egorizing them, the first strand of the model could be said emphasizing on managerial improvement and restructuring which includes downsizing, decentralization and disaggregation (Batley and Larbi, 2004). NPM also inclines to better the quality of public service, improves the efficiency of governmental operations, save public expenditure and make policy implementation more effective . Furthermore, NPM substitutes highly centralised hierarchical organization system with decentralization, restructuring and reducing the size of the public sector (Minougue, 2001). The other part of the model of NPM focuses on markets and competitions which includes inculcating private sector style of managerial practices and contracting out (Thynne, 2003). on the whole NPM makes a rigid formal separation between service delivery and policy-making. Therefore, if you look at the applicability of the NPM according to Hood (1991), NPM like many other philosophies was proposed as a framework of general application but Hood denies the universality of NPM. NPM as Paradigm for reforms: Context of Developing Countries:Most of the reforms proposed under the NPM model have been successfully adopted by many developed and emerging economies. As Flynn (2009) in his study mentions that NPM reforms are suitable more in places where he environment is conducive for managerial ad market control. Since NPM characteristics are fundamentally market oriented developed countries are well adapted to this due to the presence of well functioning markets and sufficient economic development. National public sectors in many OECD countries are radically transformed and reconstructed by introducing market based values, decentralized structures and processes and competitive market conditions (Omurgonulsen, 1997). Surveys conducted by OECD (1993,1990) tried to summarize the important initiatives taken by OECD countries. These surveys showed number of trends that seems to be common in all countries such as performance budgeting, performance control, customer orientation, cost conciousness and increased results. The success of NPM reforms in developed countries is mainly due to their ability to meet the preconditions required for effective implementation of the reforms (Turner, 2002). One of the important precondition for NPM model is the state capacity (Monteiro, 2002). State capacity refers to a condition where the state is able to take reforms decisively (Grindle, 1996). Another precondition for this matter explained by Wallis and Dollery (2001), is the institutional capacity so these countries are able to practice rule of law. Wallis and Dollery (2001) also explain one more preconditions in their work which is technical capacity. Where many of the developing countries fulfil these preconditions many developing countries do not.In terms of developing countries NPM reforms were mostly driven by International donors recommending the introduction of economic and political reforms reforms and also encouraging the growth of private sector public private partnership (PPP) in order to improve economic performance and alleviate poverty (Sharma, 2007). Further more the International Economic Organizations such as Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Bank and International Monetary fund set the implementation of NPM as a stipulation for acquiring financial assistance (Sarker, 2006; McCourt and Minogue, 2001). The efforts have been counter productive for developing world in the imposition of Western organizational and intstitutional structures (Turner and Hulme, 1997). According to Haque (2001), NPM’s characteristic of contracting out and privatization looks good to curb corruption but he also argued that in a system which is already corrupt and politicised it will only increase the chance of patronage distribution and private accumulation. In developing countries NPM provides a menu of choices where countries take up certain elements of NPM agenda and have not implemented anything near the entire package (Manning, 2001 and Polidano, 1999). One of the most detailed view of NPM type reforms is presented by Batley (1999), he concluded that the NPM reforms in South Asia, Sub Saharan Africa and South America have had mixed effects with some improvement in efficiency and little on equity. Particular problems were reported in Central and Eastern European countries and Africa in regards to the use of autonomy as a part of NPM reforms where it was used as an escape rather than device for improving efficiency (Mukherjee and Wilkins, 1999). Most of the developing countries are still in effort to bring in NPM type reforms. In terms of economic growth in South East Asian countries there has been some success over time (Turner, 2002). Regarding decentralisation in developing countries there is strong resistance but decentralisation reform have shown positive results in many countries with improved policies to the local needs and lesser corruption (Mangkol, 2001). Columbia has seen provision of some effective decentralisation reforms of municipalities which improved their services in water, education and road infrastructure (Fritzen & Lim, 2006). Some developing countries have also adopted Market type mechanisms which is a basic component of NPM. For example, in many African countries like Ghana,Kenya, Zambia, South, Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe there has been wide practice of corporate mechanisms (Polidano & Hulme, 1999). Most of the Developed countries seem to be moving from reforms stage of NPM to consolidation stage of NPM but on the other hand many developing countries are still in endeavour to come to practice with NPM type reforms.