23rd September, 2009

Topic
New Public Management Related Administrative Reforms
and Its Affecting Factors: A Case of Nepal1

Paper Presented
By
Bharat Raj Gautam
PhD Student
Central Department of Public Administration
Faculty of Management
Tribhuvan University, Nepal

At the NAPSIPAG International Conference-2009

on
Human Capital and Good Governance: Transition Towards Knowledge
Based Development and Well Being

Jointly Organized By

Ministry of Higher Education, Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of

Public Administration and Governance, and College of Law, Government and
International Studies

11-13 December, 2008

Executive Development Centre

Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah
MALAYSIA

1
This paper is based on the Pilot Survey for a PhD Research conducted in November, 2008 in the Ministry of
General Administration and at the Central Department of Public Administration, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
 New Public Management Related Administrative Reforms
and Its Affecting Factors: A Case of Nepal

Abstract

New Public Management (NPM) has become a dominant model of administrative reforms
since the 1980s. The basic principle of NPM is based on economic and managerial theories.
Primarily, NPM based reforms applied in developed nations primarily in Britain, New
Zealand, and Australia. Since the 1990s NPM approach of reform has also been applied in
developing countries. In Nepal, various efforts for reforming public administration have been
taken place since the 1952. However, reform efforts after 1990 have introduced some reforms
ideas related to NPM model for making pubic sector more effective and result oriented.
Among them policies of redefining the role of the State, privatization of State owned
enterprises, reducing the size of bureaucracy, delegation of administrative power and
authority, procedural simplification, performance based management, behavioural changes
in bureaucracy, use of citizen charter and people centred service delivery are the major NPM
related reform components. However, implementation status of these NPM related
administrative reforms is very poor and many reforms remained non-implemented. Therefore,
application of NPM oriented reforms has not been effective to bring desired changes in
bureaucracy. There are a number of factors that have affected application of NPM related
reforms in public administration in the Nepalese context. A pilot questionnaire survey was
conducted to examine the factors affecting application of NPM related reforms in Nepal. The
study mainly finds the political, bureaucratic, policy process, institutional, and economic
factor respectively the major factors responsible for ineffective application of NPM oriented
administrative reforms in the Nepalese context.

2
1. Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to examine New Public Management (NPM) related
administrative reforms and asses the factors affecting its application in Nepal. The paper first
highlights research methods used for the study. The paper then reviews the explanation of
NPM and its application in the global context very briefly. Then the paper looks at
administrative reforms and introduction of NPM ideas in Nepal. The paper then briefly
examines implementation status of NPM related reforms in Nepalese public sector. The paper
mainly analyzes the factors affecting application of NPM oriented reforms in the Nepalese
context based on a pilot questionnaires survey. Finally, the paper summarizes the major
findings drawn from the discussions.

2. Methodology to the Study

The discussion part of this paper is based on the quantitative research method based on the
primary data. A pilot questionnaire survey was conducted in November, 2008 and 20
questionnaires were distributed in the survey. Ten questionnaires were distributed at the
Ministry of General Administration (MOGA) and the respondents were represented from the
level of section officer, under secretary, joint secretary and secretary. Another ten
questionnaires were distributed at the Central Department of Public Administration (CDPA)
and the respondents were represented from visiting faculty, lecturer, associate professor and
professor. These two organizations for the pilot survey were purposively taken and the
respondents were randomly selected in the both institutions.

The logic of choosing Ministry of General Administration for questionnaire survey is that this
is the portfolio Ministry responsible for initiating reforms in bureaucracy. The logic of
choosing Central Department of Public Administration for the survey is that this is one of the
central level academic institutions in the country that teaches the issues of public
administration. The main objective of the survey is to analyze the views of bureaucrats and
academics on the same reform issue, NPM related administrative reforms and its affecting
factors in the Nepalese context. Therefore, to this paper, application of NPM oriented
administrative reform is dependent variable and factors affecting NPM related reforms are the
independent variables. The SPSS2 data analysis tool is used to analyse the data collected from
the questionnaires survey.

