Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol.26, No.1, 1998, pp.96-114. NEW DIRECTIONS IN BUREAUCRATIC CHANGE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: A REEXAMINATION M. Shamsul Haque Department of Political Science National University of Singapore INTRODUCTION In the current epoch characterized by a worldwide promarket transition in the ideological, theoretical, and practical bases of governance, there has been a considerable shift in the nature of bureaucratic modernization pursued by various governments or regimes. This bureaucratic change not only includes the state-sponsored policies such as deregulation, privatization, and liberalization that affect the functional scope of the administrative system, it also encompasses the restructuring and reorientation of the whole public bureaucracy into a market-friendly institution based on principles such as managerialism, value-for-money, customer-orientedness, public-private partnership, and result-oriented management (Djamin, 1991; Haque, 1996b). In advanced industrial nations, the examples of such market-centered initiatives to transform public bureaucracy include Financial Management Initiative and Next Steps in the UK, Public Service 2000 in Canada, Financial Management Improvement Program in Australia, Renewal of the Public Service in France, Modernization Program for the Public Sector in Denmark, Program of Administrative Modernization in Greece, Fundamental Policy of Administrative Reform in Japan, and Major Options Plan in Portugal (OECD, 1993). Similar bureaucratic transformation has been undertaken in many developing countries. Southeast Asian countries, for instance, have recently adopted various forms of bureaucratic change based on a market-centered approach under the contemporary promarket policy atmosphere (De Guzman and Reforma, 1992; Halligan and Turner, 1995). In general, these recent changes in Southeast Asian bureaucracies have been introduced in the name of efficiency and innovation (Salleh, 1996). In these countries, such bureaucratic reforms are being pursued under various government plans and programs, including the so-called Malaysia Incorporated Policy in Malaysia, PS21 (Public Service for the 21st Century) in 1 Singapore, Panibagong Sigla 2000 (renewed vigor 2000) in the Philippines, and the Seventh National Development Plan in Thailand. Compared to the past tradition of statecentered approach to bureaucratic reform in Southeast Asia, the current business-like initiatives for bureaucratic change are quite unique and represent certain new directions in the nature of bureaucratic modernization. However, because of its recent origin, and perhaps, because of its market-friendly policy environment, the contemporary trends in bureaucratic modernization in the region has not yet been studied or examined in a comprehensive and critical manner. In this regard, this paper attempts to explore these emerging new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia. It also examines the favorable and adverse implications of this current bureaucratic transition, especially, for public bureaucracy. NEW DIRECTIONS IN BUREAUCRATIC CHANGE: MAJOR DIMENSIONS In general, bureaucratic change encompasses both the proactive transformation and reactive adaptation of bureaucracy (including its objectives, institutions, structures, norms, attitudes, and target groups), although the scope and intensity of this bureaucratic change may vary according to the needs, constraints, and opportunities arising from specific sociohistorical circumstances. In Southeast Asian countries, the colonial and postcolonial changes in bureaucracy have often been reactive, incremental, and piecemeal in nature. However, as mentioned above, in line with the recent market-centered state policies in these countries, there have been more proactive and extensive changes in bureaucracy affecting its important dimensions. In order to delineate such unique, distinguishing features of the current bureaucratic transformation in Southeast Asia, this section will examine the following recent changes related to such transformation: (a) shift in the objectives and priorities of bureaucratic change, (b) adjustment in institutional measures of bureaucratic change, (c) transition in the normative guidelines for bureaucratic change, (d) flux in the attitudinal and structural focus of bureaucratic change, and (e) variation in the composition of targeted beneficiaries attached to bureaucratic change. Shift in Objectives and Priorities Like most developing nations, the main thrust of postcolonial bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asian countries was to replace the colonial bureaucratic structure engaged in law and order function to a more development-oriented bureaucracy with a view to accelerate socioeconomic progress, enhance nation-building, and ensure better living standards.1 In other words, the Southeast Asian regimes assigned essential developmental tasks to various government agencies constituting the state bureaucracy. For instance, in Malaysia and Singapore, the government had put greater emphasis on public bureaucracy to carry out responsibilities related to socioeconomic development but without inhibiting the private sector (Chee and Lee, 1994:164). Recently, however, most Southeast Asian countries have shifted the objectives of bureaucratic change from this overall socioeconomic development to more specific economic concerns such as growth and productivity. In the case of Malaysia, these microeconomic criteria are becoming more significant than the macro-level societal development as the primary objective of bureaucratic reform (Mahmud, 1992:39). Similarly, in Singapore, the objectives of the recent initiatives of bureaucratic change such as PS21 are to ensure continual improvements in innovation, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness rather than the overall national development stipulated by the earlier reform measures. In line with this shifting objectives, there has also been a restructuring of the priorities of bureaucratic change from local needs to international demands. Although in the past, the regimes in Southeast Asian countries adopted administrative changes that were not indifferent towards the significance of global market forces, their main priorities were to meet the local needs and demands related to health, education, infrastructure, industry, and agriculture. But more recently, under the market-oriented policy atmosphere, the priorities of bureaucratic modernization in these countries are the global market demands rather than the local needs and expectations, although these two are not necessarily contradictory. Thus, the new priorities of bureaucratic change in countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand are to meet the emerging demands of global market and to enable the administrative apparatus to face international competition. In the case of Singapore, referring to the PS21 initiative, it has been suggested that the newly emerging global market has brought about many changes, which must be addressed by the civil service in order to meet new demands and to make Singapore internationally competitive (see New Code, 1995; Halligan and Turner, 1995). With regard to this new direction in bureaucratic transition in Malaysia, Sarji (1996) suggests that the civil service "has to be more efficient and effective in this borderless world and highly-competitive global environment. We have civil servants serving both overseas and at home who are involved in this global experience." Corresponding to these recent changes in the objectives and priorities of bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia, there has also been adjustment in the role of bureaucracy. Like other developing countries,2 Southeast Asian countries are discouraging the active role of public sector in socioeconomic development, and encouraging the private sector to play the dominant role while assigning public bureaucracy with a more supportive role to facilitate the activities of market forces.3 Even in Indonesia, where civil servants are strongly affiliated with the ruling Golkar party and considered as "servants of the state" (King, 1994:23), there is an increasing emphasis on the streamlining of bureaucracy or "debureaucratization", expansion of private sector initiatives, and supportive role of bureaucracy to enhance efficiency and creativity of the business sector (Kristiadi, 1992:102; Salleh, 1996:30). In the case of Malaysia, previously, the state bureaucracy was transformed into a form of development administration, and it was considered as the principal agent of socioeconomic development to implement long-term economic plans and policies such as the Perspective Plan and the New Economic Policy (Omar, 1980:253-54; Public Services Department, 1989:25). But today, the Malaysian government is aggressively engaged in pursuing business-oriented bureaucratic change, replacing the active developmental role of bureaucracy, and redefining its role as a facilitator of private sector activities (Salleh, 1992:35-36). Similarly, in Thailand, the emerging role of public bureaucracy is to facilitate promarket policies such as privatization and contracting out, and to deal with various activities related to the private sector such as business licensing, international trade, and fiscal monitoring (Aufrecht and Ractham, 1991:53). In other words, the recent bureaucratic change in Thailand is to assign bureaucracy with the role of a catalyst to facilitate economic development through private markets (Salleh, 1992:44). It has been mentioned that the Thai Civil Service is increasingly playing a supportive rather than active role.4 In this regard, Thai Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh has recently 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 from being leaders to being facilitators (Bottoms Up, 1997:21; Chavalit Plans, 1997:14). Similar changes in bureaucratic role -- from an active agent of social change and nation-building to a facilitator of market forces and promarket policies -- are being pursued in the Philippines and Singapore (Halligan and Turner, 1995; New Code, 1995). In the case of Philippines, the government has engaged the private sector to play a dominant role even in programs related to the modernization of its strategic sectors such as military (Philippines Looks to Private Sector, 1997:15). Adjustment in Legal and Institutional Measures In line with above new directions in the objectives, priorities, and roles of bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia, there have emerged new institutional and legal measures in this regard. In the past, following the model of rational bureaucracy attached to Western liberal democracy, most Southeast Asian countries adopted various bureaucratic rules, procedures, and institutions to ensure the neutrality, accountability, fairness, and efficiency of public bureaucracy. They also established various planning agencies and development institutions to formulate and implement the state-initiated development policies, programs, and projects. But more recently, these countries have introduced a different set of legal and institutional measures in order to facilitate the realization of promarket policies and expansion of market activities. For instance, in the Philippines, the former President Aquino introduced the Proclamation No.50 highlighting the importance of privatization; in Thailand, the Civil Service Act of 1992 is in favor of market-oriented changes such as the subcontracting of state activities to the private sector; in Malaysia, the government has introduced the so-called Privatization Masterplan and Guidelines on Privatization that explain the objectives and mechanisms of privatization; and in Indonesia, the objectives of the National Commission of Administrative Reform are increasingly being influenced by market principles. The examples of the newly emerging promarket government institutions include the Public Sector Divestment Committee in Singapore, the Steering Committee on Reduction in the Size of the Public Service in Malaysia, the Public and Private Sector Committee in Thailand, and the Committee on Privatization and the Asset Privatization Trust in the Philippines. It should be emphasized that although these recently established committees are engaged in reducing the size and role of public bureaucracy, especially through various forms of privatization, they represent an essential component of this bureaucracy itself. In addition, there has emerged a new set of institutions that facilitates partnership between the public and private sectors. The Malaysian government, for instance, has established the Malaysia Incorporated Officials Committee as a consultative mechanism between the public and private sectors, and created the so-called Consultative Panels comprised of representatives from both the public and private sectors (Sarji, 1996:117). In short, unlike the traditional public institutions created to implement state-centered policies and programs, the recent bureaucratic modernization in most Southeast Asian countries has created a new genre of government institutions that are supposed to realize market-oriented policies. In addition, some Southeast Asian countries have recently introduced some microorganizational techniques often used in the private sector. In Singapore, for instance, the government introduced organizational techniques such as Work Improvement Teams, Service Quality Centre, Staff Suggestions Schemes, and Service Improvement Unit in order to upgrade the level of quality and productivity in the public sector (Halligan and Turner, 1995; Quah, 1996; Service Quality Centre, 1995). The Malaysian government has also adopted similar organizational techniques, including Total Quality Management and Quality Control Circles, with a view to improve the quality of civil service and the satisfaction of its customers (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1995:3; Sarji, 1993a:40). Transition in Normative Standards Following the aforementioned transition in the objectives, priorities, and institutional structures of bureaucratic modernization, there has been a corresponding shift in the normative preferences guiding the process of such modernization. It is well known that in general, the traditional reform efforts on bureaucracy often reinforced certain core values of public service such as neutrality, impartiality, accountability, equity, representativeness, and justice, which are increasingly being replaced by or subordinated to market-oriented norms such as competition, efficiency, productivity, and profitability (Haque, 1996b:190). In line with this global trend, there have been considerable adjustments in the normative preferences related to bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia. In the Philippines, for instance, the guiding norms of bureaucratic transformation since the Aquino administration have been various promarket principles such as efficiency, effectiveness, economy, productivity, service delivery, public-private partnership, market responsiveness, and economic growth (see Halligan and Turner, 1995:118-119; Mendoza, 1996:187). These normative principles are quite different from the principles of political neutrality, merit-based competition, and equal opportunity, which provided guidelines for the earlier bureaucratic changes in this country. Similarly, in Thailand, the recent bureaucratic reforms adopted under the Civil Service Act of 1992, Seventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (1992-1996), and Eighth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1996-2001), are predominantly based on standards such as efficiency, effectiveness, and public-private partnership. In the case of Indonesia, the Fifth Five Year Development Plan (1989/90-1993/94) emphasized bureaucratic modernization for more efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness (Kristiadi, 1992:97). In Brunei, the recent government initiatives to assess public service performance and pursue administrative change put greater emphasis on the principles of efficiency and effectiveness (Salleh, 1996:27-28). In the case of Singapore, the government has introduced considerable bureaucratic reforms in areas such as personnel management and financial administration, and these reforms also emphasize the business-sector norms (Halligan and Turner, 1995; Ibrahim, 1995b). More specifically, some of the main normative standards guiding the recent administrative changes in financial and personnel matters (e.g. budgeting, recruitment, promotion)--especially the changes related to the launch of PS21 and creation of Autonomous Agencies (mentioned below)--include standards such as efficiency, performance, cost-effectiveness, competition, and entrepreneurship (Lim, 1997; Halligan and Turner, 1995; Koh, 1997). A well-planned and organized framework related to this market-oriented normative shift in bureaucratic change can also be found in Malaysia.5 Under the recent promarket ethos of the so-called Malaysia Incorporated, the principles of earlier bureaucratic reforms, including dedication, responsibility, neutrality, responsiveness, and ethnic representation, have been overshadowed by the emerging business-like standards such as productivity, quality, efficiency, cost-consciousness, and customer-orientedness (Chee and Lee, 1994; Government of Malaysia, 1994; Mahmud, 1992). This normative transition, which the Malaysian government considers a paradigmatic shift in public bureaucracy, is also reflected in the recent civil service code of ethics that specifically highlights efficiency and effectiveness (Salleh, 1992:37). The promarket transition in the normative standards of bureaucratic change in Malaysia and Singapore is also evident in the adoption of the above micro-organizational techniques (e.g. Total Quality Management, Service Quality Centre, and Service Improvement Unit) founded upon principles such as efficiency, productivity, and customerorientedness (Halligan and Turner, 1995; Sarji, 1993a). Flux in Attitudinal and Structural Focus In relation to the above changes in the objectives, institutional patterns, and normative guidelines of bureaucratic modernization, there have been some changes in this modernization process also in terms of its preference for certain modes of managerial attitudes and structures. With regard to bureaucratic attitude, following the customer-oriented management behavior found in the business sector, many developing countries have become interested to pursue a business-like attitudinal transformation in public bureaucracy. These countries seem to be increasingly convinced to adopt this client-centered or customeroriented approach to bureaucratic change, which has already been used by Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. in their administrative systems (Gore, 1993; Haque, 1996b). In Southeast Asia, Malaysia has a concrete agenda for transforming its public service attitudinally into a customer-oriented institution. In addition, the Malaysian government has introduced the so-called Client Charter that requires public agencies to deliver quality services to their customers. In the Philippine, the government introduced a campaign, known as Mamayayan Muna, Hindi Mamaya Na (the citizen now not later), which highlighted the importance of prompt decisions, management by courtesy, and clients' satisfaction (Halligan and Turner, 1995:122). Similarly, in Singapore, one of the main objectives of launching PS21 initiatives and transforming departments into Autonomous Agencies is to instill customeroriented outlook in public bureaucracy (Ibrahim, 1995:32; Koh, 1997:1; Lim, 1996:38). With regard to the shifting structural focus of bureaucratic change, there is a growing tendency to emphasize managerial autonomy in most Southeast Asian countries. For instance, the Philippine government has restructured public enterprise management towards further autonomy in activities related to personnel, finance, procurement, and production (World Bank, 1995:94-95). Both Malaysia and Singapore have decentralized their public personnel systems by transferring various personnel activities from the central personnel authorities to individual ministries or agencies (Meksawan et al., 1986; Quah, 1996). Recently, the Singapore government has transferred important personnel functions such as recruitment and promotion from the Public Service Commission to various personnel boards created at the inter-ministerial, ministerial, and departmental levels (Salleh, 1992:42). With regard to financial management, the Malaysian government has introduced the so-called Modified Budgeting System in 1990 in order to delegate decision-making authority to various ministries (Halligan and Turner, 1995:86). In Singapore, various government departments, ranging from the Supreme Court to the Hawkers Departments, are being transformed into Autonomous Agencies in the image of "business organizations" to provide them with more autonomy in financial and personnel matters (Chuang, 1996; Koh, 1997). As Koh (1997:30) mentions, these newly adopted Autonomous Agencies in Singapore are government departments or statutory boards that have "taken on a new management style that is more like that of a private company." Similar tendencies towards more managerial autonomy or decentralized management can be found in some of the recent changes related to other micro-level managerial issues. Although most Southeast Asian countries have not adopted any considerable change in certain management issues such as job classification (e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore still practice the rank-in-person principle based on person's qualifications rather than job factors), there has been some transition in their performance appraisal and compensation systems. The Malaysian public service has introduced the New Remuneration System that is claimed to be more flexible than the previous system (Halligan and Turner, 1995; Meksawan et al., 1986). In Singapore, the use of market criteria to determine public sector salaries has become more specified or defined as the salary benchmarks for senior civil servants have been set according to the incomes of top earners in the private sector professions such as banking, accounting, engineering, law, local manufacturing firms, and multinational corporations (Chuang, 1994:1). In Thailand, the government is increasingly following similar approach to salary determination in the public sector based on a comparison with the private sector (see Tunsarawuth, 1994, 1995). In this regard, it has been felt that in Thailand, "the government would need to cut the current number of civil servants by a-third in the next 15 years in order that salaries and benefits of civil servants can be raised to match those in the private sector" (Tunsarawuth, 1996:17). With regard to performance appraisal, recently, Malaysia has adopted the New Performance Appraisal System based on principles such as openness in appraisal, specific work targets, and detailed weightage for evaluation criteria (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1995:17). Singapore, on the other hand, has introduced a more job-related appraisal system for higher and mid-level officers, who will work with their supervisors to "set, review and achieve job targets", and these targets will "provide a framework to assess performance" (Osman, 1996:3). In addition, the current bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asia tend to emphasize structural openness to accommodate more lateral entry and public-private exchange of employees in order to enhance innovation. In the Philippines, for instance, under the ethos of Panibagong Sigla 2000 (renewed vigor 2000), the government has a policy to facilitate the exchange of executives between the public and private sectors (Halligan and Turner, 1995:120). In Singapore, the government has opened top administrative positions (including the positions of deputy secretaries and permanent secretaries) to private-sector employees as long as they possess the required skills and qualifications. On the other hand, the Malaysian government has adopted the so-called Attachment Training Program under which government officers will be attached to private foreign (European, American, Japanese) companies, so that these officers receive exposure to business management, exchange views on business matters, and establish rapport with the private sector (Government of Malaysia, 1992:339; Sarji, 1993b:184). More recently, the Singapore government has started similar scheme to attach public employees to foreign private firms to expose them to the activities of the private sector (see Chuang, 1997:2). This approach to bureaucratic transformation, which encourages such lateral entry and public-private personnel exchange, is quite unprecedented in both Singapore and Malaysia where these provisions hardly existed in the past (see Meksawan et al., 1986; Omar, 1980:263). Variation in the Composition of Beneficiaries The aforementioned changes in the objectives, roles, and focus of bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asian countries imply, directly or indirectly, a considerable shift in the composition of beneficiaries who could gain from this modernization. In the past, the officially stipulated beneficiaries of bureaucratic reforms in these countries covered all citizens irrespective of their class, gender, and ethnic identity. In general, the central concern of these reforms was to enhance the overall socioeconomic progress from which all members of society would benefit, although in reality, the gains from such reform efforts were often unequal among various social groups and classes. However, what is unique about the current bureaucratic modernization pursued under the promarket policy atmosphere is the officially defined "customers", rather than "citizens", as the primary beneficiaries of such modernization. It indicates a significant shift in the nature of people-bureaucracy relationship: from one based on the mission of public bureaucracy to serve people as citizens irrespective of their economic capacity, to one based on its mission to serve mainly the customers who can pay, implying an emerging exchange relationship between the people and bureaucracy. This current transition in bureaucratic reform in Southeast Asian countries, especially in terms of the changing composition of its main beneficiaries, is similar to the recent shift in reform measures in advanced capitalist nations where public bureaucracy is being corporatized in order to serve the people as "customers" rather than as "citizens".6 In Malaysia, the term "customer" has become a central term in the process of recent bureaucratic transformation: the aim is to create "a business-friendly" public bureaucracy that facilitates conducive business environment and meets the needs of customers (Ng, 1997; Sarji, 1996). Malaysia has also adopted the so-called Client's Charter to upgrade the counter services for customers (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1995). Similarly, in Singapore, the main thrust of PS21 is to improve the quality of services provided by the public sector to its customers or clients (PS21 Office, 1995). In addition, the Civil Service Corporate Statement introduced in 1995 requires that "all civil service organisations adopt a customer orientation and an attitude of service excellence" (Civil Service College, 1995:3). This redefinition of the scope of beneficiaries covering mainly the customers, especially the business community, is also reflected in the deepening partnership between the public service and private firms. For instance, the Philippine government established the so-called Government Productivity Improvement Program Council not only to enhance public sector productivity but also to strengthen partnership with the private sector in this venture (Mendoza, 1996:187-188). In Malaysia, public bureaucracy is being transformed not only to assist and interact with the private sector activities but also to establish partnership with business enterprises in order to maximize the mutual interests (Sarji, 1993a, 1993b, 1996). Although this new direction in bureaucratic change serves the business interests (both local and foreign) based on public-private partnership, it is likely to be less favorable to the working class, especially, due to their declining wages and diminishing power to bargain (Chee and Lee, 1994). SUMMARY, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSION In this paper, it is stressed that there has been a considerable transition in the nature and mode of bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries under the contemporary policy atmosphere founded upon a market-centered approach. In line with the current state policies such as deregulation, privatization, and liberalization, there have been adjustments in the objectives, priorities, roles, institutions, norms, attitudes, and beneficiaries of bureaucratic reforms in these countries. More specifically, in terms of objectives and priorities of the recent bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia, there is a shift from the traditional focus on the overall nation-building and socioeconomic progress to more specific or narrower economic concerns related to economic growth and productivity. With regard to bureaucratic role, the recent reforms have highlighted a supportive role rather than an active involvement of state bureaucracy in socioeconomic activities while encouraging the private sector to play a greater role in such activities. In terms of institutional or organizational measures, the recent bureaucratic change has led to the creation of a new set of market-oriented government organizations and techniques such as privatization committees, public-private partnership programs, and quality control circles, which are likely to strengthen and expand the private sector and market forces while diminishing the size and significance of public bureaucracy. The normative standards of the contemporary bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia are also in transition. For instance, the traditional normative principles of bureaucratic reform, including the principles of political neutrality, equal opportunity, public accountability, and representativeness, seem to have become less important than the market norms such as competition, profit, efficiency, and productivity. Similarly, the recent bureaucratic modernization has also shifted its preference related to managerial structures, attitudes, and commitments: the transition is from centralized to decentralized structures, from impersonal to informal attitudes, from people-oriented to customer-oriented commitments. Finally, there is a change in bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asia in terms of their officially defined target groups or beneficiaries. While the previous government efforts to modernize bureaucracy aimed to benefit all citizens irrespective of their incomes, the contemporary bureaucratic change tends to highlight the needs and demands of the so-called "customers" who, by definition, have the capacity to pay for goods and services. It is essential, however, to seriously examine both favorable and adverse implications of these new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries, especially, for their overall public administration systems.7 First, the current normative shift in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia towards specific market values such as efficiency and productivity is likely to make the assessment of bureaucratic performance more conducive, because these normative standards are more tangible than the traditional public service norms such as fairness and justice. However, this market-based normative transition in bureaucratic reforms has also the potentials for certain adverse outcomes. For instance, the adoption of business norms is likely to diminish the normative identity of public bureaucracy as a distinctly "public" institution (Haque, 1996a, 1996b), and thus, may exacerbate the problem of its identity crisis. Second, as the contemporary reformers attempt to transform public bureaucracy in the image of the business sector, and as differences between the two diminish, it is likely that there will emerge a challenge to the motivation and morale of public servants. It is because, the job satisfaction of public servants depends not only on extrinsic rewards such as monetary compensation (which is often lower than that in the private sector) but also on intrinsic rewards such as their sense