Search results

In December 1999, the UK Civil Service Management Board in Whitehall agreed upon a reform program focusing on six themes, all connected with improved managerial processes internal to the civil service and intended to complement the more externally oriented Modernising Government agenda set out in a white paper earlier that year. The purpose was to achieve major changes in the way in which the civil service was run – “step change” rather than continuous improvement. In May 2002, the Cabinet Office commissioned a research project to provide an evaluation of the Civil Service Reform program through four case studies. This chapter draws upon the findings of that study to discuss the extent to which cultural differences affected the outcomes of this ambitious reform program. In addition, it draws upon a set of interviews in 2005 which updated the findings of the research. The chapter suggests that four very different types of culture had important impacts on the way in which the case study organizations went about the process of addressing the Cabinet Office reform program, namely national cultures which differed greatly between the case studies, although they were all UK-based organizations; organizational cultures which differed greatly within each of the case study organizations; occupational cultures which crossed the four case studies, but usually with significant differences in each context; and sectoral cultures which in several cases provided particular barriers to change. The chapter shows how these different dimensions of culture were interwoven in the change programs of the four cases and explores the extent to which their progress on the reform agenda was affected by their particular cultural mix. It suggests that some “cultural stances” within these overall cultures were more difficult to change than others, so that reforms had to be re-activated on several occasions and through a variety of mechanisms. Finally, the chapter illustrates how, in the case study organizations which were most successful, a deliberate strategy was adopted by top management of highlighting the clashing internal cultures, in order to challenge the traditional positions of internal and external stakeholders, in spite of the risks involved.

This article examines the rhetoric of recent civil service reform measures in Korea, their initial implementation, and growing concerns about their sustainability. Civil service reform in Korea was initiated by an enthusiasm for New Public Management (NPM) and public calls for reform. The changes initiated by the Korean Civil Service Commission and other government organizations have sought to encourage openness, competition, flexibility, diversity, and performance-based management. Despite the bold rhetoric heralding the reform initiatives, outcomes have fallen short of expectations, and many civil servants are losing their confidence and esprit de corps. Considering both the initial promise and the ultimate reality of Korean civil service reform, this article investigates problems and limitations confronting the sustainability of these reform measures

The purpose of this paper is to examine the strategies of civil service reforms in Hong Kong and Thailand. It seeks to identify the drivers of reforms in the two cases and explain the divergence in processes that were intended to achieve similar ends.

This paper adopts a case study approach along with a thorough review of the literature. It is based on secondary materials, including academic studies, government publications and websites, and media reports. It compares approaches, strategies and outcomes of civil service reforms in Hong Kong and Thailand.

Civil service reforms in Hong Kong focused on improving management through the implementation of New Public Management (NPM) principles, while governance values were prominent in civil service reforms in Thailand.

This paper compares civil service reforms in two dissimilar Asian cases. It highlights the impact of global trends on traditional bureaucratic organizations and reform strategies, and recognizes the impacts of traditions, culture and capacity on civil service reforms.

Hong Kong’s public sector reform since the 1990s is not just a continuation of an administrative reform trajectory started in colonial years to modernize the civil service. Although concerns for efficiency, productivity and value for money have always formed part of the reform agenda at different times, an efficiency discourse of reform is insufficient for capturing the full dynamics of institutional change whether in the pre-1997 or post-1997 period. During Hong Kong's political transition towards becoming an SAR of China in 1997, public sector reform helped to shore up the legitimacy of the bureaucracy. After 1997, new political crises and the changing relations between the Chief Executive and senior civil servants have induced the advent of a new “public service bargain” which gives different meaning to the same NPM-like measures

The paper aims to explore the implementation of performance‐oriented civil service reforms (CSRs) in Kenya, noting hurdles and opportunities for improvement and to suggest a robust model to imbed a performance‐oriented reforms culture.

The article is informed by a review of the literature on civil service reforms and applications of performance measurements in civil service reforms in Africa in general and specifically in Kenya. Current performance‐oriented reforms/practices and challenges are documented, obstacles/gaps to effective implementation identified, opportunities for improvement isolated and a robust model to inculcate a performance‐oriented culture suggested for application.

While noticeable progress has been made in implementation of CSRs in Kenya, there evidently remain obstacles in the implementation of performance‐oriented civil service reforms. Civil service reforms ought to revolve around performance measurements; rewarding good performance and realigning resources to support desired changes, while simultaneously stimulating competition amongst public entities so as to support superior public service delivery.

The paper provides a succinct account of the state of civil service reforms in Kenya and particularly the drive towards performance‐oriented reforms. It suggests a holistic approach to engraining a performance‐oriented culture.

States that it appears that all civil service reform programmes in developing countries are predicated on the idea of cost savings which is an acid test of project success. Notes that yet a wider notion of reform is also prevalent, concerning governance, which involves the ability of citizens to influence government’s provision of infrastructure and services. As if to give credence to the importance of service provision, the concept of institutional economics has come to the fore. This requires an explicit quantification of the range of public goods and services being generated by the institutions being reformed. All three perspectives are underpinned by the institutional development model. This focuses in range from value and sustainability to exploration and functional analysis, as an organizational starting point. Suggests that the institutional development base is the normative anchor for all substantive interventions in government reform.

The Guiding Principles on Civil Service Reform were endorsed by the Special Programme of Assistance for Africa (SPA) as a tool for better co‐ordination of donor support. Because of the range of administrative problems, and the economic and political urgency of solving them, African governments need a strategic framework for civil service reform. This should be based on a vision of the role of the state, and take into account leadership, commitment, governance, economic reforms, sequencing, ministerial restructuring, decentralisation, downsizing, pay and incentives, capacity building, service delivery, aid mechanisms, and change management processes. Because of the enormity and political sensitivity of the task, and the severe limitations on capacity to manage reform, such a framework will take 10‐20 years to implement fully in most countries. Civil service reform is an art, not a science. Committed reformers within the concerned government know best what they need, and how to get there. The role of donors should be mainly facilitation: identifying committed reformers (or potentially committed ones), and then empowering them to design and carry out needed changes.

This paper aims to investigate public sector reform (PSR) initiatives in Kazakhstan, and how such reform efforts have helped the government to be more responsive to the needs and demands of the citizens.

The paper examined four key PSR initiatives: decentralization, Civil Service reform, e‐governance, and civil society in improving governance in post‐Soviet Kazakhstan.

In light of Kazakhstan government's efforts to reform the public sector, the study finds that substantial progress has been made in improving its service delivery systems and enhancing good governance.

The study is an investigation of four out of several PSR initiatives aimed at improving good governance.

The study provides insights into how aspects of PSR can be fundamentally useful in promoting good governance.

Willard A. Hanna's astute observation above about the institutionalization of corruption in Indonesia was published in August 1971, five years after President Soeharto assumed power. The origins of corruption in Indonesia can be traced to the Dutch colonial period as bribery was rife among the lowly paid personnel of the Dutch East India Company (Day, 1966, pp. 100–103). However, corruption became institutionalized during President Soeharto's 32-year reign as his cronies and family “made an art form of creaming off many of Indonesia's most profitable ventures … while being protected by monopoly regulations and their relationship to the president” (Kingsbury, 1998, p. 202). Raymond Bonner (1988, p. 80) has used the euphemism “the family business” to describe “the corruption surrounding members of the Suharto family,” which was “a public secret” in 1988.

This chapter examines the role and importance of leadership in public management reform through the experience of Hong Kong. It aims to identify the gap between leadership in public organizations and public management reform in both theory and research and to make recommendations on how the gap can be bridged, particularly under the Asian context. It is a major irony that while both leadership and public management reform have a common concern of fostering positive change in public organizations, these two streams of research are separated, incompatible, and even conflicting. While leadership study is influenced by disciplines such as the psychology and emphasizes a multifaceted approach, most public management reforms are based on the New Public Management (NPM) model which is economics-oriented and structure-driven. Through studying the role of leadership in the public management reform in Hong Kong, it is argued the hollowing-out of leadership in reform is often one of the leading causes for the failure to achieve the expected outcomes. This chapter will elaborate its argument in the following sequence. First, it will review the generic literature on leadership to highlight the importance and relevancy of leadership for public organizations. Second, it will point out the leadership crisis in public management reform caused by the dominance of the NPM model. Finally, it will discuss the negative impact of the hollowing-out of leadership on public management reform and how this problem should be tackled.