Theory and Practice of Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, Directions, and Impacts

Abstract

In Southeast Asia, it is possible to discern three distinct models of public administration at various stages of its evolution, including the colonial-bureaucratic, the postcolonial-developmental, and the current “new public management” models. These models originated mostly in western nations, and were subsequently borrowed by (or imposed on) various countries in the region. However, there were considerable gaps between these ideal-type administrative models and the actual administrative practices in Southeast Asia. There also emerged major variations among countries in the region in terms of the extent to which they conform to the original models due to their differences in colonial backgrounds and national contexts. These issues and concerns are critically examined in this article. It concludes by making some critical assessment of the major trends of public administration in the region.

Keywords:

• bureaucratic model
• development administration
• new public management
• Southeast Asia
• administrative theory

Notes

12. Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 4.

15. In the case of Africa, some major studies show that under the market-driven public sector reforms, the “structural reform” (including structural adjustment program) was adopted during the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, followed by “capacity-building” approach in the late 1990s and new public management beginning from 2000. See Kiragu, K. Improving Service Delivery Through Public Service Reform: Lessons of Experience from Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries. Paper presented at Second Meeting of the DAC Network on Good Governance and Capacity Development, OECD Headquarters, Paris, February 14–15, 2002; Mhone, G. C. Z. The Challenges of Governance, Public Sector Reform and Public Administration in Africa: Some Research Issues. DPMN Bulletin 2003, 10(3).

16. Monteiro, J. O. Institutional and Organizational Restructuring of the Civil Service in Developing Countries. Paper presented at Capacity Development Workshops on Citizens, Businesses, and Governments, Marrakesh, Morocco, December 10–11, 2002; 2; Wong, J. The Adaptive Developmental State in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies2004, 4, 345–362.

19. See Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 281–313.

20. UNDP, 2004.

21. Cheung & Scott, 2003, 7; Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 10.

22. Kuhonta, 2004.

23. Kuhonta, 2004.

25. Painter, 2004, 369.

27. Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002, 150.

28. Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001.

31. Asian Development Bank. Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues and Prospects;Asian Development Bank: Manila, 1999, 18; UNDP. Trends and Challenges in Public Administration Reform in the Asia Pacific;Sub-Regional Resource Facility for the Pacific, Northeast, and Southeast Asia, UNDP: Bangkok, 2004; Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 11.

34. Haque, 1996.

35. Monteiro, 2002, 2.

37. Wong, 2004.

38. UNDP, 2004.

41. Painter, 2004.

43. Painter, 2004.

44. Asian Development Bank, 2001.

45. Laohavichien, 1984.

46. UNDP, 2004.

48. UNDP, 2004.

51. See Ormond & Loffler, Borins, S. What the New Public Management Is Achieving: A Survey of Commonwealth Experience. International Public Management Journal 1996, 1(1); Hood, C. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration1991, 9 (1), 3–19; Manning, N. The Legacy of the New Public Management in Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences2001, 67 (2), 297–312.

52. For example, Nick Manning makes a distinction between the so-called New Public Policy (e.g., privatization) and the NPM model—while the former has a narrow policy option, the latter has much broader “menu of choices.” See Manning, N. The Legacy of the New Public Management in Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences2001, 67 (2), 297–312.

53. Latin American Center for Development Administration. A New Public Management for Latin America; Latin American Center for Development Administration: Caracas, Venezuela, 1998; Nickson, A.; Lambert, P. State Reform and the ‘Privatized State’ in Paraguay. Public Administration and Development2002, 22, 163–174.

54. For details, see Larbi, G. A. The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States. UNRISD Discussion Paper No.112, September 1999; United Nations Research Institute for Social Development: Geneva; Management Development and Governance Division. Civil Service Reform Paper. United Nations: New York, 2001.

55. Cheung, 2001.

57. Manning, 2001.

58. Cheung & Scott, 2003; 12.

59. UNDP, 2004.

60. Mazlan, B. A. Public Sector Governance and Administrative Reforms in Malaysia. Paper presented at the UN conference on Governance in Africa: Consolidating the Institutional Foundations, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2–6 March, 1998.

64. Hayllar, M. R. The Philippines: Paradigm Lost or Paradigm Retained. In Cheung & Scott, Eds., 2003, 258.

71. Painter, M. Managerial Reform and Political Control: The Case of Thaksin and the Thai Bureaucracy. Paper presented at the SCANCOR-SOG/IPSA Workshop on Autonomization of the State, April 1–2, 2005, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

74. Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific, 2001.

76. Painter, 2005.

77. Wang, 1994, 299.

79. Haque, 2003; Asian Development Bank, 2001.

80. Asian Development Bank, 2001.

81. Wescott, 2004, 91–94.

82. Klauss, R. Laos: Civil Service System in a Transitional Economy. In Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 190.

83. Asian Development Bank, 2001; Klauss, 2001, 200.

85. Ryan, R. W. Bureaucrats, Politics and Development Strategies. International Journal of Public Administration1987, 10 (1), 77–89; Haque, M. S. The Contextless Nature of Public Administration in Third World Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences1996, 62 (3), 315–329.

86. Sato, 2004; 3.

87. Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002.

88. Asian Development Bank, 2001.

89. Painter, 2005; Bowornwathana, B. Administrative Reform and Tidal Waves from Regime Shifts: Reverse Effects of Thaksin's Tsunami on Autonomization. Paper presented at the SCANCOR-SOG/IPSA Workshop on Autonomization of the State, April 1–2, 2005, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

90. Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002.

91. Monteiro, J. O. Institutional and Organizational Restructuring of the Civil Service in Developing Countries. Paper presented at Capacity Development Workshops on Citizens, Businesses, and Governments, Marrakesh, Morocco, December 10–11, 2002; 15.

92. McCarty, A. Governance Institutions and Incentive Structures in Vietnam. Paper presented at the conference on Public Sector Challenges and Government Reforms in South East Asia, 12 March 2001, Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific, University of Sydney, Sydney Australia; Burns & Bowornwathana, B. 2001.

93. UNDP, 2004; 26.

94. Kuhonta, 2004.

95. Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002.

97. Mutebi, 2004; 11.

98. Painter, 2004.

101. Mutebi, 2004, 14–18.

105. Asian Development Bank, 2001.

106. UNDP, 2004, 10–11.

107. UNDP, 2004; Carino, L. V. The Philippines. In Public Administration in the Third World: An International Handbook; V. Subramaniam, Ed., Greenwood Press: New York, 1990.

110. Painter, 2005.

111. Bowornwathana, B. Administrative Reform and Tidal Waves from Regime Shifts: Reverse Effects of Thaksin's Tsunami on Autonomization. Paper presented at the SCANCOR-SOG/IPSA Workshop on Autonomization of the State, April 1–2, 2005, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

114. Painter, 2004.

117. Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002; Burns & Bowornwathana, B., 2001, 14.

118. Schick, 1998; Hood, 1995.

120. For similar example, see Ekekwe, E. N. Public Administration, Development and Imperialism. African Review 1977, 7(3–4), 47–58.

122. UNDP, 2004.

123. Burns & Bowornwathana, 2001, 22.

124. See Swerdlow, 1963; Riggs, F. W. Administration in Developing Countries; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1964; Hope, K. R. The Dynamics of Development and Development Administration; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1984.

125. Cheung, 2003, 12.

126. Alavi, H. The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh. New Left Review 1972, (74), 59–81; Haque, M. S. The Contextless Nature of Public Administration in Third World Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences1996, 62 (3), 315–329.

129. See Gonzalez & Mendoza, 2002.

130. Rasiah, 2000; Iwasaki, Y. At the Roots of the Asian Crisis: Governance and Transparency? Paper presented at Democracy, Good Governance and Transparency in the Asian Context, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, March 14–15, 2000.