Abstract
In recent years, the normative bases of performance measurement in public administration have significantly changed in favor of empirical, quantifiable, and instrumental criteria, especially under the recent market-driven neoliberal reforms encapsulated as reinvention, new public management, and good governance. While these current trends in performance management may be more compatible with the neo-managerial organizational cultures of Western countries, they are not appropriate for the major administrative traditions found in Asia. In Southeast Asia, in particular, although most countries have embraced the business-like model and adopted the new framework of performance management, managerial behavior has not been adequately reoriented toward empiricist performance criteria. In these countries, performance assessment practices have not adequately moved away from traditional qualitative performance benchmarks. These theory–practice gaps, that is, the difference between what are officially announced and actually practiced, have certain adverse implications in terms of normlessness and inconsistencies in performance management. This chapter explores the market-driven administrative reforms, the corresponding changes in performance management, and their critical consequences for public service performance with specific reference to Southeast Asia where public servants have to embrace the new performance benchmarks.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, R. 1991. The role of the state and the bureaucracy in developing countries since World War II. In Handbook of comparative and development public administration, ed. A. Farazmand, 353–363. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Bavon, A. 1995. Innovations in performance measurement systems: a comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration 18 (2–3): 491–519.
Berman, E.M. 2011. Public administration in Southeast Asia: An overview. In Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman, 1–18. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Bowman, J.S., ed. 1991. Ethical frontiers in public management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Box, R., G.S. Marshall, B.J. Reed, and C.M. Reed. 2001. New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review 61 (5): 608–619.
Boyne, George A. 2004. Explaining public service performance: Does management matter? Public Policy and Administration 19 (4): 100–117.
Burnier, D. 2018. Reimagining performance in public administration theory and practice: Creating a democratic performativity of care and hope. Administrative Theory & Praxis 40 (1): 62–78.
Cheung, A.B.. 2005. The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: Paradigms and legacies, paths and diversities. Governance 18 (2): 257–282.
Chin, M.K., D.C. Hambrick, and L.K. Trevin. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly 58 (2): 197–232.
Diefenbach, T. 2009. New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration 87 (4): 892–909.
Domingo, M.O., and D.R. Reyes. 2011. Performance management reforms in the Philippines. In Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman, 397–422. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler. 2006. New public management is dead – Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 467–494.
Exworthy, M. 2010. The performance paradigm in the English NHS: Potential, pitfalls, and prospects. Eurohealth 16 (3): 16–19.
Fountain, J.E. 2001. Paradoxes of public sector customer service. Governance 14: 55–73.
Frederickson, H.G. 1976. The lineage of new public administration. Administration and Society 8: 149–175.
———. 2002. Confucius and the moral basis of bureaucracy. Administration and Society 33 (4): 610–628.
Gonzalez, E.T., and M.L. Mendoza. 2009. Governance in Southeast Asia: Issues and options. Manila: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Goodnow, F.J. 1900. Politics and administration: A study in government. New York: Russell and Russell.
Hammerschmid, G., S. Van de Walle, and V. Stimac. 2013. Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: results from an international survey. Public Money & Management 33 (4): 261–268.
Haque, M.S. 2007. Theory and practice of public administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, directions, and impacts. International Journal of Public Administration 30: 1297–1326.
Hoggett, P. 1996. New modes of control in the public service. Public Administration 74 (1): 9–32.
Hood, C. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69 (1): 3–19.
Huberts, L.W.J.C., Kolthoff, E.W., and Heuvel, H.V.D. 2003. The ethics of government and business: What is valued most. Paper presented at the EGPA Study Group on ‘Ethics and Integrity of Governance’, Oeiras, Portugal, September.
Jackson, P.M. 1993. Public service performance evaluation: A strategic perspective. Public Money & Management 13: 9–14.
———. 2011. Governance by numbers: What have we learned over the past 30 years? Public Money & Management 31 (1): 13–26.
Johnsen, A. 2005. What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management? Public Money & Management 25 (1): 9–17.
Jones, D.S. 2000. Uses and limitations of performance measurement in the civil service: An assessment from the Singapore and New Zealand experiences. Asian Journal of Political Science 8 (2): 109–136.
Kiraka, R., C. Clark, and M.D. Martinis. 2002. Public sector auditing, accountability and independence: A study of ASEAN Countries. Asian Review of Accounting 10 (2): 43–61.
Koike, O. 2013. Institutionalizing performance management in Asia: Looking East or West? International Journal of Public Sector Management 26 (5): 347–360.
Koike, O., and H. Kabashima. 2008. Performance evaluation and “Good Governance” in Asia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Political Science Association, Santiago, Chile, 16 July.
Lodge, M., and D. Gill. 2011. Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance 24 (1): 141–166.
Lorsuwannarat, T., and P. Buracom. 2011. Performance management reforms in Thailand. In Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman, 95–112. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
MacCarthaigh, M. 2008. Public service values, CPMR discussion paper No. 39. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Marini, F. 1971. Toward a new public administration. Scranton: Chandler.
Martin, S., and P.C. Smith. 2005. Multiple public service performance indicators: Toward an integrated statistical approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15: 599–613.
Milne, R.S. 1992. Privatization in the ASEAN states: Who gets what, why, and with what effect? Pacific Affairs 65 (1): 7–29.
OECD. 2016. State-owned enterprises in Asia: National practices for performance evaluation and management. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance.
———. 2019. Government at a glance Southeast Asia 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Piotrowski, S.J., and D.H. Rosenbloom. 2002. Nonmission-based values in results-oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review 62 (6): 643–657.
Polidano, C. 2001. Why civil service reforms fail. Public Management Review 3 (3): 345–361.
Propper, C., and D. Wilson. 2003. The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector, CMPO working paper series no. 03/073. Bristol: Department of Economics, University of Bristol.
Riggs, F.W. 1970. The idea of development administration. In Development administration in Asia, ed. Edward Weidner, 25–72. Durham: Duke University Press.
Rohr, J. 1978. Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Schick, A. 2003. The performing state: Reflection on an idea whose time has come but whose implementation has not. OECD Journal on Budgeting 3 (2): 71–103.
Siddiquee, N.A. 2006. Public management reform in Malaysia: Recent initiatives and experiences. International Journal of Public Sector Management 19 (4): 339–358.
Sivaraks, P. 2011. Civil service system in Thailand. In Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman, 113–140. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Srithongrung, A. 2018. An evaluation of performance-based budget reform in Asian countries. International Journal of Public Administration 41 (4): 257–267.
Stewart, J., and K. Walsh. 1994. Performance measurement: When performance can never be finally defined. Public Money & Management 14 (2): 45–49.
Taylor, J. 2007. The usefulness of key performance indicators to public accountability authorities in East Asia. Public Administration and Development 27 (4): 341–352.
Terman, J.N., and K. Yang. 2016. Reconsidering gaming in an accountability relationship: The case of minority purchasing in Florida. Public Performance & Management Review 40 (2): 281–309.
Thomas, P.G. 2006. Performance measurement, reporting, obstacles and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. Canberra: Australian National University E-Press.
Tillah, M. 2005. Globalization, redemocratization and the Philippine bureaucracy, Discussion paper series No. 2005–09. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Turner, M. 2002. Choosing items from the menu: New public management in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Public Administration 25 (2): 1493–1512.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2001. Public service ethics in Africa. Vol. 1. New York: United Nations.
———. 2004. Trends and challenges in public administration reform in the Asia Pacific. Bangkok: Sub-Regional Resource Facility for the Pacific, Northeast, and Southeast Asia, UNDP.
Van Thiel, S., and F.I. Leeuw. 2002. The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25 (3): 267–281.
Vance, C.M., S.R. McClaine, D.M. Boje, and H.D. Stage. 1992. An examination of the transferability of traditional performance appraisal principles across cultural boundaries. MIR: Management International Review 32 (4): 313–326.
Weber, M. 1968. Politikalsberuf [Politics as a vocation]. 5th ed. Berlin: Dunker and Humblot. (Original work published 1919).
Wescott, C.G., and L.R. Jones. 2007. Managing for results and performance in Asia: Assessing reform initiatives in the public sector. International Public Management Review 8 (1): 56–102.
Westgard, J. 2006. Community leadership: Names, renaming and Evolution of Shared power. Paper presented at 19th annual meeting of the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net), February 8–10, 2006, Olympia, Washington.
Wilson, W. 1887. The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, Reprinted in 1997 in Classics of Public Administration, 2d ed. Shafritz, J, and Hyde, A. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
World Bank. 2017. The worldwide governance indicators: 2017 update. Available at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
Yeoh, T. 2011. Performance management reforms in Malaysia. In Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao, ed. Evan M. Berman, 193–210. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Haque, M.S. (2020). Public Servants as Performers: Embracing New Performance Management Norms in Southeast Asia. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_87-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_87-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences