Bureaucracy and the Alternatives in East and Southeast Asia

  • Mark Turner
  • John Halligan
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)


East and Southeast Asia are essentially terms of geographical convenience used to delineate a disparate group of countries that demonstrate enormous ethnic, cultural, linguistic and political diversity. Once they could be identified, perhaps with others, under the vague notion of the Far East. In the 1950s, the term ‘Southeast Asia’ was normally used to mean ‘the non-European, non-Middle East, non-socialist, non-Soviet and non-Japanese part of the Eurasian continent’.1 Even Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea were often judged to lie within Southeast Asia because they were poor and underdeveloped. China was simply seen as China, a self-perception that still dominates in China today. Attempts to forge regional identity have been largely a process of post-Second World War cooperation especially associated with economic growth and manifested in organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The difficulties encountered by Malaysia’s prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, in attempting to establish the East Asian Economic Group (EAEG), later recast as the East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC), reveal continuing ambiguities about regional membership and what it actually means to the participants.


Political Culture Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Administrative Reform Bureaucratic Organisation Quezon City 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    P. Kornhonen, ‘Monopolizing Asia: The Politics of a Metaphor’, The Pacific Review, vol. 10 no. 3 (1997), p. 357.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, revised edition (London: Verso, 1991).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (eds), From Max Weber: Essays on Sociology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.N. Gladden, A History of Public Administration, vol. 2 (London: Frank Cass, 1972).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.N. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1972);Google Scholar
  6. F. Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, 3rd edn (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1984).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    E.N. Gladden as quoted in ibid., p. 145.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Ibid., p. 222.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    W.F. Wertheim, Comparative Essays on Asia and the West (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    J.S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (New York: New York University Press, 1956).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    R. Rohdewohld, Public Administration in Indonesia (Melbourne: Montech, 1995).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    R.C. Chandler and J.C. Piano, The Public Administration Dictionary, lad edn (Santa Barbara: Clio Press), p. 121.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    L.V. Cariño, Bureaucracy for Democracy: The Dynamics of Executive-Bureaucracy Interaction During Governmental Transitions (Quezon City: College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines, 1992).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    CD. Neher, ‘Asian Style Democracy’, Asian Survey, vol. 34, no. 11 (1994), pp. 949–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14.
    Ibid., p. 951.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Maurice Zinken (1953) as quoted in W.F. Wertheim, ‘The State and the Dialectics of Emancipation’, Development and Change, vol. 23, no. 3 (1992), p. 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    M.R.V. Vatikiotis, Political Change in Southeast Asia: Trimming the Banyan Tree (London: Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    P. Lasserre and H. Schütte, Strategies for Asia Pacific (South Melbourne: Macmillan, 1995), p. 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    For an excellent critique of this approach, see R. Lawless, An Evaluation of Philippine Culture-Personality Research (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    M. Chew, ‘Human Rights in Singapore: Perceptions and Problems’, Asian Survey, vol. 34, no. 11 (1994), p. 935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    D.K. Mauzy, ‘The Human Rights and “Asian Values” Debate in Southeast Asia: Trying to Clarify the Key Issues’, The Pacific Review, vol. 10, no. 2 (1997), pp. 210–36; M.R.V. Vatikiotis, op. cit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    S.P. Huntington, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3 (1993), pp. 22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    For example, G. Rodan and K. Hewison, ‘The Clash of Cultures or Convergence of “Political Ideology”’, in R. Robison (ed.), Pathways to Asia: The Politics of Engagement (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1996), pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    D.K. Mauzy, op. cit.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    K. Lieberthal, Governing China: From Revolution through Reform (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    S.K. Ma, Administrative Reform in Post-Mao China: Efficiency or Ethics (Lanham: University Press of America, 1996), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    C.F. Zhang, ‘Public Administration in China’, in M.K. Mills and S.S. Nagel (eds), Public Administration in China (New York: Greenwood Press, 1993), pp. 6, 8; S.K. Ma, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Ibid., pp. 23–24 and 33–35.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    L.W. Pye, The Spirit of Chinese Politics: A Psychocultural Study of the Authority Crisis in Political Development (MIT Press, 1968), p. 16; K. Lieberthal, op. cit.; S.K. Ma, op. cit., pp. 22–3.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    C.F. Zhang, op. cit., pp. 8, 12; G. Hintzen, ‘Drilling the State: An Introduction to Administrative Law in the PRC’, in D. Lisheng (ed.), Administrative Reform in the People’s Republic of China since 1978 (Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, 1994), pp. 8–26.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    C. Ro, Public Administration and the Korean Transformation: Concepts, Policies, and Value Conflicts (West Hartford: Kumarian Press, 1993), p. 8.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    B.W. Kim and P.S. Kim, Korean Public Administration: Managing the Uneven Development (Elizabeth, N.J. and Seoul: Hollym, 1997), p. 51;Google Scholar
  33. W.K Young, ‘The Legacy of Confucian Culture and South Korean Politics and Economics: An Interpretation’, in S-Y. Choi (ed.), Democracy in Korea: Its Ideals and Realities (Seoul: Korean Political Science Association, 1997), p. 122.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    K.S. Kim, ‘From Neo-mercantilism to Globalism: The Changing Role of the State and South Korea’s Economic Prowess’, in M.T. Berger and D.A. Borer (eds), The Rise of East Asia: Critical Visions of the Pacific Century (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 100–1;Google Scholar
  35. E. Friedman, ‘Introduction’, in E. Friedman, The Politics of Democratization: Generalizing East Asian Experiences (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), p. 9.Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    KS. Kim, 1997, op. cit., p. 100; B.W. Kim and P.S. Kim, op. cit., p. 51; W.K. Young, op. cit., p. 114.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    C. Ro, op. cit.; B.W. Kim, ‘Public bureaucracy in Korea’, in A. Farazmand (ed.), Handbook of Bureaucracy (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994), p. 591; B.W. Kim and P.S. Kim, op. cit.; W.K. Young, op. cit.Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    C. Ro, op. cit., pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    B.W. Kim, 1994, op. cit., p. 591.Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    W.K. Young, op. cit., p. 112.Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    K.S. Kim, 1997, op. cit., p. 101.Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    B.W. Kim, 1994, op. cit., p. 595.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    J. Cotton, ‘Korea in Comparative Perspective’, in J. Cotton (ed.), Politics and Policy in the New Korean State: From Roh Tae-woo to Kim Young-sam (Sydney: Longman, 1995), p. 239; W.K. Young, op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    W.G. Ouchi, Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (New York: Avon, 1981);Google Scholar
  45. C. Johnson, Japan: Who Governs? The Rise of the Developmental State (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995);Google Scholar
  46. J.S. Jun and H. Muto, ‘The Hidden Dimension of Japanese Administration: Culture and its Impact’, Public Administration Reviews, vol. 55, no. 2 (1995), p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 42.
    J. Elliot, ‘Japan: The Prospects for Public Sector Change’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 55, no. 4 (1996), pp. 46, 49;Google Scholar
  48. P.S. Kim, Japan’s Civil Service System: Its Structure, Personnel and Politics (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  49. 43.
    B. C. Koh, Japan’s Administrative Elite (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 194 and 256; J.S. Jun and H. Muto, op. cit., pp. 131.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    B.C. Koh, op. cit., pp. 195–7; J.S. Jun and H. Muto, op. cit., pp. 131–3.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    Y.H. Park, Bureaucrats and Ministers in Contemporary Japanese Government (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1986), p. 21; B.C. Koh, op. cit., pp. 196–7.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    J. Elliot op. cit.Google Scholar
  53. 47.
    D.C. Korten, ‘From Bureaucratic to Strategic Orientation’, in F.F. Korten and R.Y. Siy (eds), Transforming a Bureaucracy: The Experience of the Philippine National Irrigation Administration (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Press, 1989), p. 140.Google Scholar
  54. 48.
    B.U. Bagadion and F.F. Korten, ‘Developing Irrigators’ Organizations: A Learning Process Approach’, in M.M. Cernea (ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development (Washington D.C.: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 55.Google Scholar
  55. 49.
    D.C. Korten, ‘Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach’, Public Administration Review, vol. 40, no. 5 (1980), pp. 480–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 50.
    F.F. Korten and R.Y. Siy, ‘Summary and Conclusion’, in F.F. Korten and R.Y. Siy (eds), Transforming a Bureaucracy: The Experience of the Philippine National Irrigation Administration (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Press, 1989), p. 145.Google Scholar
  57. 51.
    R.P. de los Reyes and S.M.G. Jopillo, An Evaluation of the Philippine Participatory Communal Irrigation Program (Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, 1986).Google Scholar
  58. 52.
    R. Chambers, Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development (London: IT Publishers, 1993), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. See also R. Chambers, Rural Development: Putting the Last First (London: Longman, 1983).Google Scholar
  60. 53.
