Let's Get Public Administration Right, But in What Sequence?: Lessons from Japan and Singapore
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1714 |
| Date | 01 August 2015 |
| Published date | 01 August 2015 |
| Author | Naomi Aoki |
LET’S GET PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RIGHT, BUT IN WHAT
SEQUENCE?: LESSONS FROM JAPAN AND SINGAPORE
NAOMI AOKI*
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore
SUMMARY
The so-called Good Governance Model requires perfect public administration that is accountable, efficient, equitable, represen-
tative, responsive and transparent and that respects the rule of law. Accordingly, the Good Governance Movement promotes a
variety of public administration reforms worldwide. However, the effectiveness of promoting all kinds of administrative
reforms at once is in question, because that could overwhelm the reform capability of countries, and more important,
some reforms can compete with, rather than complement, one another. Such scenarios are possible, and the implication
is clear: administrative reform discourse must consider how to best sequence and prioritize reforms, the outcomes of
which must be identified. The experiences of Japan and Singapore offer some insight into this. This study first codifies
administrative reforms by using the concepts of administrative themes, and it systematically traces, compares and
contrasts reforms in both countries in light of these themes. This leads to the conclusion that the sequences in which
administrative reforms evolved in those places contributed to dissimilarities in their administrative traditions today.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words—civil service; public administration; good governance; Japan; Singapore; administrative tradition; public sector
reform; sequencing reforms
INTRODUCTION
Getting governance right is important for countries striving to develop, but the Good Governance Model (GGM)
can be a lofty idea—at least if a government aims to attain it in a short period of time. Popularized since the
1980s (Grindle, 2012), the model essentially epitomizes a governance of public services that is perfect in every
sense, namely, a process and structure of decision-making that are ‘participatory, consensus oriented, accountable,
transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive’and that follows ‘the rule of law’
(Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), n.d).
This study questions the manner in which the GGM is currently pursued, with particular attention paid to public
administration reforms. While the list of stakeholders involved in contemporary governance can be expansive and
can include stakeholders inside and outside governments, public administration is mostly composed of non-elected
officials working inside governments, who are typically referred to as administrators,bureaucrats or civil servants.
GGM cannot be attained without what is hereafter referred to as ‘Good Public Administration’(GPA), which, like-
wise, is perfect in every aforementioned sense.
The effectiveness of promoting all kinds of GPA reforms at once is in question because it is unfeasible, and
more important, because some reforms can compete with, rather than complement, one another. Accordingly,
policymakers are encouraged to start considering how to sequence administrative reforms. To give some insight
into this consideration, this study revisits the historical cases of the national public administrations in Japan and
Singapore and demonstrates that distinct reform sequences there shaped distinctive traditions, namely, power
*Correspondence to: N. Aoki, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469B Bukit Timah Road, #02-18,
Level 2, Li Ka Shing Building, Singapore 259771. E-mail: sppnma@nus.edu.sg
public administration and development
Public Admin. Dev. 35, 206–218 (2015)
Published online 21 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pad.1714
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial