Political Accountability in Hong Kong: Myth or Reality?

Abstract

This article assesses the practice of political accountability in Hong Kong: whether it has largely been realised in practice, or whether it is merely a political slogan for the government to justify its executive-led governance. The analysis begins with a review of the theoretical concepts of political accountability and ministerial accountability, and then establishes an operational framework to analyse the current practice of political accountability in Hong Kong's political system. It concludes by addressing the degree of political accountability overall.

THE SEARCH FOR A MODEL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM IN HONG KONG: WEBERIAN BUREAUCRACY, New PUBLIC MANAGEMENT OR SOMETHING ELSE?

“…There was a rise of political state. Under it, the non-popularly elected politicians backed up by China, the new sovereign of Hong Kong, served as the dominant policymakers (Cheung, 2003;Kwok, 2003;Loh and Cullen, 2003;Burns, 2008;Lam, 2009).…”

“…Because the public management reform was political in nature, many of its impacts were political in nature as well. As the political elite gained its power by de‐institutionalizing and politicizing the civil service and its power is not constrained by a full democracy, their governance was unstable, with a loose and ambiguous linkage of accountability (Cheung, ; Kwok, ; Lam, ). In other words, a legitimacy crisis continued in both aspects of performance and procedure.…”

A Review of Accountability Systems: Learning from Best Practices

“…Since its establishment in 1974, ICAC has enjoyed astounding success in its fight against corruption and is often quoted as a "Universal Model" (Heilburn, 2006;Lam, 2009). ICAC came into being when corruption was known to be systematic among high-level officials and police officers, which fueled prostitution, drug trafficking, and gambling in lieu of hefty returns.…”

The Dilemma of “Managing for Results” in China: Won't Let Go

“…Despite similarities in the minimalist conception of MFR across different geographies, political contexts in diverse societies have been shown to lead to different managerial dilemmas associated with MFR. For example: Nielsen and Moynihan () in their research on Danish local government show that partisan politics in liberal democracies can bring a negativity bias in the public sector responsibility attribution process, and Lam () shows that an accountability scheme was adopted in Hong Kong primarily as an instrument of the Chief Executive to centralize power. The managerial dilemmas revealed below in our depiction of China's MFR practice demonstrate the problems the MFR framework has encountered in yet another political context.…”