Let's Get Public Administration Right, But in What Sequence?: Lessons from Japan and Singapore

Abstract

The so-called Good Governance Model requires perfect public administration that is accountable, efficient, equitable, representative, responsive and transparent and that respects the rule of law. Accordingly, the Good Governance Movement promotes a variety of public administration reforms worldwide. However, the effectiveness of promoting all kinds of administrative reforms at once is in question, because that could overwhelm the reform capability of countries, and more important, some reforms can compete with, rather than complement, one another. Such scenarios are possible, and the implication is clear: administrative reform discourse must consider how to best sequence and prioritize reforms, the outcomes of which must be identified. The experiences of Japan and Singapore offer some insight into this. This study first codifies administrative reforms by using the concepts of administrative themes, and it systematically traces, compares and contrasts reforms in both countries in light of these themes. This leads to the conclusion that the sequences in which administrative reforms evolved in those places contributed to dissimilarities in their administrative traditions today.

Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau: Guardian of Public Integrity

“…The argument that the many registered opposition political parties are weak and ineffective and do not provide a credible alternative, with the exception of the Worker's Party who has become increasingly popular in recent years, or whether a degree of 'state capture' as a result of decadeslong PAP rule has inadvertently created legal and institutional barriers for effective political competition, is fiercely debated among local scholars (e.g. Aoki 2015;Low 2014;Mahbubani 2015;Quah 2011;Tan 2008Tan , 2012Tan , 2018.…”

Creating Space for Public Administration in International Organization Studies

“…To provide an answer, the next sections anchor our analysis via two dimensions within administrative scholarship. The first dimension is the tensions between politics–administration dichotomy and representation within bureaucracy and their relationship to the three pillars of administration (Aoki, 2015; Zalmanovitch, 2014). The second dimension is the competing interests of individual and due process rights along with employee rights (Knowles & Riccucci, 2001) and the question of accountability for administrative study of IOs (Aoki, 2015).…”

“…The first dimension is the tensions between politics–administration dichotomy and representation within bureaucracy and their relationship to the three pillars of administration (Aoki, 2015; Zalmanovitch, 2014). The second dimension is the competing interests of individual and due process rights along with employee rights (Knowles & Riccucci, 2001) and the question of accountability for administrative study of IOs (Aoki, 2015). While these dimensions are not the only ones available for identifying when and where opportunities exist for administrative study of IOs, their use here highlights not just sovereign-level and IO administrative differences but equally importantly, a potentially complementary approach to other emergent international public administration studies (e.g.…”

“…To engage the cautions and opportunities for the discipline of public administration, we use the three-perspective model of management, politics/policy, and law (Rosenbloom, 1983(Rosenbloom, , 2013. This leads to two tensions within administrative study (politicsadministrative dichotomy, bureaucratic representativeness), questions about relations between administrative and legal values, differing notions of justice (Aoki, 2015;Zalmanovitch, 2014), and queries about due process, employee rights, and broader accountability questions (Knowles & Riccucci, 2001). Fourth, the three-perspective model shows where IO study may offer opportunities to deepen and broaden domestic administrative scholarship.…”

Implications of Correlation between Demographic Dynamics to Public Trust in Administration of Pakistan

“…In a study on reform in the public administration (Aoki, 2015) it was recommended at a study of administrative reform must take into account how to best determine the priority of reforms, the outcomes of which must be identified. This leads to the conclusion that the sequences in which administrative reforms evolve have a direct bearing on the results.…”