Politics and Public Service in 2020

Professor Anthony B. L. Cheung

Non-Official MemberExecutive Council

Looking Back….. Enthusiasm for PSR Global Public Sector Reform movement

– NPM, Reinvention, Privatization, Public-Private Partnership

Managerial agenda – ‘doing more with less’; efficiency paradigm

Political agenda – re-empowerment of public bureaucracy

Public Sector Reform in 1990s Public Sector Reform was not just a passive

attempt to converge with an Anglo-American-initiated NPM/reinvention movement.

Apart from its managerial initiatives such as budgetary devolution, contracting out, trading funds, and customer-oriented initiatives, PSR was also significant in reconstituting the centre of policy management, and the displacing of public pressure for political accountability by service responsiveness and accountability.

Using managerial reform to address political pitfalls.

Post-1997 Public Sector Reform Hong Kong civil service has suffered both an

efficiency and political crisis.

Government failure blamed on two main culprits: first, the civil service at large; second, the top bureaucrats.

Hence, civil service reform in 1999 and new ministerial system of political appointments in July 2002.

Post-1997 Public Sector Reform

A fundamental shift began to emerge in Hong Kong’s ‘public service bargain’: From bureaucracy-driven to politics-driven?

Reforms backfired - political-bureaucratic disjunction and conflict, and deteriorating civil service morale.

Main Areas of Reform since 1997

Performance Management Reform

Civil Service Reform

Financial Management & Budget Reform: Budget envelope; 3Rs + 1M (Re-

engineering, Re-organization, Re-prioritization, Market-friendly)

Main Areas of Reform since 1997

New System of Executive Accountability: The civil service was expected to change in three directions - Vision delivery Productivity improvement Supporting ministers (Efficiency Unit,

<http://info.gov.hk/eu/english/history/history_mf/history_mf2002.html>, accessed 19 May 2004)

In recent years PSR has lost its glamour ….. Crisis of PSR internationally - Outbreak of

global financial tsunami has shattered faith in Anglo-American capitalism. NPM - rooted in the neoliberal pro-market ideology – faces a legitimacy crisis as many nations, especially developing countries, seek lessons from alternative developmental models.

Entering Post-NPM Era? - “Friedman is out, Keynes is in, and the activist state is back” (Roger Levy, 2010)

In recent years PSR has lost its glamour …..

Limited domestic incentives for PSR – HKSAR Administration is not poised to confronting political and public controversies, especially when civil service serves as backbone to effective government. Hence limited PSR initiatives in recent years?

However, Hong Kong cannot afford standing still…

The world is rapidly changing around us! Internal challenges continue to pose new

problems and issues in public sector management and public service delivery

There is a need for “new thinking” in public service reform – Democratic elections can’t solve all our problems!

There is a need to garner community support for progress and reform – How to foster a pro-reform culture?

Forces driving reform into the future …1. Impact of democratic transition –

2017/2020 timetable, triggering new political configuration and consolidation of party politics and political appointments.

Policymaking and public management environment will become more ‘politicized’ and partisan?

There will be a ‘political cycle’ (as opposed to economic cycle)?

2. Growing domestic politics of responsiveness and representation, coupled with need to sustain economic accumulation and development in an increasingly competitive global environment.

This will lead to both politically-driven agenda for reform, and economically-driven agenda for a development-oriented regime (“new interventionism”?)

‘Small government’ is no longer sustainable?

3. Coming of age of post-1997 generation – with different vision, aspirations and demands about public service from predecessor generations (e.g. in Environmental and Development issues…)

More concern for democracy, social justice, conservation, environmental protection, and quality of life?

More outgoing or more inward-looking?

More ‘conservative’/risk-averse or more daring to change and innovate in policy options?

4. Structural problems: Homogenization of economic structure;

Widening wage/wealth gap

In-employment poverty

M-shape society, deteriorating social mobility despite educational upgrading (education doesn’t pay?)

4. Structural problems: Anti-Business sentiments (in critique of

neoliberalism)

Ageing population, Child poverty, New Migrants

Demands for policy renovation, thinking out of the box, and greater political and policy leadership

5. Expanding economic and social integration with Mainland China – facilitating further exchange of administrative experiences and institutional practices, and immersion into national public administration infrastructure (e.g. participating in national plans, matching mainland policy developments, cross-boundary cooperation and mutual learning)

More embracing or growing isolationism (because of sense of threat or loss of local identity)?

Anticipated consequences on Public Service

Consolidation of bifurcation of political and managerial streams - An above-politics administrative state is not sustainable; role of Civil Service to change further

More elections-driven and ‘populist’ policymaking?

A more pro-intervention developmental regime (as opposed to ‘positive non-interventionism’ in the past) – ‘small government’ not sustainable; more active and regulatory government, but is there government capacity to intervene, capacity to regulate? (mandate, skills, implementation instruments)

Anticipated consequences on Public Service More conflicts over policy ‘values’, e.g.

development vs. conservation – government has to be value-driven and to exercise Moral Leadership; administrative pragmatism alone doesn’t work

Policy learning from the West as well as Mainland China

Reforming and strengthening the Civil Service

1. Preserving professionalism under ministerial system of political appointment

2. New capacity building

1. Preserving professionalism

Serving the ministers well – providing honest policy advice and executing policy decisions, but not always “yes, minister”

Maintaining political impartiality – but impartiality is not an excuse for lack of accountability

1. Preserving professionalism Blowing the whistle where necessary –

ultimately serving the public interest

Enhancing professionalism and policy expertise – Senior civil servants are in no position to turn around the political tide, but they should still develop a proper sense of ownership of public policy development and implementation

2. Managing external environment and stakeholders

Greater sensitivity to politics and external needs and demands – political neutrality is not the same as ignoring politics

Paying more attention to policy implementation and service delivery – be client-friendly and customer-oriented

Advancing with the times ( 與時俱進 ) – advent of post-NPM era?

Post-NPM era: Coming of new ‘interventions’ paradigm?

Pendulum swings back to activist state: bigger government, more interventions and regulations?

2010 CE Policy Address: a clear departure from conventional ‘administrative’ wisdom in Hong Kong

Next Government no longer ‘small government’ ? (HKEJ 信報 , editorial, 11-10-2010: “過去所謂「小政府」的意念，在下一屆特區政府中肯定會煙消雲散的了。” )

3. Managing internal environment

Developing the capacity to manage – managing people, resources and the environment

Managing an increasingly ‘contractualized’ workforce – performance and morale

“Doing more with less”? - Be innovative; doing things differently (Doing the Right Things and Doing Things Right)

As a result, …. New challenges will demand the

transformation of the – role, purpose, structure, management, and outlook

of public service in the decades ahead, in order to have the capacity to cope with the changing environment