Creation of state organizations: experiments with ideal-type reform models in a non-Western country

References

• Alavi, H. 1972. “The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh.” New Left Review 74:59–81.
   Google Scholar
• Almeida, Cyril. 2017. “The Revenge of the State.” Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1308454.
   Google Scholar
• Ang, Y. Y. 2017. “Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an Alternative Ideal Type of Bureaucracy in Developing Contexts.” Regulation & Governance 11:282–298.
   Google Scholar
• Aoki, Naomi, Melvin Tay, and Stuti Rawat. 2023. “Whole-Of-Government and Joined-Up Government: A Systematic Literature Review.” Public Administration. Early view. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach, Tobias, and Werner Jann. 2010. “Animals in the Administrative Zoo: Organizational Change and Agency Autonomy in Germany.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 76 (3): 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852310372448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blood, Peter. 1994. Pakistan: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., B. G. Peters, and Koen Verhoest. 2010. The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management. New York, US: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, Geert. 2022. “From NPM to NWS in Europe.” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences (SI) Special Is: 22–31: 22–31. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.SI2022.2.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, Geert. 2023. “The Neo-Weberian State: From Ideal Type Model to Reality?” Max Weber Studies 23 (1): 13–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2023.0002.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, Geert, B. Guy Peters, and Koen Verhoest. 2010. The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230275256
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., and J. Halligan. 2008. “Comparing performance across public sectors.” In Performance information in the public sector: How it is used, 72–93. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff, Derick. W, and Jennifer. M Brinkerhoff. 2015. “Public Sector Management Reform in Developing Countries: Perspectives Beyond NPM Orthodoxy.” Public Administration and Development 35 (4): 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, Tom. 2012. “Global Ideas and Modern Public Sector Reforms: A Theoretical Elaboration and Empirical Discussion of a Neoinstitutional Theory.” The American Review of Public Administration 42 (6): 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012452113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid. 2012. “Competing Principles of Agency Organization - the Reorganization of a Reform.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 78 (4): 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312455306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2011. “Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenge.” Public Organization Review 11:407–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, Paulo J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolowitz, David P. 2017. “TRANSFER and LEARNING: One Coin Two Elements.” Novos Estudos CEBRAP 36 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.25091/S0101-3300201700010002.
   Google Scholar
• Dolowitz, David P, and David Marsh. 2012. “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making.” Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions 13 (1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121.
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2018. “Beyond the Western Paradigm: Confucian Public Administration.” In Public Policy in the ‘Asian Century’, edited by Sara Bice, Avery Poole, and Helen Sullivan, 19–40. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60252-7_2.
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, Wolfgang, and Rainer Kattel. 2009. “Towards the Neo-Weberian State? Perhaps, but Certainly Adieu, NPM!” The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 1 (2): 95–100.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, and Jane Tinkler. 2005. “New Public Management Is Dead-Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3): 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederickson, D. G., and H. G. Frederickson. 2006. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4.
   Google Scholar
• Hajnal, György. 2012. “Studying Dynamics of Government Agencies: Conceptual and Methodological Results of a Hungarian Organizational Mapping Exercise.” International Journal of Public Administration 35 (12): 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.715564.
   Google Scholar
• Hammerschmid, G., S. Van de Walle, R. Andrews, and P. Bezes. 2016. “Public Administration Reforms in Europe.” In Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top, 1–10. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, Christopher. 1991. “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration 69 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husain, Ishrat. 2018. Governing the Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Institutional Reforms Cell. 2018. ‘Institutional Reforms in the Federal Government’. Volume I. Islamabad: Prime Minister’s Office Government of Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• Jadoon, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Nasira Jabeen, and Aisha Rizwan. 2012. Pakistan, Edited by Koen Verhoest, Sandra Va Thiel, Geert Bouckaert, and Per Laegreid. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• James, Oliver. 2004. “Executive Agencies and Joined Up Government in the UK.” In Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, edited by Christopher Pollitt and Colin Talbot, 75–93. New York, US: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, Per, and Koen Verhoest. 2010. “Reforming Public Sector Organizations.” In Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy & Performance, edited by Per Lægreid and Koen Verhoest, 1–21. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, David E. 2002. “The Politics of Agency Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality.” The Journal of Politics 64 (1): 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, Martin, and Derek Gill. 2011. “Toward a New Era of Administrative Reform? The Myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand.” Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions 24 (1): 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, Liang, and Tom Christensen. 2018. “Mapping the Evolution of the Central Government Apparatus in China.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 86 (1): 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317749025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCarthaigh, Muiris. 2012. “Mapping and Understanding Organizational Change: Ireland 1922-2010.” International Journal of Public Administration 35 (12): 795–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.715558.
