College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Spreadsheet Decision Modeling
Deadline: End of Week 6 @ 2
Spreadsheet Decision Modeling
Course Code: MGT425
Student’s ID Number:
Academic Year: Second Term- 2022-2023 (1444 H)
For Instructor’s Use only
Students’ Grade: Marks Obtained/Out of 15
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
· The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (
WORD format only) via allocated folder.
· Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
· Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented; marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
· Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
· Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
· All answered must be typed using
Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Course Learning Outcomes-Covered
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
Find some structured ways of dealing with complex managerial decision problems.
Explain simple decision models and management science ideas that provide powerful and (often surprising) qualitative insight about large spectrum of managerial problems.
Demonstrate the tools for deciding when and which decision models to use for specific problems.
Build an understanding of the kind of problems that is tackled using Spreadsheet Modeling and decision analysis.
Log in to Saudi Digital Library (SDL) via University’s website
On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases”
From the list find and click on EBSCO database.
In the Search Bar of EBSCO find the following article:
: Towards “Cognitively Complex” Problem Solving: Six Models of Public Service Reforms (Case Study).
: Willy McCourt
Assignment Questions: (Marks 15)
Read the above case study and answer the following Questions
Question 1: What do you understand by the Cognitively Complex Problem-Solving method used in this case study/ (250-300 words) (3-Marks).
Question 2: Discuss the six models of problem-solving approach that are useful for public service reform (250-300 words). (3-Marks).
Question 3: What are the expected problems in public service reform, and suggest a suitable solution? (250-300 words) (3-Marks).
Question 4: Why capacity building is a distinctive feature of public administration at various organizations in many countries? (250-300 words) (3-Marks).
Question 5: What is your learning from this case study and how it is beneficial for you? (250-300 words) (3-Marks).
This paper is provided by the author in a post-publication version (under review with a journal at time of writing) which includes
a new argument about the cognitive value of a range of models as an aid to reform problem-solving. The original version was
published as McCourt, W. (2013) Models of public service reform: A problem-solving approach, Washington DC: World Bank,
Policy Research Working Paper No. 6428. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/04/17649169/models-public-service-
TOWARDS ‘COGNITIVELY COMPLEX’ PROBLEM-SOLVING:
SIX MODELS OF PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM
Abstract: This paper proposes ‘cognitively complex problem-solving’ as a refinement of the recent problem-
solving approach to public service reform, and as an addition to existing political and institutional explanations
for the frequent failure of reform. In order to substantiate the new problem-solving model, it identifies and
selectively reviews six models of reform that have been practiced in developing countries over the past half-
century: public administration; decentralization; pay and employment reform; New Public Management;
integrity and corruption reforms; and “bottom-up” reforms.
1. Introduction: Facing Up to Failure
When Apollo declared through his Oracle at Delphi that no one was wiser than Socrates, what the god
was trying to get across (at least according to Socrates himself, who declined to take the compliment at
face value) was that ‘The wisest of you men is he who has realised, like Socrates, that in respect of
wisdom he is really worthless’ (Plato, 1969: 52). To say that what we know about public service reform
is ‘worthless’ would be an exaggeration. But a confession of our relative ignorance may still be the
beginning of wisdom. It will be fruitful if it helps us to frame the problem that faces us in a way that
stimulates readers to propose approaches that stand a better chance of success than the ones we have been
following up to now. That is what this paper tries to do.
2. Evidence and Explanations: Politics and institutions
The most robust evidence that we have of reform outcomes is in the form of World Bank project
evaluation reports. The Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) found that that only 33% of the
public service reform projects completed between 1980 and 1997 had been rated as satisfactory (IEG,
1999). When IEG revisited the topic nine years later, public sector reform was rated joint eighth among
the Bank’s twelve project sectors in terms of project success, and its success rate had declined over the
previous five years more sharply than all but one of the other eleven sectors (IEG, 2008: xiii and 83).
Reviewing overlapping evidence just before the first IEG evaluation, Nunberg (1997) found that the
success rate was lower than for Bank projects as a whole.
We should keep these negative findings in perspective. World Bank projects are a skewed sample. The
Bank operates predominantly in low- and middle-income countries where reform is difficult. The Bank’s
own finding that its civil service reform projects have a poor track record relative even to other kinds of
public service reform (such as public financial reform) disappears when we allow for the fact that they are
disproportionately located in poor and unstable countries (Blum, 2014). Moreover, failure is by no means
the exclusive prerogative of civil service reform, or even international development. Business start-ups in
the US funded by venture capital have a failure rate of anything from 25 to 75%; public policy failures in
the UK have been common enough to provide the material for a substantial recent book (Gage, 2012;
King and Crewe, 2013).
However, even if we amend ‘relatively poor’ to ‘relatively not bad’, the outcomes have not been good
enough. Moreover, the ‘frequent failures’ and the perception of public service reform as ‘out of fashion
or too difficult in practice’ (IEG, 2008: xvi; 65) – as recently as 2010, an internal Bank paper carried the
title, Why do Bank-supported public service reform efforts have such a poor track record? – are likely to
have a chilling effect on activity if not addressed.
In this paper, we briefly review two existing
explanatory factors, politics and institutions, before proposing a third factor of our own, cognitive
complexity, which we illustrate through a discussion of alternative models of public service reform.
While IEG’s remedial recommendations in 1999 were mainly technocratic and piecemeal, by 2008, IEG
was identifying ‘political feasibility’ as a key factor. (Similarly, political commitment to reform by client
governments had pride of place in Nunberg’s 1997 review.) This emphasis on politics reflected the
political economy studies of the structural adjustment era, based on which the Bank’s 1998 Assessing Aid
report concluded that ‘Successful reform depends primarily on a country’s institutional and political
characteristics’ (World Bank, 1998: 53; see also Campos and Esfahani, 2000; Johnson and Wasty, 1993;
and Nelson, 1990). The management of the Bank and IMF took the lesson to heart, with the Bank’s
President at the time, James Wolfensohn (1999: 9), remarking that
‘It is clear to all of us that ownership is essential. Countries must be in the driver’s seat and set
the course. They must determine goals and the phasing, timing and sequencing of programs.’
After the dawning of that realization on the international development agencies in the late 1990s, the
decade of the 2000s could be called the decade of politics, with the Swedish and UK governments, and
the World Bank, all sponsoring studies of the politics of reform (Dahl-Østergaard et al., 2005), and with
one of the largest US development consulting companies employing as many specialists in politics as in
public administration (Cooley, 2008). The studies pointed to generic factors like technical capacity,
insulation from societal interests and building incentives for politicians to embark on reform; and country-
specific factors like the importance of public society and the media (Duncan et al., 2003; Robinson,
The Assessing Aid report highlighted institutional as well as political characteristics, and they are a
second group of factors which affect the success of reform. Tanzania’s legal framework for public staff
management illustrates their subtle influence. The Constitution, and both primary and secondary
legislation enacted over several decades, give the President immense direct powers, with few procedural
checks on how he exercises them. For example, the Public Service Act, 2002 states that ‘(any) delegation
(to the Public Service Commission (PSC)… shall not preclude the President from himself exercising any
function which is the subject of any delegation or authorization.’ Further, ‘The President may remove
any public servant from the service of the Republic if the President considers it in the public interest to do
so.’ An earlier Act states that ‘Whether the President validly performed any function conferred on him …
shall not be inquired into by or in any court.’
As a consequence, Tanzania’s senior officials have little job security. One of them remarked that ‘the
President changes the top officers in the service in a similar way as (sic) he changes attire.’ Yet
increasing their security, or restoring the independence of the PSC, would require both a constitutional
amendment and the revision or repeal of many separate laws and procedures; and, they, in turn, would
require ‘political commitment’ of the kind which we discussed in the previous section. (Bana and
2.4 Beyond politics and institutions
We have discussed politics and institutions quite briefly, not because they are minor factors, but because
they are quite well understood by now (which is not to say, of course, that they have invariably translated
into the practice of governments and development agencies). However, they do not provide an exhaustive
explanation for reform outcomes. Organizations can succeed while others are failing within a single
political dispensation (Grindle, 1997; Tendler, 1997). Similar institutions such as the Commonwealth
public service commissions which are responsible for appointing and, sometimes, managing public staff
have had different outcomes in different countries (McCourt, 2003 and 2007). If we now focus for the
remainder of this paper on another group of factors, we do so in an additive spirit. We acknowledge the
political and institutional factors, but we suggest that they leave a significant explanatory residue.
3. Cognitively Complex Problem-Solving
What is the residue, and how should we deal with it? This paper proposes a problem-solving approach,
viewing the different reform interventions as ways of dealing with the problem situation as different
national governments have defined it. I have borrowed ‘problem situation’ from Karl Popper (1989: 129;
and 1999). Popper argues that at any given point in the history of science, there is an agenda which arises
from problems which current theories have created or failed to solve: ‘You pick up, and try to continue, a
line of inquiry which has the whole background of the earlier development of science behind it.’
Similarly, it seems to us that at any given point in the development of public administration in a particular
country, there is an agenda of problems which the previous experience of reform has created, and which
confronts the most perceptive national policy-makers and other stakeholders.
I am not alone in adopting a problem-driven approach. I follow Fritz et al. (2009), who have already
applied it to political economy. Andrews (2013) has developed an alternative and more elaborate
problem-solving model in parallel with this paper. My paper, I suggest, refines their approaches in one
respect. Readers will be familiar with the saying that ‘If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every
problem becomes a nail.’ Identifying a problem, or problem situation, is not an end in itself. We must
propose a solution. And when we do so, at least in the experience of the present writer, we tend to fall
back on the tools in our reform toolbox; all too often, reform problems do get treated as ‘nails.’ In a
globalized world, most reform does not start from first principles, but in the light of previous reforms in
other places (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000). In other words, my suggestion is that public service
have sometimes failed because of the reformers’ cognitive narrowness.
My suggestion is informed by well-established work in organization studies which emphasizes the value
in decision-making of a range of perspectives. A wide ‘information range’ makes it easier to spot
problems and opportunities, or reframe problems that have been intractable up to now (Bolman and Deal,
2003; George, 1972; Mitroff and Emshoff, 1979). It contributes to the ‘cognitive complexity’ of
reformers; their ability to entertain a range of options and engage in what Weick (1993), drawing on Lévi-
Strauss, has called ‘bricolage’, rather than defaulting to a ‘best practice’ solution of the kind criticized by
Grindle (2007), Rodrik (2008) and many others.
To be sure, cognitive complexity is not a sufficient condition for policy success, which also entails such
features as ethical understanding and some finesse in action (Bartunek et al., 1983; Denison et al., 1995).
However, it seems plausible to suggest that it is a necessary one.
4. Models of Public Service Reform
In applying a ‘cognitively complex’ approach to problem-solving, we cannot make bricks without straw.
If we are serious about respecting the specific priorities of developing country policymakers, and
compensating for past cognitive deficiencies, then we will need a variety of tools. We flesh out the
approach by a selective review of the experience of public service reform in developing countries. I adopt
the definition of public service reform as ‘interventions that affect the organization, performance and
working conditions of employees paid from central, provincial or state government budgets.’
In keeping with our problem-solving approach, I locate the origin of reform in problems which
policymakers pose to themselves, or which circumstances thrust upon them.
Abstracting from the
practice of developing country governments over recent decades, I identify six major problems; and I list
six families of reform (‘ideal types’ in Weber’s language) which I regard as attempted solutions.
Table 1: Public Service Reform Problems and Models
Problem Model Main Action Period
1. How can we put government on an orderly
and efficient footing?
‘Weberian’ public administration
in south Asia and sub-
2. How can we get government closer to the
Decentralization 1970s to present
3. How can we make government more
Pay and employment reform 1980s and 1990s
4. How can we make government perform
better and deliver on our key objectives?
New Public Management
1990s to present
5. How can we make government more
Integrity and anti-corruption
1990s to present
6. How can we make government more
responsive to citizens?
‘Bottom-up’ reforms Late 1990s to present
My stance aligns me unequivocally with those who prioritize context over ‘best practice’. I pay respect to
successful reform models; we can all learn from them. But they must be understood in terms of the
environment in which they have arisen; or, in the language I am using in this paper, in terms of the
‘problem situation’ as particular policymakers have perceived it. I reject the tendency of some
international reform brokers to treat reform models as ‘widgets’ (Joshi and Houtzager, 2012) which can
be transferred unaltered without regard to the environments that they are transferred from and to. I will
emphasize that point throughout this paper.
Emphasizing context means recognizing that ‘vice may be virtue uprooted,’ in the words of the Anglo-
Welsh poet David Jones (1974: 56). It is not appropriate to express a preference for any of the
approaches listed in Table 1, all of which are already normative rather than descriptive (the list does not
include perverse problems which have absorbed some officials’ attention such as how to make
government a vehicle for rent-seeking or patronage). I hope instead to provide enough detail for readers
to decide what they have to offer in terms of the ‘problem situation’ in readers’ own countries or the
countries with which they are concerned.
My simple problem-solving approach should not be taken too literally. First, our models are what Weber
called ‘ideal types’. They are abstracted from reality for analysis. Likewise, the periodization of the third
column in the table should be handled with a light touch. Governments did not suddenly discover
honesty in the 1990s, and particular governments started pay and employment reform for the first time
only in the 2000s (Morocco) or even later (Serbia). However, there have been periods when particular
questions have dwelt on policymakers’ minds. Public policy questions arise in the order they do partly
because external shocks like the oil price rises of the 1970s foist them on policy-makers’ attention. But
they also arise as reactions to the unintended consequences of the previous generation of reforms (here
again I follow Popper, for whom managing unintended consequences was the essence of public policy).
The bureaucratization that was the unintended consequence of Weberian public administration created the
need for decentralization. The expansion of state capacity had the unintended consequence of creating a
fiscal burden which pay and employment reform was framed to relieve.
Context has a temporal as well as a spatial dimension. An administration’s ‘problem situation’ is
dynamic. By solving one problem we always create another as an unintended consequence.
Moreover, just as my grouping of public service reform approaches in terms of policy problems provides
a convenient structure for the paper, so my periodization gives us a convenient order in which to address
I lack space in this paper to deal with all six of the approaches. I shall discuss Approaches One, Two,
Four and Six in turn. (For Approach Two, see Evans (2003); and Turner and Hulme (1997); for Three,
see McCourt, 2001b; and Lindauer and Nunberg, 1994; for Five, see Klitgaard, 1988.)
5. ‘Weberian’ Public Administration and
I will deal with this briefly, since many readers are already familiar with it.
The public administration model in developing countries is essentially the classic Weberian model of
bureaucracy harnessed to the needs of the developmental state. The German sociologist Max Weber
located its origins, for both the public and private sectors, in the growth and complexity of the tasks of
modern organizations; and also in democratization, which created an expectation that citizens, and
members of an organization, would be treated equally. The main features of the model are:
A separation between politics and elected politicians on the one hand and administration and
appointed administrators on the other
Administration is continuous, predictable and rule-governed
Administrators are appointed on the basis of qualifications, and are trained professionals
There is a functional division of labor, and a hierarchy of tasks and people
Resources belong to the organization, not to the individuals who work in it
Public servants serve public rather than private interests (Minogue, 2001)
In practical terms, administrations that follow the Weberian model – and almost all do pay at least lip
service – begin by putting in place a system of rules. Where staffing is concerned, we can expect to find a
compendium of posts, arranged in a hierarchy according to rank, with statements of the duties expected of
each post (in some countries this is called a ‘scheme of service’). There will be clear guidelines about
how the posts should be advertised and filled, how pay grades are determined, and so on. The rules and
guidelines will be overseen by central agencies such as the finance ministry and the public service
commission or similar body. There will be similar rules for the control of government spending, overseen
by the relevant central body, such as a procurement agency (Schick, 1998).
Administration tends to be highly centralized: the model posits an unbroken hierarchical chain from the
top (in the capital) to the bottom (in the remotest outpost of government). The tendency is to focus on
inputs, in the sense of the efficient management of resources rather than outputs in the sense of the goods
and services that the resources are used to produce, let alone outcomes in the sense of the social and
economic results that derive from the outputs.
Bureaucracy has of course a bad name in the popular imagination. However, a study commissioned by
the World Bank in the run-up to its 1997 World Development Report found a close statistical connection
between public bureaucracy and economic growth. Their data suggested that merit-based recruitment was
the most important bureaucratic element, followed by promotion from within and career stability for
public servants (Evans and Rauch, 1999). Further support for meritocracy came from a more detailed
study of personnel management in the Kyrgyz and Slovak republics and in Romania. It highlighted the
importance of sound administrative procedures underpinning merit, very much as outlined here
(Anderson et al., 2003). So we have recent evidence that Weber’s century-old insight was basically
sound: the bureaucratic model was indeed the efficient successor to patrimonial regimes which had
centered on the personal and arbitrary power of an absolute ruler.
But there are a number of pre-conditions which may need to be in place for the model to produce the
results that Weber anticipated. I will mention two. The first is a culture in which rules are respected and
followed. (This point has been emphasized by Schick. I expand on it later in this paper.)
A second condition is that the Weberian rules should not be undermined by patronage pressures. Weber
did not anticipate that bureaucracy and patrimonialism would become fused in the hybrid of
‘neopatrimonialism’, where state resources are diverted for patronage purposes such as securing support
in an election. This neopatrimonial hybrid is widespread, having been identified in modern times in
places as far apart as Greece, and Chicago in the United States (Clapham, 1982).
As the state developed, it was perhaps inevitable that there would be an attempt to use its growing
resources in the same way that ‘traditional’ patrons used private resources: to co-opt supporters and
ensure their loyalty (McCourt, 2007). But the neopatrimonial twist was that patronage operated by a
single, visible patron mutated into patronage operated by political parties and other broad groupings, often
organized on a national scale. With many individuals implicated at different levels, this stubborn
neopatrimonial bush with its complex root system could be even harder to eradicate than its relatively
simple patrimonial predecessor. Much recent reform effort has been devoted, either explicitly or
implicitly, to the task of eradication.
A distinctive feature of public administration in developing countries is that unlike industrialized
countries, where capacity evolved gradually, developing countries have put in place crash programmes of
capacity-building following independence and, more recently, armed conflict and state collapse. The
programmes have centered on staff training and development. The assumption is that public
administration is deficient because public administrators lack skills which can be readily imparted
through training. The training and visit system for agriculture extension workers was a typical example.
In the context of a fixed programme of field visits overseen by their supervisors, extension workers
received frequent one-day training sessions to impart the three or four most important agricultural
recommendations that they should pass on to farmers in the following few weeks.
There is no doubt that capacity affects performance, as even politically-orientated studies such as
Nelson’s (1990) recognize. But we have learned that capacity-building is a broad concept with a political
dimension (Boesen and Therkildsen, 2005). Moreover, it is rarely effective in an organizational vacuum.
For example, capacity-building at the individual level usually takes place on training courses, away from
the workplace. Learning designs need to make a bridge from training to the ‘action environment’ of work
– its organizational culture, management practices and communication networks – in the form of action
plans, supervisor involvement and post-training review arrangements (Grindle and Hilderbrand, 1995;
McCourt and Sola, 1999).
6. New Public Management (NPM)
In terms of the ‘periodization’ outlined in Table 1, NPM is the reform model which succeeded the public
administration model. Of course there was continuity as well as change in the succession. The OECD’s
(1995) review of public management developments, published at the high tide of NPM, includes
initiatives to improve management of HR, something that the Weberian model also emphasizes in its own
way. The essential change, however, was from the public administration doctrine of regular, predictable
and rule-governed behavior to behavior that was driven by performance. The public administration
doctrine tends to assume that if a sound framework of rules is put in place and public servants are
persuaded to adhere, adequate performance will follow. But the governments that went down the NPM
road were setting their sights on better rather than adequate performance. Moreover, continuing pressure
to restrain public expenditure meant that better performance could be bought only up to a point, and
although the stimulus of competition was introduced (as we shall see), it became clear that there were
limits to its use, intrinsic or political as the case may be. Thus the application of management techniques
became the formula deployed to square the circle of government that worked better while costing no more
NPM in practice has been driven by four management imperatives: delegation, performance, competition
and responsiveness to clients. Delegation has had two aspects. First, there is the hiving off of
responsibilities to the private sector through privatization, especially of industries which had previously
been nationalized; and the consequent emergence of elaborate frameworks for regulating them in the
public interest. Second, there is the devolution of management authority to lower levels in the public
Privatization and regulation are outside the scope of this paper, and we have already dealt with ‘devolving
authority’ in the section above on administrative decentralization. I shall now discuss the remaining two
imperatives: improving performance and providing responsive service.
