A Comparative Analysis of Government Innovations

｢지방정부연구｣ 제13권 제3호(2009 가을) : 379～399

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

in Asian Countries

아시아 국가들에서 정부혁신의 비교분석

Sok Chamroeun*

* 제1저자

Jaegal, Don**

**교신저자

경제발전과 정치안정은 항상 발전전략과 정부정책의 주된 목적이 되어 왔다. 모든 정부는 환경의 압력으로부터 내부의 창조성과 책임성을 제도화할 수 있는 궁극적인 목표를 달성하기 위하여 관리방식을 변화시키려는 방향으로 진화하고 있다. 경제발전과 정치안정을 위하여 선진국과 개발도상국가들 모두는 최선의 관리방식을 찾기 위하여 노력하고 있다. 이를 위하여 각 국가들은 발전욕구와 목표에 적합한 특정한 공식을 꾸준히 찾고 있고, 따라서 지속적으로 조직구조와 방향을 개혁하고 혁신하려는 경향이 있다. 본 논문은 중국, 일본, 한국, 말레시아, 싱가폴, 태국이라는 상이한 아시아 국가들에 대하여 혁신 의제, 혁신 대상, 변화 장치에서의 공통점을 식별하려고 시도한다. 또한 상이한 사회정치적 및 경제적 맥락에도 불구하고 선진국과 개발도상국 모두는 향상된 변화관리 방법, 개선된 거버넌스 과정 그리고 강화된 국민의 삶의 질을 지속적으로 추구하여야 한다는 결론에 도달하고 있다.

주제어 : 정부혁신, 비교분석, 아시아국가

Ⅰ. Introduction

The growing popularity of the field of public administration ushered in a number of definitions regarding innovation, each revealing important aspects of it. Government innovation can be defined as the effort by a government to find an optimal solution to problems it faces by undergoing a change within itself. Although various political, social and economic environmental factors affect government innovation looking from an administrative point of view, transparency, efficiency and participation are the three axes that support government innovations(Royall, 2000). For Peter F. Drucker(1974), innovation is the process of equipping in new, improved capabilities or increased utility hence, referring to his theory, innovation has to be market-oriented and if it is product-oriented it will create a "technology miracle" without creating required benefits. In business management parlance, there are two main tasks: marketing (to satisfy current needs of the consumers) and innovation (to satisfy consumers future needs) because business sector innovation is used as a strategic factor for competition. And one of the strongest characteristics of the innovation is that it is a continuous process.

A Comparative Analysis of Government Innovations in Asian Countries

｢지방정부연구｣ 제13권 제3호(2009 가을)

The academic literature contains a number of definitions of innovation. Several authors emphasize newness, including anything perceived to be new by the people doing it(Rogers & Kim, 1985) or as something different for each organization into which it is introduced(Downs & Mohr, 1976), or as the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services in an applied setting(Thompson, 1965), or the early adoption of a new idea(Rogers & Kim, 1985), for others as synonymous with creativity(Jacques & Ryan, 1978), and a final group as substantive but not revolutionary changes(Merritt, 1985).

The agenda of public administration in the 1980's was dominated by a new administrative philosophy(Hood & Jackson, 1991) or administrative ideology(Politt, 1990). In Europe, its socio-economic and political stability can be attributed in part to its long tradition of conservatism. This was however put to challenge in 1991 when a charter for the establishment of a European Union was drafted(Dinan, 2004). In the Asia-Pacific Rim, foreign policies and eco-diplomatic reorientations are on a roll brought about by the renegotiation of the documents in comparison with inter-nation trade relations among the members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in order to (a)find cooperative solutions to the challenges of our rapidly changing regional and global economy, (b)support an expanding world economy and an open multilateral trading system and (c)to continue to reduce barriers to trade and investment to enable goods, services and capital to flow freely among our economies(Anderson, et al., 1998). In the United States of America, trust in the national government has declined sharply. According to Grubbs & Alexander(1997), a recent survey found that three out of four Americans say they do not trust the government, an increase from only one in four just a few decades ago much of the attention as to why Americans have grown cynical tends to revolve around issues of efficiency and performance rather than more normative concerns.

Economic development and political stability have always constituted the major objectives of development strategy and government policy, aside from its aim to evolve a culture of excellence in change management approaches with the end view of institutionalizing internal creativity and responsiveness to external pressures. This paper seeks identify the common elements among the different Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand) in terms of their innovation agenda, their specific area for innovation, and their respective mechanisms for change.

More particularly, China was included because of its experience in bringing about an economic turn around using the socialist free market economy within a socialist political structure. For Japan, this country has been known for its protectionist policies. This protectionism has become its strength but at the same time its weakness while South Korea has exhibited rapid economic development through its export-oriented industrialization, considering the fact that not too long ago it has been caught in the middle of a cold war, and with limited physical and natural resources. Malaysia was included because during the 1997 Asian economic melt-down, this country was one of the first, if not the first to get out of this economic despondency while Singapore is known for its ‘developmental state’principle and its continuing success in implementing a government-led and controlled economy while aligning itself with countries with free market economies and for its part, Thailand was taken as part of this study because despite its turbulent political history due to frequent civilian military power struggle, it has achieved a relatively decent economic progress. For each frame, each country exhibited uniqueness in terms of the method and approach to achieve their desired innovation objective. Relatively, this study seeks to contribute to the literature of government innovations and reforms, not only to gain knowledge and learn some lessons from it but to raise some questions that might lead to more in-depth studies with regard to government and public administration innovations and reforms.

It must be noted that, this study was focused to the above-cited countries because of their relative dominant economies in Asia as indicated by their high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as compared to most of the Asian countries. This is coupled by the presumption that these six countries have performed better in terms of economic growth brought about by their enterprising governments. It must be understood that while there are no less than 40 countries of the Asian geographical and political region, this study was limited to these six countries due to some material constraints. Nevertheless, because of the seemingly dominant economies and these countries' active role in the Asian economy, more or less, what may transpire from this comparative study is also worth noting because it is reflective of the existing economic and political trends in the region, if not in the world.

Ⅱ. Analytical Framework

Comparison among the administrative structures and the accompanying innovative measures among selected Asian countries shall be made using the "Comparative Institutional Analysis" of Evans(1995). This perspective is anchored on the belief that genuine development is gradual and characterized by calculated foundation-building, deliberate structural formation and intelligent policy formulation. Additionally, "Institutional Analysis" examines the operating environment, organizational structures, management, staffing, policies and procedures, of bodies involved in implementing a program. It tries to answer the question, "Is the organization capable of carrying out the project?" It has three commonly used aspects: (a)the study of how rules shape human behavior; (b)how institutions operate; and (c)the results generated by institutions.

For the purposes of this study, institutional analysis was employed in such a way that analysis was focused on the state's operating structures and environment, management patterns and approaches, and policies and procedures with respect to its innovation initiatives. And more importantly, said analysis was made in relation to and in comparison with the selected countries not for purposes of comparing which is successful or not nor, who is better or who is worse, but more specifically on the similarities of their innovation agenda (focus of policy initiative), target issues for innovation, and factors leading to reform and the intervening factors affecting those reformative actions.

The "Comparative Analysis Approach" shall be applied in such a way that I shall be trying to find out the similarities of the subjects which also involve criteria and standards. It must be made clear that only those that are relevant and appropriate aspects of theoretical comparison will be used including: (a)"focus of policy initiative" or "innovation agenda," the "focus of policy initiative" deals with the theoretical considerations and the overall directions the innovators want to take; (b)"target issues and problems" or the "locus of action"refers to the specific issues that the innovators want to deal with, and it also focus with the existing governance structures, management approaches, administrative orientations, and economic systems, policies and conditions diagnosed and considered as the roots of socio-economic and political burdens that the country is currently and unnecessarily shouldering, at the expense of the people’s welfare; (c)"factors leading to reform" or the "process continuum" referring to the existing international and domestic economic and political factors that provided the fertile ground for infusing innovative actions, and more importantly are the designs, schemes, and policies adopted which served to facilitate the transformative processes in order to finally achieve the desired objective of the innovative efforts of the government (public administrators); and (d)"intervening forces," are the existing government structures processes and social forces which indirectly or indirectly serve to facilitate or obstruct the achievement of the innovative agenda; (e)the "results," are based on the outcomes of the comparative analysis of government innovation of the subject countries. The study adopted <Figure 1> as its framework of analysis.

<Figure 1> Analytical Framework

Comparing Factors

Focus of Policy Initiative

Target Issues

Intervening Forces

Factors Leading to Reform

Comparing Criteria

Principle Value

Goal

Focus of

Reform

Content

of Reform

Political Factors Economic Factors Administrative Factors

Facilitators: Government Social

Obstacles: Government Social

Results

Under the "focus of policy initiative," the principle involves the market principles while in terms of value, there are countries that operate under socialism while majority work under a democratic system though in different unique characteristics(protectionist and liberal) and the third variable(goals) include streamlining the bureaucracy, liberalization, deregulation, devolution, efficiency, accountability, autonomy, and strengthening of national integration. The "target issues" contain the intended area for change(focus of reform) and the specific indicators of innovation(content of reform). This time, it can be noticed that the question "how" is answered by the focus of reforms while the content of reform tends to deal with the question of "what." The "factors leading to reform" refers to the political, economic and administrative factors which identify the different approaches and processes formulated by each country on how to achieve their innovation agenda. This part further answers the question "how," but rather on more specific terms. Additionally, this part also presents the success factors which contributed much to the innovative initiatives of the subject countries. The "intervening forces" answer the question "what if" in that, two sides of the environment of innovation is presented. The "environment of innovation" being referred to are the prevailing conditions that exist, including the governmental and social structures that permit or hinder innovation while the "what if" part refers to the intermediate result relative to the initial implementation of innovation initiatives which can be positive or the negative reaction to the innovative endeavors being implemented by the government.

Ⅲ. Comparative Analysis of Asian Countries

Some consideration must be given because this study used secondary data, meaning, the information used as basis for comparison were from recently conducted studies and researches and not based on information that was personally gathered through the usual research methods. The 20 to 30 years period is chosen because of the belief that change/innovation and development are not achieved over-night. Subsequently, this perspective is anchored on the belief that genuine and long-term development for the better is gradual which necessitates calculated foundation building, deliberate structural formation and intelligent policy formulation.

1. Focus of Policy Initiative

The "market principles" being implemented by China include liberalization of its trade policies paving the way for the privatization(contracting-out and competition) of some of its key industries. This is aside from the alteration of the functions of the government separating them from those of enterprises so that enterprises will be truly given the power with regard to production, operation and management whereby the departments-in-charge of comprehensive economic management should shift their functions to macro-economic control, and specialized economic departments should be reorganized or reduced(Tsao & Worthley, 1999).

While all the rest of the other Asian countries mentioned in this study sought to manage their economies through the same capitalist principles, China's is unique, for several points: (a) It shall be implemented within the realms of the socialist political system with the accompanying legal and ideological framework; (b) It shall not be patterned after the western democratic arrangements like bi-party or multi-party system, parliamentary democracy where capitalism most probably thrives; and (c) The decision to infuse market principles within the context of its socialist political system is viewed as an instrument to further perpetuate the Chinese Communist Party's control over the economy and government(Dicks, 1989; Lo, 1992).

Japan's innovative initiative in its long standing market oriented economy on the other hand seeks to cope up with the changing domestic and international environment because many of Japan's once-vaunted economic practices are now nothing more than obstacles to future economic development and that the root of the problem is that Japan is still mired in the structures, policies and mental habits that prevailed in the 1950s-60s(Bevacqua, 1997).

The South Korean approach to a reformed public administration is to build a government system run by market principles and democratic values. What makes South Korea's case unique among the others is that while the other countries turn to the market principles to strengthen their economies, it shall be using the same market principles not only to make its economy more efficient in the domestic scene and more competitive in the global market but more importantly, to achieve its "Participatory Government Philosophy" and make its bureaucracy "small" but efficient, effective, transparent, democratic and a serving administration, through decentralization and devolution and the advocacy of e-governance and e-commerce(Kim et al., 1999).

Malaysia's approach to innovation is not different to that of the rest of the subject countries because it also opted to use the same market principles to the extent that it is a government controlled liberalization, minimal deregulation, privatization, and competition(Jabes, 2004). What makes it somewhat unique is its being a government led market economy articulated in its "Privatization Master Plan"or more popularly known as the "Vision 20-20." More specifically, the Malaysian model of a market economy is very close to that of the approach of China, Japan, and Singapore because it has retained some of its protectionist policies with the belief that it can achieve more of its economic development objectives through a government-led national economic development program.

For Singapore, the application of market principles like the other five Asian countries including liberalization, competition, and decentralization is desirable but can only be allowed to the extent that it shall retain its characteristic of being a government led economic development, contributory to its ultimate goal of national integration, the maintenance of its being a welfare state, a secondary role for the private sector and a reduced position of foreign companies in economic development(Low, 1991). The last two, limited privatization and foreign influence, are intended to prevent its highly competent members of the bureaucracy to be employed by the private domestic and foreign corporations due to better pay. The Singapore model is therefore a market oriented economy with some protectionist underpinnings, just like China, Japan, and Malaysia.

Thailand sought to introduce reforms using market principles in its governance approaches including liberalization, privatization, and competition(Thiratuth, 1993). Thailand is not infusing market principles to achieve economic expansion but more importantly to attract its badly needed foreign investment. Its innovation experience is all the more made a unique case compared to the others because it seeks to achieve national integration while it also seeks to implement devolution and delegation of some of the powers and functions of the central government to the local government units(Linken, 1999).

2. Target Issues

(1) Focus of Reform

The focus of China's bureaucratic reforms delved more into the reorientation of its functions. Under its socialist orientation, the central and local government units controlled agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation to the extent that even the daily routine of the lowest level of the Chinese bureaucracy and society are monitored by the government(Wang, 1998b). This form of bureaucratic functions transformation is common to most of the transition economies.

However, with the introduction of the innovative measures, the first to go are the policy-implementation functions of the central government while devolving the same to the local government units and some other specialized economic-administrative agencies. Secondly, existing special economic departments were empowered to identify specific policies appropriate to their level of authority(Liou, 1997).

The bureaucratic reforms undertaken by Japan is in consonance with its coping-up mechanism by making its bureaucracy more efficient, effecting and responsive to the rapidly changing domestic and international economic and political trends by reducing the number of its similarly-tasked government ministries(Bevacqua, 1997) More importantly, it sought to device a more effective internal control mechanisms to encourage transparency and went to the extent of adopting a deregulated set of trade policies.

In its attempt to build a "leading innovative bureaucracy," South Korea not only limited its reform initiatives in reorganizing its government structure through deregulation and providing the local government units the power to evolve their respective economic programs through autonomous budgeting, it also introduced trade policies that allowed trade liberalization to mature while encouraging accountability among the members of the bureaucracy by adopting internal rules and regulations which ensured transparency in government transactions(Yoon, 2006). This obviously shows that in this case, the South Korean public administration attempts for reforms draw parallel lines with that of the other countries because it not only reinforced its role in economic development but also introduced structural changes in order to appropriately achieve said objectives.

Malaysia has introduced bureaucratic reforms by strengthening its local government units, not for the purpose of granting more extensive autonomy but rather by strengthening said local government units and become the central government's partner in national integration and economic development(Government of Malaysia, 1996). Malaysia is similarly situated with that of China, South Korea and Singapore wherein their local government units are provided with more legislative and executive powers so that they could better contribute to the central governments national development agenda.

Like Malaysia and China, Singapore has a government-led economic development program(Toh, 1993). It is therefore inherent that while it seeks to introduce reforms in its public administration processes, it is limited to the functions of its existing organizational structure whereas for South Korea, Japan and Thailand, its reformative programs are more sweeping and encompassing because it involved changes in their structures and operational agencies.

The Thai government's innovation highlights the importance of developing the full potential of people and promoting participative, and decentralized and improved governance(Klein, 1997). The direction, principles and procedural guidelines aim to creating a government bureaucracy and public service that is more efficient and responsive to the needs of the country in meeting its stated development objectives. In governance structure therefore, the Thai government implemented devolution of authorities to sub-national government units and delegating and decentralizing processes to increase the capability of responsible agencies, were introduced to expand the participation of the local government units(Pasuk & Baker, 2002).

(2) Content of Reform

China's "functions transformation" philosophy can be seen in its decentralization and democratization efforts in its attempt to reduce bureaucratic red tape towards improving the quality of services it seeks to provide to its people(Worthley & Tsao, 1999). Its decentralization efforts included alteration of the central government's micro-functions – information dissemination, monitoring of the regular activities of the community, and agenda-setting, policy-making and management of the political and social affairs of its citizens – into the macro-functions(Wang, 1998a).

In the case of Japan, its restructuring efforts also involved decentralization and democratization in order to improve the quality and increase the quantity of government subsidy for its citizens’basic needs. More specifically, Japan's decentralization efforts are geared towards a restructured relationship between the local government units and the central administration(Kim, 2002). This renewed relationship is specially designed in order to expand the LGUs’capacity to absorb additional obligations in terms of providing services to the people and at the same time contributing to national economic development.

This is therefore similar to the other countries’decentralization efforts as far as the principle is concerned while in terms of the specific issue it has to deal with, Japan's decentralization is designed to respond to its specific conditions. On the democratization aspect, Japan's case is similar to all the other countries in that it sought to empower its citizens except China since the latter's democratization program is designed for economic purposes.

South Korea's institutional reform is more importantly needed in the public sector where the government has led the growth of the economy. Strengthening the administrative and fiscal capacities of lower levels of government is an essential process in decentralization.  More particularly the central government's desire for the "decentralization of the local autonomy" is anchored on the belief that the local autonomy system is an important way to promote a more efficient allocation of public resources since local governments are closer to the people and hence can be more responsive to local preferences for public services.

The provisions of Malaysia's Local Government Act granted its local government units more legislative and executive powers including the power to tax, budgeting and development planning. These the innovative measures was aimed to strengthen national integration to reduce regional disparities among the local government units in terms of institution building, accessibility to education, equitable distribution of economic benefits and social services in line with the governments redistribution of wealth policies. It is therefore a form of empowerment whereby it sought to create a community with positive social and spiritual values, and the reorientation of the role of the civil service from maintenance administration to development administration.

Singapore's decentralization and democratization efforts were centered on the redefinition of the public sector role as a substitute to the weak private sector. In other words, Singapore's central government expanded the powers of its local government units and sought to constitute business oriented public administration managers so that the latter could further contribute to its national development objectives including a reduced foreign economic control. This is therefore similar to the cases of the other countries wherein the strengthened local government units were tapped to contribute to the country's national economic development, aside from its equally important task of contributing for the improvement of service delivery to its people.

The Thailand national government infused some form of structural reform affecting local government administration which paved the way for an increased people's participation. This included (a)redistribution of power to strengthen the LGUs and facilitate performance of functions in accordance with national development goals; (b)reiterate the primacy of control by the national government; (c)emphasize the need to integrate local government affairs to that of the national government’s agenda for governance; and (d)unburden the national government in political and administrative functions and re-focus it resources in policy making relative to economic diplomacy brought about by globalization.

3. Factors Leading to Reform

(1) Political Factors

China's streamlining efforts included safeguarding the dignity of the constitution, strengthening the legal system and the supervisory and legislative work of the people's congresses and their organs, restructuring the government by separating its functions from enterprise management, streamlining the state administration and reforming the civil service, improving socialist democracy by cooperating with the other political parties, holding elections, instituting democratic management and supervision, maintaining stability and unity, and other measures, all led and advanced under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (Jiang, 1997).

In the case of Japan, bureaucratic innovations were operationalized through the Prime Minister's advocacy of establishing "institutional arrangements for administrative reform." The reform sought to merge some of the ministries with functional similarities in order to achieve a simplified government management patterns in order to more effectively and efficiently respond to the demands of the people for better public services. This is in line with the experiences of past administrations that fell short of their promises to improve its service delivery functions and to avoid the same people's negative attitude towards his administration.

South Korea's initiatives were typically started at times when the public service was seen as out of touch with public expectations regarding services or accountability, aimed to respond to the public demands for (i)better and more accessible government, (ii)public demand for smaller government, and (iii)better quality service with lower taxes(Choi, 1997). This clearly shows that the South Korean innovative endeavors were motivated by its desire to the demands of its people for better government performance. The South Korean innovative initiative is characterized by continuity of implementation and an increasing quality level and expanse of the reform. This is indicative of a strong political will for reforms and in the process gradually strengthening its democratic institutions, hence, strengthening the chances that the party in power will be retained.

Under the recent pro-market ethos of the so-called Malaysia Incorporated, the principles of earlier bureaucratic reforms, including dedication, responsibility, neutrality, responsiveness, and ethnic representation, have been complemented by the emerging business-like standards such as productivity, quality, efficiency, cost-consciousness, and customer oriented(Government of Malaysia, 2001). This normative transition, which the Malaysian government considers a paradigmatic shift in public bureaucracy, is also reflected in the current civil service code of ethics that specifically highlights efficiency and effectiveness. Among other things, the national leadership of Malaysia has demonstrated its capacity to achieve development through a strong central government without sacrificing its democratic principles and maintain political stability without damaging its democratic institutions.

Singapore has been governed by the People's Action Party for quite sometime now (since the 1960s). This is indicative of the ruling party’s capacity to stay in power and maintain political stability while attaining considerable degrees of success in economic development(Hirst & Thompson, 1999). Its "Developmental State Philosophy" serve as its blueprint for its political-economy agenda and that while it can be considered as the Prime Minister's personal ideological bias, it has proven successful for Singapore.

It has been cited that the Thai Civil Service is increasingly playing a supportive rather than active role. In this regard, Thai Prime Minister urged the private sector to contribute more to efficiency, encouraged public bureaucracy to play a supportive rather than active role, and advised public servants to adjust themselves to be facilitators rather than leaders. It is fortunate that in Thailand (a)past and current governments have strongly supported the public reform measures; (b)well-defined and prepared units with a high commitment to the reform mission; and (c)sufficient financial support to fund the required activities and invest in new technologies essential to improve efficiency and effectiveness(Klein, 1997).

(2) Economic Factors

China's dramatic recognition of the use of market forces and the private sector over the years has made the political structure based primarily on the needs of a centrally planned economy obsolete. Some would argue that there was institutional decay leading to declining performance of the party, state and the bureaucracies(Liou, 1998). Obviously for China, there is no escaping participation in the global market-oriented economy because first, its former fellow socialist countries most especially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist, North and South Vietnam reunited, and the East and West Germany decided to come to terms. And second, with its large population that it has to provide with basic social services wherein the socialist system failed to meet, China has no other option but to open its doors to the world, participate in regional and international economic alliances. And comparatively speaking,

With this, Japan for its part introduced innovative measures in its economic programs, not to restructure but rather to recover its lost ground as a dominant factor in the international economy(Yuko, 1997). That is why, notwithstanding its already strong capitalist orientation, Japan sought to strengthen its e-commerce advocacy, deregulate its trade policies, and privatize some of its key industries and implement a rationalization program in economic affairs(Katz, 2002). Comparatively speaking, Japan is no different from the rest of the countries under study because it has caved in to the pressures and requirements of the international free market system.

South Korea's liberalization and privatization efforts were pursued in conjunction with democratic reform measures. Given the size and complexity of the South Korean economy, privatization and liberalization were viewed as a response to the changing international environment. These were made evident by its policies reducing constraints on FDIs, and strengthened e-commerce and e-governance advocacies to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. South Korea's experience in innovation in economic administration is therefore no different from the rest of the countries under study because first, it was a major component to achieve political stability through economic development. And second, it has considered participation in the global economy as an instrument to pursue its national development objectives.

Malaysia's privatization master plan considers privatization as one of its vehicles for economic development. This however must not be construed as a massive contracting-out of its service delivery functions and economic development. Compared to the other subject countries in Asia, Malaysia retained the state’s control over its privatization program, just like China and Singapore. On the other hand, with the growing prodding from the AFTA, APEC, and WTO where it is a member, Malaysia continues to liberalize it trade policies in such a way that it is not sacrificing its protectionist tendencies but at the same time taking no offensive programs to the international economic alliances.

Singapore's opening to the world economy through liberalization, government regulated privatization, legislated industrial relations system and deregulation is a matter of "economic survival"not because of bankruptcy but rather as a matter of maintaining is nascent export oriented industrialization. Equally important is, it considers economic development as a major component of political stability. It is therefore not surprising that while it seeks to continuously maintain its somewhat protectionist policies, it has embarked on joining the AFTA, APEC, and the WTO to maintain access to the global market.

During the past decade Thailand, like other countries throughout the world, has been influenced by the impact of globalization and technological development(Low, 2000). Competition for international investment and economic growth increased external pressures for bureaucratic reform, as the traditional administrative mechanisms were no longer appropriate to the national and world situation. On the other hand, pressure for financial liberalization and the elimination of capital controls initially came from outside Thailand in the form of the IMF and World Bank(World Bank, 1991). Thailand's liberalization and privatization efforts and membership to regional and international economic alliances is different in terms of its motive.

(3) Administrative Factors

What the Chinese government has done in order to realize its desired innovative endeavors is to institutionalize change management by converting its formerly rigid bureaucracy into flexible and efficient political machinery in such a way that the state is rid of its micro-functions and be able to concentrate in its macro-functions(Foster, 2006). This will further make the state more efficient because its energies shall be focused on policy making and shift away its resources from the rigors of policy implementation and monitoring(Xin, 1998).

Japan's basic framework for reform effort was to reduce the number of ministries by restructuring the bureaucracy based on their functional orientations to achieve simplicity in governmental management patterns and create a simple and efficient public administration that is able to respond to a new age wherein it is able to realize a public administration which allows people to act on their own initiatives. Japan’s administrative reform agenda is similar with the other countries in that it seeks to achieve better quality of performance(Masujima, 1995). Japan's administrative innovation initiatives towards efficiency and transparency is within the context of a liberalized democratic setting.

The current administration is working to become a "transparent and productive government" as the initial steps toward becoming an advanced country of innovation. The government has also identified five secondary goals such as efficiency, high quality of service, transparency, decentralization, and participation, as key elements to the realization of its vision for innovation. South Korea's perceived administrative instrument and standards for achieving its strategic and long-term economic development include transparency and efficiency(Yoon, 2005). Transparence is believed to be achieved by involving the public and the media to ensure accountability among its bureaucracy while efficiency is to be achieved through electronic governance and trade processes.

The Malaysia Government established the Development Administration Unit(DAU) within the Prime Minister's department to reorient the public sector in its operational style and thinking and to focus on development rather than solely on maintenance functions(Karim, 1992). For its part, Malaysia seeks to achieve its innovation objectives by strengthened office of the Prime Minister as its anchor. This means that the fulcrum of achieving transparency and effective governance is a strong executive department through the office of the Prime Minister. With this, Malaysia is in the same boat as the rest of the countries cited in this study because it seeks to achieve its all other national development objectives by being transparent in all of its transactions(Mohd, 1987).

The government's inclination to change public agencies from "first class regulators" to efficient "facilitators"of business activity is by creating an atmosphere conducive to business(efficiency) and favorable bureaucratic decision and management patterns(transparency). For years Singapore has ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world in international surveys such as the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index(Haque, 2004). This statement proves that Singapore's efficient and transparent governance has achieved its purpose. This is what makes Singapore different in that while the others still work on the elimination of graft and corruption to be able to achieve its primary development objectives, Singapore has done it for years now.

In 2001, the newly elected Government under the Thai Rak Thai Party initiated a comprehensive plan to reform the Thai public administrative sector with five main elements: (i)the bureaucratic structure and its responsibilities, (ii)governance an administrative procedures, (iii)resource allocation and budgetary system, (iv)human resource management, and (v)renewal of rules and regulations. These are aimed to achieve efficiency and institutionalize public reform measures(Low & Toh, 1992). The case of Thailand is no different in that it sought to achieve its national development goals.

4. Intervening Forces

China's performance, if measured in the achievement of its economic development objectives, can be pronounced to have demonstrated strong political will because for the past several years, it has achieved double digit growth rates. This is aside from the active participation of the people through the different forms of mass media. However, if China seeks to finally achieve economic development in a prolonged period it has to put a stop to its prevailing power structure that is too centralized. This is characteristic of a socialist political system wherein each and every existing government agency and the social institutions are under the strict watch, if not control by the state. This is the same "sluggish white elephant"being referred to by Osborne & Gaebler(1992) wherein they said that such kind of an animal is difficult to be taught how to dance. Relatively, the prevailing "power structure that is too centralized" is likewise characterized by its "comprehensiveness, coupled with its strict planning system which discourages flexibility." It is "comprehensive" because it involves the whole government machinery from the lowest local government agency to the highest national government office which makes it inflexible, rigid, and therefore burdened with so much inertia.

The bureaucracy of Japan has demonstrated strong political will, convincing its citizens to accord their government the needed support and respect for the government's capacity to make its programs achievable. This is aside from the improved internal control mechanisms that it has instituted to combat inefficiency and graft and corruption. It must also be noted that Japan's demanding population pushes its government to work for more and better quality of goods and services and more effective and efficient resource mobilization. However, there are hindrances. More particularly it has something to do with (a)structural rigidity; (b)the citizenry's tendency to resist change; and (c)the market sector's inability to respond to such contingencies.

Like (i) bureaucratic interference in the implementation of reform plans along party lines instead of principle, (ii) where market failure is prevalent, government structures are not immediately prepared to take over, (iii) protectionist economic policies, (iv) strong adherence to the long-standing protectionist Japanese policies, and (v) interference of the incumbent to the implementation of privatization to protect vested interests (self and/or cronies).

South Korea's performance in achieving its innovation agenda, if measured in terms of its economic performance can be considered satisfactory because of its strong political will for reforms and the government’s effective and efficient performance. Its efficiency and effectiveness can be attributed to its advocacy of e-commerce and e-governance aside from the people's demanding attitude towards their government and the media's vigilance to ensure that the government must deliver. There are however, equally influential countervailing forces which tend to go against moves to infuse developmental innovative endeavors: (a)structural rigidity in the form of limited resources of LGUs within the context of increased responsibilities and (b)cultural factors whereby some government agencies, personnel, and affected sectors find it hard to reorient themselves into the rapidly changing and dynamic environment.

Malaysia's strong showing in the field of economic development would seem to demonstrate its strong political will for reforms. On the other hand, its government's efficient and effective achievement of its economic goals has gained the people's support and vigilance towards its development agenda. This is however contradicted by well established bureaucratic structures that: (a)breed monopolistic tendencies in the economy; (b)triggers negative reaction to the unilateral actions of the government; (c)condones the inability of some domestic business leaders to adopt to the globalization trends seem to slow down the momentum of change it has so far accomplished; and (d)the bureaucracy's tendency to avoid change because of its unpreparedness to the challenges of globalization and its resulting inconveniencies.

Singapore's achievement in terms of economic development, government efficiency and effectiveness, and near corrupt free bureaucracy is subverted the very same developmental state philosophy which is inextricably tied to the political economy of control and regime continuity namely (i)long standing protectionist polices and (ii)the traditionally strong government control over the economy(Douglas, 1999). This dilemma in continuity and change is forcing the pace toward a more open and true competitive empty state. In other words, structural rigidity is embedded within the system.

In the case of Thailand, while its central government has demonstrated strong political will and commitment to achieve its innovation objectives, coupled with financial support, and the people's participation through the non-government organizations, it has not fully reached its most desired objective: Developed economy and institutionalized political stability. This commitment and strong political will for reforms is being thwarted by the Thai government's rigidity, culture of patronage (cronyism) and graft and corruption and coupled with the people share in the perpetuation of these bureaucratic problems. It can therefore be safely be declared that, within the backdrop of the Thai economy's failure to achieve it economic development objectives, it has a longer way to go, compared to the other Asian countries because it has to deal with its unstable political situation.

5. The Results

All of the countries recognize the viability of the implementation and application of market principles in their respective economies. The difference lies in the extent of policy liberalization, privatization, and deregulation and who is in control. In some countries, there is a limited privatization, liberalization, and deregulation with reduced state dominance. On the other hand, in some, there is a limited privatization, liberalization, and deregulation coupled with a dominant state control over major economic policy making departments. Such openness to the implementation of market principles is greatly influenced by the pressures of the global economy(finance, information and communications technology, and knowledge based economy). In most cases, structural economic innovations have something to do with each country's desire to achieve economic development, whether as an attempt to sustain its previous level of success thereby maintaining its dominant role in the region(China and Japan), or to reinforce the level of achievement it has so far attained(South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia) or as a way of responding to its people's demand for better quality of basic services(Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore). Such economic innovations were made in different political contexts: For China, it is doing it under a socialist system, Singapore, and Malaysia, while under a democratic system, are doing it with a dominant state, Japan, and South Korea have been implementing its reformist governance in a conservative bureaucracy while Thailand is doing it within a relatively unstable political situation. All the countries believe in the crucial role of the local government units in the success or failure of government reforms.

What the six countries have sought to achieve is the development and evolution of new and better change management approaches towards achieving its national economic development agenda within the realms of strengthened socio-political and administrative structures, with increased and improved capacities and capabilities to sustain its advocacy for a continuing change and development. More specifically, the first "enhanced change management approaches" involves the inculcation of built-in mechanisms that will permit (i)flexibility as against bureaucratic rigidity, (ii)creativity as against rules orientation, (iii)process orientation as against goal centeredness; and (iv)transparency as against bureaucratic secrecy. In short, this has something to do with the development of a bureaucratic culture of developmental dynamism and public personnel consciousness for innovation. The "improved economic management performance towards development’ has something to do with fine tuning economic administrative structures and processes to domestic and international trends such that it would encourage self-sufficiency, public sector private enterprise partnership (liberalization, privatization, and deregulation), harmony with nature and ecological balance and endogenuity. In other words, it should be an economic development which is sustainable for its people's domestic needs and the inter-nation economic inter-actional relations. And, the "strengthened socio-political and administrative structures" deal with a maturing democratic governance which considers people empowerment, functional devolution and administrative power decentralization as necessary components to ensure state-people partnership in pursuit of national development agenda. In short, the bottom line of every nation's innovation initiative should be "internal creativity and external responsiveness."

Ⅳ. Conclusion

This study is a comparative study of innovative measures by the different governments of the China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Comparison is made more specifically on the similarities (and secondarily its differences) of each country's restructuring efforts and its effect to (a)democratization in policy making (b)decentralization and delegation of powers to local government units and (c)the country's economic development. And while analysis shall be made, it shall be focused on the similarities (or differences) of the motivating principles, the object and subject for reform, the context of the reformative action, intervening factors which may have contributed or obstructed the attempt to transform. It also seeks to determine whether the said reformative experiences can further provide lessons towards identifying an improved change management approaches and improved economic administration techniques towards improving its people's quality of lives and business delivery mechanisms of the countries under study.

Administrative innovations and bureaucratic reforms become an imperative rather than an option or an objective if the government is to sustain the level of development it has so far achieved. The study just concluded indicates that the implementation of innovation initiatives come in different forms, emerge from different ideological persuasions, designed to respond to a certain problem or issue which is unique in every country and planned to achieve a specific goal most significant to the developmental needs of the state. More importantly, while there appears to be differences, there seems to be a common ground why bureaucratic innovations are implemented, that is, every country seeks to innovate to (a)achieve economic development and political stability; (b)institutionalize change and (c)improve change management processes. The first would imply that the ultimate end of change is development. The second means that change must be an integral part of the governance process and the third has something to do with the generation of new and better organizational technologies regarding management approaches.

This study has not gone as far as to include the cultural factors and forces of each country which may have also affected their innovation agenda. The cultural factors/forces refer to those norms, values, and behaviors that are suited to that environment which over time takes on the strength of tradition. The reason for this non-inclusion is that each country's cultural history, evolution, and legacy are so diverse that it has been very difficult to come up with comparable elements.

References

Anderson, Robert, T. Cohn, C. Day, M. Howlett, & C. Murray. (1998). Innovation Systems in a Global Context: The North American Experience. Montreal: McGill Queen's University Press.

Bevacqua, Ronald. (1997). Administrative Reform: Searching for the 'Hashimoto Vision.' Working Paper No. 36: August, Japanese Policy Research Institute.

Choi, Byung-Sun. (1997). From Euphoria to Atrophy: The Politics of Economic Reform in Korea. Paper Presented to the Conference of Western Economic Association on Economics in Transition held in Hong Kong.

Dicks, A. (1989). The Chinese Legal System: Reforms in the Balance. The China Quarterly, 119: 540-576.

Dinan, Desmond. (2004). Europe Recast: A History of European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Douglas, Ian R. (1999). Globalization as Governance: Toward an Anthology of Contemporary Political Reason. In Aseem Prakash & Jeffrey A. Hart(eds.) Globalization and Governance. London: Routledge.

Downs, G. W. Jr. & L. B. Mohr. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 700-714.

Drucker, Peter F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row.

Evans, Peter. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Foster, K. W. (2006). Improving Municipal Government in China: Yangtai's Path Breaking Experiment in Administrative Reform. Modern China, 32(2): 221-250.

Government of Malaysia. (1996). Seventh Malaysia Plan, 1996-2000. Kuala Lumpur: Economic Planning Unit.

Government of Malaysia. (2001). Eighth Malaysia Plan, 2001-2005. Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit.

Grubbs, Joseph W. & J. H. Alexander. (1997). Citizen Trust: Examining Trends in Public Confidence in Government and the Implications for Civic Engagement. 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Public Administration. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Halligan, John & Mark Turner. (1995). Profiles of Government Administration in Asia. Canberra: Government Publishing Service.

Haque, M. Shamsul. (2004). Governance and Bureaucracy in Singapore: Contemporary Reforms and Implications. International Political Science Review, 25(2): 227-240.

Hirst, Paul & Grahame Thompson. (1999). Globalization in Quebec and the International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance(2d ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hood, C. & M. Jackson. (1991). Administrative Argument. New York: Dartmouth Publishing Group.

Jabes, Jak(ed.). (2004). The Role of Public Administration in Alleviating Poverty and Improving Governance. Selected Papers from the Launching Conference of the Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG), 6-8(December): 35-36.

Jacques, J. & E. J. Ryan. (1978). Does Management By Objectives Stifle Organizational Innovation in the Public Sector? Canadian Public Administration, 21: 1725.

Jiang, Zemin. (1997). Report to the 15th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Guandong: Renmin Chubansche.

Karim, Muhammad Rais bin Abdul. (1992). Administrative Reforms and Bureaucratic Modernization in the Malaysian Public Sector. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Katz, Richard. (1998). Japan: The System That Soured. The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Economic Miracle. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Katz, Richard. (2002). Japanese Phoenix: The Long Road to Economic Revival. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Kim, J., I. Cho, & H. Song. (1999). The Study on the Cost of Government Contract Out: A Contract Theory Approach. Korean Public Administration Review, 33(4): 17-28.

Kim, Pan S. (2002). Civil Service Reform in Korea and Japan: Toward Competitiveness and Competency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(3): 389-403.

Klein, James. (1997). The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand: A Blueprint for Participatory Democracy. Asia Foundation Working Paper Number 8, (March): 36-38.

Lee, Geun Joo. (1999). The Causes and Status of Civil Service Reforms in Korea. The KoreanJournal of Policy Studies, 16: 67-76.

Linden, Geert Van Der. (1999). Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues and Prospects. Asian Development Bank, (April): 8-10.

Liou, Tom Kuotsai. (1997). Issues and Lessons of Chinese Civil Service Reform. Public Management, 26(4): 505-513.

Liou, Tom Kuotsai. (1998). Managing Economic Reforms in Post-Mao China. London: Praeger.

Liu, Z. (1998). The Seventh Revolution. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.

Lo, C. W. H. (1992). Deng Xiaoping's Ideas on Law. Asian Survey, 32: 649-665.

Lo, T. W. (1993). Corruption and Politics in Hong Kong and China. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Low, Linda. (1991). The Political Economy of Privatization in Singapore: An Analysis, Interpretation and Issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Low, Linda. (2000). Reinventing the Singapore Developmental Corporate State. Working Paper Series, July. Singapore: Department of Business Policy, National University of Singapore.

Low, Linda & Mun Heng Toh. (1992). Public Policies in Singapore: Changes in 1980s and Future Signposts. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Masujima, T. (1995). The Rincho Administrative Reform. In T. Masujima & M. Ouchi(eds.). The Management and Reform of Japanese Government. 101-127. Tokyo: Institute of Administrative Management.

Merritt, Richard L. (1985). Innovation in the Public Sector: An Introduction. In Richard L. Merritt & Anna J. Merritt(eds.) Innovation in the Public Sector. 9-16. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Mohd, Zin. M. (1987). Personnel Management and Training in Local Government System in Malaysia. EROPA Seminar on Personnel Management in Local Public Service, April. Tokyo: Government of Japan, Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration and Ministry of Home Affairs.

Osborne, David & Ted Gaebler. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.

Pasuk, Phongpaichit & Chris Baker. (2002). Thailand: Economy and Politics(2d ed.). New York: Oxford Press.

Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. New York: Blackwell.

Roger, Everett M. & J. I. Kim. (1985). Diffusion of Innovations in Public Organizations. In Richard L. Merritt & Anna J. Merritt(eds.). Innovation in the Public Sector. 85-108. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Royall, Donald R. (2000). 26th Annual Advance Family Law. 2000 Annual Report, Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

Thirayuth, Lorlertratna. (1993). Civil Service Reform and Development in Thailand. Office of the Civil  Service Commission, Bangkok, Thailand.

Toh M. H. & Linda Low. (1993). Development Planning in Singapore. In S. Tambunlertchai & S. P. Gupta(eds.). Development Planning in Asia. 223-254. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Center.

Tsao, King K. & John Abbott Worthley. (1999). Reinventing Government in China: A Comparative Analysis. Administration and Society, 31(5): 571-587.

Wang, Y. (1998a). Reforming Government Organization is a Revolution. Chinese Politics, 4: 78-79.

Wang, Y. (1998b). Twenty Years of Reforming the Chinese Administrative System. China: Zhongzhou Guo Chabanshe.

Worthley, John Abbott & King K. Tsao. (1999). Reinventing Government in China: A Comparative Analysis. Administration and Society, 31(5): 571-587.

World Bank. (1991). Thailand: Country Economic Memorandum. Washington: World Bank.

Xin, X. (1998). Red-Walled Decisions: The Underlying and Structural Causes of the Reformation of the Chinese Government Organizations. Beijing: Zhongguo Jingi Chubanshe.

Yoon, Jong In. (2006). Korean Government Innovation: Strategies and Methodologies for Administrative Innovation. Fifth Meeting of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration. United Nation, New York. March 27-31.

Yoon, Sung Sig. (2005). Dynamics of Government Innovation and Decentralization in Korea. Presidential Committee on Government Innovation and Decentralization.

Yuko, Kaneko. (1997). Administrative Reform Efforts in Japan: Current Experiences and Successes. Paper Prepared Under a Special Service Agreement With the United Nations.

Sok Chamroeun: 안동대학교에서 행정학박사학위를 취득하고, 현재 캄보디아 내무부 지방행정차관보와 정부개혁위원회 부위원장에 재직 중이다. 주요 관심분야는 정부혁신, 성과관리, 정책평가 등이다.

<E-mail: keakorea@yahoo.com / 논문접수일: 2009. 07. 31 / 심사개시일: 2009. 09. 23 / 심사완료일: 2009. 10. 27>

제갈돈(諸葛暾): 미국 Arizona State University에서 행정학박사학위를 취득하고, 현재 안동대학교 행정학과 교수로 재직 중이다. 주요 관심분야는 정책평가, 인사정책, 연구방법론이며, 주요 논문으로는 “중앙행정기관 지식관리시스템에서 직무관련 지식공유에 영향을 미치는 요인”(2009), “지방정부의 전자적 정책참여를 위한 정보기술수용에 관한 연구”(2009), “지방공기업 경영혁신을 위한 통합성가평가모형 구축방안”(2009) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: jaegal@andong.ac.kr>