From Form to Function to Sustainable Solutions? Reforming Public Sectors in Low Income Countries: New Approaches and Available Evidence of “What Works”

Abstract

Summary The article reviews the evidence about success of public sector reforms in low and middle income countries, external support for such reforms, and recent ideas of how such support could be better designed and implemented. Enthusiasm for supporting public sector reforms has decreased over the past decade, and available data suggest that there has been little overall improvement. However, it also indicates that a small number of countries have significantly strengthened their public sectors over the past 10 to 20 years. The article then reviews five new approaches that have been proposed for better supporting public sector reforms. It looks at how they diagnose what has not worked and the implications of what should be carried out differently. Furthermore, it explores to what extent the available evidence of overall stagnation as well as of success cases fits with these proposed alternatives, to gauge to what extent they are likely to make a difference. The final section sets out the implications. Development agencies should seek to deliberately test a combination of the proposed alternative approaches, particularly in more difficult contexts, taking political feasibility as a basis and adding other elements. The urgency to make progress remains high. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Public sector reforms in developing countries: A preliminary review

“…They argued that there are ‘good and bad reasons for believing that because modern bureaucracies underpin rich country prosperity now, simply adopting their institutional form elsewhere is the surest way of facilitating development’ (Pritchett & Woolcock, 2004, p. 191). On the same theme, the World Bank Group, while acknowledging ‘little overall improvement’ in reforming public sectors in low income countries, suggested alternative approaches: Greater emphasis on function rather than form; more iterative and adapative reforms; citizen‐centric governance; cultivating islands of excellence; and, country‐based reforms sensitive to political economy contexts (Fritz, 2016, p. 299).…”

Isomorphic dynamics in national action plans on antimicrobial resistance

“…This journal has also been an important outlet for the isomorphic mimicry literature, particularly as regards nuancing the concept of isomorphic mimicry to emphasize its more productive features for iterative learning and adaptation over time (cf. Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2015; Fritz, 2016; Schnell, 2015). However, most scholarly contributions tend to be either conceptual or rely on qualitative case study analysis.…”

Importing Complexity Leadership Theory Into Bureaucratic Organizations in Non-Western Environments

“…Inthepoliticalandadministrativeenvironment,leadershipinfluenceshowindividualsororganizations achieve their objectives. New Public Management (NPM) reforms may have worked to achieve particular milestone (Osborne, Radnor, Kinder & Vidal 2015) in most developed and Western economies but achieving success in most non-Western economies have been a daunting task for politicalelitesandtheirspecializedadministrative,bureaucraticleadersoverthepastdecades (Fritz 2016;Andrews2013).Thetraditionalleadershipstylesfocusonthebehaviorsandtraitsofindividual leaderswhoareintroducedbythegovernmentasspecializedbureaucraciestomanagetheseWeberian departmentalstrategiesintendedtobeseparatedfrompolitics(Cohen2016).Inmostpublicsector enterprises in non-Western economies, these theories of bureaucratic leadership approach and decision-makingstrategiespersisteventhoughtechnologyandinnovationsupposedtohavetaken themostsignificantpartofthewayofmanagement.Thedevelopmentofpostmoderntheorieshas adjustedthethoughtofleadershipforbothscholarsandpractitionersinpublicsectorleadershipto shifttheirattentiontothecontemporaryapproachofleading.Entitiesareseenasacomplexsubsystem thatcanbeadoptedforeffectiveleadership(Donkor&Zhou2019).Inordertoimproveefficiency andeffectiveness,NPMreformfocusedattentionontheimportationofprivate-sectormanagement strategies,whicharepurelyoutcome-based (Cohen,2016).Thisimportationofmanagementideasand conceptsmeantforprivatesectorenterprisesaresupposedtoshapethepublicsectorbureaucracies (Weiss2017;Radnor&Osborne2012),andthefocusoftheadministrationsshouldbeabletocompete effectively.Theadoptionhasencounteredsetbacks (Kim&Hong,2013).Manypublicmanagement studieshaveofferedaninsightintotherationalebehindtheimportationofmanagementconceptsin publicsectororganizationsbuthavebeenoverlooked (Nielsen,Waeraas&Dahl2019). Criticismsofthetraditionalbureaucraticleadershipperspectiveinthepublicsectorliterature areincreasing,andassuch,agrowingnumberofscholarsandpractitionersarecallingforamore complexandconceptuallysoundtheoreticalmodelofleadershipthatiscollectiveandreducesthe poweroftheleaderbutallowsforemergencetooccurandembraceit.Researchonleadershipand organizationspointsoutthatorganizationsareoperatinginanincreasinglycomplexanddynamic environment (Marion&Uhl-Bien2011).Thefluctuatingglobalbusinessenvironmenthasadded complexity to the topography of the organizations.…”