Neither Hong Kong nor mainland China is a democracy, yet both have been active administrative reformers, having achieved significant changes but continuing to operate within systematic and institutional constraints, shaped by path-dependence. Within three decades, China has been transformed from a centrally planned economy into a thriving market economy in the name of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ – a form of market authoritarianism. Hong Kong, meanwhile, had prospered as part of the ‘East Asia miracle’, and been an enthusiast of public sector reform in the ‘new public management’ fashion. Their path and logic of reform have never been entirely straightforward, displaying compromises and uneasy hybrids (more so in mainland China). Though confronted with rising political challenges to governance, both are arguably still ‘success’ types in their own right. The two reform trajectories have run in arguably totally different political contexts, but there is one similarity – administrative reforms were implemented in an authoritarian setting and had embraced a strong agenda of substituting political reforms.
Points for practitioners
This article uses the case of China and Hong Kong to illustrate administrative modernization under authoritarianism. Both have been active administrative reformers over the past three decades despite not being a democracy. Though confronted with rising political challenges to governance, both are arguably still ‘success’ types in their own right. Hong Kong, along with Singapore, is rated as high achiever by the World Bank’s global governance indicators. Despite political constraints and ideological hurdles, the scale of China’s transformation of the party-state is anything but gigantic. It was held up as exemplary of an alternative growth model, dubbed by some as the ‘Beijing Consensus’, as a counterweight to the neoliberal ‘Washington Consensus’. Their experience underscores the dynamics of governance reform under institutional and political limitations.
AberbachJDPutnamRDRockmanBA (1981) Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
AngYY (2009) Centralizing treasury management in China: The rationale of the central reformers. Public Administration and Development29: 263–273.
3.
BoZ (2002) Chinese Provincial Leaders: Economic Performance and Political Mobility since 1949, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
4.
BurnsJP (1989) Chinese civil service reform: The 13th Party Congress proposals. China Quarterly120: 739–770.
5.
ChanHS (1998) The institution of the state in China: At odds with the global trends. Korea Review of Public Administration3(2): 69–91.
6.
ChanHSChowKW (2007) Public management policy and practice in western China: Metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innovation transfer. American Review of Public Administration37(4): 479–498.
7.
ChanHSLiES (2007) Civil service law in the People’s Republic of China: A return to cadre personnel management. Public Administration Review67(3): 383–398.
8.
CheungABL (1996a) Efficiency as the rhetoric? Public sector reform in Hong Kong explained. International Review of Administrative Sciences62(1): 31–47.
9.
CheungABL (1996b) Public sector reform and the re-legitimation of public bureaucratic power: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Sector Management9(5/6): 37–50.
10.
CheungABL(1999) Administrative development in Hong Kong: Political questions, administrative answers. In: WongHKChanHS (eds). Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific Basin, New York: Marcel Dekker, 219–252.
11.
CheungABL (2000) New interventionism in the making: Interpreting state interventions in Hong Kong after the change of sovereignty. Journal of Contemporary China9(24): 291–308.
12.
CheungABL (2006) Budgetary reforms in the two city states: Impact on central budget agency in Hong Kong and Singapore. International Review of Administrative Sciences72(3): 341–361.
13.
CheungABL (2007) Combating corruption as a political strategy to rebuild trust and legitimacy: Can China learn from Hong Kong?International Public Management Review8(2): 45–71.
14.
CheungABL(2009) Public management reform in Hong Kong. In: GoldfinchFWallisJL (eds). International Handbook of Public Management Reform, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 317–335.
15.
CheungABL(2010a) Repositioning the state and the public sector reform agenda: The case of Hong Kong. In: RameshMAraralEJrWuX (eds). Reasserting the Public in Public Service: New Public Management Reform, Oxford: Routledge, 79–100.
16.
CheungABL (2010b) In search of trust and legitimacy: The political trajectory of Hong Kong as part of China. International Public Management Review11(2): 38–63.
17.
ChristensenTDongLPainterM (2008) Administrative reform in China’s central government: How much ‘learning from the West’?International Review of Administrative Sciences74(3): 351–371.
18.
DunleavyP (1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19.
Efficiency Unit, Hong Kong Government (1995) Serving the Community, Hong Kong: Government Printer.
FosterKW (2006) Improving municipal governance in China: Yantai’s pathbreaking experiment in administrative reform. Modern China32(2): 221–250.
23.
GongT (2006) Corruption and local governance: The double identity of Chinese local governments in market reform. Pacific Review19(1): 85–102.
24.
GoodmanD (1983) Centre and Province in the People’s Republic of China: Sichuan and Guizhou 1955–1965, New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HardingH (1981) Organizing China: The Problem of Bureaucracy 1949–76, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
HarrisP (1978) Hong Kong: A Study in Bureaucratic Politics, Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia.
27.
HarrisP (1988) Hong Kong: A Study in Bureaucracy and Politics, Hong Kong: Macmillan.
28.
HoodC(1996) Exploring variations in public management reform of the 1980s. In: BekkeHPerryJLToonenTAJ (eds). Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 268–287.
29.
HoodC (2002) Control, bargains, and cheating: The politics of public-service reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory12(3): 309–332.
30.
HsuCL (2001) Political narratives and the production of legitimacy: The case of corruption in post-Mao China. Qualitative Sociology24(1): 25–54.
31.
HuqueSLeeGCheungABL (1998) The Civil Service in Hong Kong: Continuity and Change, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
32.
HuqueASYepR (2003) Globalization and reunification: Administrative reforms and the China–Hong Kong convergence challenge. Public Administration Review63(2): 141–152.
33.
IkenberryGJ(1990) The international spread of privatization policies: Inducements, learning and ‘policy bandwagoning’. In: SuleimanENWaterburryJ (eds). The Political Economy of Public Sector Reform and Privatization, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 88–110.
34.
KaufmannDKraayA (2002) Growth without governance. Economia3(1): 169–229.
35.
Kaufmann D, Kraay A and Mastruzzi A (2010) Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank Institute. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp (accessed 25 October 2010).
36.
KingAYC(1981) Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the grass roots level. In: KingAYCLeeRPL (eds). Social Life and Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 127–146.
37.
LamTCChanHS(1995) The civil service reform: Policy formulation and implementation. In: LoCKTsuiKY (eds). China Review 1995, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2.1–2.43.
38.
LanZ (2001) Understanding China’s administrative reform. Public Administration Quarterly24(4): 437–468.
39.
LiLC (2009) Decision-making in Chinese local administrative reform: Path dependence, agency and implementation. Public Administration and Development29: 79–87.
40.
MaJ (2009) The dilemma of developing financial accountability without election: A study of China’s recent budget reforms. Australian Journal of Public Administration68(S1): S62–S72.
41.
MaJNiuML(2006) Modernizing public budgeting and financial management in China. In: FrankHA (ed.) Public Financial Management, New York: Taylor & Francis, 691–736.
42.
McKinsey & Co. (1973) The Machinery of Government: A New Framework for Expanding Services, Hong Kong: Government Printer.
43.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
44.
NathanA (2009) China since Tiananmen: Authoritarian impermanence. Journal of Democracy20(3): 37–40.
45.
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2009) China Statistical Yearbook 2009, Beijing: China Statistics Press.
46.
NgokKZhuG (2007) Marketization, globalization and administrative reform in China: A zigzag road to a promising future. International Review of Administrative Sciences73(2): 217–233.
47.
PollittCBouckaertG (2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
QuahJST (2003) Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries, Singapore: Eastern University Press by Marshall Cavendish.
49.
RamoJC (2004) The Beijing Consensus, London: The Foreign Policy Centre.
50.
SaichT (2004) Government and Politics of China, 2nd edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
Sapio F (2005) Implementing Anticorruption in the PRC: Patterns of Selectivity. Working Paper No. 10, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies, Lund University, Sweden.
52.
ShenCJinJZouH (2006) Fiscal Decentralization in China: History, Impact, Challenges and Next Steps, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
53.
SongD (2001) Chinese Government Management and Reform [in Chinese], Beijing: Chinese Law Press.
54.
SpenceJ (1980) To Change China: Western Advisers in China, New York: Penguin Books.
55.
TangSYLoCWH (2009) The political economy of service organization reform in China: An institutional choice analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19: 731–767.
56.
TsaoKKWorthleyJA (2009) Civil service development in China and America: A comparative perspective. Public Administration Review69(S1): S88–S94.
57.
TsuiKYWangY (2004) Between separate stoves and a single menu: Fiscal decentralization in China. China Quarterly177: 71–90.
58.
TungR (1995) Market-oriented reform of state-owned enterprises in Mainland China. Issues and Studies31(2): 1–20.
59.
WalderA (1986) Communist Neo-Traditionalism: Work and Authority in Chinese Industry, Berkeley: University of California Press.
60.
WedemanA (2005) Anticorruption campaigns and the intensification of corruption in China. Journal of Contemporary China14(42): 93–116.
61.
WhiteG (1996) Corruption and the transition from socialism in China. Journal of Law and Society23(1): 149–169.
62.
WongCPW(1998) Fiscal dualism in China: Gradualist reform and the growth of off-budget finance. In: BreanD (ed.) Taxation in Modern China, New York: Routledge, 187–208.
63.
Wong CPW (1999) Converting fees to taxes: Reform of the extrabudgetary funds and intergovernmental fiscal relations in China, 1999 and beyond. Paper presented at the Association for Asian Studies Meeting, Boston, March.
64.
WongCPW (2000) Central–local relations revisited: The 1994 tax-sharing reform and public expenditure management in China. China Perspectives31: 52–63.
65.
WongCPWHeadyCWooWT (1995) Fiscal Management and Economic Reform in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press for the Asian Development Bank.
66.
World Bank (1993) The East Asian Economic Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.
67.
World Bank (2003) China: Promoting Growth with Equity, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
YangDH (2004) Civil society as an analytic lens for contemporary China. China: An International Journal2(1): 1–27.
72.
Yang DL (2000) Rebuilding the sinews of governance in China: From decentralization to vertical integration. In: French Centre for Research on Contemporary China and the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, International Conference on Centre–Periphery Relations in China: Integration, Disintegration or Reshaping of an Empire? Hong Kong, 24–25 March.
73.
YangDL (2004) Remaking the Chinese Leviathan, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
74.
YangK (2007) China’s 1998 administrative reform and new public management: Applying a comparative framework. International Journal of Public Administration30(12–14): 1371–1392.
75.
ZhangM (2009) Crossing the river by touching stones: A comparative study of administrative reforms in China and the United States. Public Administration Review69(S1): S82–S87.
76.
ZhaoYPetersGB (2009) The state of the state: Comparing governance in China and the United States. Public Administration Review69(S1): S122–S128.
77.
ZhaoZ (2009) Fiscal decentralization and provincial-level fiscal disparities in China: A Sino-US comparative perspective. Public Administration Review69(S1): S67–S74.
