The Public Sector Reform Movement: Mapping the Global Policy Network

Abstract

Public sector reform in both developed and developing countries has now become a routine matter of public policy—reform is almost continuous, if not always successful. While the role of international transfer agents such as the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in promoting reforms has often been noted, there has been no comprehensive mapping of the global network on public sector reform. This article makes a first attempt to map the close to 100 organizations that make up a loose global network around public administration and governance. It then provides a brief history of the evolution of the network, and the key events that encouraged a substantial degree of coherence among its members. It examines the practices and tools that are specific to this global public policy network, and concludes with some observations on policy transfer models. The article shows that in trying to understand the dynamics of public administration reform, we need to pay greater attention to this network, its members, and its influence over national policy priorities.

Keywords:

• public sector reform
• transfer agents
• international governmental organizations
• global public policy networks
• networks

The research for this article was conducted with the support of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, grant # 410-2007-2056.

Notes

¹Other organizations in the database may and do use the indicators developed and published by others for their research and advocacy work, and for their country programs and projects, but these are not deemed to be organizations that use “naming and shaming” as an explicit and even dominant instrument for promoting their public administrative reform agendas. In fact, the information in the database indicates that many of the organizations that do not explicitly use country comparison indicators in this manner prefer more collegial and partnership approaches in working with governments that would be inconsistent with the “naming and shaming” technique. To cite one important example, the OECD uses its research, analysis, and publications to support its very important peer review function, but peer review is conducted in a collegial rather than an aggressive and hostile manner and does not involve explicit country rankings on key governance indicators—and therefore the OECD is not included among the 21 organizations in this country comparison indicator category.

² http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/trans/manual/index.htm (retrieved June 10, 2009).