of pride of being public servants and doing something good for the people (Handley, 1989-90; Haque, 1996b; Perry and Wise, 1990). In fact, the motivational problem in public bureaucracy caused by the recent market-centered bureaucratic reform and reorientation, has already become a serious problem in advanced industrial countries such as the U.S. and Japan, especially, in terms of difficulty in recruiting and retaining the committed professionals in public bureaucracy (see Pempel and Muramatsu, 1995; Volcker Commission, 1990). In this regard, Southeast Asian countries can rethink these current market-centered reforms and its motivational implications, and perhaps, they can learn from the critical experiences of industriaized countries (e.g. the U.K., the U.S., and Canada) that went through similar reform measures much earlier. Finally, the current trends of bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia may create both positive and negative outcomes with regard to the legitimacy of public bureaucracy, implying the rise and fall of public confidence in bureaucratic activities and performance. More specifically, the business-like bureaucratic reforms based on the criteria of efficiency, productivity, decentralization, autonomy, and customer-orientation, may strengthen public confidence in bureaucracy which, in the past, did not have much public support in developing countries due to its alleged inefficiency, waste, centralization, irresponsibleness, and corruption. But there are certain potentially adverse implications of these market-centered changes in bureaucracy for its legitimacy. More specifically, these bureaucratic reforms may be highly endorsed by their primary beneficiaries, especially the local and foreign private firms gaining from public-private partnership and customer-oriented services, but these reforms may not be popular among the low-income people who are likely to be worse off from these reforms that often streamline public welfare programs, encourage better services to customers who can pay, and show indifference towards the concerns of the poor. As a result, in the poorer Southeast Asian countries (e.g. Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), the common masses may not endorse these market-biased bureaucratic changes, and they may lose trust in this newly emerging pro-business bureaucracy. It implies a further deterioration of bureaucratic legitimacy. More importantly, as the current administrative modernization tends to transform bureaucracy in the image of business management, and as bureaucracy increasingly resembles the business sector in terms of its objectives, roles, structures, and norms, the people may find very little difference between the profit-seeking private firms and business-oriented public agencies. This may diminish people's confidence in public bureaucracy as a distinct public institution that is expected to meet the needs and demands of the general public beyond the concerns of specific groups and classes attached to the private sector. This decline in public trust in bureaucracy as an institution representing and serving the common public interests, implies a potential challenge to the legitimacy of the overall bureaucratic apparatus. In fact, there are already signs of such diminishing public confidence in bureaucracy in advanced capitalist countries that recently adopted the market-centered bureaucratic change.8 This new legitimation challenge to bureaucracy posed by its recent promarket transition, has been recognized also in certain Southeast Asian countries. For instance, in the case of Malaysia, it has been suggested that the treatment of people as customers by public bureaucracy, as emphasized in the recent bureaucratic reforms, may diminish the "sense of connectedness", and create a gap, between the citizens and public employees (Zin (1994:204205). In the case of Singapore, it has been observed that it might be necessary to introduce stronger behavioral safeguards for and scrutiny of public bureaucracy due to its more intensive interaction and partnership with the business sector resulting from the recent administrative changes (PS21 Lauded, 1995:2). The need for additional safeguards related to the emerging public-private partnership has also been recognized in the Malaysian case. According to Sarji (1993b:184), in Malaysia, it is necessary to have a clear code of conduct "to prevent any erosion, however slight, of public confidence in the traditional impartiality of the Civil Service, especially in a world where the public and private sectors increasingly interact" In short, despite certain favorable outcomes of the current market-centered bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries, there are various potentially adverse implications of such changes for the normative identity, motivational foundation, and public legitimacy of public bureaucracy. In this regard, it is imperative for the top policy makers in these countries to take into consideration certain basic rules in pursuing bureaucratic modernization. They should take a more cautious and critical approach in adopting bureaucratic change based on market standards or business principles. More specifically, these policy makers must take into account that the aforementioned objectives, priorities, roles, structures, norms, and beneficiaries of public bureaucracy are quite different from those of the business sector, 9 and these unique functional, structural, and normative features of public institutions should not be sacrificed even when certain market criteria are incorporated into the public sector. This more careful approach is likely to function as a remedy to some adverse outcomes created by the market-centered bureaucratic change discussed above. For instance, a cautious and critical approach to bureaucratic change--which recognizes the unique objectives, roles, structures, norms, and clienteles of the public sector--may help retain the public identity of public bureaucracy and maintain people's confidence in its unique public (as opposed to business) character. Second, by recognizing and retaining the public identity of public bureaucracy, this cautious and critical approach to bureaucratic reform may also help reinforce the intrinsic sources of motivation among public employees in terms of their satisfaction from being identified with the common public interest rather than parochial business concern. Finally, since a cautious and critical approach to bureaucratic change would require public bureaucracy to be responsive to the needs of various groups and classes of people (not just the so-called customers), it might help strengthen the trust of the common public in bureaucracy, and thus, enhance its legitimation as a public institution. In conclusion, the process of bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries should not be based on the imitation of promarket administrative changes in advanced industrial nations, pressures for such changes from international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, and any fetishistic market-centered and state-centered perspectives. Without totally discounting the lessons of administrative changes in other countries, however, Southeast Asian countries should depend more on a realistic assessment of their own indigenous contexts, societal needs, and citizens' expectations in pursuing bureaucratic modernization. With regard to the contemporary market-oriented bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asian countries, it is imperative that the reform policies are guided by a rational analysis and critical scrutiny of both favorable and adverse implications of such promarket administrastive change for the identity and legitimacy of public bureaucracy, for the morale and motivation of public employees, and for the gains and losses of various sections of the population. In this regard, in planning and designing bureaucratic change in these countries, the policy makers need to recognize the basic distinction between the public and private sectors in terms of objectives, roles, structures, and norms; conduct a critical scrutiny of the economic, social, administrative costs