1

Manuscript prepared for

1) Panel #44 of ASPA 62nd Annual Conference, March 10-13, 2001.

Newark, New Jersey

2) ASPA on-line Virtual Conference, March 19 to April 1, 2001

Public Administration and Administrative Reform

in China for the 21st Century

--from State-Center Governance to the Citizen-Center Governance

Chengfu Zhang

Professor and Deputy Chair

Department of Public Administration

Renmin University

Beijing 100872, P.R. China

E-mail: "chfzhang" <chfzhang@163.net>

Mengzhong Zhang

Senior Research Associate

National Center for Public Productivity

705 Hill Hall

360 M.L. King BLVD.

Newark, New Jersey 07102-1801

USA

E-mail: menzhong@yahoo.com

2

Public Administration and Administrative Reform

in China for the 21st Century

--from State-Center Governance to the Citizen-Center Governance

Chengfu Zhang and Mengzhong Zhang

Abstract

This paper investigates the existing problems (blind areas and flaws) of the most recent

four rounds of administrative reform in China. Next, the paper examines the

understanding of administrative reform under the conventional State-center paradigm and

associated crises. An alternative outlet for Chinese administrative reform from the

perspective of paradigm transformation is also proposed. In the concluding section, we

discuss the implications of the above analysis for the reconstruction of public

administration theory in China under the specific Chinese context.

Introduction

To meet the challenge of technology innovation, globalization and world-wide

competition, both governments in Eastern and Western countries have conducted

government reform in large-scale since 1980s (Hughes, 1998). World Bank has stated in

its “1997 Development Report” that the profound development of global economy urges

us to reconsider some fundamental issues of government. What is the function of

3

government? What it can do, what it cannot do and what is the best way to do these

things? (The World Bank, 1997).

The change of our times occurs on a deeper level. Moreover, the core of transformation

is a shift of social paradigm, among which is the basic belief and value orientation under

the traditional social-economic system. This paradigm is no less significant than the

scientific revolutions argued by Kuhn (1962). In each era, government has its own ways

of governance. Just as adults cannot wear children’s clothes when they grow up, the

ways of governance should be adapted after the paradigm of the entire society has shifted.

In order to meet the holistic changes of politics, economy, technology and society,

Chinese government has pushed large-scale administrative reforms since the early 1980s

for the effectiveness of promoting governance. This paper is not targeted at drawing the

process of administrative reform in China, nor does it comprehensively evaluate Chinese

administrative reform. Rather, we focus on three aspects: 1) Investigating the existing

problems for administrative reform in China; 2) Examining the understanding of

administrative reform under the conventional State-centered paradigm; and 3) Exploring

an alternative outlet for Chinese administrative reform from the perspective of paradigm

transformation. In the concluding section, we discuss the implications of the above

analysis for public administration under the specific Chinese context.

I. The Development and Problems of Chinese Administrative Reform

1.1 The Development and Dilemma of Administrative Reform in China

4

Administrative reform, from the perspective of systematic evolution, is a process of

government adjusting internal and external environment change. Government will

redesign and reinvent its culture, function, structure, procedure and its management

style for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of its governance. Administrative

reform is a process of consistent evolution, adjusting and innovation aimed at getting

in harmony with environment change. When governance cannot meet social, political,

economic, environmental change or citizen expectation, administrative reform is

coming for certain.

After the 1980s, the ideology, politics, economy and social structure of Chinese

society have changed significantly to various degrees. This change, to some extent, is

a shift of a fundamental social paradigm. Zhang (1994) captures this change in

following categories:

��Ideology. A shift from a center of class struggle and revolution to economic

development. Both government and public believe that economic development is

the paramount politics. Economic growth replaced political revolution and thus

became the secularity, religion and belief of modern ages.

��Economic Systems. From a traditional centralized plan-economy toward a

socialist market economy. The monopoly status of State in allocating resources

has been broken. Market as the object of allocating resources has exerted a more

and more significant impact.

5

��Social Structure. A shift from closed system to an open system. The main

manifestations are several facets: the public has greater discretion to in selecting

their job; larger scale of social mobility (either horizontal or vertical); and limited

openness of public employment (such as civil servant exam and recruitment).

��Social Modes. A shift from a traditional rural society to the modernized industry

society. Major indicators are: the speed of urbanization accelerated; the increase

in the proportion of urban population; the rapid development of manufacture and

service industry.

��Globalization. As China is joining the WTO, Chinese society will be gradually

integrated into the global community.

Simultaneous to the social paradigm shift, Chinese government has encountered great

pressure, problems and even crisis. These crises are embodied in the following

aspects:

��Belief Crisis and Legitimacy Crisis. The degree of trust from public over

government has declined because of large-scale bureaucrat corruption, numerous

social problems as well as unequal social distribution (Root, 1996).

��The Crisis of State-Owned-Enterprises (SOEs). Most SOEs are facing low

productivity, deficit and even bankruptcy.

��Fiscal Crisis. Central government, provincial government and local government,

especially remote area government, all have serious fiscal deficit.

6

��The Crisis of Administrative State. The Bureaucratic ways of doing business in

government, mal-administration, low efficiency, lack accountability and

responsibility are all recognized even by the Late leader Deng Xiaoping (1982).

These problems and crises ubiquitously exist in government to different degrees at

every level. These problems not only jeopardized the capacity and effectiveness of

governance, but also challenged the legitimacy of government for its existence.

Under such a backdrop, Chinese government believes that good governance is

imperative for the development of China. Without a well-organized government, it is

impossible to have economic and societal development as well as the enhancement of

State competence. Therefore, to meet the external challenge and internal crises of

government, the large-scale Government Organizational Reform (GOR) throughout

the country happened in four rounds after 1980, i.e., 1982, 1988, 1992 and 1998

(Qian, 1998; Liu, 1998). All four GOR were aimed at constructing a government

system with complete function, rational structure, harmony operating and flexible

with high efficiency.

To be more specific, the strategy of reform mainly focuses on the following areas:

1. Reforming the Function of Government. To meet the requirement of market

economy development, Chinese government attempts to transfer the traditional

omnipotent government to function-limited government. Government is now

7

focused on the functions of providing infrastructure, public goods and service,

preserving natural resources, social security and stabilizing the economy.

2. Adjusting the Government Structure and Norms. As for the central

government, the 1998 GOR downsized the original 40 ministries and committees

to 29 targeted at constructing “Small Government, Big Society.” (Luo, 1998).

3. Civil Servant System Reform. Chinese government has been trying to

establish a merit-based civil service system and realize an expertise-oriented civil

servant army.

4. Downsizing Personnel. To meet the fiscal pressure and crisis, the 1998 GOR

proposed to downsize 50% of government employees.

5. Adjusting the relationship between Government and Enterprises. Chinese

government has been shrinking the size of SOEs, increasing the vitality of SOEs

through property right reform and strengthening the supervising over SOEs.

6. Changing the Ways of Government in Doing Business. Chinese government

begins to emphasize the value of economy and efficiency and abandons the

bureaucratic ways in doing business.

7. Beginning the Underlining of Rule of Law. Chinese government begins to pay

much attention to the administration by law.

It should be acknowledged that the administrative reform in China has obtained great

accomplishments. The expanding of governmental organization has been constrained.

The number of government organizations and government employees tends to be smaller.

The function of government begins to shift to the direction according to the requirement

8

of market economy. SOEs begin to own great-extent discretion. A government-employ

system begins to transform from favoritism and nepotism toward a merit based system

through fair competition. The rule of law has garnered momentum. The aforementioned

change is only a beginning and undoubtedly a good one.

1.2 The Blind Areas of Chinese Administrative Reform

As a rule of thumb, it is easy to say than to do something. When we calmly examine

Chinese administrative reform, it is not too difficult for us to discover that the

administrative reform in China is far short of the expected effect. Administrative

reform in China itself has blind areas and even fatal flaws.

��The Soleness of Administrative Reform Goals. Too often, administrative reform

in China has focused on enhancing and improving government efficiency,

Of which the value orientation is three “Es”: efficiency, effectiveness and

economy. This focus has ignored other equally if not more important values and

goals such as social justice, equality, democratic participation, social

accountability and responsiveness which are the value orientations proposed by

the Minnowbrook Conference participants for new public administration (Zhang,

2000; Konn, Holzer & Zhang, 2001).

��Passive responsiveness is greater than the active prediction. From the

perspective of development administration, government faces consistent changes

9

of internal environment such as politics, economy, society, culture and

international environment. Administrative reform should not be passive

responsive: it should not only focus on eliminating the irrational factors in

government organizations or in government running; rather, it should have the

innovative spirit of foreseeing the future. Administrative reform should be able

to propel the development of the entire society. Only by doing so, government

can meet the challenge of society. Previous administrative reforms in China have

all stemmed from the pressure of fiscal, organizational, personnel or bureaucratic

factors. Government has to conduct one round of administrative reform after

another. It is passive rather than active, progressive and predictive of the future.

��The Narrowness of Administrative Vision. Over the past decades, administrative

reforms have been regarded as organizational reforms. Administrative reforms

frequently focus on the retrenchment of government organizations and

downsizing personnel. It appears as if administrative reform is eliminating and

merging organizations as well as downsizing people. As a matter of fact,

administrative reform or reinvention relates to diverse facets and multiple

dimensions. Generally speaking, administrative reform will, at least, relate to the

following three levels: one is structural transformation, such as reorganization of

organization structure, simplified hierarchy and downsizing superabundant

personnel. The second transformation is instrumental. Administrative reform

relates to the manners and ways of governance as well as the methods of civil

servants in fulfilling their business. The third transformation is value orientation.

It relates to the value reorientation of governmental employees. Apparently, if

10

administrative reform only targeted government structure, it could not reach its

predicted goals.

��Administrative reforms isolated from political and social networks. It is

impossible for administrative reform to be separated from the whole social

network. To look at a broad scope, legislature, executive, judiciary, social

organization, political party, economic organization are all co-managers of an

integrated society. The isolated treatment of observation and handling

administrative issues is not recommended. The problems of administrative

agencies are the embodiment of diverse factors such as politics, economy, culture

and law. Hence, government reinvention should not be limited within

government organization. It should be linked with political reform, economic

reform, judicial reform, legislature reform and societal organization reform. In

the not long past, China implemented a highly centralized planning economy

whenever government could not be distinguished from party, enterprises could

not be distinguished from government, and society could not be distinguished

from government. Considering the foregoing factors, what we need for

government reinvention is inevitably a systematic, large-scale, universal and

thorough government reinvention network related to political party, politics,

legislature, judiciary and social organizations. Thus administrative reforms

should not be constrained within the government hierarchical pyramid. This logic

can explain why Chinese administrative reforms has not been implemented in the

past.

11

��Omitting the Social Interaction and Democratic Participation. Previous

administrative reforms have been decided by the top decision-makers. The

volition of top leaders determined the conduct of administrative reform. If

citizens have no right, power and opportunity to participate in policy making in

the government, the situation will trigger the type three error (Dunn, 1994, 151).

According to the prescription by Lindblom, a scientific society and self-guiding

society “brings lay probing of ordinary people and functionaries to center stage,

though with a powerful supporting role played by science and social science

adapted to the lay role in probing volition.” (Lindblom, 1990,p214). This is to

say that democratic participation is not only possible but also necessary.

��Lack of Theoretical Contemplation and Reflection. Previous administrative

reforms have reflected that we are not adequately prepared in theory and

contemplation. We lack systematic theoretical recognition regarding a set of

significant theoretical issues. What is the nature of public administration? What

is the function and duty of government? What is the relation between

government and enterprise? What is the relation between government and

society? What is the relation between central government and local government?

What is the manner of governance? What is the purpose of administrative reform?

And so forth. If administrative reforms lack theoretical contemplation and

reflection, it will be bogged down to the forest of instruments and techniques

(Jun, 1994).

12

II. The Crisis of State-Center Governance Paradigm

There are many reasons for the multiple problems of governance and administrative

reform such as the constraint of external environment, the resistance of bureaucrats and

vested interest from other groups. The key problem, however, is derived from the

traditional governance paradigm. Traditional Chinese society is a highly centralized

country marked as “Strong State, Weak Society.” After the founding of P.R. China, the

former Soviet Union model and planning economy had strengthened this characteristic.

Building upon this base, China formed a governance paradigm of State-Center. The key

characteristics of this governance paradigm are displayed as below (Gray, 1990):

��There exists the opposition between “Left” and “Right” in ideology.

��Viewing government as a monopoly system rather than the construction from

democratic consensus.

��Centered around political party to decide the politics of the county.

��Tendency of centralization.

��Favoring the centralization of authority and power, lacking the check and balance

mechanisms.

��Emphasis control rather than governance, unwillingness to share authority and power.

��Focus on order, unity, compliance and control.

��Government plays the role as paternalism and baby-sitter.

��Emphasis on the role of government and suspect the role of market.

��Emphasis on elite planning and policy-making, neglect the social designing.

13

��Closeness in environment, attempting to select and reducing the environment

influence.

��Non-openness of government information.

��Rule by man, limited role of law and formal regulations.

��Authority propels change.

��Producer center rather than consumer center.

It is obvious that there are contradictions within a State-center governance paradigm. The

main conflicts are:

��The contradiction between government-centralized power and accountability

control. More and more political corruption and accountability loss occurs in China

because the Chinese government owns much power without power check, balance

and constraint.

��The contradiction between government control and social vitality. The interference

and control of government over society and enterprise resulted in the shortage of a

vigorous civic society, and low efficiency of SOEs.

��The contradiction between government size expanding and controlling. It is logical

to have a swelled bureaucracy because government assumed too many functions. If

the government function cannot be weakened, the size and organization of

government cannot be downsized. “Small but omnipotent” government is only a

kind wish and Utopian ideal.

14

��The contradiction between closeness of governance and the development of

democratic system. The over focus on order, unity, compliance and control of the

traditional State-center governance paradigm leads to its tension with democratic

political value.

��The contradiction between rule by man and rule of law. The development of the

market economy and democratic politics requires a government of rule of law. Rule

of law government implies that government and officials will be constrained by

predicted regulation and law. Bureaucratic discretion should be bounded. In the

traditional State-center governance paradigm, the utmost feature is rule by man.

Without rule of law, good governance is impossible.

��The contradiction between government-center and social responsibility. Under the

State-center governance paradigm, government is the producer, provider and even

the monopolist of public goods. Additionally, there lacks market competition and

pressure from the political arena. As a result, the mechanism of accountability is

upward. Bureaucrats are only responsible to their boss. The citizen’s opinion

cannot be responded on time and social responsibility is only a slogan.

�� The contradiction between the complexity, diversity and uncertainty of governance

and the capacity of governance. Under the circumstance of complexity, diversity and

uncertainty, all encompassing government cannot cope with an increase in social

problems.

15

III. The Citizen-Center Governance Paradigm and Reinventing Government in

China.

3.1 The Citizen-Center Governance Paradigm

The crisis of public administration and dilemma of administrative reform in China

stemmed from the State-Center governance paradigm. The traditional governance

paradigm is incapable of directing China’s administrative reform. Chinese administrative

reform needs to begin with reflection and critique of the traditional governance paradigm

to establish a new paradigm that conforms to the changing society. In our view, this new

paradigm is the Citizen-center governance paradigm.

What it means for Citizen-center governance paradigm?

��Be able to surpass the “Left” and “Right” dichotomy in ideology.

��View government as a construction of institutional dialogue and consensus.

��Favor decentralization and local governance.

��Emphasis on sharing of social management.

��Emphasis on separation and check of power.

��Encouraging pluralism and innovation.

��Government plays the role of promoting growth, creation, cooperation,

transformation and integration.

��Balancing the function between government and market.

16

��Emphasis on the participation of social design and citizen in policy-making.

��The openness and transparency of administration.

��Emphasis on the rule of law.

3.2 Reinventing Government in China under New Governance Paradigm: the

Prospect for Future Development

From the perspective of Citizen-Center Governance Paradigm, reinventing government in

China is essentially a social reconstruction campaign centered on promoting citizenship

and social reorganization. Reinventing government is a reconstruction of relations. To

be specific, reinventing government is adjusting multiple pair-wise relations between

government and citizenry, government and market, government and enterprise,

government and society, central government and local government, executive and

legislature, executive and judiciary, technical rationality and value rationality and so forth.

It is necessary to realize the following fundamental transformation for reinventing

government;

1. Reconstructing the Relationship between Government and Citizen. On the one hand,

governance requires informed citizens, communicable citizens and participatory

citizens to participate in the policy making, implementation and management of public

affairs. On the other hand, government must change the traditional control orientation

to the role of public service provider and become a service-oriented government.

17

Democratic participation should not be limited within private sector employees (Zhao,

2001) but should be expanded to all the people/citizenry as well.

2. Reconstructing the Relationship between Government and Market. It is vital to

balance the function between government and market because of wide-spread market

failure and government failure in China. A more practical option in China’s context is

cultivating market mechanism in the arena of providing public goods and service.

Through the reconstruction of the relationship between government and market,

government will be reoriented toward the direction of market-friendly.

3. Reconstructing the Relationship between Government and Enterprise. Government

should acknowledge and protect private property rights, and encourage and promote

the development of private business. It is beneficial to facilitate the reorganization of

State-owned Enterprises (SOEs), to change the status of government interfering with

the business of enterprises and ultimately form a system of enterprise with vitality

through various strategies such as “privatization,” “relaxing the government

regulation.” The role of government over enterprise should be shifted from trouble-

maker to facilitator helper for enterprise development.

4. Reconstructing the Relationship between Government and Citizen Society. Against

the backdrop of a complex, diverse and uncertain environment, government should

effectively mobilize the force of citizen society to integrate the social resources for

governance, rather than using the control mechanism or the manner of centralized

power to weaken the citizen society force. To fulfill this task, the traditional

hierarchic structure of paramount State and subordinate citizen society should be

changed to horizontal and flat, a trend to structuring organizations (Golembiewski,

18

1998). It will be fruitful for government to view social issues from a polycentric

approach, to encourage the development of social organizations and non-profit

organizations, and ultimately form a multi-actor network.

5. Reconstructing the Relationship between Central Government and Local Government.

It is valuable to surpass the conventional bigotry of contradictory relationships

between centralization and decentralization in order to change the diametric

contradictory between central government and local government (Jia & Lin, 1994). It

is fruitful to balance the power and responsibility between central government and

local government, to develop a modern central-local relationship with “local

autonomy and central integration” characteristics. It will be an important strategic

option for the central legislature to grant local government with more autonomous

power that local government could be more responsive to the local needs and finally

form good local governance.

6. Reconstructing the Relationship between Executive and Legislature, and between

Executive and Judiciary. From the perspective of China’s context, the key problem is

lacking an effective and valid checking mechanism. It is one of the biggest challenges

for China’ s government reinvention to find an avenue to constrain government power

for political purposes or abusing power, to contain blooming corruption in

contemporary China, and in the meantime to sustain the independence of the executive

branch of government. To accomplish this purpose, the key issues involve how to

maintain the independence and validity of the judiciary system and how to realize the

separation, the checks and balances of power, and how to establish a complementary

accountability mechanism. American constitutions have ensured the checks and

19

balances of power among the executive, legislature and judiciary branch of

government (Gunther, 1991; Cann, 1998; Lowi, 1992). Whether it is any guide to

China needs to be seen. Only a clean government can win the legitimacy among the

public.

7. Reconstructing the Relationship between State Governance and Global Governance.

Globalization has already become the world trend. In a global community, the future

state will still bear the major responsibility of managing public affairs. However, the

State function as “Sovereign entity” will be weakened, replaced with the role as

prominent component and cooperative partner in the international political network. It

is one of the biggest challenges for Chinese government reinvention to adapt to the

development of globalization and correspondingly to proceed with government

reinvention.

By and large, in our view, the effective running of a democratic society is constructed on

the coordinating network of multiple actors. A principle component of this network is a

legitimate, responsible, accountable and capable government. Next is the building of

market mechanism with efficiency. Then, a creative component is enterprise with vigor.

The fourth component is an independent citizen society with vitality. The fifth

component of this network is the building of citizenship in its full sense, and so forth.

Contemporary Chinese government encounters an environment with complexity,

uncertainty and diversity, as well as the wide-spread requirements called for by the public

to government administration, requiring government to posses stronger capacity of

20

governance. On the other hand, in modern age, government cannot become the sole

governor of the society. Government has to unify more social actors for co-governance

and co-management. The shifting from a State-center governance paradigm to partner

coordinating governance among government, market, citizen society and citizenry

(Society-center) is a key component for improving the governance capacity.

Conclusion:

Theoretical Implications for Reconstructing Chinese Public Administration

The contemporary study of public administration over the world is relatively young. As

an independent academic field of learning, it has had only a short history within twenty

years in China (Zhang, 2000; Holzer and Zhang, 2001) though China has a long history

of governance for more than four thousand years (Zhang, 1993). In Western countries,

the study of public administration dates back barely two hundred years (Caiden, 1983). If

this independent discipline of public administration is to mature in China, we have to face

at least three challenge tasks. One is to conduct comprehensive comparative studies to

learn from international experience and advanced theories. Another is to learn our own

culture, tradition, and especially political and public administration history. Still another

daunting task is to integrate various theories with the present reality of Chinese society.

In short, through the investigation of administrative reform in China, many implications

for reconstructing Chinese public administration follow.

21

The future development of Chinese public administration theory needs to return to re-

cognize some basic issues such as publics, public nature, public domain, public interest

and public responsibility. Public nature is the essence of public administration. To

pursue public interest is one of the prominent features of public administration (Wamsley,

1996).

The value pursuance of Chinese public administration should be multiple. Advocating

and defending fundamental values of a democratic society posses a significant meaning

and priority, especially when we consider the importance of a democratic constitution in

the development of China and when we consider the possibility that efficiency could be a

tool for governance without the protection of a democratic constitution.

Chinese public administration should not only be limited to exploration within a

technical dimension such as organization management, information management, fiscal

and budget management, policy management, even though, these techniques are

important. Nevertheless, Chinese public administration should also explore macro

strategic issues such as the public philosophy and public spirit, as well as how to realize a

democratic constitution. Otherwise Chinese public administration theory might become

the headless fly and lose direction. The research of public administration in China should

emphasize the importance of political course and judiciary course and should not be

constrained by the management course. The same problem has been captured by

American scholars in a Capitalist society as well, “The problem then lies not simply in a

lack of organizing and managerial skills, though we still have plenty of room for

22

improvement. Rather it goes beyond, to the problem of governing a modem republic with

a commitment to freedom and justice on the one hand and a commitment to a complex

mixture of capitalism and state intervention on the other.”(Wamsley, 1996)

In contemporary China where private sector and civic society are still in a backward stage,

public administration has to acknowledge the justification of government in State

governance. Otherwise, anarchy and anti-state sentiment will emerge. Meanwhile,

public administration is not only administration by government, but also a network

composed by multiple actors (Non Government Organization, Non Profit Organization,

Enterprise Organization, Social Units, Citizen, etc.). Our understanding of public

administration is the process that government unifies other actors, government integrates

the entire social resources and carries out the constitution goals.

As Robert A. Dahl said half a century ago that “Generalizations derived from the

operation of public administration in the environment of one nation-state cannot be

universalized and applied to public administration in a different environment. A

principle may be applicable in a different framework. But its applicability can be

determined only after a study of that particular framework.” (Dahl, 1947, p191). Also,

Woodrow Wilson discussed the importance of comparative administration one-century

ago:

by studying administration as a means of putting our own politics into convenient

practice, as a means of making what is democratically politics towards all

23

administratively possible towards each—we are on perfectly safe ground, and can learn

without error what foreign systems have to teach us. We thus devise an adjusting weight

for our comparative method of study. We can thus scrutinize the anatomy of foreign

governments without fear of getting any of their diseases into our veins: dissect alien

systems without apprehension of blood-poisoning (Wilson, 1887, p25).

In the field of public administration in China, as well as in any other fields, there isn’t a

complete set of universal principles that can be borrowed from abroad that can be applied

directly to China’s context without adaptation. China’s public administration theory thus

has to stand its own ground on China’s context such as politics, economy, society, history

and culture and develop administrative theory that can explain the administration reality

in China and can direct the administrative practice in China. To be certain, learning and

borrowing administrative theory from abroad is important as suggested by Wilson (1887).

This paper has proposed a new paradigm of the citizen-center governance paradigm for

the reference of Chinese public administration theory construct and implications for

future administrative reform in China for the 21st Century. Some of the points have

become the reality of Chinese public administration while others, we expect, hopefully

will become the guidelines for government reinvention in China for future practice. Most

concepts are used without definitions and thus should be understood for their generic

sense. The paper proposes a theoretical model of governance paradigm, focusing on

“what we ought to do” rather than “How should we get there.” This onerous task is left

for future research.

24

Reference:

Caiden, G.E. Loverd, R.A. Pavlak, T.J. Sipe, L.F. Wong. M.M. American Public

Administration: a bibliographical guide to the literature. Garland Publishing,

Inc. New York & London. 1983

Cann, Steven J. Administrative Law. Second Edition. 1998 Sage Publications.

Dahl, Robert A. “The Science of Public Administration.” In Jay M. Shafritz & Albert

C. Hyde edited Classics of Public Administration. Second Edition, Revised and

Explained. The Dorsey Press, Chicago. 1987.

Deng, Xiaoping. “Downsizing Organization is a revolution.” In Zhifeng Liu

edited The Seventh Revolution. p1. Economic Daily Publishing House. 1998.

Dunn, W.N. Public Policy Analysis. Prentice-Hall. 1997.

Golembiewski, Robert T. “Trends in the Development of the Organizational

Sciences.”In J.Rabin, W.B. Hildreth and G. Miller editted, Handbook of

Public Administration, Second Edition, 1998. p103-116

Gunther, Gerald. Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. Westbury, New York.

The Foundation Press, Inc. 1991.

25

Gray, Jack. Rebellions and Revolutions: China from the 1800s to the 1980s. Oxford

University Press. 1990

Holzer, Marc & Zhang, Mengzhong. “Public Administration and Public Policy

Education in China” PA Times. Feb. 2001

Hughes, O.E. Public Management and Administration. ST. Martin’s Press. 1998.

Jia, Hao and Lin, Zhimin. Edited. Changing Central-Local Relations in China: Reform

and State Capacity. 1994

Jun, Jong. Philosophy of Administration. Daeyoung Moonhwa Internation. 1994

Konn, Terry. Holzer, Marc & Zhang, Mengzhong. “New Public Administration:

Seeking Social Justice and Democratic Value.” The Journal of Chinese Public

Administration. Feb. 2001.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago

Press. 1962

Lindblom, Charles E. The Troubled Attempt to Understand & Shape Society: Inquiry

and Change. Yale University Press. 1990

Liu, Zhifeng. The Seventh Revolution. Economic Daily Publishing House. 1998

Lowi, Theodore J., Ginsberg, Benjamin & Hearst, Alice. American Government:

26

Readings and Study Guide. Second Edition. W.W. Norton & Company. 1992.

Luo, Gan. “Explanation of State Council Organizational Reform Plan”. In Zhifeng

Liu edited The Seventh Revolution. p88-96. Economic Daily Publishing House.

1998.

Qian, Qizhi. “Three State Council Organizational Reform.” China Organization.

March 1998.

Root, Hilton. “Corruption in China: Has It Become Systemic?” ASIAN SURVEY.

August 1996

Wamsley, G.L. & Wolf, J.F. (Eds). Refounding Democratic Public Administration:

Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges. London: Sage. 1996

Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration” In Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C.

Hyde edited Classics of Public Administration. Fourth Edition. Harcourt

Brace College Publishers. 1997.

The World bank. 1997 Development Report. 1997

Zhang, Chengfu. “Public Administration in China” in M, Mills & S.S Nagel edited

Public Administration in China. Greenwood Press. 1993

Zhang, Chengfu. The Megachange: the Objectives and Action Choice of China’s

Administrative Reforms. China Reform Publishing House. 1994

Zhang, Mengzhong. “An Overview of Public Administration in the U.S.A. for A

Century. Part Two” The Journal of Chinese Public Administration. June. 2000

27

Zhang, Mengzhong. “A New Era of Cooperation between ASPA and CPAS” PA

Times. August, 2000

Zhao, Zhuping. “Labor Participation in Policy-Making.” The Journal of Chinese

Public Administration. Feb. 2001