Can Public Management Contribute to Governance in Developing

Public Organiz Rev (2013) 13:397–409 DOI 10.1007/s11115-013-0259-2

Can Public Management Contribute to Governance in Developing Countries? Evidence from Hong Kong Ahmed Shafiqul Huque

Published online: 8 November 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Governance ensures a wide range of desirable values including efficiency, productivity, participation, transparency, and accountability. The wide scope and overambitious demands of governance make it difficult to conceptualize and operationalize. Despite huge investments in time and resources, developing countries seldom succeed in establishing good governance. Based on the experience of Hong Kong, this article argues that many of the desired values of governance can be attained through effective design and the implementation of public management reforms. Public management cannot serve as an alternative for governance, but reforms in this area can help update and adjust institutional structures, processes, and practices in developing countries; they help to ensure the benefits of the desired values of governance without undertaking enormous risks. However, the size of a country and the nature of its political system will influence the degree of success in establishing governance. Keywords Governance . Public management . Reform . Hong Kong

Introduction Studies on governance lead us to believe that most problems in modern societies can be resolved by following a number of principles and practices, all of which have positive connotations. These ideas, intended to improve the process of governing, have emerged in the social science literature over the years. Good governance is conceptualized as the outcome of a combination of values such as efficiency, productivity, performance, participation, democracy, consultation, transparency, accountability, and universality. Such values thrive in systems that are corruption-free and based on rule of law. Interestingly, many of these values are highlighted within the framework of public A. S. Huque (*) Department of Political Science, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4M4 e-mail: [email protected]

398

A.S. Huque

management. The political process determines the goals and values for a society, and it plays a significant role in shaping administrative institutions. However, for governance that is political in nature, a distinction can be made between, on one hand, the actual political and administrative processes, and on the other hand, public management which is rooted in administrative principles and practices. Since political institutions and their actions are often ineffective and irregular in developing countries, governance may remain unattainable as long as the political element dominates the process. An alternative approach that does not allow political considerations to distort tools and strategies for improvement may help avoid the undesirable consequences. This point can be illustrated with reference to units that have attempted to establish governance in a non-political framework, and the case of Hong Kong serves as an example. The territory was administered as a British colony until its reintegration with the People’s Republic of China in 1997. The strength of the system derived from the tradition of colonial-style governing. Under this system, power was concentrated in the office of the Governor General, who was positioned at the apex of a simple structure of administrative organizations. The new status of Hong Kong entailed transforming the former colonial territory into a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, under the framework of “One country, two systems”. It was a complex undertaking, and attempts were made to update and adjust the structures, processes, practices, and relationships through public sector management reforms. Many developing countries lack the capacity and resources to establish good governance, and this article suggests that a sound system of public management can be the starting point in this endeavour, with the caveat that the outcome will not be as extensive as governance. Part of the reason for this caveat relates to the fact that many of the problems faced in establishing governance in developing countries are political in nature. Political systems in these countries are weak, and the regimes are often unable to establish their claim to legitimacy in ways that would enable them to govern. Polidano has stated that many developing countries “suffer from severe capacity limitations” (1999:16). At the same time, regimes seek to remain in power by politicizing national institutions and making partisan decisions for allocating benefits to favoured groups. Public management, on the other hand, is rooted in administrative traditions and practices that are subject to periodical reviews and reforms; the institutions operate on the basis of rules and regulations intended to ensure fairness, impartiality and equity. There is less scope for allocating resources, services, or facilities based on political considerations when programs are administered. Given the social, economic, and political capacities of governments in developing countries, and the circumstances under which they are governed, this paper argues that it may be worthwhile to focus only on attainable public management reforms, instead of over-ambitiously aiming to establish a type of governance that has little prospect of materializing. As such, good governance would remain an “ideal” that governments strive to achieve, while in practice, public management can help facilitate conditions that approximate that “ideal”. In Hong Kong, many improvements in the process of governing, delivery of public services, and caring for citizens have been facilitated through a series of public management reforms. These improvements are reflected in the progress made by Hong Kong and reported in the World Governance Index.

Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries

399

Good Governance: A Complex Concept The concept of good governance encompasses all the desirable elements that contribute to the improvement of conditions in modern states. It features high on the agenda of governments as well as the international community, who is equally keen to see good governance for alleviating many problems in developing countries. Civil societies, nongovernmental organizations, and academics are enthusiastic about the need for good governance, not least to help make amends for past errors and inadequacies in the social, economic, and political system, as well as for charting a course that would ensure continuous improvement. But before going further into the discussion, it is necessary to contemplate what governance is, regardless of whether it is good, bad or somewhere in-between. [Governance] consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. (World Bank 2011) Hope (2002) also provides an elaborate description of a decidedly good variety that suggests there may be even more components to governance: [Governance is] the exercise of political accountability, bureaucratic transparency, the exercise of legitimate power, freedom of association and participation, freedom of information and expression, sound fiscal management and public financial accountability, respect for the rule of law, a predictable legal framework encompassing an interdependent and credible justice system, respect for human rights, an active legislature, enhanced opportunities for the development of pluralistic forces including civil society, and capacity development. Clearly, there is no consensus on what constitutes governance. Meanwhile, an even bigger challenge than defining it is the issue of implementing the many constituent ideas of good governance. “Despite ambiguity of definitions, governance generally refers to the means for achieving direction, control, and coordination of wholly or partially autonomous individuals or organizations on behalf of interests to which they jointly contribute” (Lynn et al. 2000:2). These ideas highlight the political nature of good governance, and they emphasize the process through which power is shared and exercised, critical decisions are made, and privileges and benefits are distributed in a society. Thus, the critical requirement for establishing good governance is a well-developed political system that operates according to established rules and regulations, with predictable patterns of behaviour of the stakeholders. Jessop (1996) finds the academic literature on governance to be eclectic and relatively disjointed. The theoretical roots are varied and include “institutional economics, international relations, organizational studies, development studies, political science, public administration and Foucauldian-inspired theorists”. It seems,

400

A.S. Huque

then, that governance is being described and interpreted according to the interests and inclinations of researchers, all of which contributes to the confusion. This underlines the need for the development of a “governance perspective” (Stoker 1998:18). Grindle recognizes the unrealistic expectations that follow from the existing definitions of governance: “Getting good governance calls for improvements that touch virtually all aspects of the public sector—from institutions that set the rules of the game for economic and political interaction, to decision-making structures that determine priorities among public problems and allocate resources to respond to them, to organizations that manage administrative systems and delivers goods and services to citizens, to human resources that staff government bureaucracies, to the interface of officials and citizens in political and bureaucratic arenas. Not surprisingly, advocating good governance raises a host of questions about what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, and how it needs to be done (Grindle 2007:525–526). In studies on governance, the ideas of negotiation, flexibility, regulation, partnership and coordination resonate strongly. The World Governance Index (World Bank 2011) uses six dimensions of governance. They are voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. On the basis of these indicators, countries across the world are ranked to indicate their performance in establishing good governance. Keeping in mind the fact that it is impossible to determine the extent to which these conditions are accurately measurable, the Index is helpful in obtaining a general overview of the state of governance across the world. In view of the wide range of definitions and the requirements for achieving good governance, developing countries find it impossible to fulfil all the stipulated conditions. Moreover, there are no fail-safe tools and mechanisms for contextually assessing whether a country has achieved the requirements that could indicate success in governance. The complex and vague nature of good governance as a concept, the influence of political factors on its attainment, and the lack of effective tools for measuring progress, render it almost impossible for developing countries to plan and implement programs for achieving it.

Public Management Reforms as an Alternative Public management emphasizes a series of techniques, methods, and flexible strategies for making service delivery efficient, economic, and effective. It provides a useful point of reference when searching for alternatives to traditional monolithic bureaucratic structures, procedures, and relationships for improving management in the public sector. Generally, the objective of public management is to reduce expenditures, improve service delivery, and incorporate flexibility to enhance performance in managing public sector organizations. It represents “a major shift from traditional public administration with far greater attention paid to the achievement of results and personal responsibility of managers” (Hughes 1998:52).


401

Pollitt and Bouckert (2004:6) identify several intermediate goals such as the control of politicians over the bureaucracy, freedom of public officials from bureaucratic constraints, and emphasis on public accountability. Along with the enhancement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness (the three Es), public management reforms are intended to respond to weaknesses in a system, or to meet new needs and demands that emerge as a result of changed circumstances. A case in point would be changes that have resulted from the establishment of new institutions and agencies. For example, in recent decades, as a response to criticisms and encouragement from the international community and donor agencies, many developing countries have created new institutions to deal with corruption, environmental protection, and human rights. Public management reforms therefore are introduced for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to address identified weaknesses in the system. Another key reason is that they are intended to deal with unexpected problems and challenges that arise due to internal and external factors. The reforms may result in the creation of new institutions, the revision of procedures, or the design and implementation of new public-sector agencies. Other outcomes may be evident in the empowerment of citizens who are made aware of their rights and entitlements. Accountability and responsibility are reinforced, and these changes can have a positive impact on the behaviour of public officials. Simonet has examined the role of public management in the healthcare sector and identified a number of features. They include “using market forces to serve public purposes; demanding organizational performance; fostering greater accountability and transparency from providers; increasing patient financial responsibility; looking for savings; providing higher quality services; bringing resource allocation closer to the point of delivery; using contracting-out; and enlarging the coalition of players” (2008:619). Judging by the steady expansion of the public sector and continuous changes encountered by governments in developing countries, it is not difficult to draw parallels between the outcomes of public management reforms and efforts to establish good governance. Thus, public management and governance aim at similar outcomes, although they are implemented through different strategies. Public management reforms entail continuous changes and adjustments, both inside and outside the government, to keep abreast of developments and strategies adopted within the society as well as in other parts of the world. These often involve designing, implementing, and altering public sector organizations, the behaviour of officials, and relationship among stakeholders. Such reforms generally emphasize accountability and responsiveness, the achievement of representativeness, and the promotion of principles and practices which have been established as standards in the private sector and across the world.

Hong Kong: Governance without Politics When the British government administered Hong Kong as a colony, a simple governmental structure was facilitated by the absence of strong political forces and a high degree of acquiescence by administrative officials in implementing reforms (Lee and Huque 1996). The Governor General exercised absolute control. Many of the arrangements continued after the end of colonial rule, and the administrative culture

402

A.S. Huque

persisted. Since the reintegration of Hong Kong with China, the Executive Council provides the Chief Executive with advice, and policies are implemented by secretariats, bureaus, and departments. Independent agencies for combating and preventing corruption and extensive audits of public expenditures play important roles in governing Hong Kong. Their key role is to uphold integrity and financial probity in the operation of the administrative agencies. Reforms in public administration and management in Hong Kong were carefully planned with specific objectives in mind. Earlier, the objective of the government was to keep public expenditures under control, prepare and implement a balanced budget, ensure the maintenance of law and order, and, wherever possible, to get the voluntary sector to participate in the delivery of public services (Scott 1986:455). The distinctive features of Hong Kong were “minimal government, deference to authority, formality in administrative practice, and a high degree of centralization”, none of which allowed much leeway for deviance from rules and regulations (Lee and Huque 1996:14). Along with major civil unrest in Hong Kong in 1967, high incidence of corruption sparked demands for reforms in the public sector. The goals of these reforms were to allow citizen participation in public affairs and to prevent the abuse of power, maladministration, and public servants overstepping their jurisdiction (see Huque et al. 1998). A series of public management reforms ushered in a number of noticeable changes. A more responsive system of administration was put in place in 1974 with the establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). A Complaints Against the Police Office (CAPO) was instituted in 1977, and a Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) was created in 1988. An independent statutory authority of the Ombudsman was established “to redress grievances arising from maladministration in the public sector through independent and impartial investigations to improve the standard of public administration” (Hong Kong Government 2010:27). In 1992, the Efficiency Unit was created to facilitate the introduction and implementation of public management reforms and various measures to enhance efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. For the sake of probity, the Office of the Director of Audit began carrying out audits to ensure regularity and value-formoney, and it submitted its report to the President of the Legislative Council. After establishing the basic mechanism for ethics and integrity in the public service and responsiveness to the citizens’ needs, the next round of reforms in Hong Kong concentrated on improving financial management and service delivery. Reformers emphasized regular, systematic reviews of public expenditures, a proper system of policy and resource management, clear definitions, and the delegation of responsibility for policy implementation. The initiatives included the establishment of self-accounting trading funds, the rationalization of public corporations, and non-departmental public bodies, the devolution of resource-management responsibilities, emphasis on the policy-management functions of central-policy branches, procedural and structural changes within the civil service to promote awareness of costs and results, and the transformation of civil servants from administrators into managers (Hong Kong Government 1989). This period also witnessed efforts to prepare comprehensive plans to ensure social welfare services. This was because “societies have an obligation to assist their members to overcome personal and social problems and to fulfill their role in life to the optimum extent in accordance with the particular social and cultural development of their society” (Hong Kong Government 1995:3). Thus, the objective of


