New public management, accounting, regulators and moral panics

Abstract

Purpose

Accounting and regulators are an integral part of new public management (NPM) across public sectors. This article aims to look at one of their potential drawbacks by investigating how a policy was deemed as a failure by regulators because of its limited financial controls.

Design/methodology/approach

A case study of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) in the UK draws on secondary sources organized into a chronology of events to show how concerns about a small number of providers were followed by claims of widespread abuse of ILAs being reported by regulators; claims that were disseminated widely by the media, but which were not substantiated by prosecutions.

Findings

There is insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of widespread abuse and fraud of ILAs. This suggests that regulatory bodies helped amplify concerns about fraud and abuse, contributing to a minor moral panic.

Research limitations/implications

The absence of accounting that promoted concerns of financial abuse, also takes away one of the potential forms of evidence that could be used to substantiate the moral panic.

Practical implications

To help avoid moral panics, regulators should report only forms of fraud and abuse that are proven, rather than sharing in conjectures of those that might have taken place.

Originality/value

This paper is one of the few academic studies of ILAs and the only one to date to explore the detrimental role of NPM arrangements in generating moral panics.

Citation

Lee, B. (2012), "New public management, accounting, regulators and moral panics", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211224243