Mulong Group.ppt 0

8/3/2019 Mulong Group.ppt 0

1/26

+WISDOM QUOTEWISDOM QUOTE

Just dont give up trying to do what you really

want to do. Where their love and aspiration, Idont think you can go wrong.

(Ella Fitzgerald)


2/26

+

Question No. 1:What were the positive and negative aspects of theNPM (new public management) over taking thetraditional public administration model and whatare the impacts on the contemporary practice of

public management?

Mulong Group

GROUP

MEMBERS

Muhammad

Dino Amid

BujangRahman Seli

KhairulNizam

Morshidi


3/26

+ Purpose of PresentationPurpose of Presentation

View of NPM and Dynamism

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

The Dilemma of New Public Management

(DOES IT WORK )

Impact Of New Public Management


4/26

+

TRANSFORMATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR


5/26

+

Since the mid - 1980s

From Traditional Model to New Public

Management.

According to Hughes, 2003

this is not simply a matter of reform or

minor change in management style, but achange in the role of government


6/26

+

Hughes, 2003 :

Trend away from bureaucracy within

public sector.

Giving a good service provided topeople


7/26

+

VIEW OF NPM


8/26

+

The Paradigm Shift to replacing the formalway of thinking

Kuhn (1970) :

The Structure of Scientific Revolution

What is NPM


9/26

+

set ofprinciples and

practices in the publicservice, which has emergedduring the past several

decades in a variety ofcountries around the world

(Barzelay, 2001, p.xi)

What is NPM


10/26

+

Revolution entail not only mass

mobilization and regime change, but alsomore or less rapid and fundamental socialeconomic and /or cultural change during or

soon after the straggle for state power.

Goodwin, 2001 : No Other Way Out

What is NPM


11/26

+

NEW PARADIGM IDEOLOGY = NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT / PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

HUGHES OWEN, 2003 :

Public Management and

Administration


12/26

+ Hughes (2003)Hughes (2003)


13/26

+

a management culture that emphasizes the centrality of thecitizen or customer, as well as accountability for results. It

also suggests structural or organizational choices that

promote decentralized control through a wide variety ofalternative service delivery mechanisms, including quasi-markets with public and private service providers

competing for resources from policymakers and donors

(Manning, 2000)

DYNAMISM OF NPM


14/26

+

Creation of good culture in management

Process to become good governance

(Manning. 2000)NPI is not about whether tasks shouldbe undertaken or not. It is about getting things donebetter


15/26

+

HUGHES OWEN, 2003 : Public Management andAdministration


16/26

+Dilemma of NPM( Does it Work )

3


17/26

+

(Polidano 1999)

Conclusion that the impact of NPM is perplexinglyequivocal

Emphasizes the important of contingency factors, arguingthat few generalization are possible concerning NPM


18/26

+REDUCING ROLE OF THE

GOVERNMENTTools Positive Negative

Reducing RoleOf TheGovernment

(Hughes (2003))

Privatization - Devolution ofpower

- Quality service

delivery- Reduce

operational cost- More focus- Quick decisions

- Expertise ofgovernmentservants is not

fully utilized- Business

orientedservice

- Government isseen less

powerful- Surplus

employees/unemployment rose

- Predator

Effect


19/26

+

In 25 February 1983 privatization was chosen as amajor strategy for reducing the states involvement inthe economy and society

By the end of 1980s, the public sectors dominancewas largely undermined and diminished because ofrobust privatization.


20/26

+Impact Of Privatization

Serious concerns with regard to public accountability

Public officials are no longer responsible for the delivery ofgoods and services

Encourage and facilitate the private provider to deliverpublic services

.


21/26

+Impact Of Privatization

Privatization in Malaysia There are scores of allegations about it involving the

manner in which it was carried out, types of units privatizedand to whom they were privatized

The privatization policy in Malaysia has favored the vestedinterest, these involved extra-legal tactics and widenedopportunities for kickback and graft.

Despite off-loading of shares under privatization

Government has continued to provide soft loans, taxincentives and other concessions

Huge amount of public money has been pumped into therescue of privatized units (that faced massive burdens ofdebt.

Converting private debt public debt


22/26

+CASE STUDY : SESCo Bhd.

1921 Electric Section is under Jabatan Kerja Raya 1932 established Sarawak Electric supply Company Limited

(51% shared own by Sarawak Government)

Sept 1953 100% of equity own by government

1 Jan 1963 Sarawak Electric Co. Ltd. Is change to SESCo.

31 Jan 1996 Sarawak sell 45% of equity to SarawakEnterprise Corporation Bhd.

1 July 2005 100% privatization


23/26

+CASE STUDY : Syarikat Air

Johor HoldingsPositive Impact Negative Impact

- Managed to reduce NonRevenue Water in Johor from49% (1999) to 29% (2007)

- Increasing on Water tariff

- Water quality has not yet

reached the level expected

- Johor Government debtdifficulties SAJ

- Johor Water Supply was taken

over by the CentralGovernment


24/26

+ConclusionConclusion

Batley (1999) find that the effect of NPM reform indeveloping country has been mixed, at best, with someimprovements in efficiency and mixed effects on equity

Some of the original NPM practices have been preserved,some refined and some improved upon; but others havebeen quietly abandoned, or even reversed (Grant Duncanand Jeff Chapman)

Autonomization storey a common but success seenrelatively rare

Privatization in Malaysia still dominants by thegovernment (semi-autonomous)

Accountability is a critical factor for the success of NPM.


25/26

+

Some of the original NPM practices have beenpreserved, some refined and some improvedupon; but others have been quietly abandoned,

or even reversed (Grant Duncan and JeffChapman)


26/26

+

Q & A

Mulong Group.ppt 0

Documents

Transcript of Mulong Group.ppt 0