NPM in Developing Countries (Comparing the Cases of Singapore and Bangladesh)

          NPM techniques have been imported by some developing countries and transition economies to reform the public sector and to provide sufficient public services. The NPM reforms succeeded in some countries and failed in others.

 There are some preconditions for successfully implanting the NPM approach.1) There should be a reasonable level of economic development, experience of the operations of markets, and a well-developed judicial system to ensure the rule of law.2) Political commitment 3) State capacity. I felt it is worth exploring two different results of applying NPM in developing countries – a successful example from Singapore and a failed example in Bangladesh.

        In the case of Singapore, this country possessed special economic, political, and social circumstances that were behind the success of the application of NPM reforms.  Singapore is a small country in size compared with many other Asian countries and this was a motivating factor in enhancing economic growth rapidly in order to be able to compete with other countries in the region. Thus, the government put attracting foreign investment and the expansion of private sector activities at the top of its priorities. New approaches were introduced, including accountability and anti-corruption policies.

           Unlike Singapore, Bangladesh had an unstable political situation. It also suffered from a highly bureaucratic system and many other barriers such as a weak economy, the absence of security and weak law and order, all of which undermined attempts to enhance economic performance and reform the public sector.

           On the one hand, Singapore had a strong stance and achieved considerable success in reforming its public sector through following many NPM approaches. It was well-prepared economically and politically to embrace and implement NMP. It should be also considered that Singapore’s implementation of NPM spread over several decades(1960s to 1990s). On the other hand, the political and economic circumstances in Bangladesh were not as favorable as in Singapore. Although Bangladesh succeeded in obtaining democracy in 1991, which was supposed to help combat corruption and end the bureaucratic system, the bureaucracy remains in existence and it resists any attempt to reform it.

              The commitment of political leaders to the reform of the public sector and their support for the wide application of NPM from the early stages of reforms was one of the important reasons behind the success of NPM in Singapore. In contrast, political leaders in Bangladesh used to call for reform but they did not undertake effective actions to achieve it. The wide gap between state capacity in Singapore and Bangladesh can also explain the reasons behind the failure of Bangladesh’s attempts at reform. Education is another strong factor that helped Singapore to achieve such success as Singapore has considered education the cultural and social base of the country