The Evolution of Chinese Administrative Studies: Where Is the Field of Chinese Administrative Science Headed?

Abstract

Is Public Administration (PA) as a field of study a basic science? If not, could PA generally and Chinese PA (CPA) in particular become a basic science or a design science? To address these questions, this essay reviews pertinent literature to underscore the major problems, basic deficiencies, and critical issues of CPA, and then reviews ongoing CPA research to shed light on its future development. Our review shows that PA lacks an intellectual core that defines the nature of public administration as a professional practice, and in turn, the nature of PA as an academic discipline. Further, while CPA bears the same deficiencies, it also suffers from three maladies, namely, reductionism, traditionalism, and conservatism, which together reinforce mediocrity. In view of all these issues and problems, where CPA is headed? Our literature review reports some ongoing research breakthroughs in CPA, including ontological confirmation of public administration nature and identification of necessary conditions for effective administrative results, which form a basis to suggest that CPA may become a basic science and design science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Arinder, Max K. 2016. Bridging the divide between evidence and policy in public sector decision making: A practitioner’s perspective. Public Administration Review 76 (3): 394–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ascher, William. 2010. The evolution of the policy sciences: Understanding the rise and avoiding the fall. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 5 (2): 365–373.

  3. 3.

    Barzelay, Michael, and Fred Thompson. 2010. Back to the future: Making public administration a design science. Public Administration Review 70: s295–s297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Behn, Robert. 1996. Public management: Should it strive to be art, science, or engineering? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (1): 91–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Brower, Ralph S., Mitchel Y. Abolafia, and Jered B. Carr. 2000. On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration and Society 32 (4): 363–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cairney, Paul, Kathryn Oliver, and Adam Wellstead. 2016. To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: Reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review 76 (3): 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chan, Hon S., and King W. Chow. 2007. Public management and policy in western China: Metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innovation transfer. American Review of Public Administration 37 (4): 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cheng, Joseph Y.S., and Lucia Q. Lu. 2009. Public administration research in China: Evidence from content analysis of leading Chinese public administration journals. Issues & Studies 45 (1): 203–241.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chow, King W. 1991. Public administration as an academic discipline in China. In Handbook of comparative and development administration, ed. A. Farazmand, 409–420. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chow, King W. 2014. Altruism in Chinese emergency management: The case of Wenchuan earthquake. In Crisis and emergency management: Theory and practice, ed. A. Farazmand, 585–596. Florida: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chow, King W., and Shuang Luo. 2016. On the necessary regression of the value of Mao Zedong thinking as a methodology. Innovation 10 (1): 23–39 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chow, King W., Haiyan Xiao, and Mingyue Wen. 2018. The maladies of Chinese public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science 18 (3): 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dahl, Robert A. 1947. The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review 7 (1): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Desouza, Kevin C., and Benoy Jacob. 2017. Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars. Administration & Society 49 (7): 1043–1064.

  15. 15.

    Dong, Jianxin, Rui Bai, and Maochun Liang. 2005. Analysis of the method in Chinese public administration: 2000-2004. Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute 6 (2): 50–55 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Durant, Robert F. 2015. Whither power in public administration? Attainment, dissipation, and loss. Public Administration Review 75 (2): 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Eldor, Liat. 2018. Public service sector: The compassionate workplace——The effect of compassion and stress on employee engagement, burnout and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 (1): 86–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Frederickson, H.George. 1991. Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration and Society 22 (4): 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. Why there is no science of public administration. Journal of International Affairs 58 (1): 189–201.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gallagher, Mary E. 2005. China in 2004: Stability above all. Asian Survey 45 (1): 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gazley, Beth, and David Van Slyke. 2011. The energy of Minnowbrook III: Editors’ introduction. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (Supplement 1): i7–i12.

  22. 22.

    Goetz, Jennifer L., Dacher Keltner, and Emiliana Simon-Thomas. 2010. Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 136 (3): 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Goodsell, Charles T. 2017. Publicness. Administration and Society 49 (4): 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Grindle, Merilee S. 2007. Good enough governance revisited. Development and Policy Review 25 (5): 553–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    He, Yanling. 2007. Problems and methods: Assessment of Chinese public administration research (1995-2005). Journal of Political Science 1: 93–104 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Head, Brian W. 2015. Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review 76 (3): 472–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Heaney, Michael T., and John Mark Hansen. 2006. Building the Chicago school. American Political Science Review 100 (4): 589–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Holzer, Marc, and Mengzhong Zhang. 2009. Introduction to the special issue on comparative Chinese/American public administration. Public Administration Review 69 (supplement (1): S5–S12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Houston, David J., and Sybil M. Delevan. 1990. Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review 50 (6): 674–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jing, Yijia. 2008. Dissertation research in public administration in China. Chinese Public Administration Review 5 (1/2): 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kettl, Donald F. 2000. Public administration at the millennium: The state of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (1): 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lan, Zhiyong, and Kathleen K. Anders. 2005. A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test. Journal of Public Management 32 (2): 138–165.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lasswell, Harold D. 2003. On the policy sciences in 1943. Policy Sciences 36 (1): 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lee, Geon, Jennifer Benoit-Bryan, and Timothy P. Johnson. 2012. Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review 72 (1): 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Li, Yanan, and Jingwei Zhou. 2018. In search of a rationalized Chinese administrative state. Public Organization Review 18 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Liu, Wei, and Wenzhao Li. 2013. Public administration in China—Evolution and current challenge. Asian Journal of Political Science 21 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lu, Lucia Q., and King W. Chow. 2008. Monitoring the growth of Chinese public administration knowledge: Evidence from Chinese. Chinese Public Administration Review 5 (1/2): 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 1994. Public management research: The triumph of art over science. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13 (2): 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2001. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review 61 (2): 144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lynn, Laurence E.Jr. 2009. Restoring the rule of law to public administration: What frank Goodnow got right and Leonard White didn’t. Public Administration Review 69 (5): 803–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ma, Jun, and Yaping Liu. 2007. The identity crisis of Chinese public administration. Journal of Renmin University of China 21 (4): 8–12 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    McCurdy, Howard E., and Robert E. Cleary. 1984. Why can’t we resolve the research issue in public administration? Public Administration Review 44 (1): 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Milward, Brint, Laura Jensen, Alasdair Roberts, Mauricio I. Dussauge-Laguna, Veronica Junjan, René Torenvlied, Arjen Boin, H.K. Colebatch, Donald Kettl, and Robert Durant. 2016. Is public management neglecting the state? Governance 29 (3): 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Nanda, Ved P. 2006. The ‘good governance’ concept revisited. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603: 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Nesbit, Rebecca, Stephanie Moulton, Scott Robinson, Craig Smith, Leisha DeHart-Davis, Mary K. Feeney, Beth Gazley, and Yilin Hou. 2011. Wrestling with intellectual diversity in public administration: Avoiding disconnectedness and fragmentation while seeking rigor, depth, and relevance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl_ 1): i13–i28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Neumann, Francis X. 1996. What makes public administration a science? Or, are its “big questions” really big? Public Administration Review 56 (5): 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    O’Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2015. Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (1): 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    O'Leary, Rosemary. 2011. Minnowbrook: Tradition, idea, spirit, event, challenge. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (21): i1–i6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Overeem, Patrick. 2018. Making public administration academic. Public Administration 96: 421–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Perry, James L., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1986. Research methodology in the “Public Administration Review”, 1975-1984. Public Administration Review 46 (3): 215–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Raadschelders, Jos C.N. 2008. Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration. Public Administration 86 (4): 925–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Raadschelders, Jos C.N. 2011. The future of the study of public administration: Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public Administration Review 71 (6): 916–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Rosenbloom, David H. 1983. Public administration theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review 43 (3): 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Rutgers, Mark R., and Hendriekje van der Meer. 2010. The origins and restriction of efficiency in public administration: Regaining efficiency as the core value of public administration. Administration and Society 42 (42): 755–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Shangraw, Ralph F., Jr., and Michael M. Crow. 1989. Public administration as a design science. Public Administration Review 49 (2): 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Shangraw, Ralph F.Jr., and Michael M. Crow. 1998. Public administration as a design science. International Journal of Public Administration 21 (6–8): 1059–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Sindane, Abakholwa Moses. 2004. Public administration versus public management: Parallels, divergences, convergences and who benefits? International Review of Administrative Sciences 70 (4): 665–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Stallings, Robert A., and James M. Ferris. 1988. Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review 48 (1): 580–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Sternberg, Robert J. 1997. Managerial intelligence: Why IQ isn't enough. Journal of Management 23 (3): 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Stivers, Camilla. 2003. Administration versus management: A reading from beyond the boundaries. Administration and Society 35 (2): 210–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Tsao, King Kwun. 2009. Building administrative capacity: Lessons learned from China. Public Administration Review 69 (6): 1021–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Tsui, Anne S. 2013. On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review 38 (2): 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Tuong, V.U. 2010. Studying the state through state formation. World Politics 62 (1): 148–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Waldo, Dwight. 1968. Public administration. Journal of Politics 15 (4): 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Whetsell, Travis A., and Patricia M. Shields. 2013. The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: A brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Administration and Society 47 (4): 416–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    White, Jay D. 1986a. On the growth of knowledge in public administration. Public Administration Review 46 (1): 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    White, Jay D. 1986b. Dissertations and publications in public administration. Public Administration Review 46 (3): 227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    White, Jay D., Guy B. Adams, and John P. Forrester. 1996. Knowledge and theory development in public administration: The role of doctoral education and research. Public Administration Review 56 (5): 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2 (2): 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Wright, Bradley E. 2011. Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: Assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review 71 (1): 96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Wright, Bradley E. 2015. The science of public administration: Problems, presumptions, progress, and possibilities. Public Administration Review 75 (6): 795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Wu, Xun, Yanling He, and Milan Tung-Wen Sun. 2013. Public administration research in mainland China and Taiwan: An assessment of journal publications, 1998–2008. Public Administration 91 (2): 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Xia, Zhiqiang, and Yi Tan. 2018. The public sphere: The foundation for the study of public administration in China. Social Sciences in China 28 (8): 88–107 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Xu, Zhihang, and Jingwei Zhou. 2018. The paradigm of state strategic development and management: Essence, propositions, and implications. Unpublished manuscript, Sichuan University, China.

  75. 75.

    Zhou, Jingwei. 2006. The predicament of American public administration. Journal of Chengdu Administrative Institute 3: 7–9 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Zhou, Jingwei. 2007. The predicament of new public management. Academics in China 1: 279–283 (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Zhou, Jingwei. 2018. The interactional relationship between responsible purposive application of public authority and SIPOTECH dynamics. Unpublished manuscript, Sichuan University, China.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer and the associate Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Chinese Political Science, Jessica Teets, for their helpful comments and suggestions on the essay. We bear sole responsibility for the arguments advanced in the essay. This project (Code # 2016 M601780) is funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingyue Wen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chow, K.W., Xu, Z. & Wen, M. The Evolution of Chinese Administrative Studies: Where Is the Field of Chinese Administrative Science Headed?. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 24, 145–159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-09598-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Administrative science
  • Chinese public administration
  • Design science
  • Ontology
  • Optimal governance