In this article, it is argued that under the current promarket global atmosphere, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the state in developing countries toward the formation of a “market-centered” state. Under this emerging market-centered state, there have been similar market-oriented changes in the objectives, roles, institutions, norms, and beneficiaries of state bureaucracy. Although these recent changes in bureaucracy have often been introduced in the name of greater transparency and accountability, in reality, the adverse outcomes of such promarket changes constitute more critical challenges to bureaucratic accountability, and thus represent a new accountability paradox in developing countries. In line with this contention, the article includes the following analytical components: (1) an overview of the linkages between the nature of the state and the mode of bureaucratic accountability, (2) an analysis of the recent promarket changes in the nature of the state in developing countries, (3) an illustration of the corresponding changes in bureaucracy under the emerging market-centered state, (4) a critical assessment of the major challenges posed by these market-oriented changes to the realization of bureaucratic accountability, and (5) a concluding outline suggesting some necessary measures for rectifying the situation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahmed, M. (1995). “The Impacts of Privatization on Distributional Equity in Bangladesh.” In Privatization and Equity, (V.V. Ramanadham, ed.). London: Routledge.
2.
Alavi, H. (1972). “The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh.”New Left Review, 74: 59-81.
3.
Aufrecht, S. and A. Rachtam (1991). “Traditional Thai Values and the Thai Bureaucracy's Ability to Change.” In Public Management in the 1990s: Challenges and Opportunities (G.B.N. Pradhan and M.A. Reforma, eds.). Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
4.
Bello, W. , S. Cunningham, and B. Rau (1994). Dark Victory: The United States, Structural Adjustment and Global Poverty.London: Pluto Press.
5.
Briones, L.M. (1995). “The Impacts of Privatization on Distributional Equity in the Philippines.” In Privatization and Equity (V.V. Ramanadham, ed.), pp. 365-391. London: Routledge.
6.
Bullock, C.S. , J.E. Anderson and D.W. Brady (1983). Public Policy in the Eighties.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
7.
Carino, L.V. (1994). “A Subordinate Bureaucracy: The Philippine Civil Service Up to 1992.” In Handbook of Bureaucracy (A. Farazmand, ed.), pp. 603-616. New York: Marcel Dekker.
8.
Carnoy, M. (1984). The State and Political Theory.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Chaudhry, K.A. (1994). “Economic Liberalization and the Lineages of the Rentier State.”Comparative Politics, 27(1): 1-25.
10.
Choudhry, M.A. (1992). “Administrative Reform of the Central Government: The Pakistan Experience.” In Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance, Vol. I (Z. Zhijian, R.P. de Guzman, and M.A. Reforma, eds). Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
11.
Chung-Hyun, R. (1992). “Organization and Management Reforms in the Central Government of the Republic of Korea.” In Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance, Vol. I (Z. Zhijian, R.P. de Guzman, and M.A. Reforma, eds). Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
12.
Collier, D. (ed.) (1979). The New Authoritarianism in Latin America.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13.
Cook, P. and C. Kirkpatrick (1995). “Privatization Policy and Performance.” In Privatization Policy and Performance: International Perspectives (P. Cook and C. Kirkpatrick, eds), pp. 3-27. London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
14.
Cowan, L.G. (1990). Privatization in the Developing World.New York: Greenwood Press.
15.
Crouch, H. (1985). “The Military and Politics in South-East Asia.” In Military-Civilian Relations in South-East Asia (Z.H. Ahmed and H. Crouch, eds). pp. 287-317. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
16.
De Guzman , R.P. and M.A. Reforma (1992). “Administrative Reform in the Asian Pacific Region: Issues and Prospects.” In Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance, Vol. I (Z. Zhijian, R.P. de Guzman and M.A. Reforma, eds), pp. 2-14. Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
17.
Dwivedi, O.P. and J.G. Jabbra (1988). “Public Service Responsibility and Accountability.” In Public Service Accountability: A Comparative Perspective (J.G. Jabbra and O.P. Dwivedi, eds). pp. 1-16. West Hartford, CT: Kumerian Press Inc.
18.
Evers, H.D. (1994). “Structural Adjustment Policies and the Social Impact of Market Expansion.” In Structural Adjustment, Public Policy and Bureaucracy in Developing Societies (R.B. Jain and H. Bongartz, eds), pp. 260-274. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.
19.
Fainstein, S.S. and N.I. Fainstein (1994). “The Political Economy of American Bureaucracy.” In Critical Studies in Organization and Bureaucracy (F. Fischer and C. Sirianni, eds), pp. 309-320. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
20.
Government of Malaysia (1993). Improvement and Development in the Public Service, 1992.Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.
21.
Halligan, J. and M. Turner (1995). Profiles of Government Administration in Asia.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
22.
Hamilton, C. (1989). “The Irrelevance of Economic Liberalization in the Third World.”World Development, 17(10): 1523-1530.
23.
Haque, M.S. (1996a). “The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current Epoch of Privatization.”Administration & Society, 27(4): 510-536.
24.
Haque, M.S. (1996b). “Public Service Under Challenge in the Age of Privatization.”Governance, 9(2): 186-216.
25.
Haque, M.S. (1997). “Incongruity Between Bureaucracy and Society in Developing Nations: A Critique.”Peace & Change, 22(4): 432-462.
26.
Harris, P. (1988). “China: The Question of Public Service Accountability.” In Public Service Accountability: A Comparative Perspective (J.G. Jabbra and O.P. Dwivedi, eds), pp. 201-213. West Hartford, CT: Kumerian Press Inc.
27.
Inayatullah (1992). “Aspects of administrative reform for promoting productivity in bureaucratic performance in Pakistan.” In Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance, Vol. I (Z. Zhijian, R.P. de Guzman and M.A. Reforma, eds), pp. 122-131. Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
28.
Islam, N. (1990). “Pakistan.” In Public Administration in the Third World (V. Subramaniam, ed.), pp. 68-101. New York: Greenwood Press.
Jessop, B. (1982). The Capitalist State.New York: New York University Press.
31.
Johnston, R.J. (1986). “Individual Freedom and the World Economy.” In A World in Crisis? (R.J. Johnston and P.J. Taylor, eds), pp. 173-195. New York: Basil Blackwell.
32.
Kaplan, M. (1985). “Recent Trends of the Nation-State in Contemporary Latin America.”International Political Science Review, 6(1): 81-103.
33.
Kumar, A. (1993). “New Economic Policies: An Assessment.”Economic and Political Weekly, (December): 2735-2743.
34.
Leftwich, A. (1993). “States of Underdevelopment: The Third World State in Theoretical Perspective.”Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6 (January): 55-74.
35.
Leftwich, A. (1994). “Governance, the State and the Politics of Development.”Development and Change, 25(April): 363-386.
36.
Luke, D.F. (1986). “Trends in Development Administration: The Continuing Challenge to the Efficacy of the Post-colonial State in the Third World.”Public Administration and Development, 6(1): 73-85.
37.
Mahmud, B.T. (1992). “Administrative Reform in Malaysia Towards Enhancing Public Service Performance.” In Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance (Z. Zhijian, R.P. de Guzman, and M.A. Reforma, eds.), pp. 37-49. Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
38.
Malloy, J.M. (1989). “Policy Analysis, Public Policy and Regime Structure in Latin America.”Governance, 2(July).
39.
Mani, S. (1995). “The Distributional Implications of Privatization: The Case of India's Divestment Programme.” In Privatization and Equity (V.V. Ramanadham, ed.). London: Routledge.
40.
Manzetti, L. (1993). “The Political Economy of Privatization Through Divestiture in Lesser Developed Economies.”Comparative Politics, 25 (July).
41.
Martin, B. (1993). In the Public Interest: Privatizationand Public Sector Reform.London: Zed Books.
42.
Naya, S. (1990). Private Sector Development and Enterprise Reforms in Growing Asian Economies.San Francisco: ICS Press.
43.
O'Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism.Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.
44.
Odle, M. (1993). “Towards a Stages Theory Approach to Privatization.”Public Administration and Development, 13.
45.
Otobo, E.E. (1997). “The Civil Service and the Private Sector in Africa: From a Relationship of `Conflict' to Complementarity.”DPMN Bulletin, 4(1): 4-5
46.
Petras, J. (1990). “The World Market: Battleground for the 1990s.”Journal of Contemporary Asia, 20(2): 145-176.
47.
Pitelis, C. and T. Clarke (1993). “Introduction: The Political Economy of Privatization.” In The Political Economy of Privatization (T. Clarke and C. Pitelis, eds), pp.1-28. London: Routledge.
48.
PS21 Office (1995). “Public Service for the 21st Century.” Singapore: PS21 Office.
49.
Ramanadham, V.V. (1984). The Nature of Public Enterprise.New York: St. Martin's Press.
50.
Ramanadham, V.V. (1995). “The Impact of Privatization on Distributional Equity.” In Privatization and Equity (V.V. Ramanadham, ed.). London: Routledge.
51.
Rein, M. (1982). “The Social Policy of the Farm.”Policy Sciences, 14(2): 117-135
52.
Sader, F. (1993). “Privatization and Foreign Investment in the Developing World, 1988-92.” Working Paper (WPS 1202). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
53.
Salleh, S.H. (1992). “A Glance at the Civil Service Reforms in the Asean Countries.” In Civil Service in the South Asian Region: Challenges and Prospects of the Year 2000 (S.H. Salleh, ed.). Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre.
54.
Sarji, A. (1996). Civil Service Reforms: Towards Malaysia's Vision 2020.Selangor, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications.
55.
Sklar, R.L. (1991). “The Nature of Class Domination in Africa.” In African Politics and Problems in Development, pp. 205-224. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
56.
Smith, B. (1991). “The Changing Role of Government in Comparative Perspective.” In The Changing Role of Government: Management of Social and Economic Activities (B.C. Smith, ed.), pp. 27-43. London: Management Development Programme, Commonwealth Secretariat.
57.
Subramaniam, V. (1983). “Public Accountability: Context, Career and Confusions of a Concept.”Indian Journal of Public Administration, 29(3): 446-456.
58.
Syamal, K.R. (1995). “Impact of Economic Liberalization on the Ways in Which the Public Sector Deals with Transnational Issues in India.” Paper presented at the Twenty-third International Congress of Administrative Sciences, 1-5 July, Dubai, UAE.
59.
Tevera, D. (1995). “The Medicine that Might Kill the Patient: Structural Adjustment and Urban Poverty in Zimbabwe.” In Structurally Adjusted Africa: Poverty, Debt and Basic Needs (D. Simonet al., eds), pp. 79-90. London: Pluto Press.
60.
Van der Hoeven, R. (1991). “Adjustment Policies and Social Progress in the 1990s.” In Structural Adjustment Policies in the Third World: Design and Experience (R. Sobhan, ed.), pp. 52-62. Dhaka: University Press Limited.
61.
Westergaard, K. (1985). State and Rural Society in Bangladesh: A Study of Relationship.London: Curzon Press.
62.
World Bank (1995). Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and Politics of Government Ownership.New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
Young, R.A. (1995). “Privatization: African Perspectives.” In Privatization Policy and Performance: International Perspectives, (P. Cook and C. Kirkpatrick, eds), pp. 162-177. London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
