Public Organiz Rev (2012) 12:139–155

DOI 10.1007/s11115-011-0164-5

Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development:

The Arab States

Jamil E. Jreisat

Published online: 14 June 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Administrative capacity is imperative for effective performance of

governance. Although results of administrative capacity are recognizable and
demonstrable, there is no consensus on what basic elements such capacity is made
of; nor do we know for sure how to develop, measure, or sustain administrative
capacity. Development of administrative capacity requires unbundling it, and
assessing each of its components independently, in order to define their individual
and mutual effects on the collective capacity of the system. This analysis explores
and defines some constant and variable components of administrative capacity, with
a particular reference to the Arab states. Rethinking the question of capacity, and
constructing a functional strategy for its improvement, includes critical processes of
internal management and contextual effects on the structure and function of the
management system.

Keywords Administrative capacity . Administrative reform . Arab Bureaucracy .

Public management . Governance

Administrative capacity

Development of administrative capacity, and steering it to serve the objectives of

governance, has been a constant challenge for public administration theory and
practice. A primary purpose of most initiatives of administrative reform is the
enhancement of administrative capacity of public organizations and governance in
order to perform their duties and meet their responsibilities. “Improved performance
does not happen on demand. Performance is not likely to occur in the absence of
fundamental organizational capacity” (Ingraham 2007: 6). The United Nations

J. E. Jreisat (*)
Department of Government and International Affairs, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-
8100, USA
e-mail: Jreisat@usf.edu
140 J.E. Jreisat

Development Program defines administrative capacity “as the ability of individuals

and organizations or organizational units to perform functions effectively, efficiently
and sustainably” (UNDP 2006: 2). A comparable conception of management
capacity is: “the ability of governments to fulfill the responsibilities of democratic
governance” (Ingraham 2007: 3). The main premise in both definitions is that
managerial capacity determines performance but is not performance itself.
Administrative capacity and management capacity are used here interchangeably,
although the latter is usually more tuned to the operational dimension. Management
capacity is manifest in demonstrable competence and professionalism in the conduct
of public affairs. Although building administrative capacity is often a declared
primary objective of public management reform, systematic knowledge and reliable
information about such capacity remain limited and underdeveloped. In the literature
capacity is often used either too narrowly or too broadly to mean different things to
different people. Governance capacity, administrative capacity, institutional capacity,
organizational capacity, economic capacity, and military capacity are only few of
those generic and overlapping designations. “Capacity building is among the most
misused terms in the literature and is too often narrowly understood as simply
training of employees” (Schiavo-Campo and McFerson 2008: 472).
Administrative capacity is relative; it is not at the same level of development in all
organizations even those in the same country. Organizations with appropriate
capacities initiate actions, implement activities, achieve objectives, enjoy public
trust, and are crucial factors in the overall effectiveness of governance. “Nothing gets
done without administrative capacity” (Farazmand 2009: 1016). Public policy
decisions would be utterly inconsequential without the capacity and the instruments
to carry them out, no matter how representative or democratically formulated.
Many reasons necessitate rethinking administrative capacity as a vital issue in
public management. First, administrative capacity is “the most essential component
of the capacity to govern a nation, its economy, and its institutions, both civilian and
military” (Farazmand 2009: 1016, 1017). Second, societies are changing dramati-
cally, which requires refocusing and redirecting the efforts to build and to develop
appropriate administrative capacities. “One of the most important issues of the
contemporary world is the rapidly changing nature and role of government and the
process of governance and administration, in the age of accelerated globalization”
(Farazmand 2004: 1). Third, globalism and change in technology rendered many
traditional models of management inadequate and often insufficient to provide
desirable levels of performance by public organizations. “Organizations have
changed about as much in the past decade or two as in the previous century”
(Bolman and Deal 2003:10). The profound change introduced by globalization
underlines the need for a global outlook, and for global responses in dealing with
growing supranational concerns. In many areas of global interactions the old
management models that assume a hierarchy and a central command are not
functional anymore (Farazmand 2009; Jreisat 2004).
Alternative models that do not assume central authority and command, but are
based on cooperation and negotiated agreements, are already in service at the
international level of decision making. Such models rely greatly on the power of
persuasion and effective communication of facts and evidence. The dramatic
changes in communication information technology (CIT) have modified attitudes
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 141

and improved competence in the utilization of such new tools for building
management capacity. Qualitative improvements in managing human resources and
enhancing their skills have been an objective of public management in numerous
countries as the approach for dealing with new demands on public management and
on governance. But, human resources are only a part of many essential elements of
management capacity.

Key elements of capacity

To change the capacity of a management system, we need to identify and to define

its key components that exert considerable influence on its overall performance.
Although some of these elements may be more important in certain systems than in
others, it is important to account for those frequently recognized for their impact on
the total capacity. Unbundling or breaking down management capacity into its main
specific elements is indispensable for effective reform, and for measurement of
progress in reform initiatives. Based on the literature, the most often emphasized
components of management capacity include the financial process, human
resources, information technology, managing with facts and data, public support
of and trust in governance, measurement of results, and leadership (Ingraham 2007:
6; Farazmand 2009, 2004; Klingner 2009: 21; Denhardt 2004; Pollitt and Bouckaert
2004: 196; Jreisat 2004:1021, 2002). Each of these key elements is distinct but
closely connected with the others to constitute the capacity of the system. The
following are brief definitions and descriptions of the critical elements:

1. Budget and the financial process help to ensure accountability and transpar-
ency and allocate financial resources where need is the highest (Hou 2007: 15).
Management of the financial process is a foundation for institutional capacity. A
well-managed financial process produces timely budget adoption, structural
balance between recurring revenues and expenditures, cost analysis, appropri-
ation control, performance audit, and other processes that serve the strategic
objectives of the system (Hou 2007: 15, 16). Sound budgeting and finance is a
basic contributor to management capacity.
2. Investment in human resources. Training is the most generic tool for improving
management capacity. In a broader sense, various other processes can be
improved through training such as creating opportunities for career advance-
ment, leadership development, and better utilization of technology, promoting a
culture of professional ethics, and advancing various measures of motivation.
The knowledge, skills, and motivation of public employees are critical
requirements of capacity building.
3. Utilization of data and technology. Professional management and well-managed
systems rely on data and manage by facts. The CIT, particularly the Internet and
social networks opened new channels of communication and exchange of
information on a variety of policy concerns ranging from national disasters to
national security. Making use of communication technology, including the
world-wide web, for delivering public information and services has been
referred to as the E- Government. The Internet in particular has a liberating and
142 J.E. Jreisat

democratizing effect on societies, and has empowered management of

organizations through immediate access to information and to citizens. The
CIT helped to penetrate political and other barriers, defying domination of news
and analyses by traditional commercial mass media, and directly reaching
people in and out of the organization. Today, public employees are increasingly
pressed to support their decisions with data and evidence. “ Internet is now the
most important international medium of communication and information
exchange, embedded in interactions between citizens, firms, governments and
NGOs, and bringing with it new practices, norms and structures” (Margetts
2010: 1). Information technology has already changed old habits of decision
making and improved management capacity by enlarging the knowledge-base
and increasing reliance on data in policy making.
4. Measurement of results. Performance management has been one of the most
far-reaching changes in public administration over decades. Management
capacity is gauged through performance measurement and the ability to take
corrective actions. Assessing performance is a universal management instrument
to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The traditional tendencies of public
management to drift into hierarchical controls and to generate rule-driven
rigidities invariably provided the justification and the rationale for measuring
performance. Performance-based public management allocates responsibility for
the performance of a system, and accountability for its results (Bouckaert and
Halligan 2008: 2). The practice of performance measurement requires defined
goals, appropriate indicators, and regular collection of data. Properly executed,
performance measurements infuse vital capacity in a management system.
5. Trust and confidence of citizens. Citizens expect their governance system to be
responsible in the legal sense (accountability) and in the ethical sense where
officials act according to established standards (professional ethics). Trust in
government is stimulated when the system operates equitably, effectively, and
efficiently. But it is corruption that has been a major source of public resentment
of leaders and managers who repeatedly commit ethical infractions in the
conduct of public duties. Corruption encompasses abuses by public officials
such as embezzlement, nepotism, bribery, extortion, influence peddling, and
fraud (Richter and Burke 2007:81). Most alarming is when corruption does not
elicit the necessary legal punishment or, more seriously, the social penalty that
negatively affects respectability in one’s community. When corruption is rooted
in the attitude and behavior of public servants, development ceases to be their
goal, self-enrichment becomes the focus (Jabbra 1989: 5).
Corruption of institutions and public officials, lacking legitimacy and support
of citizens, depleted trust in governance and intensified frustration of people
throughout the Arab world. Not surprising, the results have been revolutionary
explosions in many countries in 2011, dispatching combustible messages that
reverberated throughout the Middle East region and beyond. Although it was not
a single spark that ignited the fires or fueled the revolutionary reactions,
citizens’ alienation and distrust of governance to manage fairly and equitably are
certainly among the root causes of the turmoil.
6. Leadership is responsible for sustaining and integrating the various outputs and
outcomes of a functioning system of authority whether at the organizational or at
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 143

the national governance level. Leaders balance and coordinate various views and
initiatives in order to deliver the expected results. The organizational leader is
the center piece of the system, steering it to serve its mission and achieve its
final goals. “Organizations are complex social systems interacting with the
environment” (French and Bell 1995: 8). Thus, change may be stimulated from
within or by demands from outside the organization. Leaders “address and
embrace change from the perspective that change is an opportunity, not a threat”
(French and Bell 1995: 3). People at the top of the authority structure have
unique responsibilities of integrating numerous activities to ensure accomplish-
ing the main mission of the organization. As the epicenter of formal authority
and human behavior influence, leadership can be a major force for institutional
innovation and reform, or a major impediment to change.

National leaders have far more demanding and complex roles to perform. They
inspire people, stimulate intellectual creativity, articulate strategic visions and goals,
and integrate the many elements of the management system. Leaders also identify
and integrate the critical elements that make a difference in the functioning of the
system as they seek building management capacity. The following two examples
illustrate the importance of leadership in promoting or hindering administrative
capacity and effective overall performance of governance. One example from China
provides a lesson in the exercise of the role of leadership and demonstrating real
administrative capacity in action:

“Within 90 minutes of the first and largest quake on May 12, the prime
minister, Wen Jiabao, headed to the quake area from the capital in Beijing, and
by early evening on the same date, he was in the disaster area, having traveled
a distance of 1500 miles… President Hu Jintao held an emergency meeting
with the members of the Political Bureau…late in the evening of May 12; the
meeting lasted until the early morning of May 13. Thus, national leadership
from the very top was in charge of the crisis; many disaster-relief efforts were
proposed during the early phase of the emergency response” (Tsao (2009:
1021).

A second case in point from Ghana conveys that “a long history of failed
development strategies and different political leadership styles has left the citizens
disappointed in their leaders” (Tagoe 2011: 87). The author argues that “Ghana
needs transformational leaders who will be able to raise the quality of life of its
citizens” (Tagoe 2011: 87).
In sum, administrative capacity has multiple elements that are neither of equal
weight nor of constant status. The strength or weakness of any element is not a
permanent condition. These elements change over time and with context. The focus
on administrative capacity is not to underrate or exclude the overall capacity of
governance. The two capacities are mutually reinforcing, integrating, overlapping,
and complementing each other as a part and a total, or the micro and the macro
levels (Farazmand 2009). Still, it is useful, analytically, to separate the two distinct
structures with different basis of legitimacy of authority. Usually the distinction is
expressed in terms of political system and administrative system. Governance is the
144 J.E. Jreisat

overall macro level that includes both the political and the administrative structures
and functions. Regardless, the administrative capacity is a major part of governance
and is intimately connected to and complementing of the political system. The
primary concern here is with the administrative without excluding the political
impact when noticeable. One may add or delete from the list of elements that
contribute to administrative capacity, depending on the system under consideration.
Certainly, no one element alone is sufficient to reach the desired level of
administrative capacity. Such objective is achievable only by improving and
integrating all or most of relevant components. Experience from the Arab states
indicates that focusing on a single element such as training civil servants or
rearranging offices and reorganizing structures have not produced the projected
higher capacity. Public service seems virtually impervious to efforts of improving
professional competence and achieving acceptable standards of ethical conduct
regardless of various reports and recommendations by international consultants and
local management pundits (Common 2008: 178; Jabbra and Jabbra 2005: 136;
Jreisat 2006, 1997).

Institutional capacity of the Arab State

Formally, public institutions in Arab countries are entrusted with a broad range of
responsibilities. Post-independence Arab bureaucracies were called upon to maintain
law and order, execute decisions of the political leadership, and deliver the day-to-
day public services (Jabbra 1989:1). These functions were soon expanded to include
important responsibilities for national socio-economic development (Jreisat 1997).
While the earlier traditional functions continue to be urgent, the expansion of
administrative responsibilities and the unfolding global developments require
different institutional abilities. As Farazmand (2009: 1007) pointed out, the
twenty-first century “is characterized by rapid change, globalization, hyper-
competition and hyper-uncertainty.” The problem is that the Arab administrative
systems have not developed the necessary administrative capacity to manage
effectively within the old or the new conditions. Enabling political, economic, and
social environments that facilitate effective performance are lacking. To organize and
bring together qualities that can elevate overall performance of public management
is a continuing process that largely depends on internal and contextual realities. In
their pursuit of building administrative capacity, Arab bureaucracies have to contend
with various mingled deficiencies such as:

1. Low level of integration. As indicated earlier, one of the most critical tests of
effective governance is the ability to integrate the various elements and
dimensions of the management system to produce the desired state of capacity.
A successful strategy of capacity building has to be based on a long-range
vision, with the relevant values, skills, and knowledge to realize it. Generally,
Arab bureaucracies act as collections of poorly coordinated entities rather than
integrated varied components that produce coherent outcomes, serving the
common objectives of the state. Lack of such integration is starkly illustrated by
the following description of the bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia. “The large army of
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 145

Saudi bureaucrats can hardly act as a coherent force… bureaucratic sluggishness

or self-interest on a micro-scale can aggregate to something like a diffuse veto
over policies. . ..Changing existing institutions have proved much harder,
perpetuating administrative fragmentation.” (Hertog 2010: 19).
Inescapably, inquiries into capacity development lead directly to issues of
reform and governance. Several Arab states employed prescriptions for
developing institutional capacities that have been widely utilized such as new
technologies (internet, e-mail, and computer networks), restructuring managerial
processes, simplification of procedures, and training of employees. Although
such managerial techniques are important elements of change, they do not
constitute a unified strategy for sustainable capacity, particularly in the absence
of appropriate leadership. The development of managerial skills is not sufficient
to create essential conditions for continuous and comprehensive improvements
beyond the immediate and routine tasks (Common 2008; Jreisat 2006).
2. Data and knowledge deficit. The Arab Human Development Report (UNDP
2002: 25–27) identified “knowledge deficit in the Arab world” as a major
impediment to human development. The deficit of expert knowledge and
reliable data confines policy choices and strategic public decisions as well as
constitutes a major obstacle to improving the overall quality of public
management. When public managers lack facts and evidence to support their
decisions, they routinely turn to higher authority for direction. This, in turn,
serves to reinforce and to justify centralization. Thus, management discretion is
reduced to accommodate personal preferences of those in high authority, instead
of applying processes of “substantive reasoning about obligations, consequen-
ces, and ultimate ends” (Cooper 1998: xi). Also habitual compliance with the
wishes of top leaders, leads Arab public managers to ignore possible alternative
choices, inputs, facts, and opinions. Senior bureaucrats, fully aware of the power
that puts them in positions, also realize that such power determines their
continuation in those positions, regardless of performance.
Available information to Arab public administrators is limited because of
insufficient practice of participatory management and domination of an
organizational culture where command always overrides free exchange of
views. Moreover, “creativity, innovation and knowledge are the first victims of
suppression or denial of freedom” (UNDP 2003: 11). A thriving knowledge
development and research require a context of norms and values that accentuate
openness and transparency, public verification of information, and regular search
for relevant input. In most Arab states, research is “exacerbated by the lack of
official documentation publicly available concerning reform effort” (Common
2008: 179).
Public administration capacity, necessarily, relies on “the strength of
information systems underpinning goal setting and indicator monitoring”
(Fritzen 2007:13). Information is a foundation of organizational learning,
adaptation, and strategic actions. Reliance on data can be the source of a
profound qualitative improvement of policy making and governing in general.
Fact-based policy making and management would alter the intellectual ethos of
Arab public administrators from constantly looking up to the superior authority
for direction to searching within the organization and probing the evidence on
146 J.E. Jreisat

the ground as they diagnose, analyze, consider preferences of communities they

serve, and adapt and project solutions.
In explaining John Dewey, David Hildebrand (2008: 224) pointed out that “a
democracy prefers certain methods of problem solving (empirical, experiential)
over others (blind loyalty, dogmatic assertion).” Donald Klingner (2009: 21)
recommends that the U.S. public administration be directed toward global
development using data-driven, performance-oriented, and sustainable smart
practice. Similarly, without reliable information, Arab bureaucracies cannot deal
effectively with multiple challenges such as globalization, demographic change,
unemployment, and growing citizens’ dissatisfaction with public services.
The need for information and the added advantage of the ICT, elevated
expectation that collecting massive data, at a reasonable cost, and making it
available to all concerned is achievable as it is desirable. In the Arab world,
essential databanks may be organized around major clusters such as (1)
globalization research to provide factual information on the impact of globalism
on the Arab countries; (2) performance-related data and research for measure-
ment of results and enforcement of output/outcome oriented perspectives; (3)
assessments of reforms that worked or failed in order to offer a systematic
appraisal of past reform proposals and their consequences.
A practical example illustrates the importance of reliable information in
public decisions. In Jordan, during the 1990s, the Institute of Public
Administration conducted, for the first time, a survey in the Customs
Department within the Ministry of Finance on citizens’ satisfaction from the
service. Subsequently, the Director of the Institute reported, in a conference in
Amman, that the change in employees’ attitudes was quite visible merely for
knowing that data are being gathered on quality of service in their Department.
Thus, knowledge and information create their own momentum for continued
improvement of organizational effectiveness and accountability.
In the early 1980s, the government of Saudi Arabia spent huge sums of
money and exhausted massive volumes of water from mainly nonrenewable
aquifers in an effort to achieve food self-sufficiency. A study by Elie Elhadj
(2008) reported that on January 8, 2008, the Saudi government abandoned its
food independence strategy and decided instead to import the country’s entire
wheat needs by 2016.The rise and fall of Saudi Arabia’s cereal production
reflected haphazard planning and no accounting detailed the full cost of this
adventure. Between 1984 and 2000, it is estimated that the assessable cost of
Saudi agricultural development could be put at about $85 billion. This huge
investment produced wheat at an average cost of more than $500 per ton.
During the same period, the international market price for wheat averaged about
$120 per ton (Elhadj 2008: 1–10). The stated reasons for Saudi Arabia’s failed
agricultural policy include achieving food independence and settlement of the
Bedouins. The unstated reasons, according to Elhadj (2008) are enriching the
ruling elite (corruption) and poorly informed elites (lack of relevant knowledge
and information in decision making).
3. Authoritarian governance and over-centralized bureaucracy. It is not easy to
offer a definitive answer to the question: Is centralization producing weak
administrative capacity, or, conversely, weak capacity is perpetuating centrali-
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 147

zation of the Arab state? Actually, each part of the question has validity creating
a dilemma for reformers. Still, a commonly recognized feature of Arab
governance in general is excessive centralization, manifested in many forms.
One of the arguments rationalizing centralization is lack of competence at the
various levels of public organizations to make the right decisions. On surface,
Arab bureaucracies are subjected to many formal control mechanisms such as
strict hierarchical order, watchdogs, central inspection, judicial review, and
investigative committees by parliaments and cabinets (Jabbra and Jabbra
2005:136). In reality, excessive centralization has often resulted in unclear
public policy directions to administrative structures, more bottlenecks, lack of
initiative, and fear of risk taking in carrying out public duties. Administrative
structures rarely have measurable goals and far less sound reasoning and
justification for their decisions (Jabbra and Jreisat 2009).
Political micro-management and excessive centralization of public decision
making have not improved control or ensured accountability of public
organizations. For example, the highly centralized Egyptian bureaucracy is
regimented with extensive rules, regulations, and monitoring processes, yet one
finds an astonishing lack of coordination as it is often difficult to pin down who
is responsible for a certain task (Jreisat 2009: 34, 1997:148). In his analysis of
governance in Saudi Arabia, Steffen Hertog (2010: 11) found “a penchant for
referring matters upward” as a result of “the concentration of power in the Al
Saud’s hands to reinforce centralization and the dominance of vertical
exchange.” Centralization of authority in Arab bureaucracies routinely undercuts
administrative mechanisms of accountability, evaluation, and feedback as well
as circumvents open institutional debates on public policies. Vertical relation-
ships determine every thing. Compliance with central or higher orders, rather
than achieving results, becomes the mode of operation. Thus, management
capacity remains significantly stymied.
Centralization also facilitates a patronage system in appointments to senior
positions in government. The practice of patronage is employed to ensure
loyalty, reward family and friends, and as a tool of control over bureaucracy.
“With no rotation of power, Arab countries have blurred the distinction between
ruler and state” (The Economist 2009: 7). The bulging size of bureaucracy,
particularly from dispensing patronage and creating “pretend-jobs” for new
graduates, resulted in astounding numbers of civil servants. An illustration is
what The Economist reports about Egypt’s civil service in 2007, reaching seven
million; and “as a proportion of their population the Gulf oil producers’ public
sector payroll is higher still” (The Economist 2009: 7). “Saudis increasingly
relied on the state, adapted their expectations of what they were entitled to, and
often became tied to specific institutions through thick social bond … The
national payroll has increased every single year for decades; even in years of
large deficit, because job guarantees were never cut back” (Hertog 2010: 18,
19). These particularistic considerations of public employment do not facilitate
the development of consequential institutional capacities.
Public Administration shares governance but essentially remains a technical
field, with neutral competences learned by, and entrusted to, people who had the
proper credentials and expertise (Rohr 1998: 4). Thus, appointments to public
148 J.E. Jreisat

positions on non-merit grounds, as widely practiced in the Arab world, is one of

the most limiting factors to administrative capacity for performance. In
particular, prevailing methods of nepotism and favoritism preclude the
emergence of urgently needed cadre of organizational managers and leaders
whose roles and skills are vital for overall improvement of public management
throughout the Arab world. Favoritism and nepotism in appointments to senior
public positions have often immobilized institutional capacity and nourished
skepticism and distrust within the ranks of public employees and by citizens at
large (Jreisat 2009: 38).
4. Transparency and accountability. Transparency is essential for conducting
trustworthy assessments of results; without such assessments, effective
evaluation of policy outcomes is not possible. Operating behind the scene, in
the absence of free press and sanctioned opposition groups, transparency is often
surrendered. After monitoring nearly 80 elections in more than 30 countries,
former U. S. President Jimmy Carter wrote: “Nations are learning how secrecy
fuels corruption, impedes democracy, stifles economic progress, and corrodes
citizens’ trust” (letter, May 5, 2010). Lack of transparency is also a major
obstacle to ensuring accountability. “Transparency means that information is
freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by
decisions and that enough information is provided in easily understandable
forms and media” (Kim et al. 2005:649).
Successful implementation of performance measurement is rare among
developing countries in general. Such measurement requires setting goals,
developing indicators, and regularly collecting data on activities in order to
gauge progress in achieving established goals. To institute accountability and
responsibility of administrative actions such measures have to occur in the
sunshine, subject to analysis and rules of evidence, meet regular evaluation
of results, and get reported and communicated freely. In centralized systems
of administration where civil service is entrusted with a multiplicity of goals
and objectives, it is easy to loose sight of what needs to be done, by whom,
and at what cost. With lack of transparency and minimal use of evidence and
facts, it is not surprising that accountability and responsibility would often
fade away.
5. Self-serving ruling elite. Competent and effective political leadership is
indispensable in any society. At this level strategic policy input is initiated and
or approved as public policy. Political capacity and administrative capacity are
the two dimensions that determine in partnership the effectiveness of
governance. They are mutually reinforcing and influencing. The Arab political
systems in general are not hospitable to competitive political parties,
associational groups, or organized political activities. If allowed, such activities
are restricted by many cumbersome rules and conditions. But, good governance
is a major “enabler” of human development. It is “means and ends at the same
time,” notes the Arab Human Development Report (AHDR 2002: 1). Good
governance and effective public administration that encourage participation
emphasize rule of law, and practice transparency and accountability, crucial
conditions for achieving sustainable development. Deeply rooted grievances against
autocratic leaders who ruled callously for decades, and often managed fraudulent
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 149

vote to give themselves the appearance of legitimacy, added to the resentment that set
off the revolutionary call from the Arab streets that toppled presidents who sought to
rule for life as in the cases of Tunisia and Egypt, and generated the resistance and
violence in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen and other Arab countries.
Arab governance has not mastered strategic planning and had no history of
visionary policies that prepare their countries for long range solutions. Examples of
issues that required long range policies are the demographic explosion, corruption,
globalization, development of a civic culture, and reinforcing leaders who
demonstrate competence and integrity in serving their communities at all levels
of government.

& Demographic reality is a unique challenge to governance but seems to be

relegated to a lower priority in public policy. For example, Egypt, the largest
Arab state, had a population of 26 million in 1960 (Hourani 1991: 373).
Today, Egypt has over 82 million people. Similar growth ratios are in most
Arab countries where the rate of increase has accelerated mainly because of
improved healthcare and lower mortality rates. One important consequence is
that rapid population increase has changed the age distribution. Population of
the Arab world has increased from under 50 million after WWII to over 310
million today; 70 percent of them are less than 30 years old (Al-Rai 2008). A
high percentage of the young people are unemployed and future prospects do
not appear promising in terms of jobs, education, health care, food, water,
and other services.
& Corruption is another challenge that has not received appropriate actions by
the Arab states. Corruption has to be fought at all levels of authority, starting
with setting standards of ethical conduct in all organizations, and enacting
adjudication and enforcement measures against violations. In addition,
preventive actions such as education and training of public servants as well
as promoting laudable political and administrative behavior have not been
part of the management culture.
& Globalization generated many outcomes that Arab governance has not yet
addressed effectively. Global responsibilities require reliable predictable
institutional processes capable of dealing with the global pressures for equity,
justice, human rights, environment protection, cultural exchange, capital
transfers, free trade, and consequences of modern technologies. In global
competitiveness, the Arab countries have to rethink their strategies of social
and economic growth. Generally, healthy competition still eludes Arab
economies where deficiencies such as poor accountability, marginal
productivity, and reliance on traditional means of operation are widespread.
Limited inter-Arab cooperation narrowed Arab markets, constrained their
productive capacities, and diminished their international influence. Arab
countries continue to face the world individually. Competition for power and
survival in office fueled many inter-Arab regime squabbles, suspicions, and
hostility instead of cooperation. Among the consequences are alienation of
the leaders from their people and greater reliance of several rulers on foreign
powers for sustaining them in office. Within such a political reality, public
administration has not assumed a major role in dealing with domestic and
150 J.E. Jreisat

global responsibilities, and received little strategic guidance and input from
its unpredictable political environment (Jreisat2009).
& Arab governance, Arab political leaders in particular, failed to nurture a civic
culture in their societies, to develop inclusive communities, and to modify
potentially menacing formation of positions in each country that could hardly
be more opposite. The ideological entrenchment of political, religious, and
economic positions has been threatening to peace and social harmony in
almost every Arab society. The tensions between religions (Sunni-Shia and
Christian-Muslim), tribal and regional rivalries, and theocratic and secular
political dissensions have endangered and continue to be potentially
menacing to political concurrence and to social harmony in many countries.
Few viable civic-minded political groups have evolved that cross the
political, ethnic, tribal, and religious boundaries and address issues that
benefit the whole community. If not checked or reversed, polarization will
continue to threaten stability and fragment communities. To gain public trust,
public managers have to be committed to social equity and impartial
enforcement of the law as well as to altering discriminatory and particular-
istic public policies. Arab managers have to be the catalysts that articulate,
persuade, explain with facts, and demonstrate by example how the law is
applied fairly and equitably. Such civil society concerns are also increasingly
globalized.

Arab bureaucracies had little success so far in developing genuinely domestic

administrative concepts and practices in harmony with tradition and culture.
Replacing or supplanting the Western traditional hierarchical perspectives in Arab
systems with more appropriate practices proved to be difficult. Actually, Arab rulers
found in Western administrative models, employed in the service of colonial control,
a convenient pretext for affirming hierarchical authority and maintaining executive-
centered forms of administration (Jreisat 2001:1014). Historical legacies and
incompatible values created patterns of centralized governance that accentuate
loyalty to the ruler and rewarded public positions to “trusted” individuals,
perpetuating a dysfunctional system of cronyism and nepotism. In addition, the
crisis of leadership succession has been eroding legitimacy and representativeness of
leaders, further isolating them from their citizens. Until 2011, Arab publics have
little to say about who governs them, or how well they govern. Concentration of
power at the top of the pyramid of authority system has been total, impeding
professionalizing public management, and foiling any substantive structural change
that may threaten the monopoly of political power. After two to four decades in
power and a pattern of political and economic failure some political leaders have to
be forced out of power at a high cost in human suffering and economic disruption.

Synthesis and conclusion

Administrative capacity is fundamental for improved management performance and

for effective governance. Administrative capacity has many elements that work
together, and reinforce each other, to generate higher levels of performance. Thus, to
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 151

develop capacity, it is necessary to break it down into basic elements. These

elements are not constant or of the same importance in all management systems, but
are dynamic and diverse. Frequently discussed in the literature are: the financial
process, human resources, information technology, managing with facts and data,
public support and trust, measurement of results, and leadership. Reliance on
procedural, technical, and segmental improvements in the Arab administrative
systems, as in the past, produced only marginal managerial improvements. Similarly,
structural changes of moving boxes around on the organization charts and
reassigning certain senior managers caused only insignificant systemic changes.
Despite enormous growth of Arab bureaucracies in size, cost, and power, their
administrative capacities remained insufficiently changed or improved. Institutional
performance has been modest and their abilities to change and to adapt have been
inadequate (Jabbra and Jreisat 2009). To manage effectively in the global context,
and to be more innovative and proficient, Arab bureaucracies have to acquire
different knowledge and behavior and than those of the past and present. True, in
most Arab states, one can find well-managed organizations with explicit mandates
and competent staff. The problem is that these “islands of efficiency” as Hertog
(2010: 5) referred to them in the context of Saudi Arabia, still face excessive
centralization and poor integration that impede their full contribution to elevation of
the administrative capacity.
While Arab bureaucracies have been vital in the design and implementation of
various developmental activities, their dysfunctions have been widely recognized:
overstaffed agencies, underpaid employees, low productivity, red tape, and a
shortage of innovative and effective public managers (Jreisat 2002, 1997). Within
the current rapid global diffusion of ideas and practices, the Arab states cannot
fundamentally alter the status quo without the freedom and incentives to seek and to
develop their own knowledge-based competence through its own universities,
research centers, and specialized research institutes. Currently, Arab bureaucra-
cies in general do not win any awards for effectiveness or high performance.
Their administrative capacities often receive low rating on integration, expert
knowledge, representativeness of leadership, decentralization, transparency,
accountability, and ethics of public service. Thus, rethinking the question of
capacity and constructing an effective strategy for change have to recognize that
public administration consists of various organizational structures, values, people,
and processes. Capacity building strategies in the Arab states have to be attentive
to many relevant concerns such as:

& The administrative system is composed of many integrated and complex

elements, interacting as a whole system. Focusing on the human capital only
and ignoring structural, financial, and behavioral aspects will not significantly
improve the system, or satisfy the need for coherent and coordinated measures
that bind all elements of overall capacity development.
& Leadership remains a critical element for success. Developing appropriate
institutional leadership requires professional evaluations that reassess methods
of selection, recruitment, training, ethics, and cooperative conduct in addition to
technical expertise and managerial competence. Developing appropriate leader-
ship capacity of competence and integrity has to resolve two bad political habits:
152 J.E. Jreisat