2
Statistical Package for Social Science

3
3. New Public Management and Its Application
The classical model of administrative reforms which focus was mainly on setting structures
and adhering process. This traditional approach of reforms has been replaced by the
managerial approach that focus is on performance management and result orientation in the
public sector since the 1980s in the world. First, Christopher Hood in 1991 scholarly
described managerial approaches of reforms as NPM doctrine that includes professional
management in the public sector, explicit standards and measures of performance, greater
emphasis on output, shift to dis-agreegation of administrative units, greater competition in
public sector, introduction of private sectors management practice in public sector, stress on
greater discipline and parsimony in resource use. The OECD3 model of NPM also includes
some other managerial approaches of reforms such as evolving authority and providing
flexibility, ensuring performance control and accountability, use of information technology,
developing competition and choice, improving the quality of regulation, improving the
management of human resources, providing responsive services, and strengthening steering
functions at the centre (See Kickert, 1997:18). According to OECD, the central theme of
NPM is managerial and financial flexibilities in the public sector. The Ten Principles4 of the
Reinventing Government: A Government that Works Better and Costs Less propounded by
Osborne and Gaebler (1992) have further added new approaches to the movement of NPM
based reforms focusing on results and citizen centred service delivery in the public sector.

According to Christensen and Lagried (2002:18) basic principle of NPM is based on

economic and managerial theories. Economic theory allows market competition in delivering
public services, contracting out the functions of government, and privatizing state owned
agencies. Application of managerial theory in the public sector provides flexibility to the
managers for managing their functions with full autonomy. Therefore, combination of
managerial and economic approaches is the basic core of NPM. We may summarize
managerial and economic features of NPM with following components- decentralization and
delegation of managerial power and authorities, conversion of civil service departments into
independent agencies, performance-based management and autonomy, privatization of state

3
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
4
Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing, Community-owned government: empowering rather than
serving, Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery, Mission-driven government:
transforming rule driven organizations, Result-oriented government: funding outcomes not inputs, Customer-
driven governments: meeting the needs of the customer not the bureaucracy, Enterprising government: earning
rather than spending, Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure, Decentralized government: from
hierarchy to participation and teamwork, Market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market

4
functions, downsizing/rightsizing public bureaucracy, customer/client orientation, application
of citizens charter, results based management, competition and people centred service
delivery.

NPM has become an influential model of reforms for leading changes in the public sector in
many countries. However, applications of NPM reforms have not been the same everywhere.
UK introduced dramatic reform programs during Thatcher regime in 1979. The reform agenda
was based on businesslike management, client orientation, and market type mechanisms
(Kickert,1997:21). New Zealand became more radical country than UK in introducing NPM
ideas focused on contracting out of public services. Australia, another pioneer of NPM led
reforms introduced a series of reforms such as corporatization, contracting out, market
orientation, and quasi-market mechanisms in delivering public services. The application of
NPM based reforms can also be seen in the Scandinavian countries5. Their reform processes
are influenced mainly by the managerial theories of NPM such as management by objectives,
managerial autonomy, and power devolution. These practices have been well established in
the Scandinavian administrative traditions within the broad values of welfare states. The
Scandinavian model of reform is not the same as that of the Anglo-Saxon6 and Anglo-
American7 countries. Therefore, there are a number of variations in the application of NPM
based reforms across the countries in the world.

NPM oriented administrative reforms can also be observed in some developing countries from
1990 onwards. Devolution of authority from the central government to semi-autonomous
agencies which is one of the basic components of NPM can be seen in Ghana, Kenya,
Zambia, South, Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe through corporatizing their health sectors
(Polidano,1999:5-6). The process involves converting hospitals into free standing bodies run
by their own boards of directors and hiving off the service delivery wing of the Ministry of
Health into the separate health entities as like in the UK (McCourt, 2002:229-230). NPM
inspired autonomous body like Revenue Authority model in the public sectors is also
implemented in sub-Saharan African countries such as Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia (Ibid).

