1: Learning from International Public Management Reform Experience

The contents of this book are provided in two volume parts. The first volume part of the book includes chapters 1 through 16: Learning From Reform in Australia, and Learning From Reform in New Zealand. The second volume part contains chapters 17 through 31: Learning From Reform in Asia, Learning From Comparative and International Reform, and Learning From Public Management Reform: Critical Perspectives on New Public Management.

Over the past three decades governments in numerous nations around the world have been subjected to criticism launched from all points of the political spectrum. Critics have alleged that governments are inefficient, ineffective, too large, too costly, overly bureaucratic, overburdened by unnecessary rules, unresponsive to public wants and needs, secretive, undemocratic, invasive into the private rights of citizens, self-serving, and failing in the provision of either the quantity or quality of services deserved by the taxpaying public (see, for example, Barzelay & Arrnajani, 1992; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Jones & Thompson, 1999). Conditions of fiscal stress also plagued many governments during this period, increasing the cry for less costly or just less government, for greater efficiency, responsiveness, and so on. High profile members of the business community, financial institutions, the media, management consultants, academic scholars and the general public have all played a part in creating and sustaining pressure on politicians and public managers for transformational reform, as have a range of supranational organizations and entities, e.g. OECD, the World Bank, the European Commission. Accompanying the demand and many of the recommendations for change has been support for the application of market (economic) logic and private sector management methods to government. (See, for example, T. Moe, 1984; Olson et al., 1998; Harr & Godfrey, 1991; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Jones & Thompson, 1999) Application of market-driven solutions and business techniques to the public sector has undoubtedly been encouraged by the growing ranks of public sector managers and analysts educated in business schools and public management programs. (Pusey, 1991)