New Public Management (NPM) emerged in the 1980s as a reform movement aiming to bring market-oriented and managerial approaches into public administration. A core tenet of NPM was a redefinition of accountability, shifting it from traditional bureaucratic models to more performance-driven and results-oriented frameworks.

Radical Change in Accountability:

1. Shift from Process to Performance: Traditional accountability emphasized adherence to rules, procedures, and hierarchical authority. NPM, however, shifted the focus to outputs, outcomes, and efficiency. Public managers became accountable for achieving specific targets and delivering measurable results, often through contracts and performance agreements.
2. Managerial Discretion: NPM advocated for greater managerial autonomy and discretion, allowing managers to innovate and achieve results. This meant accountability was less about following detailed instructions and more about being answerable for the effective use of resources and the achievement of objectives.
3. Accountability to 'Customers'/'Citizens': NPM introduced the concept of citizens as 'customers' or 'clients,' implying a new form of accountability to service users. Mechanisms like citizen charters, feedback surveys, and consumer choice were introduced to make public services more responsive to citizen demands.
4. Market-based Mechanisms: The introduction of quasi-markets, contracting out, and public-private partnerships meant that accountability also extended to external providers, often through contractual obligations and performance monitoring.
5. New Accountability Tools: Performance indicators, audits (financial and performance), league tables, and benchmarking became standard tools for assessing and enforcing accountability.

Continued Focus on Management:

Despite these radical changes, the focus on 'management' remained central to NPM. This meant:

1. Emphasis on Managerialism: NPM inherently prioritized managerial efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. Accountability mechanisms were often designed to reinforce managerial control and performance within the organization.
2. Internal vs. External Accountability: While there was a push for external accountability to citizens and stakeholders, the primary drive often came from within the managerial hierarchy, focusing on internal controls, reporting, and performance measurement to ensure organizational efficiency.
3. Risk of Narrow Focus: The strong emphasis on measurable outcomes and efficiency could sometimes lead to a narrow focus on easily quantifiable aspects of public service, potentially overlooking broader public values, equity, or long-term societal impacts that are harder to measure.
4. Tension with Democratic Accountability: The increased managerial autonomy, while promoting efficiency, sometimes created tension with traditional democratic accountability to elected officials and the public, as managers gained more discretion over policy implementation.

In conclusion, NPM indeed brought about a radical transformation in the mechanisms and locus of accountability, moving towards a more results-oriented and market-driven approach. However, this transformation was deeply embedded within a managerialist philosophy, meaning that the ultimate focus remained on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector 'management,' even as the methods for ensuring accountability evolved.