484831
research-article2013
ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X13484831<italic>Review of Public Personnel Administration</italic>Moon and Hwang
Article
The State of Civil Service
Systems in the Asia-Pacific
Region: A Comparative
Perspective
Review of Public Personnel Administration
XX(X) 1­–19
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X13484831
rop.sagepub.com
M. Jae Moon and Changho Hwang
Abstract
Despite increasing interest in Asian public administration, understanding of Asian
civil service systems is limited. This study compares civil service systems in 14 AsiaPacific countries, focusing on their size, legal frameworks, supervising agencies, and
recruitment. The countries fall into four categories: Western countries (Australia,
New Zealand, and the United States), Asian industrialized countries (Japan, Korea,
Singapore, and Taiwan), Southeast Asian developing countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Thailand), and socialist transitional countries (Cambodia, China, and
Vietnam). The study shows that the size of the civil service is much greater in Western
countries and smaller in Asian industrialized countries. Some civil service reform
initiatives, such as performance management, are commonly found across countries
in all groups, which indicates the global diffusion of those initiatives. New initiatives
for recruitment reform, ethics and transparency, and compensation reform are found
mostly in Southeast Asian developing countries and socialist transitional countries.
Keywords
civil service system, Asia-Pacific region, comparative study
Introduction
Despite increasing interest in Asia, understanding of Asian public administration is
still very limited. Particularly, there is a dearth of basic comparative understanding of
civil service systems and recent civil service reforms in the Asia-Pacific region,
Yonsei University, USA
Corresponding Author:
M. Jae Moon, 134 Shinchon-dong Seodaemon-gu Seoul, 120-749, Republic of Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
2
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
although there have been a few efforts in this regard (Berman, 2010; Burn &
Bowornwathana, 2001; Cheung, 2005; Haque, 2001; Kim, 2010; Turner, 2002). It is
important to understand civil service systems in the Asia-Pacific region because the
role of government in socioeconomic development in the region is increasingly significant (Burn & Bowornwathana, 2001). The civil service system is considered the
core of public administration and a critical determining factor in its quality (Bekke,
Perry, & Toonen, 1996).
This article examines the status of civil service systems in the Asia-Pacific region
and explores their differences and similarities. It also delves into the civil service
reforms that are often implemented as part of administrative changes promoting a better, more effective, and more accountable government. The study compares the civil
service systems of 14 Asian and Pacific countries representing four groups: Western
countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the United States), Asian industrialized countries (Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan), Southeast Asian developing countries
(Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand), and socialist transitional countries (Cambodia, China, and Vietnam). This categorization is based on Cheung’s
(2005) comparative study of administrative reform, which divided Asian countries
into four clusters: Japan and East Asian Newly Industrialized Countries, Southeast
Asian developing countries, socialist transition states, and subcontinent states.
Based on analysis of public documents and secondary information on the civil service systems of the selected countries, we examine critical structural (size), institutional (legal frameworks and supervising agencies), and managerial (recruitment and
classification) features of civil service systems. The size of a civil service is a core
structural aspect in small-government debates, particularly in the New Public
Management literature. Civil service–related laws and the form of government organizations that administer civil service systems are important institutional factors. There
are also human resource management–related procedural features of civil service systems, such as recruitment, selection, performance management, compensation, career
development, professionalism, retirement, ethics, and culture.1
We also compare the nature and main areas of key civil service reforms in the
selected countries. More often than not, civil service reform is introduced as the locus
of administrative reform, considered a symbolic gesture toward a changing bureaucracy. In addition to the comparison of civil service systems and reforms in the region,
this study offers a comparison of differences and similarities not only within the AsiaPacific region but also within subcategories of nations. This contributes to the Asian
civil service system literature, which is often focused on single case studies or limitedly cross-country studies.2
Size of Civil Service
The size and quality of the civil service are considered key elements by those interested in national governance and public service because civil service systems are
deemed essential. The New Public Management movement raised a critical question
(in regard to the size of government) because it emphasized efficiency and often
called for downsizing. The size of the civil service in many Asia-Pacific countries is
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
3
relatively small compared to those in Western countries. The proportion of the population employed in general government jobs (central government and subnational
government employment, including the armed forces, public health, and education) is
about 4.2% in Asia, compared to 7.7%, 5.3%, and 4.6%, respectively, in Europe, the
Western Hemisphere, and the Middle East and Central Asia (Table 1). The proportion
of the population working in the public sector (general government employment plus
employment in state-owned enterprises) in Asian countries is 4.4%, compared to
10.5% in European countries. Although the statistics are somewhat problematic in
terms of the number of countries included and possible differences in the scope of
public employment in different countries (Clements, Gupta, & Karpowicz, 2010),
they suggest that the size of the government and public employment is smaller in
Asian countries than in other parts of the world (except Africa, where civil service
systems are still underdeveloped).
In addition, Asian and Pacific countries are especially centralized, having more
central government employment than local government employment. The proportion
of central government employment in the region (2.7% of population) is almost twice
that of subnational government employment (1.4%); in contrast, other regions (except
Africa) have more local government officials than central government officials.
The size of the civil service (excluding teachers) in Asian and Pacific countries is
still small (Table 2).3 In the three Western countries—Australia, New Zealand, and the
United States—the proportion of central and local civil servants to the total population
is larger (5.0%, 5.5%, and 6.9%, respectively) than in other countries in the region.
Compared to the three Western countries, the four Asian industrialized countries
(Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) and Southeast Asian developing countries have
smaller civil service systems. There is a big variation in civil service size among
socialist transition countries, as shown in the comparison of China (2.95%) and
Cambodia (0.52%). Malaysia, China, Malaysia, and Thailand have ratios of 4.1%,
2.95%, and 2.11%, respectively. Singapore (0.9%), Indonesia (0.97%), the Philippines
(1.08%), and Korea (1.2%) maintain relatively small civil service systems; in addition,
Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan have 1.9%, 1.48%, and 1.3%, respectively.
The distribution of civil servants between the central and local governments also
varies among countries. Although local government officials outnumber central government officials in the United States and Australia, New Zealand has many more
central government officials (5.0%) than local government officials (0.5%). Asian
industrialized countries such as Japan and Korea have more local officials than central
government officials, whereas Taiwan has more central government officials.
Singapore has only central government officials because it is a city-state. The socialist
transition countries (Cambodia, China, and Vietnam) also have more local civil servants than central government public workers. In particular, China has 16 times more
local officials than central government officials. In contrast, Asian and Pacific developing countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand have more central government officials than local government officials.
We compared the average government wage to per capita gross domestic product
(GDP; which is one of the compensation measures used for cross-country comparison
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
4
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
3.9
4.4
10.5
6.8
6.3
10.0
4.0
6.8
9.2
12
22
41
26
14
27
15
56
44
Public
sector
7.9
5.3
7.9
1.1
4.6
3.8
4.2
7.7
5.3
General
government
3.6
2.4
3.4
0.4
2.7
1.9
2.7
3.6
1.4
Central
government
4.7
2.7
4.7
0.9
5.2
1.3
1.4
4.5
2.6
Subnational
government
2.1
2.1
2.6
0.8
2.0
1.0
1.1
2.4
1.8
Education
2.4
1.1
2.3
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.7
2.5
0.8
Health
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.4
Armed
forces
0.8
3.7
2.8
8.1
3.6
1.5
0.6
3.6
4.1
Stateowned
enterprises
Source: Clements, Gupta, and Karpowicz (2010); Evaluation Government Employment and Compensation, International Monetary Fund, p. 12 and p. 13.
Africa
Asia-Pacific region
Europe
Western
Hemisphere
Middle East and
Central Asia
European Union
Low-income
countries
Middle-income
countries
High-income
countries
Sample
size
Table 1. Public Sector Employment (Percentage of Population).
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
Ratio of average public
administration wage
to per capita gross
domestic product
5
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Vietnam
China
Cambodia
Thailand
Philippines
Malaysia
Indonesia
Taiwan
Singapore
Korea
Japan
United States
New Zealand
Australia
171,000
2.1%
191,000
5.0%
2,634,000
1.0%
894,000
0.7%
204,000
0.4%
36,000
0.9%
160,761
0.7%
1,539,000
0.74%
1,030,581
3.5%
417,500
0.57%
711,000
1.24%
26,600
0.23%
2,000,000
0.15%
201,000
0.23%
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number (2011)
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Central
government officials
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
CS/population
Number
Country
Note: CS/population = proportion of civil servants in the population.
Socialist transitional
countries
Southeast Asian
developing countries
Asian industrialized
countries
Western countries
Group
Table 2. Civil Service Size.
0.29%
31,000,000
2.8%
1,077,000
1.25%
0.23%
181,287
0.6%
368,000
0.51%
499,000
0.87%
33,800
1.2%
356,000
0.8%
0
0.0%
137,345
0.6%
473.700
233,000
2.9%
20,000
0.5%
15,812,000
5.9%
1,548,000
Local government
officials
0.68%
11,100,000
0.9%
741,000
0.86%
0.86%
—
—
526,000
0.74%
343,000
0.59%
78.100
1.0%
265,000
0.6%
21,000
0.5%
25,494
0.1%
1,772,000
218,000
2.7%
—
—
9,011,000
3.3%
1,298,000
Teaching
0.16%
2,929,000
0.2%
168,000
0.19%
0.09%
—
—
27,000
0.04%
81,000
0.14%
18,300
0.2%
93,000
0.2%
9,000
0.2%
19,723
0.08%
193,500
298,000
3.7%
—
—
1,256,000
0.5%
278,000
Health
1.2
N/A
2.8
3.7
4.7
1.1
2.7
2.9
1.33
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
—
Ratio of government wage to per
capita gross domestic product
6
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
by the World Bank) to examine the degree of monetary compensation for civil servants. The measurement offers a picture of civil servant living standards in a particular
country, although it does not take into account in-kind or fringe benefits provided to
civil servants. In terms of this ratio, the three Western countries, Australia (1.3), New
Zealand (1.4), and the United States (1.4), as well as socialist transition countries
Cambodia (1.1) and China (1.2), provide lower relative wages to civil servants than
Asian industrialized countries such as Korea (2.7) and Singapore (2.9). There is a high
variation in the ratios of average government wage to per capita GDP among the
developing countries of the region. For example, the ratio is 4.7 for Thailand, 2.8 for
Malaysia, and 1.0 for Indonesia.
Recent International Monetary Fund statistics on government employee compensation (Clements et al., 2010) suggest that the compensation variation in different regions
is surprisingly small when all public employment (including in state-owned enterprises, the armed forces, and the central and subnational civil service) are considered.
Statistics indicate that the ratio of average public-sector wages in Asian and Pacific
countries (including for public administration, defense, and compulsory social security) to per capita GDP is 1.4, which is similar to those of Africa (1.3), Europe (1.4),
the Middle East and Central Asia (1.4), and the European Union (1.3). This suggests
that the average relative wage of public employees is converging across regions,
though the variation among countries within the same region is still substantial.4
Institutional and Legal Bases for Civil Service Systems
The management and function of civil service systems are based on specific legal
frameworks. The laws often define the scope, roles, and responsibilities of the civil
service. It is also common that a specific agency is assigned to manage a civil service
system. These agencies often supervise a wide array of activities from recruitment to
retirement. This section surveys the legal bases for civil service systems in the countries under study, and the agencies that manage and supervise them.
The two types of public organizations that manage and supervise civil service systems are executive agencies (either cabinet or subcabinet level) and independent agencies (such as commissions or boards). Among executive agencies, the Korean Ministry
of Public Administration and Security and Taiwan’s Ministry of Civil Service are
cabinet-level organizations, while the Japanese National Personnel Authority and the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management are not.
While many countries have three branches of government—executive, judiciary,
and legislative—Taiwan has five, called yuan: the Legislative, Executive, Judicial,
Examination, and Control Yuans. (Su, 2010). Taiwan’s Ministry of Civil Service is
under the Examination Yuan, as are the Ministry of Examination, Civil Service
Protection and Training Commission, and Supervisory Board of the Public Service
Pension Fund. There is also an agency called the Central Personnel Administration in
the Executive Yuan, whose functions partially overlap with those of the Ministry of
Civil Service in the Examination Yuan. This “dual track” system often becomes a
source of confusion and problems (Su, 2010).
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
7
Countries sometimes switch types of agencies due to the reorganization of public
agencies. For example, the Korean government established the Civil Service
Commission in 1999 as an independent commission, but its role has now been absorbed
by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security.
There appear to be few common aspects within each country group in terms of
forms of government institutions that administer civil service systems. Many Asian
and Pacific countries have adopted independent commission-type agencies for civil
service management, such as the Australian Public Service Commission and the
Philippine Civil Service Commission. Malaysia has the Department of Public Service,
a traditional executive agency in charge of civil servants, as well as various independent commissions to ensure the political neutrality of the civil service, such as the
Judicial and Legal Service Commission, Public Service Commission, Public
Commission, Education Service Commission, Armed Forces Council, and state-level
Public Service Commissions.
Many countries have also established legal frameworks for civil service systems.
In fact, a series of laws are often added to the initial basic legal framework for civil
service systems in the course of establishing and developing civil service systems.
New laws are often introduced when major civil service reforms are initiated. In
Japan, for example, the National Public Service Law was enacted in 1947 as Act No.
120 which was the initial legal framework for Japanese civil service system (Division
for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, 2006b). The law continues to provide a basic framework for the
Japanese civil service system with revisions (Act No. 50 of 2006). The law stipulates
central personnel administrative agencies, standards for government positions (general rules, position classification, examinations, appointment and dismissal, remuneration, employment status, and disciplinary action).
Some countries, particularly the socialist transitional countries, did not have a
formal legal framework for the civil service until recently because of the dominance of the Communist Party. For example, it was not until 1993 that Vietnam
established a basic legal framework for civil service systems with the enactment of
Ordinance 25/CP along with a series of decisions made by the Government
Committee for Organization and Personnel. Cambodia enacted a basic legal framework for its civil service system in 1997. With the establishment of the 2005 Civil
Service Law, China broadly defined the scope of the civil service to include public
officials of “all branches of government and the Party-mass organization” (Jing &
Zhu, 2012, p.6).
In the United States, the Pendleton Act of 1883 established the basis for a meritbased civil system, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 introduced a senior civil
service system and emphasized performance and compensation. The Public Service
Act 147 of 1999 provides a key legal framework for Australia, and the State Sector
Amendment Act (No. 2) of 2004 and the Crown Entities Act of 2004 do the same for
New Zealand. Table 3 summarizes the legal frameworks and major agencies in charge
of the civil service systems for the countries under study.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
8
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
Table 3. Legal Frameworks for and Agencies in Charge of Civil Service Systems.
Group
Country
Legal framework
Western
countries
Australia
Public Service Act 147 of 1999
New Zealand
Asian
industrialized
countries
Japan
State Sector Amendment Act
(No 2) of 2004
Crown Entities Act 2004
Pendleton Civil Service Act
of 1883
Classification Act of 1923
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
Others
National Public Service Law
Korea
Public Service Law
Singapore
Part IX of the Constitution
(Articles 102-119)
Public Service Commission
Act (Chapter 259), originally
enacted in 1956 and revised in
1970, 1985, and 1994
Civil Service Act
Civil Service Employment Act
Civil Service Examination Act
United States
Taiwan
Southeast Asian
developing
countries
Indonesia
Malaysia
Law No. 8 of 1974 and its
revision, Law No. 43 of 1999
(currently being revised)
Federal Constitution, Article 132
General Orders, Chapter A
Appointments and Promotions
of 1973
Philippines
Thailand
Socialist
transitional
countries
Cambodia
Public Law No. 5
Organization of State
Administration Act
Government Organization Act
Civil Service Act of 1928,
revised 1992
Civil Service Act of 2008
RKM-0196-024 of 1998, Subdecree (Anukret) 19
ANK-BK of 1997
China
Civil Service Law of 2005
Vietnam
Law on Civil Servants of 2008
Law on Public Service Employees
of 2009
Agencies in charge
Public Service Commission (independent
agency)
State Services Commission (independent
agency)
Office of Personnel Management
National Personnel Authority (independent
agency)
Civil Service Commission (independent
agency), 1999 and before
Ministry of Public Administration and
Security (executive agency), since 2007
Civil Service Commission
Public Service Division of the Prime
Minister’s Office (formulates basic
personnel policy)
Ministry of Civil Service of the Examination
Yuan
Central Personnel Administration of the
Executive Yuan National Civil Service Agency (Badan
Kepegawai Negara, an executive agency)
Ministry of Administrative Reforms
National Institute of Public Administration
Department of Public Service
Independent commissions including the
Judicial and Legal Service Commission,
Public Service Commission, Public
Commission, Education Service
Commission, and Armed Forces Council Civil Service Board (independent agency)
Civil Service Commission State Secretariat of Public Functions (an
executive agency) Central Organization Department
State Administration of Civil Service in the
Ministry of Human Resources and Social
Security (the minister is also vice general
director of the Central Organization
Department of the Chinese Communist
Party)
Ministry of Home Affairs
Source: Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007); Zhang and Zhou (2010).
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
9
Recruitment, Selection, and
Classification of Civil Servants
Civil servant recruitment and selection are important aspects that determine civil service system characteristics. Recruitment is the process of finding and attracting qualified people as a pool of job candidates, whereas selection is the process of choosing
the best people for vacant positions (Fredericksen, 1996). Recruitment systems can be
open or closed. Open systems allow “lateral access to all civil service ranks” (McGregor
& Solano, 1996, p. 46); a closed system allows entry-level positions limited access to
higher positions. Systems also vary in whether they set minimum educational requirements. Table 4 summarizes selection and classification practices in the civil service
systems of the selected countries.
Most Asian and Pacific countries have introduced competitive exams along with
merit systems for the selection of civil service staff. Many of them have closed
systems, in which most recruitment is made at the entry level and upper-level
recruitment is relatively limited. Open competitive exam-based selection is widely
adopted in Cambodia, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. Recognizing the
problems of outdated conventional selection methods for cadres and the significance of competitive recruitment, China has introduced two methods: internal competition for postings (jinzheng shanggang) and open recruitment (gongkai xuanba;
Zhang & Zhou, 2010). Many public officials within the same unit often apply for
vacant positions, and many internal applicants are eventually selected. An open
recruitment system was introduced to promote the recruitment of outsiders and
reduce potential corruption related to internal recruitment (Zhang & Zhou, 2010).
Merit-based recruitment and selection of civil servants have been further adopted
in the region; however, patronage and nepotism are still major stumbling blocks to the
improvement of civil service systems. Although informal and patronage recruitment
systems coexist with open and competitive recruitment in Cambodia, nepotism and
patronage politics are often dominant, particularly in the recruitment of provincial
officials (Netra & Bandeth, 2010), and “many positions are filled by relatives of highranking officials and sometimes require a great deal of money in return” (p. 65). Burns
(2007) also pointed out that recruitment corruption is prolific, particularly in local
governments in China. As seen in the indictment of former National People’s Congress
Vice Chairman Cheng Kaijie, the purchase and sale of official public positions are
often scandalous issues in China (Burns, 2007). Nepotism and recruitment corruption
are common in many Asian countries; therefore, civil service reform is often targeted
at improving the transparency of recruitment processes. The National Civil Service
Agency of Indonesian government (Badan Kepegawai Negara) recently introduced a
pilot program for a computer-based exam system to manage selection in an objective
and transparent way to help overcome nepotism.
Decentralized regional recruitment and selection systems seem to be more widely
adopted than centralized systems. In particular, Western countries (Australia, New
Zealand, and the United States) have employed decentralized recruitment and selection systems under which each department recruits its own personnel, whereas Asian
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
10
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
Table 4. Recruitment, Selection, and Classification.
