See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269995148

Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

Article · July 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 1,804

1 author:

Muhammad Azizuddin
University of Tampere
6 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Azizuddin on 26 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012
ISSN :1997-1052 (Print), 227-202X (Online)

Public Administration Reform:

A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges
Muhammad Azizuddin

Abstract
There has been increased attention paid to administrative reform globally.
This has been shown in various ways and raises questions of theoretical
challenges to administrative reform in countries. Depending on the context,
the challenges have been met using different approaches and models.
These may have not been appropriate in countries generally. This paper is
an endeavour to look into these issues of theoretical challenges to
administrative reform.
Key Words: Paradigm Shift, Administrative Reform, Good Governance,
Globalisation, New Public Management (NPM)
Introduction: issues of theoretical challenges
The policies and programmes of governments in countries of the world with
governance and administrative reform have displayed new orientations as
paradigm shifts in public administration. From the later part of the twentieth
century administrative reform agenda has included decentralisation and
debureaucratisation, reorganisation of structure and functions, revitalisation
of public management, privatisation of public enterprises (Caiden, 1988)
and a series of structural and policy reforms towards good governance
(Aminuzzaman, 1994). There have been many theoretical perspectives with
models and approaches in the study of public administration which have
been ‘influenced by the New Right thinking and approached from economic
and political points of view’ (Zafarullah, 201: 23). It is generally accepted
the fact that administrative reform have brought poor results with limited
degrees of success in countries especially in developing ones and has made
the phenomenon futile (Zafarullah, 2011). This has led to theoretical as well
as empirical challenges to the issue. Public administration in countries is
responsible for implementing policies adopted by the government into
action (Richardson and Baldwin, 1976). [V]irtually everything ever done in
public administration must, in the nature of things, have a bearing on action

68
Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

(Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973:166). Failure in policies has an impact on

the cause of restricted success in implementation and puts the discipline to
face theoretical as well as empirical challenges (Rees & Hossain, 2010).
This paper aims at dealing with the theoretical challenges to
administrative reform with reference to New Public Management (NPM) as
a universal model for administrative reform. The following section depicts
the contextual dilemma regarding theoretical issues, section three focuses
on the necessity of the theoretical approaches and models in public
administration reform, while the fourth section discusses the globalisation
of reforming public administration with models and NPM. The paper
concludes that contextualisation is most likely the key to face the
challenges.
The Contextual Dilemma Concerning Theoretical Issues in
Administrative Reform
Administrative reform is a complex and multifaceted issue. Despite its
importance and necessity it is proving hard to carry out because it is
indeed a difficult task (Islam, 2000). Changing structures and increased
attention to performance criteria (Romzek, 2000:31) are central to the
reform that accelerates good governance and overall national
development. Decentralisation, restructuring of public services, cutting
red-tape etc. are the strategies which have been widely adopted in this
regard (Campbell, 1993; Romzek, 2000). They give public
administration and management systems more dimensions than old
procedures and rule-based approaches. However, public administration
has been, through most of its history, a practical art than theory-based
discipline (Olsen, 1991:126; Wilson, [1887] 1976). It is comprehended
that the notion of public administration is an integrated field of practical
art and academic research (Olsen, 1991). The locus of the issue -
government, public administration, and public sector - shows an
inherent tendency to rename itself (Bogason & Toonen, 1998). Though,
in the study of public administration and administrative reform the
explicit theoretical models have been less important than practical
institution-specific knowledge (Olsen, 1991), they allow researchers and
academics to break away from vested traditions and conventional
interpretations of doing things (Bogason & Toonen, 1998). Since the
1970s, many notions developed by scholars in the field of public
administration have had less than felicitous connotations (Brundey,
Hebert, and Wright, 1999).
Many countries have, often with the help of the international
donors, sought to promote good governance through reforms along the
lines of the developed countries (Azizuddin, 2008). Indeed,

69
 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012

administrative reform has proven among the most difficult of

developmental reforms to sustain, and there is little evidence those
nationally- or donor-sponsored reform efforts with so called universal
models have met with much success (Shepherd, 2003).
Theoretical Approaches and Models in Administrative Reform
During the last decades or so, the socio- economic realities in most
countries in both developed and developing world have acted as a
catalyst in the movement towards reforms in public administration. The
current reform agenda covers a wide range of approaches such as
liberalisation, deregulation, downsizing the public sector, privatization,
debureaucratiza-tion, civil service reform, fiscal reform, performance
measures, businesslike management practices, efficiency, accountability
and transparency (Caiden, 1991).
The overall realization is the same subject matter may be addressed
by using different labels, by both academics and the practitioners as
well. The globalization of public administration throws together
different approaches to the study of public administration into one box
whether they like it or not: neo-managerial analysis, neo-Taylorism,
new public management, neo-institutional and/or new institutional
analysis (Bogason & Toonen, 1998:207) and new public administration
and so on. The administrative reform efforts have been manifested in
various ways with the intention of increasing administrative
effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness of administrative
machinery. Depending upon the developed and developing nation
context and the time and space relation as well, the reform efforts have
gone under numerous labels with and without visibility. 'Reinventing
Government' (RG) (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993), 'Business Process
Reengineering' (BPR) (Hammer & Champy, 1993) and 'New Public
Management' (NPM) (Hood, 1991; 1995) are all well-known in
reforming public administration and management in developed
countries (Ocampo, 1998). On the other hand, developing countries are
not so much behind in reform activities. They are trying to do so either
imitating the developed ones or/and mixing their own strategies in
prescribed reform processes giving a version of reorganising the system
of public administration in general.
RG involves empowering citizens, the promotion of mission driven
entrepreneurial leadership in order to ‘steer’ the government and not
‘row’ it, to enhance competition in the public sector, deregulate
government by cutting red tape, decentralise government, improve
performance and budgeting (Osborn and Gaebler, 1992). BPR is the

70
Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

fundamental rethinking to turn back the industrial revolution and radical

redesign of business process to achieve dramatic improvement in critical
contemporary measures of performance (Hammer & Champy, 1993:32;
Fowler, 1997:36-37) giving greater attention to the role of information
technology (Ocampo, 1998:249). NPM is a contested term that has been
used as the new paradigm that is replacing the classic bureaucratic or
Weberian paradigm of public administration (Gow & Dufour, 2000:573;
Batchelder & Alexander, 2009). These have, sometimes, been used
assortedly depending on the goal(s) and objective(s) of the reform
programme in the country concerned.
Globalization of Reforming Public Administration, Models of
Reform and New Public Management (NPM)
The contemporary paradigm shift in public administration has been
precipitated from the 1980s due to the changes taking place in the
international context (World Bank, 2000; 2002). Certain phenomena
merit attention, which required readjustment by the state in conformity
with the demands of currents and cross-currents in the international
arena. The state had played the leading role in administration and
development, a role tending towards the centralisation of power. In the
new context the role of the state/ government has shifted from
administrative state to welfare, with devolution of authority and
decentralisation of power to increase its performance (Goodsell, 2006).
There is now almost a worldwide consensus regarding public
administration reform, which sees a close relationship between effective
public administration, development and good governance. International
awareness has induced the United Nations to discuss the matter
separately and adopt a resolution. In the 50th session of its General
Assembly held during 15 – 19 April, 1996, for example, the issues of
public administration and its impact on development was discussed by
the United Nations as a single subject, to underline the importance of
the close link between public administration efficiency and the
economic progress of a country. The member countries each identified
changes being made in their public services irrespective of their position
on the continuum of development. The resolution (Resolution 50/225)
(UNGA, 1996) adopted by the General Assembly underscored the
importance in improving the responsiveness of the governments in
meeting people’s basic needs and in achieving sustainable development.
The resolution focused on strengthening government’s capacity for
policy development, administra-tive restructuring, civil service reform,
human resources development, and public administration training,
improving performance in the public sector, financial management,