The NPM approach to ensuring performance hinges on the formulation and measurement of performance
indicators. In the early days of NPM, such indicators usually addressed the internal operations of
individual agencies. In a typical example, Denmark’s national library undertook to increase productivity
by 10 percent, increase the number of transactions by 2.5 percent annually and put purchases prior to
1979 on computer, all by the end of 1996 (OECD, 1995: 35). Subsequently, the technology of monitoring
performance has grown sophisticated, with performance management indicators that are outcome- rather
than output- or input-based (different from the Weberian model in this respect), and which generate
elabourate performance data. Performance management is also widely practiced by international
development agencies: in a sense, the Millennium Development Goals are performance management on a
global scale (Goldsmith, 2011).
Public administration as a rule leans lightly on theoretical support. But advocates of performance
indicators can point to plentiful evidence for their value from organizational psychology. Locke et al.,
surveying numerous relevant studies, characterize goal-setting theory, whose essential claim is that setting
goals improves performance, as ‘among the most scientifically valid and useful theories in organizational
science’ (1991: 370). Not just any old goal, though: research shows that goals should be specific and
challenging. Those who have to reach them should be committed to doing so, and should receive support
and encouragement, and feedback on their performance, as they work towards them (Locke and Latham,
Malaysia is perhaps the most elaborate example of performance management in the public sector among
developing countries. Its National Key Result Areas are the numerical indicators for the Governance
Transformation Programme which was the Barisan Nasional government’s response to its poor
performance in the 2008 election, when the Opposition tapped public anxieties on crime, corruption and
the economy. (So it is an intensely political initiative.) Its first annual targets, widely publicized,
included a 20% reduction in street crime, and an improvement in Malaysia’s score on Transparency
International’s Corruption Perceptions Index from 4.5 to 4.9.
In the event, there was a reported reduction in street crime of 37% by the end of 2010. The CPI score
languished initially at 4.4, but the 4.9 target was met the following year when TI announced its latest
annual index. Moreover, mindful that it should not be judge and jury in its own case, the Malaysian
government assembled an international panel in January 2011 to review its progress. Its members
included an Australian public service commissioner, an IMF Resident Representative and a co-founder of
Transparency International. They were fulsome: ‘a great success,’ ‘impressive,’ ‘extraordinary’
(PEMANDU, 2011: 199, 200, 202).
However, reservations should be entered. First, there are holes in the data, as Table 3 shows. Second,
apart from the possibility of a Hawthorne effect
, given that Malaysia’s initiative was still in its early
stages when I wrote, there is the scope for gaming which is inherent in performance management.
Agencies have an incentive to perform sub-optimally (a ‘threshold effect’), fearful that if they exceed the
initial targets, the bar will be set higher next time round (a ‘ratchet effect’). They also have an incentive
to manipulate the performance data (Bevan and Hood, 2006). There is no evidence that any of this has
occurred in Malaysia, but the theoretical concern is reflected in the international panel’s report, which
recommended that the statistics should be audited ‘to preserve authenticity and validity’ (PEMANDU,
2011: 206; see also McCourt, 2012).
The impression of a traditional bureaucracy where, to invoke the celebrated NPM distinction, both
‘steerers’ and ‘rowers’ were exclusively fully paid-up public servants is misleading. A proportion of
public work was always contracted out to the private and voluntary sectors, not only in fringe areas like
the placing of newspaper advertisements, but also strategic capital projects for the construction of
motorways, buildings and so on. In Germany the application of the subsidiarity principle made this
inevitable (Reichard, 1997). The difference which NPM makes is to remove bureaucrats’ discretion,
making contracting out obligatory, and thereby increasing its scope and extent.
Contracts awarded competitively are, in a sense, performance indicators ‘with teeth’. A weakness of
purely internal ‘service level agreements’ based on performance indicators is the lack of effective
sanctions if the agreement is broken, since the internal supplier knows that the internal customer has
nowhere else to go (Greer, 1994). By contrast, a contracting régime uses competition or the threat of
competition to enhance performance at three stages: in the initial bidding for the contract, in monitoring
compliance and in re-bidding at the end of the contract period. In this way, as one sympathetic account
from New Zealand maintains, provision becomes results-driven, transparency and accountability are
ensured and – not least – responsiveness to voice increases because customer feedback really matters. In
New Zealand, consequently, delivery of local authority services by external providers jumped from 22 to
48 percent of provision between 1989 and 1994 (Boston et al., 1996).
Providing Responsive Service
With its emphasis on management techniques as a spur to performance, NPM operates from the top down,
which militates against responsiveness. The oddity of managing service performance over the heads of its
beneficiaries has been compensated for through devices like ‘citizen’s charters’ which set out minimum
standards of service that clients can expect, based on principles such as:
quality — improving the quality of services
choice — wherever possible
standards — specify what to expect and how to act if standards are not met
value — for the taxpayers’ money
accountability — individuals and organizations
transparency — rules/procedures/schemes/grievances
They have been introduced in many countries, including India. However, the experience has been mixed,
not only in developing countries (Sharma and Agnihotri, 2001), but also in the UK, where the charter
movement began. The UK Citizen’s Charters were a flagship initiative of Prime Minister John Major, yet
only 16 out of 1,000 Britons polled at their height in the mid-1990s were both familiar with a Charter and
satisfied with it (O’Conghaile, 1996). The criticism arose that lip-service was being paid to citizens’
views, and that the charters reflected the priorities of managers, not citizens (Clarke and Newman, 1997).
The involvement of non-state providers is probably of greater significance than ‘managerialist’ initiatives
such as citizen’s charters. In this paper we are not interested in stand-alone service provision, whether by
NGOs, for-profit providers or donors, even though in some countries there are areas such as water and
sanitation where private provision predominates, but in services that are contracted by or actively aligned
with state service provision. Experience here has been mixed yet again, and probably more negative than
positive. An early study of contracting for clinical and ancillary services in the health sector found
problems created by the limited capacity of slow-moving, rule-ridden bureaucracies to perform even very
basic functions such as paying contractors in a timely manner (Mills et al., 2001). A more recent
comprehensive survey echoed that finding, and noted that formal policy dialogue between government
and non-state providers was often imperfect and unrepresentative, especially in fragile settings, and
sometimes unduly dominated by the provider side (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010).
