoretical foundations and beginnings as well as the international spread of the concept. Furthermore, the article briefly discusses the criticism of the approach and the resulting post-NPM approach, before going on to explain the influence of the NPM concept in the Swiss context. The aim is to show how the Swiss model is embedded in the NPM landscape, and that Switzerland has its own model. Following that, the methodological approach will be explained. In Section 5, the authors provide a detailed analysis of NPM instrument usage in the cantons of Switzerland, with a particular focus on the specific instruments employed, complemented by a summary of the canton’s experiences with NPM tools. Finally, a brief discussion will conclude the article.

2. Theoretical Background and Global Developments in New Public Management: Origins, Criticism, and the Transition to Post-NPM

The organisation of public administrations has undergone significant transformations throughout the course of history. On occasion, there were expressions of discontent with the way public management was being conducted or shifts in the public perception of the role of the state and public services. The private sector was frequently held up as a benchmark, with various actors seeking to integrate practices and instruments from the private sector into the public sphere. Prior to their global diffusion, the new public management reforms had initially emerged in the United Kingdom and New Zealand (Schedler & Proeller, 2005).

Funck et al. (2020) discuss the progress of research in the field of NPM in their article. They analysed 299 articles between 1991 and 2016 and found that the issue of efficiency plays a central role. However, it is not always clear what is meant by efficiency, which can be considered from the point of view of both economisation and market orientation. Another conclusion is that NPM is a one-sided concept in which mainly management-related reforms are important. The focus is on performance-related reforms (Funck et al., 2020).

Despite the label, many reforms associated with New Public Management are not truly new. For instance, the concept of improving public services through the strategic application of private-sector management practices dates back to the US city-manager movement of the late nineteenth century. New Public Management can be referred to as both a social movement and a subject of academic study (Hood, 2016).

Kuhlmann (2015) asserts that the modernisation movement within the framework of Public Management (NPM) represents the most influential reform doctrine in European administration. Notable external NPM developments include the privatisation, marketisation and commercialisation of public services. From an internal perspective, NPM emphasises the implementation of business management techniques, the dissolution of bureaucratic structures and the separation of political and administrative functions. This encompasses the implementation of results-oriented management practices, performance measurement systems, the flexibility of service relationships and the decentralization of administrative units. The British agencification approach, which sought to implement NPM ideas in their purest form, is in competition with the Scandinavian approach to agency management, which strengthens existing structures and supplements them with results and contract management. In continental Europe, the introduction of agencies is constrained in countries with a Napoleonic-unitary tradition and in those with a strong federal structure. There is also considerable variation in the use of performance management, with some countries requiring its implementation and others employing only for voluntary self-assessment (Kuhlmann, 2015).

New Zealand was one of the first countries to implement reforms in the field of global public management. The reforms in New Zealand were driven by economic pressures after the UK joined the European Union, which weakened trade ties. The government’s initial response of subsidies and protectionist policies led to a financial crisis. In 1984, a new Labour government was elected and began to implement public management reforms with the objective of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the government (Schedler, 2000). In the New Zealand model, there was a distinct delineation between the roles of political leadership and administrative responsibility. Government ministers were responsible for performance monitoring, while managers were tasked with ensuring that the performance targets were met. The monitoring of performance was linked to the budgetary process. In addition, a customer-oriented approach and a revised personnel management system were introduced. In order to guarantee the effective monitoring of performance, a system of performance measurement was also introduced (Haldemann, 1995).

In the 1990s, the new approach to public management also emerged in the UK in response to critiques of bureaucratic inefficiency. NPM emphasised innovative and entrepreneurial management, performance standards, output control, decentralization, competition in service delivery, and the use of private sector management methods. It also encouraged disciplined resource allocation and the separation of political decision-making from public service management. Under the 1997 New Labour government, the focus shifted from marketization to community governance, with an emphasis on managing complex networks of public service provision, reshaping the NPM discourse to prioritize governance (Osborne & McLaughlin, 2005).

The assessment of the effect of new managerial practices has been inconsistent, yet several scholars have identified some managerial paradoxes. One such paradox is that modern public management may lead to more, rather than less, rules-based and process-driven bureaucracy. This is due to the rise in oversight and regulation, along with a persistent focus on compliance-based evaluations rather than results-oriented assessment (Hood, 2016). In addition, numerous areas of tension between management and the rule of law were recognised (Lienhard, 2005).

In an article, Hammerschmid et al. (2019) assessed the impact of New Public Management-style reforms in European countries. The data used in the article came from a survey of senior public sector officials in 20 European countries. The focus was on five key NPM reforms, including downsizing, agencification, contracting out, customer orientation and flexible employment practices. Four dimensions of public sector performance were also included in the analysis: cost-effectiveness, service quality, policy coherence and coordination, and equal access to services. It was concluded that treating service users as customers and flexible employment practices are positively associated with improvements in all four dimensions of performance. Contracting out and downsizing are both positively associated with improved efficiency. On the other hand, downsizing was associated with poorer service quality. It can be concluded that policymakers attempting to modernise the public sector should prioritise management reforms within public organisations over structural change (Hammerschmid et al., 2019).

Bach et al. (2017) examined perceived accountability patterns among national agency chief executives in four countries with a Rechtstaat tradition. Their study aimed to test theoretical expectations regarding potential conflicts between managerial reforms and traditional administrative values using survey data from Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria. The findings revealed that all four countries integrate both old and new forms of accountability. Legal and financial accountability have not been replaced by results-based accountability. Switzerland and the Netherlands rank highest in results accountability but still maintain legal and financial accountability, which remain dominant in Germany and Austria. The study concluded that country-specific characteristics play a more significant role in shaping the core values of public administration than the broader Rechtsstaat model (Bach et al., 2017).

Smith’s study showed that even in similar circumstances, different contexts can lead to varied applications of NPM instruments. Finland and Sweden adopted NPM tools in the late 1980s to modernise their public administrations with a service-oriented approach. Initially, these changes had little impact on service provision. Both countries faced challenges in primary care due to their decentralized health systems. NPM-inspired policies focused on cost control and efficiency, but maintaining the existing system remained central. Despite similar political setups and challenges, their health reform diverged: Sweden’s conflictual politics led to standstill, while Finland’s consensual approach enabled radical changes. This divergence was attributed to three factors: the location and intensity of conflict, party systems and openness to external ideas (Smith et al., 2019).

The NPM debate in the late 1990s also raised doubts about its universal applicability, particularly in the context of developing nations. Drechsler (2005) contends that NPM was externally imposed in Central and Eastern Europe and is ill-suited for transnational and developing countries. These nations face distinct public administration challenges that differ from those in the West, where NPM was originally designed. Given the unique demands arising from their transition and historical legacies, it can be argued that a traditional Weberian model of public administration would better address the needs of Central and Eastern Europe nations than NPM approaches (Drechsler, 2005).

The New Public Management model has been the dominant reform paradigm in the public sector for over three decades, yet it is now facing growing criticism. The emphasis on output and efficiency has frequently resulted in the marginalisation of other public values, such as justice and democracy. Furthermore, the anticipated enhancements in efficiency and customer satisfaction remained unfulfilled. This criticism gave rise to post-NPM, which is seen by some as an improvement on NPM and by others as a counter-model to it. The post-NPM approach emphasises the recentralisation of power, increased state control and the politicisation of the public sector. Nevertheless, elements of NPM, such as performance measurement and efficiency targets remain relevant (Reiter & Klenk, 2019).

Poland can serve as a specific example of post-NPM reform, where the shift from market-driven strategies to recentralization reflects not only the need for better system coordination but also the growing role of political consolidation in shaping public administration. A paper by Mikuła and Kaczmarek (2019) discusses the evolution of Poland’s healthcare reforms, which initially followed NPM principles, such as commercialisation and privatisation. However, due to slow progress and political resistance, recent reforms have shifted towards recentralization, aiming to strengthen state control and improve system coordination. This post-NPM phase reflects a broader trend of moving away from purely market-driven approaches, focusing instead on more centralized and politically consolidated systems (Mikuła & Kaczmarek, 2019).

Laffin (2019) argues in his paper that many of the alleged post-NPM reforms are not necessarily the result of a clear management or administrative approach, but rather politically motivated adaptions to the realities and challenges on the ground. For example, he showed that the reforms in social housing in England and France cannot simply be explained as a return to traditional or post-NPM approaches. In both countries, the reforms are influenced by political, social and economic constraints, not just theoretical management models. This shows the importance of political realities and local contexts that go beyond theoretical debates (Laffin, 2019).

Funck et al. (2024) argue that the main legitimisation of the post-NPM movement is the strong criticism of NPM models and the pursuit of a new approach to replace NPM models. In some cases, existing NPM approaches are demonised. Social wishful thinking plays also an important role. Furthermore, the authors criticise the tendency of post-NPM approaches to reorient attention towards public values, thereby seeking to provide a rationale for the very existence of public organisations. The authors propose that a more effective approach would be to create a comprehensive governance model for the future, one which incorporates NPM approaches (Funck et al., 2024).

In recent decades, New Public Management has characterised public sector reforms worldwide by transferring private management practices to the public sector. These approaches emphasised efficiency, decentralisation and performance orientation, but were increasingly criticised for neglecting values such as justice and democracy. Post-NPM approaches emerged as a reaction to this, emphasising increased state control and centralisation while retaining some NPM elements such as performance evaluation. Developments in countries such as Poland, England and France show that many reforms are not just theoretical adjustments but are influenced by political and economic realities. NPM can be seen as an example of the persistence of management and governance ideas. On the one hand, we can observe the persistence of NPM in practice and, on the other, a rethinking of the paradigm itself (Dan et al., 2024). In addition to NPM, there are other alternative models tailored to countries with a strong constitutional tradition. One example is the concept of neo-Weberian state, which retains the state as the central authority but reinterprets and modernises traditional bureaucratic principles. Bureaucracies are made more efficient, professional and citizen oriented. The NWS is seen as more resilient in crisis situations (Bouckaert, 2023). This example is intended to show that there are other trends, but in this paper, we will focus on NPM. In the following sections, the development of NPM in Switzerland will be outlined, focusing on the cantons.

3. The Transformation of Public Management in Switzerland: From NPM to Results-Oriented Public Management in the cantons

In Switzerland, New Public Management (NPM) was primarily introduced in response to three issues: a lack of transparency regarding outputs and impacts due to input control, inflexibility in the administration stemming from the absence of market competition, and political over-control of operational decisions that had led to excessive bureaucracy. The NPM reform started at cantonal level and gradually spread, with the federal government having limited influence over cantonal reforms. The focus was on reorganizing public administration and strengthening strategic and operational roles through the introduction of lump-sum budgets and performance contracts. Compared to other countries, marketization was not a significant element of Swiss NPM reform, and an interplay between political and administrative spheres facilitated discussions that contributed to the model’s development. The Dutch city of Tilburg and the New Zealand approach were models which attracted the interest of Swiss cities. As a result, the Tilburg model and the New Zealand approach were combined in 1994. The resulting reforms in the cantons were called wirkungsorientierte Verwaltungsführung (results-oriented public management) by Ernst Buschor, former professor of public management at the University of St. Gallen (Schedler & Proeller, 2005). The subsequent principles from New Zealand were adopted in Switzerland: firstly, cooperation between state and private sector, known as public-private partnerships served as an example. Additionally, customer and citizens surveys were introduced. Another important development in New Zealand was strategic management, which led to further adjustments in Switzerland. The Tilburg model served as a source of inspiration in Switzerland for its proposal of a performance agreement between politicians and administrators. In this approach, the administration is responsible for achieving the objectives set by the politics (Schedler, 2000).

The concepts of New Public Management (NPM) and Results-Oriented Public Management in the cantons are not identical, yet they share similar assumptions aimed at improving administrative management. Both concepts use tools like performance mandates, lump-sum budgets, and controlling mechanisms to foster a more goal-oriented administration. Results oriented public management reforms typically promote a separation of strategic and operational management, enhancing client and citizen orientation. According to Haering (2002), these reforms often result in a cultural shift within public administration. Schedler (2000) defined results-oriented public management (Wirkungsorientierte Verwaltungsführung) as a management model for politicians and administrators that focuses on government action. He also stated that WoV is not a strict concept but a management idea that adapts to specific contexts and environments (Schedler, 2000).

In Switzerland, there have also been reforms at federal level, notably the introduction of the New Management Model (Neues Führungsmodell für die Bundesverwaltung, NFB) in 2017, which replaced the dual management model in the federal administration. The NFB consists of several key instruments, starting with the legislative financial plan, which emphasizes medium- to long-term developments. Additionally, the budget includes a long-term performance budget, enhancing medium-terming planning for individual administrative units and their service groups. Performance agreements are negotiated annually between departments heads and unit directors, defining specific project and goals linked to the long-term performance budget. The model also incorporates lump-sum budgets, which incentivise economic behaviour by allowing the creation of reserves and enabling units to exceed credit limits when performance-related surpluses occur. Finally, cost and performance accounting remain essential, ensuring cost transparency and providing information necessary for optimizing economic efficiency. Overall, these adjustments aim to increase flexibility and autonomy within the administration (Bundesrat, 2013).

In January 2021, the Federal Finance Administration evaluated the New Public Management Model and found that its instruments were more relevant to administrative units than to the Federal Council and Federal Assembly. The long-term performance budget improved transparency but was applied inconsistently across units. Only one-third of the employees surveyed found performance agreements useful, often citing overlap with the long-term performance budget and a lack of critical objectives. However, the lump-sum budget was viewed positively, and the report noted enhanced dialogue between the administration and the Federal Assembly (Econcept, 2021). The Federal Council has also stated that the NFB has met expectations. There is no desire to return to a traditional input-oriented management model (Bundesrat, 2021).

Bolz and Blaser (2014) analysed the financial budget law developments in the cantons. They concluded that 13 cantons use traditional financial planning while the other 13 use a long-term performance budget. The analysis also shows that there are eight cantons which use lump-sum budgets across all administration units, while seven do not so. Eleven cantons use this tool to a limited extent. Certain cantons have unique characteristics when it comes to the lump-sum budgets. For instance, Basel-Stadt manages its administration internally using lump-sum budgets, but at the same time the cantonal assembly still deliberates and authorises a traditionally constructed input-budget. Other cantons only use the instrument for suitable organisational units or use mechanisms that achieve similar effects to lump-sum budgets (Bolz & Blaser, 2014).

Fuchs et al. (2020) show that the cantons use control instruments to varying degrees. They also conclude that there is limited harmonisation. One reason for this could be the cultural, political or institutional character of the control system. Fuchs raises the question of whether, in the context of increasingly complex technological, societal and financial developments, control systems which can have a cross-organisational impact might be more appropriate. This contrasts with instruments such as lump-sum budgets or long-term performance budgets, which traditionally define resources, actions and objectives at the level of organisational units (Fuchs et al., 2020).

Ritz et al. (2016) concluded that the NPM reforms (WoV in the cantons) have had a long-lasting impact on the Swiss administrative landscape. It was concluded that overall traditional financial management in the cantons has been replaced by performance elements such as lump-sum budgeting and performance information in the budgeting process. Furthermore, discovered an evolution of planning instruments was discovered (Ritz et al., 2016).

A statement from the Federal Council on the NFB highlights the diversity of management models in Swiss cantons (Bundesrat, 2013). Four categories can be identified: some cantons, such as Aargau and Bern, have fully implemented long-term performance budget und use lump-sum budgets, while others, such as Glarus and Vaud, still rely on traditional financial planning methods without lump-sum budgets. Many cantons fall in between, employing modernized budgeting techniques. Some have globalized their annual budgets by functional areas, while others maintain detailed budget specifications enhanced with task and programme information. To summarise, the report notes that 16 cantons have reformed their budget instruments to improve governance efficiency and effectiveness (Bundesrat, 2013).