Group
Western
countries
Country
Australia
New Zealand
United States
Asian
industrialized
countries
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Taiwan
Southeast
Asian
developing
countries
Indonesia
Recruitment and selection
Conventional comparative assessments
as well as new methods such as
assessment centers, psychometric
testing, and work-based testing for
particular positions
Decentralized recruitment with
increasing autonomy for each agency
since 2000
Decentralized recruitment
Senior executive service
Competitive exams
Decentralized recruitment
Competitive examination-based
recruitment with three levels of
exams
Centralized recruitment and selection
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent
education is required for Level I and
II exams. High school diploma or
equivalent education is required for
Level III exam.
Competitive examinations at grades 9
(lowest), 7, and 5 (high civil service)
Centralized recruitment and selection
No educational requirement
Educational qualifications stressed in
recruitment
Three different examinations for
senior (college or above), junior, and
elementary (high school) levels
Education requirements for each level
of examination
About 96 different job series for
different specialists
Decentralized recruitment by
each agency, but agencies must
get permission from Ministry of
Administrative Reforms
Educational qualifications required
Malaysia
University degree required for
professional and management group
Philippines
Mostly competitive examination-based
recruitment for professional and
subprofessional levels
Excellent academic performance
and professional certifications (for
engineers, doctors, lawyers) required
for civil service eligibility
Classification
APS 1-6 (1 is lowest)
Executive Levels (1-2)
SES Levels (1-3)
Five broad pay bands (no
centralized pay structure) GS1-GS15
Senior executive service
10 ranks
Grades 1-3 (senior civil service)
Grades 4-9
Division I (highest)
Division II
Division III
Division IV (lowest)
Elementary rank = grades 1-5
Junior rank = grades 6-9
Senior rank = grades 10-14
Grades I/a (lowest) to IV/e
(highest); 17 grades altogether
Currently recruitment starts at
grade II/a
For the career position, it starts
from Echelon IV to Echelon I
(highest)
(1) Premier civil service position
(2) Professional and
management group
(3) Support group I
(4) Support group II
Four levels: clerical, professional
and technical, executive, and
noncareer executive
33 salary grades (including
elected officials and political
appointees)
(continued)
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
11
Moon and Hwang
Table 4. (continued)
Group
Socialist
transitional
countries
Country
Recruitment and selection
Thailand
Competitive examination
Cambodia
Competitive examination-based
recruitment for entry levels
Internal networks, patronage, and
nepotism are major problems
China
Internal competition for posting and
open recruitment
Vietnam
Entry examinations for new cadres and
civil servants
Classification
Levels 1-11
Recently broadband has been
introduced and replaced the
old rank system
Four categories: administrators,
mid-level civil servants,
secretaries and skilled
operators, and administrative
agents; each category has
three ranks 12 position series
27 wage grades, with Grade 1
the highest
Categories A to D (college
degree or equivalent required
for Category B)
Source: Berman, Moon, and Choi (2010); Kim (2010), Zhang and Zhou (2010); Manaf (2011); experts in selected
countries.
industrialized countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan still have a centralized system with a particular agency in charge of managing recruitment, selection, and
examinations.
Countries differ in their educational requirements for civil service employment.
Taiwan and such Southeast Asian countries as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore,
Thailand, and the Philippines, require educational qualifications for particular positions or particular levels of the civil service exam, while Korea does not. Japan requires
high school diploma or equivalent education for Level III exam and bachelor’s degree
or equivalent education for Level I and II exams. Malaysia requires secondary education for Support Group II (the lowest level) and university education for its Professional
and Management Group. Taiwan requires a college education for the senior civil service exam, a doctoral degree for the senior ranking civil service exam, a master’s
degree for Grade 7 of the junior rank exam, and a bachelor’s degree for Grade 6 of the
junior rank exam. The Philippines requires a college education for subprofessional and
professional levels. It seems that socialist countries such as Cambodia, China, and Vietnam
do not set a specific educational requirement. Australia, New Zealand, and the United
States do not have an educational requirement for the civil service, though they all
emphasize merit-based recruitment.
Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and the United States have adopted senior executive service systems. The United States introduced the system based on the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978, and Australia, New Zealand, and Korea adopted similar
systems in 1984, 1988, and 2006, respectively. Like the United States, Australia and
New Zealand adopted the senior executive service system to enhance flexibility in the
appointment and management of high-ranking officials. It was also introduced as a
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
12
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
tool to alleviate bureaucratic rigidity as well as emphasize the competence of highranking officials and political responsiveness.
Korea adopted the Senior Civil Service system in 2006 to transform a traditional
hierarchical and seniority-based system into a performance- and competence-based
system by removing ranks among Levels 1, 2, and 3. The Korean government adopted
the assessment center method to evaluate the competence levels of Senior Civil Service
candidates. The Philippines administers the Career Executive examinations for highranking civil service officers.
There is also a wide variation in civil service system ranks in the countries under
study. Among Southeast Asian developing countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the
Philippines (but not Thailand) have four major levels in their ranking systems. For
example, Indonesia has four echelons, which are further divided into 17 grades.
Malaysia and the Philippines also have four ranks, though they classify them slightly
differently. Cambodia and Singapore have similar four-rank systems. Some countries
have more hierarchical systems with layered ranking systems. For example, China,
Thailand, Japan, and Korea have 12, 11, 10, and 9 ranks, respectively.