5
Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland
6
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand
7
United States of America, Mexico and Canada

5
4. Administrative Reforms and NPM in Nepal
The journey of administrative reforms in Nepal has been started from the formation of the
Buch Committee in 1952. The main term of reference of this Committee was to review the
then Civil Service system and make recommendations for its reorganization. The second
Commission of reform was the Administrative Reorganization and Planning Commission of
1956. Its main term of reference was to formulate Civil Service Act and Regulations to
strengthen Nepalese administrative system. The third Administrative Reform Commission
was set up in 1968 in order to make the civil service more competent. Again in 1975, another
Administrative Reform Commission was formed and its main term of reference was to make
the then administrative system more development oriented (Poudyal,1989:47-95). However,
these efforts were based on traditional forms of reforms mainly for setting organizational
structures, and formulating rules and regulations rather than making bureaucracy effective and
result oriented.

After the restoration of democracy, the government formed a high level Administrative
Reform Commission (ARC) under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister, Girija Prasad
Koirala in 1991. Right after the change made in political regime from an authoritative to a
democratic one, it was realized that a number of profound changes were necessary in the
Nepalese public sector. The Commission recommended various reform measures mainly in
the areas of redefining the role of government, privatization, effectiveness of public service
delivery, re-structuring public organizations, reduction of overstaffing and right sizing
bureaucracy, procedural simplification, bringing efficiency in decision making,
decentralization/delegation of power and authority to the line agencies, human resource
development, corruption control, modifications on performance appraisal system and
monitoring of reforms (ARC Report, 1992). If we analyze these reform components, a large
number of reforms are similar to NPM ideas. In 2001, Governance Reform Program (GRP)
was introduced for the duration of 5 years under the soft loan assistance of the ADB. The
broad objective of the GRP was to make the Nepalese bureaucracy more result-driven,
people-oriented, and gender-responsive. Within these broader objectives of GRP, five main
components were set and a comprehensive Road Map of Governance Reform Program was
adopted in 2004. If we look at broad objectives of GRP, its five major components and its
Road Map thoroughly, a number of reforms are similar to NPM approaches (See GRP Policy
Document, 2001 and Road Map, 2004}.

6
Following the peoples movement of 2006, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in his first
meeting with top bureaucrats, asked them to work for a Ten Years Vision Paper to modernize
Nepalese Civil Service in August, 2006. A Vision Paper Task Force was formed and its main
terms of reference was to work on the following areas- to find out the rationale of the number
of ministries and central level organizations, to identify the ways to transfer the centralized
administration to decentralize one and to identify the areas that can be devolved, to find out
the ways in order to make the civil service more client oriented, accountable and responsive,
The Task Force has submitted its report to the government, but it has not been formally
endorsed by the government for its implementation. After the election to the Constituent
Assembly in April 2008, a coalition Government was formed under the Premiership of Maoist
party president Mr. Puspa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda). The Maoist led coalition government
formed an Administrative Restructuring Commission (ARC) in November, 2008 for making
public administration accountable to the people, capable, fair, transparent, and federal
structure orient. The Commission has submitted its first provisional report in April 2009
focusing the needs of various reforms in public service delivery. Meantime, the Maoist led
government resigned in May 2009 and another coalition Government led by Mr. Madav
Kumar Nepal has been formed. The Commission has also submitted its second provisional
report of possible reforms in the public sector to the government in August 2009. It is
interestingly observed how the new coalition government will lead the ARC and introduce
reform programs in the Nepalese bureaucracy.

4.1 New Public Management Related Reforms and Its Implementation

After adapting any policies next important stage is the implementation which is very much
crucial for bringing expected changes. However, gap between policies and their
implementation may be a common problem in policy science. But the Nepalese case of
administrative reform faces more problems in implementation rather than common problems.
The table below summarizes the major NPM related reforms and their implementation status
from 1990 onwards reform policies.

7
 Table-1
NPM Related Reforms and Implementation Status

Major Proposed Main Focus of the Reforms Implementation Status

Reforms

1. Reviewing the Transfer of government activities to the non- The concept is partly
role of government governmental sectors. implemented
2. Restructuring Merging Ministries, Departments and reducing the Not effectively implemented
public number of public organizations.
organizations
3. Rightsizing the Reduction of number of employees working at the public Partly implemented in Civil
number of sector. Service but not in other
employees8 sectors
4. Improving Effective service delivery and prompt response to the Not effectively implemented
Public service public needs
delivery
5. Procedural Reduction of decision making layers and paper works Not effectively
simplification implemented
6. Managerial Devolution and delegation of managerial authority to the Not effectively implemented
decentralization line agencies
7. Human resource Increasing capacity of public employees and making Not effectively implemented
development them more efficient
8. Privatization Privatization of Public Enterprises Partly implemented, 30 out
63
9. Developing To improve management structure of leading reform Partly implemented
internal capacity institutions and their monitoring capacity (Only structures)
leading reform
institution
10. Improving To enhance performance of public employees. Not effectively implemented
efficiency of the
civil service
11. Enhancing To increase motivation and improve skills of civil Not effectively
over all servants through modern principles of human resource implemented
competence management
12. Iimproving To deliver better services to citizens based on NPM work Not effectively implemented
performance of culture- performance based management.
the Ministries

13. Performance To make employees accountable to their jobs and make Not effectively implemented
Contract the performance of employees result oriented
14. Application of To provide public services promptly and smoothly to the Citizens Charter boards are
Citizens Charter citizens there but its spirit is not
followed

Source: Report of the Administrative Reform Commission-1992, Policy Documents of Governance Reform Program,
2001-2005 and Its Road Map-2004, Report of the Vision Paper for Civil Service-2007, Civil Service Act and Rules-2007, and
Economic Survey, 2006-7.

8
Existing number of employees working at the public sector is around 451,385 including, 79,426 in Civil Service, 95,753 in
Army Service, 56,057 in Janpath Police Service, 25,780 in Armed Police Force, 138,530 in Teaching Service, 14,888 in
Public Universities, 759 in Constitutional Bodies, 5,139 in Postal Services, and 35,053 in state owned Public Enterprises
(Ministry of Finance and Economic Survey, 2008).

8
The table above shows that many NPM related reforms remained non-implemented.
Therefore, public administration in Nepal is criticized for being inefficient and ineffective for
delivering goods and services. This problem indicates that the application of NPM oriented
reforms is not effective to bring expected changes in Nepalese bureaucracy. Lack of effective
application of NPM related reform policies may be a noticeable setback to the reform
trajectory of Nepalese public sector. There may be a number of factors related to political,
bureaucratic, institutional, policy process, cultural, and economic sectors that may affect
application of NPM related reforms depends upon country specific context. Following section
analyzes the factors affecting application of NPM related reforms in the Nepalese context.

5. Discussion: Factors Affecting Application of NPM Related Reforms

Why could not NPM oriented reforms be effectively implemented in Nepal? What factors
have affected application of NPM related reforms effectively in the Nepalese context? These
are the central questions of this paper. In order to analyze the factors affecting NPM related
reforms in Nepal, a questionnaire survey was conducted in November, 2008. From the survey,
political, bureaucratic, policy process, institutional, and economic factors respectively are
ranked the major factors that have affected application of NPM related reforms in Nepal. In
the questionnaire, the first question was-

Which factors do you think are the major reasons for ineffectiveness of NPM oriented
reforms in Nepal? Ranking order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(1 is high value).

A. Political Factor ( )
B. Economic Factor, ( )
C. Bureaucratic Factor, ( )
D. Institutional Factor, ( )
E. Policy Factor, ( )
F. If any other, please specify

The table below shows the choice value of the respondents on these variables. Mean value is
used to interpret the data.

9
 Table-2
Choice Rank Order of Respondents
1 is high value and 5 is least value in 1-5 Rank Order
Working Organization
Factors Civil Service University Total
Ministry of General Central Department of Public Value
Administration, MOGA Administration, CDPA
Political 1.40 1.50 1.45
Bureaucratic 2.44 3.10 2.79
Policy 3.11 3.22 3.17
Institutional 3.78 3.11 3.44
Economic 4.22 3.56 3.89
If any other9...
Source: Pilot Questionnaire Survey Conducted in November, 2008
The table 2 shows that the choice order of the respondents in order to evaluate the factors
affecting application of NPM oriented reforms in Nepal. In total, respondents see the first
major factor is political with 1.45 ranked value, second major factor is bureaucratic with 2.79
ranked value, third major factor is policy process with 3.17 ranked value, fourth major factor
is institutional with 3.44 ranked value and fifth is economic factor with 3.89 rank value. If we
compare the choice of respondents from civil service and university, respondents from the
Ministry of General Administration see the policy process is the third major factor with 3.11
rank value, where as the respondents from the Central Department of Public Administration
see the institutional factor is the third with 3.11 rank value and policy factor is forth with 3.22
rank value. Rest of choice orders are the same as mentioned in the table 2. Following
discussion is based on the total choice value order on each of these factors made by the
respondents.

