Contextualizing the meaning of public management reforms: a comparison of the Netherlands and South Korea

Previous literature has demonstrated that the apparent global convergence between public management reforms is misleading because there are major differences in how a global paradigm of reform is implemented. This is not only a question of implementation, but also of interpretation. Even when reforms are similar with respect to the administrative measures that are implemented, they can have significantly different political and cultural meanings, depending on the broader state—society relations within which they are embedded. A cross-national analysis of reforms must therefore take sufficient account of the historical development of the position of the state and of state—civil society relations. To demonstrate the point, the article compares public management reforms in the Netherlands and South Korea. Points for practitioners Although cross-national comparison of public management reforms can be a source of inspiration, it is crucial to keep in mind that similar reforms can have different meanings depending on the national context and thus can result in different policies, programmes, and institutions. For practitioners in public management and administration, this implies that, before importing ‘good’ practices from elsewhere, it is imperative to assess how those practices were part of broader historical developments in the country of origin and to what extent the conditions within the country of destination are different.