Public Organiz Rev (2013) 13:397–409

DOI 10.1007/s11115-013-0259-2

Can Public Management Contribute to Governance

in Developing Countries?
Evidence from Hong Kong

Ahmed Shafiqul Huque

Published online: 8 November 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Governance ensures a wide range of desirable values including efficiency,

productivity, participation, transparency, and accountability. The wide scope and
overambitious demands of governance make it difficult to conceptualize and
operationalize. Despite huge investments in time and resources, developing countries
seldom succeed in establishing good governance. Based on the experience of Hong
Kong, this article argues that many of the desired values of governance can be attained
through effective design and the implementation of public management reforms. Public
management cannot serve as an alternative for governance, but reforms in this area can
help update and adjust institutional structures, processes, and practices in developing
countries; they help to ensure the benefits of the desired values of governance without
undertaking enormous risks. However, the size of a country and the nature of its
political system will influence the degree of success in establishing governance.

Keywords Governance . Public management . Reform . Hong Kong

Introduction

Studies on governance lead us to believe that most problems in modern societies can be
resolved by following a number of principles and practices, all of which have positive
connotations. These ideas, intended to improve the process of governing, have emerged
in the social science literature over the years. Good governance is conceptualized as the
outcome of a combination of values such as efficiency, productivity, performance,
participation, democracy, consultation, transparency, accountability, and universality.
Such values thrive in systems that are corruption-free and based on rule of law.
Interestingly, many of these values are highlighted within the framework of public

A. S. Huque (*)
Department of Political Science, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada
L8S 4M4
e-mail: huqueas@mcmaster.ca
398 A.S. Huque

management. The political process determines the goals and values for a society,
and it plays a significant role in shaping administrative institutions. However,
for governance that is political in nature, a distinction can be made between, on
one hand, the actual political and administrative processes, and on the other
hand, public management which is rooted in administrative principles and
practices. Since political institutions and their actions are often ineffective and
irregular in developing countries, governance may remain unattainable as long
as the political element dominates the process. An alternative approach that does
not allow political considerations to distort tools and strategies for improvement may
help avoid the undesirable consequences.
This point can be illustrated with reference to units that have attempted to establish
governance in a non-political framework, and the case of Hong Kong serves as an
example. The territory was administered as a British colony until its reintegration with
the People’s Republic of China in 1997. The strength of the system derived from the
tradition of colonial-style governing. Under this system, power was concentrated in the
office of the Governor General, who was positioned at the apex of a simple
structure of administrative organizations. The new status of Hong Kong entailed
transforming the former colonial territory into a Special Administrative Region
(SAR) of China, under the framework of “One country, two systems”. It was a
complex undertaking, and attempts were made to update and adjust the structures,
processes, practices, and relationships through public sector management reforms.
Many developing countries lack the capacity and resources to establish good
governance, and this article suggests that a sound system of public management can
be the starting point in this endeavour, with the caveat that the outcome will not be as
extensive as governance.
Part of the reason for this caveat relates to the fact that many of the problems faced in
establishing governance in developing countries are political in nature. Political
systems in these countries are weak, and the regimes are often unable to establish their
claim to legitimacy in ways that would enable them to govern. Polidano has stated that
many developing countries “suffer from severe capacity limitations” (1999:16). At the
same time, regimes seek to remain in power by politicizing national institutions
and making partisan decisions for allocating benefits to favoured groups. Public
management, on the other hand, is rooted in administrative traditions and practices that
are subject to periodical reviews and reforms; the institutions operate on the basis of
rules and regulations intended to ensure fairness, impartiality and equity. There is less
scope for allocating resources, services, or facilities based on political considerations
when programs are administered. Given the social, economic, and political capacities of
governments in developing countries, and the circumstances under which they are
governed, this paper argues that it may be worthwhile to focus only on attainable public
management reforms, instead of over-ambitiously aiming to establish a type of
governance that has little prospect of materializing. As such, good governance would
remain an “ideal” that governments strive to achieve, while in practice, public
management can help facilitate conditions that approximate that “ideal”. In Hong
Kong, many improvements in the process of governing, delivery of public services,
and caring for citizens have been facilitated through a series of public management
reforms. These improvements are reflected in the progress made by Hong Kong and
reported in the World Governance Index.
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 399

Good Governance: A Complex Concept

The concept of good governance encompasses all the desirable elements that contribute
to the improvement of conditions in modern states. It features high on the agenda of
governments as well as the international community, who is equally keen to see good
governance for alleviating many problems in developing countries. Civil societies, non-
governmental organizations, and academics are enthusiastic about the need for good
governance, not least to help make amends for past errors and inadequacies in the
social, economic, and political system, as well as for charting a course that would
ensure continuous improvement.
But before going further into the discussion, it is necessary to contemplate what
governance is, regardless of whether it is good, bad or somewhere in-between.

[Governance] consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a

country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are
selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively
formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state
for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.
(World Bank 2011)

Hope (2002) also provides an elaborate description of a decidedly good variety that
suggests there may be even more components to governance:

[Governance is] the exercise of political accountability, bureaucratic transparency,

the exercise of legitimate power, freedom of association and participation,
freedom of information and expression, sound fiscal management and public
financial accountability, respect for the rule of law, a predictable legal framework
encompassing an interdependent and credible justice system, respect for human
rights, an active legislature, enhanced opportunities for the development of
pluralistic forces including civil society, and capacity development.

Clearly, there is no consensus on what constitutes governance. Meanwhile, an even

bigger challenge than defining it is the issue of implementing the many constituent
ideas of good governance.
“Despite ambiguity of definitions, governance generally refers to the means for
achieving direction, control, and coordination of wholly or partially autonomous
individuals or organizations on behalf of interests to which they jointly contribute”
(Lynn et al. 2000:2). These ideas highlight the political nature of good governance, and
they emphasize the process through which power is shared and exercised, critical
decisions are made, and privileges and benefits are distributed in a society. Thus, the
critical requirement for establishing good governance is a well-developed political
system that operates according to established rules and regulations, with predictable
patterns of behaviour of the stakeholders.
Jessop (1996) finds the academic literature on governance to be eclectic and
relatively disjointed. The theoretical roots are varied and include “institutional
economics, international relations, organizational studies, development studies,
political science, public administration and Foucauldian-inspired theorists”. It seems,
400 A.S. Huque

then, that governance is being described and interpreted according to the interests and
inclinations of researchers, all of which contributes to the confusion. This underlines
the need for the development of a “governance perspective” (Stoker 1998:18).
Grindle recognizes the unrealistic expectations that follow from the existing
definitions of governance:

“Getting good governance calls for improvements that touch virtually all aspects
of the public sector—from institutions that set the rules of the game for economic
and political interaction, to decision-making structures that determine priorities
among public problems and allocate resources to respond to them, to
organizations that manage administrative systems and delivers goods and services
to citizens, to human resources that staff government bureaucracies, to the
interface of officials and citizens in political and bureaucratic arenas. Not
surprisingly, advocating good governance raises a host of questions about what
needs to be done, when it needs to be done, and how it needs to be done (Grindle
2007:525–526).

In studies on governance, the ideas of negotiation, flexibility, regulation, partnership

and coordination resonate strongly. The World Governance Index (World Bank 2011)
uses six dimensions of governance. They are voice and accountability, political stability
and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and
control of corruption. On the basis of these indicators, countries across the world are
ranked to indicate their performance in establishing good governance. Keeping in mind
the fact that it is impossible to determine the extent to which these conditions are
accurately measurable, the Index is helpful in obtaining a general overview of the state
of governance across the world.
In view of the wide range of definitions and the requirements for achieving good
governance, developing countries find it impossible to fulfil all the stipulated
conditions. Moreover, there are no fail-safe tools and mechanisms for contextually
assessing whether a country has achieved the requirements that could indicate success
in governance. The complex and vague nature of good governance as a concept, the
influence of political factors on its attainment, and the lack of effective tools for
measuring progress, render it almost impossible for developing countries to plan and
implement programs for achieving it.

Public Management Reforms as an Alternative

Public management emphasizes a series of techniques, methods, and flexible strategies

for making service delivery efficient, economic, and effective. It provides a useful point
of reference when searching for alternatives to traditional monolithic bureaucratic
structures, procedures, and relationships for improving management in the public
sector. Generally, the objective of public management is to reduce expenditures,
improve service delivery, and incorporate flexibility to enhance performance in
managing public sector organizations. It represents “a major shift from traditional
public administration with far greater attention paid to the achievement of results and
personal responsibility of managers” (Hughes 1998:52).
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 401

Pollitt and Bouckert (2004:6) identify several intermediate goals such as the control
of politicians over the bureaucracy, freedom of public officials from bureaucratic
constraints, and emphasis on public accountability. Along with the enhancement of
economy, efficiency and effectiveness (the three Es), public management reforms are
intended to respond to weaknesses in a system, or to meet new needs and demands that
emerge as a result of changed circumstances. A case in point would be changes that
have resulted from the establishment of new institutions and agencies. For example, in
recent decades, as a response to criticisms and encouragement from the international
community and donor agencies, many developing countries have created new
institutions to deal with corruption, environmental protection, and human rights.
Public management reforms therefore are introduced for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which is to address identified weaknesses in the system. Another key reason is
that they are intended to deal with unexpected problems and challenges that arise due to
internal and external factors. The reforms may result in the creation of new institutions,
the revision of procedures, or the design and implementation of new public-sector
agencies. Other outcomes may be evident in the empowerment of citizens who are
made aware of their rights and entitlements. Accountability and responsibility are
reinforced, and these changes can have a positive impact on the behaviour of public
officials.
Simonet has examined the role of public management in the healthcare sector and
identified a number of features. They include “using market forces to serve public
purposes; demanding organizational performance; fostering greater accountability and
transparency from providers; increasing patient financial responsibility; looking for
savings; providing higher quality services; bringing resource allocation closer to the
point of delivery; using contracting-out; and enlarging the coalition of players”
(2008:619). Judging by the steady expansion of the public sector and continuous
changes encountered by governments in developing countries, it is not difficult to draw
parallels between the outcomes of public management reforms and efforts to establish
good governance. Thus, public management and governance aim at similar outcomes,
although they are implemented through different strategies.
Public management reforms entail continuous changes and adjustments, both inside
and outside the government, to keep abreast of developments and strategies adopted
within the society as well as in other parts of the world. These often involve designing,
implementing, and altering public sector organizations, the behaviour of officials, and
relationship among stakeholders. Such reforms generally emphasize accountability and
responsiveness, the achievement of representativeness, and the promotion of principles
and practices which have been established as standards in the private sector and across
the world.

Hong Kong: Governance without Politics

When the British government administered Hong Kong as a colony, a simple

governmental structure was facilitated by the absence of strong political forces and a
high degree of acquiescence by administrative officials in implementing reforms
(Lee and Huque 1996). The Governor General exercised absolute control. Many of the
arrangements continued after the end of colonial rule, and the administrative culture
402 A.S. Huque

persisted. Since the reintegration of Hong Kong with China, the Executive Council
provides the Chief Executive with advice, and policies are implemented by secretariats,
bureaus, and departments. Independent agencies for combating and preventing
corruption and extensive audits of public expenditures play important roles in governing
Hong Kong. Their key role is to uphold integrity and financial probity in the operation of
the administrative agencies.
Reforms in public administration and management in Hong Kong were carefully
planned with specific objectives in mind. Earlier, the objective of the government was
to keep public expenditures under control, prepare and implement a balanced budget,
ensure the maintenance of law and order, and, wherever possible, to get the voluntary
sector to participate in the delivery of public services (Scott 1986:455). The distinctive
features of Hong Kong were “minimal government, deference to authority, formality in
administrative practice, and a high degree of centralization”, none of which allowed
much leeway for deviance from rules and regulations (Lee and Huque 1996:14).
Along with major civil unrest in Hong Kong in 1967, high incidence of corruption
sparked demands for reforms in the public sector. The goals of these reforms were to
allow citizen participation in public affairs and to prevent the abuse of power,
maladministration, and public servants overstepping their jurisdiction (see Huque
et al. 1998). A series of public management reforms ushered in a number of noticeable
changes. A more responsive system of administration was put in place in 1974
with the establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). A
Complaints Against the Police Office (CAPO) was instituted in 1977, and a
Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) was created in 1988. An
independent statutory authority of the Ombudsman was established “to redress
grievances arising from maladministration in the public sector through independent
and impartial investigations to improve the standard of public administration” (Hong
Kong Government 2010:27). In 1992, the Efficiency Unit was created to facilitate the
introduction and implementation of public management reforms and various measures
to enhance efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. For the sake of probity, the Office of
the Director of Audit began carrying out audits to ensure regularity and value-for-
money, and it submitted its report to the President of the Legislative Council.
After establishing the basic mechanism for ethics and integrity in the public service
and responsiveness to the citizens’ needs, the next round of reforms in Hong Kong
concentrated on improving financial management and service delivery. Reformers
emphasized regular, systematic reviews of public expenditures, a proper system of
policy and resource management, clear definitions, and the delegation of responsibility
for policy implementation. The initiatives included the establishment of self-accounting
trading funds, the rationalization of public corporations, and non-departmental public
bodies, the devolution of resource-management responsibilities, emphasis on the
policy-management functions of central-policy branches, procedural and structural
changes within the civil service to promote awareness of costs and results, and the
transformation of civil servants from administrators into managers (Hong Kong
Government 1989). This period also witnessed efforts to prepare comprehensive plans
to ensure social welfare services. This was because “societies have an obligation to
assist their members to overcome personal and social problems and to fulfill their role
in life to the optimum extent in accordance with the particular social and cultural
development of their society” (Hong Kong Government 1995:3). Thus, the objective of
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 403

public management changed from ‘ruling’ in the 1970s to ‘administering’ in the 1980s
to ‘governing’ in the 1990s. Viewed together, these stages reflect the gradual transition
toward governance (Huque 2002).
Table 1 presents an overview of the key themes of public management reforms in
Hong Kong over four decades.
Subsequent public management reforms in Hong Kong have aimed to streamline
public management through the maintenance of a lean and efficient civil service. There
have also been reviews of pay and benefits, improvements in the ‘entry’ and ‘exit’
system, diversified training for public officials, and efforts to reinforce performance and
good conduct. These steps have been considered important for developing and
maintaining public services and improving the system through responsible, responsive,
and ethical management. In addition, the Civil Service Bureau and the Independent
Commission Against Corruption have introduced a joint ethical leadership programme
that is intended to instil a culture of probity in the civil service (Hong Kong
Government 2010:26). The impact of these reforms in public management is reflected
in the governance score which Hong Kong has obtained on the World Governance
Index. In Table 2, the random years of 1996, 2003 and 2010 have been selected to
present the trajectory of improvement over the years.
A comparative overview of the World Governance Index before and after the
reintegration with China (in 1997) indicates that Hong Kong ranks high in some areas,
including government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of
corruption. The territory achieved a higher than 90 percentile rank out of 100 and a
governance score of well over +1.50. Progress has been slow, however, in the area of
voice and accountability (66.4 percentile and +0.58), and political stability (77.8
percentile and 0.91), but they are obviously improving. The World Governance Index
allocates governance scores on a scale of +2.5 to −2.5. Information found in the Index
allows a comparison of Hong Kong with the United Kingdom and the United States of
America. These countries are used for reference because they are prominent in the
developed world, and considered to be forerunners in establishing governance (see
Table 3).
A comparison of governance scores for Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the
United States shows that Hong Kong scores highest on four out of six indicators. These
include Political Stability and Absence of Violence (+0.91), Government Effectiveness

Table 1 Public management reforms in Hong Kong: key themes

1970s 1980s 1990s–2000s

Facilitation of public participation
Improvement of channels of
communication with citizens
Introduction of integrity and redress
mechanisms
Agencification, market-testing
and corporatization
Devolution of resource-
management responsibilities
Review of policy management
functions
Performance pledges and citizen
charters
Lean and efficient civil service
Improvement of ‘entry’ and
‘exit’ systems
Review of pay and benefits
Reinforcement of performance
and good conduct
Ethical training
404 A.S. Huque

Table 2 Governance in Hong

Governance Indicator Year Percentile Rank Governance Score
Kong, 1996, 2003, 2010
(0–100) (−2.5 to +2.5)

Voice and 1996 59.1 +0.27

Accountability
2003 56.7 +0.31
2010 66.4 +0.58
Political Stability/ 1996 59.6 +0.43
Absence of
Violence
2003 76.4 +0.87
2010 77.8 +0.91
Government 1996 87.3 +1.27
Effectiveness
2003 91.7 +1.65
2010 94.7 +1.74
Regulatory Quality 1996 98.5 +1.87
D. Kaufman, A. Kraay and M.
2003 100.0 +1.90
Mastruzzi, The Worldwide
Governance Indicators: 2010 99.5 +1.89
Methodology and Analytical Rule of Law 1996 75.1 +0.83
Issues, 2010. ‘Voice’ refers to the 2003 91.9 +1.50
citizens’ ability to participate in
2010 91.0 +1.56
selecting their government,
freedom of expression and Control of Corruption 1996 90.7 +1.50
association, and a free mass media. 2003 93.2 +1.91
See http://info.worldbank.org/ 2010 94.7 +1.94
governance/wgi/index.aspx#faq

(+1.74), Regulatory Quality (+1.89), and Control of Corruption (+1.94). The score of
Hong Kong on Rule of Law (+1.56) is close to that of the United States (+1.58). It is
obvious that Hong Kong has lagged behind in the area of Voice and Accountability, and
this single indicator has affected the overall standing of the territory in the rankings.
Efforts to democratize this Special Administrative Region have had limited impact, and
the expected political development has not taken place due to various factors.

Table 3 Comparison of Hong

Governance Indicator Governance Score
Kong, United Kingdom, and United
(+2.50 to −2.50)
States of America 2010
Hong Kong UK USA

Voice and Accountability +0.58 +1.31 +1.16

Political Stability/Absence of Violence +0.91 +0.40 +0.31
Government Effectiveness +1.74 +1.56 +1.44
D. Kaufman, A. Kraay and M.
Mastruzzi, The Worldwide Regulatory Quality +1.89 +1.75 +1.42
Governance Indicators: Rule of Law +1.56 +1.77 +1.58
Methodology and Analytical Control of Corruption +1.94 +1.48 +1.23
Issues, 2010
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 405

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Hong Kong has achieved most of the objectives
that other countries seek to achieve through governance mechanisms.
Many developing countries are unsuccessful in achieving results similar to Hong
Kong because political considerations overshadow the actual problems, and reforms are
made with electoral and regime benefits in mind. This leads us to the conclusion that
non-political efforts at creating conditions for good governance have better prospects of
success. Needless to say, the context plays a critical role in such efforts and deserves to
be considered with care. In Hong Kong’s case, for instance, it has retained the colonial
tradition of centralization but has extended the possibility for consultation and
participation. These contextual factors surely play significant roles.

Good Governance through Public Management

We cannot deny that good governance is facilitated by social and economic policies that
are framed by political institutions and implemented by responsive and transparent state
agencies with competence and integrity (Zafarullah and Huque 2006:25). In developing
countries, however, there are good reasons for adopting a selective approach in order to
attain good governance. The stability and maturity of political systems are critical in
establishing mechanisms for participation, accountability and transparency, and
developing countries are generally unable to achieve these traits. Sometimes this is
due to the state’s intransigent and undemocratic nature, or its failure to democratize. It
therefore might be more realistic to work toward good governance with specific
indicators in sight. Some developing countries have fared well in five of the six
indicators used to construct the World Governance Index, but they remain unsuccessful
in achieving high scores in the category of ‘voice and accountability’. For example,
Brunei Daressalam (29.1), Qatar (21.6), Singapore (42.7), and United Arab Emirates
(20.2) score poorly in the category of voice and accountability in the World Governance
Index (World Bank 2011), but they obtained much higher scores in the other categories
such as efficient public-service provision through government effectiveness, sound
regulatory arrangements, mechanisms to control corruption, and rule of law.
As for other examples: Singapore scores poorly in the World Governance Index in
terms of voice and accountability, but still has managed to focus on “meritocracy, solid
institutional frameworks, the rule of law, proper control structures, checks and balances
and accountability in the public administrative system” (Sarker 2006:190). In
Botswana, public sector management pays “attention to detail, discipline and
dedication by the civil service”, and is considered one of the successful states in
Africa (Raphaeli et al. 1984). Carroll and Joypaul attribute the success of Mauritius
to the avoidance of “political appointments or partisan political interventions at the top
levels of the bureaucracy” (1993:434). Goldsmith (1999) notes that Botswana and
Mauritius were able to protect the public service from ‘penetration’ by party politics
that could lead to politicization at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. Costa Rica
has fared well in the World Governance Index in the area of rule of law and the
institutionalization of mechanisms that minimize the impact of political intervention
(see Lehoucq 2005).
It is believed that governance is rooted in theories of democracy, while public
management draws inspiration from market economics. Peters and Pierre (1998:232)
406 A.S. Huque