403

public management changed from ‘ruling’ in the 1970s to ‘administering’ in the 1980s to ‘governing’ in the 1990s. Viewed together, these stages reflect the gradual transition toward governance (Huque 2002). Table 1 presents an overview of the key themes of public management reforms in Hong Kong over four decades. Subsequent public management reforms in Hong Kong have aimed to streamline public management through the maintenance of a lean and efficient civil service. There have also been reviews of pay and benefits, improvements in the ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ system, diversified training for public officials, and efforts to reinforce performance and good conduct. These steps have been considered important for developing and maintaining public services and improving the system through responsible, responsive, and ethical management. In addition, the Civil Service Bureau and the Independent Commission Against Corruption have introduced a joint ethical leadership programme that is intended to instil a culture of probity in the civil service (Hong Kong Government 2010:26). The impact of these reforms in public management is reflected in the governance score which Hong Kong has obtained on the World Governance Index. In Table 2, the random years of 1996, 2003 and 2010 have been selected to present the trajectory of improvement over the years. A comparative overview of the World Governance Index before and after the reintegration with China (in 1997) indicates that Hong Kong ranks high in some areas, including government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. The territory achieved a higher than 90 percentile rank out of 100 and a governance score of well over +1.50. Progress has been slow, however, in the area of voice and accountability (66.4 percentile and +0.58), and political stability (77.8 percentile and 0.91), but they are obviously improving. The World Governance Index allocates governance scores on a scale of +2.5 to −2.5. Information found in the Index allows a comparison of Hong Kong with the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These countries are used for reference because they are prominent in the developed world, and considered to be forerunners in establishing governance (see Table 3). A comparison of governance scores for Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States shows that Hong Kong scores highest on four out of six indicators. These include Political Stability and Absence of Violence (+0.91), Government Effectiveness Table 1 Public management reforms in Hong Kong: key themes 1970s

1980s

1990s–2000s

Facilitation of public participation

Agencification, market-testing and corporatization

Lean and efficient civil service

Improvement of channels of communication with citizens

Devolution of resourcemanagement responsibilities

Improvement of ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ systems

Introduction of integrity and redress mechanisms

Review of policy management functions

Review of pay and benefits

Performance pledges and citizen charters

Reinforcement of performance and good conduct Ethical training

404

Table 2 Governance in Hong Kong, 1996, 2003, 2010

A.S. Huque

Governance Indicator

Year

Voice and Accountability

1996 59.1

+0.27

2003 56.7

+0.31

2010 66.4

+0.58

1996 59.6

+0.43

2003 76.4

+0.87

2010 77.8

+0.91

1996 87.3

+1.27

2003 91.7

+1.65

2010 94.7

+1.74

1996 98.5

+1.87

Political Stability/ Absence of Violence

Government Effectiveness

Regulatory Quality

D. Kaufman, A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, 2010. ‘Voice’ refers to the citizens’ ability to participate in selecting their government, freedom of expression and association, and a free mass media. See http://info.worldbank.org/ governance/wgi/index.aspx#faq

