One country, two experiences: administrative reforms in China and Hong Kong

Author:

Cheung Anthony B.L.1

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong

Abstract

Neither Hong Kong nor mainland China is a democracy, yet both have been active administrative reformers, having achieved significant changes but continuing to operate within systematic and institutional constraints, shaped by path-dependence. Within three decades, China has been transformed from a centrally planned economy into a thriving market economy in the name of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ – a form of market authoritarianism. Hong Kong, meanwhile, had prospered as part of the ‘East Asia miracle’, and been an enthusiast of public sector reform in the ‘new public management’ fashion. Their path and logic of reform have never been entirely straightforward, displaying compromises and uneasy hybrids (more so in mainland China). Though confronted with rising political challenges to governance, both are arguably still ‘success’ types in their own right. The two reform trajectories have run in arguably totally different political contexts, but there is one similarity – administrative reforms were implemented in an authoritarian setting and had embraced a strong agenda of substituting political reforms. Points for practitioners This article uses the case of China and Hong Kong to illustrate administrative modernization under authoritarianism. Both have been active administrative reformers over the past three decades despite not being a democracy. Though confronted with rising political challenges to governance, both are arguably still ‘success’ types in their own right. Hong Kong, along with Singapore, is rated as high achiever by the World Bank’s global governance indicators. Despite political constraints and ideological hurdles, the scale of China’s transformation of the party-state is anything but gigantic. It was held up as exemplary of an alternative growth model, dubbed by some as the ‘Beijing Consensus’, as a counterweight to the neoliberal ‘Washington Consensus’. Their experience underscores the dynamics of governance reform under institutional and political limitations.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3