Mackendy Pierre-Louis

PAD 6056- Practice of Public Management

Fall 2014

Book Review

 

The Global Public Management Revolution, by Donald F Kettl. (Brooking Institution Press:

Washington D.C, 2005). 108 pp. ISBN 0-8157-4919-8.

When people hear about administrative reforms, Western or developed countries such as the United

States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Japan or Australia are probably the first to come to mind.  On

the other hand, in the book “the Global Public Management Revolution” Kettl’s narrative mainly

addresses worldwide reform movements in public management. The book informs readers that

reforms can be pursued anywhere, by any government irrespective of geographic areas.

In The Global Public Management Revolution, the author provides informative details about

the global movement to transform public management that took place during the 1980s, and 1990s. It

is remarkable to learn that developing countries along with developed countries were pursuing

management reforms to improve their civil service sector. Although, leaders in these countries might

have pursued management reforms for different motives, their strategies translated into just one and

similar objective, which was to transform government by improving its performance. Through these

reforms, political leaders have envisioned to cut costs and improve government responsiveness to

citizens’ needs. To achieve these objectives, they basically have sought to replace traditional-based,

authority-driven processes with market-based competition driven tactics. Kettl points out that besides

introducing market-style discipline to public sector management, leaders have also sought to engender

trust in government and to restore or (at least) improve the stained relation that has developed over the

years between governments and their citizens.

The author contends that efforts to reform the public sector have fell under two broad models:

the Westminster reform model, the one embraced by leaders in New Zealand, Canada, Australia and

the United Kingdom, and the American style reform which found expression in the Clinton

Administration “Reinventing Government” initiative that began in 1993. The New Zealand reforms

were designed to be results oriented, as well as to redefine the role of leaders or managers in public

organizations and to hold them accountable for high performance. Whereas in America, concentration

was on improving government responsiveness and reducing costs.

Developing countries did not escape the global public management revolution movement.

The author remarks that two main reasons have fed the ambition of governments in developing

nations to pursue reforms; 1rst) inherent governance problems and; 2nd) to speed the development

process. Nevertheless, developing countries had difficulties implementing reforms. The author notes

that developing countries lack the necessary political and social development elements (i.e., good

leadership and governance, a justice system, a financial system and a social system that work), which

he maintains are essential preconditions to implementing successful reforms. Moreover, the author

makes an interesting argument that requires our attention. He argues that due to its success, the New

Zealand reform ideals were especially attractive to both developed and developing countries.

Imitation of other countries may be a challenge culturally because the historical traditions are

different (Christensen et al, 2012). There is a possibility that imitation may have been a contributing

factor that led many developing nations to struggle and probably fail in their attempt to implement

reforms. This pattern or tendency to mimic Western style reforms rather than to develop indigenous

public administration is very typical of administration in developing nations. According to Jreisat

(2012), Ferrel Heady defines this pattern as the conscious effort of developing countries to imitate

some version of modern Western bureaucratic administration. Developing nations lack the structural

capacities and resources to replicate the Western models of restructuration, which are often

structurally very multifaceted. Moreover, managers in developing nations lack the training and the

leadership aptitude to implement complex reform models. Thus, based on the author argument,

without these essential preconditions, it is difficult if not impossible for a country to manage reforms.

Furthermore, Kettl argues that efforts to shrink the size of the public sector and make it more

effective have produced mixed results. As examples, he states that New Zealand government

remained larger relative to the U.S, Ireland and Australia, although its public sector has undergone the

most radical changes. In the United States, although the Clinton Administration National Performance

Review (NPR) has decreased costs, especially through procurement reforms and reduction of

government employees, spending decreased by only 3.4 percent and government employment fell by

only 2 percent. While in Ireland government spending decreased 34 percent and employment fell 28

percent.  In the United Kingdom (UK) although government employment shrank dramatically by

approximately 48 percent, spending did not.  The case of the UK is unique and should be given

special consideration. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Thatcher Administration has extensively pursued

market-based model (i.e., privatization and contracting) in her quest to transform government and

public management in the UK. However, her policy did not materialize to less government spending.  

President Reagan has pursued a similar policy of “less government” in the United States. Instead,

under his administration the national debt has increased substantially. Moreover, the federal budget

was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he

entered it- or 22 percent larger in real terms (William Niskanen & Stephen Moore, 1996).

The above examples demonstrate that the author does not only center his argument on the

changes that reforms have brought to public management. He also wants to show through data that

efforts to implement market principles in government did little to improve efficiency (in the realm of

government spending) in some of the countries that have experienced reforms. This also demonstrates

that surrender public enterprises or contracting out public services to the private sector does not

necessarily translate to efficiency. This disproves New Public Management (NPM) advocates’ claim

that introducing market-based principles to the public sector will render government more efficient.  

The market has also its imperfections otherwise there would be no needs for government intervention.

Failures such as information asymmetry and externalities are often cause by abnormalities in the

market. Mohammad Ehsan & Farzana Naz (2003) instruct “whether enterprises are in public or

private hands that does not explain economic performance, what creates economic inefficiency may

be monopoly situation.” Privatization and/or contracting out services do not guarantee efficiency by

any mean. No matter how reliable we might perceive them to be, either process has to be done in

transparency and has to be accompanied with well-drafted and effective regulatory policies.

Another interesting point that the author highlights is that through their reform tactics, leaders

have sought to transform the traditional-hierarchical bureaucratic model into a quasi-market model,

which Von Maveric (2007) maintains promotes a decentralized organizational structure, less

hierarchical control and gives more power to managers. One explanation for that departure Kettl

upholds; is that over the years, corruption, rigid and inflexible practices have given a bad name to

bureaucracy, to the point that bureaucracy is a dirty word the world over. Critics complain that

bureaucracy produces miles of red tape, and managers operating under the bureaucratic model can

become inflexible, rude and consume by incentives to maximize their own power at the expense of

public goals (Kettl, 2005). Whether these allegations are true, leaders’ efforts to advance

accountability in public management and to bring public managers closer to citizens did little to

improve citizens’ trust in their government. According to the author, a “World Values Survey”

indicates that in most industrial nations, citizens have expressed mistrust in their government and the

trend was especially sharp in industrial nations such as Germany, Japan, Italy, the United States and

even Sweden. He also maintains that although similar surveys rarely ring endorsement of government

reforms, there is no evidence that extensive management and political reforms have fixed this trust

issue. On the contrary, the author neither denies nor overlooks the importance of government reforms.

Kettl explains that it might take long and constant improvement to register with citizens and to

increase public confidence in government. He continues by saying that these reforms may have been

helpful in stemming the long term pattern of decline.

Would application of market-based economic principles to public management automatically

results in less government spending and enhances effectiveness? The illustration from the previous

examples on the Thatcher and Reagan leadership eras’ emphasis on privatization and contracting

disproves this argument, and shows that this is not entirely accurate. Second, would market based

principles eliminate corruption in public management entirely? Saying that market-based principles

will entirely eliminate corruption in public management is like saying that corrupt practices are non-

existent in the private sector. The Eron and WorldCom scandals have proved otherwise. Von Maravic

(2007) warns that possible areas of corruption are those where government and private firms are

preparing for or are already having a commercial contractual relationship. Awarding contracts for

instance can lead to rent seeking, bribery and other wrongdoings. In addition, the decentralized nature

of an administrative system can render efforts to investigate irregularities more difficult (Von

Maravic, 2007). Therefore, applying market-based model to public management can encourage more

corrupt practices, if there are no regulatory mechanisms in place to monitor transactions between

government and the private sector, and/or to control behaviors.

Conclusion and Criticism

Although in the book the author goes into specific details describing the reform process in developed

countries, He only briefly alludes to developing nations’ efforts to implement reform and rushes to

provide a list of reasons as to illustrate why some developing nations have faced challenges in their

attempts to implement reforms.  Moreover, he mentions that Singapore has successfully incorporated

elements of the New Zealand system while other developing nations such as Ghana struggled.

However, he does not develop his argument to try to explain what internal or external forces may

have been at play or may have influenced outcomes in both countries. For examples, if Chile and

Singapore were successful at improving both their economic development and public management

sectors, something they have done in the past must have facilitated the transition, but there is no

mention of any reformative steps that leaders in both countries might have taken previously that made

implementation successful. This indicates that when it involves public administration in less

developed countries knowledge of the literature on the subject is limited. But, overall the author did a

good job explaining what global circumstances and events have sparked the global reform movement,

and how technological invention (i.e., information technology) has made possible the application of

market model in public management. He also provides a thorough explanation of the procedures that

leaders in developed countries have followed to attain their objectives.

Reference

Christensen et al (2012). Imitating the West? Evidence of Administrative Reform from the Upper

Echelon of Chinese Provincial Government. Public Administration Review.

Kettl F Donald (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution (2nd Edition). Brooking Institution

Press, Washington DC.

Jreisat J (2012). “Globalism and Comparative Public Administration” CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Mohammad Ehsan & Farzana Naz (2003). Origin, Ideas and Practice of New Public Management:

Lessons From Developing Countries. Asian Affairs (CDRB Publication). Vol 25, No 3.

Von Marveric Patrick (2007). Public Management Reforms and Corruption- Conceptualizing the

unintended Consequences. Department of Public Management and Governance, Zeppling University

William Niskanen & Stephen Moore (Oct, 1996). Supply-Side Tax Cut and the Truth about the

Reagan Economic Record. Cato Institute Policy Analysis.