Slightly different – state disperses moral and ethical guidelines into the communities disguised as reform, maintaining surveillance and discipline capabilities – instills White Anglo-Saxon moral values/homogenizes marginalized communities? Idk

This dynamic “increasingly consists of bringing concerned actors to the table” in order to promote “a common understanding of public issues” (, 21). The NMP thus imposes the contemporary vision of a “state that makes capable” (). Public action turns toward a relational economy centered on communities. It is by generating new collective experiences that the procedural rationality of individuals can be guided. The state must play a catalytic role () by opening up spaces of interaction for the actors concerned. This is likely to change their habits of action and develop new worldviews (). This procedural strategy does not consider responsibility in the individualizing mode of neoliberalism (); on the contrary, it is precisely about stimulating interdependences. Far from “pure rationality,” it is the very idea of the “bounded rationality” of the participants that makes the regulator's role relevant as `reinventors.' In a managerial mode, the state would adjust itself to the “common sense” of the participants, ensuring that they take on new challenges in a positive way. However, as , 7) notes:

Rather than trying to control what public organizations or community groups do, they [i.e., reinventors] try to influence what their members want to accomplish. This is the essence of the empowerment deal […], it shifts the bureaucracy's power out into the community. Reinventors use community empowerment to share power with neighbourhood school, business associations and other community-based entities.

The role of the state is thus reduced to ensuring the development of community consciousness. Instituting governance would consist of tightening the communities of actors and linking the various units of government—state, local authorities, civil society, and the private sector—by multiplying consultation procedures at all interlocking scales (). This is a holoptic type of architecture that organizes on the basis of increased visibility between all the parties concerned. Unlike panopticism, which assumes an omniscient and hierarchical “central eye,” holopticism assumes an environment of intervisibility, where every individual can see all the information held by other agents in their community. This transparency requires every piece of information is made available to the entire network of partners, encouraging them to be more proactive and cooperative. It is an autonomy embedded in society, immersed in a dense network of relationships (). The decentralization of power would thus be compensated for by an architecture that facilitates the internalization of norms and moral incentives.

For example, in Brazil, the principles of the NMP were first deployed under the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2003). The Managerial Reform of the State sought to find a middle way between the democratization of a political model centralized by twenty years of dictatorship and the pursuit state reduction required by international institutions. The reform of the state undertaken during the 1990s sought to consolidate a territorial distribution of power referring explicitly to the American model described by Tocqueville (). Public management encouraged the breaking away from its technocratic confines by implementing multiple spaces for community comanagement and civil society participation (). Known as “social control,” this strategy was presented as both an efficient means of implementing of public policies and as a democratic guarantee against the risks of clientelism. The Brazilian model thus was an interesting hybrid. It demonstrate the possibilities offered when an historically authoritarian state—despite its federal nature - was combined with economic neoliberalism and the coercive properties of a holoptic mode of government, that would theoretically regulate—without calling into question—the strong asymmetries of power inherited from its colonial past. While constituting a very specific example, Brazil could prove to be an influential archetype of the shift of public policies in a global context of increasingly institutionalized social and political inequalities. In this light, , 37) argued the underlying logics were as follows:

Whenever possible, the market should be chosen. […] Social control is, then, the most democratic and diffuse control mechanism. Through it, society organises itself formally and informally to control not only individual behaviour but also […] to control public organisations.

This “nesting of surveillance” would make it possible to disseminate reasonable behaviors, identify deviance, and prevent it (). Similar to panoptic logic, holoptic mechanisms constitute a “generalizable model of functioning, as a way of defining power relations in everyday life” (, 239). Thus, the policies of horizontalisation would create a normative order, to implement “subtle coercions” directly connected to a “government of the self.” Far from the atomic vision proposed by Jeremy Bentham's liberalism, contemporary reforms of the state advance a communal architecture of power that favors a climate of psychological pressure and the repetition of interactional procedures geared toward the resolution of common problems. It is in the interplay of this technical and moral emulation that rulers wish to stimulate individual action in the sense of proactive participation in the construction of public policies.

This contemporary evolution of the “liberal art of governing” challenges, without making them disappear, the classic modes of regal intervention, traditionally associated with “sovereignty” and “discipline,” which seek to produce conformity in subjects through governmental models of prohibition. It also blurs the line identified by Pierre Bourdieu between a “left hand” and a “right hand of the state” (). This is the tension between the welfare tendency that offers ``interests of the dominated, “offering protection and support to populations lacking economic and cultural capital” (, 153), and a conservative and authoritarian one advancing the interests of the most powerful by “enforcing the new economic discipline by means of budget cuts, tax incentives and economic deregulation” (). In many State sectors, the reduction of the public sphere is achieved through a psychological type of government that seeks to empower communities (). Government management is limited to instilling a morality of community engagement among marginalized populations—this promotion of a form of government that is rooted in the White Anglo–Saxon Protestant tradition, born in a colonialist and slave-owning context, may constitute a double violence against racialized communities.