China's 1998 Administrative Reform and New Public Management: Applying a Comparative Framework

Abstract

Does New Public Management (NPM) represent a global paradigm shift? Is China's 1998 administrative reform really a variation of NPM? This paper argues that resemblance does not equal convergence, and institutional background has to be considered. It proposes that comparing administrative reforms should address the institutional context around the relationships among democracy, politics, administration, society, business, and citizen. Utilizing this framework, it analyzes the technical, strategic, and consequential dimension of China's 1998 reform. The analysis suggests that the NPM agenda is different from, and inappropriate for, the Chinese reform. The lesson from China's experience can be applied to other authoritarian or developing countries.

Keywords:

• China administrative reform
• new public management

Notes

1. Aucoin, P. The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective; Institute for Research for Public Policy: Montreal, 1995.; Barzelay, M. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue; University of California Press: Berkeley, 2000.; Osborne, D.; Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1992.; Ridley, F. F. The New Public Management in Europe: Comparative Perspective. Public Policy and Administration 1996, 11(1), 16–29.

2. Gruening, G. Origin and Theoretical Basis of New Public Management. International Public Management Journal 2001, 4, 1–25.; Lynn, L. E. Jr. A Critical Analysis of the New Public Management. International Public Management Journal 1998, 1(1), 107–123.; Pollitt, C. Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management. Evaluation 1995, 1(2), 135.

7. Gruening, 2001.

10. Chen, Z. Toward a New Public Management Practice Model-Reflecting on Contemporary Western Government Reform Trend. Academic Journal of Xianmen University (Chinese) 2000, 2, 76–84.; Straussman, J. D.; Zhang, M. Chinese Administrative Reforms in International Perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 2001, 14(5), 411–422.

12. Cheung, Anthony. The Politics of New Public Management. In New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects: McLaughlin, K.; Osborne, S.; Ferlie, E. Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2002; 243–273.; Lee, P. Nan, S.; Lo, C. W.-H., Eds. In Remaking China's Public Management; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, 2001.

15. The four configurations are ruler trustworthy, party control (e.g., China), policy receptive (e.g., United States), and collaborative. This model accurately describes civil service systems, but omits some fundamental relations necessary for comparing the cause, path, and impact of administrative reforms.

17. Stillman, R. J. American vs. European Public Administration: Does Public Administration Make the Modern State, or Does the State Make Public Administration? Public Administration Review 1997, 57(4), 332–338.; Welch, E.; Wong, W. Public Administration in a Global Context: Bridging the Gaps of Theory and Practice between Western and Non-Western Nations. Public Administration Review 1998, 58(1), 40–49.

20. Moon Ingraham, 1998.

22. Denhardt, R. B. Five Great Issues in Organization Theory. In Handbook of Public Administration2^ndEd.; Rabin, J.; Hildreth, W. B.; Miller, G. J., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1998; 117–144.; Holzer, M.; Gabrielian, V. Five Great Ideas in American Public Administration. In Rabin, et al., 1998, 49–101.

24. Frederickson, H. G. The Spirit of Public Administration; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1997.; Schachter, H. L. Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves: Two Models for Improving Government Performance. Public Administration Review 1995, 55(6), 530–537.

27. Ferlie, E.; Pettigrew, A.; Ashburner, L.; Fitzgerald, L. The New Public Management in Action; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1996.; Hood, C. Contemporary Public Management: A Global Paradigm? Public Policy and Administration 1995, 10(2), 21–30.

30. Hood, 1991.

32. Aberbach, J. D.; Rockman, B. A. Reinventing Government, or Reinventing Politics? In Peters & Pierre, 2001.

33. Caiden, G. E. Administrative Reform — American Style. Public Administrative Review 1994, 54(2), 123–128.; Moe, R. C. The Reinventing Government Exercises: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences. Public Administrative Review 1994, 54(2), 111–123.

34. Peters, B. G.; Savoie, D. Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms; McGill-Queen's University Press: London, 1998; Pollitt, C. Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management. Evaluation 1995, 1(2), 135.

35. Lee & Lo, 2001.

37. The system was introduced in 1984 and refined in 1993 with the Provisional Regulation on State Civil Servants, which stressed scientific management in areas such as the duties of civil servants, job categories and positions, recruitment process, appraisal procedures, rewards and discipline, transfer, resignation, and retirement.

40. The ratio should be lower than 50% by Western standard.

41. In general, the economic policy of developing countries targets not only economic growth but also structural changes toward economic, social, and political modernization (Liou, 1999).

42. Chan, A. In Search of a Civil Society in China. Journal of Contemporary Asia 1997, 27(2), 242–251.; Pye, L. The State and the Individual: An Overview Interpretation. In The Individual and the State in China; Hook, Brian, Eds.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996; 16–42.

43. Madsen, R. China's Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society; University of California Press: Berkeley, 1998.; White, G.; Howell, J.; Shang, X. In Search of Civil Society: Market Reform and Social Change in Contemporary China; Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996.

47. With the same Leninist regime legacy, Russia and China were said to have strong states in the past. However, it is now generally acknowledged that the Russian state is weak while the Chinese state is strong (Ma, 2000). The distinction between a strong and a weak state is not the difference between authoritarian and democratic regimes. Strong means the ability to set, monitor, and enforce rules of games (Migdal, 1988). It is relative to what Myrdal (1970) called “soft” state in developing countries.

49. Gini coefficient is an internationally-accepted measurement of income equality. On the Gini scale, zero corresponds to complete equality and one refers to perfect inequality, or one person having all the income. The “alarm level” is generally set at 0.4.

52. “Management” means the judicious use of means to accomplish an end that is already set, while “administration” means a process of collaboration in determining the end and the means.

54. Liu, Z. The Major Problems of Chinese Governmental Organizations. Strategy & Management (Chinese) 1999, 5, 90–95.; Straussman, J. D.; Zhang, M. Chinese Administrative Reforms in International Perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 2001, 14(5), 411–422.

55. Straussman & Zhang, 2001; Worthley, J. A.; Tsao, K. K. Reinventing Government in China: A Comparative Analysis. Administrative & Society 1999, 31(5), 571–587.

56. Li, J. Bureaucratic Restructure in Reforming China: A Redistribution of Political Power. East Asian Institute, working paper, National University of Singapore, 1998.

59. Stephenson, M. C. A Trojan Horse Behind Chinese Walls? Problems and Prospects of US-Sponsored ‘Rule of Law’ Reform Projects in the People's Republic of China. Center for International Development, working paper, Harvard University, 2000.

62. The numbers in this paragraph and the following paragraph come from Liu (2003), Burns (2003), and reports from the State Council and the Chinese Public Administration Society.

64. Burns, 2003.

71. Of course, one cannot be sure if it is because of the restructuring measures or the social and cultural developments along with the marketization process.

73. Wamsley & Dudley, 1998, 21(2–4), 323–374.