    M. Nerfin, ‘Neither Prince nor Merchant: An Introduction to the Third Sector’, IFDA Dossier, vol. 56 (1996), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
  61. 54.
    L. Salamon, ‘The Global Associational Revolution: The Rise of the Third Sector on the World Scene’, Institute for Policy Studies Occasional Paper, 15 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1993).Google Scholar
  62. 55.
    J. Clark, Democratising Development: The Role of Voluntary Organisations (London: Earthscan, 1991).Google Scholar
  63. 56.
    M. Turner and D. Hulme, Governance, Administration and Development: Making the State Work (London and West Hartford: Macmillan & Kumarian, 1997), p. 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 57.
    P. Keuleers, ‘Central-Local Relations in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Historic Overview, Current Situation and Trends’, paper presented at the workshop, ‘Central-Local Relations: Asia-Pacific Experiences’, University of Canberra, 21 March 1997.Google Scholar
  65. 58.
    J. Farrington and D.J. Lewis (eds), Non-governmental Organizations and the State in Asia: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1993).Google Scholar
  66. 59.
  67. 60.
    R. Mawer, ‘Mice Among the Tigers: Adding Value in NGO-Government Relations in Southeast Asia’, in M. Edwards and D. Hulme (eds), NGOs States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort? (London: Macmillan, 1997), p. 244.Google Scholar
  68. 61.
    G. Clarke, ‘Participation and Protest: Non-governmental Organisations and Philippine Politics’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1995;Google Scholar
  69. A.G. Miclat-Teves and D.J. Lewis, ‘NGO-Government Interaction in the Philippines: Overview’, in J. Farrington and D.H. Lewis (eds), NGO-Governmental Organisations and the State in Asia: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 227–39.Google Scholar
  70. 62.
    G. Clarke, op. cit.Google Scholar
  71. 63.
    M. Edwards and D. Hulme (eds), NGO Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet (London: Macmillan, 1995).Google Scholar
  72. 64.
    A.G. Miclat-Teves and D.J. Lewis, op. cit. and A.B. Brillantes, ‘NGOs as Alternative Delivery Systems: The Philippine Experience’, in R.B. Ocampo and O.M. Alfonso (eds), Alternative Delivery Systems for Public Services (Quezon City: ADIPA, 1995).Google Scholar
  73. 65.
    M. Edwards and D. Hulme, op. cit.Google Scholar
  74. 66.
    A. Gregorio-Medel, ‘Development Work is Middle Class Oriented as much as it is Poverty Oriented’, in Philippine Politics and Society (Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs, Ateneo de Manila, Quezon City, 1993), pp. 58–93.Google Scholar
  75. 67.
    S. Kurosawa, T. Fujiwara and M.A. Reforma, ‘Preface’, in S. Kurosawa, T. Fujiwara and M.A. Reforma (eds), New Trends in Public Administration for the Asia-Pacific Region: Decentralization (Ministry of Home Affairs, Tokyo: EROPA, 1996), p. vii.Google Scholar
  76. 68.
    J. Xiaonan, ‘The Reform of the Economic System and the Adjustment of Powers Between the Central and Local Governments in China’, in S. Kurosawa, T. Fujiwara and M.A. Reforma (eds), op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar
  77. 69.
    C. Chang-Hyun, ‘The Politics of Decentralization: The Case of Korea from 1991 to 1995’, in S. Kurosawa, T. Fujiwara and M.A. Reforma (eds), op. cit., p. 62.Google Scholar
  78. 70.
    M. Turner, ‘Central-Local Relations in the Asia-Pacific: Convergence or Divergence’, in M. Minogue, C. Polidano and D. Hulme (eds), Public Sector Management for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 1999).Google Scholar
  79. 71.
  80. 72.
    M. Turner, ‘Central-Local Relations in the Philippines: From Centralism to Localism’, paper presented at the workshop ‘Central-Local Relations: Asia-Pacific Experiences’, University of Canberra, 21 March 1997.Google Scholar
  81. There is a wealth of literature emerging on the Philippine experiment in decentralisation, including P.D. Tapales, ‘Philippines’, in P.L. McCarney (ed.), The Changing Nature of Local Government in Developing Countries (Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, 1996);Google Scholar
  82. P.E. Legaspi (ed.), Decentralization, Autonomy and the Local Government Code: The Challenge of Implementation, Vol. 1 (Quezon City: Local Government Center, University of the Philippines, 1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Turner
  • John Halligan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations