Politics and Public Service in
2020
Professor Anthony B. L. Cheung
Non-Official Member
Executive Council
Looking Back….. Enthusiasm for PSR



Global Public Sector Reform movement –
NPM, Reinvention, Privatization, PublicPrivate 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, Reorganization, 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_m
f2002.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 AngloAmerican 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 developmentoriented 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.
2.
Preserving professionalism under
ministerial system of political
appointment
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