imperialism within the social sciences, i.e. the tendency to approach all questions with neo-classical economic methods. In advanced PA scholarship itself, especially but not only in Europe, NPM is on the defensive by now, if taken as a world view (i.e. an ideology), rather than as one of several useful perspectives for PA reform (i.e. part of a pluralistic approach). The question here is more whether one favors post-NPM (anti-NPM) or post-post-NPM, Weberian-based PA, the latter being the most advanced, and the most sophisticated, and now called the Neo-Weberian State (NWS). What was an option ten years ago is not an option anymore today. I would say that in PA · in 1995, it was still possible to believe in NPM, although there were the first strong and substantial critiques · in 2000, NPM was on the defensive, as empirical findings spoke clearly against it as well · in 2005, NPM is not a viable concept anymore
annaabi.ee 
