Document Library

Key Text New Public Management in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Success and Failure with Particular Reference to Singapore and Bangladesh

Author: A E Sarker
Date: 2006
Size: 24 pages (1.5 MB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How successful have developing countries been at implementing new public management (NPM) reforms? This article from the International Journal of Public Sector Management explains and analyses the factors influencing the relative success and failure of new public management initiatives with particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh. The findings indicate that there may a greater role for the state in socio-economic transformation in general and the implementation of market-oriented reforms in particular.

The new model of public management promises a leaner and better government, decentralisation, empowerment, customer satisfaction and better mechanisms of public accountability. However, there are some preconditions for successfully implanting the new public management approach. There should be a reasonable level of economic development, experience of the operations of markets, and a well-developed judicial system to ensure the rule of law. The new model assumes that the basic administrative processes are in order in the system, ensuring an efficient and control-oriented position. Another precondition for successful implementation of NPM programmes is state capacity, where the state is able to take any reform measure decisively.

Whilst Singapore fulfils many of these preconditions, Bangladesh does not:

Level of economic development and basic public administration processes: Singapore has achieved significant economic growth. It has focused on the establishment of meritocracy, solid institutional frameworks, the rule of law, proper control structures, checks and balances and accountability in the public administration system. Bangladesh, on the other hand, has failed to achieve these.
Political commitment: In Singapore, there has been consistent support from the political leadership for implementing reforms. The former Prime Minister, Lee Kaun Yew, repeatedly expressed his commitment to a competent, neutral, and honest civil service. In Bangladesh, intentions to overhaul the administrative system have never been translated into reality.
State capacity: The fact that Singapore has never promoted political and social pluralism is attributed to the local conditions. This has helped the state become extremely efficient and capable, exemplified by a well-qualified public sector and the insulation of state decision makers from clientelist groups. Meanwhile, state capacity remains a serious hurdle in the process of NPM-style reform in Bangladesh and other developing countries.

Bangladesh has always been susceptible to the pressures of international donor agencies who have not paid sufficient attention to ensuring buy-in from political leaders and the public bureaucracy. Singapore, on the other hand, offers ample lessons for low-income developing countries who are struggling with their administrative reforms:

Refuting the conventional wisdom that markets are superior to state intervention, Singapore is a classic exemplar of an excellent blend of state and market forces. Despite the rhetoric of privatisation, Singapore has still retained state ownership and decided to run these as corporate entities.
In other reform measures, it has taken a very cautious and selective approach. Recent reform has not sought to reduce the role and importance of the state, but rather to refine its role to keep in step with the latest developments and future challenges.
Singapore is a clear example of how capacity building in the public sector paves the way for economic modernisation and further modernisation of administration along the NPM logic.

Access full text: available online

Source: Sarker, A., 2006, 'New Public Management in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Success and Failure with Particular Reference to Singapore and Bangladesh', International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 180-203