There is no denying the fact just before the emergence of Bangladesh in the middle of 1970; the intact Western globe materialize to have moved into the essence of managerial as well as Financial reforms. Moreover, these restructuring policies actually demonstrate to show up certain general features. They all tend to be more or less managerial reforms. The trend in the track of public management reform is perceptible in the United States, Great Britain, and other Western European management, but on the other side of the globe as well, in Australia, New Zealand and other ‘Western’ countries. The style of reports on developments of administrative reforms of the OECD authenticate that most developments point in the same direction, which is the introduction of ideas, models and techniques of public management, that is the adoption of business management techniques, a greater service and client orientation, the preamble of market process and competition in public administrations.

The adoption of the Public Management Reform is linked with the rise of neo-liberalism and its political variants such as ‘Reaganism’ and ‘Thatcherism’. Hood sees its origin as a marriage of two different streams of ideas: the new-fangled institutional finances and business type ‘managerialism’. According to Linda Kaboolian, the preamble of new public management imparts two extra-ordinary chances to the scholars. She promulgates, ‘The Public Management Reform strategy provides scholars of public administration and public management two extra-ordinary opportunities. The first is to see the unfolding of an international reform movement defined by clearly articulated principles. A phenomenon of this magnitude is a natural object of empirical inquiry to scholars. The second opportunity is to engage in theoretically grounded empirical work and theory building that crosses the boundaries of the disciplines that have studied the public sector’.

In developed states, the orthodox welfarist model of improvement has largely been displaced by the new public management revolution, which involves a major rethinking of the state of its relations with the market. The radical critique of the centralized, inefficient, unaccountable, over-extended state has produced a transformative conception, and intensive efforts to run this conception into practice. Later the new public management has been focussed as an ideological system, featured by the introduction of ideas generated in private sector settings within public sector organisations.

In a recent analysis of public management reforms, it is over and done with that despite differences in nature, size and approach to reforms, a common agenda has developed, ‘a new paradigm for public management has emerged, aiming at fostering a performance-oriented culture in a less centralised public sector’. According to the OECD, this new public management paradigm is characterised by the following eight main trends:

1. developing authority, providing flexibility
2. improving the management of human resources
3. ensuring performance, control, accountability
4. optimising information technology
5. developing composition and choice
6. improving the quality of regulation
7. providing responsive service
8. strengthening steering functions at the centre

Hood presented his widely known definition of ‘new public management’ in his inaugural address in London School of Economics, based on the OECD review.

1. Hands on professional management
2. Competition
3. Standards and performance measures
4. Private sector style management
5. Output controls
6. Discipline and parsimony
7. Disaggregating of units

The components of new public management were both structural (disaggregated organisations and greater competition) and managerial (more visible hands-on management, private sector management practices, tighter cost control, explicit measurement and greater emphasis on out put controls). While the justification for the reforms was founded on the need to make the delivery of public services manageable and accountable, to avoid waste and reduce costs, to encourage competition and customer responsiveness, to apply proven private sector practices and to focus on results, it lead to changes away from a uniform and inclusive public sector and from ‘qualitative and implicit standards and norms’ towards an environment of fewer procedural constraints, more discretionary powers, and to performance-related pay and less secure conditions of employment.

After F.W.Taylor’s ‘The principles of scientific Management’, the various management theories and schools have been developed. There is one theory, model and technique of business management. The trend to introduce business like management in government therefore seems not so much inspired by scientific reason as it is by the ideological Zeitgeist. Several authors have examined the phenomenon of managerial reforms in western administrations, and various more or less different typologies have been published. What they all have in common is at least the following three characteristics:

1. business management techniques,

2. service and client orientation,

3. Market-type mechanisms such as competition.

-

‘In Britain, PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM has two divergent strands: managerial and the new institutional economics. Managerial refers to introducing private sector management in the public sector. It stresses: hands-on, professional management, explicit standards and measures of performance, managing by results, and value for money and more recently closeness to the customer. It is often synonym for the ‘3Es’. The new institutional economics refers to introducing incentive structures (such as market competition) in to public service provision. It stresses desegregating bureaucracies, greater competition through contracting-out and quasi-markets and consumer choice’

The introduction of businesslike management began in the British civil service when Margaret Thatcher created the Rayner scrutinies. Mr. Rayner came from a private office and presided in the cabinet office over a project group, which had to support the many scrutinies in the various departments. The terms of reference for the scrutiny team which produced the report ‘Improving Management in Government: ‘The Next Steps’ “to identify the progress achieved in improving management in the civil service” and “to identify the institutional, administrative, political and attitudinal obstacles to better management and efficiency that still remain”. This report recommended reducing the civil service to a small “core” of policy makers and “transferring” other officials to work under free standing agency boards. The ‘agencies’ should be established to carry out the executive functions of government within a policy and resources framework set by a department. Next step report was published in 1987 with view to ensure higher efficiency, better quality, and more value for money-by granting more autonomy to the executive service delivery agencies. Germany, the concept of PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM adopted in different name, which is called New Steering Model. It is evident that France does not particularly have an Anglo-Saxon tradition in respect to state, government and civil service.

New public management in Belgium is associated with a more business-oriented style of management, cutting back on public spending and privatisation. The tradition of neo- corporatism, however, is still firmly in place. In the new structures of the Autonomous Public Enterprises, conventional political and interest groups are settling down in the executive boards with a view to controlling the policy of the public organisations. In these circumstances the freedom of action of the PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORMs is likely to continue to be limited.

The advent of new public management to Ireland seems to be already changing the climate and culture of public sector organisations, at the same time as there has been no fundamental structural change in the machinery of government; a more results oriented approach is developing. Relations between the new public manager and politics remain unchanged, both sides seeming to be happy with the present situation: the new public manager has continued to be adverse to politics, seeing that area as best left to political adverse, program managers and the private offices of politicians.

The Nordic countries have also tagged along the concept of PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM but they adopt it on the basis of their own administrative requirement. Markku Temmes believed, “The PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM doctrine seems to have become a water shade in the recent administrative policy of the Nordic countries. Denmark has been a pioneer in applying Public Management Reform, and Danish solutions have been quite typical Public Management Reform- type solutions, although the administrative policy followed has been more carefully pursued than in the Anglo- Saxon countries”.

In Finland, the reform of public sector management, which started in the late 1980s, has spread rapidly throughout all levels of government. Public Management Reform was identified within 134 organisations. Most public managers are located in three types of organisations: result-budgeted and net-budgeted agencies; institutions and business action plans; and public enterprises and state owned companies. These are concentrated in industry and trade, communications and training, and public utilities. Finland has been the most coherent and determined applier of Public Management Reform among the Nordic countries. This impression may have been partly created by the fact that Finland’s radical reforms have come within a fairly short period of time, the year’s 1987-95.

After careful pore over the practice of public management system in the western democracies, it obviously focuses that a major transformation has been made in the public sector management through this new concept. It is true that the main thrust for Public Management Reform began when the western democracies felt that existing government machineries are not functioning well with traditional concept of management. The success of Public Management Reform influenced the donors to introduce this concept in developing countries as condition of their loan. Developing countries are heavily suffered with the huge manpower in the public sector though these peoples are not giving proper service because of their inefficiency and traditional system of management. ‘Developing countries seem intent on following new public management as an organising principle for their societies. This is occurring with encouragement from the World Bank and other international agencies as an effort to overcome their endemic problems of development and the failure of earlier model of development economics and development administration’.

About Author

Kh. Atiar Rahman is a prominent author as well as a poet. he has many publications in national and International media. He was born in the district of Kushtia.

The soft version was on display Monday night in Denver and the lady does have a soft side and I’m not talking about her soft flowing hair. As she said, she’s a daughter, a mother, a wife, and a proud American. I mean that totally covers the bases doesn’t it? It was not only the content, but the constant smile and humble spirit that was on display.  

Michelle Obama, whose husband calls her “the star” of their family, introduced herself Monday to the Democratic convention in a heartfelt speech invoking the dreams of her father and the hopes of her husband for the nation. “Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do,” Obama said. “You treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

The self-described daughter, wife and mother also gave a nod to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination. She hailed the New York senator as someone who put “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” by winning nearly that many votes in state nominating contests.

She told those watching on television that, like them, she and the candidate value strong family ties, a belief in hard work and upward mobility, and a determination to create “the world as it should be.”

And then there was Teddy!

Sen. Edward Kennedy declared there was “new hope” for the nation in his surprise appearance at the Democratic National Convention, while Michelle Obama addressed critics of her patriotism and stressed her love for the country. “Nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight,” Kennedy told an arena of teary-eyed delegates as he pledged to see Barack Obama to the White House and his own return to the Senate floor.

So, the Democratic Convention is off and rolling: with Hillary and Bubba to follow.  

About Author

As a spiritual-futurist my commentaries and articles deal primarily with an interpretation of current events in light of macro-universal forces at play.

Michelle Obama is the Unites States first African-American First Lady and is the wife of President Obama. She is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. She met President Obama when she worked in a law firm in Sidley Austin in Chicago. She was very proactive in helping Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic National Convention and on his bid for Presidency until the time he was elected as the First African-American President of the Unites States. A mother of two girls, Malia and Sasha, Michelle became an icon not only for her confidence in handling herself as the Nation’s First Lady but she is also known to be an icon for her no nonsense fashion style. Born on January 17, 1964 in Chicago Illinois, Michelle’s father worked as the city pump operator while her mother stayed at home until they were all high school to attend to their needs. Her older brother Craig is a basketball coach at Brown University.

During the 2008 Presidential election, Michelle Obama expressed her apprehension for her husband’s bid on the Presidency because of the negative effects that this may incur on her two daughters but she supported him anyway in one condition that Barack Obama will give up smoking which has long been his habit. During the early parts of the campaign period, Michelle was slumped with comments not just on her participation on the campaign but in any speech or interviews that she may have that will ignite public interest and cause a stir in to the political scene.

Michelle Obama also sparked interest because of her fashion style. In different magazines she has been labeled as one of the most influential and inspiring woman to date. With different tributes made for her, Michelle undoubtedly is not just a shadow of her husband but has also clearly made a mark and a name that will linger on the minds of the American people. Just recently she made it to the cover of the Fashion Magazine “Vogue” March 2009 issue. Michelle’s contemporary and no nonsense lifestyle is fast becoming a trendsetter among women all over the globe. She has always been linked to the styles of former first lady Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan.

As of date, Michelle Obama has made contributions and focuses on giving out support on the families of military personnel. She is also into the project for organic movement which is also focused on planting organic food in the White House. Aside from this Michelle also supports the makes it a point to get acquainted with the White House staff and organization. Michelle is well known in balancing her duties as a mom and as a political wife.

About Author

billy.french1356

Lots of free information, photos, videos, news about Michelle Obama. All latest updated news and information about Michelle Obama. Visit http://www.michelleobamafan.com

As some of you may know…I am a big fan of board games.

I am happy to devote an entire weekend to the likes of Pictionary, Scrabble, and of course my personal favourite: Operation (You know there is something delightfully obscene about a game that revolves around trying to replace a little plastic spleen with a pair of tweezers into a bizarro man with a large red blinking nose. After a few wines you can take that barrel of fun to the bank…..in spades!)

However, there is one board game that, even with three bottles of my favourite plonk under the belt, you could not get me to play.

That game is Monopoly.

My aversion to this snotty and greedy little game probably dates back to my childhood, when my disdain for the millionaire in the top hat spawned, along with a morbid fear of clowns and raisin sandwiches.

When I was eight, our neighbor’s children would come around on a Saturday afternoon with said game in hand and an evil Gordon-Geckoesque glint in their eyes wanting to know if we would like to play. My parents, eager to offload their offspring for a few hours of peace and a few glasses of Chateau-De -Headache, would promptly agree on behalf of my sister and myself that “there would be nothing we would love to particpate in more”.

Begrudgingly, we would sit on the floor, have our multi-coloured bills doled out to us, set up a little Scottish Terrier or a Vroom-Vroom car and wait for the inevitable.

The game would always start out in a reasonable fashion. You would roll the dice, land on a coloured square and then buy it, hoping to collect a set of properties and start reaping the rewards from your fellow players’ misfortune when they would make pit or toilet stops on one of them.

My sister and I are not stupid, and quite often we would kick start a match with very promising results…a Trafalgar Square here… a Park Lane there … all very much in the spirit of good, juvenile fun.

However, about twenty minutes into the venture we would notice that our neighbors suddenly had at least DOUBLE the cash and more lego-like houses than even Coomera Realty could develop in such a short time.

When accused of dodgy dealings, our neighbors would suddenly claim “Off-shore Swiss bank accounts” and “Legitimate Tax refunds” to explain their rapid accumulation of wealth;  and, when we argued that landing on “Free Parking” did NOT entitle the player to all of OUR money, the reponse would be “Don’t you KNOW what the rules of the Parker Brothers 1979 edition are?”

Even when either my sister or myself overcame such questionable regulations and still looked very favourable to cross the finish line, we would always be hit with the “She Who Smelt It Dealt It” Tax when landing on “GO”.

The end result was usually ugly, with little, green plastic houses being shoved into various orifices and an almighty indignant holler to “MUMMMMMMM!!!!!!!”

So, you could say that I get very angry and resentlful when I think about those games of Monopoly, or any other competition, where one party, upon realising that he or she is losing, decides to change the rules to serve his or her position.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that I was more than a little peeved when, this morning, I watched a re-run on the news showing  the Democratic National Committee hand down its decision on the unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan as part of the US Electoral Primary process.

For those of you who follow American politics, you would know that, at the end of last year,  both Florida and Michigan were banned from having their Democratic Party delegates seated at the convention coming up in August. This was due to each of those states’ decisions to go against the Democratic Party’s rules by moving their states’ primaries to earlier dates than when they had been directed to conduct them.

As a result, the powers that be at the highest echelon of the Democratic Party punished both states by declaring that their delegates would not be counted in the process of electing a nominee for the general election in November.

At the time of this decision, Hillary Clinton remained silent. Tacit then, in her agreement with these findings. In fact, in the latter part of 2007, she was quoted as saying that the findings were “fair”.

When the numbers and polls started to look decidely shifty for the Senator from New York, a murmur from the Clinton camp began to circulate about how potentially unreasonable this decision was.

This murmur grew to a grumble, which grew to a whinge, which now has blown out to an almighty “MUUMMMMMMMY” howl of indignation from Clinton and her supporters, now that the nominee for the Democratic party, if the numbers are correct, can only be Barack Obama, given any current scenario.

 After much deliberation, the committee ended up awarding the majority of Florida delegates to Clinton and divided up half of Michigan between the two remaining candidates (again, favouring Clinton by 10 delegates I might add) even though Obama went along with the original party decision to not campaign or put his name on the ballot in this state.

And yet……

….the screams, foot-stamping and hissy-fits from Clinton supporters that followed the decision, could probably have been heard from Washington all the way down to those who reside on their porches in the Appalachians (whom apparently have heard the call and are on their way down to protest  as well…those nice, fair-minded, white working folk from West Virginia)

There was strong talk from Clinton’s camp about appealing this decision and taking this argument/all the way to the Democratic convention.

Does this not remind anyone of a certain horrific incident…umm…let’s say 8 years ago?????

In short, it is a divisive and desperate call from a wing of the party that is critically wounded, and will take “whatever means necessary” to try and shift the goal posts in order to favour their candidate.

The USA has had eight years of disasterous governing with the Bush Administration. The election in 2008 is there for the Democrats to “lose” at this point.  If this issue with Florida and Michigan is taken beyond today, it can only weaken the result for the party in November.

And for what?

An overwhelming, bitter sense of “entitlement” is my guess.

Those of you who know me, know that I have been a Barack Obama fan since….well, since first saw him speak in Chicago back in 2003.

However, this is not a Pro-Obama/Anti-Clinton rant. It is an observation that what seems to transparantly obvious to me, is not shared by others.

This is a blog about playing fair.

You play the game, according to the rules.

If you are losing the game, it is not then reasonable to change those rules because you are pissed off that someone landed on Mayfair before you did, or that you just don’t like the look of the little silver dog.

At any rate, the way things are going, the only board game that Hillary and Obama might be playing over the next seven days will be “Battleship”.

About Author

Kylie is a well travelled free-lance writer who has been published in several magazines in Australia and the United States including “Honestly Woman” and “Third Coast Marketing”.

Come on in..sit down and enjoy…bring your prescription drugs if necessary.

This 2008 democratic presidential nominee race is turning out to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primaries were decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in large states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead in delegates over Barack Obama with each hovering around 1100 each. The democrats award delegates on a proportional basis to the percentage of votes they get in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to the delegates awarded by the states, there also exists superdelegates or around 796 important figures in the democratic party. These superdelegates are free to endorse any candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to pledge their support and can change their mind and vote at any time. As it stands now, I believe Barack Obama will secure the nomination and would ultimately be a better choice for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton is a junior senator from New York and former First Lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has an extensive background in law. Before the 2008 primaries started, she was thought to be the frontrunner for the democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become president at this time. During her time as first lady because of her political prowess and involvement, she was often likened to Eleanor Roosevelt. Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois and also worked in law before deciding to run for public office. He first made an impression at the 2004 keynote address at the democratic convention where his bold, and inspirational speech received nationwide recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the Presidency and has surprised many by winning numerous states by a large margin and hanging tough in those he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I believe he will follow through with his dream for America. While both candidates are democrats, and agree on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first and foremost is the issue of the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton initially voted for the Iraq War but has since opposed the decision made by the Bush Administration. She has been heavily criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its very inception. I think that this shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, he stands strong in his beliefs even when they are unpopular. He does not seem to rush into anything without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “Im not opposed to wars, Im opposed to dumb wars.” The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for health care reform. While both understand the need for a change in the current system to help the many uninsured Americans, there is an important difference in their plans. While Hillary wishes for every American to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it makes sense that children should always be entitled to the medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think that Obama’s plan is much more efficient and also will meet much less resistance. One issue that I do not completely support Obama on but more so than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be a part of civil unions which grant them the same rights as a marriage. While Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be allowed. I personally think that if two people, regardless of their gender, wish to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to be married. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They are entitled to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, no one should be able to stop that. While I wish Barack Obama fully supported same-sex marriages, he would take the first steps to correct finally realizing same-sex marriages. Both of these candidates are strong choices for the Democratic party. Each has their own different strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems more suited for rallying large crowds of people, while Hillary sometimes falters under the pressure of so many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message of change will inspire Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next President of The United States.
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate race turns to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primary have been decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in major states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama delegates with each hover around 1100 each. The Democrats prices delegates on a proportional basis the percentage of votes they receive in each state and it takes 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to delegates, issued by the States, there are also superdelegates or around 796 people in the Democratic Party. These superdelegates are free to endorse a candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to announce their support and may change their minds and vote at any time. As it is now, I think Barack Obama will get the nomination and, ultimately, be a better choice for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a young New York Senator and former first lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has extensive experience in law. Before the 2008 primary began, it was thought to be headed for the Democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become chairman at that time. During his time as the first woman because of her prowess and political participation, it is often equated with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Barack Obama is a young senator from Illinois and has also worked in law before deciding to run for public service. He first made an impression in 2004, will deliver a speech at the Democratic Convention where his bold, inspirational speech and the country has received recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the presidency and surprised many by winning many states by a wide margin of the hanging and difficult to those whom he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I think he will follow his dream for America.

Although both candidates are Democrats, and agreement on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first is the question of war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton originally voted for the war in Iraq but has since opposed the decision by the Bush administration. It has been strongly criticized for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its inception. I think it shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, it is strong in his convictions even if they are unpopular. It does not seem to launch into something without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “I am not opposed to war, I am opposed to the war stupid. ”

The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for reform of health care. Although both understand the need for a change in the current system to help many non-Americans, there is a significant difference in their plans. If Hillary wishes of all Americans to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it is logical that children should always be entitled to medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think the plan Obama is much more efficient and will also meet much less resistance.

A question that I am not completely support Obama, but more than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be part of civil unions that grant them the same rights as marriage. If Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be permitted. Personally, I think that if two persons, regardless of their sex, desire to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to marry. I do not see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nobody should be able to end this situation. Although I would like Barack Obama has fully supported same-sex marriages should correct the first steps to finally achieve the same-sex marriages.

Both candidates are strong choices for the Democratic Party. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems best suited rallying for large crowds of people, while Hillary falters sometimes under pressure from many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message change will encourage Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next Prsidenet of the USA.

About Author

23 Old ,Webmaster , Welcome to Your Online Library And Mr OBAMA