highlight the distinction between governance and public management as that between
political and organizational theory. They add that the former is concerned with process
while the latter concentrates on outcomes. Ideally, this would require a merger of
political and organizational theories, but the divergent foci could lead to additional
problems. Several studies take issue with the focus of governance on mechanisms that
are not necessarily guided by the authority and sanctions of government (see Bekke
et al. 1995). At some point, it becomes important to ensure that the processes and
outcomes are integrated in a logical framework.
It might be useful to consider the ultimate objectives of governance and public
management that overlap. Peters and Pierre observe that “Governance is about
maintaining public-sector resources under some degree of political control and
developing strategies to sustain government’s capacity to act” in the face of management
tools that replace highly centralized, hierarchical structures with decentralized
management environments where decisions on resource allocation and service delivery
are made closer to the point of delivery (1998:232). This is similar to the objectives
stated in documents on public management reforms in many developing countries. If a
country’s government suffers from poor leadership, corruption, and inefficiency, public
management reforms in administrative areas can at least minimize the problems through
increasing efficiency and emphasizing the equitable treatment of citizens. It is therefore
not surprising that public management has the potential to make substantial
contributions to the creation of conditions that may be viewed as good governance.
Performance legitimacy helps to enhance the public’s perception of the government and
the state, and this is not much different from the ideal of governance.
The case of Hong Kong illustrates this line of thinking: Hong Kong prioritized the
need to strengthen the economy and meet the social needs of the citizens. This was
done before initiating efforts to establish voice and accountability, probably due to the
belief that these values are more easily attainable after the economic and social needs
have been fulfilled. Such changes require strengthening the quality of the public
management system through careful planning and the effective implementation of
reforms based on identified needs. Hong Kong chose to concentrate on ensuring
effective governmental performance in the production and delivery of public services.
It was not easy because the past colonial experiences had created expectations and
mind-sets that were no longer appropriate for the 21st century. Since the conclusion of
the agreement to return to China in 1982, a series of political reforms was planned and
implemented in Hong Kong, but they did not result in substantial changes that could
support comprehensive efforts to establish good governance. Nevertheless, Hong Kong
was able to develop a modern and effective system of administration by following
reform trends introduced in other parts of the world. Thus, the uniqueness of Hong
Kong in terms of its political status, culture, and development must be kept in mind
before advocating the approach for other countries.
Care should be exercised in attempting to establish governance through public
management reforms. The contexts of the countries are important, and the role of the
political process in initiating reforms should be recognized. The successful countries
discussed in this article are smaller in size and under strict control of the regimes in
power. The same extent of success will be much more difficult to achieve in larger states
with multiparty democratic systems. For example, the implementation of governance
reforms in the South Asian countries might require a different set of strategies, effective
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 407

institutions, and implementation arrangements that can accommodate diverse interests

and communities. Therefore, governance through public management reforms must be
considered with reference to size, the nature of the political system, and the capacity of
institutions.

Concluding Observations

Since developing countries lack the resources and capacity to establish good
governance, it is necessary to search for suitable alternative strategies for incorporating
arrangements that could lead to improvements. These countries are under pressure from
both internal and external sources to improve living conditions and demonstrate
progress in a number of areas. This leaves them with two options. The first option is
to comply with demands for establishing governance, although the prospect of success
is slim. This is evident in the state of affairs found in many developing countries that
have attempted to establish governance through creating new institutions and
strengthening existing arrangements. It is impossible for them to eliminate problems
that have accumulated and been compounded over a long period of time. Governance
requires a comprehensive approach that covers a multitude of aspects, and this remains
a huge challenge for developing countries.
A second option would be to implement public management reforms to achieve the
same objectives. This strategy for improvement could be more appropriate for
developing countries. Effective changes in public management can lead to limited
improvements in clearly defined areas and could strengthen values consistent with
good governance. With careful planning, these changes have the potential to contribute
to empowerment and the participation of citizens, the accountability of public officials,
and the quality of services offered to the public. These outcomes can be achieved by
striking a balance between the resources and skills available, the existing administrative
arrangements in a country, and standards established by the local and international
community.
The proposed strategy—of improving administrative systems through public
management reforms as a prelude to good governance—has not been established across
several countries. While some countries in the developing world appear to have the
capacity and resources to score high on some of the indicators of good governance,
most of them fare poorly in the rankings due to their inability to ensure voice and
accountability and political stability. Some countries have performed well in the areas
of rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and corruption control, and
it can be said that these have been achieved through public management reforms.
Building upon these areas will contribute to the capacity for establishing good
governance.
It should be reiterated that public management reforms are no substitute for good
governance. Nevertheless, they have the potential to eliminate weaknesses and ensure
conditions that contribute to the establishment of a set of values that make good
governance popular. The experiences of many developing countries in this area have
thus far been disappointing, so the objectives and strategies need to be reconsidered.
Instead of attempting comprehensive improvements across a wide range of areas—a
strategy that has little prospect of success due to the lack of various capacities among
408 A.S. Huque

developing countries—an alternative could be considered, namely, to strengthen public

management systems to ensure progress in specific areas that will be realistic and
attainable. Developing countries could benefit more if they first addressed internal
needs by constructing their agenda for realistic improvements in the area of public
management, rather than succumbing to external pressures to aim for the ambitious
ideal of good governance. The effective implementation of carefully-designed public
management reforms will help prepare the grounds for undertaking comprehensive
attempts to establish good governance in developing countries at a later stage.

References

Bekke, H., Kickert, W., & Kooiman, J. (1995). Public management and governance. In W. Kickert & F. A. van
Vught (Eds.), Public policy and administration sciences in the Netherlands (pp. 201–218). London:
Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Carroll, B., & Joypaul, S. K. (1993). The mauritian senior public service since independence: some lessons for
developing and developed nations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 59, 423–440.
Goldsmith, A. A. (1999). Africa's overgrown state reconsidered: bureaucracy and economic growth. World
Politics, 51(4), 520–546.
Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 553–574.
Hong Kong Government, Finance Branch. (1989). Public sector reform. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Government. (1995). The five-year plan for social welfare development in Hong Kong: Review.
Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Government (2010). Hong Kong 2010, http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2010/en/index.html
[Accessed 20 June 2012]
Hope, K. R. (2002). From crisis to renewal: Development policy and management in Africa. London: Brill
Publishers.
Hughes, O. (1998). Public administration and management: An introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Huque, A. S., Lee, G., & Cheung, A. B. L. (1998). The civil service in Hong Kong: Continuity and change.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Huque, A. S. (2002). Government-society relations and the politics of administrative reform in Hong Kong.
Public Policy and Administration, 17(1), 5–20.
Jessop, B. (1996). Partnership in Greater Manchester and the Thames Gateway. Paper presented at DoE Seminar.
Kaufmann D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and
analytical issues, http://info.worldbank.org/gocernance/wgi/index.asp. [Accessed 2 September 2012]
Lehoucq, F. E. (2005). Costa rica: paradise in doubt. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 140–154.
Lee, G., & Huque, A. S. (1996). Hong Kong: administrative reform and recent public sector changes.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 55(4), 13–21.
Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying Governance and Public Management: Why?
How? In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspective (pp. 1–
33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.
Polidano, C. (1999). The new public management in developing countries. IDPM Public Policy and
Management Working Paper Np. 13, November.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Raphaeli, N., Roumani, J., & MacKeller, A. C. (1984). Public sector management in Botswana: Lessons in
pragmatism. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Sarker, A. E. (2006). New public management in developing countries: an analysis of success and failure with
particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
19(2), 180–203.
Scott, I. (1986). Policymaking in a turbulent environment: the case of Hong Kong. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 52(1), 447–469.
Public Management and Governance in Developing Countries 409

Simonet, D. (2008). The new public management theory and european healthcare reforms. Canadian Public
Administration, 51(4), 617–635.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(1),
17–28.
World Bank, (2011). The Worldwide governance indicators, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
[Accessed August 14, 2013]
Zafarullah, H., & Huque, A. S. (2006). Understanding development governance. In A. S. Huque & H.
Zafarullah (Eds.), International development governance. London: CRC Press.

Ahmed Shafiqul Huque, PhD, is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at McMaster
University, Canada.