New Public Management in Bangladesh: Policy and Reality

doi:10.4236/ib.2013.53B032

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

iBusiness, 2013, 5, 150-153

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2013.53B032 Published Online September 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ib)

New Public Management in Bangladesh: Policy and Reality

Farhana Ferdousi*, Lisheng Qiu

Department of Political Economics, School of Economics & Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

Email: *[email protected]

Received July, 2013

ABSTRACT

New Public Management (NPM) is a management philosophy used by the government since 1980s to modernize the

public sectors. Many developed and developing nations are no w experimenting about the applicability o f NPM in their

context. In Bangladesh, NPM reform ideas have also been recommended by international donor agencies as well as

numerous reform committees but yet the country has hardly made any progress in establishing effective public

management. This paper attempts to identify some administrative reforms in Bangladesh that have the sp irit of NPM as

well some peculiarities that threaten successfu l implementation of NPM in Bangladesh . It is argued that state incap acity,

bureaucratic failure and donor-driven reform policies are responsible for the failure of implementation of NPM in

Bangladesh. Therefore, to establish efficient public management or to follow NPM model, Bangladesh need to have

solid institutional frameworks, sound rule of law, proper control structures, appropriate checks and balances, effective

civil service system, appropriate accountability and transparency; and for these political leaders, bureaucrats and

donor-agencies have to work in line.

Keywords: New Public Management; Administrative Reforms

1. Introduction

Since Bangladesh gained independence in 1971,

reforming the administrative state, inherited from the

colonial authorities, has become a major aspect of the

country’s quest for development. Various governments,

be they military or civilian, have made reforms a major

priority on their developmental agendas and have,

therefore, expended significant resources, both human

and financial, in these efforts. The preoccupation with

reform stems from the expectation of establishing an

effective system of government and resolving the

problems that had hindered its development as a province

of Pakistan for twenty-four years. At the end of forty

years of its independence, the country has hardly made

any progress and still suffering for the absence of good

governance, fragile economy, poor law and order situation,

unstable political system, uncontrolled corruption,

unreliable social services and inefficient bureaucracy etc.

Interestingly, since independence the government

constituted 17 reform Commissions or Committees with

a view to reorganize/reform civil service and public

sector. More than 20 reports on Public Administration

Reform have been prepared by these Commissions and

Committees and some of those reports were prepared at

the initiative of some of the important development

partners, particularly the World Bank, the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), the Asian Develop-

ment Bank (ADB), the Department for International

Development (DFID), and the US Agency for Internationa l

Development (USAID) [1]. But the recent history of

Public Administration Reforms has become nothing

more than a sequence of reform studies and proposals,

with little evidence of real change. The present study is

an attempt to find out some problems regarding im-

plementation of new public management, the current

trend in the world to reform and manage the public

sectors.

2. Concept of New Public Management and

Administrative Reforms in Bangladesh

In response to economic, institutional and ideological

changes, as well as criticisms of inefficient and costly public

sectors, public sector reform has become an international

phenomenon [2,3]. As part of these reforms, a paradigm

of public sector management known as new public

management (NPM) has emerged in OECD (Organisa-

tion for Economic Co-operation and Development)

countr ies and else wher e [3-5 ]. Ther efor e, the N ew Pub lic

Management (NPM) can be defined as a management

philosophy used by governments since the 1980s to

modernize the public sector. It is a broad and very

complex term used to describe the wave of public sector

*Corresponding a uthor.

New Public Management in Bangladesh: Policy and Reality 151

reforms throughout the world since the 1980s. The main

hypothesis in the NPM-reform wave is that more market

orientation in the public sector will lead to greater

cost-efficiency for governments, without having negative

side effects on other objectives and considerations.

According to the OECD [6], “a new paradigm for public

management” had emerged, with eight characteristic

“trends” (listed in modified order, to range from internal

to external concerns):(1) Strengthening steering functions

at the center;(2) Devolving authority, providing flexibility;

(3) Ensuring performance, control, accountability;(4)

Improving the management of human resources;(5)

Optimizing information technology; (6) Developing

competition and choice;(7) Improving the quality of

regulation; and(8) Providing responsive service.

States opting for NPM have not necessarily

incorporated all these elements of NPM. Most countries

have been selective in incorporating those elements of

NPM that they felt were best suited to their individual

administrative milieu, economic and social condition,

and governance culture. NPM has also been an evolving

concept with states experimenting with approaches and

mechanisms. These include policy guidance to the

government through stakeholders’ councils (the

‘deliberations councils’ of Japan) for the management of

sectors, industries, issues etc., departmental boards as in

Britain, policy analysis and evaluation cells as in Japan

and other countries, the minister’s ability to reach beyond

the senior bureaucrats to ‘buy’ policy advice, and

corporatization of government functions, as in New

Zealand, e-governance, as in Britain, Malaysia, china,

and several Indian states, and a whole host of

management tools and techniques like Total Quality

Management (TQM), operations research, Human

Resource Development (HRD), market research, etc.[7].

In the 1990s, if not late 1980s, developing countries

began to adopt selected elements of NPM [8-10].

However, research on the implementation and

effectiveness of NPM in developing countries is still

going on.

By the early 1980s, when the world is swept by the

necessity of modernizing public secto rs, Bang ladesh with

no exception, had observed the public administration

system in its highest level of inefficiency that not only

worried national planners but also international donor

agencies , which were financing different projects under

structural adjustment plans. Therefore, NPM-style

reforms strategies have been suggested by various study

reports. Careful analysis of the recommendations

provided by various study reveals the presence of NPM

systems in Bangladesh (Table 1). Privatization of Public

enterprises, contracting out of pu blic services, users’ fees,

reduction of manpower in the public sector, meritocracy

in the public service, professionalism, performance

standards, citizen’s charter, market-based salary structure,

devolution of authority to local elected bodies,

e-governance, and combating corruption are some of the

recommendations that reflects the spirit of NPM [11].

The present government is now giving stress on

information technology which is one of the prerequisites

of NPM. All these efforts have the reflections of the

OECD listed trends of NPM.

Being influenced by the internal and external pressure,

although several attempts have been made to introduce

reforms in public management in Bangladesh, but most

of the reform initiatives were either failed to produce

significant results or manipulated by the politically

motivated governments in their favor and successive

governments appeared to be comfortable with the

traditional approach. As a result, huge amounts of

resources were wasted in examining the system and

developing recommendations, which were never

implemented sincerely

3. Perspectives in the Failure of Npm

Reform in Bangladesh

A review of following literature [1,12,14-22] suggests

some factors which are responsible for non-implementa-

tion of major reform initiatives in Bangladesh. Summa-

rizing their findings this paper categorizes the major rea-

sons of failure of implementing NPM in Bangladesh in

the following ways:

1. Incapacity of the state in terms of ;

 Political incapacity which is manifested by crimi-

nalization of politics, clientelism that exacerbated

nepotism, favoritism & factionalism.

 Institutional incapacity that results in breakdown

of law, spread of massive corruption in accumulation &

distribution of resources.

 Technical incapacity which increases the absence

of appropriate manpower, lack of performance control

and accountability.

 Administrative incapacity exhibited in the state’s

failure to provide basic public goods and services,

economic infrastructure, accountable judiciary etc.

2. Bureaucratic failure to implement innovative and

changed p o licie s bec ause of

 Resistance from senior bureaucrats

 Reform attempts are short-lived

 Non-inclusion of stakeholders in decision making

process.

3. Failure of donor agencies to pursue reform either

because before the prescribed country realize the need

for reform, reform agendas are imposed on her or reform

policies are over-ambitious, ill-conceived & not-adopted

to local context and political reality.

New Public Management in Bangladesh: Policy and Reality

152

Table 1. Some important administrative reforms in bangladesh which have the overtones of NPM.

Committees/ Commissions/Study Groups Focus Recommendations

Martial Committee on Examining

Organizational setup of Ministries, Divisions,

Directorates an d other Organizations, 1982 [12]

Reorganization and

Rationalization of manpower

in public organizations

Reduction of the size of the government; red uction of layers

for decision making; delegation of administrative and

financial powers down the hierarchy

UNDP-sponsored Public Administration Sector

Study,1993 [13] Civil service

Performance management system; rationalizatio n of civil

service structure; elimination of redundant government

functions; merit-based selection and pr omotion;

strengthening Pu blic Service Commission

World Bank Study: Bangladesh Government

That Works Reforming the Public Sector,1996

[14]

Civil service, public

enterprise, NGOs

Redefining frontiers of the public sector; enhancing level

and nature of accountability and responsiveness of public

organizations to different stakeholders; streamlining

regulations, laws and processes; maintaining an efficient,

committed and professional public service

Public Administration Reform Commission,

2000 [11]

Administrative structure for

improving the quality and

standard of service,

transparency and efficiency

Determination of missions of public offices; improving the

delivery of services; reforming the civil service; formation

of the professional policy ma king group (senior

management pool); reorganizing institutions and

rationalizing manpower; restructuring field administration

and decentralization; establishment of an independent

commission against corruption; establishment of criminal

justice commission; establishment of the Office of

Ombudsman; reducing wastage and promoting value for

money; strengthening parliamentary oversight; facilitating

private investment

5. Conclusions

From the above discussion it is evident that some

administrative reforms in Bangladesh, specially p rovided

by World Bank and Public Administration Reform

Commission, have the reflection of NPM. But Bangladesh

is still far away from those coun tries which implemented

NPM successfully like, UK, New Zealand, USA, etc. The

reason behind this may be that different countries started

from different contexts in terms of the level of economic

development, the existence of the rule of law, the level of

administrative infrastructure and sate capacity and

efficiency to implement reforms. Therefore, it is possible

that NPM might potentially provide some benefits to

Bangladesh. Yet the peculiarities of the Bangladesh

context, such as the high degree of politicization of the

bureaucracy, the bureaucratic domination of the system,

lack of political commitment toward implementing

reform policies, incapacity of the state in terms of

institutional, technical, administrative and political

factors, deteriorating law and order situation, misuse of

power for personal and political gain by members of the

ruling party may not bode well for NPM measures.

Moreover, clientelist nature of politics and factionalism

in public sector also threaten implementation of any

reform initiatives, if the interests of particular groups are

not protected by that reform. ‘Sound policies will not

sound well if it is not implemented well’ is the basic

reason of failure to implement NPM-style reform in

Bangladesh. Moreover, donor imposed reform initiatives

have very few records of success as they are reluctantly

accepted by the government. Ray, Turner and Hulme

also argued that donor-driven reform programs are

counter-productive and may even contribute to reduced

performance and political instability [23,24]. Therefore,

to establish efficient public management or to follow

NPM model, Bangladesh n eeds to have so lid institu tional

frameworks, sound rule of law, proper control structures,

appropriate checks and balances, effective civil service

system, appropriate accountability and transparency; and

for these political leaders, bureaucrats and

donor-agencies have to work in line; otherwise NPM

would be present in policies only.

REFERENCES

[1] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

“Public Administration Reform in Bangladesh,” SURF.

Bangkok, Thailand, 2004.

[2] L. Bennington and J. Cummane, “The Road to

Privatization: TQM and Business Planning,” International

Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 10, No. 5,

2000.

[3] O. E. Hughes, “Public Management & Administration,”

2nd ed, London: MacMillan, 1998.

[4] D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, “Reinventing Government:

How the entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public

Sector,” Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1993.

[5] C. Pollitt, “Justification by Works or by Faith?:

Evaluating the New Public Management,” Evaluation,

Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995. doi:10.1177/135638909500100202

[6] Kickert and J. M. Walter, “Public Management and

New Public Management in Bangladesh: Policy and Reality 153

Administrative Reform in Western Europe,” Edward

Elgar, 1997.

[7] Government of India, “Organisational Structure of

Government of India,” Second Administrative Reforms

Commission, Thirteenth Report, April, 2009.

[8] R. Common, “Convergence and Transfer: A Review of

the Globalisation of New Public Management,”

International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.

11, No. 6, 1998. doi:10.1108/09513559810244356

[9] G. A. Larbi, “Institutional Constraints and Capacity

Issues in Decentralizing Management in Public Services:

the Case of Health in Ghana,” Journal of International

Development, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1998.

[10] R. Samaratunge and O. Hughes, “Development and New

Public Management: Partners in the 21st Century,” Sri

Lankan Journal of Management (forthcoming), 2002.

[11] Government of Bangladesh (GoB), “Report of Public

Administration Reform Commission,” Dhaka:

Bangladesh Government Press, 2000.

[12] Sarker and A. Elias, “Administrative Reform in

Bangladesh: Three Decades of Failure,” International

Public Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2004, pp.

365-384.

[13] United Nations Development Program, “Public

administration sector study in Bangladesh”, Dhaka:

UNDP, 1993.

[14] World Bank, “Bangladesh: government that works

reforming the public sector”, Dhaka: United Press

Limited, 1996.

[15] Asian Development Bank (ADB), “Report and

Recommendation of the President to the Board of

Directors: Proposed Program Loan and Technical

Assistance Grant for the People’s Republic of

Bangladesh,” Good Governance Program, Dhaka: ADB

Bangladesh, 2007.

[16] A. E. Sarker and R. Pathak, “New Public Management:

An Analytical Review,” Productivity, Vol. 41, No. 1,

2000, pp. 56-65.

[17] A. E. Sarker, “New Public Management in Bangladesh:

Chasing A Mirage?”, Indian Journal of Public Admini-

stration, Vol. XLVII, No. 2, 2001, pp. 154-169.

[18] A. E. Sarker, “New Public Management in Developing

Countries: An Analysis of Success and Failure with Par-

ticular Reference to Singapore and Bangladesh,” Interna-

tional Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19 No.

2, pp. 180-203, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2006.

[19] K. Siddiqui, “Towards Good Governance in Bangladesh:

Fifty Unpleasant Essays,” University Press, Dhaka, 1996.

[20] H. Zafarullah, “Public Administration in Bangladesh:

Political and Bureaucratic Dimensions,” in Tummala,

K.K. (Ed.), Comparative Bureaucratic Systems, Lexing-

ton Books, Lexington, MA, 2003, pp. 265-88.

[21] A. T. M. Huda and M. A. Rahman, “Delay in Disposal of

Cases: A Structural Analysis of the Bangladesh

Secretariat,” Savar, Bangladesh: Public Administration

Training Center. Mimeo, 1989.

[22] R. Sobhan, “Structural Dimensions of Malgovernance in

Bangladesh,” Economic and Political Weekly, September,

Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 1-17.

[23] B. Ray, “Good Governance, Administrative Reform and

Socio-economic Realities: A South Pacific Perspective,”

International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26, 1999,

pp. 354-69. doi:10.1108/03068299910229749

[24] M. Turner and D. Hulme, “Governance, Administration

and Development,” West Hartford, Conn: Kumarian press,

1997.