MPPG_501-Sign_Posts_on_Fundamentals_of_public_sector_reforms_and_governance
MPPG_501-Sign_Posts_on_Fundamentals_of_public_sector_reforms_and_governance
MPPG 501 examines reforms aimed at improving the organization, management, governance and
service delivery in public sectors. Its fixation is with improving the way Government institutions work.
To this end, these reforms can also be viewed as aimed at improving public administration—improving
the service delivery capacity of government institutions. Appreciation of the fundamentals of Public
Administration is therefore critical, taking into context the contributions of icons such as Max Weber,
Woodrow Wilson, Hood, Osborne and Gaebler, Christopher Politt, Dunleavy etc.
The public sector reform and governance discourse has vastly changed over the centuries, notably with
transitions from TPA, NPM, NPS, NPG, DPG-each transition constituting an own banquet of new
concepts and principles. Although these reforms have been diffusing to all countries across the world,
their pace and impact has generally varied from region to region and from country to country.
Appreciation of the forces that gave birth to TPA, NPM, NPS, NPG and DPG is therefore critical.
Equally worthy appreciating are the ongoing global contestations on whether the changes from TPA to
latest NPG models should be described as ‘paradigmatic changes’ or mere cases of ‘old wine in new
bottles’. Notable debates can be gleaned from Dunleavy (2005)’s “New Public Management Is Dead-
Long Live Digital-Era Governance” which courted a scholarly response from Jouke de Vries (2009) in
the form of an article “Is New Public Management really dead”. Vries argue that while NPM is in
trouble, it is still not really dead. Parts of NPM are still very much alive. It is too early to speak in terms
of a third –order change (third wave). What are the emerging scenarios in African public sectors? Do
they support or rebut these arguments? Is TPA really dead in African public services?
Equally important is the need to situate and interrogate the push for Public Sector Reform and
governance within the interactive milieu of local and global dynamics. For instance, the emergence of
pro-reform political leadership in many Anglo-American style democracies in the 1980s such as
Margaret Thatcher who “sought to perform radical surgery on the civil service…; Ronald Reagan who
sought to drain the swamp”…. And Brian Mulroney of Canada who sought to “give pink slips and
running shoes”-provided the push for the transition to managerialism (Guy Peters and Donald Savoe,
1994: 418). The NPM ideology was forcefully articulated by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler (1992) in
their book Reinventing Government. It should be noted that NPM went by various names such as
“managerialism” (Pollitt, 1999) ---“new public management” (Hood, 1991), “market–based public
administration” (Lan and Rosenbloom, 1992), “entrepreneurial government” (Osborne and Gaebler,
1992). As a neoliberal managerial doctrine, NPM emphasized downsizing of staff, contracting out of
service provision, disaggregation, removal of state controls on pricing systems and decentralization of
functional units and management (Hood, 1991; Kettle, 2005). Note the visibility of international
organizations such as the WB and IMF in public sectors!
The onset of the second millennium witnessed a rethinking on NPM approaches- hence emergence of
New Public Governance, New Public Services and Digital Public Governance. Concepts and principles
such as co-design, co-production, open government, network governance, green procurement, green
economy, reform sustainability, public-private-community partnerships, e-governance, and e-
engagement are now key elements of the 21 st century public governance discourse. Which scholarly
writings have provided the push for NPS, NPG, and DPG? There is growing emphasis on citizen and
stakeholder participation in national processes-policy formulation and implementation, budgeting.
Governments are expected to forge networks with businesses in road construction, agriculture,
manufacturing, service provision. The notion of government as the sole provider of public services has
since been discarded. The role of the State is to create conditions conducive for
networks/partnership/co-production.
Equally important is the need to situate and interrogate the performance of public sector reforms within
the interactive milieu of African settings. PSRs are state-driven processes. They are formulated,
adopted and implemented by States. The nature of State politics and governance/leadership styles
invariably influences the public sector climate, pace and performance of PSRs. Decisions on what
reform values and goals to pursue, what specific reforms to adopt and what governance frameworks to
put in place are responsibilities of States. The issue is complicated by the fact that mere existence of
requisite frameworks (laws, codes of conduct, institutions, policies, etc) is not the panacea for effective
implementation of PSRs. Oftentimes legal and policy frameworks are “more honored in breach than in
observance” (UNECA & APPAM 1991:7) Political-will matters! So as we review these reforms, we
should be attentive to questions of this nature: How are factors such as the nature of leadership, state
politics, and governance styles in Africa influenced the implementation and performance of public
sector reforms? What are the emerging challenges? How do we measure the success of public sector
reforms? Are there inspiring success stories of public sector reforms in Africa?
21st century contexts of public sector reforms and governance: Global Perspectives
These major developments/dynamics have a direct bearing on public sector reforms and governance. How are
public sectors responding to these dynamics and developments?
Reflect: What specific reforms have been adopted to institutionalize or mainstream these values?
What are the emerging challenges? How can these challenges be sustainably addressed?