Reinventing Leviathan: The Politics of Administrative Reform in Developing Countries

Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 2005 by Jones, Garth N

Limits of space provide for only brief comments on the other four country studies. Barbara Nunberg, World Bank Staffer, in her Chapter 3, "The Politics of Administrative Reform in Post-Communist Hungary," gives insight into the unique situation of a country forced to accept new economic realities with the downfall of Communism. Major institutional change was necessary, conditioned by fiscal crises and driven by international pressures. Progress has been made in moving toward a merit civil service.

Chileans Manuel Antonio Garretón and Gonzalo Cáceres in their Chapter 5, "From the Disarticulation of the State to the Modernization of Public Management in Chile: Administrative Reform without a State Project," made a significant contribution to the subject of reform. Unlike the other authors, they carefully dealt with the nature of the "state apparatus." If reinventing has any value, it is to be found in this superb treatment of the complexities of society, government and state.

Mexico is a country characterized by confoundings. Unlike neighbor Canada, U.S. Americans have trouble comprehending neighbor Mexico. This fact is somewhat evidenced in Chapter 6, "Stalled Administrative Reforms of the Mexican State."coauthored by U.S. American David Arellans Gault and Mexican Juan Pablo Guerrero Amparan. With its socialist inclinations, Mexico stands in need of reinvention. The two authors address difficulties of reform within the context of Mexico's history and institutional rigidities. Reform efforts have been plagued by endemic incrementalism.

Chapter 7, "Principles of the Thai State," by U.S. American Danny Unger, is substantially different from the other five country studies. Possibly it is dated. In his conclusion Unger writes: "Unlike. . .Argentina, Brazil or Mexico, fiscal constraints in Thailand did not play a central role in. . .the piecemeal reforms...." (p. 199.) Regardless, Thailand represents an excellent study in administrative reform instituted by constitutional reform. Although the author does not mention it, the approach seems to fall very much in the U.S. tradition.2

Drawing an ending to this involved story of administrative reform across several nation states does not come easy. The two editors use the broad heading of "Comparisons and Conclusions." Comparisons can be made, but administrative reform by its very nature never ends. It waxes and wanes over time. The state is an organic entity subject to pains of death and resurrection. Transformation, in the terms of living as dictated by its ecology, is the game of survival, along with progress.

Although fraught with methodological problems, the notion of reinvention of the state is a meritorious subject. The 1990s intellectual thinking is indeed innovative and its intent commendable. Worldwide, governments are increasingly being faced with constricting finances and rising public expectations. More must be done with less.

My criticism of reinvention pertains to the paradigm which constrains thought and action. Societal growth and development must be addressed in holistic terms. Several authors of this edited work sense the necessity which is somewhat addressed in the last three chapters of this work.