5.1 Political Factor

In the survey respondents see the political factor is the first major factor responsible for
ineffective application of NPM oriented reforms in Nepal. Following table shows the choice
value of the respondents for other variables related to the political factor. The choice options
were completely agree-1, agree-2, partially agree-3, disagree-4, completely disgree-5.

9
Two respondents from the Ministry of General Administration have mentioned behavioral factor /rigid mindset
is also additional factor affecting to the application of NPM in Nepal.

10
 Table-3: Choices of Respondents
Mean is 3, less than 3 value indicates Agree and More than 3 value indicates Disagree
Working
Organization and
Political Factors Respondents Value
MOGA CDPA Total
Political parties are very much aware to the approaches of NPM based 3.60 3.90 3.75
reforms.

Government has given first priority to implement NPM oriented reforms 3.30 3.67 3.47
for reforming Nepalese bureaucracy

There is lack of political commitment in ruling and opposition parties for 2.40 1.80 2.10
the application of NPM oriented reforms.

Political-administrative leaderships (Prime Minister and Ministers) are 3.40 3.60 3.50
committed to lead the reform programs.

Political instability that happened in the country from 1990 onwards 2.50 2.20 2.35
mainly hindered the application of NPM based administrative reforms.
Source: Pilot Questionnaire Survey, conducted in November, 2008

It is generally argued that effective application of NPM related reforms requires a great deal
of awareness in the side of political leaders. This is because whole range of issues in public
administration is the matters of political debates and discourses (Jamil, 2007:75). But, in the
survey respondents from both institutions has dis-agreed with total value 3.75 to the statement
political parties are very much aware to the approaches of NPM based reforms. It means
there is lack of awareness in political parties to the approaches of NPM oriented reforms in
Nepal. Respondents from both institutions also dis-agreed with 3.17 total values to the
statement government has given first priority to implement NPM oriented reforms for
reforming Nepalese bureaucracy. Respondents from the both organizations dis-agreed with
total value 3.50 to the statement politico-administrative leaderships (Prime-Minister and
Ministers) are committed to lead the reform programs. Respondents do not see commitment
of politico-administrative leaderships for the application of NPM oriented reforms in real
sense. There was an opinion that the reform process in Nepal was hindered due to political
instability that frequently happened from 1990 onwards. For example, since the restoration of
democratic regime in 1989 seventeen governments have been changed in between 1989-
200910. However, respondents are not completely agreed with the statement political

10
1989 Krishna Prasad Bhattari, 1991 Girija Prasad Koirala, 1994 Man Mohan Adhikari, 1995 Sher Bhadur
Deuba, 1996 Lokendra Bahadur Chand, 1997 Surya Bhadur Thapa, 1998 Girija Prasad Koirala, 1999 Krishna
Prasad Bhattarai, 2000 Girija Prasad Koirala, 2001 Sher Bhadur Deuba, 2002 Lokendra Bhadur Chanda, 2003

11
instability that happened in the country from 1990 onwards mainly hindered the application of
NPM based administrative reforms. Respondents see lack of priority of the government rather
than effect of political instability responsible for ineffective application of reform programs.

5.2 Bureaucratic Factor

In the survey, bureaucratic factor became second major factor affecting to the application of
NPM oriented reforms in Nepal. The table below shows the choice of respondents for other
variables related to the bureaucratic factor. The choice options were completely agree-1,
agree-2, partially agree-3, disagree-4, completely disgree-5.
Table-4: Choices of Respondents
Mean is 3, less than 3 value indicates Agree and more than 3 value indicate Disagree
Working
Organization and Total
Bureaucratic Factors Respondents Value
MOGA CDPA
NPM based reforms are commonly understood in Nepalese 2.90 3.00 2.95
bureaucracy.

NPM reforms remained ineffective due to lack of support from 2.60 2.40 2.50
bureaucratic actors.

