ABSTRACT
Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, policy makers, particularly in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, have struggled with management and civil service reform (see Figure 8.1), intending to improve their effectiveness, often calling for sound evidence to inform administration, policy, and practice (see also GAO 1995). Analyses from Canada and Britain are representative. In 1983, Canada’s auditor general, for example, identified three constraints to effective government management (as cited in GAO 1997): political priorities had a major adverse impact on productive management; managers felt unduly constrained by administrative procedures and conflicting accountability requirements; and there were too few incentives for productive management but many disincentives. A report for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1988 found similar constraints (reported in State Services Commission 2005):
s "ECAUSEOFANEMPHASISONPOLICYFOCUSONSERVICEDELIVERYWASINSUFlCIENT s ! SHORTAGE OFMANAGEMENT SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE AMONG CIVIL SERVANTS
abounded. s 3HORT TERMPOLITICALPRIORITIESSQUEEZEDOUTLONG TERMPLANNING s 4HEREWASTOOMUCHEMPHASISONSPENDINGMONEYANDNOTENOUGHONGETTING
results. s 4HECIVILSERVICEWASTOOLARGEANDDIVERSETOMANAGEASASINGLEORGANIZATION s #ENTRALRULESTOOKAWAYTHEmEXIBILITYMANAGERSNEEDEDTOMANAGEFORRESULTS
Reforms fall naturally, but not entirely, into three approaches: performance management; good management practice; and performance, budgeting, and management integration.
