Search

In line with the emerging market-driven neoliberal formation of the state, diminishing direct role of public governance, and increasing involvement of semi-state and non-state actors, there has been an unprecedented proliferation of reform initiatives to decentralize state power to local government organizations. While the proponents of decentralized local governance highlight its positive outcomes such as people's participation, need-based service delivery, public access and accountability, and political education, many critics draw attention to its adverse consequences like inter-regional disparity, unequal benefits to local elites, challenge to national unity, and local corruption and cronyism. However, the current discourse based on a universalist one-size-fits-all approach largely overlooks its contextual determinants such as the past legacy of centralization, configuration of local power structure, bureaucratic elitism, and so on. In exploring such concerns, this article focuses on the case of Thailand in order to examine how the country's past tradition of centralization, atmosphere of bureaucratic polity, and local political elitism may have significant implications for its massive decentralization initiatives and local government reforms undertaken since the early 1990s.

In Southeast Asia, it is possible to discern three distinct models of public administration at various stages of its evolution, including the colonial-bureaucratic, the postcolonial-developmental, and the current 'new public management' models. These models originated mostly in western nations, and were subsequently borrowed by (or imposed on) various countries in the region. However, there were considerable gaps between these ideal-type administrative models and the actual administrative practices in Southeast Asia. There also emerged major variations among countries in the region in terms of the extent to which they conform to the original models due to their differences in colonial backgrounds and national contexts. These issues and concerns are critically examined in this article. It concludes by making some critical assessment of the major trends of public administration in the region. Keywords: bureaucratic model, development administration, new public management, Southeast Asia, administrative theory DOI: 10.1080/01900690701229434

In most multiethnic developing societies, the state attempts to play a crucial role in managing ethnic tensions and reconciling diverse ethnic interests by undertaking relevant policies and programs. Malaysia is a classic case where there is a coexistence of some major ethnic groups with distinct identities and where the state has used wide-ranging preferential policies to manage ethnic problems. In fact, the formation of the state itself is largely founded upon ethnic politics and characterized as an 'ethnocratic state' or 'ethnic democracy.' This article examines the origin and rationale of ethnic preferences, major domains of ethnic contestation and state intervention, critical impacts of such ethnic preferential policies, and possibilities to replace such preferential policies by alternative policy measures in Malaysia. Keywords: Malaysia; state; ethnicity; politics; critique

In line with the global trend of 'reinventing governance' based on market-driven policies and structures, South Asian countries have adopted some major reforms in governance during the recent two decades. While this market-led shift in governance is largely intended to enhance its performance in terms of greater efficiency and quality, there is a tendency to overlook its implications for the rights and entitlements of citizens in these countries. The article examines the basic tenets or features of this transition in governance, encompassing the replacement of public sector by private sector and the transformation of public management based on business principles. The main objective, however, is to examine the critical impacts of this new mode of governance on the political and social rights of citizens in South Asia. The article concludes by stressing the need for paying adequate attention to citizenship rights in pursuing such reforms in governance. Key Words: Governance; Performance; Reform; Citizenship; South Asia.