毕 业 设 计（论文） 外 文 文 献 翻 译

文献、资料中文题目：东南亚公共行政改革：趋势和影响 文献、资料英文题目：Reforming Public Administration in

Southeast

文献、资料来源：

文献、资料发表（出版）日期： 院 （部）： 专 业： 班 级： 姓 名： 学 号： 指导教师：

翻译日期： 2017.02.14

Reforming Public Administration in Southeast

Asia: Trends and Impacts

M. SHAMSUL HAQUE polhaque@nus.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 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, Manufactured in 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 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 362 M. S. HAQUEvarieties 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