Advertisement

Evaluating the Position Classification System

  • Lhawang Ugyel
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines some of the challenges in evaluating public sectors reforms and the approaches to evaluation using a mixed-method approach. Data obtained from the opinion survey and in-depth interviews with civil servants in Bhutan form the basis for the evaluation of the Position Classification System (PCS). A general overview of the perception of the Bhutanese civil servants towards the PCS is provided. It also examines the scope of the PCS and evaluates the PCS based on some of its process dimensions. The evaluation of the formulation, transition and implementation processes of the PCS reveals a mixture of failures and successes. The findings conclude that the normal policymaking components of the PCS were viewed positively, and the paradigm-shift reform components were mostly unsuccessful.

Keywords

Civil Servant Occupational Group Position Level Undergraduate Degree Focal Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersen, Simon C. 2008. The Impact of Public Management Reforms on Student Performance in Danish Schools. Public Administration 86(2): 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assche, Kristof Van, Raoul Beunen, and Martijn Duineveld. 2012. Performing Success and Failure in Governance: Dutch Planning Experiences. Public Administration 90(3): 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, Susan M. 2004. Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival? Personal Reflections on 20 Years of Implementation Studies. Public Administration 82(2): 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barzelay, Michael, and Annie Sofie Jacobsen. 2009. Theorizing Implementation of Public Management Policy Reforms: A Case Study of Strategic Planning and Programming in the European Commission. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 22(2): 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovens, Mark, Paul t’Hart, and Sanneke Kuipers, eds. 2006. The Politics of Policy Evaluation. In Handbook of Public Policy, ed. M. Moran, M. Rein, and R. E. Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent, Jane, and Richard Laughlin. 1997. Evaluating the ‘New Public Management’ Reforms in the UK: A Constitutional Possibility? Public Administration 75(3): 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham, Peter, Wyn Grant, and Zig Layton-Henry. 2004. Research Method in Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, Alisa, Chris Salisbury, Rachel Lart, Kate Stewart, Stephen Peckham, Michael Calnan, Sarah Purdy, and Helen Thorp. 2011. Policy Makers’ Perceptions on the Use of Evidence from Evaluations. Evidence and Policy 7(4): 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Compagni, Amelia, and Fabrizio Tediosi. 2012. Implementing Performance-Based Funding for Health Research: When Governance and Procedural Fairness Matter. Public Administration 90(2): 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlstrom, Carl, and Victor Lapuente. 2010. Explaining Cross-Country Differences in Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(3): 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enticott, Gareth. 2004. Multiple Voices of Modernization: Some Methodological Implications. Public Administration 82(3): 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haggett, Claire, and David Toke. 2006. Crossing the Great Divide—Using Multi-Method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms. Public Administration 84(1): 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynes, Philip. 2008. Complexity Theory and Evaluation in Public Management. Public Management Review 10(3): 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2007. Measuring Public Sector Performance and Effectiveness. Chap. 22. In Handbook of Public Administration, ed. B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. James, Thomas E., and Paul D. Jorgensen. 2009. Policy Knowledge, Policy Formulation, and Change: Revisiting a Foundational Question. The Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, Lawrence R., and Donald F. Kettl. 2004. Assessing Public Management Reform Strategy in an International Context. In Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  17. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kuensel. 2009. PCS Did Not Fail, Implementers Did. Kuensel, February 18.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2013. Waiting for GOI. Kuensel, October 15.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhlmann, Sabine, and Hellmut Wollmann. 2011. The Evaluation of Institutional Reforms at Sub-National Government Levels: A Still Neglected Research Agenda. Local Government Studies 37(5): 479–494.Google Scholar
  21. Lin, Ann Chih. 1998. Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods. Policy Studies Journal 26(1): 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marsh, David, and Allan McConnell. 2010. Towards a Framework for Establishing Policy Success. Public Administration 88(2): 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. May, Peter J. 2003. Policy Design and Implementation. In Handbook of Public Administration, eds. B. Guy Peters, and Jon Pierre. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. O’Donnell, Michael, and Mark Turner. 2005. Exporting New Public Management: Performance Agreements in a Pacific Microstate. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 18(7): 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. PDP (People’s Democratic Party). 2013. Manifesto—Wangtse Chhirphel: Prosperity for All.Google Scholar
  26. Pollitt, Christopher. 2006. Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. RCSC (Royal Civil Service Commission). 2007. HRD Master Plan for the 10th Five Year Plan, ed. Royal Civil Service Commission. Thimphu, Bhutan.Google Scholar
  29. Sanderson, Ian. 2002. Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making. Public Administration 80(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Therkildsen, Ole. 2000. Public Sector Reform in a Poor Aid-Dependent Country, Tanzania. Public Administration and Development 20(1): 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thoenig, Jean-Claude. 2003. Formal Theory and Public Administration. In Handbook of Public Administration, eds. B. Guy Peters, and Jon Pierre. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Vallance, Sarah. 1999. Performance Appraisal in Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines: A Cultural Perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration 58(3): 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press (A Division of Macmillan, Inc.).Google Scholar
  34. Winter, Soren C. 2003. Implementation: Introduction. In Handbook of Public Administration, eds. B. Guy Peters, and Jon Pierre. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Wollmann, Helmut. 2003. Evaluation in Public-Sector Reform: Towards a Third Wave of Evaluation? In Evaluation in Public Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective, ed. H. Wollmann. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lhawang Ugyel
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations