Comparative Governance Reforms

Administrative reform has been one of the common activities of government for decades, if not centuries. Whenever the existing system of implementing policy is not performing well, or there is a new set of ideas about how to govern better, governments may reform administration. These reforms are often structural, moving around organizations within the public sector or creating new types of structures. Or they may focus on processes or the nature of the personnel hired by government. In most instances, however, they reflect Samuel Johnson’s description of second marriages—the triumph of hope over experience.

This chapter addresses governance reforms of the last three and a half decades and looks into the future. This is done in three parts. The first part presents a bird’s-eye view of the massive literature on governance and governance reforms with a focus on the good, the bad, and ugly sides. Then, in part two, it argues for an alternative concept or theory of “sound governance” with characteristics and dimensions that overcome the deficiencies of other models of governance. As a consequence of reforms, the third part examines the past and explores the future of public organizations via “going home” as a conclusion with possible scenarios, challenges, and opportunities.

Impulses for governance reforms come from many directions and take different forms. The Scandinavian countries have been influenced by contemporary governance ideas—New Public Management (NPM), post-NPM, and New Public Governance (NPG)—as well as by reform ideas related to the Neo-Weberian State, to name the most important ones. The Scandinavian governance model is especially interesting because it is widely regarded as successful by international comparison, and Scandinavian countries rank high in comparative studies of economic and social performance. There are both common characteristics and national variations, but overall, a pragmatic and incremental reform model is a core feature of Scandinavian governance.

Digital governance reforms can enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and citizen orientation of public organizations. However, the COVID-19 crisis has revealed that Germany’s digital governance reforms have not been particularly effective. Against this background, we outline the major digital reforms in Germany and evaluate them in light of Germany’s development in the UN rankings on E-Government and E-Participation. Over time, Germany’s position in both rankings has gradually declined. Drawing upon analytical reflections and the concept of institutional logics, we identify political and societal barriers, cultural and organizational barriers, legal barriers, as well as technological barriers that may have impeded Germany’s digital governance reforms. In a further step, we derive recommendations for reducing these barriers and improving digital governance reforms in Germany.

The experience of many countries demonstrates that the success of governance and public administration reforms is crucial to long-term economic development and poverty reduction, enhancement of citizens’ well-being, ensuring the state’s sovereignty, and the effective resolution of “old” and new problems (Farazmand, 1999). The COVID-19 pandemic crisis catalysed and accelerated trends that may not have been visible before. However, as available evidence demonstrates, history does not, after all, end, so the progressive development of nations and the rate of their advancement also depend on individual states’ innovative potential and ability to carry out successful governance reforms. Many countries, including Russia, face new pressures requiring fundamental systemic adaptation. A concern for efficiency is being supplanted by problems of governance, strategy, risk management, adaptivity, collaborative action, and the need to understand the impact of policies on society. “The roles and functions of the state in contemporary societies, cultures, and economies have expanded to respond to numerous present-day challenges, including that of coping with fiscal stress, economic recession, and instability” (Kotchegura & Jones, 2011, p. 15).

The Hungarian public administration development path can be outlined in four stages. The first stage, “democratization,” spans from 1990 until 1998, marked by the start of EU accession negotiations. The second stage, “Europeanization,” covers the period from 1998 to 2004, characterized by preparations for EU membership, which Hungary achieved in 2004 alongside nine other countries. The third stage, “quest for efficiency,” extends from 2004 to 2010, during which Hungary struggled with state budget insolvency, leading to a standby loan from the International Monetary Fund. The final stage, “continual crisis management,” begins in 2010 and includes the financial and economic crisis, the migrant crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine.

This chapter evaluates the impact of governance reforms on the outcomes of public administration and policy in three of the four countries belonging to the so-called Visegrád Group: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. Institutional theory, path dependence theory, and the theory of the post-accession crisis were applied to explain the governance reforms in these Visegrád countries. We used Worldwide Governance Indicators to analyze the development of public administration reforms. The results confirm the existence of the already described phenomenon of the “post-accession crisis”—recent progress is rather limited due to more critical factors, which have both institutional and path dependence origins.

China’s recent economic growth and associated institutional development have been so spectacular that it is relatively easy to draw the conclusion that it possesses a significant learning capability. As the quotation from Deng Xiaoping above illustrates, traditional Chinese scholarship relates this capability primarily to a culture of pragmatism. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate whether there is historical evidence that demonstrates the presence of a culture of learning within China’s developmental elite and seeks to identify its key ingredients. This will provide a historical foundation to our understanding of processes of policy learning in subsequent chapters.

This chapter has been written in the wake of a tumultuous year in the world history, which has attracted exhaustive international media and political attention—the repression of the ongoing struggle for pandemic restrictions or economic development, the appalling international conflicts of coup in Afghanistan and War between Russia and Ukraine and the age of Chinese as host to the Winter Olympic Game. The last event revealed both the startling organizational prowess of Chinese government and the generosity of spirit of the Chinese people. They also expose the latest chapter in the emotional roller coaster ride that Chinese citizens have experienced in a period of rapid modernization from the national risk for pandemic to their unrestrained national jubilation at the success of the Winter Olympic Games.

This chapter elucidates why governance reforms aimed at shrinking the bureaucracy areas of influence have progressed in Japan. The discussion focuses on aspects of institutional change that have resulted in governance styles allowing political leaders to control the bureaucracy more easily in the context of administrative reforms since the 1980s. Institutional changes in the Japanese Government have occurred in response to the complex context of critical junctures and layering of institutions. Critical junctures emerge in institutions that are stable along the path dependencies, and the impact of past institutional choices directs the progress of the reform. The critical junctures driving institutional change in Japan were the financial difficulties caused by economic crises and bureaucratic corruption. This triggered a shift to a style of governance led by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), reducing the returns that bureaucrats and politicians received from institutions that had continued through path dependency. In the PMO-led style of governance, bureaucrats in contact with the Prime Minister were willing to provide information and eliminate agency slack to further strengthen the cabinet’s functions when incentivized by promotion. Meanwhile, for the Cabinet to facilitate governance reform, a favorable relationship between the PMO and the ruling party headquarters is essential. This chapter also discusses how governance reforms developed under the conditions of leadership based on the Prime Minister’s personality and preferential relationship with the ruling party headquarters, which allowed the cabinet to function fully during the crisis phase.

Administrative reform emerged as a recurrent phenomenon that indicates “the induced systematic improvement of public sector operational performance” (Caiden, 1991). The major propositions of reform initiatives include the reorganization of structures, processes, and practices within it. The other concurrent concept of “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) points toward the simulation of human intelligence performed through machines (i.e., computer systems) and automation processes (McCarthy, 2007). Artificial Intelligence stepped up a new trajectory in the governance dynamics of administration with the inclusion of algorithmic-based accountability for accomplishing tasks through AI technologies (Engstrom & Ho, 2020). In the traditional practices of governance, administrative functions were attributed to formalism and hierarchical compliance (Peters & Pierre, 2001). Gradually, the government mobilized the application of ICT tools toward the modernization of public services and adopted various initiatives in the field of e-governance to ensure the simplification of services by reducing the cost, number of visits, and time (Islam & Rahman, 2020). However, with the widespread market functions and trade liberalization, the concentration of reform initiatives tends to managerial functions, business, and partnership approaches in public service delivery (Islam, 2024). There has been a shift in concentration in governance due to the digital revolution toward the utilization of Artificial Intelligence for speeding up the administrative functions of the government (Mukherjee, 2022). Realizing the resurgence of AI, the Bangladesh government developed a “National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence” (2020–2024) with some priority sectoral coverage that included “public service delivery, manufacturing, agriculture, smart mobility and transportation, skill and education, finance and trade, and health”. In this strategy, the road map of the Bangladesh government shows a gradual path from 2020 to 2024 in completing innovation in AI, industrialization, AI start-ups, data-driven policies, workforce preparedness, and so on (ICT Division, 2020). Recently, a draft of the National Artificial Intelligence Policy 2024 was promulgated to transform smart Bangladesh by leveraging AI technologies to promote the overall development of the country. The policy intertwined with the strengthening of administrative assistance through the AI system (ICT Division, 2024). In the era of AI, the inherited administrative setup of the Bangladesh government needs to be reinvigorated so that the reform agenda can be exerted toward the upliftment of administrative and managerial functions.

This chapter explores the intricate landscape of governance and administrative reforms in contemporary Iran, focusing on the challenges and opportunities that have emerged since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. It analyzes the evolution of Iran's administrative system through seven economic and social development plans, emphasizing the role of governance as a framework for effective policy implementation and public service delivery. The chapter highlights how governance in Iran is shaped by its unique political values and the impacts of international sanctions, which have necessitated adaptive strategies within the public administration sector. Key challenges identified include bureaucratic inefficiencies, the politicization of public administration, and the detrimental effects of prolonged economic sanctions. These factors have hindered the effective management of societal affairs, complicating efforts to enhance public service delivery. Despite these challenges, there are significant opportunities for reform, particularly through fostering collaboration between the public sector and civil society, as well as embracing innovative governance models informed by New Public Management (NPM) principles. The theoretical underpinnings of administrative reforms in Iran are critically examined, revealing how NPM has been integrated into various development plans. While some progress has been made, many reform initiatives have struggled to achieve their intended outcomes due to systemic obstacles. The chapter emphasizes that addressing the politicization of bureaucracy is crucial for realizing successful administrative reforms. In conclusion, the chapter proposes a series of recommendations aimed at overcoming these challenges. Key suggestions include enhancing political participation, improving transparency in governance, and fostering a more robust relationship between citizens and government institutions. By leveraging its historical context and addressing both internal and external pressures, Iran can adapt its administrative structures to better serve its citizens and respond to the rapidly changing global landscape. This analysis not only contributes to a deeper understanding of governance in Iran but also provides insights into potential pathways for meaningful reform that prioritize citizen welfare amidst ongoing complexities.

This chapter presents the major governance reforms undertaken by Colombia in the last 35 years. The document explores the drivers of such reforms, their implementation processes, and some of their consequences. It also emphasizes the internal and international forces influencing these reforms and shaping their implementation and results.

Organizational eclecticism has characterized much of policy and administrative choices in public governance in the last three decades. This concluding chapter addresses this phenomenon and argues that roads have been taken, targets have been met, and many lessons have been learned in organizing and managing public sector governance, as the chapters in this book demonstrate. In the process, experiments have been conducted, some with success, while others with failure, leading to a proliferation of eclectic choices, many unsuited for organizational effectiveness but beneficial to powerful interest groups and politicians, all at the expense of alternative organizational choices and broad-based public interests. Three broad theoretical models/periods are examined, the proliferation of public sector organizational eclecticism is analyzed, and options are suggested concerning alternative organizational choices, resulting in the question: can we go home now?