Search results

This introductory chapter explains why public sector reforms matter and why a focus on Asia and leadership is needed. It also provides an overview of highlights, lessons and conclusions in this book. Cases of successful public sector reforms usually show leadership by central agencies, with support of the office of President or Prime Minister. While laws and rules are commonly used to further reform, cases show that more is needed to ensure success and sustainability. A range of strategies include heightened accountability, personnel changes, supporting change leaders in departments, reform through capacity development, and learning from innovations other jurisdictions. Conclusions include suggestions for further research.

New Zealand is a small country with a rich history of pioneering administrative reforms. This chapter describes administrative reform processes emanating from the ‘core agencies’ of the State Services Commission (SSC), Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It describes the famous New Public Management reforms of the late 1980s–2000s, led by the Treasury that restructured ministries (creating more agencies that are single-purpose agencies), rewrote policy rules (e.g., the same laws for public and private sector employees) and created accountability from agency heads to ministers as well as SSCs who evaluate and re-appoint agency heads. It should be noted that in this Westminster system, ministers provide policy leadership but not executive leadership of ministries. The chapter describes in detail two reform processes led/administered by the SSC since the mid-2000s to increase accountability for ministry mid-term policy and organizational capability targets (performance improvement framework) as well as cross-ministry goals (better public services). These efforts have been evaluated over time as being quite effective and are noted for their sustainability and improvement.

The ethics of recent productivity improvement strategies requires an open and inclusive dialogue among diverse stakeholders, as well as customer-based accountability. By contrast, the expertise of managers in the past tended to drive a public productivity improvement process that involved little dialogue and customer-based accountability. This article examines fundamental values in productivity improvement and relates these to increased dialogue and cusomer-based accountability.