Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the features and impact of performance management reforms implemented in the bureaucracies of several Asian states.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on government reports, reports of international bodies, and the data produced for various governance indicators, as well as scholarly analysis of performance management and new public management.FindingsAfter the 1997 Asian financial crisis, many Asian countries, including developed and developing, have introduced a variety of performance management systems into their bureaucracies. This has been encouraged by international agencies as part of their “good governance” agendas. Despite this, the goal of achieving efficient and workable public administration has still not been realized in many cases. Anti‐corruption measures are not effective, and efficiency and service delivery in public organization has not significantly improved. However, political leaders must recognize that the building of rational legal bureaucracy in which patronage influence is reduced, creating networked governance, allowing engagement with civil society, and fostering high employee motivation, are the other prerequisites for achieving efficient and accountable government. Only then will performance management contribute to this aim.Originality/valueThe value of this paper is to show that within the context of Asian bureaucracies, performance management is not a panacea to guarantee improvements in public administration. Other requirements are necessary, as indicated above, especially the creation of rational legal bureaucracy.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Political Science and International Relations,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference36 articles.
1. APEC (Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation) (2007), “APEC Economic Policy Report”, available at: www.apec.org/Groups/∼/media/Files/Groups/ EC/07_ ec_AEP_Fnl. ashx (accessed 26 February 2011).
2. AusAID (Australian Agency for International Development) (2007), “The Philippines: annual programme performance update 2006‐2007”, available at: www.auaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/phil_appr_2007.pdf (accessed 26 February 2011).
3. Berman, E.M. (2011), “Public administration in Southeast Asia: an overview”, in Berman, E.M. (Ed.), Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao, CRC Press, Boca Raton, CA.
4. Bidhya, B. (2000), “Governance reform in Thailand: questionable assumptions, uncertain outcomes”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 393‐408.
5. Blöndal, J.R. (2006), “Budgeting in Singapore”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 44‐86.
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献