Search results

Bidhya Bowornwathana is associate professor at the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. His research interests are on governance and administrative reform. His writings appear in journals such as Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Public Administration and Development, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Asian Survey, Public Administration Quarterly, Public Administration: An International Quarterly, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Asian Review of Public Administration, and Asian Journal of Political Science. He has written several books in Thai on administrative reform and public administration. He co-edited a book with John P. Burns on Civil Services Systems in Asia (Edward Elgar, 2001). He also has chapters in recent books such as in Christopher Pollitt and Colin Talbot, eds., Unbundled Government (Taylor and Francis, 2004), Ron Hodges, ed., Governance and the Public Sector (Edward Elgar, 2005), Eric E. Otenyo and Nancy S. Lind, eds., Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings (Elsevier, 2006), and Kuno Schedler and Isabella Proeller, eds., Cultural Aspects of Public Management Reform (Elsevier, 2007). He was Chairman of Department of Pubic Administration, Chulalongkorn University. He has served several times as member and secretary of the national administrative reform commissions appointed by Thai governments.

This paper reports on the impact of the ‘Next Steps’ programme (and other initiatives such as ‘market testing’) on the underlying coherence and unity of the Civil Service. It concentrates on the impact of these changes on the human resource and careers structures within the Civil Service, which has arguably been the single biggest factor under‐pinning a unified Service. It reviews both the nature of the changes imposed from above and the record of their impact as recorded by official, researcher, consultancy and ‘insider’ accounts. Finally, it draws on an ongoing major consortium project (organised by the Cabinet Office) on human resource development strategies in 10 departments and agencies to review how the changes are developing in practice. It draws conclusions about the likely long‐term impact of the changes on the Civil Service.

Seeks to develop a model of different, contradictory, and even paradoxical, trends and approaches to management development (MD). Reviews current generic approaches to MD and offers a framework for the analysis of these approaches, based on Kolb’s work on experiential learning. Develops a four‐old analytical model which embraces both the practice and theory of MD in the UK and elsewhere. Makes brief mention of attempts to develop programmes for strategic managers, as opposed to more generic, usually operational manager‐oriented, programmes. Examines the relative paucity of advice on the development of strategic managers and whether there are qualitative differences between developing strategic and other managers.

Looks at how radical some of the “Thatcherite” reforms in public management have been, and explores the structural changes to public sector organizations. Briefly examines the introduction of executive agencies in central government; the quasi‐market into the health service and competitive tendering in local government, together with privatization of utilities and the impact of European integration. Focusing on public “human services”, reviews a model of such organizations which has been used to underpin a successful postgraduate programme aimed at human services professionals and managers. Using the notion of domains – of policy, management and services – the programme has sought to integrate both practitioner experience and academic disciplines. Concludes by arguing that a diversity of management programmes are needed to cater for diverse experiences of public management and that recent trends in the UK to strait‐jacket management education within a single generic framework are counter‐productive.

Evaluation of training is observed more in theory than in practice. The literature contains a great deal of confusion over terminology, with differing approaches to training and development resulting in differing approaches to evaluation and protagonists of alternative schools claiming mutual incompatibility. Reviews the training evaluation literature to clarify concepts and options and argues for a mixed approach. Reports a case study of applying a mixture of evaluation methods drawn different paradigms. Finally, suggests that, while competence‐based approaches offer some advantages in evaluation, they will not resolve the issues addressed.

Sets out a three‐role model for training in the strategic change process: adaptive change, focusing on skills and knowledge; adoptive change, stressing attitudinal and behavioural change; and innovative change, using training as a bottom‐up initiator and shaper of change. Based on the author′s experience and illustrated by case‐study material, shows how the last role can be used to create additional “value‐added” in training interventions.

Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) have become increasingly active in recent years in carrying out “performance audits” of various public bodies. But how does SAIs report on their own performance? The purpose of this paper is to report on a study (commissioned by the UK National Audit Office (NAO)) of how SAIs report on their own performance and explores a possible conceptual framework – a synthesis of work on “performance regimes”, “public value” and “competing values” approaches – which might provide a basis for enhancing such reporting.

The paper is based first on a review of self‐reporting of performance by SAIs in Australia, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and with a specific focus in more detail on the UK's NAO. In Section I, it explores existing self‐reporting practices of a number of SAIs based on their published reports. Section II of this paper is more conceptual. Drawing on notions of “performance regimes”, “public value” and “competing values”, it seeks to re‐conceptualise how SAIs in general, and the NAO specifically, might usefully report on their performance for multiple external audiences.

The conclusions drawn from the first part of the paper include that multiple measures of SAI performance have evolved, including impacts on governments; financial savings; impact on parliament; media impact, etc. The second part concludes tentatively that a synthesis of “public value” and “competing values” might provide a conceptual framework for making more sense of such multiple reporting.

The immediate practical value of this paper should be for SAIs in providing a possible framework for analysing and developing their own performance reporting policies to address multiple dimensions of achievement and meet the needs of multiple stake holders. More widely, this framework can be applied to other public agencies.

There are few, if any, current studies of comparative SAI self‐reporting of performance, so this paper makes a substantial contribution in this area. The conceptual framework developed in the second half of the paper is also unique in synthesising two important streams of thinking about “public value” and “competing values” which has far wider applicability than the study of SAIs.

Examines the way the public sector and public management evolved in the UK over the last two decades of the twentieth century. Concentrates on the period between 1979 to 1997 when the UK had a succession of Conservative governments, when there was a kind of “arms race” of escalating rhetoric between the right and the left. Attempts to present a balanced account of what actually happened to the UK’s public sector in general. Concludes that public services are still a very large proportion of national life, and that they have not qualitatively altered the share of national resources they consume, the numbers of people they employ or the range of services they offer.

Reviews conference proceedings on public management in the EC after Maastricht. Held in Dublin, financial issues, “international, supranational and transnational” overviews, and structures policies, inter alia, were discussed. Observes that, unfortunately, although possible future problems of public management were highlighted, answers were not always forthcoming.