Advertisement

Public Sector Reform and Perceptions of Public Servants: An International Longitudinal Review

Living reference work entry
  • 367 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the evolution of citizen perceptions about public servants in different regions and countries of the world. Using quantitative data obtained from the World Values Survey (WVS), this work contributes to the study of such perceptions’ trends in more detail, from an international comparative approach that allows to consider key country-level institutional factors such as the intensity and advancement of public sector reforms. The data does not suggest a global trend in perceptions about public servants, yet confidence in the public service is below a majority worldwide. Some regional patterns emerge with Latin America exhibiting the lowest levels of trust in the civil service and a detachment from perceptions on the government overall. From an analysis of the three most populated countries in the world (China, India, and the United States) and Latin America’s distinct behavior, the influence of public sector reform on citizens’ perception seems to be contingent on socioeconomic and institutional characteristics. Moreover, using a typology is proposed to consider the relationship between trajectories of reform, democracy, and citizen’s perception of civil servants.

Keywords

Citizen perceptions Public sector reform Institutional context 

References

  1. Anderson, C., and Y. Tverdova. 2003. Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 91–109.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, R., and S. Van de Walle. 2013. New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Management Review 15 (5): 762–783.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, M., L. Pritchett, and M. Woolcock. 2013. Escaping capability traps through problem driven iterative adaptation (PDIA). World Development 51: 234–244.Google Scholar
  4. Arellano-Gault, D. 2016. The quest for public trust: The limits of information access reforms based on the new institutional economics. The case of Mexico. International Journal of Public Administration 39 (9): 694–705.Google Scholar
  5. Ariely, G. 2011. Why people (dis)like the public service: Citizen perception of the public service and the NPM doctrine. Politics and Policy 39 (6): 997–1019.Google Scholar
  6. Battaglio, R.P., Jr., and S.E. Condrey. 2006. Civil service reform: Examining state and local government cases. Review of Public Personnel Administration 26 (2): 118–138.Google Scholar
  7. Borre, O., and E. Scarbrough. 1995. The scope of government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bouckaert, G., and S. Van de Walle. 2003. Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69 (3): 329–343.Google Scholar
  9. Breul, J.D. 2007. Three Bush administration management reform initiatives: The president’s management agenda, freedom to manage legislative proposals, and the program assessment rating tool. Public Administration Review 67 (1): 21–26.Google Scholar
  10. Brinkerhoff, D.W., and J.M. Brinkerhoff. 2015. Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives beyond NPM orthodoxy. Public Administration and Development 35 (4): 222–237.Google Scholar
  11. Brødsgaard, K.E. 2014. Globalization and public sector reform in China. In Globalization and public sector reform in China, ed. K.E. Brødsgaard, 19–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, J.P. 2000. Public sector reform and the state: The case of China. Public Administration Quarterly 24: 419–436.Google Scholar
  13. Camoes, P., and S. Mendes. 2019. Do citizens trust the civil service differently? Comparing the determinants of confidence in political-administrative institutions. International Journal of Public Administration 42 (14): 1234–1244.Google Scholar
  14. Carpenter, D.P., and G.A. Krause. 2012. Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review 72 (1): 26–32.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, J., and L. Sun. 2019. Media influence on citizens government trust: A cross-sectional data analysis of China. International Journal of Public Administration 42 (13): 1122–1134.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., D. Lisheng, and M. Painter. 2008. Administrative reform in China’s central government – How much ‘learning from the West’? International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (3): 351–371.Google Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., A.L. Fimreite, and P. Lægreid. 2011. Crisis management: The perceptions of citizens and civil servants in Norway. Administration & Society 43 (5): 561–594.Google Scholar
  18. Del Pino, E., I. Calzada, and J. Diaz-Pulido. 2016. Conceptualizing and explaining Bureauphobia: Contours, scope, and determinants. Public Administration Review 76 (5): 725–736.Google Scholar
  19. Deslatte, A. 2020. Positivity and negativity dominance in citizen assessments of intergovernmental sustainability performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. In press.Google Scholar
  20. Dong, L. 2016. Public administration theories: Instrumental and value rationalities. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Dussauge, M., P. Sanabria, and D. Gantus. Forthcoming. Public administration reforms in Latin America: Building bridges between theory and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Frederickson, H. G. 1990. Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review 50 (2): 228.Google Scholar
  23. Froster, C., and J. Frieden. 2017. Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans’ confidence in government. European Union Politics 18 (4): 511–535.Google Scholar
  24. Fukuyama, F. 2016. Governance: What do we know, and how do we know it? Annual Review of Political Science 19 (1): 89–105.Google Scholar
  25. Goodsell, C. 2004.The case for Bureaucracy: A public administration polemic, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  26. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., and E. Knies. 2017. Validating a scale for citizen trust in Government Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83 (3): 583–601.Google Scholar
  27. Haro-de-Rosario, A., A. Saez-Martin, and M. Caba-Perez. 2018. New Media and Society 20 (1): 29–49.Google Scholar
  28. Hong, S., and Y. Kim. 2019. Loyalty or competence: Political use of performance information and negativity bias. Public Administration Review 79 (6): 829–840.Google Scholar
  29. Hood, C. 1991. A public Management for all Seasons? Public Administration 69 (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
  30. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2016. Community, scale, and regional governance: A postfunctionalist theory of governance. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Houston, D., N. Aitalieva, A. Morelock, and C. Shults. 2016. Citizens trust in civil servants: A cross-national examination. International Journal of Public Administration 39 (14): 1203–1214.Google Scholar
  32. Im, T., W. Cho, G. Porumbescu, and J. Park. 2012. Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24: 741–763.Google Scholar
  33. Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin, B. Puranen, et al., eds. 2014. World values survey: All rounds – Country-pooled Datafile version. Madrid: JD Systems Institute. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp.Google Scholar
  34. James, O., and P. John. 2007. Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (4): 567–580.Google Scholar
  35. Kellough, J.E., L.G. Nigro, and G.A. Brewer. 2010. Civil service reform under George W. Bush: Ideology, politics, and public personnel administration. Review of Public Personnel Administration 30 (4): 404–422.Google Scholar
  36. Khan, H. 2016. The linkage between political trust and the quality of government: An analysis. International Journal of Public Administration 39 (9): 665–675.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, S. 2005. The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration & Society 37: 611–635.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, S., M. Park, and J. Rho. 2017. Does public service delivery through new channels promote citizen trust in government? The case of smart devices. Information Technology for Development 25 (3): 604–624.Google Scholar
  39. Krishnan, S., T. Thompson, and J. Lymm. 2017. Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal of Information Management 37: 297–312.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, Y., and H. Lauer Schachter. 2019. Exploring the relationship between trust in government and citizen participation. International Journal of Public Administration 42 (5): 405–416.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, S.Y., and A.B.. Whitford. 2012. Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (3): 687–712.Google Scholar
  42. Manning, N. 2001. The legacy of the new public management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 67 (2): 297–312.Google Scholar
  43. Marien, S., and M. Hooghe. 2011. Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research 50 (2): 267–291.Google Scholar
  44. Marini, F. (ed.). 1971. Toward a new public administration: The minnowbrook perspective. Scranton: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  45. Marlowe, J. 2004. Part of the solution, or cogs in the system? The origins and consequences of trust in public administrators. Public Integrity 6 (2): 93–113.Google Scholar
  46. Marshall, M.G., and T.R. Gurr. 2014. Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2013. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4x.htm
  47. Mørk, T., T. Bech-Larsen, K. Grunert, and G. Tsalis. 2017. Determinants of citizen acceptance of environmental policy regulating consumption in public settings: Organic food in public institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production 148: 407–414.Google Scholar
  48. Nielsen, P.A., and D.P. Moynihan. 2017. How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27 (2): 269–283.Google Scholar
  49. OECD. 2010. Progress in public management in the Middle East and North Africa. Case studies on policy reform. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  50. Olsen, A.L. 2015. Citizen (dis) satisfaction: An experimental equivalence framing study. Public Administration Review 75 (3): 469–478.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2017. Compared to what? How social and historical reference points affect citizens’ performance evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27 (4): 562–580.Google Scholar
  52. Painter, M., and G. Peters. 2010. Tradition and public administration. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Park, M., D. Kang, J. Rho, and D. Lee. 2016. Policy role of social media in developing public trust. Public Management Review 18 (9): 1265–1288.Google Scholar
  54. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Porumbescu, G. 2016. Linking public sector social media and E-government website use to trust in government. Government Information Quarterly 33: 291–304.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2017. Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. American Review of Public Administration 47 (5): 520–537.Google Scholar
  57. Sanabria, P. Forthcoming. Modernización de la Gestión Pública en Colombia: Coyunturas Críticas y Dependencia del Sendero en un Proceso No Lineal. In El Estado del Estado, ed. P. Sanabria and S. Leyva. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. Editorial Eafit. Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública.Google Scholar
  58. Sapat, A. 2000. Privatization strategies adopted for public sector reform in India: Determinants and constraints. In Administrative reform and national economic development, ed. K.T. Liou, 93–125. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, H. A. 1946. The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review 6 (1): 53.Google Scholar
  60. Slomczynski, K. M., and K. Janicka. 2009. Structural determinants of trust in public institutions: Cross-national differentiation. International Journal of Sociology 39 (1): 8–29.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, Diane. 2017. Understanding the transfer of policy failure : Bricolage, experimentalism and translation. Politics and Policy 45 (1): 55–70.Google Scholar
  62. Thompson, J.R. 2000. Reinvention as reform: Assessing the national performance review. Public Administration Review 60 (6): 508–521.Google Scholar
  63. Tyler, T.R. 2011. Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van de Walle, S. 2007. Determinants of confidence in the civil service: An international comparison. In Cultural aspects of public management reform, ed. K. Schedler and I. Proeller, 171–201. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  65. ———. 2018. Explaining citizen satisfaction and dissatisfaction with public services. In The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe, ed. E. Ongaro and S. Van Thiel, 227–241. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Van de Walle, S., S. Van Roosbroek, and G. Bouckaert. 2008. Trust in government: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (1): 47–64.Google Scholar
  67. Van Ryzin, G. 2007. Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust. Public Performance & Management Review 30 (4): 521–535.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2011. Outcomes, process and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 745–760.Google Scholar
  69. Verkuil, P. R. 2007. Outsourcing sovereignty: Why privatization of government functions threatens democracy and what we can do about it. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2006. Citizens’ perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17: 285–305.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2009. Building strong nations: Improving governability and public management. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  72. Waldo, D. 1952. Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review 46 (1): 81–103Google Scholar
  73. Wong, C. 2009. Rebuilding government for the 21st century: Can China incrementally reform the public sector? The China Quarterly 200: 929–952.Google Scholar
  74. Wu, J., and S. Jingjun. 2018. Leadership and public sector reform in Asia, ed Evan Berman, and Eko Prasojo. Emerald Publishing Limited. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/iub-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5231411
  75. Zhao, D., and W. Hu. 2017. Determinants of public trust in government: Empirical evidence from urban China. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83 (2): 358–377.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of GovernmentUniversidad de los AndesBogotaColombia
  2. 2.Public Administration DivisionCentro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, CIDEMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Janine O’Flynn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Avery Poole
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Melbourne School of GovernmentThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)MelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)MelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Crawford School of Public PolicyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations