Accounting for Administrative Change in Three Asia-Pacific States

Abstract

The New Public Management (NPM) appears to be of universal applicability. However, if examined on a country-by-country basis we can observe considerable variations. This article surveys public management change in three Asia-Pacific countries and contends that even in countries that share similar characteristics, in this case, British post-colonial bureaucracies, there is little uniformity. We might assume that administrative change is the result of the attraction of NPM to élites who shop around the international market for ideas, but this is a gross oversimplification. However, the apparent internation alization of NPM appears to be driven by policy transfer activity. The survey of public management in these countries reveals that although the policy transfer approach is difficult to apply empirically, it is worth pursuing as it strips away the appeal of NPM. Although in each of these countries, it is difficult to argue with any conviction that policy has been transferred from another country, a number of adaptations and ideas have been utilized by bureaucratic élites. Policy transfer is a more subtle process, and more ‘context sensitive’ than we might first assume. Even where a policy developed elsewhere can be demonstrated to be successful, its transfer to another country is less than, straightforward and often it is the rhetoric, rather than the substance, that is adopted.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.