Special issue introduction: integrating Asia Pacific influences and public management research

Hofstede (2007) argues that the Asia context is special enough to merit more Asia management research. Indeed, public management lessons from the Asia Pacific region may open new windows that allow scholars to improve public management theory and practice. One example is the response of Asia Pacific countries to the COVID-19 pandemic. States in Asia Pacific region took measures that greatly differ from those in North America and West Europe, but their performance in combating the pandemic was no less effective than Western countries. Scholars argue that high performance in many Asian states can be attributed to people’s high trust in government, which is embedded in Confucian culture’s submission to authority (Chen & Hsieh, 2017). However, research that systematically examines Asia Pacific public management remains lacking. As Hofstede (2007) claims, Asian scholars should have more confidence in developing their own research agenda. In our view, the agenda for scholars in the Asia Pacific region should address the following themes. First, it should propose concepts or phenomena tailored for the Asia Pacific context. Many cultural or institutional concepts that cannot be found in the Western context, but meanwhile affect administrative behaviour and public management practices in Asia Pacific region, need to be treated seriously. For example, 2015) propose the concept of “guanxi”, a behavioural pattern grounded in the Confucian culture, and test whether promotion in the Chinese public sector is guanxi-based or merit-based. Second, it should compare public management across the borders, either between the East and the West or among Asian states. Comparative public administration has long been an important branch in public administration research. For example, Chen et al. (2019) find that people’s interest in and attraction to a public service career differs greatly among New Zealand, the United States, and Taiwan, with New Zealand being the lowest and Taiwan being the highest. Reasons for this variation in the attractiveness of public careers has been attributed to radical administrative reform in New Zealand and the high prestige of public servants in Taiwan. Additional research is needed to fully understand the differences across these countries. Finally, it should examine the applicability of propositions developed in the West. For example, in Western countries, most scholars agree that those who are high in public service motivation (PSM) tend to prefer a public-sector than a private-sector career. Some scholars in Asia Pacific countries, however, have failed to reach the same conclusion (Lee & Choi, 2016). In addition, facing competitive public service exams, high-PSM individuals in the East Asian countries are more likely to be “winnowed out” from public service (Chen et al., 2020). We