Search results

Why reform government? The answer to this question varies relative to context and timing. Sometimes reform is stimulated by a shortage of financial resources. Sometimes it is brought on by a change in political power. At other times it may be forced by citizen demand. And, at times it results as a response to corruption and scandal. Moreover, in many cases, more than one of these aspects work together to push forward government reform. This is also why reformers adopt various strategies ranging from institutional reorganization, rationalization of administrative procedures, introduction of new managerial techniques, and more recently, implementation of e-government.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework to explain the failure in public management of wholesale policy transfer from well developed to developing economies.

The paper relies extensively on organizational surveys and specialized interviews in both jurisdictions, as well as on a review of government (primary) and other institutional documents. It is qualitative in nature.

The paper reveals that the context in which public sector reform policies are implemented matters. In short, the environment (with structural and contextual variables) is an essential element in the success of policies. It highlights important factors such as culture, institutional dynamism, the role of the external actors, etc. as issues that must be carefully looked at in the development and implementation of reform policies.

The number of cases needs to be expanded to further confirm the results. Furthermore, before it is possible to generalize about the theory's applicability, it is necessary to test the theoretical framework by examining the issue of policy transfer among developing countries.

The findings point to the need for theorists, policy makers, and policy implementers to be open‐minded as they attempt to develop and implement policies for public sector reforms in different circumstances. They thus emphasize the need to adapt reforms to a particular environment rather than pursuing a one‐size‐fits‐all approach. The paper thus argues that the most appropriate management strategies for reforms must be cognizant of local environmental conditions so as to tailor policies that fit the environment.

The paper contributes to both theory and practice by participating in the discussion on what must be considered administrative reforms. The paper will be of interest to those searching for ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organizations through reforms and, in particular, of performance management, as well as to stakeholders interested in well‐functioning public sector organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the historical path and the future direction of the government reform initiative in Korea regarding the public policy and management reform.

Analysis of National Agenda published by the Presidential Transition Committees of each president for the past 20 years.

Public policy reform has been rather slow or even has gone backwards for some periods of time in Korea. The market intervention by the government needs to be reduced whereas its role in the social welfare or people’s quality of life should be expanded. President needs to create a reform-driving agency to design a new paradigm of government role.

There has been no research that has investigated Korea’s Government reform with the framework of public management and public policy reform.

Economic policy reforms, characterised by a market‐driven, privatised policy regime, are being adopted as a strategy by India to promote economic development. As markets become liberalised, public sector organisations face extreme vulnerability unless they can identify and develop the competencies necessary to thrive in these competitive markets. This paper, drawing on the resource‐based view, aims to identify the pre‐reform capabilities of public sector organisations in India and similar developing country contexts that would be relevant even in the post‐reform context.

An interpretative and theoretical approach is used to put forth the arguments and a framework is proposed to explain the possibility of deriving competitive advantages from pre‐reform capabilities in the post‐reform context.

Several unique capabilities of Indian public sector organisations can be identified using the resource based perspective which can be leveraged in the post‐reform context. They have superior resource‐picking capacity compared to private firms, especially for government‐regulated resources, international financial assets and modern technologies. Their internal integrative managerial systems and structures offer them an advantage in meeting the competitive demands of speed and promptness. Under effective leadership, the loyalty of a large workforce and their number of years of experience gives them an advantage of effective coordination and knowledge sharing and flow. Also, their capability in delivering economies of scale and scope due to their size and supply chain integration gives them a cost advantage over others.

This paper takes a practical approach. It accepts the existing organisational culture, processes and systems of public sector organisations as given and matters of long‐term change, and identifies existing capabilities in the current organisational context that could help them survive better.

Unlike most papers that focus on how policy changes affect public sector organisations or those that conduct a comparative analysis with the private sector on various parameters, the main focus of this paper is to identify existing capabilities that can be leveraged by public sector organisations for effective adaptation in the new scenario.

The paper attempts to assess the impact of reforms of the last 25 years on Greek administration and more specifically on its Napoleonic features. Given that those have been reshaped by country specific socio‐political dynamics, the analysis starts by pointing out the Napoleonic features but also specific features its Greek variant. These form the context of reforms undertaken and determine their trajectories as well as their limitations.

This paper examines four basic reform areas linked to important features of Napoleonic states: centrality of the state, centralised bureaucratic structures, labour relations in the public sector, and citizens‐administration relations. The rationale of reforms is discussed in relation to NPM trends but also to domestic challenges and priorities.

The significance of reforms undertaken varies. The state's presence in the economy has been significantly reduced and decentralisation reforms are more important politically than administratively. Citizens' rights and service delivery have been conceived rather as forms of democratisation and modernisation than as managerial reforms. Only recently labour relations in the public sector have been partly challenged while other reform aspects such as “agencification”, systematically by‐passing existing bureaucratic structures start to be part of the picture. Change has been incremental and followed pre‐established paths. The “Napoleonic” features of the state have not been seriously affected and reforms have hardly been reshaped by the new managerial paradigm. While the state remains the main reform actor and the law a typical policy instrument, a distinctive reform path emerges in Greece, as defined by the apparently contradictory rationale of a number of initiatives responding to old as much to new challenges.

Provides a brief account of important aspects of the Greek variant of the Napoleonic state and the context of recent reforms. Features and limits of reforms are also discussed. Finally, a tentative assessment answers the central question of the paper.

Japan has had four periods of public sector reform since World War II. This chapter discusses the leadership for reform during the occupation period, the high economic growth period, the low economic growth period and the search for a ‘new’ Japan under various present difficulties. Reforms reflect the priorities of the time and interests of prime ministers, whose style of functioning also affects how public sector reforms are advanced. During the occupation period, the Administrative Management Agency was established in the Prime Minister’s Office and was responsible for the overall management of national government organizations. It was staffed by civil servants who were experts in their areas. Since the 1980s, furthering privatization, deregulation and reorganization, advisory councils for the prime minister were also used, involving influential business leaders and scholars.

This chapter shows that political leadership, especially that of the prime minister and minister in charge of administrative reform, is important in deciding on highly political issues, to persuade or direct politicians and administrators to follow the leadership, to inspire and get the support of the general public and to ensure the support or acceptance of those concerned. Where prime ministers are not directly involved, leadership is provided by professional administrators under the general support of the prime minister and the minister responsible for administrative reforms. It is also pointed out that reform sustainability occurs through institutionalization, incentives, management and producing meaningful results.

This chapter highlights how Malaysia has experienced a successful economy through different stages since independence. The development, administration and institution-building phase was followed by reform initiatives throughout the years. Master Industrial Plans, 5-year development plans and other mid-term plans are used, which include governance and performance management reform. Today, public service reform continues to evolve with emphasis on better services, e-government and one-stop clearance centres. Under the Government Transformation Programme launched in 2010, seven National Key Results Areas have been identified, e.g., reducing crime, fighting corruption, improving education, and raising living standards of low-income households. Within this, political transformation programme, digital transformation programme, community transformation programme and social transformation programme have been created that advance public sector reforms. This chapter shows that while states and leaders remain powerful actors, leaders recognise a need to reform and overcome unethical and inefficient bureaucratic dysfunctions, or keep them at a minimum. Leaders manage such problems by using transparency to address problems of vested interests, stringent audits and punishing civil servants for criminal breaches of trust, removal of ministerial control over government-linked companies and removing resisting actors. Yet, more reforms in shepherding public service renewal are needed in sustaining reforms and reputations of public institutions. The author calls for increased values-based leadership that is inclusive at the highest levels.

Leadership for public sector reforms in Indonesia involves both national level efforts and leadership from local levels that have been empowered by prior decentralization. This chapter focuses on reforms made by the national government, which has been guided by the values of serving public, increasing efficiency and becoming corruption-free. Although the National Development Agency and the Ministry for Administrative Reform provided central impetus and coordination, reforms were seen as quite fragmented across ministries with uneven results. The authors are concerned about reform effectiveness and sustainability. Reform leadership is challenged by human capital and legally mandated but inefficient bureaucratic processes and structures as well as challenges of public distrust and disobedient civil servants. The latter is sometimes dealt with by using patronage to insert allies for reform, and they take note of leaders gaining leverage from working across boundaries and jurisdictions, and by improving their authorizing environment. The chapter describes a strategy of leaders-led efforts that are cascaded through ministries through institutionalization (e.g., of policies) and obtaining support from successive reform champions at different levels and locations. The authors argue for increasing the number of ‘champion leaders’ who pragmatically, transactionally and successfully get subordinates to commit to reform efforts.

This paper focuses on the strategic role of elites in managing institutional and organizational change within English public services, framed by the wider ideological and political context of neo-liberalism and its pervasive impact on the social and economic order over recent decades. It also highlights the unintended consequences of this elite-driven programme of institutional reform as realized in the emergence of hybridized regimes of ‘polyarchic governance’ and the innovative discursive and organizational technologies on which they depend. Within the latter, ‘leaderism’ is identified as a hegemonic ‘discursive imaginary’ that has the potential to connect selected marketization and market control elements of new public management (NPM), network governance, and visionary and shared leadership practices that ‘make the hybrid happen’ in public services reform.