What Works and Why? Lessons from Public Management Reform in Malaysia

References

• Andrews, M. (2012). The logical limits of best practice administrative solutions in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 32, 137–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, M. (2013). Explaining positive deviance in public sector reforms in development (Centre for International Development at Harvard University, CID Working Paper No. 267, October, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2013). Escaping capacity traps though Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). World Development, 51, 234–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 19, 165–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, M. (2008). Instruction to deliver: Fighting to transform Britain’s public services. London, UK: Mathuen Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, M. (2016). How to run a government so that citizens benefit and taxpayers don’t go crazy. London, UK: Penguin Random House UK.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Crosby, B. L. (2002). Managing policy reform: Concepts and tools for decision makers in developing and transition countries. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Common, R. (2003). Malaysia: A case of business as usual? In A. B. L. Cheung, & I. Scott (eds), Governance and public sector reform in Asia (pp. 163–185). London, UK: RoutledgeCurzon.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, P. N. (1986). Program and performance budgeting in Malaysia. Public Administration and Development, 6(3), 267–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economic Planning Unit. (2016). The Eleventh Malaysia Plan, 2016-2020. Putrajaya, Malaysia: National Printers.
   Google Scholar
• Farazmand, A. (2002). Administrative reform and development: An introduction. In Farazmand (ed), Administrative reform in developing countries (pp. 1–9). London, UK: Praegar.
   Google Scholar
• Grindle, M. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17, 525–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamza, A. (2016a). Running like Clockwork, Malaysia 2016 | VIP Interview with the Hon. Tan Sri Ali Hamza, Malaysia’s chief secretary to the government by the business year. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://www.thebusinessyear.com/malaysia-2016/running-like-clockwork/vip-interview
   Google Scholar
• Hamza, A. (2016b). Keynote address at the International Conference on blue ocean strategy, Putrajaya, August 17, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2016), from http://ksn.jpm.gov.my/home.php?frontpage/speech/detail/2072
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1991). Public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2014). A government that worked better and cost less. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyer, D. (2011). Tying performance management to service delivery: Public sector reform in Malaysia, 2009-2011, Innovations for successful societies. Princeton University, New Jersey.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, B. (2015). Governance reform: Getting the fit right. Public Administration and Development, 35, 238–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCourt, W. (2006). The human factor in governance – managing public employees in Africa and Asia. Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan.
   Google Scholar
• McCourt, W. (2012). Can top-down and bottom-up be reconciled? Electoral competition and service delivery in Malaysia. World Development, 40(1), 2329–2341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCourt, W., & Lee, M. F. (2007). Malaysia as model: Policy transferability in an Asian Country. Public Management Review, 9(2), 211–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minogue, M. (2001). Should flawed models of public management be exported: Issues and practices. In Willy McCourt and Martin Minogue (eds), The internationalization of public management- reinventing the third world state (pp. 20–43). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Navaratnam, R. V. (2004). Winds of change. Pelanduk, Selangor, Malaysia: Subang Jaya.
   Google Scholar
• Noor Hisham, A. (2016). Innovative leadership in the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. Presentation at CAPAM Biennial Conference, August 8-20, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Painter, M. (2004). The politics of administrative reform in East and Southeast Asia: From gridlock to continuous self-improvement? Governance, 17(3), 361–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pal, L. A., & Clark, I. D. (2013). Best practices in public management: A critical assessment (Working paper). University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• PEMANDU (2011, 2012a, 2013, 2014, 2015). Government Transformation Program: Annual Report, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Prime Minister’s Department.
   Google Scholar
• PEMANDU. (2012b). Government transformation roadmap 2.0: Catalysing transformation for a better future. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Prime Minister’s Department.
   Google Scholar
• PMD. (1992). Development administration circular no. 1/92: Guidelines on total quality management for the public service. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• PMD. (1993). Development administration circular no. 3/93: Guidelines on clients’ charter. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• PMD. (1996). Development administration circular no. 2/96: Guidelines on MS ISO 9000. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• PMD. (1999). Development administration circular no. 1/99: Guidelines on benchmarking. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Polidano, C. (2013). Towards better results from the World Bank’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 420–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2013). Back in the OECD…an oblique comment on World Bank’s better results from public sector institutions’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 406–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department (PMD). (1991). Development administration circular no. 6/91: Guidelines on productivity improvement in the public sector. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Office. (2016). National blue ocean strategy book. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchett, L. (2013). The World Bank and public sector management: What next? International Review of Administrative Sciences, Government Printers, 79(3), 413–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Solutions when the solution is the problem: Arraying the disarray in development. World Development, 32(2), 191–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramli, S., Ahmad, J., & Harith, N. (2016). Blue ocean strategy in Malaysian public sector: An analysis of the four action framework. Advanced Science Letters, 22(5–6), 1702–1706.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, M. (2007). The politics of successful governance reforms: Lessons of design and implementation. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 45(4), 521–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, R. (2003). Supply and demand side models of lesson drawing (Working Paper).
   Google Scholar
• Siddiquee, N. A. (2010). Managing for results: Lessons from public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(1), 38–53.
   Google Scholar
• Siddiquee, N. A. (2014). The government transformation program in Malaysia: A shining example of performance management in the public sector? Asian Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 268–288.
   Google Scholar
• Taib, M. B., & Mat, J. (1992). Administrative reform in Malaysia-toward enhancing public service performance. Governance, 5(4), 423–437.
   Google Scholar
• Transparency International (TI). (2016). Corruption perceptions index 2016. [Accessed on 24 March, 2017] www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016
   Google Scholar
• Treasury. (1969). Treasury circular no. 5: Federal budget estimates, 1969. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Treasury. (1990). Treasury circular no. 11: Preparation of the 1990 expenditure proposals under the modified budgeting system. Kuala Lumpur, Government Printers: Budget Division.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations (UN). (2016). UN E-government survey, 2016. United Nations, NY: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2005). Public sector report. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2011). World Bank’s approach to public sector management 2011-2020: . Washington DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum (WEF) (2015). Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015.
   Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (1996). Budget reform – The Malaysian experience. Public Administration and Development, 16(5), 485–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (1998). Budget reform in Malaysia and Australia compared. Public Budgeting and Finance, 18(1), 99–118.
   Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (2013). Commentary on the World Bank approach to public sector management 2011-2020: Lessons from the Malaysian Experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 426–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (2014). A diagnostic approach to performance management: The case of performance management and delivery unit of Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 970–979.
   Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A., Siddiquee, N. A., & Zin, M. (2016). The government transformation programme of Malaysia: A successful approach to public service reform. Public Money and Management, 36(2), 81–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar