Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 A Matter of Perspective
1.3 A Birdâs Eye View
1.4 Culture as Mind, Mind as Culture 1.4.1 Individual/Group
1.4.2 Organization
1.4.3 End Purposes
1.5 Common Challenges 1.5.1 Participatory Government
1.5.2 Local Governance
1.5.3 Corruption
1.5.4 Performance
1.6 Conclusion
Notes
1.1 Introduction
Great interest and fascination exists about East Asia. For many years, people have been interested in its culture and ways; from Buddhism to Zen, and from modern electronics to cars, East Asia has become a growing part of the ways of other people. Marco Polo (1254â1324) was among the first to take note, and his curiosity extended to its governments too. Outside East Asia, people may, often rightly, suspect that governments in East Asia have something to do with these countriesâ unique features and strengths. Not only do government bureaucrats execute policies and programs, but they also often give rise to new ones and shape how decisions by politicians are carried out. Public managers design programs, direct resources, work with community leaders and elected officials, and work diligently until success, by some measure, is ensured. Government, at its best, is a cooperative and proactive undertaking that involves many actors in society, and public managers are often at the heart of that.1
For people working or studying government, there are practical reasons to increase knowledge about public administration in East Asia. In an increasingly global world, understanding how policies are made in other settings and how public managers see their roles and opportunities is essential to establishing productive working relationships. Similarities are sometimes mistakenly presumed to exist; the roles and powers of governments in East Asia are a bit different from those in the United States. Different conceptions exist about the âpolitical neutralityâ of civil servants. Countries do not prioritize or define âdemocracyâ in exactly the same way, and not every government or population is prone to viewing abortion as a preeminent moral issue, for example. As the production of knowledge has become more globally dispersed, a need exists to better understand the historic and present contexts and facts of different locales. These facts and contexts shape policies, programs, how managers work, the role of laws, and outcomes. The need to increase familiarity of public administration in East Asia is increasingly felt by scholars throughout the world, as well as by scholars and students in the region.2
For a long time, there has been a need for a book that would bring together understanding and analysis of public administration in East Asia. This chapter provides an essential overview of public administration in East Asia based on syntheses of other chapters from this book. Readers interested in the methodology used to develop these chapters should consult the bookâs introduction. Because this is a book about administrative systems (rather than countries), the phrases Taiwan and Mainland China used in this book refer to the geographic areas in which these administrative systems are found. At the time of this writing, the sovereignty of the island known as Taiwan is hotly contested, but authors do not make any statements, implied or otherwise, about the future status of Taiwan. This is a book of knowledge and scholarship only.3 All authors agreed, through their participation, to honor this understanding because this is a sensitive issue to many participating Chinese authors. Regarding the island of Taiwan, the known and uncontested facts are that it has a government for which people work and that can be studied. The editing of this book reflects this understanding and use of language. All shortfalls rest with me, not the authors.4
In comparative works, cautions about cultural relativism and cultural provincialism are always appropriate. Cultural relativism refers to the principle that activities and beliefs of other peoples should be understood in terms of their cultures, whereas cultural provincialism refers to the danger of oneâs own cultural worldview blinding one to seeing other, different points of view. Try as we might to reach these ideal standards, at least they provide constant and powerful reminders to guard against closed-mindedness and instant judgments, no matter how right they appear at the time. As editor and author, I made sure that this chapter was reviewed by editors and coordinators of the region.
But the knife cuts both ways. In a chapter in his book titled, âSome Warnings about Studying the Chinese Scientifically,â in the subsection âWe Are Unique!â Michael Harris writes5:
All groups value their identity and creations (and) a culture or nation is one such grouping. [G]roups, especially when they feel under attack (or even under scrutiny), are likely to close ranks and assert that they are special, different or unique from other cultures or nations. The claim of distinctiveness nourishes a group and sustains the pride of its members. Groups avoid making cross-cultural comparisons and challenge any comparisons that are made. They will claim that the investigator did not adequately understand the culture examined, that the measures distorted the real cultural phenomena, or that the interpretations of the results were biased. (pp. 1â2)
The word âuniqueâ was omnipresent in many initial manuscript submissions. People familiar with the history of East Asia should not be surprised; people in all four geographic areasâMainland China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwanâhave a historyâand often present day experienceâof being threatened or under attack. The corollary sense of national or historic pride is strong, and using the term âuniqueâ may simply reflect prevailing society sentiments. The term âuniquenessâ is also designed to create or justify separation from others. It is easy to claim being unique in without critical examination or access to comparative facts. In truth, familiarity with public administration practices in East Asia is not widespread, even among many scholars in the region. The chapters in this book now provide the basis from which to identify commonality among the administrative systems of East Asia; it even examines the case for regional distinctiveness.
1.2 a Matter of perspective
Regional distinctiveness is not a well-defined concept, but it surely points to such concepts as culture, history, and specific contemporary expressions that are important in some way. Distinctiveness concerns unique or distinguishing features that are both important (âdefiningâ) and enduring in nature. Distinctiveness is not found in trivial or insignificant matters, and it is not of a fleeting of nature; although it may change, it is typically connected to a peopleâs culture that is rooted in their past and thus enduring. History gives rise to culture, which gives rise to distinctiveness. Indeed, it is often observed that peoples with distinctive, common group (or isolated) histories tend to develop distinctive cultures too.6 Is there regional distinctiveness in the public administration of the four administrative systems of Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan? If so, what is it? All modern governments face fairly similar tasks (raise revenue, provide education, health, security, etc.), but they may vary in how they go about these matters, sometimes because of their history, culture, or present conditions.
The following 28 chapters provide understanding of their subject areas, but were not designed to answer the preceding question. Although one can imagine a dry accounting approach that tabulates areas of commonality and differences among the four administrative systems found in these chapters, such an approach, however insightful, is insufficiently designed to identify regional distinctiveness satisfactorily. If we are to use this material to address this question, a creative and imaginative approach is needed.
The first approach is that of a âbirdâs eye viewâ that identifies and examines relationships among the administrative systems of history and of the present day. It asks, did administrative system X have something or do something that affected administrative system Y? Did administrative system Y articulate core values, have key challenges, or adopt important policies that affected administrative system Z? Based on such interactions and relations, is there a tale to be told of a common or shared past (history) that leads to common, perhaps even distinctive, roots of their administrative systems today? Answering these questions requires that one maintain the right distance.
Analogously, pictures of the Earth taken from outer space point out commonalities among countries that are almost impossible to see when standing on land. Here, we âhoverâ above the four administrative systems of East Asia and focus on identifying time-bound patterns of interaction. The chapters in this book provide plenty of grist, facts, and pointers to make this birdâs eye view a rewarding and well-textured one.7
The second approach recognizes that public administration is in part the product of how people see their relationship with government and other people. It is about the ideas that people have in their minds about what and how public administration should be. This approach looks into these regional ideas about public administration and, more broadly, the cultures from which they come. Rather than standing above the region, now we seek to go deeply into it. Specifically, East Asia is well known for its Confucianism philosophy, which provides ideas about relations between people and about the proper roles of people in society. Contemporary culture is shaped by these understandings and provides valuable insights into the priorities of people and how they deal with specific situations; it provides the foundation and other building blocks on which public administration stands.
The third approach, then, identifies common tasks and challenges of public administration mentioned by the authors of these chapters. History and culture are important elements and sustaining forces of distinctiveness, but they do not always provide the substanceâthe items that constitute regional distinctiveness today. Tasks and challenges are also born out of present day conditions and circumstances that are not always related to the past.
Of course, commonality does not make for distinctiveness vis-Ă -vis the rest of the world. Here, I identify histories, cultures, and tasks that differ from those that are common in the United States. The selection of the latter speaks to the strong influence of U.S. thought concerning public administration in the world market (a majority of book sales are expected to be in the United States) and, admittedly, the convenience of familiarity (see my brief biography in âAbout the Authorsâ).
However, I am also keenly aware that U.S. culture is itself highly distinctive (such as in its exceptional degree of individualism and fundamental distrust of strong, central government) and endeavor to consider this aspect when making conclusions. Also, I am able to take some perspective from the companion book, Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Hong Kong and Macao, which is soon to be published. Each of the following sections discusses the results of the preceding approaches and tells about common roots, common ways, and common tasks.
1.3 A Birdâs Eye View
Public administration in East Asia has common roots that live on today. All authors note the historical emergence of civil service exams that are basic to entering the profession. Among the four administrative systems, they originated in China in AD 587 and were first used in Korea in 958. Japan adopted them in 1887. Civil service exams have been available to Taiwan since the beginning of its current administrative system in 1949. The roots of these tests lie in the tradition and expectations that mandarins are of good character and among the best and brightest in society. In all administrative systems, these tests are administered through the personnel departments and continue to be seen as highly demanding. Both in the ancient past and the present, they were designed to ensure that only very well-qualified candidates would be recruited by government.
Most administrative systems have different exams for different levels of entrance grades. The spirit and rigor of these exams are similar to those of bar exams for lawyers in the United States. Kim reports that competition in civil service entrance exams is very stiff; in South Korea, only 2,900 of 187,562 applicants were selected in 2006 for the lowest grade of civil service.8 In Taiwan, Su (Chapter 28) reports that 78.3% of civil servants have a...
