Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 4: 361–371 (2004) # 2005 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Reforming Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Trends and Impacts M. SHAMSUL HAQUE [email protected] 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 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 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 simple 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 administrative 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 pattern 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 with 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,

362

M. S. HAQUE

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 neoliberal 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 recipients 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, 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, 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 transition 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-functional, 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 stressing 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 by 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 (Haque, 1999d; Randall and Theobald, 1985). During this period, in articulating the mode of public governance in Southeast Asia, the

REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

363

varieties of modernization theories and economic-growth models (endorsed by academics and policy makers) prescribed an interventionist agenda, although there 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 and 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 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 administration 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 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 inefficient. 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 neoclassical 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 emerging 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, 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; Haque, 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 terminologies used in public administration. In Southeast Asia, the postcolonial period saw the proliferation of terms such as nation-building, self-reliance, basic needs, and

364

M. S. HAQUE

citizens’ welfare, which became conceptual guidelines for various public agencies. But today these ideas have been replaced with 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 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 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 region’s administrative thinking.

Structural-functional trend Reflecting the above theoretical-conceptual trend are the recent structural and functional changes in public administration in Southeast Asia. In the region, the earlier pattern of administrative structure was largely in line with the liberaldemocratic model based on principles such as political neutrality of civil servants, distinction between public and private interests, and mechanisms of internal and external control for ensuring bureaucratic accountability. Although in many instances some of these principles were often violated, they came to constitute the official administrative outlook in most Southeast Asian countries except the communist cases like Vietnam and Cambodia. In countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines, there emerged certain constitutional provisions and legal means to represent the foundation of administrative structure, which involved various political and administrative processes to enforce these principles of neutrality, meritocracy, accountability, and so on. But during the recent two decades, in line with the trend of administrative changes in the developed world, there has been diminishing significance of such control mechanisms and processes, and a growing emphasis on managerial autonomy in public agencies in Southeast Asian countries. One of the main components of the current neomanagerial ethos of public management (‘‘new public management’’), in fact, is the operational or structural autonomy of public managers (OECD, 1993, 1995). This managerial autonomy is being articulated through diverse means ranging from the actual or proposed creation of new ‘‘autonomous agencies’’ to the structural reforms of existing public agencies in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines (Haque, 1998; United Nations, 2000; World Bank, 1995; RIAP, 2001). The scope

REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

365

of managerial autonomy in these newly created or restructured agencies encompasses areas such as finance, personnel, production, pricing, and procurement. A significant dimension of managerial autonomy, however, is in the budgeting system, which is increasingly based on the final outcomes produced by these autonomous public agencies rather than the inputs needed to produce such outcomes. With regard to personnel matters, there is also a growing trend toward replacing the traditional closed structure by a more openended hierarchy that allows ministries or political executives to practice lateral entry or fresh recruitment of employees at any level. These trends are more systematically articulated in cases like Singapore and Malaysia in comparison with other Southeast Asian countries. This emerging structural trend based on the autonomy of top public managers is quite unprecedented in the region. Parallel to the above structural changes toward managerial autonomy is a transition in the role of public administration in Southeast Asia to facilitate or support rather than lead or direct socioeconomic activities. These role changes in the public service also reflect the above mentioned theoretical shifts from a statecentered perspective to a market-driven approach. The current functional agenda is to curtail all forms of state intervention in the production and distribution of goods and services, and to facilitate market forces to assume the dominant role. Following the examples of reorienting the public service towards a catalytic institution in developed nations (OECD, 1995), Southeast countries are redefining the role of state bureaucracies in favor of expanding the private sector and encouraging private entrepreneurs to take over the functions of state enterprises. For instance, Brunei is emphasizing the private sector to play the major role in national development (Salleh, 1992). In the case of Malaysia, the Director General of the Public Service Department (Mazian Ahmad) cited Osborne and Gaebler to suggest that in terms of economic activities, the public sector should ‘steer’ rather than ‘row’ (Arnold et al., 1998). In Thailand, there is a growing emphasis on the role of public administration as a catalyst in the process of development and in the provisions of services delivered by the private sector (Salleh, 1992). Indonesia has also moved toward the reduction of government role, transformation of the public sector into a supportive institution, and encouragement of the private sector to provide basic services (Salleh, 1992:44; Kristiadi, 1992:102). Similar trend of changes in the roles or functions of public administration can be observed in the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. This historical shift in administrative functions in Southeast Asia is not unique, it represents a common global trend experienced by other regions and nations.

Normative-ethical trend The indigenous normative or ethical features in public administration that existed in Southeast Asia during the precolonial phase were transformed (if not

366

M. S. HAQUE

completely replaced) under the colonial rule. During the colonial phase, in various degrees, a new set of administrative values articulated by the British, Dutch, French, and American colonial powers, began to affect the indigenous mode of public administration in Southeast Asian countries. Since these colonial powers themselves went through changes in administrative ethics under the emerging liberal-democratic tradition in their own societies, their colonial administration in Southeast Asia was influenced by such a tradition, especially during the last phase of the colonial rule. In the postcolonial period, instead of replacing the colonial tradition, most countries in the region (except for cases like Vietnam and Cambodia) tried to emulate this liberal-democratic model of administration, including its ethical standards, in reforming their public organizations. Although Thailand had no direct colonial experience, its administrative reforms in the postwar period were largely based on this borrowed model. In short, during the colonial and postcolonial periods, the administrative norms or ethics that emerged in Southeast Asia were largely influenced by the liberal democratic values of public administration found in developed nations, which included norms such as neutrality, equality, accountability, representation, fairness, and so on (Haque, 1996). However, during the recent two decades, with the proliferation of market-driven state policies and the businesslike restructuring of public service, the patterns of administrative ethics have changed in developed nations themselves. Although the above traditional ethical standards are not replaced altogether, there is an increasing priority of promarket values or business norms in the public sector, including efficiency, competition, value-for-money, entrepreneurship, and partnership (Haque, 1996; Terry, 1998). To a certain extent, similar trends of changes in administrative ethics have occurred recently in Southeast Asian countries such as Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand (Kelegama, 1995; Haque, 1998). In particular, the earlier normative focus of public administration on equality (equality in serving citizens, access to government services, and income distribution) has eclipsed while the efficiency norm has gained priority in most Southeast Asian countries. The justification of contemporary administrative reforms in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand has been based on the efficiency criterion rather than the equality consideration (Haque, 1998; Salleh, 1996). In Singapore, the emphasis on efficiency, which has always been one of the most primary normative standards of its administration, has been intensified further due to the country’s perceived vulnerability to global competition. Even in communist Vietnam, the state’s ideological principle of socioeconomic equality seems to have become less significant than market-led efficiency during the current period of public sector reforms. The main rationale of the current market-driven public policies undertaken by Southeast Asian countries, including privatization, deregulation, and liberalization, is primarily efficiency, although in reality, the outcomes of such policies have often been a worsening condition of economic inequality (Farazmand, 1999; Haque, 1999c). In addition, the main agenda for adopting the aforementioned business manage-

REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

367

ment techniques—including Total Quality Management, Work Improvement Team, and Quality Control Circle—is to overcome public-sector inefficiency and achieve the level of efficiency found in the private sector. In line with the recent global trend, another transition in administrative ethics in Southeast Asia is a normative shift from the principle of neutrality or impartiality to the idea of partnership. In the region, although public administration, in practice, was not always neutral from political influence and impartial in delivering goods and services, especially in cases such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, its official position was largely to follow such neutrality and impartiality principles. However, in recent years, this norm of neutrality has increasingly come under challenge due to some basic changes in the public service, including the decentralization of personnel practices, decline in job security, and emergence of contract-based appointments. For example, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore have moved towards a system of decentralized recruitment, promotion, and compensation, which implies a transfer of personnel authority from the politically-neutral central personnel agencies (often known as civil/public service commission) to individual ministries and departments managed by political heads, including ministers and political appointees. As a result, there is potential for greater political influence on personnel matters, and it may require some new measures to ensure neutrality as an essential dimension of administrative ethics. In addition, due to the growing job insecurity in the public sector—caused by the current retrenchment measures and short-term contracts often decided by political executives—there is a more likelihood that the insecure or vulnerable civil servants will be easily politicized. Once again, the challenge is to identify alternative means for maintaining the political neutrality of the administrative system. On the other hand, the traditional impartiality principle of public administration (with regard to its treatment of various groups of citizens) is under attack due to the recent expansion of partnership between the public and private sectors. There is a growing priority of public sector’s partnership with local and foreign private investors in Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam (Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, 1999; World Bank, 1996, 1997). Some of these countries have introduced different institutions and projects to facilitate the process of such a partnership (World Bank, 1996, 1997). In countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, where the close linkages between the government and the business sector have already been a cause of unfair official practices, the current expansion of public-private partnership may pose a greater challenge to the principle of impartiality. In particular, it may lead to a situation in which the affluent business partners receive better treatment by public servants and gain easier access to public offices. Therefore, this trend of change in administrative ethics from impartiality to partnership may not represent a favorable change in the region’s administrative systems. These are few examples of how the normative or ethical standards have shifted in public administration in Southeast Asia in recent years.

368

M. S. HAQUE

Implications and concluding remarks In the above discussion, it has been pointed out that during the recent two decades, public administration has undergone significant transformation in almost all Southeast Asian countries, although there are cross-national variations within the region in terms of the degrees of such transformation. This current administrative transition represents a fundamental break from the earlier tradition of public administration that emerged in the region during the colonial and postcolonial periods. The major dimensions of such an historical transition in public administration encompass the conceptual-theoretical shifts, structuralfunctional changes, and normative-ethical adjustments. These trends of changes have implications not only for public administration as an academic field and a practical profession, but also for societies and citizens in Southeast Asia. First, in terms of academic implication, while the postwar period saw the deepening of concepts and theories of public administration guided by democratic ethos and the citizenship principles, the current atmosphere is affected by ideas and models borrowed from business management. As a result, the validity claims of administrative knowledge are increasingly based on its utility for the marketplace rather than its relevance to the realization of public needs and concerns (Haque, 1999b). In fact, international institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Finance Corporation, have played a significant role in redefining public governance and redesigning the administrative model through various worldwide projects and reports affecting academic institutions in developing countries, including those in Southeast Asia (Farazmand, 1999; Haque, 1999c). In general, these externally prescribed (often imposed) definitions and models of public administration have largely been based on promarket assumptions found in ‘‘new public management’’. As a result, there have emerged a new breed of administrative experts in Southeast Asia who often receive financial support from international agencies, believe in the superiority of market principles, and suggest the application of business criteria to the public sector. This external and internal forces have serious impacts on public administration in terms of the current and future directions of relevant academic institutions in the region. Second, in terms of practical implications, the above historical trends in public administration may have critical impacts on the level of public confidence in the public service, and thus on its legitimacy. The emerging structural, functional, and normative similarities and convergence between the public and private sectors may raise doubts among citizens with regard to the authenticity of public service in terms of its essential qualities such as accountability, accessibility, neutrality, and impartiality. More specifically, the new businesslike autonomy of public service may challenge the realization of its public accountability, its shift toward an indirect facilitating role may displace its basic obligation to deliver services to the citizens, and its expansive partnership with private investors or business interests may threaten its impartiality. These potentially adverse implications or

REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

369

outcomes of the current market-driven reforms in the public service are less likely to gain public support for such reforms. In this regard, one may examine the causes behind the current diminishing public confidence in various public sector agencies in Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines (Endriga, 1997). Finally, this diminishing public confidence or legitimacy problem in the public service may also be reinforced by the fact that its businesslike reforms often create critical impacts on citizens in terms of living standards. The market-driven policy shifts, especially the withdrawal of welfare subsidies and a reduction in public expenditures on social programs, have critical impacts on citizens’ access to services such as health care, education, housing, and transportation—this amounts to the ‘‘de-publicization’’ of the public service (Farazmand, 1999:562). In Southeast Asia, the provision of these subsidized public services is essential in poorer countries such as Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines. However, the current public sector reforms based on anti-welfarism pose a formidable challenge to the social safety nets of common citizens in these countries. In addition, the market-led restructuring of the public service—which tends to favor the narrow interests of affluent business elite at the expense of citizens’ common interests and entitlements—is likely to have adverse consequences for inequality among various income groups in Southeast Asian countries. These critical outcomes of recent trends in public administration should not be overlooked. In conclusion, it should be pointed out that in advanced capitalist nations, where the model of market-biased ‘‘new public management’’ originated, there are many critics of the above trends of reforms in the public sector. They point out the drawbacks of the model in terms of its indifference towards various contextual factors, its imitation of private sector management, its tendency to demonize and politicize bureaucracy, its displacement of public accountability by managerial autonomy, its indifference toward public service ethics, and its adverse impacts on the citizens and their rights (see Wright, 1997; Farazmand, 1996; Haque, 1999a). These critical observations on the current historical transition should be taken seriously by developing countries that have recently undertaken initiatives to adopt similar kinds of changes in their administrative systems. The policy-makers in these countries need to realize that the business model is not compatible with the ethos of public administration even in advanced capitalist nations with deep-rooted market institutions and business culture; and that the model is more inappropriate for developing societies where the market atmosphere and business mindset are less developed. In addition, the condition of abject poverty in the developing world demands that public administration should play a crucial role, and ensure that the fate of low-income citizens is not left with the vagaries of market forces. In the case of Southeast Asia, the emergence of state-centered public administration under the ‘‘developmental state’’ coincided with the region’s spectacular economic growth and industrial progress during the postwar period. The public sector played an historical role in accelerating economic growth,

370

M. S. HAQUE

building infrastructure, improving living standards, and upgrading the level of overall development. But the period of market-driven policies and reforms, which led to the diminishing capacity of the state and its administration, saw severe economic crisis in the region, especially in the late 1990s. This critical economic crisis, which coincided with the current trends of public sector reforms, almost reversed the past economic achievement in cases like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. This unprecedented economic crisis vis-a`-vis the recent transition in the public sector can be a source of valuable lesson for the policy makers in Southeast Asia to reexamine their recent reform initiatives undertaken for restructuring the administrative system.

References ADB (Asian Development Bank). (1999). Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues and Prospects. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Arnold, Gayle, Joanne Llewellyn, and Qiumeng Mao. (1998). ‘‘International Trends in Public Administration—Notes.’’ Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No.88, May. Das, S.K. (1998). Civil Service Reform and Structural Adjustment. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 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. Farazmand, Ali. (1996). ‘‘Introduction: The Comparative State of Public Enterprise Management.’’ In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Public Enterprise Management: International Case Studies. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, pp. 1 – 30. Farazmand, Ali. (1999). ‘‘Privatization or Reform? Public Enterprise Management in Transition.’’ International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(4), 551 – 567. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1996). ‘‘The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current Epoch of Privatization.’’ Administration & Society, 27(4), 510 – 536. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1998). ‘‘New Directions in Bureaucratic Change in Southeast Asia: Selected Experiences.’’ Journal of Political and Military Sociology 26(1), 96 – 114. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999a). ‘‘Relationship Between Citizenship and Public Administration: A Reconfiguration.’’ International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(3), 309 – 325. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999b). ‘‘Ethical Tension in Public Governance: Critical Impacts on Theory Building.’’ Administrative Theory & Praxis 21(4). Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999c). ‘‘Globalization of Market Ideology and Its Impact on Third World Development.’’ In Alexander Kouzmin and Andrew Hayne (eds.), Essays in Economic Globalization, Transnational Policies and Vulnerability. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 75 – 100. Haque, M. Shamsul. (1999d). Restructuring Development Theories and Policies: A Critical Study. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Hood, Christopher. (1991) ‘‘A Public Management for All Seasons?’’ Public Administration 69(1), 3 – 19. Kelegama, Saman. (1995). ‘‘The Impact of Privatization on Distributional Equity: The Case of Sri Lanka.’’ In V.V. Ramanadham (ed.), Privatization and Equity. London: Routledge, pp. 143 – 180. Kristiadi, J.B. (1992). ‘‘Administrative Reform in Indonesia: Streamlining and Professionalizing the Bureaucracy.’’ In Zhang Zhijian, Raul P. De Guzman, and Mila A. Reforma (eds.), Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance. Manila: EROPA Secretariat General, pp. 97 – 106. Liou, Kuotsai Tom. (ed.) (2002). Administrative Reform and National Economic Development. Aldershot, Singapore and Sydney: Ashgate.

REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

371

Llewellyn, Joanne, and Margaret Varghese. (1997). ‘‘International Trends in Public Administration— Notes.’’ Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No.86 (December). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1993). Public Management Development Survey 1993. Paris: OECD. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (1995). Public Management Developments Update 1995. Paris: OECD. 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. Randall, V., and R. Theobald. (1985). Political Change and Underdevelopment. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 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/. Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP). (2001). Public Sector Challenges and Government Reforms in South East Asia: Report 2001. Australia: RIAP, University of Sydney. 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: The Challenge of the New Century. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Salleh, Sirajuddin H. (1992). ‘‘A Glance at the Civil Service Reforms in the Asean Countries.’’ In Sirajuddin H. Salleh (ed.), Civil Service in the South Asian Region: Challenges and Prospects of the Year 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre, pp. 27 – 53. 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 Pacific Development Centre, pp. 1 – 62. 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. Stein, H. (1994). ‘‘Theories of Institutions and Economic Reform in Africa.’’ World Development 22(12), 1833 – 1849. Terry, Larry D. (1998). ‘‘Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.’’ Public Administration Review 58(3). United Nations. (2000). Changes and Trends in Public Administration: Indonesia. http://www.un.org/ esa/governance/Database/INDONESIA.html. World Bank. (1995). Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and Politics of Government Ownership. New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank. (1996). World Bank Annual Report 1996. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. World Bank. (1997). World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University Press. Wright, Vincent. (1997). ‘‘The Paradoxes of Administrative Reform.’’ In Walter J.M. Kickert (ed.), Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., pp. 7 – 13.

M. Shamsul Haque is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore. He has published extensively on various issues related to public administration, public policy, and governance. He is the Co-editor of Asian Journal of Political Science.