Can There Be an Asian Model of Public Administration?

Abstract

SUMMARYThis article examines the conceptual possibilities of an Asian model of public administration, challenging some pre-established paradigms along the way. There are two basic contentions. First, there is no such thing as one universal model of public administration that satisfies all national political and cultural situations so that each public administration system is also shaped by its own national tradition and historical evolution. The historical process is as important as the horizontal process of policy learning and transfer from others in the world. Second, Asia has its unique administrative civilization that has been under-studied in the larger context of contemporary public administration theories and practices. The article does not argue for an Asian-dominated governance model per se. Rather, the point is that the rapid social and economic growth of some emerging Asian nations has cast further doubt on any deterministic 'good governance' model driven predominantly by the Western growth experience. No definite thesis is concluded, and this must involve a process of drawing wisdoms from more Asian 'national' and local narratives of administrative histories and practices.

Defining Asia Capabilities for Australia's Public Service

“…This is certainly an issue that has been raised in the literature (e.g. Cheung , ; Haque and Turner ). As one interviewee who spent a great deal of time working in various Asian nations emphasised, knowledge of the role of government in Asian countries is particularly important, as:

… the role of government is probably much greater in Asia than it is in Australia … [and] the role of government is very different to that of Australia and it's viewed differently and it's very important.

…”

Authoritarian Integrative Governance in China: Understanding the Crucial Role of Political Risk Aversion

“…In summary, some successful practices from Western models of public administration, such as, government purchase of goods and services, and performance appraisal, were adopted by some local government in China, but the CCP “only allow the importation of ‘Western’ tools and systems as long as these could serve the best interests of the party‐state” (Cheung, :276), and have been working at developing a public administration development path that is distinctly different from that of Western. In fact, campaigns such as advocating the “Beijing Consensus” as an alternative to the “Washington Consensus” demonstrated that China's political and administrative leaders have always emphasized selecting a public management framework that is distinguishable from the Western paradigm, which is an important part of political ideological competition.…”

“…Chinese public administration reform was certainly influenced by Western values and models and embodied certain characteristics of international public administrative models in some areas. However, these trends are relatively new, even in the most developed regions of China and crucially “the imitation of tools or practices alone, instead of accepting the whole institutional logic behind them, is at best ‘superficial’ imitation, as opposed to ‘superstitious’ imitation” (Cheung, :276). Indeed, authoritarianism under one‐party leadership is the lynchpin for understanding China's public administration reform, and “the unchanged nature of China's highly authoritarian party‐state means that there is a ‘political’ limit to the extent of administrative reforms” (Cheung, :273) as well as to the depth of learning advanced Western administrative experiences.…”

“…However, these trends are relatively new, even in the most developed regions of China and crucially “the imitation of tools or practices alone, instead of accepting the whole institutional logic behind them, is at best ‘superficial’ imitation, as opposed to ‘superstitious’ imitation” (Cheung, :276). Indeed, authoritarianism under one‐party leadership is the lynchpin for understanding China's public administration reform, and “the unchanged nature of China's highly authoritarian party‐state means that there is a ‘political’ limit to the extent of administrative reforms” (Cheung, :273) as well as to the depth of learning advanced Western administrative experiences. In addition, China's central government also imitates the rhetoric of a conservative center in order to control the pace of local governments' liberalization efforts (Huang, ).…”

“…Adding to this generalized definition, this article analyzes the emergence of AIGM from the perspective of path dependence, which may be helpful for identifying the process of change within the Chinese public administration system; therefore, it also helps in understanding the public administration development path in Mainland China. Also, “the China model should not be taken as the Asian model per se” (Cheung, :259); rather, its overarching purpose is to support greater understanding of public administration practices in other Asian countries, especially Singapore and Vietnam, which have political systems similar to China's. Last, “comparing patterns of public administration systems and trends in diverse countries” (Ko, :320), especially between Asian and Western countries, is also significant because China is a major representative of countries in the East.…”