P11 Evidence and Lessons from Asia-Pacific Public Management
Soojin KIM, Assistant Professor, Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. (Email: email@example.com)
Review Group Chair
Sangyub RYU, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, College of Social Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. (Email: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Panel Co-Chairs and Reviewers
- Chung-An CHEN, Associate Professor, Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
- Soojin KIM, Assistant Professor, Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
- Cheol LIU, Associate Professor, KDI School of Public Policy and Management, South Korea
- Liang MA, Professor, School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China.
- Sangyub RYU, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, College of Social Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
As Hofstede (2007) argues, the Asian context is special enough to merit more Asian-driven, cross-cultural, and comparative public management research – e.g., seeing what changed, what remained the same, and what should be changed in the future – or comparing them. We thus believe that evidence and lessons from the Asia-Pacific region may open new windows that allow scholars and practitioners to improve public management theory and practice at large.
One example is the response of Asian countries to the COVID-19 pandemic and even that in the post-outbreak era. Over the last two years, while many Western countries have experienced a full-scale back-and-forth lockdown of cities and continued to impose entry restrictions and border closures, many people in the Asia-Pacific region started to pursue relatively (earlier) normal lives. This implies that as the pandemic trudges on, governments in Asia have tended to proceed with control measures and related management policies not only in a top-down, centralized style but also with a greater proportion of collaborations driven by private-sector entities, not to mention bottom-up mobilization of people in a community. Notable examples include China’s institutional advantage by a top-down authoritarian regime, Singapore’s whole-of-government collaborations in ICT, R&D, and business digitalization, Taiwan’s national vaccination drive through rigorous campaigns, and South Korea’s trial-and-error learning and subsequent contingency plans into action, and so on. They suggest that although Asian countries have different governance contexts (e.g., political systems, democratization, history, and institutions), people’s higher level of trust in government, which is embedded in Confucian culture’s submission to authority, has commonly contributed to better government – people synergy in controlling the virus.
The views above about Asian public management are intellectually illuminating. However, there is still much to learn about works in public management and performance based on more realistic practices, experiences, and lessons, perhaps through focused research. In pursuit of having more confidence in developing Asia-Pacific specific research agenda, we are looking for papers that address, but not limited to, the following topics:
- Asia-Pacific governments’ unique approaches to external shocks and crises as compared to the Western governments
- Asia Pacific-based research that examines the applicability of propositions developed in the West
- Research that proposes new concepts tailored to the Asia-Pacific context
- Research that compares public management between the East and the West, or large-sample, cross-country public management research
- Systematic reviews that explore variations associated with geographic region or country
- Urban and local governance for sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region
Bullock, J. B., Stritch, J. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2015). International Comparison of Public and Private Employees’ Work Motives, Attitudes, and Perceived Rewards. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 479-489.
Chen, C.-A., Bozeman, B., & Berman, E. (2019). The Grass is Greener, But Why? Evidence of Employees’ Perceived Sector Mismatch from the US, New Zealand, and Taiwan. International Public Management Journal, 22(3), 560-589.
Chen, C.-A., Chen, D.-Y., Liao, Z.-P., & Kuo, M.-F. (2020). Winnowing Out High-psm Candidates: The Adverse Selection Effect of Competitive Public Service Exams. International Public Management Journal, 23(4), 443-464.
Garland, P., Babbitt, D., Bondarenko, M., Sorichetta, A., Tatem, A. J., & Johnson, O. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as experienced by the individual. arXiv. 20202005.01167.
Haque, M. S., van der Wal, Z., & van den Berg, C. (2021). Comparative Studies in Public Administration: Intellectual Challenges and Alternative Perspectives. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 344-348.
Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4), 411-420.
Lee, G., & Choi, D. L. (2016). Does Public Service Motivation Influence the College Students’ Intention to Work in the Public Sector? Evidence From Korea. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(2), 145-163.
Ma, L., Tang, H., & Yan, B. (2015). Public Employees’ Perceived Promotion Channels in Local China: Merit-based or Guanxi-orientated? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(3), 283-297.