Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy Donald J. Savoie. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1994, 414 pp. There is a long-standing debate in the public administration literature about the compatibility and usefulness of business management ideas in a public sector setting. One faction in the debate contends that business and government administration are alike in all unimportant respects. Those opposed argue it is possible reinvent government by importing business management ideas directly into government thereby dramatically improving the efficiency of public sector activity. This debate is not merely academic. On the contrary, it has broad ramifications for the reorganisation of government. Most political leaders, both past and present, have viewed the private sector as the appropriate model and have cast a longing gaze in that direction when they are searching for new ideas improve the efficiency of government administration. One of Canada's leading public administration scholars has entered this debate with a provocative, wellwritten, and persuasively argued account of the attempts during the 1980s make government more businesslike. Savoie points out that during the 1960s and 1970s, PPBS, PAR, MBO, and the whole alphabet soup of management theory came and went, leaving a bitter legacy of failed promises in its wake. However, past experience proved be no impediment a whole new generation of political leaders in the 1980s, who assumed that what the public bureaucracy needed improve its performance was some old-fashioned business sense and a little market discipline. Britain, the United States, and Canada all elected right-of-centre governments in the early 1980s, and these governments shared a strong commitment reducing both the scope and size of government. Their aim, in the colourful language of Ronald Reagan, was drain the swamp. Three common themes motivated these leaders, according Savoie. They wanted diminish the role of the state in social and economic affairs, reduce the influence of permanent officials on policy and the policy process, and make government managers emulate their counterparts in the private sector. The goal was bring about greater efficiency, results, improved performance, and value for money in government operations. The traditional approaches public administration had overlooked these aspects of management, concentrating as they did on the policy advisory function, on the value of probity, and the maintenance of the process. The argument was made that public administration had not kept up with the increasing scale, scope, and costs of modern government, and private management techniques could fill the void. Upon assuming office, the apostles of the right took concrete steps weaken the policy role traditionally played by career officials. These leaders let it be known that policy advice from officials was not welcomed. In Savoie's view, there was a consistent objective in all three countries to leave policy decisions politicians and their trusted partisan advisors and see it that the permanent civil service learns how manage better (p. 282). In such an environment the incentive for bureaucrats was get on the management bandwagon, and indeed the 1980s witnessed the proliferation of vision and mission statements, new methods deliver quality service the public, and courses and seminars on new management practices. There were three interconnected themes in this new managerial approach: empowerment, improving service clients, and strengthening efficiency in government operations. Yet Savoie makes it clear that none of these ideas was in for smooth sailing in the realm of government administration. For example, empowerment requires openness, trust, a tolerance of errors, and a significant deregulation of controls and processes governing personnel, administrative, and financial decision-making. …