Special Issue Introduction: experiments in public administration research in the Asia-Pacific region

The use of experimental methods in the social and behavioural sciences, including somewhat belatedly the field of public administration, has recently exploded. Though public administration scholars in North America and Europe have begun using experiments extensively, experiments have been less common in the Asia-Pacific region. We are excited to offer this symposium in the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration that furthers the use of experiments in public administration to improve both scholarly research and practice in the region.

This symposium emerged from a conference on experimental research methods held in Seoul and sponsored by the Experimental Public Management Research Lab (ExPMR Lab) at KDI School of Public Policy and Management in December of 2019. The conference has become an annual event, with 2020 being held virtually, and it will continue to serve as an important platform in the dissemination of experimental public administration research in the Asia-Pacific region. We acknowledge the generous financial support from the ExPMR Lab and KDI School.

Public administration scholars have long called for an increase in the use of experiments (Bozeman & Scott, 1992), but it was only in the last decade that experiments have been widely used in public administration research. This reflects an increasing concern with “credibility” in establishing causality in the social sciences (Angrist & Pischke, 2010). While public administration has always been, and almost of necessity will remain diverse in the methodologies it employs (Zhu et al., 2019), experiments have become more common because they are very good at allowing researchers to establish causality via randomisation, something that is difficult to attain with other designs. A recent review of experimental studies in leading public administration journals by Walker et al. (2017), however, notes their continued scarcity.

Though experimental research is not as common in the Asia-Pacific region, there is a small but growing group of scholars using experimental methods, and some of their cutting-edge research is included in this volume. Chen et al. review and assess Asia-Pacific region’s capacity to produce experimental research in the lead article. This review demonstrates that, thus far, experimental methods are generally limited to a small number of universities and often involve international collaborations. The authors call for greater transparency in future scholarly research, particularly the implementation procedures in experiments, reports from experiments, and statements of future directions.

The lead article is followed by an article from Shapiro, Bolsen, and Kim on framing of public messages and their influence on beliefs and attributions. Using an emphasis framing experiment, the authors test whether perceived importance of cooperation with China in solving air pollution problems in the region depends on the type of framing that the respondents in Korea are exposed to. The authors report that while frames did not show significant direct impacts, differences across pre-existing beliefs and attitudes remained important. They note a tension for policymakers in trying to influence public beliefs through framing vs. adopting a direct approach of citizen engagement that explicitly speaks to beliefs and attitudes.

An article by Huang et al. focuses on Taiwanese public sector employees and asks whether experimental exposures in their simulations make managers more supportive of artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool compared to non-managers. They find that managers are generally more supportive of the use of AI as a decision tool and become even more supportive when exposed to the study’s simulations. This creates an interesting setting where line-employees, those who tend to be on the forefronts of service provision, are less supportive of AI tools than their superiors. They call on future research to assess when and whether the use of AI-supported decisions is appropriate for frontline tasks.

An article by Kuşseven and Yildiz shows how experimental methods and behavioural approaches are being used by governments in a case study of the behavioural public policy unit formed by the Turkish government. This unit, modelled after similar units in other countries (e.g., the United Kingdom’s “nudge” unit), seeks to develop low-cost solutions to public policy problems. The article not only explains in detail the Turkish experience in establishing this unit, but also provides lessons for other countries wishing to establish such units.

The concluding article by Moldogaziev, Liu, and Ivonchyk reviews the literature on social impact bonds (SIB) to assess whether the policy innovation typology lens can offer practical lessons about this novel, largely experimental social policy tool. In the context of the Asia-Pacific region, they write that research on SIBs is minimal. Scholarly work that exists in the region is focused on product features of this tool, at the expense of process innovation aspects of service delivery. This, the authors write, contrasts with research from other regions, which began focusing on project performance measurement, evidence auditing and evaluation, and accountability to service recipients. They conclude that future studies focusing on the process innovation aspects of SIB experimentation in the Asia-Pacific region can make a significant contribution to public administration research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cheol Liu

Cheol Liu is an associate professor of budgeting and public financial management at the KDI School of Public Policy & Management. His research interests are in public corruption, taxation, government expenditures, public pension, government debt, e-government, and e-leadership in the public sector. He is the head of the Experiment Lab for Public Management Research, EX(PMR).

Tima T. Moldogaziev

Tima T. Moldogaziev is an associate professor of public policy in the School of Public Policy at the Pennsylvania State University. His primary research interests are in public financial management, capital market and financial innovations, regional and urban infrastructure financing, and subnational fiscal policy.

Christopher Witko

Christopher Witko is associate director and a professor of public policy and political science in the School of Public Policy at the Pennsylvania State University. His primary research focuses on how public policies shape and respond to economic outcomes like unemployment and inequality, and the role of the public and organised interests in developing public policy.