Special issue introduction: integrating Asia Pacific influences and public management research

Hofstede (2007) argues that the Asia context is special enough to merit more Asia management research. Indeed, public management lessons from the Asia Pacific region may open new windows that allow scholars to improve public management theory and practice. One example is the response of Asia Pacific countries to the COVID-19 pandemic. States in Asia Pacific region took measures that greatly differ from those in North America and West Europe, but their performance in combating the pandemic was no less effective than Western countries. Scholars argue that high performance in many Asian states can be attributed to people’s high trust in government, which is embedded in Confucian culture’s submission to authority (Chen & Hsieh, 2017). However, research that systematically examines Asia Pacific public management remains lacking. As Hofstede (2007) claims, Asian scholars should have more confidence in developing their own research agenda.

In our view, the agenda for scholars in the Asia Pacific region should address the following themes. First, it should propose concepts or phenomena tailored for the Asia Pacific context. Many cultural or institutional concepts that cannot be found in the Western context, but meanwhile affect administrative behaviour and public management practices in Asia Pacific region, need to be treated seriously. For example, 2015) propose the concept of “guanxi”, a behavioural pattern grounded in the Confucian culture, and test whether promotion in the Chinese public sector is guanxi-based or merit-based.

Second, it should compare public management across the borders, either between the East and the West or among Asian states. Comparative public administration has long been an important branch in public administration research. For example, Chen et al. (2019) find that people’s interest in and attraction to a public service career differs greatly among New Zealand, the United States, and Taiwan, with New Zealand being the lowest and Taiwan being the highest. Reasons for this variation in the attractiveness of public careers has been attributed to radical administrative reform in New Zealand and the high prestige of public servants in Taiwan. Additional research is needed to fully understand the differences across these countries.

Finally, it should examine the applicability of propositions developed in the West. For example, in Western countries, most scholars agree that those who are high in public service motivation (PSM) tend to prefer a public-sector than a private-sector career. Some scholars in Asia Pacific countries, however, have failed to reach the same conclusion (Lee & Choi, 2016). In addition, facing competitive public service exams, high-PSM individuals in the East Asian countries are more likely to be “winnowed out” from public service (Chen et al., 2020). We believe that “anomalies” exist in many more research topics, and scholars are encouraged to explore cultural and institutional sources that explain these anomalies.

In this special issue, we include five articles that match the three themes. The first article, “Expecting children to be dragons in an East Asian context: Parental expectations of children choosing a career in the public sector” by Chung-An Chen, Chengwei Xu, and Don-Yun Chen, belongs to the first theme. According to the authors, parental expectation is a much more prevalent phenomenon in East Asia than the West. By testing dyadic data from Taiwan, they find that parental expectation enhances Taiwanese adult children’s interest in a public service career. This differs from evidence from the West, which shows that parental influence is mainly carried out through role modelling.

The second article, “Advancing social equity in East Asia: Education and health care policy in China, South Korea, and Singapore” by Morgen Johansen, falls under the second theme. After examining social equity in both education and health care policies across the three countries, Johansen concludes that the constant shift of equity concerns in these countries may be related to their founding principles, which were based on paternalism and Confucian ideals of egalitarianism, an East Asian feature.

The third, fourth, and fifth articles address the last theme: examining the applicability of propositions developed in the West. The third article is “The effects of organisational diversity perception on affective commitment” by Sangsuk Kim and Geunjoo Lee. Based on experiences and theories constructed in the West, the authors hypothesise that organisational diversity harms affective commitment. However, regression results from data collected in South Korea show that social category diversity enhances affective commitment. According to the authors, the Balanced Public Personnel Policy was recently introduced. East Asians’ tendency to comply with authority may have an effect. In addition, partly influenced by the male dominance culture in East Asia, the current level of social category diversity is not high enough. The harm to affective commitment appears only when social category diversity reaches a higher level.

The fourth article is “Do high-PSM public employees seek extrinsic rewards? A latent class analysis” by Chengwei Xu, Assel Mussagulova, Chung-An Chen, and Ming-Feng Kuo. In contrast to the stereotype that high-PSM individuals are interested in intrinsic rewards instead of extrinsic rewards, the authors show evidence that many high-PSM public employees in China have a strong desire for extrinsic rewards such as wages, promotions, and positive affirmation. The high prestige and abundant material rewards that go with public service positions in China may explain this finding, according to the authors.

The fifth article is “How do public sector auditors perceive the concept and practice of auditor independence? Evidence from Indonesia” by Ahmad Rizki and Mark Turner. The authors conclude that independence is perceived by all respondents as a fundamental auditor value. This seems to be drawn from the Western literature, but how the notion of independence is understood and operationalised by the auditors is unique in a developing country like Indonesia. The authors also identify multiple views, emphases, and practices about how auditors at different levels of organisational hierarchy maintain independence.

By proposing new concepts, comparing public management across the borders, and examining the applicability of propositions grounded in the West, five articles in this special issue articulate new directions for public management research. They identify how the Asia Pacific context may open new windows that allow scholars to improve public management theory and practice. Through this special issue, we call for more researchers’ attention to relevant topics from the Asia Pacific region.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chung-An Chen

Chung-An Chen is associate professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has a broad interest in public management issues with a particular focus on organizational behavior, human resource management, and East Asian public management.

Soojin Kim

Soojin Kim is Assistant Professor of the Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests include strategic public management, policy effectiveness, and public-private partnerships. Her work has been published in American Review of Public Administration, Public Management Review, Public Performance & Management Review, and International Review of Administrative Sciences. Her recent co-authored book is Exploring Public-Private Partnerships in Singapore: The Success-Failure Continuum (Routledge Focus).

Liang Ma

Liang Ma is Professor at the School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, China. He is Co-editor of International Journal of Public Administration. His research interests include performance management, innovation, and digital governance.