Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Public-Administration-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf
Скачиваний:
188
Добавлен:
21.03.2016
Размер:
4.4 Mб
Скачать

History and Context of Public Administration in Hong Kong 251

even in the postcolonial era. At present, the District Councils are the only local-level institutions with a representative nature, but are still not fully elected and are of an advisory nature with no executive power.

In sum, the history of colonial domination has brought about a modern administrative and capitalist system. These systems historically brought about a process of “rationalization” in Weber’s sense, as rational-legal authority, market relations, legal formalism, and entrepreneurship constituted the core of Hong Kong’s colonial modernity. As Hong Kong enters into the postcolonial and postindustrial era, citizens are increasingly questioning the supremacy of some of these values. Indeed, the demand for genuine citizens’ participation, public accountability, and responsiveness has been growing in the postcolonial era, while the capacity of the postcolonial state to respond to these demands has been limited.

12.8Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance

The challenge of society over bureaucratic dominance was evident even during the early days of colonial rule, as seen in the numerous riots and social unrests. In the 1970s, a civil society rooted in the local population began to develop. Often led by social workers and labor activists, community activism was systematically organized to protest against the colonial government’s deficiency in policies related to labor, public housing, and others. The 1980s saw social mobilization triggered by political transition, and witnessed the birth of multiple political commentary groups. The introduction of elections to the legislature also changed the executive-legislative relationship, as elected legislators would not automatically support the executive and were vocal in criticizing government policy. In the early 1990s, political parties were formed with the introduction of direct election in the legislature, creating more organized opposition forces in the legislature. Meanwhile, civil society grew increasingly in strength, as numerous organizations concerned with democratization, human rights, sustainable development, environmental protection, women’s rights, minorities’ rights, consumer rights, and various kinds of self-help were formed (Bauhinia Foundation 2007). After 1997, societal mobilization gained even more momentum, as civil society groups stepped up their mobilization efforts on more issues related to environmental protection, harbor protection, heritage preservation, urban planning and redevelopment, poverty, minimum wage legislation, cultural policy, and so on. As scholars point out, in postcolonial Hong Kong, people have gained a stronger sense of citizenship and have shown stronger demand for a responsive and accountable government.

The postcolonial government was slow in responding to such societal change, and such failure cost heavily, cumulating in a mass rally of over 500,000 demonstrators in July 2003, and the subsequent resignation of the chief executive in 2005 on the instruction of central (Beijing) government.

The situation of an unelected executive, coupled with a partially elected legislature and a citizenry that enjoys the freedom to criticize the government and organize collective actions constitute the governance problem of this liberal autocracy. The postcolonial state, lacking in popular mandate, finds it difficult to push through any controversial policy. Issues such as health care financing reform have remained unsettled even years after the government attempted to solicit public support.

Apparently, the NPM-type reform that aims to inculcate a performance and customeroriented culture was grossly insufficient in addressing the demand of a citizenry with heightened democratic consciousness. In the absence of full-fledged democracy, some scholars have recently

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

252 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

proposed that the government should strengthen its mechanism for civic engagement, such that citizens can actively participate in the process of policy formation and decision making. This idea of civic engagement is in line with the international trend, as embraced in such ideas as statesociety synergy (Evans 1997; The World Bank 2004) and “empowered participatory governance” (Fung and Wright 2003). These ideas all point to the productive potential of collaboration/partnership between the state and society, and revitalize the political value of empowering ordinary people to participate in policies that directly affect their lives. Some instances have testified to the willingness of this government to experiment with the new mode of civic engagement. The most prominent one is the case of South East Kowloon planning, in which the Planning Department and other related government agencies actively collaborate with the civil society through the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee. The latter is not chaired by an official and provides for corporate representation by stakeholders. The exercise turned out a bottom-up approach in urban planning, allowing for inclusive representation and extensive engagement of civil society organizations, which is unprecedented in Hong Kong. However, so far, this relatively successful case has not led to any major institutional change in the policymaking process of other departments.

12.9 Conclusion

This chapter argues that the driving force of administrative development in Hong Kong can be best understood from the political economic perspective, i.e., administrative development has largely been a matter of the state adapting the colonial institutions to the challenge of political and economic change. Politically, the state in Hong Kong has evolved from a typical colonial stage in which the maintenance of law and order were its major goal, to a late colonial stage oriented toward public-service provision and performance legitimacy, and to a postcolonial stage under Chinese sovereignty, in which the state is captive of a situation of indefinite delay in democratization while performance legitimacy is no longer adequate to satisfy the demand of the citizenry. Economically, it has successfully gone through industrialization and has now reached the postindustrial stage of development. The various stages of administrative reform can be understood as institutional adaptation of the state in response to the challenge posed by these changing political and economic circumstances.

References

Bauhinia Foundation (2007) From Consultation to Engagement: The Road to Better Policymaking in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: The Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre.

Carroll, J.M. (2007) A Concise History of Hong Kong. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Chapman, R.A. (1970) The Higher Civil Service in Britain. London: Constable.

Cheung, A.B.L. (1996) “Efficiency as the Rhetoric: Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong Explained,”

International Review of Administrative Sciences 62: 31–47.

Cheung, C-Y. (2003) “The Quest for Good Governance: Hong Kong’s Principal Officials Accountability System,” China: An International Journal 4 (2): 249–72.

Ching, F. (2009) “How Beijing Plays Its Hand: As Seen from Hong Kong,” Hong Kong Journal No. 15 (July). [http://www.hkjournal.org/archive/072009.htm].

Chiu, S. (1994) The Politics of Laissez-faire: Hong Kong’s Strategy of Industrialization in Historical Perspective, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies: Occasional Paper No.40, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Collins, C. (1952) Public Administration in Hong Kong. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

History and Context of Public Administration in Hong Kong 253

Evans, P. (ed.) (1997) State-Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Faure, D. (ed.) (1997) Society: A Documentary History of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Fung, A. and Olin Wright, F. (2003) Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. New York: Verso.

Hamilton, G.C. (1969) Government Departments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

HKCSS (Hong Kong Council of Social Service) (1987) Si Shi Zhou Nian Ji Nian Te Kan: 1947–1987, Xianggang She Hui Fu Wu Lian Hui, Xianggang. (40th Anniversary: A Commemorative Issue, The Hong Kong Council of Social Service, Hong Kong.)

King, Ambrose Yeo-chi (1975) “Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level,” Asian Survey 15 (5): 422–39.

Lau, S.K. (1982) Society and Politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Lau, S.K. and Chi Kuan, H. (1988) The Ethos of Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Lee, E.W.Y. (1998) “The Political Economy of Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong: The Case of a Colonial-

Developmental State,” International Review of Administrative Sciences 64 (4): 625–41.

———(1999) “Governing Post-Colonial Hong Kong: Institutional Incongruity, Governance Crisis, and Authoritarianism,” Asian Survey 39 (6): 940–59.

———(2005a) “Nonprofit Development in Hong Kong: The Case of a Statist-Corporatist Regime,”

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 16 (1): 51–68.

———(2005b) “The Politics of Welfare Developmentalism in Hong Kong,” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development: Social Policy and Development Programme Paper Number 21. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

———(2006) “Civil Society Organizations and Local Governance in Hong Kong,” paper presented at the Conference on the Role of Government in Hong Kong, co-organized by the Central Policy Unit, The Hong Kong Sociological Association, and The Public Policy Research Institute of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Cho Yiu Conference Hall, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, November 3, 2006.

———(forthcoming) “Gender and the Making of the Hong Kong Administrative Class,” in Women of South China: Negotiating Traditions and Subjectivities, edited by Siumi Maria Tam. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Lee, E.W.Y. and Shamsul Haque, M. (2006) “The New Public Management Reform and Governance in Asian NICs: Comparing Hong Kong and Singapore,” Governance 19 (4): 605–26.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. (1973) The Machinery of Government: A New Framework for Expanding Services. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Miners, N. (1995) The Government and Politics of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Schedler, A., Diamond, L. and Plattner, M.F. (1999) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in

New Democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Scott, I. and Burns, J.P. (1988) (eds) The Hong Kong Civil Service and Its Future. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Tang, K.L. (1998) Colonial State and Social Policy: Social Welfare Development in Hong Kong, 1842–1997. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Tsai, J.F. (1993) Hong Kong in Chinese History: Community and Social Unrest in The British Colony, 1842– 1913. New York: Columbia University Press.

The World Bank (2004) State-Society Synergy for Accountability: Lessons for the World Bank. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]