外文文献翻译：东南亚公共行政改革：趋势和影响.doc

Reforming Public Administration in SoutheastAsia: Trends and ImpactsM. SHAMSUL HAQUE .sgDepartment of Political Science, National University of Singapore, SingaporeKey words: public service reform, current trend, major impact, Southeast AsiaAbstract: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.IntroductionThere 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 legaciese.g., the British tradition in Malaysia and Singapore, the Dutch system in Indonesia, and the American pattern in the Philippinesthey 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 reformsTheoretical-conceptual trendDuring 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 programwhich represent some major components of recent public sector reforms in Southeast Asian countriesare 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 structurewhich amount to nothing less than a shift from development administration to new public managementcan 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 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 regions administrative thinking.Structural-functional trendReflecting 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. HAQUEof 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.东南亚公共行政改革：趋势和影响M. SHAMSUL HAQUE .sg政治学系、新加坡国立大学、新加坡关键词：公共服务改革，目前趋势，主要影响、东南亚摘要：东南亚的最近二十年发展，让我们见证了重大理论、结构、功能，和道德改革管理体制的变革。在该地区，中央集权模式政府出现在殖民和后殖民时期，最近，这一模式过度到一个务实的公共管理模式，而这符合当前的全球运动。本文分析了行政改革趋势明显的国家，包括文莱、柬埔寨、印尼、马来西亚、菲律宾、新加坡、泰国和越南。同时也简要评估一下这些近期的关键影响的变化对系统的公共管理和公民社会的发展所创造的条件。介绍：东南亚是一个相对缺乏批判性和话语权的地域。现有文献的主要通过实证插图和简单的描述。几乎没有革命性的概念和理论来影响此类行政系统的基础和改革。另一方面，大多数这些行政管理系统和他们的变化都是照搬的过去的西方资本主义国家模式。这一类行政系统在东南亚代表了过去的殖民历史。英国的传统适用于马来西亚和新加坡，荷兰系统印证在印度尼西亚，美国模式实施于菲律宾，这些国家的转变都是基于后殖民时期西方国家改革经验。在此期间，除了共产国家独立后，如越南和柬埔寨，行政系统的演变与公共行政的自由民主模式在东南亚（特别是英国和美国的模型）特点等原则分离的权力，政治中立，及公众问责性，要通过维护宪法规定，法律制度，公共组织审查。然而，最近二十年里，基本的历史变迁影响了发达国家本身的公共行政。越来越多的思想基础已经转向新自由主义，从这个角度来看，政策方向已经改变了对市场为导向的议程，结构模式移动已经向自治，功能性转移实现一个催化的作用，规范功能已经改变了务实的价值观，服务对象重新界定为利益相关者，或客户（罗森布鲁姆，2001年，佩雷拉，1997年）。公共管理中的这些变化是内在的，在最近进行的改革举措明显的政府诸如澳大利亚，比利时，加拿大，丹麦，法国，德国，意大利，荷兰，新西兰，英国，美国等这些发达国家，而许多发展中国家，包括东南亚国家如文莱，柬埔寨，印度尼西亚，马来西亚，菲律宾，新加坡，泰国，越南，纷纷推出类似的思想，结构、功能齐全，规范，并在其政服务相关的变化系统。有趣的是，公共行政的实际性质已经在东南亚发生了这样一个快速的历史性转变，学术界一直没有注意该地区行政过渡。然而，关键的是，重新审视这些前所未有的行政改革，以评估其学术公共行政的实际意义。这方面的文章也在探讨东南亚地区的公共服务转变的理论概念，结构，功能，和道德的动机模式。这也使得我们可以做出简要的评价，尤其是在其任期的行政改革学术话语中，实际的专业，和对广大市民的不利影响。最后需要强调的一个的关键是当前的历史趋势在这个地区的公共行政评价。当前改革公共行政的发展趋势理论的概念趋势在独立后的时期，按照国家为中心的整体思路，在发展中最奉行的模式，东南亚国家采取有计划的发展模式以进行改革，在凯恩斯主义的经济框架的模式下，政府强调国家和它的中心地位，意味着对于大多数的理论观点的认同。在此期间，他们阐明公共治理的模式，在东南亚，现代化理论和经济增长模式（赞同学者和决策者）规定干预的议程，虽然有在该地区各国之间的差异程度但实际的国家干预却是盛行的。然而，在最近的几十年里，在全球化的影响下，以公共管理的国家为中心的思想已经越来越多地被东南亚的市场偏见的理论和模型取代。知识产权治理的趋势，反映了世界范围内的新古典主义复兴经济思想和加强公共选择理论。事实上，基本结构调整的原则程序代表了东南亚国家最近的公共部门改革的一些主要部件，主要是，反对国家干预的新古典模型的基础上，赞同精简公共部门，并建议扩大业务企业。在如马来西亚，泰国和印度尼西亚这些国家，他们按照早期的传统公共行政的指导，由国家去主导发展。即使在共产主义国家，像越南，进行了政治改革，其行政系统转型为发展的市场模型。很多国家在发展中国家推行这个发展方向，史密斯提到新古典经济学，其原则和自由市场政策成为占主导地位的基础，而在这些国家的发展思路不断清晰，计划发展框架正在摆脱低效。这一趋势代表了政策和理论假设中的基本变化，在发展中国家的公共管理框架，尤其是发展管理在其国营发展计划的殖民使命的转变。在新古典主义基础上，新兴公共行政的代表在其日益增加的使用以市场为导向的公共选择理论，赞同通过市场原则和商业在公共部门中制定战略。这种向新古典主义的选择倾向理论很好地反映在新兴的公共组织里，其特点是根据市场的原则，在减少公共部门的范围，扭转政策导向，进行务实的行政结构的变化。这种变化的原则，范围，定位，结构已经转变到新公共管理。可以看到，东南亚的亚洲国家，如菲律宾，马来西亚，新加坡，印度尼西亚，泰国，几乎所有的公共机构都以市场为导向，而且这些国家的企业都受到了方针和政策的影响。公共行政中这些变化中的公共管理理论取向，在使用的概念和术语也出现了显着变化。在东南亚，在殖民时期的如国家建设，自力更生，基本需求方面，都转变为福利公共管理，成为各种公共的概念指引。但今天，这些思想已被替换， 例如，利用合资，合作，在公共机构已成为马来西亚，印度尼西亚，泰国，菲律宾的一个共同的官方说辞。另一方面，重新定义公民。作为已获得了客户和通过一个以客户为导向的文化在最近在文莱，马来西亚，新加坡进行了效果突出的行政改革在菲律宾也已经出现在公共部门的业务语言通过业务部门的技术如全面质量管理加强管理，工作改善小组， 建立在东南亚各国的控制圈。这种经营理念和策略是相对较新，适合该地区的行政思维。结构功能的趋势反映了上述理论概念的趋势是结构和在东南亚公共行政的功能变化。在该地区，该较早的行政结构模式，主要是如公务员的政治中立原则为基础的民主模型，区分公共和私人利益，内部机制和为确保官僚问责的外部控制。虽然在许多实例中会有一些经常违反这些原则的事件。在如印度尼西亚，马来西亚，新加坡，泰国，菲律宾这些国家，也出现了宪法规定和以法律手段为代表的基础行政架构，涉及不同的政治和行政过程的中立性，任人唯贤，问责执行这些原则，等等。但在最近二十年，为配合发达国家行政发展的趋势，出现了如此重要的递减控制机制和流程上的一些变化，并在管理日益受到重视的情况下，东南亚国家的公共机构的自主权逐渐增大。其中一个主导当前公共管理的组成部分，是公共业务或结构的自主权。通过从实际或建议的新的创造等多种形式，阐述这一管理自主权，实现自治机构等公共机构的结构改革在如新加坡，马来西亚，印度尼西亚，泰国，菲律宾这些国家，管理的自主权，涵盖在在这些新创建或重组的机构等重要领域，如财务，人事，生产，定价，采购。虽然管理自主权是一个重要维度，但是，在预算制度上， 通过这些自主的公共机构，而不是所需的投入生产产生这样的结果。关于人事事项的，也有取代传统的封闭结构，实现更开放的层次，部委或政治人员实行横向的发展趋势在任何级别的部门招聘员工。这些趋势更多地出现在新加坡和马来西亚这样国家中，相对的案例也进行了比较系统的阐述。与其他东南亚国家，在这个新兴的结构性趋势的基础上高层公共管理者的自主权，是前所未有的。平行的结构性变化的管理自主权，是公共行政在东南亚的角色过渡，而不是直接的社会经济活动。这些角色的变化要求公共服务的应运而生，这也反映了上述从政治中心角度的理论转变到以市场为导向的方法。当前主要议题是在生产，以减少国家干预的一切形式和分销商品和服务，并促进市场力量来承担的主导作用。经过重新调整的公共服务，以及