DOES PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING ENHANCE GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS? A REGRESSION ANALYSIS FROM VIETNAM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n2.4196Keywords:
Public Sector Reform, Government Effectiveness, Civil Service Downsizing, Digital Transformation, New Public Management (NPM), Administrative Consolidation, Vietnam, Governance Performance, E-Government, Institutional ModernizationAbstract
This research examines the connection between the public sector reform component and public sector efficiency through Vietnam’s administrative reform movement (2015-2023). Drawing on the theoretical principles of New Public Management (NPM), the study explores whether the structural reform components; downsizing the civil service, merging administrative units, digitization, and expenditure on training, can lead to observable improvements in the effectiveness of public administration. To evaluate the relationship between structural reform processes and public administration effectiveness, this study employs a multiple linear regression analysis with data from the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), Vietnam's e-Government Development Index, and national reform reports. The study's results demonstrate that civil service downsizing and administrative unit merging are positively related to government effectiveness as stated by WGI. The study also shows that the process of digitization is both an independent driver of effectiveness and has the capacity to mediate a larger impact of the observed relationship between civil service downsizing and effectiveness. The expenditure on training demonstrated marginal significance in a positive direction; which demonstrates the importance of investing in human capital over the longer term. The study's analysis suggests that the implementation of multi-dimensional reform mechanisms, particularly those combining structural processes and digitization, are notable drivers of effectiveness in transitional and developing economies. Finally, Vietnam provides real-world evidence for public sector leaders seeking to modernize public administration in an era of fiscal management and political centralization.
References
Alesina, A., Favero, C., & Giavazzi, F. (2019). Austerity: When it works and when it doesn’t. Princeton University Press.
Caba‐Perez, C., López‐Hernández, A. M., & Ortiz‐Rodríguez, D. (2009). Governmental financial information reforms and changes in the political system: the Argentina, Chile and Paraguay experience. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 29(5), 429-440.
Andrews, M. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development: Changing rules for realistic solutions. Cambridge University Press.
Ţicu, D. (2021). New tendencies in public administration: from the new public management (NPM) and new governance (NG) to e-government. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 342, p. 08002). EDP Sciences.
Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. University of California Press.
Nigro, F. A. (2015). The politics of civil service reform. In Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations (pp. 165-179). Routledge.
Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., & de Kool, D. (2011). Social media monitoring: Responsive governance in the shadow of surveillance? Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 335–342.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Wetterberg, A. (2016). Gauging the effects of social accountability on services, governance, and citizen empowerment. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 274–286.
Adekeye, J. A., Adeiza, S. U., & Otu, A. J. (2022). Empirical Analysis of Electoral Governance and Decentralization. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law,(23), 7-26.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2017). Transcending new public management. London: Taylor & Francis.
Durose, C. (2009). Front‐line workers and ‘local knowledge’: Neighbourhood stories in contemporary UK local governance. Public administration, 87(1), 35-49.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423.
Rubasundram, G. A., & Rasiah, R. (2019). Corruption and good governance. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 36(1), 57-70.
Painter, M. (2003). Public administration reform in Vietnam: problems and prospects. Public Administration and Development, 23(3), 259-271.
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to New Public Management. Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.
Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.
Gainsborough, M. (2010). Vietnam: Rethinking the State. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public management review, 20(5), 633-646.
Grindle, M. S. (1997). Divergent cultures? When public organizations perform well in developing countries. World Development, 25(4), 481–495.
Grindle, M. S. (2012). Jobs for the boys: Patronage and the state in comparative perspective. Harvard University Press.
Halligan, J. (2007). Reintegrating government in third generation reforms of Australia and New Zealand. Public Policy and Administration, 22(2), 217–238.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues1. Hague journal on the rule of law, 3(2), 220-246.
Kettl, D. F. (2005). The global public management revolution (2nd ed.). Brookings Institution Press.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
Ali, T. S. A. H. (2001). Serving in the knowledge age: realigning the public service for knowledge advantage. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67(2), 273-285.
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2008). Economic reform when the constitution matters: Indonesia's Constitutional Court and Article 33. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 44(2), 239-262.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2018). Civil service management and corruption: What we know and what we don’t. Public Administration, 96(2), 276–285.
MIC (Ministry of Information and Communications). (2021). Annual report on e-government development in Vietnam. Government of Vietnam.https://vietnam.opendevelopmentmekong.net/tag/e-government/
MOHA (Ministry of Home Affairs). (2018). Report on the implementation of Resolution 18-NQ/TW and Resolution 19-NQ/TW on public administration reform. Government of Vietnam.https://ntpartnerlawfirm.com/the-implementation-of-resolution-no-18-2025/#ftoc-heading-2
Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015). The quest for good governance: How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, L. D., & Farazmand, A. (2022). Introduction to the Special Issue on “Public Administration and Policy in Vietnam”. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), 1-3.
Mimba, N. P. S., van Helden, G. J., & Tillema, S. (2013). The design and use of performance information in Indonesian local governments under diverging stakeholder pressures. Public Administration and Development, 33(1), 15-28.
Hai, T. N., Van, Q. N., & Thi Tuyet, M. N. (2021). Digital transformation: Opportunities and challenges for leaders in the emerging countries in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging Science Journal, 5(1), 21-36.
OECD (2020-10-14), “Digital Government Index: 2019 results”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 03, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
Guy Peters, B. (2008). The Napoleonic tradition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 118-132.
Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume.
Peters, B. G. (2018). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration. Routledge.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2012). The SAGE handbook of public administration (2nd ed.). Sage.
Thanh, N. H. (2021). Digital transformation: smart strategy in administrative reform in Vietnam. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 2(4), 328-345.
Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Open University Press.
Ongaro, E. (2015). Administrative reforms in the European Commission and the neo-Weberian model. In The Palgrave handbook of the European administrative system (pp. 108-123). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—Into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Schedler, K., Proeller, I., & Jones, L. (Eds.). (2007). Cultural aspects of public management reform. Elsevier JAI.
Schick, A. (1998). Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand's reforms. The World Bank Research Observer, 13(1), 123-131.
UNDP Vietnam. (2020). Vietnam governance and public administration performance index (PAPI) 2020. United Nations Development Programme. https://papi.org.vn/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PAPI_2020_FINAL_REPORT_VN-2.pdf
Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., Lægreid, P., & Van Thiel, S. (Eds.). (2016). Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Springer.
Vietnam Ministry of Home Affairs [MOHA]. (2018). Report on the implementation of Resolution 18-NQ/TW and Resolution 19-NQ/TW on public administration reform. Government of Vietnam. https://ntpartnerlawfirm.com/the-implementation-of-resolution-no-18-2025/
Vietnam Ministry of Home Affairs [MOHA]. (2022). Report on the implementation of public administration reform in 2022. Government of Vietnam.https://ntpartnerlawfirm.com/the-implementation-of-resolution-no-18-2025/
Vietnam Ministry of Home Affairs. (2020). Report on the implementation of Resolution 18-NQ/TW and Resolution 19-NQ/TW on public administration reform. Government of Vietnam.https://ntpartnerlawfirm.com/the-implementation-of-resolution-no-18-2025
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). University of California press.
World Bank. (2022). World Development Report 2022: Digital transformation for development. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1920-1
World Bank. (2023). Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). World Bank.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
