Public Organization Review

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 361–371 | Cite as

Reforming Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Trends and Impacts

Original Paper

Abstract

In Southeast Asia, the recent 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 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 recent changes on the systems of public administration the conditions of citizens and societies in the region.

Key words

public service reform current trend major impact Southeast Asia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ADB (Asian Development Bank). (1999). Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues and Prospects.Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, Gayle, Joanne Llewellyn, and Qiumeng Mao. (1998). “International Trends in Public Administration—Notes.” Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No.88, May.Google Scholar
  3. Das, S.K. (1998). Civil Service Reform and Structural Adjustment. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Endriga, Jose N. (1997). “Comparative Studies of National Civil Service Systems: The Philippines.” Paper prepared for the Conference on Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, Indiana University, USA, April 5–8.Google Scholar
  5. Farazmand, Ali. (1996). “Introduction: The Comparative State of Public Enterprise Management.” InAli Farazmand (ed.), Public Enterprise Management: International Case Studies. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  6. Farazmand, Ali. (1999). “Privatization or Reform? Public Enterprise Management in Transition.”International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(4), 551–567.Google Scholar
  7. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1996). “The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current Epoch ofPrivatization.” Administration & Society, 27(4), 510–536.Google Scholar
  8. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1998). “New Directions in Bureaucratic Change in Southeast Asia: SelectedExperiences.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 26(1), 96–114.Google Scholar
  9. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999a). “Relationship Between Citizenship and Public Administration: AReconfiguration.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(3), 309–325.Google Scholar
  10. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999b). “Ethical Tension in Public Governance: Critical Impacts on Theory Building.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 21(4).Google Scholar
  11. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999c). “Globalization of Market Ideology and Its Impact on Third WorldDevelopment.” In Alexander Kouzmin and Andrew Hayne (eds.), Essays in Economic Globalization,Transnational Policies and Vulnerability. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
  12. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999d). Restructuring Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Study.Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hood, Christopher. (1991) “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration 69(1),3–19.Google Scholar
  14. Kelegama, Saman. (1995). “The Impact of Privatization on Distributional Equity: The Case of SriLanka.” In V.V. Ramanadham (ed.), Privatization and Equity. London: Routledge, pp. 143–180.Google Scholar
  15. Kristiadi, J.B. (1992). “Administrative Reform in Indonesia: Streamlining and Professionalizing theBureaucracy.” In Zhang Zhijian, Raul P. De Guzman, and Mila A. Reforma (eds.), AdministrativeReform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance. Manila: EROPA SecretariatGeneral, pp. 97–106.Google Scholar
  16. Liou, Kuotsai Tom. (ed.) (2002). Administrative Reform and National Economic Development. Aldershot Singapore and Sydney: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Llewellyn, Joanne, and Margaret Varghese. (1997). “International Trends in Public Administration—Notes.” Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No.86 (December).Google Scholar
  18. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1993). Public ManagementDevelopment Survey 1993. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (1995). Public ManagementDevelopments Update 1995. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  20. Pereira, Luiz C.B. (1997). “State Reform in the 1990s: Logic and Control Mechanisms.” Paper presented at the seminar on “The Changing Role of the State” (sponsored by The World Bank), Hong Kong, September 23, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. Randall, V., and R. Theobald. (1985). Political Change and Underdevelopment. Durham, NorthCarolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific. (1999). Public Sector Management Reform in Asia and the Pacific: Selected Experiences from Seven Countries. Pakistan: Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, UNDP. http://undp.un.org.pk/rgp/.
  23. Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP). (2001). Public Sector Challenges and GovernmentReforms in South East Asia: Report 2001. Australia: RIAP, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenbloom, David H. (2001). “Administrative Reformers in a Global World: Diagnosis, Prescription,and the Limits of Transferability.” In Jong S. Jun (ed.), Rethinking Administrative Theory: TheChallenge of the New Century. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  25. Salleh, Sirajuddin H. (1992). “A Glance at the Civil Service Reforms in the Asean Countries.” InSirajuddin H. Salleh (ed.), Civil Service in the South Asian Region: Challenges and Prospects of theYear 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre, pp. 27–53.Google Scholar
  26. Salleh, Sirajuddin H. (1996). “Global Challenges and Local Public Sector Innovations.” In Sirajuddin H.Salleh (ed.), Public Sector Innovations—The ASEAN Way. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and PacificDevelopment Centre, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, B. (1991). “The Changing Role of Government in Comparative Perspective.” In B.C. Smith(ed.), The Changing Role of Government: Management of Social and Economic Activities. London:Management Development Programme, Commonwealth Secretariat, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
  28. Stein, H. (1994). “Theories of Institutions and Economic Reform in Africa.” World Development 22(12),1833–1849.Google Scholar
  29. Terry, Larry D. (1998). “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.” Public Administration Review 58(3).Google Scholar
  30. United Nations. (2000). Changes and Trends in Public Administration: Indonesia. http://www.un.org/esa/governance/Database/INDONESIA.html.
  31. World Bank. (1995). Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and Politics of Government Ownership.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. World Bank. (1996). World Bank Annual Report 1996. Washington, D.C.: International Bank forReconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
  33. World Bank. (1997). World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. New York:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wright, Vincent. (1997). “The Paradoxes of Administrative Reform.” In Walter J.M. Kickert (ed.), PublicManagement and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward ElgarPublishing Ltd., pp. 7–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations