Another precondition for this matter explained by Wallis and Dollery (2001), is the institutional capacity so these countries are able to hold up the rule of law. With both these preconditions technical capacity is also regarded very important by Wallis and Dollery (2001). 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 set condition for obtaining 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 NPM stage of reforms to NPM stage of consolidation but on the other hand many developing countries are still in endeavour to come to practice with NPM type reforms.