In summary, the development of public management in Switzerland illustrates that NPM was introduced in response to challenges such as a lack of transparency, administrative inflexibility, and excessive political control. The reforms began at cantonal level and led to the implementation of instruments such as performance mandates, lump-sum budgets and long-term performance budgets to promote results-oriented administration. According to the findings so far, 16 cantons have already modernized their financial instruments to increase governance effectiveness, transitioning from traditional methods to performance-oriented practices. The objective of this paper is to determine the status of result-oriented public management in the cantons, mainly based on the three aforementioned instruments: long-term performance budget, lump-sum budgeting and performance management. Finally, these three key instruments of result-oriented public management are described in brief, as outlined by Schedler (2000).

Lump-sum budgets allow for flexibility by enabling budget credits to be shifted between specific areas of responsibility. Unlike traditional input-based budgeting, it is less detailed and links financial and performance aspects, granting administrative units greater autonomy and responsibility.

Performance mandates define the services to be provided and establish agreements between various actors (e.g. parliament, departments and administrative units). These mandates specify tasks, competences, and responsibilities, accompanied by performance targets and indicators which measure progress against these targets.

Long-term performance budgets provide a medium-term perspective, allowing parliaments to assess planning over several years (typically four), and supplement annual budget procedures with performance measures and tasks, thus emphasising long-term strategic priorities.

It will be of interest to observe whether the NPM elements will gain greater prevalence, or whether they will be replaced or superseded in the context of post-NPM.

4. Methodological approach

In this study, the cantons were distinguished based on the presence or absence of the three key elements: long-term performance budgeting, lump-sum budgets and performance mandates. The cantons are further distinguished according to whether the aforementioned instruments are uniformly applied across all administrative units or only in certain units. The investigation was conducted in all 26 cantons. The data were collected through a review of the relevant literature, documents and a survey. To ascertain the pertinent regulations, particular attention was paid to the financial budgeting legislation in the cantons.

In order to facilitate a comparison and categorisation of the cantons, the results of this research were summarised in tables and cartographic illustrations. A key focus of the methodology is a longitudinal comparison of the cantons, which allows for an analysis of developments over time. Additionally, a comprehensive literature review covering both Switzerland and international perspectives is provided to contextualize the findings. The process of categorization and comparison was guided by earlier results from the report on the advancement of targeted and results-oriented public management (Bundesrat, 2013), which served as a template for the subsequent analysis. Comparing the updated overview with previous findings will help determine whether significant changes have occurred.

As previously mentioned, the survey was conducted to supplement the document and literature analysis and to obtain experiences. The objective of the survey was to ascertain the status of results-oriented administration in the cantons. The survey was primarily distributed to the respective finance departments, as they are typically responsible for budgetary matters. Depending on the area of responsibility, some state chancelleries were also contacted. The cantons were contacted via publicly available email addresses on their websites. If no contact could be made by this method, a phone call was attempted. The cantons were asked to forward the questionnaires to individuals who were knowledgeable about the topic and familiar with the matter. Therefore, the final distribution of the survey was carried out internally within each canton, as it was assumed that this way the most suitable person could be selected. As a result, the specific roles and areas of responsibility of the canton employees who completed the survey varied. In order to verify the survey answers, a cross-checking process was implemented in which the survey results were meticulously cross-referenced with literature research. This encompassed budgets, financial plans, and associated reports, as well as a comprehensive study of financial legislation and specific regulations pertinent to results-oriented administrative management. In the event of discernible discrepancies, the respective canton was contacted again. Following a thorough analysis, the research findings were dispatched to the cantons, accompanied by an invitation to comment on the congruence between the conclusions and their own perceptions.

A response rate of 100% was achieved. The survey comprised 12 questions, the majority of which pertained to the use of long-term performance budgets, lump-sum budgets and performance mandates. The survey also included questions pertaining to the canton’s experiences with results-oriented public management. Additionally, the option was given to provide further information. In view of the linguistic diversity that characterises Switzerland, the survey was conducted in two languages: German and French. Subsequently, the responses were translated into English. To conduct the survey, the software application Lime Survey was used.

In conclusion, this study employed a qualitative methodology, comprising a review of the relevant literature and documents, together with a survey.

5. Results

5.1 Budgeting and financial planning

The analysis showed that the cantons of AI¹, GE, NW, JU, SH and VD employ conventional and traditional budgeting and financial planning methods. In contrast, the cantons of AG, BS, BE, GR, LU, NE, SO, SZ, TG and ZH employ both long-term performance budgeting instruments and a lump-sum budget for all administrative units. In the canton of ZG, long-term performance budgeting is also employed, as is lump-sum budgeting. However, lump-sum budgets are only applied in suitable administrative units rather than being implemented in every unit.

Although the cantons of FR, TI and UR in general do not have long-term performance budgeting, they have further developed their annual budgeting by using lump-sum budgets for certain administrative units. It should be mentioned that TI technically employs a long-term performance budget but only on a partial and document-specific basis, which ultimately has an effect on the categorization.

The cantons of AR, BL, GL, OW, SG and VS do not have a lump-sum budget for budgeting in the central administration. Instead, they have further developed their medium-term planning by using long-term performance budgeting, thereby enabling them to steer the central administration with the help of tasks, measures and projects. In SG a long-term performance budget is in place, but the tasks and the finances are only indirectly linked to another by announcing major and legislative projects. The following figure presents the results and the categorization of the cantons (the figure is similar in structure to the one presented in the Federal Council’s statement on the NFB, published in 2013 [Bundesrat, 2013]).

The cantons can now be classified into four distinct categories: 1. cantons with conventional financial planning and budgeting, 2. cantons with further development of medium-term task and financial planning (long-term performance budget), 3. cantons with further development of annual budgeting (lump-sum budgeting) and 4. cantons with long-term performance budgeting and a lump-sum budget. Figure 2 shows which cantons fall into which category (the illustration is similar in structure to the one presented in the Federal Council’s statement on the NFB, published in 2013 [Bundesrat, 2013]).

Figure 1

Figure 2

5.2 Results of the performance mandates

Figures 3 and 4 provide data on the use of performance mandates in each canton. They distinguished between cases where these agreements are concluded either between departments and directorates, or between government and the departments. In some cases, both conditions are met. Additionally, a separate category is introduced for cantons where performance mandates are possible but not mandatory. This category also includes cantons that have implemented performance mandates only in specific administrative units.

Figure 3

Figure 4

5.3 Overall results for the implementation of the instruments

Figure 5 synthesizes the three instruments: the long-term performance budget, lump-sum budgeting and performance mandates. The cantons that have implemented performance management are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Figure 5

The analysis shows that 20 of Switzerland’s cantons use New Public Management tools for modernizing budgeting, financial planning, and administration. Of these, 10 cantons fully implement long-term performance budgeting, lump-sum budgeting for all administrative units and performance mandates. The comprehensive overview demonstrates that all cantons that have both a long-term performance budgeting and a lump-sum budget in all administrative units implemented performance mandates. Furthermore, the cantons of Basel-Landschaft and Zug also use this instrument. Six cantons use long-term performance budgeting but do not have a lump-sum budget, while three employ lump-sum budgets in specific units without having a comprehensive long-term performance budget. Six cantons rely on traditional methods.

In order to demonstrate the change in the introduction of NPM instruments in the cantons, the findings of this study were compared with the findings presented in the Federal Council’s statement on the NFB, which was published in 2013 (Bundesrat, 2013). A comparison with the results obtained by Bolz and Blaser (2014) could also have been conducted. However, as the overview in the Federal Council’s statement on the NFB is more detailed and also distinguishes between certain administrative units, reference was only made to these results. Due to a lack of data in 2013, the performance mandates were not presented on a comparative basis.

5.4 Results from the longitudinal comparison of the cantons

The following overview presents a comparative analysis between the findings presented in the Federal Council’s statement on the NFB and the current status of results-oriented public management in the cantons. The cantons that have not adapted their management model are presented in regular text, while those that have made changes towards results-oriented management models are highlighted in bold.

What conclusions can be drawn from this figure? Firstly, it is evident that alterations have occurred, with individual cantons modifying their management models. Secondly, there is still a trend towards results-oriented public management in the cantons. Several cantons have decided to change to long-term performance budgeting, i.e. the cantons of AR, BL, GL, SZ and TG. The canton of UR has now implemented a lump-sum budget in certain units, whereas BS employed lump-sum budgets for all administrative units. The canton of NE has now introduced both instruments, implementing long-term performance budgeting and a lump-sum budget in all administrative units.

Only one canton (SH) has chosen to pursue a different course of action, rejecting the use of a results-oriented public management instrument over time. The canton of SH abandoned the use of lump-sum budgets and has instead opted for a traditional budgeting process and input control. Since 2013, the canton of ZG has also dispensed with a lump-sum budget in all its administrative units. In exceptional cases, this may now be waived.

What can be deduced from Figure 6 as a fundamental conclusion? Overall, cantonal administrations are continuing to develop towards results-oriented management. This is evident from the fact that numerous cantons have introduced long-term performance budgets, as well as lump-sum budgets, since 2013, or have expanded their use. Only two cantons have chosen another path, instead retrain or reintroducing traditional management approaches.

Figure 6

5.5 Results of the experiences with the instruments

The survey also asked whether the cantons experiences of using lump-sum budgets, long-term performance budgeting and performance mandates were positive, mostly positive, partly positive or negative. However, the questionnaire deliberately avoided specifying what the authors considered to be a positive experience. The aim was for the cantons to give their own assessment and justify their choice themselves. Due to the limited scope of this article, the results have been summarised here, and the most frequently cited advantages and disadvantages have been highlighted.

Seven cantons reported positive experiences while eight cantons described their experiences as mostly positive and eight cantons as partly positive. One canton reported negative experiences. Two cantons did not provide feedback, because they had no experience with results-oriented public management at all (NW, SH). Certain cantons that do not have a lump-sum budget or long-term performance budgeting still provided information about their experiences. These relate to other elements of results-oriented public management, such as the existence of objectives and performance targets. The experiences can also involve instruments that have been used in the past or instruments that are only used in certain parts of the administration.

In conclusion, it can be stated that more than half of the cantons (15/26) had positive or mostly positive experiences with results-oriented public management. The most important advantages for the cantons using instruments such as the lump-sum budget and long-term performance budget are the clarity of objectives and incentives, as well as flexibility and efficiency. Additionally, some cantons have indicated that the implementation of results-oriented public management has resulted in enhanced collaboration between the government and parliament. Enhanced transparency and professionalism were also identified as beneficial outcomes. Conversely, there are also those who hold a critical view among the cantons. Some of them view results-oriented management as an obligatory exercise with no added value. Another challenge is the anticipated increase in cost and the associated administrative burden. Furthermore, it was observed that the practical applicability of the approach in question is not always clear. It is noteworthy that only one canton indicated that it had consistently unfavourable experiences with instruments of results-oriented administrative management. The results of the survey are presented in Figure 7:

Figure 7

6. Discussion

A group of 11 cantons has implemented long-term performance budgeting, as well as a lump-sum budget, in all or nearly all administrative units. These are the cantons of AG, BE, BS, GR, LU, NE, SO, SZ, TG, ZG and ZH (cf. Figure 1). Except for the canton of ZH, all these cantons have introduced performance mandates (cf. Figure 3). Consequently, these cantons use a model that is largely identical to that used at federal level, at least regarding the instruments analysed in this master’s thesis. The model used in these cantons therefore corresponds most closely to the theoretical framework of the NFB.

While performance mandates are concluded between departments and offices at federal level, the situation at cantonal level is much more heterogeneous. Five cantons make no use of performance mandates at all, while in nine cantons, the instrument is only deployed in selected units or there is merely the theoretical possibility of using it. Two cantons have performance mandates between the government and the departments, while one canton has such agreements at both levels of administration. Consequently, there are only eight cantons that conclude performance agreements between departments and offices as provided for in the NFB at federal level (cf. Figure 3).

The findings indicate that there are still significant cantonal differences, which correlates with Switzerland’s federal model. The majority of cantons use management models that are tailored to their specific cantonal interests and do not adopt all elements of the NFB at federal level. It is notable that, although six cantons employ long-term performance budgeting, they have not introduced a lump-sum budget. Conversely, there are three cantons that have only implemented lump-sum budgets in some administrative units and not in all units, as is the case at federal level (cf. Figure 1).

It is also noteworthy that, with exception of the canton of NE, only German-speaking cantons have adopted a management model that is analogous to the NFB. Furthermore, it is plausible that the size of the population and the availability of financial resources in the cantons may exert an influence on the management model selected. Three of the four largest cantons, namely ZH, BE and AG, have implemented NFB instruments across the board. However, other large cantons such as VD, SG or GE have opted for alternative solutions. Smaller cantons in particular, i.e. AI, NW, JU and SH, have chosen not to use the instruments under analysis. Yet large cantons such as GE and VD have also done this. Consequently, no definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the relationship between population size and management model selected. To summarize, it can be stated that there is a discrepancy between the extent to which cantons and the federal government rely on results-oriented public management.

A comparison of the situation in the Swiss cantons with international developments reveals some interesting points. As stated in the theory section, the NPM approach has come under increasing criticism on the international stage. This trend is also evident in the literature, where the post-NPM approach is gaining popularity. In contrast, the cantons demonstrate no indication of a shift away from the NPM model. On the contrary, the cantons have largely continued use or indeed have changed over to NPM in recent years.

7. Conclusion

It can be concluded that the NPM instruments are widespread in the cantons of Switzerland. As part of the analysis, lump-sum budget, long-term performance budget and performance mandates were identified as the most important NPM instrument in the cantons. While NPM instruments are implemented across the board at federal level, this is only partially the case at cantonal level. By 2024 a considerable number of cantons had adopted elements of results-oriented public management (20 cantons). However, it is notable that six of the cantons still use traditional management methods. Nevertheless, there are considerable differences between the cantons with respect to the implementation of these instruments. Several cantons have implemented both long-term performance budgeting and lump-sum budgeting. Conversely, other cantons have only partially introduced these instruments or have not yet implemented them at all. The use of performance mandates is highly heterogeneous across the cantons. While some cantons have implemented these agreements in all units, they are not used at all in others. In certain cantons, they are only employed in selected units. In some instances, the level at which they were introduced also varies.

In addition, in contrast to international developments, a slight tendency towards result-oriented administration still persists. The two instruments, long-term performance budgets and lump-sum budgets, are therefore being used with greater frequency. Since 2013, a number of cantons have introduced NPM instruments, while only one canton has reverted to traditional methods. By comparison, in 2013, only 16 cantons were using NPM instruments; today, as mentioned above, there are 20. In several cantons where NPM instruments were already in place, these have been further developed, and additional instruments have been introduced.

More than half of the cantons have had positive or mostly positive experiences with results-oriented public management, while only one canton has consistently reported unfavourable experiences. The most significant advantages highlighted were clarity of objectives, flexibility, efficiency, enhanced cooperation, and increased transparency. Conversely, some cantons perceive no major additional benefits and expressed concerns about potential additional costs and administrative burdens.

A subsequent research project could involve conducting more comprehensive case studies of individual cantons, which would permit a detailed examination of the impact of diverse contextual factors. Furthermore, additional research could be conducted to examine the quantitative correlation between effectiveness, efficiency and other anticipated criteria relevant to a public administration and the selected management model. The process of development is a constant feature of public administrations, and the question of optimal administrative management is an ongoing concern. In the digital age, new technical opportunities will emerge, offering potential benefits to administrations while also presenting new challenges. It seems inevitable that these developments will also have an impact on the field of administrative management, thus necessitating further research.

Data Accessibility Statement

The survey data are not publicly available but can be provided upon request. For data protection reasons, all responses have been anonymized.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author ContributionS

Samuel Haslimeier wrote the research paper. Prof. Dr. Lienhard provided support in developing the survey, and contributed by reviewing, correcting, and revising the manuscript. The paper was proofread and cross-checked by Kenneth MacKenzie, who translates and works with terminology for the Swiss Federal Chancellery.

Author Note

This article is a revised and extended version of a master’s thesis, submitted by S. Haslimeier as part of the Master’s program in Public Management and Policy at the University of Bern under the supervision of Prof. Dr. A. Lienhard.