Suchergebnisse

Le présent article passe brièvement en revue le document de la Banque mondiale intitulé The World Bank Approach to Public Sector Management 2011–2020 : Better Results from Public Sector Institutions . Ce document propose une approche éclectique, expérimentale, contingente en matière de réforme (« ce qui fonctionne »), par opposition aux orthodoxies doctrinaires, basées sur les « meilleures pratiques ». Le document fait cependant preuve de franchise dans son analyse des obstacles à la réalisation de cette vision, de même que des motivations du personnel proprement dit de la Banque. D'une manière générale, le document est remarquable pour son évaluation franche des efforts menés par la Banque pour appuyer la réforme du secteur public dans les pays en développement. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Le présent article intéressera les praticiens concernés par la réforme du secteur public dans les pays en développement, notamment ceux qui traitent avec la Banque mondiale et d'autres bailleurs de fonds, car il passe en revue un document qui représente un énoncé important de la pensée de la Banque mondiale sur la question de la gestion et de la réforme du secteur public.

This article briefly reviews the World Bank document The World Bank Approach to Public Sector Management 2011–2020: Better Results from Public Sector Institutions. The document proposes an eclectic, experimental, contingent approach to reform – 'what works' – as opposed to doctrinaire, 'best practice' orthodoxies. However, the document is frank in discussing the obstacles to realizing this vision, including among other things the incentives to which Bank staff themselves are subject. In overall terms, the document is noteworthy for its frank appraisal of the Bank's efforts to support public sector reform in developing countries. Points for practitioners This article is of interest to practitioners involved in public sector reform in developing countries, particularly those who deal with the World Bank and other aid donors, because it reviews a document which represents an important statement of the World Bank's thinking on the subject of public sector management and reform.

Graham Allison, a well-:known American political scientist, once asked whether public and private management were 'fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects' (Allison, 1994). Do government and business truly inhabit different worlds? Several scholars of public management, particularly those with a political science background, would say yes. Government, they believe, is fundamentally different from business because it operates in a political milieu and its objectives have little to do with profit maximisation. One cannot therefore expect public organisations to function like private firms. Scholars and practitioners of management may see things differently. They might point out that, however distinct government might be, efforts to improve its performance are ongoing, just as they are in private firms; and that in both public and private sectors those efforts draw on a common toolkit of management techniques. From this perspective the differences rather than the similarities between public and private sectors look superficial. ; peer-reviewed

Rapid East Asian economic growth was commonly credited to the existence of strong, autonomous developmental states. Subsequently a new 'institutionalist' school of thought emerged which argued that an effective state must be connected to civil society, not autonomous from it, and which reinterpreted East Asian development in these terms. This paper is a critical reappraisal of the institutionalist school. The evidence of state autonomy (seen in relativistic rather than absolute, either-or terms) in East Asia's recent history is too great to be ignored. And since some institutionalists themselves acknowledge autonomy as a necessary foundation for developmentally effective relationships with civil society, we should recognize autonomy as a potentially important element of state capacity. State autonomy remains an important analytical concept that deserves the attention of scholars.

Rapid East Asian economic growth was commonly credited to the existence of strong, autonomous developmental states. Subsequently, a new "institutionalist" school of thought emerged that argued that an effective state must be connected to civil society, not autonomous from it, & that reinterpreted East Asian development in these terms. This paper is a critical reappraisal of the institutionalist school. The evidence of state autonomy (seen in relativistic rather than absolute, either/or terms) in East Asia's recent history is too great to be ignored. Further, since some institutionalists themselves acknowledge autonomy as a necessary foundation for developmentally effective relationships with civil society, we should recognize autonomy as a potentially important element of state capacity. State autonomy remains an important analytical concept that deserves the attention of scholars. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

Examines several questions with regard to the implementation of New Public Management (NPM) reform in core civil services throughout the developing world: (1) whether developing countries are applying NPM reforms; (2) the motivations behind the application of NPM reform; (3) the extent to which reform measures are actually implemented; & (4) whether some reforms are unrelated or counter to NPM practices. Research reveals both successes & failures in NPM implementation, but this is also true of traditional public administration reforms through decentralization, capacity-building, & anticorruption measures. The author concludes that local contingencies, both administrative & political, determine the success of reform measures & that effective central institutions play a crucial role. Since the evidence for NPM effectiveness is yet uncertain, more time is needed before critical judgment is applied. Economy, efficiency, & effectiveness in public management reform must also be accompanied with experimentation & eclecticism. 80 References. L. A. Hoffman

In the UK, it is commonly proposed that the accountability gap resulting from ministers' reluctance to accept responsibility for departmental failures could be closed by giving parliamentary select committees stronger investigative powers. In the Sandline affair, the Foreign Affairs Committee sought to take on such a role, notwithstanding that a separate external inquiry was already under way. This paper compares the two mechanisms of accountability. It concludes that committees are poorly suited to investigate high-profile administrative failures because they are too influenced by party politics. Independent inquiries are better for the purpose (though improvements are needed here too). A parliamentary resolution gave the inquiry primacy over the committee in the Sandline case. This may become an important precedent. 52 References. Adapted from the source document.