71
 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012

public-private interaction, and the management of development

programmes emphasizing the development of sustainable national state
capacities (Rahman, 2001).
The globalization of public administration reform combines
different approaches: neo-managerial analysis, neo-Taylorism, neo-
institutional and/or new institutional analysis (Bogason & Toonen,
1998). The administrative reform efforts have been manifested in
various ways, with varying degrees of openness, depending on the
context. These changes go under various titles like NPM, RG, and BPR
and so on with some differences in terms of emphasis on principles and
ideas, but all aiming at making governments more efficient, effective
and economical (Ocumpo, 1998).
It may be imperative for a country to keep pace with administrative
reforms in other countries, or risk increasing damage to their reputation
and hence competitiveness. However, depending on the context, these
challenges of reform have been met in different ways using various
nomenclatures (Occumpo, 1998). These models may have not been
entirely appropriate in those countries such as Bangladesh, for example,
whose level of development is relatively low (Atrya & Armstrong,
2002). ‘New Public Management’ as a principle of personnel and
professional management is one thing (Hood, 1991; Common, 1999).
Privatisation and reduction of the role of the administration to
‘commissioning’ services and monitoring them is another. Resistance to
reform and change in such countries may be politically motivated or
reflect corrupt or narrow group interests; or arise from a sense that some
aspects of the reforms were not appropriate (World Bank, 2000).
NPM is a contested term (Common, 1999) that has been used as the
new paradigm that is replacing the classic bureaucratic or Weberian
paradigm of public administration in blended manner (Gow & Dufour,
2000; Cepiku & Mititelu, (2010); Lægreid, 2011). It is ‘based on generic
management ideas and institutional economics had spread through the
Anglophone world in the 1980s and 1990s’ (Hughes, 2003; Cameron,
2009: 01). It too conjures up an image enmeshed with a minimal
government, debureaucratisation, decentralisation, market orientation of
public service, contracting out, privatisation, performance management
and so on (Sarker, 2001:153). These ‘were part and parcel of what Hood
(1991) termed New Public Management (NPM), Pollitt (1990)
Managerialism, Lan and Rosenbloom (1992) Market-based Public
Administration, and Osborn and Gaebler (1992) Enterpreneurial
Government’ (Bissessar, 2002:137). In fact, there is strong evidence for
a wave of reform in the public service originating in the UK, the USA

72
Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

and New Zealand, sweeping throughout the world from the 1980s
onwards.
The current conceptual and ideological hegemony of the ideas has
been buttressed by the advocacy of leading international development
partners and donor agencies like OECD, the IMF and the World Bank.
They have turned towards NPM as the only and most effective path to
public sector modernization (Sahlin-Andersson, 2001; Wollmann,
2002). This has been considered as “Market Model for reforming
government, which claims that private-sector methods are almost
inherently superior for managing activities when compared to those of
the traditional public sector” (Hossain and Helao, 2008). These ideas
were put into practice in reforming public administration in the UK in
the name of ‘Next Steps’, Australia, New Zealand – where arguably it
has been more successful; Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa,
Hong Kong, and Malta. It is even espoused in a piecemeal way in the
reform reports and recommendations of developing countries, including
Bangladesh (Sarker, 2001; Atrya & Armstrong, 2002).
Indeed there is ever increasing attention being paid to public
administration reform globally. Originally concerned with macro
programmes for economic and social development, the donor agencies
like the World Bank, the IMF, and the UNDP have gradually changed
their orientation with an important part of that being their participation
in the development of the new managerial thinking and therefore NPM
is part of the repertoire of these organisations, even if now embedded in
a broader discourse (Bislev, Salskov-Iversen & Hansen, 2001). The first
generation reform programme that started in 1980s under the auspices of
the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the World Bank seemed
in conformity with the ideas of NPM (Lienert & Modi, 1997; Atrya &
Armstrong, 2002). Despite its theoretical inconsistency, relative
incoherence, and variations in form from place to place, the elements of
NPM do identifiably belong to a specific set of ideas current in global
discourse (Hood, 1995; Bislev, Salskov-Iversen, & Hansen, 2001). The
forces of globalisation and the mounting internationalization appear to
be attaining a degree of external determinism in the face of divergent
national structures (Thoeing, 2001). In the case of developing countries,
weak governance systems (World Bank, 1997), a comparatively low
standard of public service, and the mixed results of reform in the last
two decades have now led to the inference that the solutions of
developed countries cannot simply be a cure to the problems of
developing ones, and the application of NPM reforms to them may be
inappropriate (Atreya & Armstrong, 2002).

73
 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012

Contextuality is something which varies country to country, and this

makes the conceptualization of general applicability of administrative
reform models difficult. Although NPM was argued to be ‘universal’,
there are others who believed that NPM is not universal and its
applicability differs from one country to another (Vartola, 2011). Some
countries, for example, those are in OECD, are concerned with
orientation of state apparatus away from regulation towards greater
service, whereas reforms in developing ones may be concerned with
increasing the ever needful administrative capacities. Given the
situation, how to bring about effective reforms and ensure good
governance thus remains a research topic mired in some conceptual
difficulty.
There have been calls for a changed perspective of the state. In
making every state a more credible, effective and partner for
development, it lays down a two-part strategy: matching the state’s role
to its capability, and to raise state capacity by reinforcing public
institutions. The World Bank (2000) is somewhat in favour of NPM.
However, while admitting that there has been a recent convergence on
NPM oriented reforms in public administration it is also well accepted
the fact that ‘there is no one best way’ or that ‘one size fits all’ nor is
there necessarily any ‘best practice’ approach for all reforms. What has
been successful in one place may not succeed somewhere else. It is
therefore argued that developing countries have been the victims of
advice on policy decisions, which had very little relevance to the needs
and situations in these countries (Zafarullah, Khan and Rahman, 2001)
and confirmed that if reform is to be successful, it has to be home
grown, and driven by the demand of the country from theory to practice
(Atreya & Armstrong, 2002:11-12; UN, 2001a; UN, 2001b).
Conclusion: ‘think globally and act locally’ towards a people
oriented approach to administrative reform for good governance
Administrative reform efforts are for ‘crisis management’ and ‘national
development’ with short and long-term aims respectively in terms of
goal achievement (Zafarullah, 1993; Ahmad & Azizuddin, 1995).
However, the models mentioned earlier do not properly fit. This perhaps
is not surprising, since they have emerged primarily in Euro-American
contexts. Such models of reforming administration do not always
accommodate the administrative needs of developmental and
transitional states. They in fact are blamed for the failures of reforming
administration because they are less adjustable to the realities of the
countries. Historical differences, colonialism, dependence on foreign
aid, and some other factors, like culture (Jamil, 1998) play an important

74
Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

role in shaping the administrative characteristic of developing

democracies. Those are very important factors in understanding the
present day administrative realities in countries. It is essential to take a
contextual approach to reform to mitigate the effects of reproduction in
public administration. The Western models need to be adjusted with
local realities to make them work in non-Western societies. This does
not mean these are redundant; rather, they raise questions of theoretical
challenges to administrative reform.
Therefore, theoretical ideas of administrative reform should be
closely linked to the geography, institutions, history and culture of a
specific nation state (Olsen, 2004), taking a holistic rather than a
reductionist view of the word, resulted in a paradigm shift in public
administration (McGrath, 2003). This facilitates better implementation
of the reform programmes. In order to ensure more transparent and
better justified for institutions and policies to citizens otherwise called
‘good administration’ (Olsen, 2004) it is necessary that the
administrative reform efforts should be ‘tailor-made’ with ‘solid
bedrock for nationalism’ (Nizzo, 2001).

