The development of modern public administration in East Asia
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Pan Suk Kim |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852316685162 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Braibant Lecture – 2016 |
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(2) 225–240
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852316685162
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
The Braibant Lecture 2016
The development of modern
public administration in East Asia
Pan Suk Kim
Yonsei University, South Korea
Abstract
East Asia has one of the most successful economies in the world today, so public
administration as a practice as well as a discipline has arguably played a pivotal role in
such a developmental process. However, there are not many readable references on
such issues. Accordingly, this article will first discuss the issue of East Asian development
models, after which it will discuss the civil service entrance examinations as an East
Asian model of bureaucratic recruitment. This article will then discuss the development
of modern public administration in three dimensions (i.e., practice, education, and
research), after which it will discuss major issues and challenges of public administration
in China, Japan, and South Korea.
Keywords
China, East Asia, Japan, modern public administration, South Korea
Introduction
Western scholars introduced modern public administration (hereafter, PA) into
East Asia in the nineteenth or twentieth century. China first learned the phrase
‘PA’ from overseas and introduced the disciplinary content of modern PA from the
US, Europe, and Japan. For example, some of those who studied in the United
States through the Chinese Educational Mission (CEM)
1
from 1872 to 1881 and
the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program (BISP)
2
from 1909 to 1929 introduced
modern sciences, including political science and modern PA, into China. However,
the teaching of PA was suspended in China with the establishment of the new
socialist regime and with adjustments of higher educational institutions. As
China entered its age of reform and openness in 1978, PA recovered and developed
gradually over the years.
Corresponding author:
Pan Suk Kim, College of Government and Business, Yonsei University, Wonju Campus, Wonju 26493,
South Korea.
Email: pankim@gmail.com
In Japan, Karl Rathgen (1856–1921), a German scholar, introduced modern PA
in 1882 (Akizuki, 2010; Muramatsu, 1994; Nishio, 1993). Rathgen, who was influ-
enced by German cameralism and administrative law, taught public law and admin-
istrative sciences at Tokyo Imperial University from 1882 to 1890 (Rathgen, 1891).
Moreover, when Ito Hirobumi (1841–1909)
3
went to Europe in 1882 to study the
constitutions of Western countries, he had a closer relationship with Lorenz von
Stein (1815–1890).
4
The Stein lecture notes were translated into Japanese and shared
with Japanese leaders (Salomon, 1934; Shimizu, 1939; Spaulding, 1967).
South Korea (hereafter, Korea) had inherited a law-oriented German tradition
through the pre-1945 Japanese influence, but management-oriented American PA
significantly affected the development of Korean PA after the Korean War
(1950–53). In 1955, In-Hung Chung (1955), who graduated from Kyoto Imperial
University in Japan in 1941, published the first textbook of PA, entitled
Introduction to Public Administration. In the 1950s, a number of Korean universi-
ties began to establish PA departments in their colleges of law (Kim, 2012).
Currently, East Asia has one of the most successful economies in the world. As of
2016, China is the world’s second-largest economy by nominal GDP, followed by
Japan and Korea as the world’s third- and eleventh-largest economies, respectively.
One could argue that PA as a practice as well as a discipline has played a pivotal role in
such a developmental process. However, there are not many readable references on
such issues. Accordingly, I addressed this issue for the 2016 Braibant Lecture in
Chengdu, China. I will first discuss the issue of East Asian development models,
after which I will discuss the civil service entrance examinations as an East Asian
model of bureaucratic recruitment. I will then discuss the development of modern PA
in these three countries in three dimensions (i.e., practice, education, and research),
after which I will discuss major issues and challenges of PA in all three countries.
East Asian development models: developmental or strong
administrative state
There is no agreed-on definition of what constitutes the East Asian model of devel-
opment because different writers select different characteristics (Haggard, 2004).
The developmental state school is given different names by different scholars, such
as the ‘East Asian development model’, ‘authoritarian capitalism’, and the ‘bur-
eaucratic authoritarian industrializing regime’ (Woo-Cumings, 1999; World Bank,
1993; Xia, 2000). Chalmers Johnson (1982) argued that Japan’s economic devel-
opment had much to do with far-sighted intervention by bureaucrats, particularly
those in the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Like other late
industrializers, Korea was led by the bureaucratic developmental state that con-
trolled the market system (Amsden, 1992). The Chinese government also played an
active role in economic growth, particularly in the post-Mao period, and China has
become the world leader in economic growth (Shirk, 1993).
China’s stunning growth rates have corresponded with the rise of state capital-
ism (Boltho and Weber, 2015). Since the mid-2000s, China’s political economy has
226 International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial