Agencification in Asia: Lessons from Thailand, Hong Kong, and Pakistan

https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.23008

Arif Budy Pratama(1*)

(1) Program Studi Administrasi Negara Universitas Tidar
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This paper discusses the agencification phenomena as one of New Public Management (NPM)-based administrative reform initiatives. Thailand, Hong Kong, and Pakistan were chosen because of their similarity on administrative legacy and availability of data. The study uses a review of literature research method, while comparative approach was employed to analyze experiences of agencification in the three selected cases. Research result showed that the three countries implemented agencification in different ways; rational agency model is not the only driver for agencification initiatives; and contextual factor that include traditions, cultures, structures, and values influence the implementation of agencification process as a public sector reform initiative. Policy implications can be drawn by reading the three countries on agencification. Thus,  Indonesia, as one of NPM adopters can learn from experience gleaned from the three polities in conducting its administrative reform agenda.


Keywords


administrative reform; agencification; NPM

Full Text:

PDF


References

Bowornwathana, B. (2006). Autonomisation of the Thai state: Some observations. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 27–34. http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.368

Bowornwathana, B. (2012). Thailand. In K. Verhoest, S. van Thiel, A. Smullen, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government Agencies. Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke.

BUSUIOC, E. M. (2016). Friend or Foe? Inter-Agency Cooperation, Organizational Reputation, and Turf. Public Administration, 94(1), 40–56. http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12160

Cheung,  a. B. L. (2006). Budgetary reforms in two city states: impact on the central budget agency in         Hong Kong and Singapore. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(3), 341–361. http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852306068013

Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanation in Political Sciences. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead - Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2016). Agencification of the European Union Administration Connecting the Dots.

Fleming, W. G. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. By Przeworski Adam and Teune Henry. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Pp. 153. $8.50.). American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1255–1256. http://doi.org/10.2307/1958372

Gilardi, F. (2002). Policy credibility and delegation to independent regulatory agencies: a comparative empirical analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6), 873–893. http://doi.org/10.1080/1350176022000046409

Guy Peters, B. (1990). The Necessity and Difficulty of Comparison in Public Administration. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 12(1), 3–28. http://doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1990.10800226

Haque, M. S. (2013). Globalization, State Formation, and Reinvention in Public Governance: Exploring the Linkages and Patterns in Southeast Asia. Public Organization Review, 13(4), 381–396. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0258-3

Hood, C. (2001). A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS? Public Administration, 69(1). http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x

Hopkin, J. (2010). Comparative Method. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Jadoon, M. Z. I. (2010). Agencification in Pakistan: A Comparative Study of Regulatory and Service Delivery Agencies.

Jadoon, M. Z. I., Jabeen, N., & Rizwan, A. (2012). Pakistan. In K. Verhoest, S. van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government Agencies. Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke.

James, O. (2003). The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

James, O., & van Thiel, S. (2010). Structural Devolution to Agencies. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Surrey: Ashgate.

Jordana, J., Levi-Faur, D., & i Marin, X. F. (2011). The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Agencies: Channels of Transfer and Stages of Diffusion. Comparative Political Studies, 44(10), 1343–1369. http://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407466

Jreisat, J. (2011). Globalism and Comparative Public Administration. Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline 2015 (Vol. 1). http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Kickert, W. J. M. (2001). Management of Hybrid Organizations: Governance of Quasi - Autonomous Executive Agencies. International Public Management Journal, 4, 135–150.

Lam, W. F. (2005). Coordinating the government bureaucracy in Hong Kong: An institutional analysis. Governance, 18(4), 633–654. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00295.x

Lee, E. W. Y., & Haque, M. S. (2006). The new public management reform and governance in Asian NICs: A comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Governance, 19(4), 605–626. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00330.x

Lim, T. (2010). Introduction: What is Comparative Politics? Doing Comparative Politics : An Introduction to Approaches and Issues.

Lorsuwannarat, T. (2014). Autonomy and Performance of Agentification: Cases of Nine Independent Agencies in Thailand. Journal of US-CHina Public Administration, 11(10), 797–815. http://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6591/2014.10.001

Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003524

Majone, G. (2001). Two logics of delegation: agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. European Union Politics, 2(1).

Massey, A., & Pyper, R. (2005). Public Management and Modernisation in Britain. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Molander, P., & Nilsson, J. (2002). Does anyone govern ? The relationship between the Government Office and the agencies in Sweden.

Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Ambiguity in Policy Lessons: The Agentification Experience. Public Administration, 84(4), 1029–1050. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00625.x

Muchiri, M. (1999). The role of transformational leadership to reengineering public administration in the future. Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Administrasi Publik, 3(2), 41–66.

Ncukwe, F., & Adejuwon, K. (2014). Agencification of Public Service Delivery in Developing Societies: Experiences of Pakistan and Tanzania Agency Models. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 2(3), 106–124.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007). Distributed Public Governance.

Ongaro, E., Barbieri, E., Belle, D., & Fedele, P. (2012). European Union Agencies. In Government Agencies. Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Overman, S., & van Thiel, S. (2015). Agencification and Public Sector Performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Management Review, 9037(September), 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1028973

Painter, M. (2012). Hongkong. In K. Verhoest, S. van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government Agencies. Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Painter, M., & Yee, W.-H. (2010). Task Matters: A Structural-Instrumental Analysis of the Autonomy of Hong Kong Government Bodies. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(4), 395–410. http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010380451

Peters, B. G. (1998). Comparative politics: Theory and methods. New York: NYU Press.

Pierre, J. (2004). Central Agency in Sweden a Report from utopia. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled Government. London: Roudledge.

Pollit, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A., & Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3(3), 271–290. http://doi.org/10.1080/13876980108412663

Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (2003). Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London: Roudledge.

Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, C., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-Autonomous Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Pratikno. (2008). Manajemen jaringan dalam perspektif strukturasi. Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Administrasi Publik, 12(1), 1–19.

Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. London: SAGE.

Smullen, A. (2007). Translating agency reform. Rhetoric and culture in comparative perspective. Public Management. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289703

Study, C., & Agencies, S. D. (2010). Agencification in Pakistan: A Comparative Study of Regulatory and Service Delivery Agencies

Thynne, I. (2006). Statutory bodies as instruments of government in Hong Kong: Review beginnings and analytical challenge ahead. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 45–53. http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.367

Trondal, J. (2014). Book Review: Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 545–549. http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12252.Book

van Thiel, S. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate.

van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281. http://doi.org/10.2307/3381236

Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118. http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.316

Verhoest, K., van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & Lægreid, P. (2012). Government Agencies. Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Wettenhall, R. (2005). Agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Public Management Review, 7(4), 615–635. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500362827

Wicaksono, K. W. (2015). Akuntabilitas Organisasi Sektor Publik. Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Administrasi Publik, 19(1), 3–12.

Zahra, A., & Jadoon, M. Z. I. (2016). Autonomy of public agencies in Pakistan: does structure matter? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(6), 565–581. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2015-0019



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.23008

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1217 | views : 1024

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik) ISSN 0852-9213 (print), ISSN 2477-4693 (online)

Gedung MAP FISIPOL UGM, Kampus FISIPOL UGM Unit II

Jl. Prof. Dr. Sardjito, Sekip, Yogyakarta, 55281,

Phone: 0274-563825

Fax: 0274-589655
Email: igpa@ugm.ac.id