Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Sector Reform and National Development in East and Southeast Asia: Specificity and Commonality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy in the 'Asian Century'

Part of the book series: International Series on Public Policy ((ISPP))

Abstract

This chapter examines public sector reform in East and Southeast Asia. It looks at commonalities and divergences between the countries of these regions in terms of their organisational environments and their reform policies. Special attention is paid to three areas of public sector reform—policy transfer, anti-corruption measures and decentralization. What emerges is a complex longstanding pattern of reform activities in East and Southeast Asia in which importation, adaptation and innovation have been evident. This approach to public sector reform and the importance attached to it have undoubtedly contributed to the sustained development of the countries in East and Southeast Asia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Batley, R., & Larbi, G. (2004). The changing role of government: The reform of public services in developing countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blunt, P., & Turner, M. (2005). Decentralisation, democracy and development in a post-conflict state: Commune councils in Cambodia. Public Administration and Development, 25(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransden‚ T.‚ & Kim‚ S. (2010). Contextualising the meaning of public management reforms: A comparison of the Netherlands and Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2), 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caiden, G. (1969). Development administration and administrative reform. International Social Science Journal, 21(1), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caiden, G., & Sundaram, P. (2004). The specificity of public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 24(5), 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., & Turner, M. (2008). Public support for democratic governance in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science, 16(3), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chardchawarn, S. (2010). Local governance in Thailand: The politics of decentralization and the roles of bureaucrats, politicians and the people. Japan External Trade Organization: Institute of Development Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. (2013). Can there be an Asian public administration? Public Administration and Development, 33(4), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. B. (2012). One country, two experiences: Administrative reforms in China and Hong Kong. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. (2016, April, 30). Chinese take a punt on Cambridge. The Guardian Weekly, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Guzman, R., & Reforma, M. (1992). Administrative reform in the Asian Pacific region: Issues and prospects. In Z. Zhijian, R. De Guzman, & M. Reforma (Eds.), Administrative reform towards promoting productivity in bureaucratic performance. Manila: EROPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for International Development (DFID). (2013). Summary report of the public sector governance reform evaluation. London: DFID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreschler, W. (2015). Paradigms of non-Western public administration and governance. In A. Massey & K. Johnston (Eds.), The international handbook of public administration and governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt, S. (1972). The political systems of empires. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt, S., & Roninger, L. (1980). Patron-client relations as a model of structuring social exchange. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(1), 42–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eng, N. (2014). The politics of decentralisation in Cambodia: The district level. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esman, M. (1972). Administration and development in Malaysia: Institution building and reform in a plural society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farazmand, A., & Balilaj, A. (2015). Does Asia have a unique theory of public administration for all seasons? An exploratory essay. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37(3), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitrani, F., Hofman, B., & Kaiser, K. (2005). Unity in diversity? The creation of new local governments in a decentralising Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 41(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (2016). Freedom in the World 2016. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org.

  • Gladden, E. (1972). A history of public administration (Vol. 2). London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindle, M. (2012). Jobs for the boys: Patronage and the state in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heady, F. (1984). Public administration: A comparative perspective. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage Foundation. (2016). Index of Economic Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index/about.

  • Henderson, J. (2011). East Asian transformation: On the political economy of dynamism, governance and crisis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Im, T., Campbell, J., & Cha, S. (2013). Revisiting Confucian bureaucracy: Roots of the Korean government’s culture and competitiveness. Public Administration and Development, 33(4), 286–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Independent Evaluation Group (IEG). (2008). Public sector reform: What works and why? Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. (2005). Market, state and democracy: Patron-client networks and the case for democracy in developing countries. Democratization, 12(5), 704–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry‚ P. (2008). Decentralized authoritarianism in China: The Communist Party’s control of local elites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, B. (2015). Decentralizing to villages in Indonesia: Money (and other) mistakes. Public Administration and Development, 35(5), 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J., & Liu, Z. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahbubani, K. (2004). Can Asians think? Singapore: Times Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, N. (2002). The legacy of new public management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67(2), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. (2001). What’s happened to Asian values? (Working Paper). Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41912/2/values.html.

  • Montinola‚ G.‚ Qian‚ Y.‚ & Weingast‚ B. (1995). The political basis for economic success in China. World Politics‚ 48(1)‚ 50–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian drama: An inquiry into the poverty of nations. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofreneo, R., & Wad, P. (2010). Industrial relations and labour market conditions. In R. Rasiah & J. Schmidt (Eds.), The new political economy of Southeast Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1996). Integrating people into public service reform. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert G., (Eds.). (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samaratunge, R., & Bennington, L. (2002). New public management: Challenge for Sri Lanka. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 24(1), 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaratunge, R., Alam, Q., & Teicher, J. (2008). The new public management reforms in Asia: A comparison of South and Southeast Asia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1972). Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemirani, M. (2011). Sovereign wealth funds and international political economy. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C., Jin, J., & Zou, H. F. (2012). Fiscal decentralization in China: History, impact, challenges and next steps. Annals of Economics and Finance, 13(1), 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, V. (1998). The administrative legacy of ancient India. International Journal of Public Administration, 21(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Transparency International. (2015). Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015/.

  • Turner, M. (2002). Choosing items from the menu: New public management in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12), 1493–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. (2013). Why is it so difficult to reform some Asian bureaucracies? Building theory from Cambodian practice. Public Administration and Development, 33(4), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., & Halligan, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and the alternatives in East and Southeast Asia. In K. Henderson & O. Dwivedi (Eds.), Bureaucracy and the alternatives in world perspective. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., & Hulme, D. (1997). Governance, administration and development: Making the state work. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., & Podger, O. (2003). Decentralisation in Indonesia: Redesigning the state. Canberra: Asia Pacific Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., Hulme, D., & McCourt, W. (2015). Governance, management and development: Making the state work. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., O’Donnell, M., Suh, C. S., & Kwon, S. H. (2013). Public sector management and the changing nature of the developmental state. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 24(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2016). Human Development Report 2016. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: Economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, P. (2014, September, 22). Why Thailand must decentralise. East Asia Forum’. Retrieved from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/09/22/why-thailand-must-decentralise/.

  • Weidner, E. (1970). Development and innovation roles. In E. Weidner (Ed.), Development administration in Asia. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, W. (1993). Comparative essays on Asia and the West. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2016). World Bank Website. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org.

  • Wu, A. (2012). Economic miracle and upward accountability: A preliminary evaluation of the Chinese style of fiscal decentralisation. Asian Review of Public Administration, 20(1&2), 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, L., & Zhong, K. (2012). Domestic reform and global integration: Public administration reform in China over the last 30 years. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 284–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, UNSW Canberra, Canberra, Australia

    Mark Turner

Authors
  1. Mark Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Turner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Sara Bice

  2. Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Avery Poole

  3. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Aust Capital Terr, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Turner, M. (2018). Public Sector Reform and National Development in East and Southeast Asia: Specificity and Commonality. In: Bice, S., Poole, A., Sullivan, H. (eds) Public Policy in the 'Asian Century'. International Series on Public Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60252-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation