In 1997, the results of an administrative ethics survey of senior Hong Kong public servants were reported in this journal. Using the same questionnaire in 2011, we assessed the ways in which values have changed in the intervening period. Despite major systemic reforms in the civil service, which has evolved from a classic Weberian to a neo-Weberian bureaucracy, organizational, rather than individual, values generally appear to have strengthened. The explanation seems to be that enhanced classical Weberian organizational values are not perceived to be incompatible with high standards of personal morality. Adherence to familiar Weberian bureaucratic principles also affords civil servants some protection in an environment in which their performance is increasingly subject to critical scrutiny by local politicians, the society, an ever-watchful media, and the Chinese government.
BurnsJ. P. (2004). Government capacity and the Hong Kong civil service. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
2.
ChanA. (2002, July). Beware of blurring the dividing line. Financial Times.
3.
CheungA. B. L. (1996a). Performance pledges—Power to the consumer of a quagmire in public service legitimation. International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 233-259.
4.
CheungA. B. L. (1996b). Public sector reform and the re-legitimation of bureaucratic power: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(5/6), 37-50.
5.
CheungA. B. L. (2001). Civil service reform in post-1997 Hong Kong: Political challenges, managerial responses. International Journal of Public Administration, 24, 929-950.
6.
CheungC. Y. (2003). The quest for good governance: Hong Kong’s principal officials accountability system. China: An International Journal, 1(2), 249-272.
7.
CheungC. Y. (2011). How political accountability undermines public service ethics. Journal of Contemporary China, 20, 499-515.
8.
CheungJ. (2003, October). Civil service neutrality is a British thing: State leader. South China Morning Post.
9.
ClarkJ. (1965) A preliminary investigation of religion and the moral standards of American businessmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
10.
DenhardtR. B.DenhardtJ. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 546-559.
11.
DunnW. N.MillerD. Y. (2007). A critique of new public management and the neo-Weberian state: Advancing a critical theory of administrative reform. Public Organization Review, 7, 345-358.
12.
FriedrichC. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In FriedrichC.MasonE. S. (Eds.), Public policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Reprinted from Bureaucratic power in national politics, by F. E. Rourke, Ed., 1972, Boston, MA: Little Brown)
13.
HKSAR v Ho Mi Mi and Cheng Sai-man [ESCC410/2002].
14.
Hong Kong Government. (2009). Civil service code. Available from http://www.csb.gov.hk
15.
Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Future of Hong Kong. (1984, September). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
16.
JorgensenT. B. (2006). Public values, their nature, stability and change: The case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly, 30, 365-398.
17.
KickertW. J. M. (1997). Public governance in the Netherlands: An alternative to Anglo-American managerialism. Public Administration, 75, 731-752.
18.
Legislative Council, Panel on Public Service. (2009). Follow up to meeting on 15 December 2008: Civil service code. Available from www.legco.gov.hk
19.
LohC.CullenR. (2005). Political reform in Hong Kong: The principal officials accountability system. The first year (2002-2003). Journal of Contemporary China, 14, 153-176.
20.
LuiT. T.CooperT. L. (1990). Hong Kong facing China: Civil servants’ confidence in the future. Administration & Society, 22, 155-169.
21.
LuiT. T.CooperT. L. (1996). Bureaucracy, democracy and administrative ethics: A study of public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 62, 177-196.
22.
LuiT. T.CooperT. L. (1997). Values in flux: Administrative ethics and the Hong Kong public servant. Administration & Society, 22, 301-324.
23.
MaN. (2007). Political development in Hong Kong: state, political society and civil society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
24.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Preliminary Working Committee. (1995). Some views of the preliminary working committee of the HKSAR preparatory committee on maintaining the stability of the Hong Kong civil service and its system. Hong Kong: mimeo.
26.
ScottI. (2010). The public sector in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
27.
ScottI. (2011, April). How politicised is the Hong Kong civil service? Hong Kong: Centre for governance and citizenship, The Hong Kong institute of education (Working Paper Series No.2011/006). Tai Po, Hong Kong: Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of Education
28.
ScottI.LeungJ. Y. H. (2012). Integrity management in post-1997 Hong Kong: Challenges for a rule-based system. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58, 39-52.
