New Public Management in Malaysia: in search of an Efficient and effective service delivery

Authors

  • Siti Nabiha Abdul Khalid School of Management Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms2008.15.4

Abstract

The Malaysian public sector has undergone various transformations since the Independence. From its custodial role in the newly independent country, the public sector had changed and taken an active role in the country’s economic development. However, since 1980s onwards, the philosophy and techniques of New Public Management (NPM) have been implemented in Malaysia. This again transformed the public sector from being an engine of economic growth to become a facilitator to the private sector and service provider to the public. In line with NPM’s underlying belief of the superiority of businesslike practices, various contemporary management practices and philosophy were implemented in the Malaysian public sector. The implantation of private sector practices in the public sector was enhanced with the introduction a performance measurement system which utilises the use of key performance indicators in 2005. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine and analyse the current improvement programme within the wider public sector reform programmes in Malaysia. The issues and consequences of using key performance indicators in the public sector are discussed. To understand further the reasons and the push for reform, contextual descriptions of the various phases of public sector reform in Malaysia are also discussed in this paper.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdul Karim, M. R. (1995). Improving the efficiency of the public sector: A case study of Malaysia, Twelfth Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Programme in Public Administration and Finance. 31 July – 11 August, 1995, New York.

Abdul Karim, M. R. (1999). Introduction: Two decades of managing change in Abdul Karim, M. A (Ed.). Reengineering the public service: Leadership and change in an electronic age. Selangor: Pelanduk Publications, 15-32.

Abdullah Sanusi, A. (1997). Public administration reform in Malaysia: A developing country perspective, Proceedings of the Governance: Promoting Sound Development Management Seminar, Fukuoka, 10 May 1997.

Ahmad Sarji, A. H. (1995). Government in transition: Building a culture of success – the Malaysian experience. Public Administration and Development, 15, 267-269.

Alam, Q., & Rafsanjani, M. (1997). Public enterprise in Malaysia: Link between state and market. Malaysian Management Review, 32(4), 18-33.

Auditor-General Report (2006). Jabatan Audit Negara. Malaysia

Common, R. (2004) Administrative change in the Asia pacific: Applying the political nexus triad. International Public Management Journal, 7(3), 347-364. IJMS 15 (Bumper Issue), 69-90 (2008) 83

Curristine, T. (2005). Performance and accountability: Making government work. Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD Observer, 252/253, 11-13. Developmental Administrative Circular (DAC 2/2005). Guideline on establishing key performance Indicators (KPI) and implementing performance assessment at government agency. Government of Malaysia. Developmental Administrative Circular (DAC 3/1993): Guidelines on Client Charter, Government of Malaysia.

Dubnick, M. (2006). Pathologies of governance reform: Promises, pervasions and perversions in the age of accountability, public lecture at www.ijms.um.edu.my Monash University.

EPU (2006). The Ninth Malaysian Plan, Malaysia: Prime Minister’s Office.

Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980’s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organisation, and Society, 20(2/3), 93-109.

Joon-Chien, D. (1981). Modernising the budget system: The Malaysian experience. Public Administration and Development, 1, 291-305.

Kuhlman, S. (2003). Benchmarking and performance measurement in German local government, paper presented at Round Table in Oslo, 22-24 May.

Mascarenhas, R. C (1996). Searching for efficiency in public sector: Interim evaluation of Performance Budgeting in New Zealand. Public Budget and Finance, 16 (3), 13-27.

Noruddin, K. (1999). Privatisation. In M. A. Abdul Karim, (Ed.). Reengineering the public service: Leadership and change in an electronic age, Selangor: Pelanduk Publications, 293-316.

OECD (1996). Performance auditing and modernisation of government. Paris: OECD Press.

Proper, C., & Wilson, D.(2003). The use and usefulness of performance measures in public sector. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(2), 250-267.

Shah, A. (2003). Handbook of public sector performance review. World Bank.

Siddiquee, N. A. (2006). Public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 339-358.

Siti Nabiha, A. K., & Scapens, W. R. (2005). Stability and change: An institutional study of management accounting change. Accounting, Auditing, an Accountability Journal, 18(1), 44-73.

Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 22(3), 267-281.

Thor, C. G. (2003). How to find, select and display performance measures in government, Cost Management, 17(3), 31. 84 IJMS 15 (Bumper Issue), 69-90 (2008)

Tillman, R. (1964). Bureaucratic transition in Malaya. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.

Triantafillou, P. (2002). Machinating the responsive bureaucrat: Excellent work culture in the Malaysian public sector. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 24(2), 185-209.

Trezzini, B. (2001). Institutional foundations of Malaysia’s state capacity. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 23(1), 33-63.

Xavier, J. A. (1996). Budget reform: the Malaysian experience, Public Administration and Development, 16, 485–501. www.ijms.um.edu.my

Downloads

Published

24-09-2008

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-07
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/ijms2008.15.4 OpenAlex W7002431321