1、Reforming Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Trends and Impacts M. SHAMSUL HAQUE polhaquenus.edu.sg Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore Key words: public service reform, current trend, major impact, Southeast Asia Abstract: In Southeast Asia, the recent
2、 two decades have witnessed major theoretical, structural, functional, and ethical reforms in the administrative system. In the region, the state-centric mode of public administration that emerged during the colonial and postcolonial periods, has recently been transformed into a businesslike public
3、management in line with the current global movement for such a transition. This article examines the trends of administrative changes in countries such as Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. It also briefly evaluates the critical impacts of these rec
4、ent changes on the systems of public administration and the conditions of citizens and societies in the region. Introduction There is a relative absence of critical academic discourse on public administration in Southeast Asia. The existing literature mostly covers the empirical illustrations and si
5、mple descriptions of the prevailing administrative systems and periodic administrative changes adopted by various governments in the region. There is hardly any debate on the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of such administrative systems and reforms. On the other hand, most of these adminis
6、trative systems and their changes have been imitative of those found in Western capitalist nations. The administrative systems in Southeast Asia not only represent the past colonial legacies e.g., the British tradition in Malaysia and Singapore, the Dutch system in Indonesia, and the American patter
7、n in the Philippines they have also been changed during the postcolonial period based on the recent reform experiences of Western nations. During this post-independence period, except for communist countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, the administrative systems evolved in Southeast Asia in line w
8、ith the liberal democratic models of public administration (especially the British and American models) characterized by principles such as separation of power, political neutrality, and public accountability, which were to be maintained through constitutional provision, legal system, Manufactured i
9、n The Netherlands.legislative means, ministerial supervision, budget and audit, and performance evaluation. However, the recent two decades have seen fundamental historical changes in public administration in developed nations themselves. Increasingly, the ideological foundation has shifted toward n
10、eoliberal perspective, the policy orientation has changed toward market-driven agenda, the structural pattern has moved toward neomanagerial autonomy, the functional nature has shifted toward a catalytic role, the normative features have changed in favor of businesslike values, and the service recip
11、ients are redefined as stakeholders or customers (Rosenbloom, 2001； Pereira, 1997). These shifts in public administration are inherent and evident in the recent reform initiatives undertaken by governments in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
12、the U.K., and the U.S. Following the lead of these developed nations, many developing nations, including Southeast Asian countries such as Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, have introduced similar ideological, structural, functional, normative,
13、 and service-related changes in their administrative systems (Haque, 1998). Interestingly, while the practical nature of public administration has undergone such a rapid historical transformation in Southeast Asia, the academic literature or discourse has not been parallel to this administrative tra
14、nsition in the region. It is, however, crucial to reexamine the nature and dimensions of these unprecedented administrative reforms in order to assess their academic and practical implications for public administration. In this regard, the article examines the theoretical-conceptual, structural-func
15、tional, and ethical-motivational patterns of changes in the public service in Southeast Asia. It also makes a brief evaluation of these administrative reforms, especially in terms of their adverse impacts on the academic discourse, the practical profession, and the general public. It concludes by st
16、ressing the need for a serious critical evaluation of the current historical trends in public administration in the region. Trends in public administration set by current reforms Theoretical-conceptual trend During the post-independence period, in line with the overall state-centered model pursued b
17、y most regimes in the developing world, Southeast Asian countries adopted a planned development model representing a reformed version of Keynesian economic framework. The centrality of the state and its administration was emphasized in most theoretical perspectives meant for developing societies (Ha
18、que, 1999d； Randall and Theobald, 1985). During this period, in articulating the mode of public governance in Southeast Asia, the 362 M. S. HAQUEvarieties of modernization theories and economic-growth models (endorsed by academics and policy makers) prescribed an interventionist agenda, although the
19、re were variations among countries in the region in terms of the degree of actual state intervention. However, during the recent decades, under the influence of a global market ideology, the state-centric thinking in public administration has increasingly been replaced with market-biased theories an
20、d models in Southeast Asia. This current intellectual trend in governance reflects the worldwide revival of neoclassical economic thinking and the reinforcement of public choice theory. In fact, the basic tenets of structural adjustment program which represent some major components of recent public
21、sector reforms in Southeast Asian countries are largely based on the neoclassical model that opposes state intervention, endorses the downsizing of the public sector, and suggests the expansion of business enterprises (see ADB, 1999； Haque, 1999c； Stein, 1994). The earlier tradition of public admini
22、stration guided by a state-led development perspective, is in eclipse in countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Even the communist state like Vietnam has reformed its administrative system in order to realize a marketled model of development. With regard to this changing orientation in
23、 development pursued by the state in developing nations, Smith (1991:28) mentions that neoclassical economics and its principles and policies of free market have become the dominant foundation of development thinking in these countries while the planned-development framework is being rejected as ine
24、fficient. This trend represents a basic change in the policy assumption and theoretical framework of public administration in developing countries, especially in terms of the shift in its postcolonial mission of state-run development programs paraphrased as development administration. The emerging n
25、eoclassical basis of public administration is represented in its increasing use of market-driven public choice theory that subscribes to the adoption of market principles and business strategies in the public sector. This tendency toward the neoclassicist choice theory is well reflected in the emerg
26、ing neomanagerial interpretation of public administration under the facade of new public management characterized by a strong belief in market principle, reduction in the scope of public sector, antiwelfare policy orientation, and businesslike changes in administrative structure (Hood, 1991； Terry,
27、1998). Such changes in the principle, scope, orientation, and structure which amount to nothing less than a shift from development administration to new public management can be observed in Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand (Das, 1998； Ha
28、que, 1998). Recently, almost all public sector agencies and enterprises in these countries have been affected by these market-driven principles and policies. In line with these changes in the theoretical orientation of public management, there have also been significant changes in the concepts and t
29、erminologies used in public administration. In Southeast Asia, the postcolonial period saw the proliferation of terms such as nation-building, self-reliance, basic needs, and citizens welfare, which became conceptual guidelines for various public agencies. But today these ideas have been replaced wi
30、th languages such as joint venture, partnership, service quality, and customer satisfaction. For instance, the use of joint venture and partnership in public agencies has become a common official rhetoric in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam (World Bank, 1996, 1997). On the
31、 other hand, the redefinition of citizens as customers and the adoption of a customer-oriented culture have gained prominence in recent administrative reforms in Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines (Haque, 1999d； Llewellyn and Varghese, 1997； Liou, 2002). The emergence of such business
32、languages in the public sector has also been reinforced by the adoption of business-sector techniques like Total Quality Management, Work Improvement Teams, Excellent Work Culture, and Quality Control Circle in various Southeast Asian countries. This tendency toward the use of business concepts and strategies is relatively new in the regions administrative thinking.