There is fear of loosing administrative power and status if NPM based 2.60 2.60 2.60
reform is applied effectively in bureaucracy.

There is high power distance between senior and junior level 1.80 1.70 1.75
employees in Nepalese bureaucracy.

Public officials think that they are superior to the general people while 2.10 1.50 1.80
delivering public services.

Source: Pilot Questionnaire Survey, Conducted in November, 2008

Respondents from both organizations are partially agreed with the statement that NPM based
reforms are commonly understood in Nepalese bureaucracy with 2.95 total values. This
means NPM related reforms are not very much understood in Nepalese bureaucracy.
Respondents are in between the value of agree and partially agree with 2.50 total value to the
statement NPM reforms remained ineffective due to lack of support from bureaucratic
actors. Respondents from both organizations shared the same value 2.60 to the statement
there is fear of loosing administrative power and status if NPM based reforms is applied

Surya Bahadur Thapa, 2004 Sher Bhaduar Deuba, 2005 King Gynendra, 2006Girija Prasad Koirala, 2008 Puspa
Kamal Dahal, (Prachanda), 2009 Madav Kumar Nepal.

12
effectively in bureaucracy. Respondents from both organizations high power distance
between senior and junior level employees in Nepalese bureaucracy with 1.75 total value.
Respondents from both organizations feel that the public officials think they are superior to
the general people while delivering public services. Here, university teachers see very much
power oriented behaviour of administrators with their choice value 1.50 in bureaucracy while
dealing with general people.

5. 3 Policy Factor
In the survey, respondents ranked policy factor as the third major factor for ineffectiveness of
NPM related reforms in Nepal. Following table shows the choice of respondents for other
variables related to policy process of reforms. The choice options were completely agree-1,
agree-2, partially agree-3, disagree-4, completely disgree-5.
Table-5: Choices of Respondents
Mean is 3, less than 3 value indicates Agree and more than 3 value indicate Disagree
Working Organization
Policy Factors and Total
Repondents Value
MOGA CDPA
There is a casual relationship between policy process of 1.90 2.00 1.95
NPM related reforms and its effectiveness in Nepal.

Policy process of NPM oriented reforms in Nepal has been 2.00 1.70 1.85
influenced by the global wave of NPM reforms.

The learning process of NPM oriented reform policies was 2.60 3.80 3.20
and is voluntarily made by the policy actors.

Policy actors have given sufficient time and done homework 3.50 4.20 3.85
before introducing NPM oriented reforms in Nepal.

NPM oriented reform policies have been copied from the 2.50 2.50 2.50
global trends of NPM with out analyzing intensively.

Source: Pilot Questionnaire Survey, Conducted in November, 2008

Application of NPM based administrative reforms is an issue of policy transfer from
international context to national setting. Respondents have agreed with the statement there is
a casual relationship between policy process of NPM reforms and its effectiveness with 1.95
total value. Respondents also agreed with 1.85 total values that the policy initiation of NPM
related reforms in Nepal was influenced by global wave of NPM. Respondents from both
institutions contrast each other to this statement with their own institutional choice values.
Respondents from university disagreed with their choice value 3.80 to the statement. But

13
respondents from civil service agreed with their choice value 2.60 to the statement that they
see NPM policies are voluntarily made by the policy actors. Respondents from both
organizations with 3.85 value dis-greed to the statement that the policy actors have given
sufficient time and done home work before introducing NPM related reforms. It means they
see policy process of NPM related reforms is hurriedly introduced in Nepal.

5.4 Institutional Factor

In the survey, institutional factor became forth major factor for ineffective application of
NPM oriented reforms in Nepal. Following table shows the choice of respondents for other
variables related to institutional factor. The choice options were completely agree-1, agree-2,
partially agree-3, disagree-4, completely disgree-5
Table-6: Choices of Respondents
Mean is 3, less than 3 values indicate Agree and more than 3 values indicate Disagree
Working organization
Institional Factors Repondents Value Total
MOGA CDPA
There is a causal relationship between reform leading/monitoring 2.30 1.90 2.10
institutions and application of NPM based reforms.

Former and existing Central and Ministery level reform institutions 3.00 3.00 3.00
are able to lead and monitor reform programs.

Reform leading/monitoring institutions are resourceful in terms of 3.10 3.33 3.21

human and financial resources.

Changes Units at the sectoral Ministries are actively working to 3.30 3.30 3.30
implement NPM based reforms.

Existing Central and Ministry level reform committees and 3.40 3.40 3.40
changes units are able to produce periodic evaluation reports of the
reform programs.
Source: Questionnaire Survey Conducted in November, 2008
In the survey, respondents from civil service and university with 2.10 total value see a causal
relationship between reform leading/monitoring institutions and application of NPM related
reforms. In other words, they think that effectiveness of NPM oriented reforms may depend
on the performance of reform leading and monitoring institutions. Respondents from both
institutions with 3.00 values are partially agreed with the statement former and existing
Central and Ministry level reforms leading and monitoring institutions were and are able to
lead and monitor reform programs of the government. The formal structures were/are there,
their effectiveness was/is always questioned. Respondents with 3.21 values are disagreed to

14
the statement reform leading and monitoring institutions are resourceful in terms of human
and financial resources to lead the reform programs.
5.5 Economic Factor
Among the five factors mentioned in the survey, respondents ranked economic factor as least
affecting for the ineffectiveness of NPM oriented reforms in Nepal. Following table shows the
choice of respondents for other variables related to economic issues. The choice options were
completely agree-1, agree-2, partially agree-3, disagree-4, completely disgree-5.
Table-7: Choices of Respondents
Mean is 3, less than 3 value indicates Agree and more than 3 value indicate Disagree
Working Organization
Economic Factors Repondents Value Total
MOGA CDPA

It is not necessary to have very strong economic back 2.10 2.00 2.05
ground of the country to apply NPM oriented reforms.

Reform programs could not be successfully implemented 3.00 3.30 3.15

due to poor economic condition of the country

Reform programs can only be applied if donors support 3.70 2.90 3.30
the reform programs.

Reforms are supported by the donor agencies such as ADB 2.10 1.60 1.85
and World Bank with certain aid conditions.

NPM oriented reforms in Nepal are initiated due to donors' 2.50 1.44 2.00
pressure.
Source: Questionnaire Survey, Conducted in November, 2008
It is generally argued that NPM related reforms are applied in economically strong countries.
There may be an argument that NPM oriented reforms may not effectively apply in
developing countries due to their poor economy. In Nepal, there is also an argument that NPM
oriented reforms can not apply due to poor economic background of the country. However, in
the survey respondents from both institutions agreed with 2.05 total values to the statement it
is not necessary to have very strong economic background of the country to apply NPM
oriented reforms. In other words, the survey tells us we may not need to have very strong
economic background of the country to apply NPM related reforms. From the choices of the
respondents, we may say that economic condition of the country may not major factor for
ineffectiveness of NPM related reforms. Respondents see the reforms programs which are
supported by donors with certain aid conditions. If there are aid conditions to support reform
programs, these reforms may not be effective in real sense.

15
6. Findings
From the discussion based on questionnaire survey in preceded section 5, following findings
may be drawn. These findings are drawn from the bureaucratic and academic perspectives
reflected in the questionnaire survey.
6.1 Political factor may be the most important factor for making application of NPM related
reforms effective. Within this variable, commitment of politico-administrative leaderships is
very much important for leading changes in the public sector. Political instability may hinder
the application process of NPM oriented reforms, but it may not the major factor in
comparison with the lack of political will to implement the reform programs. In other words,
NPM related reforms may apply effectively if politico-administrative leaderships are
committed to lead the reform programs in real sense.

6.2 Bureaucratic factor may be the second important factor for the application of NPM related
reforms in public administration. Their understanding on the spirit of reforms and supports is
the most important factor to make reform program effective. Interpersonal relationship
between senior and junior level employees is also very much important to apply NPM work
culture in public bureaucracy. If there is high power distance between upper and lower
echelons in bureaucracy that may hinder application of NPM oriented work culture. Similarly,
relationship between administrators and general public is also important to make NPM
oriented service delivery effective. If bureaucrats show power oriented behaviour to the
people this behaviour may hinder citizen centred service delivery as a whole.

6.3 Policy process may be the third important factor for making NPM related reforms
effective. There may be a causal relationship between policy transfer process of NPM and its
effectiveness. If there is voluntary process of policy learning from NPM approaches, that
reforms may be effectively implemented. If policy process of reforms is hurriedly made
without taking sufficient time to analyze possible implication of certain policy in the national
context that reform policy may not be effective. Similarly, if reform programs are only copied
from global trends of reforms without doing any homework to implement that reform
programs may also not be effective in the national context.

6.4. Institutional factor may be the forth important factor for making NPM oriented reforms
effective and successful. There may be a causal relationship between reform
leading/monitoring institutions and effectiveness of reform programs. Success story of reform

16
programs may largely depend on the performance of reform leading/monitoring institutions. If
reform leading and monitoring institutions are active and work centred they can make
difference for making reform programs successful.

6.5. Economic factor may be least influential in comparison with other factors for introducing
NPM oriented changes in public sector. The survey shows, it may not necessary to have
strong economic condition of the country to apply NPM approaches for reforming public
administration. There may be minimal relationship between application of NPM oriented
reforms and donors support. In other words, it is not quite necessary to have donors supports
to apply NPM related reforms. Reform programs may also not be effective if donors support
the reform programs imposing certain aid condition.

7. Conclusion
Reform initiatives from 1990 onwards in Nepal have introduced a number of reform measures
related to NPM which are the major policy shift in modernizing Nepalese bureaucracy. But a
question may confront us what is the implementation status of NPM related reform policies?
From the revisit of reform initiatives after 1990 we may see a very few reforms are
implemented and many of them remained non-implemented. Why NPM oriented reforms
could not be applied effectively as per the reform objectives in Nepal? Lack of commitment in
the side of politico-administrative leaderships to implement NPM oriented reforms may be the
major reason for ineffectiveness of reforms. Similarly, lack of support from the bureaucratic
actors to implement NPM ideas in bureaucracy may be the second major factor for
ineffectiveness of NPM in Nepal. Likewise, absence of voluntary learning from NPM based
reform policies and lack of home work before introducing NPM related reforms may be the
third reasons for its ineffectiveness in the Nepalese context. Similarly, performance centred
reform leading and monitoring institutions may required to make NPM related reforms
effective which is lapsed in the Nepalese reform trajectory. Economic factor may matter for
pursuing reforms in public sector, but it may not quite necessary to have strong economic
background of the country to introduce NPM oriented reforms in comparison with other
factors. From the Nepalese experience of administrative reforms, we may conclude that strong
political will in the side of politico-administrative leaderships and action oriented supports
from bureaucratic actors may primarily require for the effectiveness of NPM related reforms
in public sector.

17
References
Christensen, Tom and Per Lagreid (2001). A Transformative Perspective on Administrative
Reforms. In Tom Christensen, and Per Lagreid (eds) New Public Management: The
Transformation of Ideas and Practice (P.13-39). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hood, Christopher (1991). A New Public Management for All Seasons? Public
Administration, Vol.1, No.69.
Jamil, Ishtiaq (2007). Administrative Culture in Public Administration: Five Essays On
Bangladesh, Los Senteret: Bergen, Norway.
Kickert, Walter (1997). Public Management and Administration: Reforms in Western
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elger.
McCourt, Willy (2002), New Public Management in Developing Countries. In Mclaughlin
Kate, Stephen P. Osborne and Ewan Ferlie (eds), New Public Management: Current Trends
and Future Prospect (227-239). Routledge: London.
Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley, New York:
USA.
Polidano, Charles (1999). The New Public Management in Developing Countries, Public
Policy and Management . Working Paper, No. 13, November.
Poudyal, Madav (1989). Administrative Reforms in Nepal. National Book Organization:
New Delhi.

Reports and Laws

Administrative Reform Commission, Report (1992), Department of Printing and Publishing,
Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal
Governance Reforms Program (2001-2005), Policy Documents, Government of Nepal,
Kathmandu
Road Map, Governance Reform Program (2004), Ministry of General Administration,
Government of Nepal
Vision Paper for Civil Service, Report (2007), Government of Nepal
Civil Service 2nd Amendment Act (2007), Government of Nepal
Good Governance Act (2007), Government of Nepal

18