Rule of Law

Percentile Rank Governance Score (0–100) (−2.5 to +2.5)

2003 100.0

+1.90

2010 99.5

+1.89

1996 75.1

+0.83

2003 91.9

+1.50

2010 91.0

+1.56

Control of Corruption 1996 90.7

+1.50

2003 93.2

+1.91

2010 94.7

+1.94

(+1.74), Regulatory Quality (+1.89), and Control of Corruption (+1.94). The score of Hong Kong on Rule of Law (+1.56) is close to that of the United States (+1.58). It is obvious that Hong Kong has lagged behind in the area of Voice and Accountability, and this single indicator has affected the overall standing of the territory in the rankings. Efforts to democratize this Special Administrative Region have had limited impact, and the expected political development has not taken place due to various factors.

Table 3 Comparison of Hong Kong, United Kingdom, and United States of America 2010

Governance Indicator

Governance Score (+2.50 to −2.50) Hong Kong UK

Voice and Accountability

D. Kaufman, A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, 2010

+0.58

USA

+1.31 +1.16

Political Stability/Absence of Violence +0.91

+0.40 +0.31

Government Effectiveness

+1.74

+1.56 +1.44

Regulatory Quality

+1.89

+1.75 +1.42

Rule of Law

+1.56

+1.77 +1.58

Control of Corruption

+1.94

+1.48 +1.23


405

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Hong Kong has achieved most of the objectives that other countries seek to achieve through governance mechanisms. Many developing countries are unsuccessful in achieving results similar to Hong Kong because political considerations overshadow the actual problems, and reforms are made with electoral and regime benefits in mind. This leads us to the conclusion that non-political efforts at creating conditions for good governance have better prospects of success. Needless to say, the context plays a critical role in such efforts and deserves to be considered with care. In Hong Kong’s case, for instance, it has retained the colonial tradition of centralization but has extended the possibility for consultation and participation. These contextual factors surely play significant roles.

Good Governance through Public Management We cannot deny that good governance is facilitated by social and economic policies that are framed by political institutions and implemented by responsive and transparent state agencies with competence and integrity (Zafarullah and Huque 2006:25). In developing countries, however, there are good reasons for adopting a selective approach in order to attain good governance. The stability and maturity of political systems are critical in establishing mechanisms for participation, accountability and transparency, and developing countries are generally unable to achieve these traits. Sometimes this is due to the state’s intransigent and undemocratic nature, or its failure to democratize. It therefore might be more realistic to work toward good governance with specific indicators in sight. Some developing countries have fared well in five of the six indicators used to construct the World Governance Index, but they remain unsuccessful in achieving high scores in the category of ‘voice and accountability’. For example, Brunei Daressalam (29.1), Qatar (21.6), Singapore (42.7), and United Arab Emirates (20.2) score poorly in the category of voice and accountability in the World Governance Index (World Bank 2011), but they obtained much higher scores in the other categories such as efficient public-service provision through government effectiveness, sound regulatory arrangements, mechanisms to control corruption, and rule of law. As for other examples: Singapore scores poorly in the World Governance Index in terms of voice and accountability, but still has managed to focus on “meritocracy, solid institutional frameworks, the rule of law, proper control structures, checks and balances and accountability in the public administrative system” (Sarker 2006:190). In Botswana, public sector management pays “attention to detail, discipline and dedication by the civil service”, and is considered one of the successful states in Africa (Raphaeli et al. 1984). Carroll and Joypaul attribute the success of Mauritius to the avoidance of “political appointments or partisan political interventions at the top levels of the bureaucracy” (1993:434). Goldsmith (1999) notes that Botswana and Mauritius were able to protect the public service from ‘penetration’ by party politics that could lead to politicization at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. Costa Rica has fared well in the World Governance Index in the area of rule of law and the institutionalization of mechanisms that minimize the impact of political intervention (see Lehoucq 2005). It is believed that governance is rooted in theories of democracy, while public management draws inspiration from market economics. Peters and Pierre (1998:232)

406

A.S. Huque

highlight the distinction between governance and public management as that between political and organizational theory. They add that the former is concerned with process while the latter concentrates on outcomes. Ideally, this would require a merger of political and organizational theories, but the divergent foci could lead to additional problems. Several studies take issue with the focus of governance on mechanisms that are not necessarily guided by the authority and sanctions of government (see Bekke et al. 1995). At some point, it becomes important to ensure that the processes and outcomes are integrated in a logical framework. It might be useful to consider the ultimate objectives of governance and public management that overlap. Peters and Pierre observe that “Governance is about maintaining public-sector resources under some degree of political control and developing strategies to sustain government’s capacity to act” in the face of management tools that replace highly centralized, hierarchical structures with decentralized management environments where decisions on resource allocation and service delivery are made closer to the point of delivery (1998:232). This is similar to the objectives stated in documents on public management reforms in many developing countries. If a country’s government suffers from poor leadership, corruption, and inefficiency, public management reforms in administrative areas can at least minimize the problems through increasing efficiency and emphasizing the equitable treatment of citizens. It is therefore not surprising that public management has the potential to make substantial contributions to the creation of conditions that may be viewed as good governance. Performance legitimacy helps to enhance the public’s perception of the government and the state, and this is not much different from the ideal of governance. The case of Hong Kong illustrates this line of thinking: Hong Kong prioritized the need to strengthen the economy and meet the social needs of the citizens. This was done before initiating efforts to establish voice and accountability, probably due to the belief that these values are more easily attainable after the economic and social needs have been fulfilled. Such changes require strengthening the quality of the public management system through careful planning and the effective implementation of reforms based on identified needs. Hong Kong chose to concentrate on ensuring effective governmental performance in the production and delivery of public services. It was not easy because the past colonial experiences had created expectations and mind-sets that were no longer appropriate for the 21st century. Since the conclusion of the agreement to return to China in 1982, a series of political reforms was planned and implemented in Hong Kong, but they did not result in substantial changes that could support comprehensive efforts to establish good governance. Nevertheless, Hong Kong was able to develop a modern and effective system of administration by following reform trends introduced in other parts of the world. Thus, the uniqueness of Hong Kong in terms of its political status, culture, and development must be kept in mind before advocating the approach for other countries. Care should be exercised in attempting to establish governance through public management reforms. The contexts of the countries are important, and the role of the political process in initiating reforms should be recognized. The successful countries discussed in this article are smaller in size and under strict control of the regimes in power. The same extent of success will be much more difficult to achieve in larger states with multiparty democratic systems. For example, the implementation of governance reforms in the South Asian countries might require a different set of strategies, effective


407

institutions, and implementation arrangements that can accommodate diverse interests and communities. Therefore, governance through public management reforms must be considered with reference to size, the nature of the political system, and the capacity of institutions.

Concluding Observations Since developing countries lack the resources and capacity to establish good governance, it is necessary to search for suitable alternative strategies for incorporating arrangements that could lead to improvements. These countries are under pressure from both internal and external sources to improve living conditions and demonstrate progress in a number of areas. This leaves them with two options. The first option is to comply with demands for establishing governance, although the prospect of success is slim. This is evident in the state of affairs found in many developing countries that have attempted to establish governance through creating new institutions and strengthening existing arrangements. It is impossible for them to eliminate problems that have accumulated and been compounded over a long period of time. Governance requires a comprehensive approach that covers a multitude of aspects, and this remains a huge challenge for developing countries. A second option would be to implement public management reforms to achieve the same objectives. This strategy for improvement could be more appropriate for developing countries. Effective changes in public management can lead to limited improvements in clearly defined areas and could strengthen values consistent with good governance. With careful planning, these changes have the potential to contribute to empowerment and the participation of citizens, the accountability of public officials, and the quality of services offered to the public. These outcomes can be achieved by striking a balance between the resources and skills available, the existing administrative arrangements in a country, and standards established by the local and international community. The proposed strategy—of improving administrative systems through public management reforms as a prelude to good governance—has not been established across several countries. While some countries in the developing world appear to have the capacity and resources to score high on some of the indicators of good governance, most of them fare poorly in the rankings due to their inability to ensure voice and accountability and political stability. Some countries have performed well in the areas of rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and corruption control, and it can be said that these have been achieved through public management reforms. Building upon these areas will contribute to the capacity for establishing good governance. It should be reiterated that public management reforms are no substitute for good governance. Nevertheless, they have the potential to eliminate weaknesses and ensure conditions that contribute to the establishment of a set of values that make good governance popular. The experiences of many developing countries in this area have thus far been disappointing, so the objectives and strategies need to be reconsidered. Instead of attempting comprehensive improvements across a wide range of areas—a strategy that has little prospect of success due to the lack of various capacities among

