Governance Models in Hong Kong PDF

50% of P1A2307 Citation: Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2016) Public Management and Governance (3rd Edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge  🎓💪 🤖🏆 🌟📝 📊 🤝 🏫 🤝 # CASE STUDY: LUMP-SUM GRANT R...

50% of P1A2307 Citation: Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2016) Public Management and Governance (3rd Edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge  🎓💪 🤖🏆 🌟📝 📊 🤝 🏫 🤝 # CASE STUDY: LUMP-SUM GRANT REFORM IN SOCIAL SERVICES ## The Machine Model - Initially, the relationship between the government and subsidized welfare bodies (NGOs) was a "machine model" where the government had tight control over funding, staffing, and expenditures. - This input control system was criticized for creating inflexibility, stifling innovation, and lacking public accountability. ## The Performance-Control Model - In the late 1990s, the government initiated a review of the social service funding system to improve flexibility, efficiency, and accountability. - This led to the introduction of the Lump Sum Grant (LSG) system and the Service Performance Monitoring System (SPMS). - Under the LSG, NGOs gained more autonomy and flexibility in deploying resources to meet changing community needs. - The SPMS, with its Funding and Service Agreements (FSAs) and Service Quality Standards (SQSs), became an integral component to monitor NGOs' performance and ensure cost-effectiveness. ## Governance Results - The LSG system encouraged NGOs to improve their corporate governance, leading to better human resources management, financial management, and overall administration. - NGOs were held accountable for the cost-effectiveness of their services through financial accounting and external auditing requirements. - However, the system also faced some criticism, such as the tendency of NGOs to replace high-cost staff with low- cost staff to contain costs. # CASE STUDY: SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT ## From Machine-Control to Collaborative Governance - The education system in Hong Kong initially followed a "machine-control" model, with the government tightly controlling funding, curriculum, and examinations. - In the late 1990s, the Education Commission Report #7 recommended the implementation of School-based Management (SBM) to provide schools with more flexibility and autonomy. ## Collaborative Governance in Education - SBM introduced the School Management Committee (SMC), which included representatives from the school sponsoring body, principal, teachers, parents, and alumni. - The SMC was responsible for setting the school's vision, policies, budgeting, and human resource management. - This collaborative governance model aimed to empower schools and engage all stakeholders in decision-making. ## Accountability Mechanisms - To ensure transparency and accountability, schools were required to set up internal monitoring systems and prepare annual reports on their goals, progress, and evaluation. - The External School Review (ESR) process was introduced to validate the school's self-evaluation and provide feedback for continuous improvement. ## Outcomes and Challenges - SBM provided schools with more autonomy and flexibility, allowing them to tailor their services to meet the needs of their students and communities. - The collaborative governance approach aimed to enhance stakeholder participation and shared responsibility for school development. - However, some challenges remain, such as balancing the autonomy of schools with the need for centralized control and ensuring effective implementation of the SBM model. # CONCLUSION In both the social services and education sectors, Hong Kong has witnessed a shift from a centralized, machine- control model of governance to more decentralized, collaborative approaches. These reforms have aimed to improve flexibility, efficiency, and accountability in public service delivery. As you can see, governance is a complex and evolving concept, and Hong Kong's experiences offer valuable lessons for understanding the dynamics of public sector reform. Remember, if you have any questions or need further clarification, don't hesitate to ask! I'm here to support your learning journey. #Collaborative Governance #Hong Kong Organizational Characteristics of HK Administration 🇭 K - Centralized, hierarchical government departments - Focus on top-down implementation rather than lateral coordination - Commitment to political neutrality and the rule of law ## Governance in HKSAR Policy Addresses - The concept of "governance" (治港 & 管治) has evolved in the Policy Addresses over the years. - Key elements include rule of law, safeguarding rights, transparency, collaboration, and effective policy implementation. - The latest developments emphasize further improving governance, addressing people's concerns, and maintaining social harmony. ## Latest Governance Practices in HK - The "Community Living Room" initiative leverages partnerships between the government, businesses, and community groups. - The SIE Fund uses an intermediary model to support social innovation and connect diverse stakeholders. - Outsourcing of services like cleansing and security demonstrates the "virtual administration" model. When explaining with concept, add a case to explain  🌍 ## 1. Governance - Governance refers to the processes, structures, and mechanisms through which authority is exercised, decisions are made, and actions are taken to manage and regulate a group or organization. - It involves the establishment of rules, policies, and procedures that guide the behavior and conduct of individuals and institutions. - Governance is the outcome of how the government governs, while government has the authority to steer. - Good governance is characterized by being participatory, consensus- oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective, equitable, and following the rule of law (UN principles). The chapter defines governance as "how an organisation works with its partners, stakeholders and networks to influence the outcomes of public policies." It highlights that governance is about the processes and principles of decision-making, not just the outcomes. 🗳 📝 🔧 🌐 🔍 # Governance: Exploring Different Lenses ## The Political Lens When examining governance through a political lens, the focus is on the structures, processes, and dynamics of the governor-governed relationship. This includes: - Governance regimes: The formal and informal rules, norms, and power dynamics that shape how authority is exercised and decisions are made. - The balance of power between the state, civil society, and the private sector. - The mechanisms for political participation, representation, and accountability. Analyzing governance from this lens helps us understand the underlying political forces and ideologies that influence public policymaking and service delivery. ## The Public Management Lens As we discussed earlier, the public management lens explores different models of governance, such as: - Machine-control model: Hierarchical, centralized, and rule-based. - Network model: Emphasizing coordination, collaboration, and lateral relationships. - Performance-control model: Focused on differentiation, evaluation, and measurement. - Virtual administration model: Leveraging privatization, contracting, and negotiation. - Normative control model: Relying on shared values, beliefs, and organizational culture. Understanding these models and their respective strengths and weaknesses is crucial for designing effective and adaptive public sector organizations. ## The International Relations Lens From an international relations perspective, the focus shifts to the governance of the global system and the role of international organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Key aspects include: - The mechanisms for global cooperation and coordination on cross-border issues. - The balance of power and influence among nation-states, multinational corporations, and civil society groups. - The effectiveness of international institutions in setting rules, standards, and norms. ## Relevance in Exams - Analyze a specific governance challenge or issue from one or more of these perspectives. - Compare and contrast the insights gained from applying different lenses to the same problem. - Discuss the strengths and limitations of each lens in understanding and improving public sector governance. - Propose solutions or reforms that take into account the nuances and interactions between these various governance frameworks.  🔍 ## 5. Mintzberg's Governance Models Henry Mintzberg identified five governance models: 1. Machine-model (control-oriented) 2. Network-model (coordination and cooperation) 3. Performance-control-model (differentiation, evaluation, and measurement) 4. Virtual administration model (privatization, contracting, and negotiation) 5. Normative control-model (control based on values and beliefs) These models reflect different approaches to managing and governing public organizations. 🕸 🤖 🧭 🌐 📊 ## 1. Machine-Model This is a control-oriented model characterized by a highly centralized, hierarchical structure with clear lines of authority and decision-making. It emphasizes standardized processes, rules, and procedures to ensure consistency and efficiency. The machine- model is well-suited for stable, routine tasks but can struggle with adaptability and responsiveness. ## 2. Network-Model In contrast, the network-model focuses on coordination and cooperation across organizational boundaries. It involves lateral relationships, information sharing, and collaborative problem-solving among a diverse set of public, private, and civic actors. This model is better equipped to tackle complex, cross-cutting issues that require the integration of multiple perspectives and resources. ## 3. Performance-Control-Model This model places a strong emphasis on differentiation, evaluation, and measurement of organizational performance. It involves setting clear goals, developing performance indicators, and holding managers accountable for results. The performance-control- model aims to drive continuous improvement and efficiency, but can also create perverse incentives if not implemented carefully. ## 4. Virtual Administration Model The virtual administration model embraces the use of privatization, contracting, and negotiation to deliver public services. It involves the government playing more of a steering and coordinating role, while leveraging the capabilities and resources of private and non-profit partners. This model can introduce more flexibility and innovation, but also requires robust contract management and oversight to ensure alignment with public interests. ## 5. Normative Control-Model Finally, the normative control-model relies on the internalization of values, beliefs, and organizational culture to shape behavior and decision-making. Rather than external rules and incentives, this model cultivates a strong sense of mission, purpose, and shared norms among public sector employees. It can foster intrinsic motivation and adaptability, but may be challenging to implement in large, diverse organizations. 1. **Who has the right to make decisions in the public realm?** Governance recognizes that decision-making power in the public sphere extends beyond just government agencies and elected officials. It involves a broader network of stakeholders, including citizens, community groups, private sector partners, and others. 2. **What principles should guide those decisions?** Governance emphasizes the importance of principles like transparency, accountability, collaboration, and a focus on achieving positive outcomes for citizens and communities. This contrasts with the traditional public administration focus on bureaucratic processes and job security. 3. **How can collective activities in the public realm improve citizen welfare?** Governance is oriented towards using the combined knowledge, resources and efforts of diverse actors to tackle complex public challenges and enhance the wellbeing of citizens. It moves away from a siloed, government-centric approach. In essence, governance represents a significant shift from the hierarchical, bureaucratic model of traditional public administration towards a more collaborative, participatory, and outcome-focused approach to managing public affairs. It requires rethinking the roles, relationships and decision-making processes involved in addressing public issues. This evolution in thinking about governance has important implications for how public services are designed, delivered and evaluated. It challenges the conventional boundaries between the public, private and voluntary sectors, and calls for new skills and competencies among public managers and officials. Navigating the complexities of governance in practice remains an ongoing challenge. But the core principles of shared decision-making, collaborative problem-solving, and a focus on citizen outcomes represent a promising direction for modernizing public sector management.  📊 ## 2. Public Management - Public management is focused on the achievement of results and personal responsibility of the manager, as opposed to the process- oriented nature of public administration. - It involves the use of private sector management techniques and principles in the public sector, with an emphasis on efficiency, performance, and customer-orientation. - The New Public Management (NPM) approach in the 1980s-90s promoted ideas like privatization, contracting-out, and public-private partnerships to improve public sector performance. In contrast, public management is said to be more associated with: - Budget management, not just budget holding - A contract culture, including contracts with private providers - Entrepreneurship and risk-taking - Accountability for performance  ## 3. The Nature of the Organization (Public vs Private) - The distinction between public and private organizations is not always clear-cut, as there are hybrid organizations and blurred sectors. - Ownership (collective vs private) and funding sources (taxation vs fees) are key factors in determining the level of "publicness" of an organization. - All organizations have some degree of political influence and are subject to external government control, existing on a continuum of "publicness" (Bozeman's concept). The chapter notes that the traditional view of "public services" as being solely provided by the public sector is no longer accurate. It points out that many services traditionally seen as "public" are now being delivered by private firms or non-profit organizations, blurring the boundaries. 🚪💰 🗽 🏢 👨⚖ 🤝 🌐 # The Dimensions of "Publicness" When discussing the concept of "publicness" in the public sector, there are several key dimensions to consider: ## Ownership This refers to whether an organization or service is owned and controlled by the government (public), or by private, for-profit entities. The degree of public ownership is a core aspect of publicness. ## Funding This looks at the source of an organization's financial resources. Fully publicly- funded entities are considered more "public" than those relying on private revenue streams or user fees. ## Accountability The degree to which an organization is accountable to elected officials, government oversight, and the broader public, rather than just private shareholders or customers. ## Access The extent to which a service or good is universally available to all citizens, rather than restricted to certain groups or those who can afford it. ## Social Obligations The degree to which an organization is expected to pursue broader societal goals beyond just profit or efficiency, such as equity, sustainability, or the public interest. ## Authority The level of coercive power and legitimacy an organization has to make binding decisions that affect the public, rather than just voluntary, market-based influence.  🔧 ## 4. Policy Instruments - Governments have various instruments at their disposal to address public issues, including: - Direct provision by government - Subsidies - Production - Regulation - Contracting-out - The choice of policy instruments depends on the nature of the problem, the desired outcomes, and the balance between government and market roles. # DIRECT PROVISION BY THE GOVERNMENT Direct provision by the government refers to the traditional model where public services are delivered directly by government agencies and departments, without involving external providers or policy instruments. In this model, the government: - Owns and operates the service delivery infrastructure (e.g. schools, hospitals, social services offices) - Employs the frontline staff who interact with citizens and users - Directly manages and controls the operations, budgets, and decision- making for the public services This is the classic "bureaucratic" model of public administration, where the government takes full responsibility for planning, resourcing, and delivering public services to citizens. Some key characteristics of direct government provision include: - Services are provided in-house by civil servants and public sector employees - Funding comes directly from government budgets and taxpayer resources - Citizens access services as beneficiaries, not as consumers with choice - Services are shaped by government policies and priorities, not market forces This direct provision model was the dominant approach in many countries for much of the 20th century. It aimed to ensure universal access, equity, and government control over public services. ## What are Policy Instruments? Policy instruments refer to the various tools, mechanisms, and techniques that governments can employ to influence and steer public policies and service delivery. These can include: - Compulsory competitive tendering - Requiring public services to be put out to competitive bid, rather than provided directly by the government. - Public-private partnerships - Collaborations between the public sector and private firms to deliver infrastructure or services. - Incorporating social and environmental clauses in contracts - Specifying broader societal goals (like employment, sustainability) that must be pursued through public procurement. The key point is that governments have a range of policy instruments at their disposal to structure the way public services are organized and delivered, beyond just direct in-house provision. ## Examples of Policy Instruments Let me provide a few more concrete examples of different policy instruments governments have used: 1. Vouchers - Providing citizens with vouchers they can use to purchase services from approved providers, introducing consumer choice and competition. For example, vouchers for childcare or education. 2. Regulation - Setting standards, rules, and requirements that private or voluntary providers must meet in order to deliver public services. For example, regulations around care home quality. 3. Grants and subsidies - Providing funding to non-profit or community organizations to deliver public services, rather than the government doing it directly. 4. Tax incentives - Using the tax system to encourage certain behaviors or investments that support public goals, like R&D or environmental protection. 5. Information campaigns - Launching public awareness or behavior change programs, rather than direct service provision. For example, anti- smoking or healthy eating campaigns. The choice of policy instrument depends on the specific goals the government is trying to achieve, the context, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. ## 6. Centralization vs. Decentralization ## Defining Decentralization Decentralization is defined as the spreading of authority from a smaller to a larger number of actors. This can involve: - Creating semi-autonomous executive agencies that can make their own decisions on matters like budgets and staffing, rather than having to clear everything "up the line" with the parent ministry. - Giving increased spending, personnel, or case-handling discretion to middle managers or frontline staff within a ministry or organization. - Establishing new public agencies at the local level that have managerial discretion, even if they are still accountable to the local council. The key idea is that decentralization involves dispersing decision-making power and authority to a wider range of actors, rather than concentrating it at the center. ## Centralization In contrast, centralization enables organizations to benefit from economies of scale, retain expert capacity, ensure greater equity in service provision, and improve coordination and accountability across the system. The chapter notes that there are good arguments in favor of both centralization and decentralization. Centralization can promote "joined-up government" and clearer lines of accountability. But decentralization can also speed decision- making, tailor services to local contexts, and encourage innovation. ## Tensions and Challenges However, the chapter highlights that the benefits of decentralization are not automatic. Much depends on the specific context and how decentralization is designed and implemented. Some key challenges include: - Ministries lacking the skills and resources to properly steer and hold autonomous agencies accountable - Difficulties in designing meaningful performance indicators and accountability frameworks for decentralized bodies - Tensions between decentralization and political interference or local participation Overall, the chapter paints a nuanced picture, showing that decentralization is a complex phenomenon with both advantages and disadvantages. Navigating the right balance between centralization and decentralization remains an ongoing challenge for public sector reforms. ## 7. Social Services and Welfare (Public vs Private) - Traditionally, the provision of social services and welfare has been a core function of government. - However, there has been a shift towards greater involvement of the private and non-profit sectors, through mechanisms like contracting- out, public-private partnerships, and the lump-sum grant system. - This reflects the broader trend of moving away from a centralized, government-dominated model towards more collaborative and networked governance approaches. ## Public Provision of Social Services Traditionally, governments have taken a direct, centralized role in providing social services and welfare programs. This public model has several key features: **Comprehensive Coverage:** The government aims to ensure universal access to essential social services like healthcare, education, housing assistance, and income support. This promotes equity and prevents gaps in the social safety net. **Centralized Funding:** Social services are funded through general tax revenue, allowing the government to pool resources and redistribute as needed. This spreads the costs across the population. **Government Control:** The government directly manages the planning, operations, and delivery of social services through public agencies and bureaucracies. This allows for standardized policies and procedures. **Citizen as Beneficiary:** Citizens access social services as beneficiaries of government programs, not as consumers with choice. Eligibility and entitlements are determined by government criteria. The rationale for public provision is to guarantee basic welfare, promote equality, and address market failures in the provision of essential social services. ## Private Provision of Social Services However, many governments have also turned to private and non-profit actors to play a greater role in social service delivery. This involves policy instruments like: **Outsourcing and Contracting:** Governments contract with private or non-profit organizations to deliver specific social services, like residential care, job training, or family support programs. **Vouchers and Subsidies:** Providing citizens with vouchers or subsidies they can use to purchase social services from approved private providers, introducing consumer choice. **Public-Private Partnerships:** Collaborative arrangements where the government partners with private firms to build, finance, and/or operate social infrastructure like affordable housing or hospitals. **Deregulation and Privatization:** Reducing government control and allowing more private provision and market competition in areas like healthcare, pensions, or utilities. The argument is that private and non-profit providers can often deliver social services more efficiently, innovatively, and responsively than large public bureaucracies. It also aims to empower citizens as consumers with choice. ## Balancing Public and Private Roles In practice, most welfare states involve a mix of public and private provision, with governments using a variety of policy instruments to structure the social service landscape. The optimal balance depends on factors like: - The nature of the social service (e.g. basic vs. discretionary) - Equity and access considerations - The capacity and incentives of private providers - The government's ability to steer and regulate the private sector Ultimately, governments must navigate the trade-offs between the comprehensive coverage and equity of public provision, and the efficiency and innovation of private delivery. Striking the right balance is an ongoing challenge in social policy.  ## 8. Co-production, Co-design, and Co-creation - Co-production involves citizens and professionals working together to deliver public services and transform processes and outcomes. - Co-design is a participatory process that engages citizens and staff in identifying problems and generating solutions. - Co-creation takes co-design a step further, inviting stakeholders to be part of the entire design and production process, not just specific tasks. - These collaborative approaches aim to enhance public value, citizen engagement, and shared responsibility. 🌇 📚 🌟 🤝 🍔 # Food Banks Service: A Case of Co-Production The food banks service in Hong Kong is a great example of how the public sector can collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community members to co-produce public services that create meaningful social impact. ## The Challenge Hong Kong, despite its reputation as a global financial hub, also faces significant challenges with poverty and inequality. Many new immigrant families and low-income households struggle to afford basic necessities like food, leading to food insecurity and poor living conditions. ## The Co-Production Approach To address this issue, the Hong Kong government partnered with various NGOs and community groups to establish a network of food banks across the city. This co-production model brought together the unique strengths and resources of different stakeholders: - The government provided funding, policy support, and coordination to enable the service delivery. - The NGOs leveraged their community connections, volunteer networks, and expertise in social services to operate the food banks. - New immigrant communities and low-income residents participated actively in co-designing the service, volunteering, and providing feedback to continuously improve the offerings. ## Benefits of Co-Production This collaborative approach yielded several benefits: 1. Improved living conditions: The food banks ensured that vulnerable families had access to nutritious, affordable food, enhancing their overall well-being and quality of life. 2. Facilitated long-term life security: By involving the community, the service also provided opportunities for new immigrants to build social connections, develop skills, and become more self-reliant. 3. Enhanced trust and civic engagement: The co-production process strengthened the relationship between the government, NGOs, and citizens, fostering a greater sense of shared ownership and responsibility for public services. 4. Continuous innovation: The ongoing feedback loop and collaborative problem-solving enabled the food banks to adapt and improve their offerings over time, better meeting the evolving needs of the community. ## Lessons Learned The success of the food banks service highlights the power of co-production in the public sector. By breaking down silos, leveraging diverse expertise, and empowering citizens as active partners, the government was able to create more impactful and sustainable solutions to complex social challenges. This case study demonstrates the importance of adopting a public value mindset, where the focus is on enhancing societal outcomes rather than just optimizing internal processes. It's a model that other public agencies can learn from as they strive to become more responsive, collaborative, and citizen-centric in their approach to governance. # CO-PRODUCTION, CO-DESIGN, AND CO-CREATION Co-production is a key concept explored in this chapter. Co-production refers to the collaborative relationships between public services (whether provided by the public, private or third sector) and citizens, where citizens make significant contributions to improving public services and outcomes. Co-production is distinguished from other forms of citizen engagement, such as consultation or volunteering, in that it involves active contributions from both citizens and public service professionals. The chapter identifies four different approaches to co-production: 1. Co-commissioning - The public sector and citizens working together to plan and prioritize services using their combined knowledge and expertise. 2. Co-design - A structured approach to harnessing the ideas of service users and providers in designing services. 3. Co-delivery - Citizens and the public sector working together to deliver services and improve outcomes, as seen in the examples of Community Health Trainers and Mosaic Clubhouse. 4. Co-assessment - Citizens working with professionals to provide feedback and evaluation of services. The chapter highlights how co-production goes beyond traditional awareness-raising campaigns to involve joint action between citizens and public services. It is seen as a way to harness the capabilities and assets of citizens to improve public services and outcomes. The chapter also notes that co-production can be viewed both as a positive concept, describing collaborative relationships, as well as a normative concept based on principles of citizen empowerment and collaborative working. Overall, the concept of co-production, co-design and co-creation emphasizes the importance of actively engaging citizens as partners in improving public services, rather than just as passive recipients. It represents a shift towards more collaborative, participatory and citizen- centered approaches in public service delivery.  💰 # PUBLIC VALUE Public value is a critical concept in understanding the role and objectives of government and public sector organizations. It goes beyond just measuring efficiency or outputs, and instead focuses on the broader societal impact and outcomes that public services should aim to achieve. ## Defining Public Value The concept of public value was developed by scholars like Mark Moore, who argued that public managers should be focused on creating value for the public, not just maximizing narrow organizational performance measures. Public value encompasses things like: - Improving citizen wellbeing and quality of life - Enhancing social equity and inclusion - Protecting the environment and promoting sustainability - Strengthening democratic institutions and civic engagement - Fostering economic prosperity and productivity In essence, public value is about the meaningful, positive difference that public sector activities make in people's lives and in society as a whole. It's a more holistic, outward-looking perspective compared to the traditional focus on internal efficiency. ## Creating Public Value Achieving public value requires public managers to: 1. Identify the core public purposes and societal outcomes they are trying to achieve, beyond just delivering services. 2. Engage with citizens, stakeholders, and other actors to understand their needs, priorities, and perceptions of value. 3. Leverage a range of policy instruments, partnerships, and collaborative arrangements to mobilize resources and capabilities across sectors. 4. Continuously measure, evaluate, and adapt their strategies based on their impact on public value, not just internal performance metrics. This is a fundamentally different mindset from the traditional public administration focus on compliance, hierarchy, and maximizing organizational outputs. It requires a more entrepreneurial, outward-facing, and collaborative approach to public management.  📝 🔍 Four Types of Public Value 1. Goal Attainment Value: Delivering and improving publicly valued outcomes. 2. Institutional Performance Value: Ensuring effective policy implementation and technical problem-solving. 3. Democratic Value: Enhancing the relationship between the state and citizens, and responsive policymaking. 4. Social-Political Value: Providing citizens with opportunities, resources, and identities to help communities co-exist and resolve differences. ## Public Value Account - Balancing the public's current expectations and investing in longer-term societal benefits. - Considering operational capacity and legitimacy/support from stakeholders. ## Tensions and Challenges Of course, creating public value is not always straightforward. Some key challenges include: - Defining and measuring public value, which can be multidimensional and subjective - Balancing competing public interests and values (e.g. equity vs. efficiency) - Aligning the incentives and goals of diverse public, private, and civic actors - Navigating political pressures and short-term thinking versus long-term value Public managers must skillfully navigate these tensions and tradeoffs, while maintaining a clear focus on the ultimate purpose of public service - enhancing the wellbeing and prosperity of citizens and communities. In summary, the public value framework represents a shift towards a more strategic, collaborative, and citizen-centric model of public management. It challenges traditional bureaucratic approaches and calls for a relentless focus on creating meaningful societal impact. Mastering the creation of public value is a key imperative for modern public sector leaders. ## 10. Benchmarking Models for public sectors 📊 🔧 📈 🌐💻 🌍 ## The OECD's Public Governance Framework The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed a comprehensive public governance framework that evaluates countries across several dimensions: - Strategic Capacity: The ability to set and steer towards long-term, whole-of-government priorities. - Citizen-Centric Governance: The extent to which public services are designed and delivered to meet citizen needs. - Integrity and Transparency: The robustness of anti-corruption measures and open government practices. - Effective and Inclusive Policymaking: The degree of stakeholder engagement and evidence-based decision-making. Benchmarking against this OECD framework can help identify strengths and weaknesses in a public sector's governance capabilities. ## The UN's E-Government Development Index The United Nations also offers the E-Government Development Index, which evaluates countries' digital government maturity across three dimensions: - Online Service Index: The availability and quality of online public services. - Telecommunication Infrastructure Index: The accessibility and use of ICT infrastructure. - Human Capital Index: The skills and knowledge of the population to utilize digital government services. This index provides insights into a government's digital transformation efforts and its ability to leverage technology for more efficient, inclusive public service delivery. ## The World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators The World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators measure six key dimensions of governance: - Voice and Accountability: The extent of civil liberties and political rights. - Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: The likelihood of political instability or violence. - Government Effectiveness: The quality of public services and policy formulation. - Regulatory Quality: The ability to implement sound policies and regulations. - Rule of Law: The extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. - Control of Corruption: The degree to which public power is exercised for private gain. These indicators allow for cross-country comparisons and can highlight areas for governance reform. ## What are the SGI? The SGI is a project conducted by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a German non-profit organization. It evaluates and compares the governance capacities of OECD and EU member states across three main dimensions: 1. Policy Performance: This examines a government's ability to effectively address pressing policy challenges, such as economic, social, environmental, and security issues. 2. Democracy: The SGI looks at the quality of democratic institutions, including electoral processes, access to information, civil rights, and political participation. 3. Governance: This dimension evaluates the government's steering capability, resource efficiency, and international cooperation in policymaking. ## Benefits of Benchmarking with the SGI By comparing a country's performance against the SGI benchmarks, public sector leaders can: - Identify areas of strength and weakness in their governance systems - Learn from the best practices of top-performing countries - Develop more targeted strategies for improving sustainable governance - Track progress and changes over time The SGI provides an objective, data-driven assessment that can inform evidence-based policymaking and public sector reforms. ## Applying the SGI in Practice Public agencies can use the SGI as a starting point for self-assessment and benchmarking. This can involve: - Analyzing the country's overall SGI scores and rankings - Diving deeper into specific policy areas or governance dimensions - Comparing performance with peer countries or regional/global averages - Engaging stakeholders to discuss the findings and develop improvement plans # SAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS ## Part A 1. Explain Moore's public value model and provide examples of how it has been applied in Hong Kong or another region. 2. What are the key principles of good governance, as defined by the United Nations? Discuss how these principles can be measured using global benchmarking frameworks like the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) or the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). 3. Describe the different dimensions of "publicness" that determine the nature of an organization, using examples to illustrate the continuum between public and private. 4. Analyze the strengths and limitations of using various policy instruments, such as direct provision, subsidies, and regulation, to address complex social issues. Provide examples from the public sector. 5. Evaluate how Mintzberg's "normative control-model" of governance, which emphasizes values and beliefs, compares to the "performance-control-model" in terms of their implications for public sector management and service delivery. ## Part B 1. Compare and contrast Mintzberg's "network-model" of governance, which emphasizes coordination and cooperation, with the "co-production model" of public service delivery. Discuss which approach is better suited to provide greater decentralization and citizen engagement. 2. Examine how the government can leverage different policy instruments, such as contracting-out, public-private partnerships, and the use of intermediaries, to shape and support the co-production model of service delivery. Provide examples to illustrate your points. 3. Analyze the trade-offs between centralized and decentralized governance structures, particularly in the context of social service provision. Discuss how the choice of governance model can impact the ability to ensure equity, responsiveness, and effective implementation. 4. Explain how the concept of "public value" can be used to guide the design and evaluation of collaborative governance approaches, such as co-design and co-creation. Illustrate your answer with relevant case studies. 5. Assess the strengths and limitations of using global benchmarking frameworks, like the SGI or WGI, to measure the quality of governance in a specific jurisdiction, such as Hong Kong. Discuss the implications for policymakers and public sector reform.