This general issue selects seven articles on a wide range of policy-related issues in Asia. The first article by Sliwinski responds to a big question: why the democratization in many Asian countries has not led to regional security? As a matter of fact, what Asia has witnessed in the past two decades is the paradoxical development of both democratization and security crises. Sliwinski’s article defies the well-known Democratic Peace Thesis and argues that the homogeneity of political regimes is not necessarily a sufficient condition for peaceful coexistence. He further contends that the absence of a common “Asian identity” is perhaps the underlying reason for the thorny security paradox in this region. The author therefore points out that the construction of a new normative basis by fusing democratic elements and Asia’s own cultural philosophies such as Confucianism is needed for a paradigmatic shift in security thinking in Asia. This article sheds light on the diverse interpretations and practices in terms of understanding democratic structures and political life across different parts of the globe, especially showing the post-cold war arrangements led by the US have encountered severe difficulty in implementation. Perhaps, we need to search for new perspectives in examining international relations and geo-political order in the highly divisive world. For scholars who are also seeking theoretical resolutions for the security paradox in Asia, Sliwinski’s article is highly recommended.
The second article brings the audience’s attention to health care. Written by Arijita Dutta and colleagues, this article assesses the efficiency of public hospitals in an Indian state and reveals the causes of performance gaps. In the worldwide efforts of health systems strengthening (HSS), priority has been mainly attached to primary and essential clinical care in developing countries, leaving the vast secondary hospital sector relatively neglected. Dutta et al’s article wisely focuses on the dimension of technical efficiency and reveals the wide existence of planning gaps and managerial incapability in India’s public hospital sector that result in low efficiency. In this connection, stronger central planning and capacity-building are vital to strengthening the public hospital system in India. The lessons drawn are also of relevance for many developing countries in Asia.
Poverty is central to social policy studies. The measurement of poverty has made remarkable progress in recent decades, with the weaknesses of the conventional monetary approach increasingly recognized. Having addressed the multidimensionality of poverty, the deprivation approach has gained increasing prominence in recent years. The third article by three scholars from Hong Kong enriches the literature by constructing a deprivation-based poverty measure specifically for children in mainland China. The indicators selected cover a wide range of essential dimensions such as food, clothing, housing, education and social interaction. The household survey indicates that more than 10% of children in Beijing suffer from deprivation, an alarming message for the Chinese policy-makers grappling with the country’s worsening social inequality. One may ponder what the situation of child poverty will be in China’s vast countryside. Poverty issues are central to economic growth and social development and the present article provides new insights for understanding not only poverty itself but also social policy implications for China.
The fourth article written by Sudhipongpracha provides a very interesting reflection on the peculiar challenges to local administrators in a decentralized system. Emergency management, especially that in disaster relief, presents a very critical situation to examine various aspects of administrative capacity of local bureaucracy. While timely response, cross-sectoral collaboration and community involvement are all expected, the existing political and administrative structure may not be necessarily conducive. By employing both survey and interview methods, Sudhipongpracha’s study based in Thailand has well demonstrated the tension between decentralization and the multidimensional accountability that local administrators are expected to fulfill. It reminds political leaders that decentralization doesn’t merely mean the downward devotion of power, but a reconfiguration of inter-governmental relations as well as the realignment of administrative accountability.
The fifth article by Sok, Yu and Yilab resonates with the fourth one on Thailand by illustrating the daunting challenges experienced by Cambodia in her decentralization endeavor. As one of the least-developed countries in Asia, Cambodia embarked on a series of decentralization reforms in the 1990s, arguably influenced by the advice from international donors. This study examines whether the decentralized local institutions have led to enhanced capacity, sustainable funding and improved livelihood of rural grassroots communities in Cambodia. The authors’ analysis portrays a rather dire picture. While the project-based external aid programs have produced positive outcomes, they have unfortunately not been matched with strengthened local government capacity in the provision of essential public services. The Cambodian case reflects the wide gap between internationally touted reform recipes and the grave realities witnessed in poor nations. Institution-building, good governance and capacity building are easier said than done. This article draws us to reflect upon a more important issue on decentralization policy adopted in public administration. We must be careful about the complicated relationship between the central and local governments not only from the institutional aspect but also from finance, administration and governance perspectives when reflecting upon decentralization in public administration and management.
The sixth article by Yung and Leung is an empirical study focused on the emergence of Facebook in Hong Kong’s political arena. This is a timely piece given the continued political turmoil in the city due to struggles on universal suffrage. It clearly depicts the powerful role played by Internet technologies in political mobilization in a liberal but semi-democratic system. The article demonstrates the way in which new social media is transforming the political engagement in Hong Kong. This study reflects not only the common social dynamics observed in other liberal societies but also the unique characteristics of Hong Kong’s political scene such the anti-establishment sentiment, the China factor, and the painful democratic transition. For scholars interested in contemporary Hong Kong politics especially the latest development, this article is worth reading.
The last piece of this issue is a research note contributed by Sarah Chan. It reviews the economic achievement of Indonesia and examines the structural factors critical to her long-term sustainable development. Many newly industrializing economies in Asia have been struggling not to fall into the middle-income trap; Indonesia is no exception. Chan’s analytical framework encompasses five crucial policy issues including macroeconomic stability, future orientation, market efficiency, openness, and governance and leadership. The analysis suggests that while the country remains in a good position for faster economic growth, closer attentions must be given to macroeconomic policy as well as governance arrangements.
We hope you enjoy the collection of articles in this issue. The Journal of Asian Public Policy will continue to select exciting contributions in enhancing comparative development and policy studies with focus on Asia for publication in future. We also welcome more contributions from you and we count on your continual support to make the journal an important venue for academic and policy debates.
Ka Ho Mok
Editor-in-Chief
Alex He Jingwei
Associate Editor
November 2014