408

A.S. Huque

developing countries—an alternative could be considered, namely, to strengthen public management systems to ensure progress in specific areas that will be realistic and attainable. Developing countries could benefit more if they first addressed internal needs by constructing their agenda for realistic improvements in the area of public management, rather than succumbing to external pressures to aim for the ambitious ideal of good governance. The effective implementation of carefully-designed public management reforms will help prepare the grounds for undertaking comprehensive attempts to establish good governance in developing countries at a later stage.

References Bekke, H., Kickert, W., & Kooiman, J. (1995). Public management and governance. In W. Kickert & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), Public policy and administration sciences in the Netherlands (pp. 201–218). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Carroll, B., & Joypaul, S. K. (1993). The mauritian senior public service since independence: some lessons for developing and developed nations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 59, 423–440. Goldsmith, A. A. (1999). Africa's overgrown state reconsidered: bureaucracy and economic growth. World Politics, 51(4), 520–546. Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 553–574. Hong Kong Government, Finance Branch. (1989). Public sector reform. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Hong Kong Government. (1995). The five-year plan for social welfare development in Hong Kong: Review. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Hong Kong Government (2010). Hong Kong 2010, http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2010/en/index.html [Accessed 20 June 2012] Hope, K. R. (2002). From crisis to renewal: Development policy and management in Africa. London: Brill Publishers. Hughes, O. (1998). Public administration and management: An introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Huque, A. S., Lee, G., & Cheung, A. B. L. (1998). The civil service in Hong Kong: Continuity and change. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Huque, A. S. (2002). Government-society relations and the politics of administrative reform in Hong Kong. Public Policy and Administration, 17(1), 5–20. Jessop, B. (1996). Partnership in Greater Manchester and the Thames Gateway. Paper presented at DoE Seminar. Kaufmann D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues, http://info.worldbank.org/gocernance/wgi/index.asp. [Accessed 2 September 2012] Lehoucq, F. E. (2005). Costa rica: paradise in doubt. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 140–154. Lee, G., & Huque, A. S. (1996). Hong Kong: administrative reform and recent public sector changes. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 55(4), 13–21. Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying Governance and Public Management: Why? How? In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspective (pp. 1– 33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243. Polidano, C. (1999). The new public management in developing countries. IDPM Public Policy and Management Working Paper Np. 13, November. Pollitt, C., & Bouckert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raphaeli, N., Roumani, J., & MacKeller, A. C. (1984). Public sector management in Botswana: Lessons in pragmatism. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Sarker, A. E. (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, 19(2), 180–203. Scott, I. (1986). Policymaking in a turbulent environment: the case of Hong Kong. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 52(1), 447–469.


409

Simonet, D. (2008). The new public management theory and european healthcare reforms. Canadian Public Administration, 51(4), 617–635. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(1), 17–28. World Bank, (2011). The Worldwide governance indicators, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp [Accessed August 14, 2013] Zafarullah, H., & Huque, A. S. (2006). Understanding development governance. In A. S. Huque & H. Zafarullah (Eds.), International development governance. London: CRC Press. Ahmed Shafiqul Huque, PhD, is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at McMaster University, Canada.