Some countries have changed their rank and pay grade system for the purpose of
enhancing competency and performance of civil servants as well as flexibility in
human resource management. For example, Korea had nine ranks originally; however,
Levels 1-3 were merged when she introduced the Senior Civil Service system in 2005.
Thailand recently abolished its pay class system and adopted a new “broadband” with
an emphasis on competency.
Civil Service Reform
Civil service reforms have been introduced as a major part of administrative reform in
many countries. In particular, downsizing and performance-based reform initiatives
were major driving forces in the era of New Public Management. Studying the senior
executive service, Halligan (1996) suggested that ideas and tools for civil service
reform are widely diffused in different countries. Just like any reform initiative, civil
service reforms have been widely adopted to make the civil service more efficient and
accountable. We found that common themes have been adopted across nations.
Remuneration, anticorruption efforts, and performance management are the most popular reform initiatives, designed to make civil servants more motivated, transparent,
and competitive (Table 5). Many civil service reform initiatives seem to be driven by
the New Public Management values of efficiency, competition, and flexibility. Many
countries have made efforts to reform recruitment and selection systems to deal with
problems caused by nepotism and patronage.
Another important reform goal is to make civil service systems more open and flexible, although the reform emphasis seems to vary across countries depending on the
stage of development. For example, the two Commonwealth countries attempt to
enhance the flexibility of their civil service systems. Australia tries to expand the use
of “non-ongoing” staff, who are often hired for fixed periods for specific tasks
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
13
Moon and Hwang
Table 5. Civil Service Reforms.
Group
Western countries
Country
Australia
New Zealand
United States
Asian industrialized
countries
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Taiwan
Southeast Asian
developing
countries
Indonesia
Malaysia
Major civil service reform efforts
Enhancing flexibility of civil service with “non-ongoing”
(temporary) staff
Promoting equity and diversity
Promoting effective recruitment (to address shortage
in staff with professional skills and leadership)
Performance management
Promoting ethical culture and transparency
Flexible public employment from permanent tenure to
fixed-term renewable contracts
Performance management (review)
Performance management
Promoting equity and diversity (with a goal of 20%
female recruitment in the first-class civil service exam)
Promoting ethical culture and limiting “amakudari”
Performance management and new personnel system
Establishment of senior civil service in 2006
Promoting equity and diversity (minimum 30% for one
gender in civil service exam, targeting employment
of the disabled)
Open competitive recruitment
Performance management and pay-for-performance
Legalization of public unions
Shell performance appraisal system since 1983
Devolution of Division IV official recruitment to
department heads
Competitive salary for recruitment and retention
(13th month pay to minimize the pay gap between
private and public sectors)
Administrative reform program officially adopted
in 1994, aimed at improving administration
efficiency, reducing corruption, and supporting the
development of civil society
Civil Service System Reform Plan passed and
implemented by Examination Yuan in 2009
Remuneration reform for some institutions through
bureaucracy reforms
Performance measurement and performance
management
Moratorium on civil service recruitment until the end
of 2012
Open bidding for the chair of NIPA and BKN
Internal open bidding for promotion (Ministry of
Finance)
New remuneration system established in 1992
Public Service Quality
Performance appraisal
Accountability and ethics
Look East Policy (diligence and honesty) and
privatization
(continued)
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
14
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
Table 5. (continued)
Group
Country
Philippines
Thailand
Socialist transitional
countries
Cambodia
China
Vietnam
Major civil service reform efforts
Instituting integrity indicators
Increased equity-based pay and benefits
Increased training and development efforts, including a
distance learning program
Computerized personnel management
PASDA (measuring efficiency of front public services)
Performance management system (performance
agreement)
Performance management (biannual job appraisal)
Ethics in civil service system
Rationalization of civil service in 2001 through pay
and employment reform (increasing base salary and
providing a new remuneration system for a mix of
allowances)
Introduction of the Haman Resource Management
Information System
The Rectangular Strategy of 2004, strengthening
institutional capacity, eliminating overlapping work
functions, streamlining the bureaucracy
National Program for Administrative Reform, 20092013, aimed at fostering a motivated, loyal, and
professional civil service; improving transparency,
responsiveness, and efficiency in public services;
developing human and institutional capacity; and card
management and deployment
Internal competition for posting (jingzheng shanggang)
Open recruitment (gongkai xuanba)
Performance management
Compensation
Meritocracy introduced through recruitment,
promotion, and performance management
Competency-based training emphasized
Source: Berman, Moon, and Choi (2010); Kim (2010); Australian Public Service Commission (2011);
Commonwealth of Australia (2009); Gregory and Christensen (2004); experts in selected countries.
(Australian Public Service Commission, 2009). New Zealand continues to make the
civil service system more flexible and competitive with a particular focus on contracts
and performance agreements with civil servants (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2008). Performance management has been a compelling agenda item in civil service reform in the United States. Many Southeast Asian
countries have introduced remuneration reform. For example, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, and Malaysia have worked on raising pay to motivate civil servants and
remove some of the temptation to corruption.
Studying the approaches to New Public Management in Southeast Asian countries
a decade ago, Turner (2002) pointed out variations in understanding and attitudes and
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
15
classified countries as enthusiastic (Singapore and Malaysia), cautious (the Philippines,
Thailand, and Indonesia), and passive (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). Most countries
in the region have become either enthusiastic or cautious followers of civil service
reforms, though there is still variation in terms of the extent to which they actually
achieve internal reform.
Diversity and gender equity are another part of a compelling reform agenda in
many countries. For example, the proportion of female civil servants is smaller in
Cambodia (33%) and Vietnam (22.8%) than in other countries such as Australia
(57.5%), Malaysia (50.7%), and Thailand (55%). Australia has also taken action to
improve diversity, particularly for the indigenous population. Countries where the proportion of female civil servants is small attempt to take proactive measures to require
a minimum percentage for a particular gender. For example, Japan and Korea require
that among applicants passing civil service examinations neither gender’s participation falls below 30%.
Conclusions
There has been significant interest in civil service systems as a central part of governing institutions; however, limited comparative research has been conducted. The tradition of a strong bureaucracy and civil service system plays a critical role in many
Asian countries. The quality of governance substantially depends on civil service systems. Asian and Pacific countries have drawn increasing attention as this region has
emerged as an important and influential international player.
This study explored civil service systems’ similarities and differences in Asian
and Pacific countries, using a descriptive and exploratory rather than analytical
approach. Its findings suggest that there are similarities within particular groups of
countries that share common economic, social, and historical characteristics—such
as Western countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the United States), Asian industrialized countries (Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan), Southeast Asian developing countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand), and socialist
transition countries (Cambodia, China, and Vietnam). In particular, relatively more
intragroup commonalities are found in the areas of civil service size, job classification, and corruption. Several civil service reform themes are shared by many Asian
and Pacific countries, though the focus and quality of the reforms are different.
Differences and similarities among these countries are summarized in Table 6.
Overall, this study suggests a gap in social development stages and nature of civil
service systems among countries in the region. It also indicates similarities in reform
themes and problems faced by different countries; however, the nature and specific
aspects of the issues are qualitatively different. Many countries still experience problems such as nepotism and corruption in civil service systems and actively search for
civil service reforms to cure those problems. Reform themes pursued by many countries include performance management, open competition recruitment, and remuneration reform.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
16
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
Table 6. Civil Service Similarities and Differences.
Group
Country
Western
countries
Australia
New
Zealand
United
States
Asian
industrialized
countries
Southeast
Asian
developing
countries
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Taiwan
Socialist
transitional
countries
Cambodia
China
Vietnam
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Similarities
Differences
The civil service is socially
well regarded and privileged
throughout the Asia-Pacific
region.
Asia-Pacific countries have a
small civil service compared
to other regions except
Africa.
Civil service wages are
relatively low in many AsiaPacific countries.
Civil service systems are
established under a specific
legal framework and managed
by a central commission or
executive agency.
Rank systems are more
popular than position
classification systems.
Some reform initiatives, like
performance management,
are widely diffused
throughout the region.
Relatively large civil service system
Position classification system
Pay grade rather than rank
Long tradition of civil service
system with legalframework
Well-established merit-based
recruitment
Senior executive service
Relatively small civil service system
Local civil service is larger than
central civil service
Well-established merit-based
recruitment
Rank-based system
Four-echelon system common
Central civil service larger than
local civil service
Nepotism and corruption
problems
Importance of education in civil
service hiring
Recent remuneration reform
Dominance of Communist Party
Legal framework relatively recently
introduced
Open and competitive selection of
civil servants recently introduced
Corruption problems
In future studies, countries can be grouped and examined in different ways. For
example, they can be grouped based on traditional legacies, to see how colonial traditions and cultural norms such as Confucianism can affect the characteristics of civil
service systems (size, scope, culture, and structure). Future studies need to consider
including more countries in the region and comparing the region with other regions.
Future studies also need to gather updated and more detailed information on various
aspects of civil service systems, as well as the political, social, historical, and economic characteristics of the countries, to analytically correlate and match the two
dimensions.
Acknowledgment
We like to extend our thanks to many experts who checked country-specific facts and offered
helpful comments including Lucy Beh (Malaysia), Evan Berman (USA), Pedro Bernaldez
(Philippines), Dao Viet Dung (Vietnam), Masao Kikuchi (Japan), Anwar Sanusi (Indonesia),
Pathan Suv (Thailand), Jeannette Taylor (Australia), Chun-yuan Wang (Taiwan), and Jiannan
Wu (China).
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
17
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea Grants funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012-330-B00194).
Notes
1. Because of the unavailability of related information, this study examines only selected
managerial aspects such as recruitment and classification.
2. This study pays only limited attention to causal relationships between civil service systems
and national socioeconomic-political factors, because of the limited number of countries
under study and the dominance of differences in civil service systems over commonalities.
Despite the limitation, this study offers groundwork for more sophisticated future studies
of the causes and effects that might be related to structural and procedural characteristics
of civil service systems as well as various civil service reform initiatives.
3. Availability of data on civil service size varies greatly from country to country. Though more
updated data are available for some of the countries, we used data based on UN Country
Profiles to compare civil service size with similar criteria in a similar time period unless
there is critical difference between updated statistics and the ones from the UN country
profiles. The data are compiled from the United Nations’ Public Administration Country
Profiles (Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). The figures for Taiwan are from
the Ministry of Civil Service (2011, December 31) of Taiwan, for China and Malaysia are
from Burns (2007) and internal statistics of Malaysian government (2011).
4. World Bank and International Monetary Fund statistics are not necessarily comparable because of differences in the scope of public service and countries included.
International Monetary Fund statistics include civil servants as well as state-owned
enterprise employees and defense and health staff, and they only include seven AsiaPacific countries. The two sets of statistics need to be further analyzed for a conclusive
comparison.
References
Australian Public Service Commission. (2009). State of the service report 2008-2009. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2011). State of the service report 2010-2011. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government.
Bekke, H., Perry, J., & Toonen, T. (Eds.). (1996). Civil service systems: In comparative perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Berman, E. (2010). Public administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia,
Hong Kong, and Macao. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Berman, E., Moon, M. J., & Choi, H. (Eds.). (2010). Public administration in East Asia:
Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
18
Review of Public Personnel Administration XX(X)
Burns, J. (2007). Civil service reform in China. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), 1-25.
Burns, J., & Bowornwathana, B. (Eds.) (2001). Civil service systems in Asia. Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Cheung, A. (2005). The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: Paradigms and legacies,
paths and diversities. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and
Institutions, 18, 257-282.
Clements, B., Gupta, S., & Karpowicz, I. (2010). Evaluating government employment and compensation. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Reform of Australian government administration: Building
the world’s best public service. Barton, Australia: Australian Government Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2004a). Public administration country profile: Cambodia. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2004b). Public administration country profile: China. New York, NY:
United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2004c). Public administration country profile: Republic of the
Philippines. New York, NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2004d). Public administration country profile: The Kingdom of
Thailand. New York, NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2004e). Public administration country profile: Viet Nam. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2005a). Public administration country profile: Indonesia. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2005b). Public administration country profile: Malaysia. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2005c). Public administration country profile: Singapore. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2006a). Public administration country profile: Australia. New York,
NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2006b). Public administration country profile: Japan. New York, NY:
United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2006c). Public administration country profile: New Zealand. New
York, NY: United Nations.
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2006d). Public administration country profile: United States of
America. New York, NY: United Nations.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
Moon and Hwang
19
Division for Public Administration and Development Management/Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. (2007). Public administration country profile: Republic of Korea. New
York, NY: United Nations.
Fredericksen, P. W. (1996). Human resource management: The public service perspective. New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Gregory, R., & Christensen, J. G. (2004). Similar ends, differing means: Constractualism and
civil service reform in Denmark and New Zealand. Governance, 17, 59-82.
Halligan, J. (1996). The diffusion of civil service reform. In H. Bekke, J. L. Perry, &
T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Civil service systems in comparative perspective (pp. 288-317).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Haque, M. S. (2001). Pride and performance in the public service: Three Asian cases.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 99-115.
Jing, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2012). Civil service reform in China: An unfinished task of value balancing. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(2), 134-148.
Kim, P. S. (2010). Civil service system and civil service reform in ASEAN member countries and
Korea. Seoul, South Korea: Daeyoung Moonhwasa.
Manaf, N. H. (2011). Civil service system in Malaysia. In E. Berman (Ed.), Public Administration
in Southeast Asia (pp. 211-238). New York, NY: CRC Press.
McGregor, E., & Solano, P. (1996). Data requirement and availability. In H. Bekke, J. Perry,
& T. Toonen (Eds.), Civil service systems: In comparative perspective (pp. 42-66).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ministry of Civil Service. (2011). Introduction of the Ministry of Civil Service of Taiwan.
Taiwan: Author.
Netra, E., & Bandeth, R. (2010). Cambodian civil service: Transforming from an “administrator” into a “service provider.” In P. S. Kim (Ed.), Civil service system and civil service
reform in ASEAN member countries and Korea (pp. 24-56). Seoul, South Korea: Daeyoung
Moonhwasa.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). The state of the civil service. Unpublished paper.
Su, T. (2010). Civil service reform in Taiwan. In E. Berman, M..J. Moon, & H. Choi (Eds).
Public administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. (pp.
609-626). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Turner, M. (2002). Choosing items from the menu: New public management in Southeast Asia.
International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 1493-1512.
Zhang, M., & Zhou, W. (2010). Civil service reforms in Mainland China. In E. Berman,
M. J. Moon, & H. Choi (Eds.), Public administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan,
South Korea, and Taiwan (pp. 145-163). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Author Biographies
M. Jae Moon is Underwood Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at Yonsei
University. His research interests include public management, e-government, and comparative
public administration. He was editor in chief of International Public Administration Review and
book review editor of Public Administration Review.
Changho Hwang is a doctoral candidate of Department of Public Administration at Yonsei
University. His research interests include public management, policy network, and comparative
public administration.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016