Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Review of Administrative Sciences
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Argyriades, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Good governance, professionalism, ethics and responsibility

Demetrios Argyriades

John Jay College, City University of New York

In a recent publication of the IIAS entitled The World We Could Win (Fraser-Moleketi, 2005), Professor Werner Jann aptly concluded: ‘The moment when somebody declares the "end of history" or indeed "end of discussion", on the ground that all has been said and all the problems of governance have been resolved, we shall all be in deep trouble’ (pp. 156-7). We have been in some trouble for more than 20 years, precisely on this account. Developing countries, especially, have been victims of one-dimensional thinking which was sold to the world as the definitive answer to public sector reform. The ‘market model’ of governance sought to convert the government to private sector ways and ‘hollow out’ the State. A salient trait of this model was technocratic claims and scientific pretensions. The model, in effect, purported ‘to develop a science of administration with principles of universal validity’ (Heady, 2001: 391). Both in theory and in practice, the outcomes of this mind-set have been very mixed at best. As this article will show, it tried to root its claims in the myth of global convergence. It thus sought to legitimate ‘coercive isophormism’, that is to say solutions imposed on developing countries without any regard to the institutional context and administrative capacity in each particular case. Backed by political clout, the resulting ‘policy transfers’ have arguably contributed to arresting the development of innovative approaches consistent with the culture and needs of the countries concerned. They have exacerbated the problems of corruption, decline of public trust and the erosion of public service.

International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 72, No. 2, 155-170 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0020852306064607


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
H. S. Chan and K. W. Chow
Public Management Policy and Practice in Western China: Metapolicy, Tacit Knowledge, and Implications for Management Innovation Transfer
The American Review of Public Administration, December 1, 2007; 37(4): 479 - 498.
[Abstract] [PDF]