Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Aligning Needs and Capacities to Boost Government Competitiveness

  • 355 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

National competitiveness indices are often theoretical underdeveloped, limiting their engagement with academic literature. Because many are based on neoliberal ideology, a new approach is needed to incorporate governance and administration theory, and to enhance relevance to developing countries. This article introduces government competitiveness, a concept that recognizes overlooked factors like the role of social organizations, the use of diverse policy inputs and policy development processes, and the imperative to address human needs at all development stages. The conceptual foundation draws from systems theory, needs theory, and intervention stages theory to inform a comprehensive framework that bridges development scholarship and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

  • 17 June 2019

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The missing acknowledgements of the original article is provided below: <Emphasis Type="Bold">Acknowledgements</Emphasis> This work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A3A2044898).

Notes

  1. 1.

    Due to the ambiguous conceptualization of competitiveness, the term is often used interchangeably with similar concepts, many from research institutes: 1) IMD and WEF focus primarily upon NC, 2) the World Bank’s WGI evaluates “government effectiveness,” and 3) Quality of Governance Indicators (QGI) focus on “quality of governance.”

  2. 2.

    As with the principles of Greco-Roman democracy, Confucian thought survives to the present in both formal practice and societal values. Differences between the two are evident in the performance gaps between Asian and Western countries on governance metrics that largely reflect Western-style democratic priorities.

  3. 3.

    Operational efficiency is robustly addressed in public management literature, but can also be a dimension of competitiveness in measuring the stewardship of public resources. Related to this point, Coggburn and Schneider (2003) provide a useful examination of the impact of government capacity on policy commitments.

  4. 4.

    See Sabatier and Weible (2014) for a useful summary of these theories.

  5. 5.

    See Matland (1995) for a useful review of the implementation literature from a top-down versus bottom-up perspective.

References

  1. Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. World Development, 28(12), 2029–2049.

  2. Andrews, M. (2008). The good governance agenda: Beyond indicators without theory. Oxford Development Studies, 36(4), 379–407.

  3. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  4. Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(01), 53–74.

  5. Blankenau, J. (2001). The fate of national health insurance in Canada and the United States: A multiple streams explanation. Policy Studies Journal, 29(1), 38.

  6. Bozeman, B. (1988). Exploring the limits of public and private sectors: Sector boundaries as Maginot line. Public Administration Review, 48(2), 672–674.

  7. Brunner, S. (2008). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 501–507.

  8. Charron, N., & Lapuente, V. (2010). Does democracy produce quality of government? European Journal of Political Research, 49(4), 443–470.

  9. Chibber, V. (2002). Bureaucratic Rationality and the Developmental State. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 951–989.

  10. Clayton, R., & Pontusson, J. (1998). Welfare-state retrenchment revisited: Entitlement cuts, public sector restructuring, and Inegalitarian trends in advanced capitalist societies. World Politics, 51, 67–98.

  11. Coggburn, J. D., & Schneider, S. K. (2003). The quality of management and government performance: An empirical analysis of the American states. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 206–213.

  12. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.

  13. Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Wiley.

  14. Elliott, C., & Schlaepfer, R. (2001). The advocacy coalition framework: application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642–661.

  15. Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge.

  16. Farazmand, A. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of comparative and development public administration (pp. 1126). Second edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  17. Farazmand, A. (2002). Administrative legacies of the Persian world-state empire: Implications for modern public administration, part 1. Public Administration Quarterly, 26(3/4), 280–316.

  18. Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound governance: Policy and administrative innovations (pp. 324). Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

  19. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

  20. Fukuyama, F. (2004). State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. New York: Cornell University Press.

  21. Fukuyama, F. (2005). The imperative of state-building. Journal of Democracy, 15(2), 17–31.

  22. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.

  23. Gisselquist, R. M. (2012). Good governance as a concept, and why this matters for development policy. United Nations University, UNU-WIDER Working Paper 2012/30.

  24. Grindle, M. S. (2010). Good governance: The inflation of an idea, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP10–023, John F. Kennedy School of Government: Harvard University.

  25. Heady, F. (1959). Bureaucratic theory and comparative administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 509–525.

  26. Ho, A., & Im, T. (2012). Defining a new concept of government competitiveness. The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 50(3), 1–34.

  27. Ho, A. T. K., & Im, T. (2015). Challenges in building effective and competitive government in developing countries: An institutional logics perspective. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 263–280.

  28. Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., & Nasiritousi, N. (2009). Quality of government: What you get. Annual Review of Political Since, 12, 135–161.

  29. Im, T., & Choi, Y. (2016). Rethinking national competitiveness: A critical assessment of governmental capacity measures. Social Indicators Research. https:doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1494-z.

  30. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: the growth of industrial policy: 1925–1975. Stanford University Press.

  31. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.

  32. Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45). Boston: Little, Brown.

  33. Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 623–641.

  34. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222–279.

  35. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Policy Orientation (pp. 13–14). The Policy Sciences: Stanford University Press.

  36. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of ‘Muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

  37. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  38. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.

  39. Mitchell, T. R., & Scott, W. G. (1987). Leadership failures, the distrusting public, and prospects of the administrative state. Public Administration Review, 47(6), 445–452.

  40. Nanda, V. P. (2006). The “good governance” concept revisited. The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603(1), 269–283.

  41. Nathan, R. P. (1995). Reinventing government: What does it mean? Public Administration Review, 55(2), 213–215.

  42. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass: Adison Wesley Public Comp.

  43. Peters, B. G. (2001). The Future of Governing. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

  44. Ridde, V. (2009). Policy Implementation in an African State: An Extension of Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Approach. Public Administration, 87(4), 938–954.

  45. Riggs, F. W. (1963). The theory of developing polities. World Politics, 16(1), 147–172.

  46. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.

  47. Rothstein, Bo and Jan Teorell. (2012). “Defining and measuring quality of government.” Retrieved from: <http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/623/Rothstein%26Teorell2012.pdf> Accessed 26 January 2015.

  48. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment, From Paul Sabatier and Chris Weible (eds.). Theories of the Policy Process: Westview Press.

  49. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the Policy Process (Third edition). Westview Press.

  50. Sato, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework and the policy process analysis: The case of smoking control in Japan. Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), 28–44.

  51. Serra, N., & Stiglitz, J. E. (Eds.) (2008). The Washington consensus reconsidered: Towards a new global governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

  52. Taylor, F. (1909). “Scientific Management.” In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of Public Administration (pp. 30–32). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

  53. Travis, R., & Zahariadis, N. (2002). A multiple streams model of US foreign aid policy. Policy Studies Journal, 30(4), 495–514.

  54. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). The meaning of general systems theory. In W. Gray, F. J. Duhl, and N. D. Rizzo (Eds.), General systems theory and psychiatry. Boston: Little Brown Co.

  55. Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95–117.

  56. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. In J. M. Shafritz, A. C. Hyde, & S. J. Parkes (Eds.), Classics of public administration (pp. 22–34), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

  57. Wilson, W. (1895). The state: elements of historical and practical politics, a sketch of institutional history and administration. Boston: Heath & Co.

  58. Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Kris Hartley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Im, T., Hartley, K. Aligning Needs and Capacities to Boost Government Competitiveness. Public Organiz Rev 19, 119–137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-017-0388-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Government competitiveness
  • Governance
  • National development