Search results

Hong Kong’s public sector reform since the 1990s is not just a continuation of an administrative reform trajectory started in colonial years to modernize the civil service. Although concerns for efficiency, productivity and value for money have always formed part of the reform agenda at different times, an efficiency discourse of reform is insufficient for capturing the full dynamics of institutional change whether in the pre-1997 or post-1997 period. During Hong Kong's political transition towards becoming an SAR of China in 1997, public sector reform helped to shore up the legitimacy of the bureaucracy. After 1997, new political crises and the changing relations between the Chief Executive and senior civil servants have induced the advent of a new “public service bargain” which gives different meaning to the same NPM-like measures

The purpose of this book launch speech is to introduce the book I author, Can Hong Kong exceptionalism last? Dilemmas of governance and public administration over five decades 1970s-2020 (2021). The book critically reviews the governance and public administration from 1970s to 2020, identifying strengths and capabilities as well as constraints and dilemmas.

The book is based on my decades of academic observations and personal political experience by interpreting and re-interpreting the Hong Kong journey, with reflections on past assumptions and raising new questions.

This book identifies five exceptional aspects: (a) Under British rule Hong Kong was governed as an atypical colony; (b) It was one of the Four Little Dragons as part of the East Asian Miracle; (c) In the 1990s, it was one of the regional pioneers in public sector reform; (d) The unique constitutional status of post-1997 Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China; (e) After reunification, the SAR government, though only semi-democratic, is checked by balancing and monitoring mechanisms no less vigorous than some developed democracies. It also examines various governance problems faced in the post-1997 period.

Hong Kong is again in times of uncertainty and volatility. The city has entered a ‘second transition’ after 2020, and it is undergoing a bigger test than in 1997. After reviewing the past, I opine in the book that Hong Kong has to identify its niche areas, not only in economics. It needs a paradigm shift in how it relates to the Mainland within ‘One Country’ and how it relates to the world as a global metropolis.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the underlying problems of the recent socio-political disturbance originated from the amendments of extradition law in Hong Kong.

The perspectives of politics and governance are adopted to analyze the current situation.

Three underlying problems are identified, including the existential crisis under “One Country, Two Systems”, the politics of “fear of losing” and the institutional weakness to reform and change under the current system of “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong”.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government should take initiatives to address the above problems.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the evolution of the system of public governance in Hong Kong, the various public sector reforms undertaken over the past two to three decades, and the present quagmire in governance resulting in a looming crisis in public trust and governability.

The research for the paper is based on opinion polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme, and the findings of government reports, international organizations, official documents of the Hong Kong government, surveys by international and domestic organizations, and media reports.

The paper shows that the present political configuration of governance in Hong Kong had largely thrived on the pre‐1997 colonial logic of administrative state and government by bureaucracy. Such a system has now become hard to sustain due to rising political distrust and cynicism caused partly by the democratic deficit and the absence of the politics of responsibility. Hong Kong was a pioneer of public sector reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, but such reforms – grounded in the NPM (new public management) logic of management efficiency – no longer suffice to cope with the growing crisis of governability. It is argued that rebuilding trust and governability should be put at the forefront of the governance reform agenda.

The value of the paper is to show that despite good external ratings, the domestic perceptions of the performance of governance might be very different due to internal social and political problems. Administrative and management reforms merely copying external models, without touching on the fundamental and structural issues, are unlikely to forge a common sense of purpose and identity that is needed for sustainable governance.

The year 2020 is an epochal moment for governance and public administration. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has upset social and economic life, including the delivery of public services, and eroded domestic and international politics. It comes in an era of uncertainty resulting from the end of the New Public Management boom and a looming breakdown of the contemporary US-defined international order. Against such a sea change, we can hardly take business as usual. Change breeds indeterminacy but also induces reimagining. Any renewal and renaissance of public management has to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions of governance in a low-trust and high-risk society. Both the capacity and legitimacy of the state need to be re-empowered, but no longer through the market. The dual failure of democratic politics and bureaucratic excellence in many countries has rendered the Wilsonian politics-administration dichotomy redundant. Amid the rise of East Asia, there are growing contentions over the conceptualization of meritocracy as alternative systems of governance and public service models seem to be delivering effective rivals. Governance performance may not be predetermined by regime types within a poly-polar world. We need to search for new reconnections, new leadership, a new basis for trust and consensus, and a new public service bargain to avoid getting bogged down in old wine in re-labelled bottle, or another singular universalist paradigm.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the features and impact of performance management reforms implemented in the bureaucracies of several Asian states.

The paper draws on government reports, reports of international bodies, and the data produced for various governance indicators, as well as scholarly analysis of performance management and new public management.

After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, many Asian countries, including developed and developing, have introduced a variety of performance management systems into their bureaucracies. This has been encouraged by international agencies as part of their “good governance” agendas. Despite this, the goal of achieving efficient and workable public administration has still not been realized in many cases. Anti‐corruption measures are not effective, and efficiency and service delivery in public organization has not significantly improved. However, political leaders must recognize that the building of rational legal bureaucracy in which patronage influence is reduced, creating networked governance, allowing engagement with civil society, and fostering high employee motivation, are the other prerequisites for achieving efficient and accountable government. Only then will performance management contribute to this aim.

The value of this paper is to show that within the context of Asian bureaucracies, performance management is not a panacea to guarantee improvements in public administration. Other requirements are necessary, as indicated above, especially the creation of rational legal bureaucracy.

Argues that from the 1980s onwards, the Hong Kong Government has initiated a series of reforms within the civil service which eventually have been subsumed within a programme of public sector reform. The key features of these reforms are not dissimilar from the style of reform espoused within “new public management” (NPM) ideology. Argues that, despite attempts to adopt NPM ideology with regard to public sector reform, Hong Kong’s reforms do not share the same institutional reform logic as those of NPM. Suggests a political discourse of NPM‐based public sector reform which places the re‐legitimation of bureaucratic power as the key to understanding the reform process.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to analyse the diffusion of an innovative policy or service and the factors influencing it through an explorative study of the diffusion of the Bookstart program in Taiwan; and second, to provide an analytical framework for further study of this program.

The study is both empirical and theoretical. It uses data from existing studies and also agencies involved in Bookstart to explain the diffusion of the program. It then draws on theories of policy diffusion and the initial findings of this study to develop an analytical framework for the further study of the diffusion of the Bookstart program.

The Bookstart program, which is designed to promote reading habits for children 0 to 3 years old and to strengthen parent‐children relations, was originally initiated in the UK. It was first introduced into Taiwan in Taichung County in 2003. The paper shows how the program spread throughout Taiwan and indicates the role of the key players in the diffusion, including charitable institutions, local politicians and leaders, local authority agencies, and the Ministry of Education. The paper posits an analytical framework identifying factors which may help to promote or facilitate the diffusion. In this respect, the paper draws on the theoretical literature and also initial evidence from the research so far undertaken. This will guide the research in the next stage of the study.

This explorative study provides an example of the nature, process and direction of the diffusion of a policy or service innovation, and suggests the possible factors promoting or facilitating it, as identified in the initial findings of the research and in the relevant theoretical literature.

Despite an intensified anti-corruption campaign, China's economic growth and social transition continue to breed loopholes and opportunities for big corruption, leading to a money-oriented mentality and the collapse of ethical standards, and exposing the communist regime to greater risk of losing moral credibility and political trust. In Hong Kong, the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in 1974 marked the advent of a new comprehensive strategy to eradicate corruption and to rebuild trust in government. The ICAC was not just an anti-corruption enforcement agency per se, but an institution spearheading and representing integrity and governance transformation. This chapter considers how mainland China can learn from Hong Kong's experience and use the fight against corruption as a major political strategy to win the hearts and minds of the population and reform governance in the absence of more fundamental constitutional reforms, in a situation similar to Hong Kong's colonial administration of the 1970s–1980s deploying administrative means to minimize a political crisis.