and benefits of bureaucratic transition; and identify the major gainers and losers, and redress the concerns of those who become worse off, from such bureaucratic change. Running head: BUREAUCRACY Bureaucracy Name Institution Date BUREAUCRACY 2 Bureaucracy What is your understanding of 'market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector by giving examples? Market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector is the process of bureaucratic change in which countries embrace the pro-market administrative changes in advanced industrial nations, pressures for such changes from international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, and any fetishistic market-centered and state-centered perspectives (World Bank, 1995). With regard to the modern market-oriented bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asian countries, it is imperative that the reform policies are guided by a rational analysis and critical scrutiny of both favorable and adverse implications of such premarket administrative change for the identity and legitimacy of public bureaucracy, for the morale and motivation of public employees, and for the gains and losses of various sections of the population. In this regard, in planning and 15designing bureaucratic change in these countries, the policy makers ought to understand the basic distinction between the public and private sectors in terms of objectives, roles, structures, and norms; conduct a critical scrutiny of the economic, social, administrative costs and benefits of bureaucratic transition; and identify the major gainers and losers, and redress the concerns of those who become worse off, from such bureaucratic change What do you understand by traditional state-centered approach to bureaucratic reform by giving examples? As far as traditional centered approach is concerned, there also a corresponding shifts in the normative inclinations guiding the process of such modernization. It is well known that in general, the traditional reform efforts on bureaucracy often reinforced certain core values of BUREAUCRACY 3 public service such as neutrality, impartiality, accountability, equity, representativeness, and justice, which are increasingly being replaced to market-oriented norms such as competition, efficiency, productivity, and profitability (Haque, M. S. 1996). In line with this global trend, there have been considerable adjustments in the normative preferences related to bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia. Some of the main normative standards guiding the recent administrative changes in financial and personnel matters such as budgeting, recruitment, promotion include standards such as efficiency, performance, cost-effectiveness, competition, and entrepreneurship (Lim, 1997, Halligan & Turner, 1995, Koh, 1997). Another emerging new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia is the adjustment in institutional measures of bureaucratic change. Discuss the favorable and adverse implications of such a shift on public bureaucracy. In terms macro-level changes in administrative reforms, the focus of reform has shifted from localization based on local needs and conditions to globalization based on international competition and challenges; the objective of reform has changed from the achievement of overall socioeconomic development to the acceleration of economic growth and productivity; the priority of reform has shifted from an active role to a catalytic role of the public service; and the targeted beneficiaries of reform seem to have changed from the entire citizenry to mainly the "customers." Similarly, in terms of micro-level changes in administrative reforms.The institutional outcomes of reform have changed from the earlier organizations (e.g., Public Service Division) related to the betterment of public service to a new set of organizations (e.g., Public Sector Divestment Committee) related to the expansion of private sector, the structural patterns suggested by reform have shifted from centralized and closed to more decentralized and open structures; the decision criteria emphasized by reform have changed from the relatively subjective to more objective and job-related criteria; and the normative benchmarks stressed by reform have shifted from traditional administrative norms such as neutrality and equality to more market-oriented values such as productivity and efficiency. BUREAUCRACY 4 Another emerging new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia is the adjustment in institutional measures of bureaucratic change. Discuss the favorable and adverse implications of such a shift on public bureaucracy It is also explained that these recent changes in the above dimensions of administrative reforms have both favorable and adverse implications for the public service. For instance, the change in the focus of administrative reform towards global demands may enhance external competitiveness of the public service but it may reduce its compatibility with the local needs and conditions; the shift in the reform objective mainly towards economic growth may enable the public service to achieve economic success but it may weaken its capacity to address other noneconomic issues and problems; and the change in the priority of reform towards a catalytic rather than active role of the public service may reduce excessive bureaucratic burden and expand private sector growth but it may weaken the control of public service over economic activities if the need arises. Similarly, the change in reform towards a redefinition of the recipients of public goods as "customers" may enhance the responsiveness of public service to BUREAUCRACY 5 these customers but it may render the public service less responsive. The above changes is due to the fact that the shift aims to help the needs of other citizens who cannot pay; the structural change in reform to-wards decentralization, openness, and public-private partnership may expedite managerial decisions and bring new ideas and innovation in the public service but it may also create a problem for monitoring public servants' interactions and dealings with business managers; and the change in reform towards market norms such as efficiency and productivity may enhance cost-consciousness and achievement-orientation in the public service but it may create an ethical dilemma for public servants and diminish their intrinsic job satisfaction. BUREAUCRACY 6 Explain what is meant by 'Transition in Normative Standards\" as used in the article. The regulating move is reflected in the late polite administration code of morals that particularly highlights proficiency and viability (Salleh, 1992). The business sector arranged move in the standardizing benchmarks of bureaucratic change in Malaysia and Singapore is additionally clear in the appropriation of the smaller scale hierarchical methods as notice over that established upon standards, for example, proficiency, efficiency, and client situated (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Sarji, 1993). In the Philippines, for example, the directing standards of bureaucratic change since the Aquino organization have been different business sector arranged standards, for example, proficiency, adequacy, economy, efficiency, administration conveyance, open private association, market responsiveness, and monetary development which is entirely unique in relation to the standards BUREAUCRACY 7 of political nonpartisanship, merit-based rivalry, and equivalent open door (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Mendoza, 1996). In Brunei, the late government activities to survey open administration execution and seek after managerial change put more noteworthy accentuation on the standards of proficiency and adequacy (Salleh, 1996). On account of Singapore, the legislature has presented extensive bureaucratic changes in regions, for example, work force administration and money related organization, and these changes additionally accentuate the business-area standards (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Ibrahim, 1995). An all-around planned and composed structure identified with this business sector situated regularizing shift in bureaucratic change can likewise be found in South Asia. Under the late market-arranged country of the South Asia Incorporated, the standards of prior bureaucratic changes, including devotion, obligation, impartiality, responsiveness, and ethnic representation, have been eclipsed by the rising professional measures, for example, profitability, quality, effectiveness, cost-awareness, and client situated (Chee and Lee, 1994, Mahmud, 1992). The process of bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries should not be based on the imitation of promarket administrative changes in advanced industrial nations\". Explain the reasons why the author is making that statement. The author of the article made the statement owing to the fact that he believes that by the Southern Asian countries embracing imitating the premarket administrative changes, they will not be realistic enough in their assessment of the indigenous contexts, societal needs, and citizens' expectations in pursuing bureaucratic modernization. At this stage to make some suggestions and draw some conclusions. First, under the current global atmosphere dominated by a market ideology and intensive competition, the public service BUREAUCRACY 8 in these countries cannot remain insulated, especially when most countries are adopting marketoriented administrative reforms. However, in designing administrative reforms, the local conditions and needs must not be ignored, because the strength and legitimacy of public service depend on its public acceptance based on its capacity to meet people's needs and its compatibility with people's beliefs and expectations. Thus, the government should explore a balance between international conditions and local situations, between the reform experiences of other countries and the indigenous administrative knowledge. Second, the public service should assist the private sector to expand but with-out substantially compromising its own "active role." It is because, an active and capable public service is essential not only to assist the private sector to grow but also to regulate and monitor the potential adverse consequences such as unemployment, inequality, health hazards, and environmental pollution often emerging from competitive market activities in the private sector itself. In addition, the necessary public programs to assist the low-income population cannot be totally assigned to the private sector guided by profit motives. Most importantly, since the local private capital and entrepreneurship are still not well developed, especially in South Asia, the public sector has to play an entrepreneurial role, and as discussed above, such a public sector role has been crucial behind the success stories in the Asian nations BUREAUCRACY 9 References Chee, S., & Lee, C. (1994). "Social costs of economic restructuring: The Malaysian case." In Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations, ed. Social Costs of Economic Restructuring in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, pp.162-233. Halligan, J., & Turner, M., (1995). Profiles of Government Administration in Asia. Canberra: Australian, Government Publishing Service. Haque , M. S., (1996). \"The Contextless Nature of Public Administration in Third World Countries\". International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 315-329. Haque, M. S. (1998) New Directions in Bureaucratic Change in Southeast Asia: Selected Experiences. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 26 N0. 1, pp. 96-114. Haque, M. S., (2007). \"Theory and Practice of Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, Directions, and Impacts\Running head: BUREAUCRACY Bureaucracy Name Institution Date BUREAUCRACY 2 Bureaucracy What is your understanding of 'market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector by giving examples? Market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector is the process of bureaucratic change in which countries embrace the pro-market administrative changes in advanced industrial nations, pressures for such changes from international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, and any fetishistic market-centered and state-centered perspectives (World Bank, 1995). With regard to the modern market-oriented bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asian countries, it is imperative that the reform policies are guided by a rational analysis and critical scrutiny of both favorable and adverse implications of such premarket administrative change for the identity and legitimacy of public bureaucracy, for the morale and motivation of public employees, and for the gains and losses of various sections of the population. In this regard, in planning and 15designing bureaucratic change in these countries, the policy makers ought to understand the basic distinction between the public and private sectors in terms of objectives, roles, structures, and norms; conduct a critical scrutiny of the economic, social, administrative costs and benefits of bureaucratic transition; and identify the major gainers and losers, and redress the concerns of those who become worse off, from such bureaucratic change What do you understand by traditional state-centered approach to bureaucratic reform by giving examples? As far as traditional centered approach is concerned, there also a corresponding shifts in the normative inclinations guiding the process of such modernization. It is well known that in general, the traditional reform efforts on bureaucracy often reinforced certain core values of BUREAUCRACY 3 public service such as neutrality, impartiality, accountability, equity, representativeness, and justice, which are increasingly being replaced to market-oriented norms such as competition, efficiency, productivity, and profitability (Haque, M. S. 1996). In line with this global trend, there have been considerable adjustments in the normative preferences related to bureaucratic modernization in Southeast Asia. Some of the main normative standards guiding the recent administrative changes in financial and personnel matters such as budgeting, recruitment, promotion include standards such as efficiency, performance, cost-effectiveness, competition, and entrepreneurship (Lim, 1997, Halligan & Turner, 1995, Koh, 1997). Another emerging new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia is the adjustment in institutional measures of bureaucratic change. Discuss the favorable and adverse implications of such a shift on public bureaucracy. In terms macro-level changes in administrative reforms, the focus of reform has shifted from localization based on local needs and conditions to globalization based on international competition and challenges; the objective of reform has changed from the achievement of overall socioeconomic development to the acceleration of economic growth and productivity; the priority of reform has shifted from an active role to a catalytic role of the public service; and the targeted beneficiaries of reform seem to have changed from the entire citizenry to mainly the "customers." Similarly, in terms of micro-level changes in administrative reforms.The institutional outcomes of reform have changed from the earlier organizations (e.g., Public Service Division) related to the betterment of public service to a new set of organizations (e.g., Public Sector Divestment Committee) related to the expansion of private sector, the structural patterns suggested by reform have shifted from centralized and closed to more decentralized and open structures; the decision criteria emphasized by reform have changed from the relatively subjective to more objective and job-related criteria; and the normative benchmarks stressed by reform have shifted from traditional administrative norms such as neutrality and equality to more market-oriented values such as productivity and efficiency. BUREAUCRACY 4 Another emerging new directions in bureaucratic change in Southeast Asia is the adjustment in institutional measures of bureaucratic change. Discuss the favorable and adverse implications of such a shift on public bureaucracy It is also explained that these recent changes in the above dimensions of administrative reforms have both favorable and adverse implications for the public service. For instance, the change in the focus of administrative reform towards global demands may enhance external competitiveness of the public service but it may reduce its compatibility with the local needs and conditions; the shift in the reform objective mainly towards economic growth may enable the public service to achieve economic success but it may weaken its capacity to address other noneconomic issues and problems; and the change in the priority of reform towards a catalytic rather than active role of the public service may reduce excessive bureaucratic burden and expand private sector growth but it may weaken the control of public service over economic activities if the need arises. Similarly, the change in reform towards a redefinition of the recipients of public goods as "customers" may enhance the responsiveness of public service to BUREAUCRACY 5 these customers but it may render the public service less responsive. The above changes is due to the fact that the shift aims to help the needs of other citizens who cannot pay; the structural change in reform to-wards decentralization, openness, and public-private partnership may expedite managerial decisions and bring new ideas and innovation in the public service but it may also create a problem for monitoring public servants' interactions and dealings with business managers; and the change in reform towards market norms such as efficiency and productivity may enhance cost-consciousness and achievement-orientation in the public service but it may create an ethical dilemma for public servants and diminish their intrinsic job satisfaction. BUREAUCRACY 6 Explain what is meant by 'Transition in Normative Standards\" as used in the article. The regulating move is reflected in the late polite administration code of morals that particularly highlights proficiency and viability (Salleh, 1992). The business sector arranged move in the standardizing benchmarks of bureaucratic change in Malaysia and Singapore is additionally clear in the appropriation of the smaller scale hierarchical methods as notice over that established upon standards, for example, proficiency, efficiency, and client situated (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Sarji, 1993). In the Philippines, for example, the directing standards of bureaucratic change since the Aquino organization have been different business sector arranged standards, for example, proficiency, adequacy, economy, efficiency, administration conveyance, open private association, market responsiveness, and monetary development which is entirely unique in relation to the standards BUREAUCRACY 7 of political nonpartisanship, merit-based rivalry, and equivalent open door (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Mendoza, 1996). In Brunei, the late government activities to survey open administration execution and seek after managerial change put more noteworthy accentuation on the standards of proficiency and adequacy (Salleh, 1996). On account of Singapore, the legislature has presented extensive bureaucratic changes in regions, for example, work force administration and money related organization, and these changes additionally accentuate the business-area standards (Halligan and Turner, 1995, Ibrahim, 1995). An all-around planned and composed structure identified with this business sector situated regularizing shift in bureaucratic change can likewise be found in South Asia. Under the late market-arranged country of the South Asia Incorporated, the standards of prior bureaucratic changes, including devotion, obligation, impartiality, responsiveness, and ethnic representation, have been eclipsed by the rising professional measures, for example, profitability, quality, effectiveness, cost-awareness, and client situated (Chee and Lee, 1994, Mahmud, 1992). The process of bureaucratic change in Southeast Asian countries should not be based on the imitation of promarket administrative changes in advanced industrial nations\". Explain the reasons why the author is making that statement. The author of the article made the statement owing to the fact that he believes that by the Southern Asian countries embracing imitating the premarket administrative changes, they will not be realistic enough in their assessment of the indigenous contexts, societal needs, and citizens' expectations in pursuing bureaucratic modernization. At this stage to make some suggestions and draw some conclusions. First, under the current global atmosphere dominated by a market ideology and intensive competition, the public service BUREAUCRACY 8 in these countries cannot remain insulated, especially when most countries are adopting marketoriented administrative reforms. However, in designing administrative reforms, the local conditions and needs must not be ignored, because the strength and legitimacy of public service depend on its public acceptance based on its capacity to meet people's needs and its compatibility with people's beliefs and expectations. Thus, the government should explore a balance between international conditions and local situations, between the reform experiences of other countries and the indigenous administrative knowledge. Second, the public service should assist the private sector to expand but with-out substantially compromising its own "active role." It is because, an active and capable public service is essential not only to assist the private sector to grow but also to regulate and monitor the potential adverse consequences such as unemployment, inequality, health hazards, and environmental pollution often emerging from competitive market activities in the private sector itself. In addition, the necessary public programs to assist the low-income population cannot be totally assigned to the private sector guided by profit motives. Most importantly, since the local private capital and entrepreneurship are still not well developed, especially in South Asia, the public sector has to play an entrepreneurial role, and as discussed above, such a public sector role has been crucial behind the success stories in the Asian nations BUREAUCRACY 9 References Chee, S., & Lee, C. (1994). "Social costs of economic restructuring: The Malaysian case." In Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations, ed. Social Costs of Economic Restructuring in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, pp.162-233. Halligan, J., & Turner, M., (1995). Profiles of Government Administration in Asia. Canberra: Australian, Government Publishing Service. Haque , M. S., (1996). \"The Contextless Nature of Public Administration in Third World Countries\". International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 315-329. Haque, M. S. (1998) New Directions in Bureaucratic Change in Southeast Asia: Selected Experiences. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 26 N0. 1, pp. 96-114. Haque, M. S., (2007). \"Theory and Practice of Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, Directions, and Impacts\Running head: BUREAUCRACY Bureaucracy Name Institution Date BUREAUCRACY 2 Bureaucracy What is your understanding of 'market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector by giving examples? Market-centered approach' of bureaucratic transformation of the public sector is the process of bureaucratic change in which countries embrace the pro-market administrative changes in advanced industrial nations, pressures for such changes from international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, and any fetishistic market-centered and state-centered perspectives (World Bank, 1995). With regard to the modern market-oriented bureaucratic reforms in Southeast Asian countries, it is imperative that the reform policies are guided by a rational analysis and critical scrutiny of both favorable and adverse implications of such premarket administrative change for the identity and legitimacy of public bureaucracy, for the morale and motivation of public employees, and for the gains and losses of various sections of the population. In this regard, in planning and