The Appropriateness of NPM
NPM has been described as ‘truly a global paradigm’ (Borins, 1997: 65) whose spread is impeded only by
bureaucratic isolationism (Thompson, 1997: 13). However, the contributors to a comprehensive review in
2001 found that its incidence in developing countries was limited (McCourt and Minogue, 2001), and that
picture has probably not changed a great deal in the last decade. The problem-solving approach that I
have taken in this paper suggests an explanation. If NPM is essentially a response to the problem of
improving performance and delivering on a government’s objectives, then a prior condition for its
application must be that government makes improving performance a priority.
Whether performance is or even ought to be a priority was the subject of a debate over the application of
the New Zealand version of NPM (New Zealand was a market leader in the early days of NPM). Bale
and Dale (1998), as advocates, argued that the New Zealand reforms were relevant to developing
countries because they were developed from a broad, system-wide perspective that focused on the causes,
not the symptoms, of dysfunctionality, and because having specified the performance standards that the
center expected, the reforms devolved to line agencies the management authority that they would need to
meet the standards. However, they conceded that some stringent conditions were also necessary: a
politically neutral, competent public service; little corruption or nepotism; a functioning legal code and
political market; and a competent private sector.
Answering Bale and Dale’s case, Schick (1998) argued that Bale and Dale were taking for granted the
earlier stage of New Zealand’s bureaucratic development where a framework of rules and a culture of
following them had been implanted. By contrast, he went on, developing country public administration
was typically informal, with local managers having virtual impunity to override formal procedures.
Deliberately weakening those procedures, which were weak in the first place, in the interests of giving
managers ‘the right to manage’, would fatally exacerbate the very problems which NPM wanted to solve.
In terms of the problem-solving framework adopted in this paper, Schick’s objection is that NPM is a
First World solution to the First World problem of improving public sector performance, something that
industrialized country governments have the luxury of doing because by deploying the Weberian model
much earlier in their history, they have already solved the problem of how to put government on an
orderly and efficient footing. Developing countries should follow the same sequence, in Schick’s view:
walk before they try to run.
We do not need to take sides in the debate. However, it illustrates – and not for the first time in this paper
– the importance of tailoring reform to the context in which it is taking place.
7. Bottom-Up Reforms
Both the models we have presented so far share an assumption: that when it comes to setting priorities for
public management, public managers should be in the driver’s seat. Reform should come from the top
down – just as it did with India’s citizen’s charters and Malaysia’s National Key Result Areas. Indeed a
great deal of reform effort has gone into ensuring that managers are in the driver’s seat, insulated from
clientelistic pressures from society and politicians.
That view has changed dramatically. We can see Peter Evans’ (1995) Embedded Autonomy as the first
crack in the monolith, through its recognition that East state officials’ effectiveness depended on a dense
network of ties with the private sector and civil society. Evans labeled this distinctive relationship
‘embedded autonomy’ because although officials were ‘embedded’ in social ties, they retained some
aloofness, informed but not instructed by their social interlocutors. The bureaucrats stayed in the driver’s
seat, even if they now had industrialists and civil society in the passenger seat next to them.
But, arriving just a little after Evans’ seminal work, a new fashion
for participation put civil society in
the driving seat. In this bottom-up approach, policy priorities were to come directly from citizens, placing
public officials in a responsive or even passive posture. The World Bank’s landmark Voices of the Poor
report found that public agencies were among the most important but also the least effective institutions in
poor people’s lives. The Report called for ‘organized communities that can participate in devolved
authority structures and keep local governments accountable’ (Narayan et al., 2000: 283; see also Figures
10.1 and 10.2).
In due course, the World Bank’s World Development Report (WDR) for 2000/01 advocated
‘empowerment’ of poor communities, including through participation in public services, and making
public agencies directly accountable to the public via the media, the courts and advocacy by civil society
organizations. It departed abruptly from the public administration doctrine of accountability with the
assertion that ‘the quality of public service is reduced when public officials are held accountable more to
their hierarchical superiors than to the people they serve.’
The new doctrine was amplified by WDR 2004. The argument now was that elections are an inadequate
way for citizens to control what state agencies do in their name: ‘Given the weaknesses in the ‘long route’
of accountability (i.e. classic vertical accountability), service outcomes can be improved by strengthening
the ‘short route’ – by increasing the client’s power over providers.’ In making this argument, World Bank
authors were mindful of innovations in developing countries where officials’ direct accountability to their
clients has been institutionalized. The Indian experience with citizen report cards and the Brazilian
experiment in participatory budgeting, both celebrated in WDR 2004, are innovations which illustrate
both the strength and one or two weaknesses of the new accountability doctrine.
A ‘citizen report card’ survey in Bengaluru (Bangalore) in Karnataka state in 1993 identified an abysmal
satisfaction rating of 9% with municipal services. Following press coverage and action by the state
government, satisfaction increased across two subsequent surveys to 48% in 2003. The World Bank
evaluated the initiative positively (Ravindra, 2004), and the evidence that ‘voice’ was improving services,
just as the new doctrine had said it would, stimulated replications in countries as far apart as Ethiopia, the
Philippines and the Ukraine
However, the survey instigator, Samuel Paul, was more cautious than his admirers. He concedes that
service quality started to improve in the context of a wider urban reform programme introduced by the
Congress party state government which came to power in 1999. In fact the programme was wound up in
2004 by an incoming state Chief Minister who believed that its urban bias had lost the Congress party
votes. The Report Card initiative was not repeated after the 2004 election in Karnataka. Paul’s initiative
suffered from the perception that it served a sectional (urban) interest.
It was certainly providing direct
accountability to citizens. But the accountability was only to one group of citizens, urban dwellers, and
was perceived to be at the expense of rural dwellers (Paul, undated).
The participatory budgeting experiment in Porto Alegre, Brazil draws on a strong history of social
movements, and on the neighborhood associations and other participatory procedures introduced when
the Workers’ Party took control of the municipality in 1991. By 2000, at least 20,000 residents were
taking part in the participatory processes, which covered the full range of municipal budgets from road-
building to health care. Review meetings in municipal districts took place at least twice a month,
attended by around 50 people on average. However, Porto Alegre’s budget experiment has accounted for
only a modest proportion of the municipal budget: officials still hold most of the purse-strings. There
have been problems elsewhere too: an optimistic report of an attempted replication of Porto Alegre in El
Salvador admits that participatory budgeting had fallen into disuse in 60% of the locations where it had
been attempted; and emerging evidence from Africa is also disappointing (Bland, 2011; Booth, 2011;
Gaventa and McGee, 2010). Moreover, ‘If one considers the legislature to be an important organ of
democratic institutionality, it may seem problematic that the local legislature tends to have its powers
diminished by the participatory budget planning’ (Teivanien, 2002: 629; see also Baiocchi, 2003).
The difficulties with accountability that bottom-up initiatives inadvertently create (‘unintended
consequences’ again!) echo criticisms which we have mostly forgotten in development circles that
followed the wave of participation experiments in countries like Libya, Tanzania and Yugoslavia in the
1960s and 1970s, not to mention industrialized countries like the UK and the US (Pagano and Rowthorn,
1996; Richardson, 1983; Wolfe, 1970).
Finally, it is important to draw a distinction here between public administration functions. The ‘voice’
approach is most promising for functions such as service provision, regulation and revenue collection
where there is a clear interface with citizens, and therefore a citizen constituency for reform. However, it
is less promising for overall policy formulation and ‘back office’ functions such as human resource
management which are less visible to citizens. Kessy and McCourt (2010) found that school meetings in
Tanzania were better attended than any other participatory forum: citizens care a great deal more about
their children’s education than about abstruse questions of governance. (This may be why one UK party
leader was mocked in the 1997 general election when he put the creation of an independent central bank
at the center of his party’s programme. His technocratic proposal duly failed to galvanize voters.) For the
back-office functions, top-down management reform is probably the only way to proceed.
So there are questions of appropriateness with the bottom-up reforms, just as there have been with the
top-down ones. It is ironic that advocates of bottom-up approaches to reform have been slower than their
top-down counterparts to recognize the problems we have just discussed, even though their favored
initiatives have been concentrated in middle-income countries, especially in Latin America, and
implemented in idiosyncratic ways.
That indifference to context, mixed with the powerful support of international development agencies, has
prompted a concern in an article which is sympathetic to the reforms that the voice-based reforms might
be ‘ground, pasteurized and converted into new appendages of conditionality’.
Santos (1998: 507) was
prescient: ‘process conditionality’ in the form of a requirement for governments to consult public society
was to become integral to the design of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), the lending vehicle
that replaced structural adjustment loans, with initiatives like Porto Alegre and Bengaluru held up as
models. Despite criticisms that what was being promoted was not so much ownership as ‘donorship’
(Cramer et al., 2006; Dijkstra, 2002), the model has spread to other development agencies like DFID and
8. Conclusion: From Failure to Success?
‘Almost none (of the many identified factors affecting commitment to economic reform) seems to
have a uniform effect across countries . . . Reform outcomes depend on complex combinations of
a variety of factors.’ (Campos and Esfahani, 2000: 222)
‘Incomplete and even quite ambiguous explanations are about the most we should expect. This is
not an area in which clear-cut, high-probability causal models can be developed – far from it.’
(Whitehead, 1990: 1145)
‘Answers must be invented for each country individually.’ (Nelson, 1990: 361)
In the light of the confession of failure at the start of this paper, citing these quotations may look like
gratuitous self-flagellation. However, they take on a more positive hue when we place them in the light
of the problem-solving approach that I have proposed in this paper. Seen in that perspective, the
suggestion arises that where the approaches failed, it was not necessarily because of any intrinsic defect:
they may have been responses to problems which arose in one setting, but which did not arise in the
setting to which they were being applied.
We had a vivid example of this just as I was completing this paper. Under its new President, Dr Jim Kim,
the World Bank has developed an interest in a so-called ‘science of delivery’. This has led in turn to an
interest in initiatives such as Malaysia’s National Key Result Areas, because of the dramatic improvement
in service outcomes which those initiatives have engendered. However, such initiatives presuppose that a
government has made service delivery improvement a key objective, as Malaysia’s has done. Evidence is
emerging – predictably, from the perspective taken in this paper – that where an approach like Malaysia’s
has been attempted in countries which do not share that objective in any real sense, it has either failed or
it has been adapted almost out of recognition to serve policymakers’ specific preoccupations.
This example does seem to support the argument on which this paper is based, namely that having
specified the problem we are trying to solve as precisely as we can, just as Fritz and Andrews have
enjoined, we should select our attempted solution from a broad range of alternatives. In her classic study
of what she calls ‘wooden-headedness’ in policymaking, The march of folly, the American historian
Barbara Tuchman (1984: 480) asserted that
‘Leaders in government, on the authority of Henry Kissinger, do not learn beyond the convictions
they bring with them; they are ‘the intellectual capital they will consume as long as they are in
That may be so. But perhaps their advisers, who are the intended audience for this article, can
compensate for that deficiency in the ways that have been proposed here.
In that way, I hope that my review of models of public service reform and their trajectories suggests a
way forward which readers will be able to pursue. Very different from public management specialists in
industrialized countries, specialists in public management in development are frequently economists, with
a learned preference for unitary, sharp-edged solutions. Yet such solutions are even less on offer in
developing countries than they are elsewhere.
Let us make an analogy with the practice of medicine. There are medical doctors who choose to practice
in poor countries because of the challenge they offer to their professional judgment and improvisational
skills, not to mention their humanitarian commitment: German Nobel Prize winner Albert Schweitzer is
the classic example. Moreover, and very interestingly, we have seen the development of ‘problem-based
learning’ among Medical Schools, to the extent that some of those schools have made medical problem-
solving the center around which their students’ entire medical education revolves (Barrows, 1996).
Thus I hope that among my readers there are a few who will be stimulated rather than daunted by the
sheer intricacy of the challenges I have touched upon in this paper. Commenting on the evidence of
business start-up failure which we quoted at the start of this article, one investor remarked that
“People are embarrassed to talk about their failures, but the truth is that if you don’t have a lot of
failures, then you’re just not doing it right, because that means that you’re not investing in risky
ventures.” (Cowan, quoted in Gage, 2012)
Perhaps our refinement of the problem-based approach will help reformers to see a way forward with
tackling those challenges; and perhaps in so doing, the failure of the present writer’s generation of
reformers will be the paradoxical foundation for the success of a new generation.
Andrews, M. (2013) The limits of institutional reform in development, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Anderson, J., G. Reid and R. Ryterman (2003) Understanding public sector performance in transition
countries: An empirical contribution, Washington DC: World Bank PREM.
Baiocchi, G. (2003) ‘Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in municipal governance’, American
Sociological Review, 68: 52-74.
Bale, M. and T. Dale (1998) ‘Public sector reform in New Zealand and its relevance to developing
countries’, World Bank Research Observer, 13, 1, 103-22.
Bana, B. and W. McCourt (2006) ‘Institutions and governance: Public staff management in Tanzania’,
Public Administration and Development, 26: 395-407.
Barrows, H. (1996) Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview, New Directionfor
Teaching and Learning, 68: 3-12.
Bartunek, J., J. Gordon and R. Preszler (1983) ‘Developing “complicated” understanding in
administrators’, Academy of Management Review, 8: 273-84.
Batley, R. and C. Mcloughlin (2010) ‘Engagement with non-state service providers in fragile states:
Reconciling state-building and service delivery, Development Policy Review 28, 2): 131-54 .
Bevan, G. and C. Hood (2006) ‘What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English
public health care system’, Public Administration, 84: 517–38.
Bland, G. (2011) ‘Supporting post-conflict democratic development? External promotion of participatory
budgeting in El Salvador’, World Development, 39: 863-73.
Blum, J. (2014) ‘What predicts how World Bank public sector management projects perform? A review
of the World Bank’s public sector management portfolio’, Washington DC: World Bank,
Boesen, N. and O. Therkildsen (2005) A results-oriented approach to capacity change, Copenhagen:
Bolman, L. and T. Deal (2003) Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership, San Francisco,
Booth, D. (2011) ‘Towards a theory of local governance and public goods provision’, IDS Bulletin, 42, 2:
Borins, S. and E. Warrington (1996) The new public administration: Global challenges, local solutions –
A report on the second biennial conference of CAPAM, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh, (1996) Public management: The New Zealand model,
Campos, J. and H. Esfahani (2000) ‘Credible commitment and success with public enterprise reform’,
World Development, 28: 221-43.
Clapham, C. (1982) Private patronage and public power: Political clientelism in the modern state,
Clarke, J. and J. Newman (1997) The managerial state: Power, politics and ideology in the remaking of
social welfare, London: Sage.
Cooley L. (2008) ‘Academic–practitioner exchange: development administration’, Public Administration
Review, 68: 1003–4.
Cramer, C., H. Stein and J. Weeks (2006) ‘Ownership and donorship: Analytical issues and a Tanzanian
case study’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 24: 415-43.
Dahl-Østergaard T., S. Unsworth, M. Robinson and R. Jensen (2005) Lessons learnt on the use of power
and drivers of change analyses in development cooperation,
Denison, D., R. Hooijberg and R. Quinn (1995) ‘Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of
behavioural complexity in managerial leadership’, Organization Science, 6: 524-40.
Dijkstra, A. (2002) ‘The effectiveness of policy conditionality: Eight country experiences’, Development
and Change, 33, 2: 307-34.
Dolowitz, D., and D. Marsh (2000) ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary
policy-making’, Governance, 13, 1, 5–24.
Duncan, A., H. Macmillan and N. Simutanyi (2003) Zambia: Drivers of pro-poor change – an overview,
Oxford: Oxford Policy Management.
Evans, A. (2003) Decentralization: A review of staffing practices in eight countries, Washington, D.C:
Evans, P. (1995) Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation, Princeton: Princeton
Evans, P. and Rauch, J. (1999) ‘Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of
“Weberian’’ state structures on economic growth’, American Sociological Review, 64: 748–65.
Fritz, V., K. Kaiser and B. Levy (2009) Problem-driven governance and political economy analysis,
Washington DC: World Bank.
Gage, D. (2012) ‘The venture capital secret: 3 Out of 4 start-ups fail’, Wall Street Journal, September 20.
Gaventa, J. and R. McGee (2010) Citizen action and national policy reform: Making change happen,
George, A. (1972) ‘The case for multiple advocacy in making foreign policy’, American Political Science
Review, 66: 751 -85.
Goldsmith, A. (2011) ‘No country left behind? Performance standards and accountability in US foreign
assistance’, Development Policy Review, 29, s1: 157–76.
Greer, P. (1994) Transforming central government: The Next Steps initiative, Buckingham: Open
Grindle, M. (2007) ‘Good enough governance revisited’, Development Policy Review, 25: 533-74.
Grindle, M. (1997) ‘Divergent cultures? When public organizations perform well in developing
countries’, World Development, 25: 481-95.
Grindle, M. and M. Hilderbrand (1995) ‘Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: What can be
done?’ Public Administration and Development, 15: 441–63.
IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (1999) Public service reform: A review of World Bank assistance,
Washington DC: World Bank, Report No. 19599.
IEG (2008) Public sector reform: What works and why? An IEG evaluation of World Bank support
Johnson J. and S. Wasty (1993) Borrower ownership of adjustment programs and the political economy
of reform, Washington D.C: World Bank Discussion Paper No. 199.
Jones, D. (1974) ‘The tribune’s visitation’, in David Jones ‘The sleeping lord’ and other fragments,
London: Faber and Faber, 42-58.
Joshi, A. and P. Houtzager (2012) ‘Widgets or watchdogs? Conceptual explorations in social
accountability’, Public Management Review, 14: 145-62.
Kessy, A. and W. McCourt (2010) ‘Is decentralization still recentralization? The Local Government
Reform Programme in Tanzania’, International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 12: 689-97.
King, A. and I. Crewe (2013) The blunders of our governments, London: Oneworld.
Klitgaard, R. (1988) Controlling corruption, Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Lindauer, D., and B. Nunberg (eds) (1994) Rehabilitating government: Pay and employment reform in
Africa, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1990) A theory of goal-setting and task performance, New York: Prentice
Locke, E., G. Latham and M. Erez (1991) ‘The determinants of goal commitment’, in R. Steers and L.
Porter (eds) Motivation and work behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 370-89.
McCourt, W. (2012) ‘Reconciling top-down and bottom-up: Electoral competition and service delivery in
Malaysia’, World Development, 40: 2329–2341.
McCourt, W. (2007) ‘Impartiality through bureaucracy? A Sri Lankan approach to managing values’,
Journal of International Development 19: 429-42.
McCourt, W. (2003) ‘Political commitment to reform: Public service reform in Swaziland’, World
Development, 31: 1015-31.
McCourt, W. (2001) ‘Towards a strategic model of employment reform: Explaining and remedying
experience to date’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12: 56-75.
McCourt, W. and M. Minogue (eds) (2001) The internationalization of public management: Reinventing the
Third World state, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McCourt, W. and N. Sola (1999) ‘Using training to promote public service reform: a Tanzanian local
government case study’, Public Administration and Development, 19: 63-75.
Merton, R. (1936) ‘The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action’, American Sociological
Review 1, 6: 894-904.
Mills, A., S. Bennett and S. Russell (2001) The challenge of health sector reform: What must
governments do? Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Minogue, M. (2001) ‘The internationalization of new public management’, in W. McCourt and M.
Minogue, op. cit., 1-19.
Mitroff, I. and J. Emshoff (1979) ‘On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and
planning’, Academy of Management Review, 4: 1-12.
Narayan, D., R. Patel, K. Schafft, A. Rademacher and S. Koch-Schult (2000) Can anyone hear
us? Voices of the poor, Volume 1, Paris: Editions ESKA.
Nelson, J. (Ed.) (1990) Economic crisis and policy choice, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press,
Nunberg, B. (1997) ‘Leading the horse to water: Transnational inducements to administrative Reform’,
Research in Public Administration, volume 5, Stamford CT: JAI Press.
Nunberg, B. (1997) Rethinking public service reform: An agenda for smart government, Washington DC:
World Bank Poverty and Social Development Department.
O’Conghaile, W. (1996) ‘Current and future developments in service quality initiatives in Portugal,
France and the United Kingdom’, in OECD, Responsive government: Service quality initiatives, Paris:
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1995) Governance in Transition:
Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries, Paris: OECD.
Pagano, U. and R. Rowthorn (eds) (1996) Efficiency and enterprise democracy, London: Routledge.
Paul, S. (undated) Holding the state to account: Lessons of Bangalore’s Citizen Report Cards,
PEMANDU (2011) Government Transformation Programme: Annual Report, 2010,
Plato (1969) ‘The Apology of Socrates’, in Plato, The last days of Socrates, Harmondsworth: Penguin,
Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the public services, Oxford: Blackwell.
Popper, K. (1989) ‘Towards a rational theory of tradition’, in K. Popper Conjectures and refutations: The
growth of scientific knowledge, London: Routledge, 120-35.
Popper, K. (1999) All life is problem-solving, London: Routledge.
Rauch, J. and Evans, P. (2000) ‘Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed
countries’, Journal of Public Economics, 75: 49-71.
Ravindra, A. (2004). An assessment of the impact of Bangalore Citizen Report Cards on the performance
of public agencies, World Bank: ECD Working Paper Series No. 12.
Reichard, C. (1997) ‘ “Neues Steuerungsmodell” ’: Local reform in Germany’, in W. Kickert (Ed.) Public
management and administrative reform in Western Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 61-82.
Richardson, A. (1983) Participation, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Robinson, M. (2007) ‘The politics of successful governance reforms: Lessons of design and
implementation’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45: 521-48.
Rodrik, D. (2008) ‘Second-best institutions’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
Santos, B. (1998) ‘Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a redistributive democracy’, Politics
and Society, 26: 461-510.
Schick, A. (1998) ‘Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand’s reforms’, World Bank
Research Observer, 13, 1, 123-31.
Sharma, A. and V. Agnihotri (2001) ‘The citizen’s charter: The Indian experience’, International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 67: 733–73.
Teivanien, T. (2002) ‘The World Social Forum and global democratisation: Learning from Porto Alegre’,
Third World Quarterly, 23: 621–63.
Tendler, J. (1997). Good government in the tropics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Thompson, F. (1997) ‘Defining the new public management’, in L. Jones, K. Schedler and S. Wade (eds)
Advances in International Comparative Management: International Perspectives on the New Public
Management, Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 1-14.
Tuchman, B. (1984) The march of folly: From Troy to Vietnam, New York: Knopf.
Turner, M. (2002) ‘Choosing items from the menu: New Public Management in Southeast Asia’,
International Journal of Public Administration, 25: 1493-1512.
Turner, M. and D. Hulme (1997) Governance, administration and development: Making the state work,
Weick, K. (1993) ‘The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-52.
Whitehead, L. (1990) ‘Political explanations of macroeconomic management: A survey’, World
Development, 18: 1133-46.
Wilkinson, D. (2006) The ambiguity advantage: What great leaders are great at, London: Palgrave
Wolfe, T. (1970) Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the flak catchers, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Wolfensohn, J. (1999) ‘A proposal for a comprehensive development framework’, Memorandum to the
Board, Management and Staff of the World Bank Group, 21 January.
World Bank (1998) Assessing aid: What works, what doesn’t, and why, Washington D.C: World Bank.
World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty, New York: Oxford
World Bank (2004) World Development Report 2004: Making services work for poor people, New York:
Oxford University Press.
In the author’s personal experience as a practitioner, this is already happening.
I use ‘institutions’ in this paper to refer to the formal laws and agencies of the state (such as a Civil Service Law or
an Election Commission), and not the informal institutions of society (such as the family).
http://bunge.parliament.go.tz/PAMS/docs/8-2002 ; http://polis.parliament.go.tz/PAMS/docs/16-1989 .
Cf. Fritz et al. (2009).
See also Wilkinson (2006) on tolerance of ambiguity as an attribute of successful leaders.
Many others have recognized that governments tailor approaches to their circumstances: see for example Nunberg
(1997: 14); and Turner (2002).
See also Merton (1936). Merton and Popper seem to have come up with the idea independently of each other.
But both, in a way, were merely developing Robert Burns’ insight:
‘The best-laid schemes o’ mice and men
Gang aft agley.’ (‘Often go awry.’)
Readers unfamiliar with this term may consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect.
Or, more correctly, a revived fashion: see below.
It is perhaps relevant to note that the author of the evaluation study which conferred the World Bank seal of
approval was not a disinterested party, being a former Chief Secretary of the Karnataka state government who
subsequently joined the Board of the Public Affairs Centre, the NGO in Bengaluru which sponsored the initiative.
Select your paper details and see how much our professional writing services will cost.
Our custom human-written papers from top essay writers are always free from plagiarism.
Your data and payment info stay secured every time you get our help from an essay writer.
Your money is safe with us. If your plans change, you can get it sent back to your card.
Check out some essay pieces from our best essay writers before your place an order. They will help you better understand what our service can do for you.
We offer more than just hand-crafted papers customized for you. Here are more of our greatest perks.
Get instant answers to the questions that students ask most often.See full FAQ
We complete each paper from scratch, and in order to make you feel safe regarding its authenticity, we check our content for plagiarism before its delivery. To do that, we use our in-house software, which can find not only copy-pasted fragments, but even paraphrased pieces of text. Unlike popular plagiarism-detection systems, which are used by most universities (e.g. Turnitin.com), we do not report to any public databases—therefore, such checking is safe.
We provide a plagiarism-free guarantee that ensures your paper is always checked for its uniqueness. Please note that it is possible for a writing company to guarantee an absence of plagiarism against open Internet sources and a number of certain databases, but there is no technology (except for turnitin.com itself) that could guarantee no plagiarism against all sources that are indexed by turnitin. If you want to be 100% sure of your paper’s originality, we suggest you check it using the WriteCheck service from turnitin.com and send us the report.
Yes. You can have a free revision during 7 days after you’ve approved the paper. To apply for a free revision, please press the revision request button on your personal order page. You can also apply for another writer to make a revision of your paper, but in such a case, we can ask you for an additional 12 hours, as we might need some time to find another writer to work on your order.
After the 7-day period, free revisions become unavailable, and we will be able to propose only the paid option of a minor or major revision of your paper. These options are mentioned on your personal order page.