8 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

the modern management science requires. In comparison with the Anglo-Saxon administrative culture, the Latin style represents intimate personal relations, lax working attitude, and to some extent, easy to induce corruption…. From a Weberian perspective, Macao’s bureaucracy arguably remains underdeveloped and backward.” Despite several civil service reforms since handover to Mainland China in 1999, the culture remains largely intact, and Yu notes that the Portuguese legacy of patronage and nepotism continues today in some aspects of personnel appointments.

The challenge of public administration in the Philippines and Macao is to overcome these cultures of indifference, self-enrichment, and inefficiency. The same might be said of most public administration systems in South America today, which share these legacies. It might also be noted that, in comparison to former British colonies, race relations are not such an issue in many former Portuguese and Spanish colonies that are often characterized by race mixing and assimilation. Brazil is a celebrated and well-known example of this, but it is no exception.

1.3.3 American Legacy

The United States was the colonial master of the Philippines from 1899 through 1946. The United States purchased the Philippines from Spain for $20 million at the conclusion of the SpanishAmerican War. While by most accounts the United States sought to emulate the British form of extracting wealth and running colonies, and may have sought to eventually annex it as a fortyninth state, Philippine resistance (the American-Philippine War 1899–1902 and continuing resistance thereafter) and the lack of commercial profit, soon led the United States to prepare the Philippines for independence. Thus, the United States supported an elected Philippine Assembly in 1907 and promoted the development of local governance, not least for lack of US officials who wanted to serve in the Philippines. The Philippines became a commonwealth of the United States in 1933, and became independent in 1946.

Reyes describes how the US experience with patronage, in particular the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and the Pendleton Act of 1883, formed the basis of US efforts to institute a similar system in their newly acquired colony in 1900: “This was an opportunity to discover whether the system they adopted for themselves would work in a different culture…. A civil service system was created based on merit and fitness in the Philippines, characterized by professionalism and careerism, ensured security of tenure and with appointments determined by open competitive examinations. Another important feature of the system was the adoption of political neutrality for career members of the civil service which secured them against involvement in partisan politics.”

The historical record is unclear about the implementation of these practices in the Philippines, and the change of culture that it may have brought about. Some authors talk about a heightened work ethic that ensued, but it quickly disappeared after the Japanese invasion. However, as a legacy, the policies remained on the books, and at some point these merit-based policies found favor, especially in recent democratic times. Reyes notes that, “the American values of merit and fitness and competitive examinations continue to hold sway and enjoy acceptance in the bureaucracy.”

The Philippine case shows the impact of multiple sources on administrative culture: “Bureaucratic values and behavior in Philippine public administration can thus be viewed as a web of influences and curious blend of indigenous social forces, implanted norms and of colonial legacies.” As regards the ultimate, current mix of these legacies, Reyes writes, “It can be said perhaps that these (the norms of Weberian bureaucracy) are the ones observed or upheld first, depending on the degree of the influence of cultural or political forces. The system of rules and procedures likewise are generally observed but can be set aside either because of the intervention of a politician or because of the demands and pressures of cultural values and ties.”

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC