Aligning Needs and Capacities to Boost Government Competitiveness

A Correction to this article is available

This article has been updated

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, access via your institution.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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