Book Review

1. Mackendy Pierre-Louis
Book Review
The Global Public Management Revolution, by Donald F Kettl. (Brooking Institution Press:
Washington D.C, 2005). 108 pp. ISBN 0-8157-4919-8.
When people hear about administrative reforms, Western or developed countries such as the United
States,Canada,Great Britain, France,Japan or Australia are probably the first to come to mind. On the
other hand, in the book “the GlobalPublic ManagementRevolution”Kettl’s narrative mainly addresses
worldwide reform movements in public management. The book informs readers that reforms can be
pursued anywhere, by any government irrespective of geographic areas.
In The Global Public Management Revolution, the author provides informative details about
the global movement to transform public management that took place during the 1980s, and 1990s. It
is remarkable to learn that developing countries along with developed countries were pursuing
management reforms to improve their civil service sector. Although, leaders in these countries might
have pursued management reforms for different motives, their strategies translated into just one and
similar objective, which was to transform government by improving its performance. Through these
reforms, political leaders have envisioned to cut costs and improve government responsiveness to
citizens’ needs. To achieve these objectives, they basically have sought to replace traditional-based,
authority-driven processes with market-based competition driven tactics. Kettl points out that besides
introducing market-style discipline to public sector management, leaders have also sought to engender
trust in government and to restore or (at least) improve the stained relation that has developed over the
years between governments and their citizens.
The author contends that efforts to reform the public sector have fell under two broad models:
the Westminster reform model, the one embraced by leaders in New Zealand, Canada, Australia and
the United Kingdom, and the American style reform which found expression in the Clinton
Administration “Reinventing Government” initiative that began in 1993. The New Zealand reforms
were designed to be results oriented, as well as to redefine the role of leaders or managers in public
organizations and to hold them accountable for high performance. Whereas in America, concentration
was on improving government responsiveness and reducing costs.
Developing countries did not escape the global public management revolution movement. The
author remarks that two main reasons have fed the ambition of governments in developing nations to
pursue reforms; 1rst
) inherent governance problems and; 2nd
) to speed the development process.
Nevertheless, developing countries had difficulties implementing reforms. The author notes that
developing countries lack the necessarypolitical and social development elements (i.e.,good leadership
and governance, a justice system, a financial system and a social system that work), which he maintains
are essential preconditions to implementing successful reforms. Moreover, the author makes an
interesting argument that requires our attention. He argues that due to its success, the New Zealand

2. reform ideals were especially attractive to both developed and developing countries. Imitation of other
countries may be a challenge culturally because the historical traditions are different (Christensen et al,
2012). There is a possibility that imitation may have beena contributing factor thatled many developing
nations to struggle and probably fail in their attempt to implement reforms. This pattern or tendency to
mimic Western style reforms rather than to develop indigenous public administration is very typical of
administration in developing nations. According to Jreisat (2012), FerrelHeady defines this pattern as
the conscious effort of developing countries to imitate some version of modern Western bureaucratic
administration. Developing nations lack the structural capacities and resources to replicate the Western
models of restructuration, which are often structurally very multifaceted. Moreover, managers in
developing nations lack the training and the leadership aptitude to implement complex reform models.
Thus, based on the author argument, without these essential preconditions, it is difficult if not
impossible for a country to manage reforms.
Furthermore, Kettl argues that efforts to shrink the size of the public sector and make it more
effective have produced mixed results. As examples, he states that New Zealand government remained
larger relative to the U.S, Ireland and Australia, although its public sector has undergone the most
radical changes. In the United States, although the Clinton Administration National Performance
Review (NPR) has decreased costs, especially through procurement reforms and reduction of
government employees, spending decreased by only 3.4 percent and government employment fell by
only 2 percent. While in Ireland government spending decreased 34 percent and employment fell 28
percent. In the United Kingdom (UK) although government employment shrank dramatically by
approximately 48 percent,spending did not. The case of the UK is unique and should be given special
consideration. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Thatcher Administration has extensively pursued market-
based model (i.e., privatization and contracting) in her quest to transform government and public
management in the UK.However,herpolicy did not materialize to less government spending. President
Reagan has pursued a similar policy of “less government” in the United States. Instead, under his
administration the national debt has increased substantially. Moreover, the federal budget was not cut
under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it- or 22
percent larger in real terms (William Niskanen & Stephen Moore, 1996).
The above examples demonstrate that the author does not only center his argument on the
changes that reforms have brought to public management. He also wants to show through data that
efforts to implement market principles in government did little to improve efficiency (in the realm of
government spending) in some of the countries that have experienced reforms. This also demonstrates
that surrender public enterprises or contracting out public services to the private sector does not
necessarily translate to efficiency. This disproves New Public Management (NPM) advocates’ claim
that introducing market-based principles to the public sector will render government more
efficient. The market has also its imperfections otherwise there would be no needs for government
intervention. Failures such as information asymmetry and externalities are often cause by abnormalities

3. in the market. Mohammad Ehsan & Farzana Naz (2003) instruct “whether enterprises are in public or
private hands that does not explain economic performance,what creates economic inefficiency may be
monopoly situation.” Privatization and/or contracting out services do not guarantee efficiency by any
mean. No matter how reliable we might perceive them to be, either process has to be done in
transparency and has to be accompanied with well-drafted and effective regulatory policies.
Another interesting point that the author highlights is that through their reform tactics, leaders
have sought to transform the traditional-hierarchical bureaucratic model into a quasi-market model,
which Von Maveric (2007) maintains promotes a decentralized organizational structure, less
hierarchical control and gives more power to managers. One explanation for that departure Kettl
upholds; is that over the years, corruption, rigid and inflexible practices have given a bad name to
bureaucracy, to the point that bureaucracy is a dirty word the world over. Critics complain that
bureaucracy produces miles of red tape, and managers operating under the bureaucratic model can
become inflexible, rude and consume by incentives to maximize their own power at the expense of
public goals (Kettl, 2005). Whether these allegations are true,leaders’ efforts to advance accountability
in public management and to bring public managerscloser to citizens did little to improve citizens’ trust
in their government. According to the author, a “World Values Survey” indicates that in most industrial
nations, citizens have expressed mistrust in their government and the trend was especially sharp in
industrial nations such as Germany, Japan,Italy, the United States and even Sweden. He also maintains
that although similar surveys rarely ring endorsement of government reforms, there is no evidence that
extensive management and political reforms have fixed this trust issue. On the contrary, the author
neither denies nor overlooks the importance of government reforms. Kettl explains that it might take
long and constant improvement to register with citizens and to increase public confidence in
government. He continues by saying that these reforms may have been helpful in stemming the long
term pattern of decline.
Would application of market-based economic principles to public management automatically
results in less government spending and enhances effectiveness? The illustration from the previous
examples on the Thatcher and Reagan leadership eras’ emphasis on privatization and contracting
disproves this argument, and shows that this is not entirely accurate. Second, would market based
principles eliminate corruption in public management entirely? Saying that market-basedprinciples will
entirely eliminate corruption in public management is like saying that corrupt practices are non-existent
in the private sector. The Eron and WorldCom scandals have proved otherwise. Von Maravic (2007)
warns that possible areas of corruption are those where government and private firms are preparing for
or are already having a commercial contractual relationship. Awarding contracts for instance can lead
to rent seeking, bribery and other wrongdoings. In addition, the decentralized nature of an
administrative systemcanrender effortsto investigate irregularities more difficult (Von Maravic,2007).
Therefore,applying market-based model to public management can encourage more corrupt practices,

4. if there are no regulatory mechanisms in place to monitor transactions between government and the
private sector, and/or to control behaviors.
Conclusion and Criticism
Although in the book the author goes into specific details describing the reform process in developed
countries, He only briefly alludes to developing nations’ efforts to implement reform and rushes to
provide a list of reasons as to illustrate why some developing nations have faced challenges in their
attempts to implement reforms. Moreover, he mentions that Singapore has successfully incorporated
elements of the NewZealand systemwhile other developing nations such asGhana struggled. However,
he does not develop his argument to try to explain what internal or external forces may have been at
play or may have influenced outcomes in both countries. For examples, if Chile and Singapore were
successfulat improving both their economic development and public management sectors, something
they have done in the pastmust have facilitated the transition, but there is no mention of any reformative
steps that leaders in both countries might have taken previously that made implementation successful.
This indicates that when it involves public administration in less developed countries knowledge of the
literature on the subject is limited. But, overall the author did a good job explaining what global
circumstances and events have sparked the global reform movement, and how technological invention
(i.e.,information technology) has made possible the application of market model in public management.
He also provides a thorough explanation of the procedures that leaders in developed countries have
followed to attain their objectives.
Reference
Christensen et al (2012). Imitating the West? Evidence of Administrative Reform from the Upper
Echelon of Chinese Provincial Government. Public Administration Review.
Kettl F Donald (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution (2nd
Edition). Brooking Institution
Press, Washington DC.
Jreisat J (2012). “Globalism and Comparative Public Administration” CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Mohammad Ehsan & Farzana Naz (2003). Origin, Ideas and Practice of New Public Management:
Lessons From Developing Countries. Asian Affairs (CDRB Publication). Vol 25, No 3.
Von Marveric Patrick (2007). Public Management Reforms and Corruption- Conceptualizing the
unintended Consequences. Department of Public Management and Governance, Zeppling University

5. William Niskanen & Stephen Moore (Oct,1996). Supply-Side Tax Cut and the Truth about the Reagan
Economic Record. Cato Institute Policy Analysis.