Public Policy in Asia: The First-Ever Doctoral Conference on Asian Policy Issues
The first-ever conference on Asian policy issues ever to be convened and run by a team of PhD students - the Public Policy in Asia PhD Conference - took place at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy on 26-27 May 2014. Attended by 27 PhD students of 15 nationalities representing 22 universities all over the world, it provided an opportunity for doctoral candidates interested in Asian policy issues to discuss their ideas with like-minded scholars across various disciplines in the social sciences. The organising committee envisioned it as an Asian ‘Minnowbrook’, the fabled New Public Administration conference organised under the patronage of Dwight Waldo. This time, however, the focus would be on Asia and Asian perspectives, with a view to seeing how scholars of Asian policy could complement and challenge received ‘wisdom’ and entrenched perspectives.
Three Paradoxes of Public Policy Education
The conference started off with a speech by Dean Kishore Mahbubani on the three paradoxes of public policy education. Highlighting the shortcomings of scholarship in the West, the Dean made the following three points. First, although the West led in theories of public policy education, it had failed in the implementation of good public policies, as illustrated by the Iraq war, the Eurozone crisis, and the Crimean crisis. Second, when it came to public policy implementation, examples of good leadership were provided in Asia. Yet Asia, and China in particular, did not fit the theories of development that were developed in the west. Third, he argued that despite the high levels of academic freedom in the West, Western academics failed to speak up or effectively change poor public policies, like the proliferation of guns in the United States, or the Israel-Palestine problem.
The Dean encouraged the participants to be more ambitious in their goals as they entered their academic career. Scholars of Asia, he opined, should not tinker at the edges, but ask big questions on the future of public policy education, and provide new perspectives to the field. He quoted Andrew Sheng, former chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC): “When I started work as a policymaker, I assumed that if I had any problems, I would study what the West was doing, and find the answers over there. But today when gurus are making big mistakes, I cannot turn to Western capitals for the answers to my public policy problems.”
During the ensuing dialogue with the participants, the Dean further highlighted the need for scholars of Asia to push the boundaries in a Western-dominated world, for example by creating their own journals and formats. Lamenting the fact that “many Asians have been mentally colonised by the West”, he also emphasised the need for Asians to come up with their own theories, as scholars such as Amitav Acharya had done. The Dean also questioned the fundamental assumptions of universal social science that culture and distance did not matter, arguing that “we are moving towards a world where you have to answer each country and society on its own dimensions and how you can develop it”. He predicted that “area studies will come back; people will study countries within their own framework.”
Discussions focused on three main themes: international shifts in power, state-driven efforts at reform and innovation, and society-driven efforts to complement them.
International Shifts in Power
Such concrete illustrations of an international shift in power included China’s overtures in Africa and its increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea. Edson Ziso described the expansion of Chinese state-owned companies in Africa, as ‘globalisation with Chinese characteristics’, a way for China to spread its economic, diplomatic and political soft power. Presenting similar findings of Chinese expansionist behaviour, Lili Wu noted the existence of a paradox between China’s aggressive behaviour and its guideline of keeping a low profile at the conceptual level. She argued that this was due to introspective leaders, China’s authoritarian regime, and increased power and insecurity in the international system.
In an increasingly unstable global context, what could be done in the case of conflict between states? Daniel Katz analysed how defense diplomacy could mitigate conflict, suggesting that these interactions conveyed useful information about the intentions of other states. Prakash Bhattarai discussed the conditions under which third parties could coordinate their intervention efforts. Similarly, Jens Marquardt showed how the development of international regimes had an effect on local governance. His research looked at how a regime shift towards renewable energy could be governed within two decentralised multi-level systems: the Philippines and Indonesia.
State-Driven Policymaking
Perceptions, Problems and Solutions
Discussions about state-led efforts at policy change straddled a wide range of issues. Issues such as the environment, health, monetary and fiscal policy, and the protection of minority groups all featured heavily in discussions throughout the conference.
A number of participants focused on state narratives of policy problems, and how this affected the public perception of such problems. For example, Kristin Olofsson discussed how the air pollution issue in Delhi was being framed by the mass media and non-profit organisations, with a focus on policy actors and institutions, and using the method of discourse analysis. Similarly, Kris Hartley discussed the evidence-based debates related to fracking in shale gas extraction, emphasising the need for universal and national legislation for fracking within a multi-level governance framework. Finally, Shyam Singh argued that the success or failure of a policy did not only depend on the ability of implementing agencies but also on the ability of the party in power to deliver its political messages. He attributed the electoral failure of the BSP party in India to its inability to communicate the policy efforts of the government to either Dalits or the upper caste, thus weakening the link between people and government.
A number of participants focused on the reasons for ‘policy failures’ in their own countries. For example, Ismoil Khujamkulov discussed the reasons for the limited progress in public financial management in Tajikistan and why outcomes had not lived up to expectations. Pakarang Chuenjit studied the ineffectiveness of tax compliance in Thailand, attributing it to a “culture of taxation” which made tax avoidance the norm. An Yongkang studied the problem of food safety regulation in China, finding that the state was still playing a major role. However, she recommended that food safety regulation should not be monopolised by the government. Private regulation was necessary and possible.
Policy solutions to pressing policy problems were also discussed. For example, Michael Abrigo looked at the relationship between HIV/AIDS knowledge and safe sexual practices in the Philippines. He found that sex education increased safe sexual behavior among women. Sarah Bales discussed the impact of hospital provider payment mechanism on household health service utilization in Vietnam. Hong Bei looked at the fiscal and monetary tax instruments at the disposal of governments and recommended that governments should choose their income tax rates based on level of capital intensity and real monetary intensity.
The Role of Minorities
State policy towards minority groups in society was also a popular topic of discussion. Humairah bte Zainal attributed the hijab controversy in Singapore to the state’s non-inclusiveness of minorities despite paying lip service to predefined categories and using ‘race’ as a tool of governance. She argued that the government’s fear of the hijab was not supported by extensive research. Sanju Koirala explored the experiences of potential displacees before the implementation of a hydropower project in Nepal, and argued that due to limited information, lack of participation, and the absence of concerned government authorities, the project had worsened the lives of people in surrounding areas even prior to its implementation. Divya Guru Rajan showed that mandated political representation in India affected police reporting of crimes against minorities, such as scheduled castes or tribes. Priyanka Bhalla looked at the impact of the Indian Forest Rights Act on the livelihoods of scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers in Odisha.
Policy Innovation and Learning
Many participants discussed the role of innovation and learning in policy design. For example, Tian Tang studied the process of policy learning and how it led to technology change in wind power through the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge among project participants. Katrin Dribbisch also disussed design thinking in the context of tackling wicked policy problems in Singapore’s public service. She noted a gap between training and continuous practice in the integration of design thinking in the organization studied, and argued that its current operational focus would allow only incremental changes. Mehmet Demircioglu studied the potential enablers of innovation, looking at what drives individuals to innovate. His findings suggested that providing employees incentives was the most effective tool that governments could use to encourage innovation. Finally, Li Ni studied why local governments were engaging in innovation with no obvious economic gain. She argued that this could be due to innovation being seen as a way to promote economic growth or political achievement. This seemed to echo Vera Zuo’s findings that local leaders’ choices in affordable housing provision and urban-rural integration were driven primarily by economic rather than social considerations.
The Return of Civil Society
Reflecting the ‘governance turn’ in public administration, a number of participants studied the increasing role of civil society and the public in providing solutions to policy problems. Ek-Hong Sia discussed the role of three NGOs in Taiwan (Presbyterian Church, Tzu Chi, and the Red Cross) in the reconstruction period after Typhoon Morakot in 2009. He found that there would be a win-win outcome when strong NGOs cooperated with the community rather than when they dominated. Similarly, Aditya Perdana explored the relationships between civil society organizations (CSOs) and parties in Indonesia in order to understand how women’s groups deliver women and gender issues in the law-making process. Belinda Thompson studied ‘invisible healthcare providers’: non-profit, non-governmental hospitals and large clinics in developing countries. She recommended that these non-profit, non-government organizations needed to be tapped. Finally, Weng Shihong identified four modes of government response to internet political participation in Chinese decision-making.
Journal Publication Strategies
The conference ended with Prof Alasdair Roberts, co-chief editor of the journal Governance, sharing his thoughts on the business model of academic publishing. He advised students that in the social sciences, a small number of articles accounted for large number of citations, with most articles never getting cited in the 5 years following their publication. Moreover, the ranking scheme tended to privilege certain kinds of research and countries.
He advised participants that the two main reasons why articles were rejected were as follows: first, the article not fitting the mission of the journal; and secondly, the failure of the author to state directly what the major claim of the article was. He encouraged students to state their main point three times: in the title, the abstract, and in the introduction. In short, they should be able to impress their reader within five minutes. In addition to a powerful idea, articles needed a well-structured quantitative or qualitative empirical component.
Finally, Prof Roberts advised doctoral students to see themselves as operators of a small business, with R&D, production, and marketing functions. He shared some additional tips on how to get published, including putting working papers on SSRN, offering to write book reviews, targeting special issues, and studying real-world problems of governance. Finally, he also encouraged students to set high expectations of themselves in their work in order to achieve success in the world of academic publishing.
The author (Yvonne Guo) would like to thank her team of rapporteurs - Richa Shivakoti, Kris Hartley, Sreeja Nair, Lin Chia-Tsun and Ritu Jain - for their contributions to this article.
Three Paradoxes of Public Policy Education
The conference started off with a speech by Dean Kishore Mahbubani on the three paradoxes of public policy education. Highlighting the shortcomings of scholarship in the West, the Dean made the following three points. First, although the West led in theories of public policy education, it had failed in the implementation of good public policies, as illustrated by the Iraq war, the Eurozone crisis, and the Crimean crisis. Second, when it came to public policy implementation, examples of good leadership were provided in Asia. Yet Asia, and China in particular, did not fit the theories of development that were developed in the west. Third, he argued that despite the high levels of academic freedom in the West, Western academics failed to speak up or effectively change poor public policies, like the proliferation of guns in the United States, or the Israel-Palestine problem.
The Dean encouraged the participants to be more ambitious in their goals as they entered their academic career. Scholars of Asia, he opined, should not tinker at the edges, but ask big questions on the future of public policy education, and provide new perspectives to the field. He quoted Andrew Sheng, former chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC): “When I started work as a policymaker, I assumed that if I had any problems, I would study what the West was doing, and find the answers over there. But today when gurus are making big mistakes, I cannot turn to Western capitals for the answers to my public policy problems.”
During the ensuing dialogue with the participants, the Dean further highlighted the need for scholars of Asia to push the boundaries in a Western-dominated world, for example by creating their own journals and formats. Lamenting the fact that “many Asians have been mentally colonised by the West”, he also emphasised the need for Asians to come up with their own theories, as scholars such as Amitav Acharya had done. The Dean also questioned the fundamental assumptions of universal social science that culture and distance did not matter, arguing that “we are moving towards a world where you have to answer each country and society on its own dimensions and how you can develop it”. He predicted that “area studies will come back; people will study countries within their own framework.”
Discussions focused on three main themes: international shifts in power, state-driven efforts at reform and innovation, and society-driven efforts to complement them.
International Shifts in Power
Such concrete illustrations of an international shift in power included China’s overtures in Africa and its increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea. Edson Ziso described the expansion of Chinese state-owned companies in Africa, as ‘globalisation with Chinese characteristics’, a way for China to spread its economic, diplomatic and political soft power. Presenting similar findings of Chinese expansionist behaviour, Lili Wu noted the existence of a paradox between China’s aggressive behaviour and its guideline of keeping a low profile at the conceptual level. She argued that this was due to introspective leaders, China’s authoritarian regime, and increased power and insecurity in the international system.
In an increasingly unstable global context, what could be done in the case of conflict between states? Daniel Katz analysed how defense diplomacy could mitigate conflict, suggesting that these interactions conveyed useful information about the intentions of other states. Prakash Bhattarai discussed the conditions under which third parties could coordinate their intervention efforts. Similarly, Jens Marquardt showed how the development of international regimes had an effect on local governance. His research looked at how a regime shift towards renewable energy could be governed within two decentralised multi-level systems: the Philippines and Indonesia.
State-Driven Policymaking
Perceptions, Problems and Solutions
Discussions about state-led efforts at policy change straddled a wide range of issues. Issues such as the environment, health, monetary and fiscal policy, and the protection of minority groups all featured heavily in discussions throughout the conference.
A number of participants focused on state narratives of policy problems, and how this affected the public perception of such problems. For example, Kristin Olofsson discussed how the air pollution issue in Delhi was being framed by the mass media and non-profit organisations, with a focus on policy actors and institutions, and using the method of discourse analysis. Similarly, Kris Hartley discussed the evidence-based debates related to fracking in shale gas extraction, emphasising the need for universal and national legislation for fracking within a multi-level governance framework. Finally, Shyam Singh argued that the success or failure of a policy did not only depend on the ability of implementing agencies but also on the ability of the party in power to deliver its political messages. He attributed the electoral failure of the BSP party in India to its inability to communicate the policy efforts of the government to either Dalits or the upper caste, thus weakening the link between people and government.
A number of participants focused on the reasons for ‘policy failures’ in their own countries. For example, Ismoil Khujamkulov discussed the reasons for the limited progress in public financial management in Tajikistan and why outcomes had not lived up to expectations. Pakarang Chuenjit studied the ineffectiveness of tax compliance in Thailand, attributing it to a “culture of taxation” which made tax avoidance the norm. An Yongkang studied the problem of food safety regulation in China, finding that the state was still playing a major role. However, she recommended that food safety regulation should not be monopolised by the government. Private regulation was necessary and possible.
Policy solutions to pressing policy problems were also discussed. For example, Michael Abrigo looked at the relationship between HIV/AIDS knowledge and safe sexual practices in the Philippines. He found that sex education increased safe sexual behavior among women. Sarah Bales discussed the impact of hospital provider payment mechanism on household health service utilization in Vietnam. Hong Bei looked at the fiscal and monetary tax instruments at the disposal of governments and recommended that governments should choose their income tax rates based on level of capital intensity and real monetary intensity.
The Role of Minorities
State policy towards minority groups in society was also a popular topic of discussion. Humairah bte Zainal attributed the hijab controversy in Singapore to the state’s non-inclusiveness of minorities despite paying lip service to predefined categories and using ‘race’ as a tool of governance. She argued that the government’s fear of the hijab was not supported by extensive research. Sanju Koirala explored the experiences of potential displacees before the implementation of a hydropower project in Nepal, and argued that due to limited information, lack of participation, and the absence of concerned government authorities, the project had worsened the lives of people in surrounding areas even prior to its implementation. Divya Guru Rajan showed that mandated political representation in India affected police reporting of crimes against minorities, such as scheduled castes or tribes. Priyanka Bhalla looked at the impact of the Indian Forest Rights Act on the livelihoods of scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers in Odisha.
Policy Innovation and Learning
Many participants discussed the role of innovation and learning in policy design. For example, Tian Tang studied the process of policy learning and how it led to technology change in wind power through the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge among project participants. Katrin Dribbisch also disussed design thinking in the context of tackling wicked policy problems in Singapore’s public service. She noted a gap between training and continuous practice in the integration of design thinking in the organization studied, and argued that its current operational focus would allow only incremental changes. Mehmet Demircioglu studied the potential enablers of innovation, looking at what drives individuals to innovate. His findings suggested that providing employees incentives was the most effective tool that governments could use to encourage innovation. Finally, Li Ni studied why local governments were engaging in innovation with no obvious economic gain. She argued that this could be due to innovation being seen as a way to promote economic growth or political achievement. This seemed to echo Vera Zuo’s findings that local leaders’ choices in affordable housing provision and urban-rural integration were driven primarily by economic rather than social considerations.
The Return of Civil Society
Reflecting the ‘governance turn’ in public administration, a number of participants studied the increasing role of civil society and the public in providing solutions to policy problems. Ek-Hong Sia discussed the role of three NGOs in Taiwan (Presbyterian Church, Tzu Chi, and the Red Cross) in the reconstruction period after Typhoon Morakot in 2009. He found that there would be a win-win outcome when strong NGOs cooperated with the community rather than when they dominated. Similarly, Aditya Perdana explored the relationships between civil society organizations (CSOs) and parties in Indonesia in order to understand how women’s groups deliver women and gender issues in the law-making process. Belinda Thompson studied ‘invisible healthcare providers’: non-profit, non-governmental hospitals and large clinics in developing countries. She recommended that these non-profit, non-government organizations needed to be tapped. Finally, Weng Shihong identified four modes of government response to internet political participation in Chinese decision-making.
Journal Publication Strategies
The conference ended with Prof Alasdair Roberts, co-chief editor of the journal Governance, sharing his thoughts on the business model of academic publishing. He advised students that in the social sciences, a small number of articles accounted for large number of citations, with most articles never getting cited in the 5 years following their publication. Moreover, the ranking scheme tended to privilege certain kinds of research and countries.
He advised participants that the two main reasons why articles were rejected were as follows: first, the article not fitting the mission of the journal; and secondly, the failure of the author to state directly what the major claim of the article was. He encouraged students to state their main point three times: in the title, the abstract, and in the introduction. In short, they should be able to impress their reader within five minutes. In addition to a powerful idea, articles needed a well-structured quantitative or qualitative empirical component.
Finally, Prof Roberts advised doctoral students to see themselves as operators of a small business, with R&D, production, and marketing functions. He shared some additional tips on how to get published, including putting working papers on SSRN, offering to write book reviews, targeting special issues, and studying real-world problems of governance. Finally, he also encouraged students to set high expectations of themselves in their work in order to achieve success in the world of academic publishing.
The author (Yvonne Guo) would like to thank her team of rapporteurs - Richa Shivakoti, Kris Hartley, Sreeja Nair, Lin Chia-Tsun and Ritu Jain - for their contributions to this article.