Country report governance reform in Thailand: Questionable assumptions, uncertain outcomes

Governance

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 393-408

  Bowornwathana, Bidhya ^a  

^a CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034355237     PISSN: 09521895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0952-1895.00139     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Asian Development Bank. 1999. Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues, and Prospects. Manila: Programs Department (West), Division III and Strategy and Policy Office, Asian Development Bank, April.
2. Boston, J. 1996. The Use of Contracting in the Public Service. Australian Journal of Public Administration 55(3):105-110.
3. _. 1999. New Zealand's Model of Public Management: The Promise and the Reality. NIRA REVIEW (Spring):15-18.
4. Bowornwathana, B. 1988. Public Policies in a Bureaucratic Polity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Science Association, Washington, D. C.
5. _. 1989. Transfers of Bureaucratic Elites by Political Bosses: The Question of Political versus Bureaucratic Accountability. Asian Review of Public Administration 1(1):18-37.
6. _. 1994. Administrative Reform and Regime Shifts: Reflections on the Thai Polity. Asian Journal of Public Administration 16(2):152-164.
7. _. 1995. Responses of Public Administration System of Thailand to Global Challenges. In S. H. Salleh and L. V. Carino, eds., Globalisation and the Asian Public Sector. Kuala Lumpur: The Asian and Pacific Development Centre. 365-430.
8. _. 1996a. The Politics of Reform of the Secretariat to the Prime Minister. Australian Journal of Public Administration 55(4):55-63.
9. _. 1996b. The Phenomenon of New Ministries and the Politician-Bureaucrat Perspective. Asian Review of Public Administration 8(2):23-32.
10. _. 1996c. Political Realities of Local Government Reform in Thailand. In S. Kurosawa, T. Fujiwara, and M. Reforma, eds., New Trends in Public Administration for the Asia-Pacific Region: Decentralization. Tokyo: Local Autonomy College, Ministry of Home Affairs. 79-88.
11. _. 1996d. Democratic Reform Visions and the Reinvention of Thai Public Officials. Asian Review of Public Administration 8(1):40-49.
12. _. 1997a. Transforming Bureaucracies for the 21st Century: The New Democratic Governance Paradigm. Public Administration Quarterly 21(3):294-308.
13. _. 1997b. Thailand: Bureaucracy under Coalition Governments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, Indiana University, Bloomington, April 5-9.
14. _. 1997c. The Governance of the Bangkok Metropolis: The Old System, the New City, and Future Governance. In J. S. Edralin, ed., Local Governance and Local Economic Development: A New Role for Asia Cities. Research Report Series No. 2. Nagoya, Japan: United Nations Centre for Regional Development. 87-114.
15. _. 1998. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration into the Twenty-First Century: The Practice of Good Local Governance. In J. S. Edralin, ed., Metropolitan Governance and Planning in Transition: Asia-Pacific Cases. Research Report Series No. 31. Nagoya, Japan: United Nations Centre for Regional Development. 147-164.
16. _. 1999a. Administrative Reform and the Politician-Bureaucrat Perspective: Visions, Processes, and Support for Reform. In H. S. Chan and H. K. Wong, eds., Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific. New York: Marcel Dekker. 69-77.
17. _. 1999b. Fiscal Reform of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration: From Bureaucracy to Governance. In J. S. Edralin and D. Mani, eds., Financing Metropolitan Development: Public-Private Sector Roles. Research Report Series No. 35. Nagoya, Japan: United Nations Centre for Regional Development. 67-92.
18. _. (forthcoming). The Politics of Governance Reform in Thailand. In A. Farazmand, ed., Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
19. Caiden, G. E. 1999. Administrative Reform - Proceed with Caution. International Journal of Public Administration 22(6):815-832.
20. Caroll, J. 1995. The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review 55(May-June):302-312.
21. Cheung, A. B. L. 1996. Efficiency as the Rhetoric: Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong Explained. International Review of Administrative Sciences 62(1):31-48.
22. Christensen, T. 1999. Administrative Reform - Transforming the Relationship between Political and Administrative Leaders? Paper presented at the SOG Tokyo Conference, November 17-19.
23. Farazmand, A. 1999. Building Partnerships for Governance. Background Paper for the plenary session, World Conference on Governance, Manila, June 3.
24. Frederickson, H. G. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Galnoor, I., D. H. Rosenbloom, and A. Yaroni. 1998. Creating New Public Management Reforms: Lessons from Israel. Administration and Society 30(4):393-420.
26. Gregory, R. J. 1999. Social Capital Theory and Administrative Reform: Maintaining Ethical Probity in Public Service. Public Administration Review 59(1):63-75.
27. Haque, M. S. 1998. Legitimation Crisis: A Challenge for Public Service in the Next Century. International Review of Administrative Sciences 64(1):13-26.
28. _. 1999. Relationship Between Citizenship and Pulblic Administration: A Reconfiguration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(3):309-326.
29. Henry, N. 1999. Public Administration and Public Affairs, 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30. Hood, C. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration 69(Spring):3-19.
31. _. 1998. The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
32. Jorgensen, T. B. 1999. The Public Sector in an In-Between Time: Searching for New Public Values. Public Administration 77(3):565-584.
33. Kaul, M. 1996. Civil Service Reforms: Learning from Commonwealth Experiences. Public Administration and Development 16(2):131-150.
34. Klitgaard, R. 1997. Cleaning Up and Invigorating the Civil Service. Public Administration and Development 17(5):487-510.
35. Larson, P. 1997. Public and Private Values at Odds: Can Private Sector Values Be Transplanted into Public Sector Institutions? Public Administration and Development 17(1):123-130.
36. Light, P. C. 1996. Thickening Government: The Federal Government and the Diffusion of Responsibility. Washington: Brookings Institution.
37. _. 1997. The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38. Lynn, L. E. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
39. Maor, M. 1999. The Paradox of Managerialism. Public Administration Review 59(1)5-18.
40. Mascarenhaus, R. C. 1993. Building an Enterprise Culture in the Public Sector: Reform of the Public Sector in Australia, Britain, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review 53(July-Aug.):319-328.
41. Masser, K. 1998. Public Sector Administrative Reforms. In J. Shafritz, ed., The International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1851-1862.
42. McDonald, O. 1991. The Future of Whitehall. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
43. Minogue, M., C. Polidano, and D. Hulme, eds. 1998. Beyond the New Public Management: Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
44. Moon, J. 1999. The Australian Public Sector and the New Governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration 58(2):112-120.
45. ODA. 1993. Taking Account of Good Government. London: UK Overseas Development Administration.
46. OECD. 1995. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
47. Peters, B. G., and D. I. Savoie. 1994. Civil Service Reform. Public Administration Review 54(Sept.-Oct.):418-425.
48. _. 1996. Managing Incoherence: The Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum. Public Administration Review 56(May-June):281-289.
49. Peters, B. G., and V. Wright. 1996. Public Policy and Administration, Old and New. In R. E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingmann, eds., A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 628-644.
50. Pollitt, C., and H. Summa. 1997. Trajectories of Reform: Public Management Change in Four Countries. Public Money and Management 17(1):7-18.
51. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies 44(4):652-667.
52. _. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
53. _. 1998. Different Roads to Unfamiliar Places: UK Experience in Comparative Perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration 57(4):19-31.
54. _. 1999. Book Review: Jonathan Boston, John Martin, June Pallet and Pat Walsh, Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Australian Journal of Public Administration 58(3):121-123.
55. Roberts, A. 1997. Performance-Based Organizations: Assessing the Gore Plan. Public Administration Review 57(6):465-478.
56. Royal Thai Government. 1998. Memorandum of Understanding between the Fiscal Policy Office of the Ministry of Finance of the Kingdom of Thailand and an Appraisal Mission of the Asian Development Bank on the Proposed Social Sector Program Loan: Discussion Draft. 16 January.
57. Ruscio, K. P. 1997. Trust in the Administrative State. Public Administration Review 57(5):454-458.
58. Saint-Martin, D. 1998. Management Consultants, the State, and the Politics of Administrative Reform in Britain and Canada. Administration and Society 30(5):533-568.
59. Schick, A. 1998. Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand's Reforms. The World Bank Research Observer 13(1):123-131.
60. Thynne, I. 1998. Integrative Governance: Challenges for the Senior Public Service. International Review of Administrative Sciences 64(3):371-384.
61. UNDP. 1995. Public Sector Management, Governance, and Sustainable Human Development. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
62. _. 1998. Public Sector Management Reform in Asia and the Pacific: Selected Experiences from Seven Countries. New York: Regional Governance Programme for Asia-Pacific, United Nations Development Programme, October.
63. World Bank. 1994. Governance: The World Bank Experience. Washington: World Bank.
64. _. 1997. World Development Report, 1997: The State in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. _. 1999. Thailand Economic Monitor, October, http://www.worldbank.or.th/ monitor