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

Abstract

SUMMARY This article examines the limits of Western public administration models and the importance of a contextually embedded and empirically based approach of knowledge building in Asian public administration. It is attainted through a case study of the post‐1997 public administration reform in Hong Kong to illustrate the mismatching between major models of Western public administration and the Asian domestic contexts. There are questions and doubts about both the goals and results of the public management reforms in Hong Kong. This article argues that post‐handover reforms in Hong Kong cannot be fully explained by the normative and efficiency‐oriented model of new public management self‐claimed by the government. They are driven more by the political elite that emerged in the new political order after Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Using administrative solutions to resolve political problems and address concerns on the domestic agenda has been a character of Hong Kong's administration, which is generalizable to other Asian countries. The article also sheds light on the bigger underlying questions raised in comparative public administration about the inadequate explanatory power of generalized Western public administration models and how the national context of Asian countries is more diverse and complicated from a so‐called global model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Nexus Between Governance and Socioeconomic Factors on Public Service Fragility in Asian Economies

“…Such comparative analysis is useful for state conditions and provides help to problematic states (Fitzpatrick et al, 2011). Different methods and models have been used by researchers to make this comparative analysis reliable and fruitful (Wong, 2013). Recent studies also used this trend and comparative public administrative approach to analyze different indicators and state conditions of multicountry analyses with updated methodologies and descriptions (Meuleman, Jilke, and Van de Walle, 2015;Tepe and Prokop, 2018;Jensen, Mortensen, and Serritzlew, 2019).…”

Facilitating Results-Based Planning in Developing Countries: The Case of Vietnam's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

“…Leadership support and involvement is assumed to infl uence RBP outcomes. Th e literature as well as the practical evidence of recent public sector reforms in Vietnam have indicated the critical role of leadership, especially top leadership, in the process of change and reform in public organizations (Van Der Voet et al, 2014;Wong, 2013;Hung et al, 2013;Pham, 2018). Similarly, a bulk of evidence from the literature shows that senior leadership support for a results -based approach is likely the most frequent suggestion cited in the reports of many countries on results-based management experiences (Ariyachandra & Frolick, 2008;Perrin, 2002;Mayne, 2007).…”

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

“…In addition, given the objective to distinguish authoritarian governments from democratic governments, we also add the perspective of core value orientation. Overall, some of the rhetoric used in CNHC measures matched the language of that espoused by NPM, for example, establishing systems of assessment, accountability, rewards, and penalties to promote CNHC, but “its effects were either uncertain or inconsistent with NPM or other major global models of public administration reform such as NWS, networks, and governance” (Wong, ).…”

“…Public administration practices in China have undergone a fundamental changes since the late 1970s (Su, Walker and Xue, 2013), but existing frameworks, such as the prevalent public administration models, such as new public management (NPM), good governance (GG), and network governance (NG), are insufficient for explaining China's emerging trends in public policy and governance (Welch and Wong, 1998;Huque Shafiqul and Yep, 2003;Cheung, 2005;Cheung, 2013;Wong, 2013;Ko, 2013;Haque, 2013;Haque and Turner, 2013). Therefore, the call for distinct models of Chinese public administration based on the contextual realities of Chinese societies (Haque and Ko, 2013;Haque and Turner, 2013;Haque, 2013) has become more audible in recent years.…”