{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022988505747126436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6982248520710055, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
E-government and NPM: a perfect marriage?

E-Government and New Public Management (NPM) are two concepts that are often used in discussions about modernizing government. Both concepts refer to various forms of reform of the public sector and, at least to a certain degree, address the same problems public administration is nowadays confronted with (lack of accountability, underperformance and diminished level of legitimacy, to name a few).The fact that e-government and new public management address the same problems does not imply that the contents of these concepts indeed overlap. Both concepts comprise heterogeneous elements and multiple dimensions; intuitively, some of these elements may be understood as overlapping, but a clear conceptual framework indicating where new public management and E-government overlap and reinforce one another, is lacking.Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, a framework for classification of reforms is presented. The framework highlights various types of reforms, and identifies requirements for architectures and accountability routes in technological and institutional reforms.