Development administration in the small developing state: A review

Schahczenski, Jeffery J.

doi:10.1002/pad.4230100108

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While highlighting weak bureaucratic capacity in SIS is not new À numerous studies of bureaucracies in small states have long pointed to the considerable challenges in developing adequate national bureaucracies (Jacobs 1975;Murray 1985;Bray 1992;Schahczenski 1992; ADB 1995) À here we extend this argument to participation in IOs with specific reference to the reflections of Pacific leaders. In doing so, we provide a deeper exploration of how bureaucratic capacity constraints impede SIS in IOs by looking specifically at the impact of: institutional legacy; migration and the 'brain drain'; shortage of technical knowledge; shrinking resources and public sector reforms; limited research capacity; and the relative high costs of diplomatic representation.…”

Section: Who Is Small and Why?mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

All the world is a stage: global governance, human resources, and the ‘problem’ of smallness

Corbett¹,

Connell²

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The involvement of small island states (SISs) in a growing number of international organisations (IOs) has placed increased pressure on domestic bureaucracies and political systems. Rapid turnover among SIS leaders, combined with generational change and decreased local support, has amplified disadvantages. Growing complexity has therefore further exposed the long-standing vulnerabilities of SISs. They can play a creative role at the margins, and on certain issues in certain IOs, but in general asymmetries prevail. The lesson is that national sovereignty does not always equal control, and what might superficially appear to be equal access is constrained by the availability of technical expertise to the detriment of SISs.

show abstract

Section: Who Is Small and Why?mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Since Keohane (1969), the literature on small states in IOs either focuses on their relationships with larger states or 'great powers ' (e.g. Stringer 2006;Van Fossen 2007) or the capacity of their domestic bureaucracies (Jacobs 1975;Murray 1985;Bray 1992;Schahczenski 1992;ADB 1995). We take a different approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

All the world is a stage: global governance, human resources, and the ‘problem’ of smallness

Corbett¹,

Connell²

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, customization of service is more easily engineered and a 'turn-around time' to react to a proposal is potentially very rapid. This is the character of a 'soft state' (Hyden, 1983), where institutional decisions are transparent and readily identified-often correctly-as the initiative of specific individuals (Schahczenski, 1992). JURISDICTIONAL SELF-RELIANCE FOR SMALL ISLAND TERRITORIES I am convinced that these three features exist in North Cyprus as they also exist in many other social island settings.…”

Section: Potential For Rapid Changementioning

confidence: 96%

Jurisdictional self-reliance for small Island Territories: Considering the partition of Cyprus

Baldacchino¹

2002

The Round Table

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Small-states are commonly defined using land area, GDP and population size (Sarapuu, 2010;Schahczenski, 1990). The World Bank (2015) and Commonwealth Secretariat (2015) defined small-states as countries with populations of fewer than 1.5 million, leaving PNG as the only non-small-state PIC.…”

Section: The Concept Of Small-island Statementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is less understood and largely overlooked in development research and policy (McGillivray, Naudé, & Santos-Paulino, 2008a, 2008bVeenendaal & Corbett, 2015). Interest in the special nature of small states in terms of appropriate administrative models and capacity to manage development programs grew in the 1980s/1990s following the decolonisation of small-states in the 1960s/1970s era (Murray, 1981;Schahczenski, 1990;Wijeweera, 1992). This interest faded in the mid-1990s, only recently gaining revival (Corbett, 2013;Hezel, 2012;Horscroft, 2014).…”

Section: The Concept Of Small-island Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Public policy processes in the Pacific islands: A study of policy initiation, formulation and implementation in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Samoa and regional inter-governmental organisations

Aiafi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis examines the manner in which public policies are initiated, formulated and implemented in Pacific island countries and regional organisations, and determines the factors which are most critical for their effective implementation. It employs narrative inquiry and grounded theory approaches, supported by the computer software Nvivo, to data collection and analysis of case studies from Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, and key regional inter-governmental organisations. 128 semi-structured interviews were drawn from ten policy cases (three for each of the Pacific island countries and one from the Region’s Pacific Plan), together with a general narrative of the policy environment spread across all four contexts. A social constructionism worldview allows for the grounding of the research and its findings for both subject and context of the study. Participant voices are utilised as rich descriptions of policy processes, triangulation provided by documentary analyses and participant observation. Motivating this inquiry was my observation of the lack of visibly significant improvements in service delivery in Samoa and other Pacific island countries. These perceptions echoed criticisms in the literature about the slow improvement of development performance across the region despite high levels of foreign aid. Yet, such assessments often lack a solid understanding about the actual processes of public policy in the Pacific islands. Prevailing theories of public policy have remained largely westernised, and lenses to development primarily ethnocentric. Accordingly, this study’s findings shed light on the strengths and limitations of current public policy and development scholarships evident from Pacific public policy experiences. There are five key findings: First, policy processes have remained heavily top-down, shaped significantly by political and external interests, and where society has been the neglected element. In essence, the genesis of public policy has been insufficiently rooted in the context, problems and needs to which policies have been directed. This constitutes a significant democratic and development deficit that must be addressed in ongoing public policy development. Second, the use of evidence-based policy has been limited. While existing formal policies were often those transferred from elsewhere, and which do not fit well in the receiving context and culture, the practices were ad hoc, driven by various ideological or social constructions. Third, the success of policy and its implementation depends on mutually reinforcing factors of policy culture and stakeholder support, capability, implementation modality and leadership. These factors are critical for ensuring that participation, partnership, ownership, understanding and learning are built into policy processes. Fourth, the integration of these elements into ongoing public policy development of Pacific island countries and the region requires a fundamental shift of focus about the role of society, particularly the adaptive capability of indigenous systems to legitimise notions of public policy in state-society relationships. Fifth, following a meta-analysis and synthesis of the four (country) case studies, the overall findings are conceptualised into a (explanatory) model of public policy. This model is a heuristic one that could be used when thinking about adopting and designing public policies in the Pacific islands capable of effective implementation. The model could be applied to non-Pacific small island developing states. Finally, the model provides a framework for discussing the normative implications of this study’s findings for public policy and development theory, practice and needed future research, and yielded five broad recommendations for future improvement: (1) the centrality of context; (2) societal needs incorporated into the public policy space; (3) focus on the political dimensions of further reforms; (4) international support that is more appreciative of context; and (5) needed changes to the way in which we think about development public policy.</p>

show abstract

Development administration in the small developing state: A review

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

All the world is a stage: global governance, human resources, and the ‘problem’ of smallness

All the world is a stage: global governance, human resources, and the ‘problem’ of smallness

Jurisdictional self-reliance for small Island Territories: Considering the partition of Cyprus

Public policy processes in the Pacific islands: A study of policy initiation, formulation and implementation in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Samoa and regional inter-governmental organisations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About