(a) favoritism and nepotism in appointments to senior positions in government,

and (b) political leaders’ obsession with loyalty, leading to maintaining a strong
hold on all powers of decision making.
& Decentralization of authority from the top of governance to functional
organizations and to regions, districts, municipalities and local communities is
necessary for achieving the strategic objectives of sustainable development.
Greater devolution of responsibility to frontline managers is encouraged in
exchange for greater assessment of their performance (Kettl 2005: 82).
& In evaluation of information on possible alternative policies, open communica-
tion with the relevant communities could be inspiring. “The general normative
argument is that better informed citizens can actively and constructively
contribute to decision making on policy issues, regulatory requirements, and
even service levels in all but the most technical areas” (Wang and Van Wart
2007: 265). “If development is a matter for the people at large to think about, to
seek and to enjoy, then it must primarily be a matter for them to understand and
to voice their preferences about” (Sayigh 1991:13).
& Building management capacity involves continuous assessments of reforms that
worked or did not work so bureaucracies and organizations can learn from past
experience and avoid repeating the same mistakes. Why have many reform
initiatives failed to reach their targets? Information on these and similar questions
is needed in order to enlighten future recommendations. As Klingner (2009: 21)
points out, using “smart practices” assumes that innovations anywhere can be
transferred and adapted.
& Setting clearer mission for each public institution and appropriate measurement
of output to enhance accountability are important elements of the reform strategy.
Also, introducing independent performance audit and upgrading and expediting
financial controls are decisive aspects of the suggested reforms. Also, it is
prudent that suggested reforms be enacted in statutory provisions to sustain and
legitimize the change.

What is suggested in this analysis is not another derivative of the traditional

rationalistic school in management. Rethinking the strategy of building administra-
tive capacity requires differentiating the various clusters of elements that determine
the magnitude, the linkages, and the speed of change. Weak administrative capacity
in the Arab states is the result of many behavioral and structural factors as pointed
out above. Some of the factors relate to existing political systems, others are
derivatives of old habits and behaviors stimulated by historical experiences
(colonialism) and traditional (tribal) influences. The end results are the current
management and governance malaise. The negatives seem to be mutually reinforcing
elements bent on preserving the status quo. Successful reform programs intended for
developing administrative capacity require unequivocal and clear political direction
and support at the highest level of authority.
In contrast, reliance on personal judgment, political micro-management, and
excessive centralization of decision making, would undercut mechanisms of
accountability, evaluation, and feedback. As a UNDP study concludes: “There is a
near complete consensus that there is a serious failing in the Arab world, and that is
located specifically in the political sphere” (UNDP 2004:19). When politics and
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 153

administration enhance each other’s deficiencies, a vicious circle of profound

societal impact reinforces itself, and governance becomes the bottleneck for reform
efforts (Jreisat 2006: 421). “Management reform is a matter of integrating
administrative efforts with the fabric of each nation’s government and civil society”
(Kettl 2005: 68).
What incentive for existing political and administrative structures to change their
old habits and self-serving methods and adopt new modes of action? The ultimate
objective is to achieve transparent, accountable, representative, and results-oriented
systems. Knowledge and information highlight public managers’ competence, ethics,
and capabilities in explaining, negotiating, and persuading relevant audiences
whenever they embark on major public policy actions. The short answer is that
political and administrative leaders have little choice but to adapt. There can be no
illusion about the difficulties of implementing such change in governance within the
Arab countries, or within developing countries in general. Certainly, the recom-
mendations for change presented here cannot be isolated from their larger context.
Politicians or bureaucrats will not suddenly change habits, renounce secrecy, and
become empiricists. Traditional public managers are not likely to be enamored by
facts and numbers, overriding their personal pre-dispositions in decision making.
The resistance to moving public administration from the current mode of action
(guesswork, impressions, and subservience to superiors) to a condition of greater
reliance on data and factual analysis is undeniable.
Part of the incentives for leaders to improve capacity of public institutions is related to
new demands and pressures from within and globally. A new consciousness in the Arab
world is making people more aware of the shortcomings and the deficiencies of
governance. Throughout the Arab world, shifts in public attitudes are noticeable. As Bill
and Springborg (2000: 3) pointed out, “Organization is becoming more elaborate and
specialized, and formal institutions are beginning to replace informal, personalistic
administration.” Most significant is that younger Arab generations who are better
educated and more attentive to public affairs and deficiencies of governance are
demanding radical action of reform, including removal of corrupt and self-serving
leaders, as the world saw in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011.
A state cannot effectively articulate alternative policy choices that serve public
interest, avoid ideological twists, and be free from manipulations of special interests
without knowledge-based institutional capacity. Education and research are the first
line of defense against “knowledge deficit” and lack of accurate information in
support of administrative and political actions. The only sure way to vitalize research
in the Arab society is by adapting and improving the education system itself. The
Arab Human Development Report acknowledges the impressive gain in the
quantitative expansion of education in Arab countries in the past fifty years. But,
the Report also points out that such gain remains modest in comparison with other
developing countries, concluding that “the most important challenge facing Arab
education is its declining quality” (UNDP 2003:3). Still, within such rapid global
diffusion of ideas and practices, the Arab world has to act expeditiously to develop
its own knowledge-based institutional competence by applying a comprehensive
holistic strategy. Such a strategy has to encompass clusters of factors and elements
that need to be activated and connected together organically. In addition to being
holistic, the strategy has to be relative and continually evolving. Improved
154 J.E. Jreisat

knowledge-base facilitates assessment of progress and measurement of performance.

Comparative analysis and evaluation of improvements would ensure progress on
critical issues such as accountability, transparency, and honesty in governance.

References

Al-Rai. (2008). Arabic newspaper, (quote from a speech by the Queen of Jordan) Amman, Jordan, (April 30).
Bill, J. M., & Springborg, R. (2000). Politics in the Middle East (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London and
New York: Routledge.
Common, R. (2008). Administrative change in the gulf: modernization in Bahrain and Oman.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(2), 177–193.
Cooper, T. L. (1998). The responsible administrator (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denhardt, R. B. (2004). Trust and capacity: The role of integrity and responsiveness. In A. Farazmand
(Ed.), Sound governance: Policy and administrative innovation (pp. 99–112). Westport: Praeger.
Elhadj, E. 2008. Saudi Arabia’s agricultural project: From dust to dust. The Middle East Review of
International Affairs, 12(2), June.
Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound governance in the age of globalization: A conceptual framewrok. In A.
Farazmand (Ed.), Sound governance: Policy and administrative innovations (pp. 1–23). Westport:
Praeger.
Farazmand, A. (2009). Building administrative capacity for the age of rapid globalization. Public
Administration Review, 69(6), 1007–1020. November/December.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1995). Organization development (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Fritzen, S. A. (2007). Linking context and strategy in donor support for decentralization: a diagnostic
framework. Public Administration and Development, 27(1), 13–26. February.
Hertog, S. (2010). Princes, brokers, and bureaucrats. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hildebrand, D. L. (2008). Public administration as pragmatic, democratic, and objective. Public
Administration Review, 68(2), 222–229.
Hou, Y. (2007). Putting money where the need is. In P. W. Ingraham (Ed.), In pursuit of management
systems in state and local government (pp. 15–56). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hourani, A. (1991). A history of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Ingraham, P. W., ed. (2007). Studying state and local government management systems. In P. W. Ingraham
(Ed.), In pursuit of management systems in state and local government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, pp 1–14.
Jabbra, J. G. 1989. Bureaucracy and development in the Arab World. Journal of Asian and African
Studies, XXIV(1–2), January/April: 1–12.
Jabbra, J., & Jabbra, N. (2005). Administrative culture in the Middle East. In J. Jabbra & O. P. Dwivede
(Eds.), Administrative culture in a global context (pp. 135–153). Witby: de Sitter.
Jabbra, J., & Jreisat, J. E. (2009). Administration of the Arab State: Synthesizing diverse traditions. In I. P.
Pagaza & D. Argyriades (Eds.), Winning the needed change: Saving our planet earth (pp. 112–126).
Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford: IOS.
Jreisat, J. E. (1997). Politics without process: Administering development in the Arab World. Boulder:
Lynne Reinner.
Jreisat, J. E. (2001). Bureaucratization of the Arab World: incompatible influences. In A. Farazmand (Ed.),
Handbook of comparative and development public administration (2nd ed.). NY: Marcel Dekker.
Jreisat, J. E. ed. 2002. Governance and developing countries. Brill: Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jreisat, J. E. (2004). Governance in a globalizing world. International Journal of Public Administration,
27(13,14), 1003–1009.
Jreisat, J. E. (2006). The Arab World: Reform or Stalemate. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 41(5,
6), October/ December: 411–438
Jreisat, J. E. (2009). Administration, globalization, and the Arab States. Public Organization Review, 9(1),
37–50.
Kettl, D. E. (2005). The global public management revolution (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C: The
Brookings Institution Press.
Rethinking Administrative Capacity Development: The Arab States 155

Kim, P. S., et al. (2005). Toward participatory and transparent governance: report on the Sixth Global
Forum on Reinventing Government. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 646–654. November/
December.
Klingner, D. E. (2009). Using US public administration to support global development. Journal of
Regional Development Studies and Development, 18(2), 1–30.
Margetts, H. Z. (2010). Editorial. Policy & Internet, Vol. 2: Iss. 3, Article 1. doi:10.2202/1944-2866.1107
Available at: http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol2/iss3/art1
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richter, W. L., & Burke, F. (Eds.). (2007). Combating corruption, encouraging ethics (2nd ed.). New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Rohr, J. A. (1998). Public service, ethics, and constitutional practice. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Sayigh, Y. A. (1991). Elusive development: From dependence to self-reliance in the Arab Region. London:
Routledge.
Schiavo-Campo, S., & McFerson, H. M. (2008). Public management in global perspective. Armonk: M.
E. Sharpe.
Tagoe, M. (2011). Followership or followersheep? Searching for transformational leaders for accelerated
national development in Ghana. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 46(1), 87–103.
The Economist (2009). Waking from its sleep. Special Report on the Arab World. (July 25: 3–17).
Tsao, K. K. (2009). Building administrative capacity: lessons learned from China. Public Adbministration
Review, 69(6), 1021–1027. November/December.
UNDP (2002) Arab Human Development Report. United Nations Development Program.
UNDP (2003) Arab Human Development Report. United Nations Development Program.
UNDP (2004) Arab Human Development Report. United Nations Development Program.
UNDP (2006). Capacity development: lessons of experience and guiding principles. http://mirror.undp.
org/magnet/cdrb/CDPRIN1.htm (checked May 10, 2010).
Wang, X., & Van Wart, M. (2007). When participation leads to trust: an empirical assessment of
managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 266–278. March/April.

Jamil E. Jreisat is a professor of public administration and political science, Department of Government
and International Affairs, University of South Florida. He is the author of over one hundred books,
chapters, and articles in public administration theory and process, comparative public administration, and
administrative reform with focus on the Arab world. Professor Jreisat has consulted to various
international organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, GTZ, and the Institute for Administrative
Development of the League of Arab States. He is the recipient of many awards, including the USF award
for professional excellence.