Monday, March 17, 2008
Registration for 2008 Conference
This conference will be of interest to scholars and public service professionals working on Asia-Pacific countries. Participation will be limited to 40, so early registration is advised. If there are remaining openings after May 31, a late registration fee will be charged. The draft program is below; more details are available on http://asiagovernance.blogspot.com/ Once registered, we may ask you to volunteer to be a moderator or discussant for one of the sessions.
Conference registration
Please fill in the attached registration form, and email completed registration form to Janie Jones at: IPMNet@aol.com.
Name, title ______________________________________
Affiliation (department, organization)_________________
Postal Address: _________________________________
Preferred e-mail _________________________________
Phone _________________________________________
Fax ___________________________________________
Emergency notification contact ______________________
Emergency notification phone number_________________
The fee will help to cover conference expenses, including conference receptions, lunches and dinners.
Registration Fee US$150 __________________
(before June 1) or
Thai Bhat 4700______________
June 1 and after US$250
or
Thai Bhat 7850_____________
Payment option: check by mail ____________
online (e.g. paypal) __________________
If using the check option for payment, send to the appropriate mailing address:
For US$:
Janie Jones
115 Spray Avenue,
Monterey, CA USA 93940.
For Thai Bhat
Bidhya Bowornwathana
Associate Professor
Department of Public Administration
Faculty of Political Science
Chulalongkorn University
254 Phyathai Road, Patumwan, Bangkok Thailand. 10330
If you indicate on the registration form that you prefer to pay online, you will be contacted with instructions.
Hotel booking
There is a special conference rate for rooms at the conference hotel: 3531 Thai Baht per night single room (3844 double) including breakfast. If you wish to avail of this rate, make your room reservations directly with the hotel, by email to ppbsales6@dusit Attn. Ms. Orawan. This rate is only valid for reservations made before June 6.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Conference 2008 Program
International Public Management Network
The Many Faces of Public Management Reform in Asia-Pacific: Moving Ahead Amidst Challenges and Opportunities in Emerging Markets
Chulalongkon University,
Bangkok, Thailand
7 – 9 July, 2008
(preliminary draft, 29 February, 2008)
Monday, 7 July, 2008
1500 Arrival and check-in (for most participants, the Pathumwan Princess Hotel, 444 Phayathai Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330 Thailand. Tel: +66 (0) 2216-3700, Fax: +66 (0) 2216-3730
E-mail: ppb@dusit.com, rsvnppb@dusit.com
1700-1715 Welcome and Introduction to Workshop
Bidhya Bowornwathana, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University and L.R. Jones, Naval Postgraduate School
1715-1900 Public Management Reform in Asia-Pacific
Presenter: Krishna K. Tummala, Professor & Director, Graduate Program in Public Administration, Kansas State University
Moderator: Clay Wescott, Director, AGPI
Discussants:
1900-2000 Reception (appetizers and drinks available)
2000-2130 Dinner (all meals will be at the xxx restaurant, Pathumwan Princess Hotel, unless otherwise noted)
Tuesday, 8 July, 2008
0800-0900 Breakfast
0900-1300 "Combating corruption"
1. Jon S.T. Quah, Combating Corruption in the Asia-Pacific Countries: What do We Know and What Needs to be Done?
2. David S Jones, Competition and Transparency in Government Procurement in Southeast Asia.
3. Roby Arya Brata, Why did an Anticorruption Policy Fail? A Study of the Implementation Failure of Anticorruption Policies of the Authoritarian New Order Regime and the Transitional Democratic Reform Order Regime of Indonesia, 1971-2007.
4. Bidhya Bowornwathana, The Politics of Combatting Corruption in Thailand.
Moderator
Discussants
1045-1115 Coffee Break
1300-1400 Lunch
1400-1700 "Managing Performance-1"
1. Soonhee Kim, After the Asian Financial Crisis: Government Performance, Democratic Governance, and Trust in Government in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand.
2. Larry Cooley and Emil Bolongaita, Transforming Institutions for Greater Effectiveness and Results.
3. Suchitra Punyarathabandhu and Danny Unger, Managing Performance in a Context of Political Clientelism: Thailand.
Moderator
Discussants
1515-1545 Coffee Break
1700-1800 International Public Management Journal and Review editorial board meeting (for editorial board members). Convener: Larry Jones
1800-2100 Conference dinner (off-site, TBD)
Wednesday, 9 July, 2008
0800-0900 Breakfast
0900-1200 "Managing Performance-2"
1. Robert Taliercio, Cambodia's Public Financial Management Reforms, 2004-2007: Explaining a Case of 'Turnaround.
2. Richard Norman and Tom Bentley, At the centre or in control? Central agencies in search of new identities.
Moderator
Discussants
1015-1045 Coffee Break
1200-1300 Lunch
1300-1600 Decentralization
1. David Craig and Doug Porter, Decentralisation, new institutional reforms, and the public good: Cambodian experiences; and Eng Netra, Decentralisation And Accountability In Cambodia (authors will collaborate on a joint paper).
2. Geoff Dixon and Danya Hakim, Budget Decentralisation Experience in Indonesia.
3. Charas Suwanmala, Fiscal Decentralization in Thailand.
1445-1515 Coffee Break
1600-1630 Concluding Remarks
Clay Wescott
Bidhya Bowornwathana
1730-1830 Pre-dinner appetizers and drinks
1830-2000 Conference dinner
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bangkok Abstracts
ASIA-PACIFIC GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT NETWORK
BANGKOK CONFERENCE
July 7-9, 2008
Chulalongkorn University
The Many Faces of Public Management Reform in Asia-Pacific: Moving Ahead Amidst Challenges and Opportunities in Emerging Markets
Abstracts for papers to be presented:
"Managing Performance"
1. Soonhee Kim, After the Asian Financial Crisis: Government Performance, Democratic Governance, and Trust in Government in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand.
In order to resolve the challenges of globalization, economic development, and citizen participation to strengthen democratic governance, government needs close collaboration with citizens and the private sector. It is, therefore, increasingly important to research citizens' perceptions of democratic governance, government performance, citizen empowerment, and trust in government. Since the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, special attention has been paid to public management reforms and democratic governance in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. The purpose of this study is to analyze how citizens' satisfaction with democratic governance values and perceived government performance affects public trust in national and local governments in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. The study analyzes how citizen satisfaction with democratic governance values, including freedom of association, freedom of speech, the right to be informed about government, and the right to criticize the government, affects trust in government. This study also analyzes the relationship between government performance on specific public concerns including corruption, economic development, quality of government service, human rights, unemployment, crime, and environment protection, and public trust in national and local governments in these countries. The study contributes to the field of public administration by testing the impact of empowered citizenship, interpersonal trust, external social networks, and individual demographic variables on trust in government. The analysis is based on the Asia Barometer Survey data of 2003 and 2004 in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand. The survey targeted all adults aged 20-59 in several cities each country, and a multi-stage-stratified random sampling method was applied.
2. Larry Cooley and Emil Bolongaita, Transforming Institutions for Greater Effectiveness and Results.
During the past decade, multilateral and bilateral funding for governance reforms has risen sharply, with mixed results. While in some cases progress has been considerable, in other cases the quality of country governance has not only stagnated but deteriorated. There have been a variety of explanations used to account for these diverse outcomes. This paper seeks to bring an operational perspective to bear by tackling the following questions: Where, when, and how have development projects been effective in helping public sector partners produce desired results?; How can development managers shape and sequence their initiatives to increase the likelihood of successful implementation and successful outcomes?; What is the role of incentives, strategy, and leadership? This paper addresses these questions based on a review of experience from several international development projects carried out by Management Systems International (MSI) including the 10-year, 40-country, Implementing Policy Change Project; the ongoing National Capacity Development Project supporting civil service reform and improved public administration in 11 Ministries in Iraq; a 4-country study of Ministerial effectiveness in Asia and the Near East; and Anti-Corruption programs in Russia, Ukraine and the Philippines. The conclusions of the paper are organized and assessed relative to the findings in the literature on public management and international development.
3. Robert Taliercio, Cambodia's Public Financial Management Reforms, 2004-2007: Explaining a Case of 'Turnaround.
Over the past three years the Royal Government of Cambodia has successfully and consistently been implementing its Public Financial Management Reform Program (PFMRP), which has focused on improving the credibility of the budget while reducing fiduciary risk. This outcome is surprising not only because of the well known difficulties of implementing ambitious PFM reforms in low income, post-conflict countries, but also because most other reform programs in Cambodia have either failed or stalled, including an earlier effort at PFM reform (2001-2004). The paper develops a case study of the PFMRP (using the methodology in Barzelay et al., 2003) and argues that the success of the PFMRP is due to the way in which it was developed. The hypothesis probed is that the public management processes and techniques that led to the development of the PFMRP are the same ones that explain its successful implementation. These include: a joint government-donor analytical process to define the problem and build consensus, an agreed reform vision and action plan, a pilot civil service reform in the Ministry of Finance to address capacity constraints, and formal coordination mechanisms for government and donors. The paper disputes the dominant hypothesis that the change was related to 'political will,' instead focusing on how public management solved the problem. The conclusion offers lesons on designing reform programs (in terms of public management processes and strategies) that may be applicable to other countries.
4. Richard Norman and Tom Bentley, At the centre or in control? Central agencies in search of new identities.
The central agencies of government play a major role in defining and monitoring performance through strategic planning, budgeting and human resources routines. Results-oriented reforms during the past twenty years have created new challenges and an identity crisis for central agencies as they have delegated functions to line agencies, while also being expected to evaluate and influence service delivery, and coordinate major cross-government projects.
This research focuses on responses by senior managers and focus groups of analysts in more than twenty central agencies in
What are your major strategic challenges? What new capabilities are required to meet those challenges? How are other organisations involved in responding to the strategic challenges? What would you find most useful to learn about practices in other jurisdictions?
References
Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture – Cameron, K. S & Quinn, R. E.
Additional paper to be distributed to participants:
Arwiphawee Srithongrung, Does Results-Oriented Management Make any Differences? : A Practical Perspective from Thai Budgeting Reforms
In theory, the results-oriented budget links budget decisions-making process with macro and micro policies including the country’s policy priorities and department objectives, and at the same time, it is meant to enhance departments’ operating efficiency through performance measurement (Kettl, 1996). This institutional reform is expected to enhance fiscal discipline, strategic resources allocation, macro-policy goal achievement, and agencies’ accountability (Compos & Pradhan, 1997). In practices, the existing literature indicates that output and outcome measurements are not free from technical problems including selecting the right indicators and establishing valid and reliable measurement systems (Willoughby & Melkers, 2001). Furthermore, the answers to the question, is performance data useful in decision making process? and are the data enhance government transparency? remain unclear.
"Decentralization"
1. David Craig and Doug Porter, Decentralisation, new institutional reforms, and the public good: Cambodian experiences; and Eng Netra, Decentralisation And Accountability In Cambodia (authors will collaborate on a joint paper).
Combining two papers: (a)-- Since the mid-1990s, development policy has converged around what may be called the ‘good governance approach to poverty reduction’. This policy convergence intended to achieve both immediate and longer term transformational results. In the short term, institutional reforms would merit increased aid for services and infrastructure for the poor. There would be less waste and corruption, better targeting, and more security for the poor. The approach also carried a longer term, transformational agenda: building a capable, responsive state. Reformed institutions would create more certainty for markets, bring sustained growth, and opportunities for the poor. By re-scaling governance through decentralisation, more responsive relations between citizens and the state should arise. Around this consensus, donors saw prospects to harmonise aid delivery, and align with nationally owned strategies.
Reflecting on Cambodian experience, this paper explores how good governance (or what, referring to a wider literature, we call ‘new institutional’) reforms have had uneven impacts: short and long term reform goals have proven contradictory, and the mix of donor led reforms and entrenched local practices has produced hybrid institutional outcomes which render ongoing reform uncertain. Government is left divided between fragmented islands of strong and transparent donor funded programs delivering local development and Millennium Development Goal outcomes, and a public sector mainstream is still dominated by rent seeking, underperforming on development, and focussed on territorial security and regime stability. Decentralised territorial planning, budgeting and management of development resources, even when backed by laws and support for institution building, have struggled with these difficulties. In
(b) The goal of decentralisation and deconcentration is to bring government closer to the people, so that they can be responsive to the needs of the poor. This D&D aims to achieve by providing and supporting sub-national governments with adequate resources, and, in particular, with good and capable civil servants who are accountable at subnational level, motivated and committed, loyal and professional, and responsive toward service-delivery for the poor. Achieving both accountability and better outcomes for the poor in
The study’s findings suggest that although organized around modern-day rational bureaucracy structures, accountability within
- entrenched and harmful public service centralization, especially around key employer functions such as recruitment, appointments, and performance monitoring;
- politicisation of civil servants, non- meritocratic recruitment and complex accountabilities created by overriding patronage interests;
- the debilitating effects of low pay;
- and the further complexity and accountability fragmentation created by the use of salary supplements by NGOs and vertical donor programmes.
2. Geoff Dixon and Danya Hakim, Budget Decentralisation Experience in Indonesia.
In 1999 Indonesia undertook a far reaching devolution of budgeting functions from national to district level. Local budgets are now approved by local legislatures. Further, the Government has publicly committed to these budgets being prepared on performance budgeting principles and in a medium term expenditure framework by 2009.
This radical devolution has been in place for some eight years. The proposed conference paper reviews progress in implementing performance budgeting and the MTEF at the district level, the main impediments to sound district budgeting, possible solutions to these impediments and lessons for other countries contemplating a radical budget decentralisation. The information is based on the experience of the authors as consultants to the Ministry of Home Affairs on the integration of district planning and budgeting.
Some key lessons to be covered include
Historically separate bureaucratic structures for planning and budgeting at the national level have been slow to adapt to the challenge of creating an integrated planning and budgeting system at the district ‘coal face’.
Lack of certainty about the three year resource envelope for a district relying on national level grants affects its ability to prepare a meaningful MTEF.
The migration path from detailed input based budgeting to preparing a district budget in a more results related medium term expenditure framework has yet to be laid out in national regulations for district planning and budgeting, due to the challenge at the national level of coming to grips with detailed options for district budget preparation.
The case for uniform budget preparation software to be used by both local spending agencies in presenting their budget requests and local budget committees in preparing the district budget, both to structure the budget process and improve its transparency.
"Combating corruption"
1. Jon S.T. Quah, Combating Corruption in the Asia-Pacific Countries: What do We Know and What Needs to be Done?
Corruption is a serious problem in the Asia-Pacific, judging from the rankings and scores of the 26 Asia-Pacific countries included in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index of 2006. The governments in these countries have initiated various anti-corruption measures since the 1950s but, with few exceptions, have not been effective in curbing corruption. In 1968, the Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, had attributed the lack of research on corruption in South Asian countries to the existing research taboo on corruption.
2. David S Jones, Competition and Transparency in Government Procurement in Southeast Asia.
Government procurement of goods, services and civic works is a significant sector of the economy in most developing countries and may comprise up to 50% of pubic expenditure. It is an important dimension of governance, given its impact on the standards of government administration and public services. However, government procurement in many Southeast Asian states has been marked by significant failings, amongst which are the limitations imposed on both international and domestic competition and insufficient transparency of procurement rules, opportunities, and outcomes. Both the curtailment of competition and the lack of transparency are reflected in the legal and administrative framework governing procurement and also in the everyday purchasing and contracting practices which government procurement entities follow.
3. Roby Arya Brata, Why did an Anticorruption Policy Fail? A Study of the Implementation Failure of Anticorruption Policies of the Authoritarian New Order Regime and the Transitional Democratic Reform Order Regime of Indonesia, 1971-2007.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Bangkok Conference
BANGKOK CONFERENCE
July 7-9, 2008
Chulalongkorn University
The Many Faces of Public Management Reform in Asia-Pacific: Moving Ahead Amidst Challenges and Opportunities in Emerging Markets
The theme of this conference will be understanding the diverse approaches to public management reform in Asian countries. During the past decade, globalization and democratization have been the major forces that helped transform the structures, functions, and processes of Asian public sectors. Nevertheless, these transformation efforts of Asian countries vary considerably depending on local context, and have met with different degrees of success. Some countries experienced smooth transformations. For others, the reform process has been more volatile. Across the range of cases, public administrators themselves are being transformed in terms of skills and talents, values, and
responsiveness to stakeholder demands.
Within this broad theme, there will be three specific topics:
1. COMBATING CORRUPTION. The effort to combat corruption has moved to the center of the debate about good governance, economic growth and poverty reduction in the region. Among the reasons are increased temptations from large flows of foreign investment and aid, greater scrutiny from aid donors, and concerns related to the 1997 East Asian financial crisis. Citizens in the region have served notice that they are no longer willing to tolerate abuses of the public trust for private gain. The liberalization of the press has enabled journalists to write more freely about official indiscretions. Improvements in education and increased information flow between countries have made their public more aware of anticorruption efforts in other countries and less willing to tolerate systematic abuses at home. The rise of new global citizen sector organizations dedicated to fighting corruption has helped to bring and keep the issue in the spotlight.
2. MANAGING PERFORMANCE. Many countries in the region have chosen to follow patterns that have emerged in developed countries over the last several decades in establishing results and performance-oriented monitoring frameworks that measure and report on progress against strategic plans, budgets and sector strategies. This results orientation builds on participatory approaches to strengthen and take advantage of citizen and other stakeholder perspectives on how to improve public services. Under a results-oriented approach initiatives are taken to track a manageable set of indicators, and to provide accurate, timely and transparent information on which to base comprehensive reports to all stakeholders.
3. DECENTRALIZATION. Some regional governments are moving away from central controls, and assigning greater independence of action to lower levels of authority. Deconcentration involves central agencies assigning certain functions and responsibilities to subordinate government or branch offices. Delegation takes place when authority for defined tasks is transferred from one public agency to another agency or service provider that is accountable to the former, but not wholly controlled by it. Devolution takes place when authority for defined tasks is transferred from a public agency to autonomous, subordinate-level units that may be holding corporate status, granted, for example, under legislation. Fiscal decentralization is one form of such practices: granting taxing and spending powers to local or regional governments. This and other forms can lead to a broadening of institutions producing and providing needed goods and services to the public at more efficient cost, wherever they are located and whether they are public, quasi-public or private. Indeed, decentralization often manifests itself in a plurality of agencies, public and private, operating at different scales of jurisdiction providing overlapping services.
With just nine invited speakers, we hope that the major part of each session will involve in-depth discussion in which all attendees are invited to participate. Papers will be circulated in advance to all registered participants. Two discussants will be invited to present observations on each paper. The conference will build on deliberations at other international events such as the 21st General Assembly and Conference of the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration in Teheran in November, the December workshop of the Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance in Manila, and the Seventh Asian Forum for Public Management in Tokyo in January.
THE VENUE OF THE MEETING:
Pathumwan Princess Hotel
444 Phayathai Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330 Thailand.
Tel: +66 (0) 2216-3700, Fax: +66 (0) 2216-3730
E-mail: ppb@dusit.com, rsvnppb@dusit.com
PAPERS TO BE PRESENTED
27 abstracts were submitted in response to the call. Nine papers have been selected, and authors are asked to submit completed papers by 23 June, 2008 to cwescott@post.harvard.edu.
REGISTRATION AND ACCOMMODATION
We estimate that the registration fee will be US$ 150, covering the conference and all meals. Registered participants will also be offered a special rate at the conference hotel.
PROGRAM
"Managing Performance"
1. Soonhee Kim, After the Asian Financial Crisis: Government Performance, Democratic Governance, and Trust in Government in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand.
2. Larry Cooley and Emil Bolongaita, Transforming Institutions for Greater Effectiveness and Results.
3. Robert Taliercio, Cambodia's Public Financial Management Reforms, 2004-2007: Explaining a Case of 'Turnaround.
"Decentralization"
1. Richard Norman and Tom Bentley, At the centre or in control? Central agencies in search of new identities.
2. David Craig and Doug Porter, Decentralisation, new institutional reforms, and the public good: Cambodian experiences; and Eng Netra, Decentralisation And Accountability In Cambodia (authors will collaborate on a joint paper).
3. Geoff Dixon and Danya Hakim, Budget Decentralisation Experience in Indonesia.
"Combating corruption"
1. Jon S.T. Quah, Combating Corruption in the Asia-Pacific Countries: What do We Know and What Needs to be Done?
2. David S Jones, Competition and Transparency in Government Procurement in Southeast Asia.
3. Roby Arya Brata, Why did an Anticorruption Policy Fail? A Study of the Implementation Failure of Anticorruption Policies of the Authoritarian New Order Regime and the Transitional Democratic Reform Order Regime of Indonesia, 1971-2007.
CONTACTS, ASIA PACIFIC GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE
Clay G. Wescott, Director
Asia Pacific Governance Institute
Skype cwescott
Website: http://www.asiagovernance.org
Email: cwescott@post.harvard.edu
Lawrence R. Jones
George F. A. Wagner Professor of Public Management
Graduate School of Business and Public Policy
Naval Graduate University and
President, International Public Management Network
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
Fax (831) 656-3407
Email: dukedmb@aol.com
ADVISORY BOARD
Michael Barzelay, Professor of Public Management
Department of Management
London School of Economics
London, UK
Website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/people/Barzelay/Default.htm
Email: m.barzelay@lse.ac.uk
Bidhya Bowornwathana, Associate Professor
Department of Public Administration
Faculty of Political Science
Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand.
Email: bidhya.b@chula.ac.th
Alex Bello. Brillantes, Jr., Dean and Professor
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University
of the Philippines, Secretary-General of the Association of Schools of
Public Administration of the Philippines, and Deputy Secretary General
of the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA)
Emails: abrillantes2001@yahoo.com; abbrillantes@up.edu.ph,
abbrillantesw@gmail.com
Anthony B L Cheung, Professor
Department of Public & Social Administration
City University of Hong Kong
Kowloon, Hong Kong
Website: http://www.cityu.edu.hk/sa/staff/academic/staff_files/SABLTONY.htm
Email: SABLTONY@cityu.edu.hk
Jon Quah, Professor of Political Science (retired)
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Email: jonstquah@gmail.com
Website: http://www.jonstquah.com
Kuno Schedler, Professor
University of St. Gallen
St. Gallen, Switzerland
Website: http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/persons/person/S/Kuno_Schedler/L-en
Email: kuno.schedler@unisg.ch
Jiannan Wu, Ph.D.
Professor and Associate Dean
School of Public Policy and Administration
Xi'an Jiaotong University
Xi'an, Shaanxi 710049, China
Email: jnw@mail.xjtu.edu.cn