References
Ahmad, Aka, F., & Azizuddin, M. (1995). Administrative Reform Reconceptualized:
Systems Perspective. Journal of Administration and Diplomacy, 3(1&2), 51-69.

Atreya, B., & Armstrong, A. (2002). Evaluation of the applicability of NPM reforms to
developing countries: A case from Nepal. Working Paper 17/2002. Melbourne: School of
Management, Victoria University of Technology.
Azizuddin, M. (2008). Public Administration Reform in Bangladesh: Challenges and
Prospects, Dhaka: Centre for Administrative Research and Innovation, University of
Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Osder Publications.
Aminuzzaman, S. M. (1994). Structural Adjustment Programme and its Impact on Bangladesh
Public Administration. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 38 (3), pp. 275-293.
Batchelder, J.S., & Alexander, R.C. (2009), Effects of Personnel Policy on the Public
Administration Paradigm Shift: From Merit to Neo-managerial. Journal of Social
Sciences, 21(2), 153-159.
Bislev, S., Salakov-Iversen, D., & Hansen, H. K. (2001). Transnational Discourse
Communities: Globalizing Public Management – Understanding the Global Polity.
London: Routldge.
Bissessar, A. M. (2002). Introducing New Public Management in Caribbean Bureaucracies: A
Case of Direct Coercive Transfer. In Ann Marie Bisseessar, (ed.), Policy Transfer, New
Public Management and Globalization: Mexico and the Caribbean (pp. 135-154).
Lanham, New York, and Oxford: University Press of America, Inc.
Bogason, P., & Toonen, T. (1998). ‘Networks and Public Administration’. Public
Administration, 76 (Summer), 205-227.
75
 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012
Borins, S. (2002). New Public Management: North American Style. In McLaughlin, Osborne,
and Ferlie, (eds.), The New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects
(pp. 181-194). London: Routledge.
Brudney, J. L., Hebert, F. T., & Wright, D.S. (1999). Reinventing Government in the
American States: Measuring and Explaining Administrative Reform. Public
Administration Review, 59 (1), 19-30.
Caiden, G. E. (1991). Administrative Reform Comes of Ages. New York: W. de Gruyter.
Caiden, G. E. (1988). The Vitality of Administrative Reform. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 54 (3), 331-357.
Cameron, R. K. (2009). New Public Management Reforms in the South African Public
Service: 1999-2008. Paper presented at Political Studies Department Seminar on 28th
April, Department of Political Studies, University of Cape Town.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the
Multitrait-multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81-105.
Cepiku, D., & Mititelu, C. (2010). Public Administration Reform in Transitional Countries:
Albania and Romania between the Weberian Model and the New Public Management.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences. 30E, pp. 55-78.
Common, R. K. (1998). Convergence and transfer: a review of the globalisation of new public
management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(6/7), 440-450.
Fowler, A. (1997), Gurus for Government: Lessons from Management Gurus for Local
Government Managers, Hemel Hempstead: ICSA Publishing Limited.
Gow, J. I., & Dufour, C. (2000). Is the new public management a paradigm? Does it matter?.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66 (4), 573-598.
Goodsell, C.T. (2006). A New Vision for Public Administration. Public Administration Review.
July-August, 623-635.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993; 2001). Reengineering the Corporation – A Manifesto for
Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69,3-19.
Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary Public Management: A New Global Paradigm? Public
Policy and Administration, 10 (2), 104-117.
Hossain, F., & Helao, T. (2008). Local Governance and Water Resource Management:
Experiences from Northern Namibia. Public Administration Development, 28, 200-11.
Hughes, O. E. (2003). Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. New York:
MacMillan.
Islam, N. (2000). Administrative Reform in Bangladesh: Where to Start? The Journal of
Social Studies, 86, 1-17.
Jamil, I. (1998). Administrative Culture in Bangladesh: Five Essays on Bangladesh. Bergen:
LOS Senteret.
Lægreid, P. (2011) Administrative Reforms and the Challenges for Developing Countries.
In I. Jamil, S.M. Aminuzzaman, A. Steinar., and Sk. T.M. Haque, (eds.), Understanding
Governance and Public Policy in Bangladesh, Dhaka: North S University, MPPG
Program.
Lienert, I. & Modi, J. R. (1997). A decade of civil service reform in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Wahington DC: IMF, Fiscal Affairs Department.
McGrath, K.M. (2003), Organisational Culture and Information Systems Implementation: A
Critical Perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis. LSE: ISD.
Nizzo, C. (2001). National public administration and European integration. Paris:
76
Public Administration Reform: A Perspective on Theoretical Challenges

OECD/Sigma.
Ocampo, R. B. (1998). Models of Public Administration Reform: "New Public Management
(NPM)". Asian Review of Public Administration, X (1-2), 248-255.
Olsen, J. P. (1991). Modernisation Programme in Perspective: Institutional Analysis of
Organisational Change, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and
Administration, 4 (2), 125-149.
Olsen, J. P. (2004). Citizens, Public Administration and the Search for Theoretical
Foundations. Political Science & Politics, 37, 69-79.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Addison Wesley: Mass.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. NewYork: Penguin.
Politt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Rahman, A.T.R. (2001). Reforming the Civil Service for Government Performance: A
Partnership Perspective. Dhaka: University Press Limited.
Rees, C.J., & Hossain, F. (2010). Perspectives on Decentralisation and Local Governance in
Developing Countries and Transitional Countries. International Journal of Public
Administration, 33 (12-13), 518-587.
Richardson, I. L., & Baldwin, S. (1976). Public administration: government in action.
Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Pub. Co.
Romzek, B.S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66 (1), 21-44.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2001). National, International and Transnational Constructing of New
Public Management. In T. Christensen and P. Laegeid. (eds.), New Public Management:
the transformation of ideas and practice. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Sarker, A.E. (2001). New Public Management in Bangladesh: chasing a Mirage? Indian
Journal of Public Administration. XLVII (2), 154-69.
Thoening, J. (2001). Evaluating Public Sector Reforms: Learning from Practice. In H.
Wollmann, (ed.), Evaluating Public Sector Reforms: Special Issue of Revista
Internacional de Estudios Politicos (pp. 193-214). Year 3, September. Rio de Janeiro.
Vartola, J. (2011). ‘Administrative Reform Rhetoric: Some Remarks on New Public
Management and Decentralization from Bangladesh and Nepal’, Lecture delivered in a
seminar of Centre for Oganizations in Development in the University of Manchester, on
28 March 2011.
United Nations. (2001a). World Public Sector Report: Globalization and the State, New York:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
United Nations. (2001b). Five-year assessment of the progress made in the implementation of
General Assembly resolution 50/225 on public administration and development: Report
of the Secretary General. New York: Economic and Social Council.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (1996), Public Administration and Development
(50/225). New York: United Nations.
Wollmann, H. (2002). The variance of public sector modernization in different national
context: Convergence or divergence? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.
World Bank. (2000). Memorandum of the President of the International Development
Association and the International Finance Corporation to the Executive Directors on the
Country Assistance Strategy for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Report No. 21326
77
 Society & Change
Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012
– BD. Washington DC: the World Bank.
Zafarullah, H.M. (2011). Public Management Reform. In I. Jamil, S. M. Aminuzzaman, A.
Steinar, and Sk.T.M. Haque, (eds.), Understanding Governance and Public Policy in
Bangladesh (pp. 23-46). Dhaka: North South University, MPPG Program.
Zafarullah, H.M., Khan, M.M., & Rahman, M.H. (2001), ‘the Civil Service System of
Bangladesh’, J. P. Burns and B. Bowornwathana (eds), Civil Service Systems in Asia,
Cheltenham and Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.
Zafarullah, H.M. (1993). Understanding Bureaucracy: A Primer, Dhaka: Academic Publishers.

78

View publication stats