   Google Scholar
• Maccarthaigh, Muiris. 2014. “Agency Termination in Ireland: Culls and Bonfires, or Life After Death?” Public Administration 92 (4): 1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCartney, Mathew. 2019. “In a Desperate State: The Social Sciences and the Overdeveloped State in Pakistan, 1950 to 1983.” In New Perspectives on Pakistan’s Political Economy: State, Class and Social Change, edited by Matthew McCartney and S.Akbar Zaidi, 25–56. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCourt, Willy. 2008. “Public Management in Developing Countries.” Public Management Review 10 (4): 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802263897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. “Ambiguity in Policy Lessons: The Agencification Experience.” Public Administration 84 (4): 1029–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00625.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NakrošNakrošIs, Vitalis, and Mantas Budraitis. 2012. “Longitudinal Change in Lithuanian Agencies: 1990-2010.” International Journal of Public Administration 35 (12): 820–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.715566.
   Google Scholar
• Niaz, Ilhan. 2010. The Culture of Power and Governance of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pierre, Jon. 2004. ‘Sweden: Central Agencies’. In Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, edited by Christopher Pollitt, 203–214. New York, US: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Pollit, Christopher, Karen Bathgate, Janice Caulfield, Amanda Smullen, and Colin Talbot. 2001. “Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 3 (3): 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980108412663.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, Christopher. 2001. “Clarifying Convergence: Striking Similarities and Durable Differences in Public Management Reform.” Public Management Review 3 (4): 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670110071847.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, Christopher. 2003. The Essential Public Manager: Public Policy and Management. UK: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2017. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis—New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Premfors, Rune. 1998. “Reshaping the Democratic State: Swedish Experiences in a Comparative Perspective.” Public Administration 76 (1): 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00094.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiter, Renate, and Tanja Klenk. 2019. “The Manifold Meanings Of’post-New Public Management’- a Systematic Literature Review.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 85 (1): 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318759736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. “Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability”. Open University Press. Buckingham.
   Google Scholar
• Rolland, Vidar W, and Paul G Roness. 2010. “Mapping Organizational Units in the State: Challenges and Classifications Mapping Organizational Units in the State: Challenges and Classifications.” International Journal of Public Administration 33 (10): 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2010.497321.
   Google Scholar
• Rolland, Vidar W., and Paul G. Roness. 2012. “Foundings and Terminations: Organizational Change in the Norwegian State Administration 1947-2011.” International Journal of Public Administration 35 (12): 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.715562.
   Google Scholar
• Salman, Yaamina. 2021. “Public Management Reforms in Pakistan.” Public Management Review 23 (12): 1725–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1850084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarapuu, Külli. 2012. “Administrative Structure in Times of Changes: The Development of Estonian Ministries and Government Agencies 1990-2010.” International Journal of Public Administration 35 (12): 808–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.715561.
   Google Scholar
• Schacter, Mark. 2000. “Public Sector Reform in Developing Countries Issues.” Policy Branch Canadian International Development Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, Allen. 2009. “Agencies in Search of Principles.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 2 (1): 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-v2-art2-en.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, Colin. 2008. “Understanding Variety in Public Agencies”. UCD Geary Institute Discussion Paper Series; WP42 008. Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, Gurmeet, and Neale J Slack. 2022. “New Public Management and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality – A Mixed-Methods Study.” International Journal of Public Administration 25 (2): 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1839494.
   Google Scholar
• Smullen, Amanda. 2004. ‘Netherlands: Interpretations of Agency’. In Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, edited by Christopher Pollitt and Colin Talbot, 184–202. New York, US: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Van Thiel, Sandra. 2012. “Comparing Agencies Across Countries.” In Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, edited by Koen Verhoest, Sandra Van Thiel, Geert Bouckaert, and Per Laegreid, 18–26. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, Koen, Sandra Van Thiel, Geert Bouckaert, and Per Laegreid. 2012. Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, Edited by Koen Verhoest, Sandra Van Thiel, Geert Bouckaert, and Per Laegreid. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vries, Jouke de. 2010. “Is New Public Management Really Dead?” OECD Journal on Budgeting 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-10-5km8xx3mp60n.
   Google Scholar
• Zahra, Abiha. 2020. Structural Reforms and Performance Management Systems: An Exploratory Analysis of State Organizations in Pakistan. Leuven: KU Leuven. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/3172020?limo=0.
   Google Scholar
• Zahra, Abiha, and Tobias Bach. 2021. “The Intensity of Organizational Transitions in Government: Comparing Patterns in Developed and Developing Countries.” Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2021.1980069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar