Contemporary Issues in Development Administration

Ben Asuelimen Ijie & Michael Omohimi Iyoriobhe

Department of Public Administration

Faculty of Management Sciences
Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma

Abstract

Poorly functioning of public-sector institutions and weak governance are major constraints to
growth and equitable development in many developing countries. This paper seeks to advance
contemporary strategies for achieving successful development along the New Public
Management (NPM) paradigm. This new thinking guarantees the realization of development
concerns at all levels. Applying the descriptive research methodology, the paper guides readers
towards understanding some contemporary issues in the administration of development. Some
of these issues include: governing by contract; development planning; economic structural
adjustment program; capacity development and institutional development; decentralization in
the public sector; public-private partnership and tri-parties’ partnerships for economic
development and coordination in public policy. The paper concludes by laying out an agenda
for action, which improves policy performance, efficiency, robustness, adaptability and good
governance.

Keywords: Tri-parties’ partnerships, governing by contract, development planning, strategic

management

Introduction
Modern strategic thoughts in public administration otherwise known as New Public
Management emphasis the use of networks, partnerships, collaborations and very many other
terms that underscore governance as an external engagement rather than an internal process of
organizations. This new model involves public organizations collaborating with stakeholders
in joint decision-making procedures in a consensus-oriented, formal and premeditated way
(Berkett, Challenger, Sinner, & Tadaki 2013).
Contemporary governance is described as fundamentally social-political and it’s seen as
relatively continuous procedures of relations between societal actors, forces, groups and public
authorities, organizations or institutions. Interaction is key and is recognized as a sequence of
co-arrangements amongst non-state and state actors, more concerned towards collaborative
tactics to problem-solving. In such models, the communication of knowledge and information
and its valuation by means of those involved act a vital role; and negotiation instead of
directives has turn out to be an alternative mechanism of handing the ambiguity and complexity
problems which are political and social.
Issues like inequality, poverty, absence of rural development and unemployment can be
attributed to a combination of economic, political and social forces, which are internal and
external, which likely limit economic, political and social development. Development

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOLUME 3, NO. MARCH 1, 2018 | ISSN: 2536-7048
administration is therefore recognized as a strategic factor for successful economic and social
development. It can influence and determine the success of any development plan and also
susceptible to deliberate social control and change. The inadequacy of development
administration in numerous developing nations is now acknowledged as a foremost hindrance
to development, perhaps a more serious impediment than the dearth of capital for infrastructure
projects or Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). It is against this backdrop that Herbert Emmerich
a renowned Public Administrator, estimates that eighty (80) per cent of development plans
worldwide are incapable of being fulfilled due to an administrative lacuna (Adah & Abasilim,
2015).

Development Administration is about projects, programs, policies and ideas that are focused
on nation-building, with the viewpoint that socio-economic and socio-political development of
a society should be undertaken by talented and skilled bureaucrats (Ibietan, 2014). Harry
Friedman defines development administration as a means of program implementation for socio-
economic progress; effective monitoring of the nation-building process; and administrative
modifications to keep the establishment updated. Edward Weidner a development
administrator, defines development administration as the course of guiding a firm on the way
to the accomplishment of progressive political, economic and social objectives, which are
authoritatively determined in one manner or the other (Makinde, 2005).

Concept of Modern Governance

Modern governance involves the interaction of public, private, corporate sectors, and civil
society. It shares obligation for administration of sound growth by addressing the concerns of
transparency, openness, accountability, participation, predictability and rule of law (United
Nations Development Program, 2011).

The developmental alternatives in the arena of public administration which intellectuals usually
refer to as paradigm moves emphasize the new model of governance, which contributes to the
use of networks, stakeholders, partnerships and collaboration in policy and processes of
government. The subject espouses the core governance challenges that build agreement around
some lasting socio-political and economic organization and interrelationship of various groups
or stakeholders. It recognizes how to rationalize administrative structure to make it further
efficient regardless of whether a scientific administrative approach or political evaluation
approach is emphasized.

Early scholars in public administration have emphasized the dichotomy concerning politics and
public administration. Gulick and Urwick (1937) progressed more from separation to advocate
the principles of administration. They foresee a science of administration fully separated from
politics, which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, for more effective and
strengthened to disinfect its organization, and to crest its responsibilities with dutifulness (Gale,
1968). The achievement of good governance, therefore, remains a distant dream in the
absence of a vital and effective tool for public management.
Good Governance on the other hand as conceptualized by former World Bank President,
Barber Conable, means civic service that is effectual, a legal structure that is dependable, and
administration which is answerable to its public. (World Bank, 1994). This idea of good
governance essentially stressed the importance of ethically sound political leadership,
democracy, human rights and transparency and accountability reforms.
The duty of the state is to generate economic, legal and political conducive atmosphere for
enhancing individual competences and inspire private enterprises. Although the market is
anticipated to generate opportunities for individuals, the part of civil society is facilitating.
Development actions under the governance sector revolve around knowledge management,
organizational restructuring, institutional reforms, judicial reforms, law and order, professional
development, and service delivery.

These ‘goodness’ in governance conferring to The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) entail of the
following:
1) Performing in the interest of the public: government bodies should performance in the
interest of public all the time, which requires a strong obligation to integrity, right
values, openness, rule of law and broad engagement of stakeholder.
2) Defining results in relations to viable economic, environmental and social benefits;
3) Determining the interferences required to optimize the accomplishment of proposed
outcomes;
4) Developing the ability of the individual, including the competence of its leadership and
individuals inside it;
5) Handling performance and risks through vigorous internal control and robust financial
management of the public; and
6) Employing good practices in reporting to bring effective accountability.
Thus, while recognizing the necessity for engagement of stakeholder or participation of
non-governmental groups in government procedures as the other replicas of
governance, the suitable governance prototypical emphasizes the prominence of
government official’s role to performance in the interest of the public via visionary and
active leadership, transparency, integrity, and accountability.
Development Planning
Development planning is the main strategy employed by numerous governments and firms to
set their missions, visions, goals, and active means of achieving development (Onwuemele,
2013). It supports the government in planning for diversity and integrated national
development. Development plan entails constructing approaches to spatial planning which
address differences and equality of opportunity.
Diversity plan help to address problems of social justice, discrimination, social exclusion and
environmental issues (Reeves, 2005). Fundamentally development planning denotes the
tactical assessable goals that an individual, community or organization plans to achieve within
a sure time. Frequently, the development design contains time-based standards. It normally
also comprises the criteria needed to evaluate if or not the aims were truly met. Development
planning broadly involves determining a country’s missions, visions, programmes and policies
in all aspects of life like political, social, environmental, human and technological aspects, and
the resources of accomplishing them.
Economic visions and National Development Plans in Nigeria
According to Onwuemele (2013), development planning in Nigeria happened under three eras;
the Period of Fixed- Term Planning (1962-1985), Period of Rolling Plan which span from
(1990-1998), New Democratic Dispensation (1999 until date).

3
The period of Fixed Medium-Term Plan (1962-1985) observed four efficacious plans in Nigeria.
Firstly, National Development Plan (1962-1968). Secondly is National Development Plan
(1970-1974), Thirdly National Development Plan (1975-1980) and Fourthly National
Development Plan (1981-1985). Aside from development plans; the Nigeria government has
also utilized other strategies aimed at achieving accelerated development is critical sectors of
the economy.
Table 1: Some Recent Development Programs in Nigeria

S/n Economic Sector Development Strategy Year

1 Employment promotion National Poverty Eradication Program (NAPEP) 2002

Program

2 Poverty Reduction National Economic Empowerment and 2001

Strategy Development Strategy (NEEDS)

3 Poverty Reduction Seed Economic Empowerment and Development 2001

Strategy Strategy (SEEDS)

4 Poverty Reduction Local Economic Empowerment and Development 2001

Strategy Strategy (LEEDS)

5 Economic Development Nigerian Vision 20-20 Program 2009

Program

Source: Authors

Capacity Development and Institutional Development

The direct impact of development administration is the disclosure of the administrative

hindrances to the setting and execution of the development agenda. The exposé brought
forward the capacity lacuna and stimulated the interest of public administration practitioners
and stakeholders to find a solution to the gaps in human and institutional capacity. Hence, the
new public administration paradigm stressed the importance of capacity and institutional
development, utilization, promotion and creation of job opportunities.
According to Onwuemele, (2013), capacity development are the activities, approaches,
strategies, and methodologies which help organizations, groups and individuals to improve
their performance, generate development benefits and achieve their objectives. Onwuemele,
(2013) stressed the importance of manpower development, utilization, promotion and creation
of job opportunities for overall national development. Rodman (1968 opined that capacity
development is the process by which individuals and organizations increase their abilities to
successfully apply their skills and resources toward the accomplishment of their goals and the
satisfaction of their stakeholders’ expectations corroborates this view
Table 2: Some Human Capital Development programs in Nigeria

S/n Economic Sector Development Strategy Year

1 Employment Promotion National Manpower Board 1962

Programme
 2 Employment Promotion Expatriate Quota Allocation Policy 1963
Programme

3 Employment Promotion The Industrial Training Fund (ITF) 1973

Programme

4 Employment Promotion Administrative Staff College of Nigeria 1973

Programme (ASCON)

5 Employment Promotion Centre for Management (CMD) 1976

Programme

6 Employment Promotion National Directorate of Employment (NDE) 1989

Programme

Source: Authors

Economic Structural Adjustment Programme

Economic Structural Adjustment Policies (ESAP) are economic policies, which nations must
abide with in order to be suitable for new International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan and that of
World Bank and assist them in debt repayments on outstanding debts owing to commercial
banks, World Bank and governments (Mlambo, 1997). Although Structural Adjustment
Programme (SAPs) are intended for individual nations but have shared guiding ideologies and
characteristics which comprise privatization export-led growth and liberalization; and the
efficacy of free market. Hence, Lensink (1996) argues that SAPs consists of loans delivered by
the IMF and the World Bank (WB) to nation state that encounter crises in their economy. SAPs
are formed with the goal of decreasing the borrowing nation's fiscal imbalances or to adjust the
growth for long-term (Lall, 1995).

Lensink (1996) further observed that SAPs mostly require nations to devalue its currencies
compared to the dollar; boost export and import restrictions; stabilize its budgets, eliminate
overspending; and eliminate price controls and subsidies of state.

Devaluation enable their product inexpensive for foreigners to buy and tentatively, makes
foreign importations more costly. In principle, it should cause the nation wary of purchasing
costly foreign equipment. In reality, however, the IMF essentially disrupts this by
recompensing the nation with a huge foreign currency loan and that inspires them to purchase
imports,(Mlambo ,1997). Balancing countrywide budgets can be achieve by increasing taxes,
which the IMF glares upon, or by reducing spending of government which it recommends (Lall,
1995). As such, SAPs usually result in high cuts in programs like health, education and social
care, and removal of grants intended to regulate the price of essentials like food. So, SAPs
offend the mostly the poor, because they rely heavily on this subsidies and services (Mlambo,
1997). SAPs inspire countries to pay attention on the manufacture and export of merchandises
like coffee, cocoa and to receive foreign exchange. However, these produces have extremely
erratic prices owing to the whims of international markets that can decrease prices just when
nations have invested in these cash crops (Mlambo, 1997).

Decentralization in the Public Sector

According to UNDP (1997), decentralizing governance or decentralization, is the

reorganization or restructuring of authority to facilitate a system of co-responsibility among

5
establishments of governance at all levels. This operates in alignment to the norm of
subsidiarity, thus boosting the total effectiveness and quality of the governance system while
enhancing the capacities and authority of sub-national levels (Treisman, 2000).
Decentralization of government is one of the most vexatious public-sector management issues.
While adopted in virtually every large country, its form and structure differ widely and is
always contentious United Nation Development Programme (1998). Decentralization
of government is promoted on the basis of the following objectives:
▪ It brings government closer to the people and hence makes it more accountable
▪ It allows the government to be more responsive to people since the localized
government is in a better position to understand the needs and priorities of the people
▪ It can be more cost effective since it is easier for local government to develop locally
suitable response mechanisms to deal with local needs.
While all of the above is generically true, these principles do not necessarily apply in every
context. Hence, the issue of decentralization must be dealt with cautiously, keeping in mind
that a particularly successful model in one country need not be appropriate in another. Treisman
(2000) distinguishes among different types of decentralization:
1. Structural decentralization - refers simply to the sum of tiers of government. The
higher tiers there are, the additional decentralized the system become. For example,
Singapore, where local government do not exist distinct from the nationwide
government, is maximally centralized. China, which has four tiers of government below
the national government-provinces; prefectures; counties and county-level cities;
villages, townships, and city districts-is far more decentralized.
2. Decision decentralization-focuses on the scope of issues in which government of
subnational can choose autonomously (i.e., lacking fear of being overridden by higher
level governments). A nation whose constitution investments a large division of
policymaking zones to the government of subnational is further decentralized than that
in which the ultimate decisions of issues are the central government’s preserve.
3. Resource decentralization-refers to how resources of government (manpower,
revenues) are shared among central and subnational tiers. Also, the extent of autonomy
and capacity of local governments to increase their own revenue.
4. Electoral decentralization this is the technique in which subnational officers are
selected. If subnational officers are locally chosen (by appointment or election by local
communities), the system is farther decentralized in this sense that if entirely local
officers are selected by the principal authorities.
5. Institutional decentralization-concerns the degree that subnational communities or its
legislative body have recognised rights in the processes of central decision-making. A
system whereby the legislatures of the state must ratify legitimate amendments is
farther decentralized in this sense than that in which the constituents can be altered by
fair national referendum. Nations whereby states have noteworthy veto powers above
central legislature through their legislative body are furthermore “institutionally
decentralized".
Decentralization tends to supply vital elements of good governance, like increasing
opportunities for people to participation in social, political and economic decisions; helping in
developing abilities of the people; and stimulating responsiveness, accountability and
transparency of the government.
The World Bank (2013) offers an alternative typology for administrative (not necessarily
political) decentralization:
 1. Deconcentration: This redistributes decision-making authority, management and
financial responsibilities among various levels of the central government. It merely
shifts responsibilities from the officials of the central government in the capital city to
the regional, district or provincial workers, or create a strong local administrative or
field administration capacity under central government ministries’ supervision.
2. Delegation: This is a more general form of decentralization in which transfer of
responsibility for decision-making and administration of public functions is made from
central governments to semi-autonomous organizations not fully regulated by the
central government, but ultimately accountable to it. Responsibilities are delegated by
Government when public enterprises or corporations, authorities, special service
districts, transportation authorities, housing, semi-autonomous school districts, regional
development corporations, or special project implementation units are created. Usually,
there are great deals of discretion in decision-making by organizations which may be
exempt from constraints on regular civil service personnel and may be able to charge
users directly for services.
3. Devolution: This is the third type of administrative decentralization. Governments can
devolve functions by transferring authority for decision-making, quasi-autonomous
management units and finance of local government with corporate status. Devolution
often transfers duties of services to metropolises that selects councils and mayors for
themselves, generate self-revenues, and own independent authority to make investment
decisions. Local governments in a devolved system have lucid and legally identified
geographical boundaries over which authority is exercised and in which public
functions are performed. This is the type of administrative decentralization that
characterise most political decentralization.
Decentralization according to UNDP (1998) also aims at an economic and political system that
responds more closely to people’s preferences and requirements. By linking the differences
between users of goods and services, and suppliers, measures of decentralization tend to
achieve three major objectives:
▪ Improved efficiency in service provision
▪ More transparency of service providers
▪ Better accountability to service users.
Decentralization of the public administration may associate with political democratization this
is by changing the duties and resources among certain levels and agents of the government.
There is a closer and more accountable relationship between the electorate and the people in
power when the people freely elect local governments. Politicians are more accessible and
approachable (Treisman, 2000). The political debate is expected to pay more attention on
location-specific issues and is more responsive to the citizen voter. This, in turn, is expected to
restructure the expenditure of the public as it concerns the mix of activities that receives support
from the public, and the distribution of public expenditure over the national territory.
Decentralization according to (Treisman, 2000) will aid the following:
1. Increase the transparency of decision-making
2. Improve the quality and quantity of services it provides
3. Increase the willingness to pay for services received
4. Improve cost recovery, and facilitate resource raising from sources other than the
central government
5. Reduce the total expenditure of government.

7
World Bank (2013) further highlighted as the underlying assumptions on which these
potential benefits of decentralization rest include:
a) Representative elected bodies: Each member of the council has a directive to
articulate the needs of an identifiable constituency and can be held accountable.
b) Inclusive local decision-making: Decision-making that does not systematically
exclude the most vulnerable groups, poorest, specific ethnic or social groups.
Potential problem of decentralization according to World Bank (2013) include:

• Elite capture
• Corruption
• Patronage politics
• Feeling of compromise by Local civil servants
• Impedes further decentralization
• Incomplete information
• Inability of Constituents to hold representatives accountable
• Upwards and downwards effects of accountability by decisions of Opaque
• Delays of rationalizes reform and central clawback of power

Public-Private Partnership and Tri-parties Partnerships for Economic Development

A public-private partnership (PPP) is a type of contract in which the public partner entrusts
some responsibilities to a private partner under a long-term contract. The term of the contract
defines the rights and obligations of each party during the term as well as the mode of financial
re-equilibrium arising from unforeseen events or lack of compliance of the parties (Marques,
2007). PPPs are agent of infrastructural development, thus nurturing economic development.
They are associated with such infrastructures as ports, power, roads, airports, water, and
treatment of solid waste, and typically involve investment, operation, and maintenance. PPPs
are also used in social infrastructures like health and education, e.g., construction and
maintenance of a hospital or school facilities, but can also include total or partial clinical or
education services.

PPPs are complex long-term contracts (Marques, 2007). They typically span between 15 to 25
years, sometimes more, depending on the type of the project. During the period, demographics,
environment, technology, and politics may change, so there is need for flexibility of contracts
to regulate to the lifecycle of the project. PPP’s art resides in the distribution of the project’s
risks and in the definition of the principles, rules and framework, to tackle change because it
will occur.

According to the Government Finance Officers Association, if governments desires a PPP

alignment, it should check the following tools, processes, and practices in carrying out due
diligence on PPP agreements:
1. Conduct an Initial Review of Project Feasibility: Public entities should conduct a
feasibility study to determine long- and short-term financial viability of the project.
This realistic evaluation must be the initial review that determines demand, expected
revenues, project risks, cash flows, and the tendency to actualise the goals of the project.
All economic development and redevelopment projects are subject to overall market
fluctuations and involve the risk that the project will not deliver expected outcomes.
 2. Evaluate the Project for Consistency with Community Priorities and Long-Term
Strategic Plans: All PPP Agreements should agree with the financial policies and
overall strategic, master plans of the organization. Also, the organization should assess
the project’s objectives and ascertain if participation in the project is in line with the
mission of the government.
3. Identify any Unmet Competencies on the Government Staff: Difficult projects will
need specialized resources; however, internal staff will be able to conduct the analysis
with other different agreement of P3. For all P3 Agreements, the organization will need
to gather a team that contains analysts, resources with industry related expertise, legal
counsel, potentially a financial advisor/municipal advisor with economic development
expertise, and/or bond counsel. Early determination of whether outside resources are
needed to complement staff resources in executing the recommended processes of this
best practice should be done by public entities.
4. Determine the Fiscal and Economic Impact of the Project: The public entity should
establish the likely economic and fiscal impacts, taking into account uncertainties in
the calculation or risk of the proposed project. Factors to consider when identifying
potential costs and benefits include:

Governing by Contract

Governing by contract is aimed at making governance more innovative, effective, and

responsive to citizens’ demands. In addition, there are now more private organizations as
service providers involved (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). The aims of public sector reforms have
also been set by the need to renew the public sector’s governing system and practices (Osborn
& Gaebler, 1992). Governing by contracts, or contract management, are new practices with the
purpose to create a new model for governing public services.

The role of contracts in governance help in the acceleration of development through building
relationships between governmental organizations and other agencies, communities, nonprofit
groups, and private firms. This offers an opportunity for a focused evaluation of the criteria
and trade-offs, integration, agreement and authority, separation and transformation, operations,
and capacity building. Governance by contract has the merits of seamless and interrupted
implementation of the public-private partnership since it gives direction on operating, forming,
transformation and terminating contracts among the inter-governmental relations’
complexities.

Governing by contract sees public sector organizations as a chain of low-trust principal/agent

relationships (rather than fiduciary or trustee-beneficiary ones) and a network of contracts
connecting incentives to performance. Government disaggregates separable functions into
quasi-market forms or quasi-contractual, particularly by introducing provider/purchaser
distinctions. Open up provider roles to competition between firms and not-for-profit bodies,
public agencies; and de-concentrates provider roles to the smallest feasible sized agency,
allowing more scope for 'exit' for users from one provider to another, instead of relying on
'voice' options to influence how public service provision affects them (Weber, 1978).

Coordination in Public Policy

To attain improved public management and administration that will guarantee "doing things
right" then the policy-making process might be described as determining the appropriate things
to do so that government is "doing the right things". In Nigeria, as in other transition economies,
public action through government is being restructured to meet the needs of modern "market

9
economies". Aware of their weak policy-making environment, most developing nations now
pursue reforms to support policy coordination. These reforms are expected to drive the
strengthening government public administration systems to create the mechanisms for
horizontal coordination of public policies-making processes. This maximizes the effectiveness
of limited resources, intermission between public policy areas and international policies.
Solving the difficulties in a consistent manner need efficient coordination, improving
cooperation between ministries and involving citizens in the planning of which more work still
has to be done.

This aligns with the New Public Management (NPM) strategic thought that focuses on issues
like administrative decentralization and delegation of authority, managerial autonomy, and
flexibility. Performance measurement has also been strongly emphasized. The logic of new
public management is that there should be governing big issues and less governing in small
issues. Based on the NPM development, Pollitt and Bouckhaert (2000) stress that output-based
accountability which prioritizes effective and efficient service delivery above input and
process-based models that focuses on means and procedures. Therefore, such varied
managerial features as behavior, strategic stance, and the stability of managerial and front-line
personnel have stronger links to performance (O’Toole &Meier 2010).

9.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

Irrespective of the use of the term governance to refer to the new method to public service
processes since the 1990s which involve the use of partnership and networks in public service
delivery, the concept remains important to understanding the basis of the relationship between
the citizens and the government of a country. Governance and public administration systems
centers on different things including leadership, especially, the ability of the leadership class
to build broad-based national and regional coalitions and focus energies towards the realization
of the citizens’ welfare (Kauzya & Balogun, 2005).

The classical shifts in public administration describe various government efforts to adapt and
adopt new and better ways of satisfying the public and the scholarly attempts to rationalize
those approaches. Less is not said of the new governance paradigm. As Kauzya and Balogun
(2005) further remark the close point, concerning governance reform, as building a consensus
around some enduring socio-political traditions and values. This consensus building as seen in
the case of Nigeria calls for a public dialogue on the basis of nationhood.

The freedom of any group of people or an individual seems to be a higher value, while the
sovereignty of a nation remains sacrosanct. This is the need for individual’s right to seek
citizenship in another country. In the same way, there should be availability of the right to self-
determination to various groups that becomes citizens of the Nigerian federation by sheer force
of exploitative colonial project. Perhaps, a re-visit of the colonial balkanization and
restructuring of the basis of statehood of the country, which had remained a recurring decimal
in the history of the country could be a radical way to lay a solid governance foundation. If
there could still be a revisiting of the relationship between England and Scotland through the
Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014, and the eventual unification of Scotland, England,
and Wales in 1707 as Great Britain, then it is not too late to begin paying consideration to the
sobs of self-determination happening in parts of Nigeria, Africa and the world at large as a way
of resolution to persistent governance catastrophe in these countries.
References

Gale, T. (1968). Public administration. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

Retrieved November 20, 2017,
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA, 2017). Public-Private Partnerships for
Economic Development and Redevelopment. Retrieved on 23 November 2017.
http://www.gfoa.org/P3-economic-development-and-redevelopment
Gulick, L.H. and Urwick, L.F. (1937). Papers on the Science of Administration. New
York, NY: Harcourt.
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC, 2013). Good governance in the public
sector-Consultation draft for an international framework. Retrieved September 23,
2016, www.ifac.org
Lall, S. (1995). Structural adjustment and the African industry. World Development. 23(12):
2019–2031.
Lensink, R. (1996). Structural adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa (1st ed.). Longman.
Marcellus, I. O. (2009). Development Planning in Nigeria: Reflections on the National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) 2003-2007. Journal of
Social Science.3(20), 197-210
Marques D. I. (2007). How Do You Build Effective Public-Private Partnerships? Yale
School of Management. Retrieved on 23 November 2017.
http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-do-you-build-effective-public-private-
partnerships
Mlambo, A.S. (1997). The Economic Structural Adjustment Programme: The Case of
Zimbabwe, 1990-1995. Harare, University of Zimbabwe Publications.
O’Toole, J. and Meier, K.J. (2010). In defence of bureaucracy. Public Management Review,
12(3), 341-361.
Okey M.I.; Ogbonnaya E. O.; and Arinze E. O., (2017). Governance paradigm in public
administration and the dilemma of the national question in Nigeria.Cogent Social
Sciences Journal, 3:
Onwuemele, A. (2013). Development Planning and Employment Generations:
Achievements, Challenges and Prospects in Nigeria. JORIND 11(1).
www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind.Retrieved on 26
November 2017.
Onwuemele, A. (2013). Development Planning and Employment Generations:
Achievements, Challenges and Prospects in Nigeria JORIND 11(1).
www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind
Osborn, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Reading, MA; Addison-
Westley.
Pollit, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative
Analysis.Oxford; Oxford University Press.

11
Rodman, P.W. (1968). Development administration: Obstacles, theories and implications
for planning. Paris, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Treisman D. (2000). The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-national Study. Journal of Public

Economics, 76: 399-457.
UNDP (1997). Decentralized Governance Programme: Strengthening Capacity for People-
Centered Development, Management Development and Governance Division. Bureau
for Development Policy, September, p. 4
UNDP (1998). Decentralized Governance Monograph: A Global Sampling of Experiences,
Management Development and Governance Division. Bureau for Policy Development,
p. 6
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Los Angeles. University of California Press
World Bank (2013). Decentralization. Retrieved on 22 November 2017.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/communitydrivendevelopment/brief/Decentralizati
on
World Bank (1994). Governance: The World Bank’s experience. Washington, DC: p. (xii)