There is still some virtue in applying formalized analytic techniques to the design, management and reform of government, but one must be realistic about this in light of past experiences and realize that there are communication as well as measurement purposes served by formal standards and analysis. I think there are some interesting lessons to be learned from British experience in this regard, but the author seems to evaluate them differently than I do. Connected with this is the idea that North American reforms tend to have been driven more by private sector consulting literature than by independent thinking within government and allied institutions. The effectiveness of the separation of policy and operations depends very much on how clearly political leadership can define its goals and desired standards of performance. However, events in some of the jurisdictions considered have shown that such separation can be achieved and can be positive.
Citizens are more than customers or clients.
However, although civil servants should communicate with citizens and have standards for serving them, ultimately the civil servant should not be directly accountable to the citizenry. The civil servant should be accountable to their superiors in the departmental hierarchy and, ultimately, to a minister who will be responsible to the public. I see several of these points differently, but it would be impossible to deal with them in detail in a book review. I would also say the author underestimates the magnitude and comparative importance of experience in the U.S. system. However, I can appreciate the logic for not focusing on that system in this comparative work.