469C Bukit Timah Road

Oei Tiong Ham Building

Singapore 259772
Tel: (65) 6516 6134 Fax: (65) 6778 1020
Website: www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

[Accepted]
Paper Series

Teaching Public Policy in East Asia:

Aspirations, Potentials and Challenges

Wu Xun
Associate Professor
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
Email: [sppwuxun@nus.edu.sg]

Allen Yu-Hung Lai

PhD Candidate
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
Email: [allen@nus.edu.sg]

Do Lim Choi
Associate Professor
Department of Public Administration
Chungnam National University
Email: [dmchoi@cnu.ac.kr]

Date: 27 November 2012

Paper No.: LKYSPP 12-20

Electroniccopy
Electronic copyavailable
available at:
at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
 2

This article should be of interest to scholars in collaborative public

management, nonprofit research, and network management.

Please cite this paper as the following form:

Xun Wu , Allen Yu-Hung Lai & Do Lim Choi (2012): Teaching Public Policy in East
Asia: Aspirations, Potentials and Challenges, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis:
Research and Practice, 14:5, 376-390

Electroniccopy
Electronic copyavailable
available at:
at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
 3

Teaching Public Policy in East Asia:

Aspirations, Potentials and Challenges

Abstract

Public policy courses have increasingly become an indispensible part in professional training

programs in public affairs in East Asia in response to rapid changes in political, social and

economic environment in the region. In this paper, we examine the current trends in public

policy education in East Asia through the lens of syllabi of public policy courses offered in

graduate programs in leading universities in mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Our comparative analysis points to three main challenges in teaching public policy in East

Asia: insufficient attention to policy knowledge rooted in the local context, inadequate

teaching capacity and under-representation of policy analysis.

Key words: public policy training, East Asia, and course syllabus

Electroniccopy
Electronic copyavailable
available at:
at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190272
 4

Introduction

Although public policy as a field of study was introduced to East Asia as early as 1960s (Kim

and Kang 1992, Jan 2003), the mainstreaming of public policy training in the development of

educational programs and professional practices in public affairs has been a recent

phenomenon, stimulated by rapid changes in political, social and economic environment in

many East Asian countries as well as the proliferation of professional training programs, such

as Master in Public Administration (MPA), in the region. In Korea and Taiwan, the transition

towards democratic systems has broadened the scope of participation in policy process and

thus boosted demand for policy specialists and analysts with professional training in public

policy (Lee 2007, Mok 2007). In mainland China, where there were only a handful of

universities offering courses on public policy in the mid 1990s, under the guidelines

stipulated by National MPA Steering Committee, public policy analysis has became one of

the nine compulsory courses for MPA programs, which are now offered in more than 100

universities across the country (Wu and He 2009). In addition, public policy has been

included as a key subject in civil service entrance exams in a number of countries (Jan 2003,

Xu 2005, Park 2009, Watanabe 2009).

The increased emphasis on public policy training should provide not only tremendous

impetus to the development of the field of public policy in East Asia, but also

unprecedented opportunities to strengthen policy capacity among government

agencies, NGOs, and civil society. While East Asian countries made great strides

towards economic and social development in the last century, each of them has been

confronted with a set of daunting challenges, such as global warming, terrorism, and

aging population. Policy capacity in dealing with these challenges in these countries

may be the decisive factor in determining their success in the 21st century, and public

policy training can be the catalyst.

4
 5

On the other hand, however, the rapidly growing demand for public policy training in

East Asia may present serious challenges. Due to the limited number of graduate

programs in public policy in East Asia, very few scholars have been trained in the

field of public policy. In mainland China, for example, the public policy analysis

courses required for MPA programs are often taught by faculty members with neither

training nor professional experience in the field of public policy (Ren 2002, Gao

2004, Qian 2007). In Taiwan, Korea and Japan, although generations of scholars have

pursued their studies in Western countries where there is a longer history in public

policy education..

More important, the development of learning materials may not keep pace with the

fast growing demand for public policy training. Although the origin of field of public

policy can be traced to the emergence of policy science in Western countries,

particularly the US, the study of public policy is rooted deeply in political systems,

cultural norms, and historical contexts that are considerably different from one

country to another, and therefore discerning efforts are critical in assessing the

applicability of theories and practices developed in other contexts. However, the fast

growing demand for public policy training may leave little time for the development

of learning materials based on local contexts, forcing instructors/scholars to reply on

learning materials from Western countries.

This paper focuses on various tensions in the development of public policy training in East

Asia and their potential impacts to the development of the field in the long run. In particular,

we examine teaching capacity, coverage, and learning materials for public policy training in

East Asia through the analysis of 62 syllabi used in graduate programs in top universities in

5
 6

mainland China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Our analysis allows us to uncover some salient

features in the development of public policy training in East Asia and to gain insight into

potentials and challenges in such development.

Research Methodology

Course syllabi have been used to analyze trends in the development in public policy training

(Romero 2001, Rethemeyer and Helbig 2005). Straussman (2008) has concluded that

reviewing syllabi in public affairs programs is an important means for exploring the level of

agreement in the profession about what comprises core content in professional training

curricula. However, course syllabi have rarely been used to study curriculum development in

East Asia due perhaps to the fact that the use of syllabi was not a standard practice in many

universities in the region until recently.

The main data sources for our analysis are syllabi used in public policy courses in graduate

programs from 2008 to 2011 in top universities in mainland China, Taiwan, Korea and

Japan 1. For countries where there are few universities offering public policy courses, efforts

were made to collect syllabi from all of them. Most course syllabi were collected through

internet, but e-mail communications and telephone requests were also extensively used when

syllabi were not available through the public domain. However, while it is infeasible to check

all courses offered in the sampled departments (or programs), weve made efforts to examine

the titles of core courses to rule out the possibility of other similar courses on the subject of

1
While there is a long history of public policy training in Hong Kong and Macau,
there are in general too few programs in Hong Kong and Macau that offer graduate
programs in public administration or public policy to generate statistical results for
comparison purpose. Therefore, public policy courses taught in programs in Hong
Kong and Macau are not included in the sample of our analysis.

6
 7

public policy or policy analysis. Therefore we are confident that the courses included are the

only core courses in public policy/policy analysis in their respective programs.

To avoid oversampling of a particular university or program, we selected one syllabus from

each university targeted. For consistency, we excluded four types of courses from our sample:

courses offered as electives, courses only focusing on policy research, courses devoted to a

specific step in policy process such as evaluation, formulation, and decision-making, and

courses focusing on specific sectoral policy such as education policy and technology policy.

Although efforts were made to ensure the comparability of syllabi across programs and

countries, there are two limitations of our study. First, syllabi may not accurately delineate

what the instructors would be teaching as some instructors may prefer to use extremely

concise syllabi while others may have more detailed syllabi. Second, the omission of certain

topics from syllabi might be due to the design of curriculum in having them offered in other

courses included in the curriculum.

Our final sample consists of 62 syllabi in total, 23 from mainland China, 15 from Taiwan, 14

form Korea and 10 from Japan, as presented in Table 1. The small number of courses for

Japan is due to the fact only a limited number of Japanese universities currently offer courses

in public policy. In Japan, the number of public policy schools remains small with only eight

schools as of January 2012 (Watanabe 2009). However, there are about 30 plus universities

offering courses in public policy or policy analysis, mainly conducted in the graduate schools

of public administration and policy science (Ministry of Education, Japan 2012). In our

analysis, we have included the majority of first-batch-universities accredited by Japans

Ministry of Education that conducted programs in public policy.

[Table 1 about here]

7
 8

Based on Romeros synthesized model for public policy courses (Romero 2001), we

coded the contents of course syllabi by four categories according to four main

pedagogical foci typically expected in public policy courses, they are, namely,

fundamentals of public policy, policy process, policy context, and policy analysis, and

each category is represented by several key topics. The details on the rationale of such

categorization as well as the selection of topics for each category will be explained in

details in next section.

While building on earlier studies based on analysis of course syllabi, two innovations

were introduced in our research. First, due to the tremendous growth in the demand

for training in the public policy, efforts were made to collect the profiles of course

instructors so that analysis can be conducted on teaching capacity for public policy

training in East Asia. Through internet search and direct inquiries, we were able to

construct the profiles of instructors, which include information on their highest

educational credentials, field of study, and places (countries and educational

institutions) where they obtained their highest educational credentials. Second, based

on information obtained from syllabi in our sample, we identified and collected most

frequently used public policy textbooks that were written by local scholars. Lists of

references in these textbooks were coded and analyzed to gauge the extent to which

learning materials reflect theories and practices generated in local contexts, a critical

aspect for training in public policy.

Findings and Discussion

Profile of Course Instructors

8
 9

Table 2 presents the profiles of course instructors in terms of their training background. While

the majority of instructors (82.3%) are doctorate degree holders, there are sizable differences

across East Asia, ranging from less than two thirds in mainland China to 100% in Korea. It is

striking that, in mainland China, more than one fifth of instructors for graduate courses on

public policy only possess bachelors degrees themselves, an indication of daunting

challenges for many Chinese universities to cope with fast growing demand for public policy

courses. Aside from Japan, where scholars trained in economics and law seem to play an

significant role in public policy training, the majority of instructors (about three quarters)

received training in the field of public administration/public policy for their highest

educational credentials.

[Table 2 about here]

Although the majority of course instructors obtained their highest academic credentials from

universities in their own countries, there are considerable disparities across East Asia, ranging

from 91.3% in China and only about a third in Taiwan where roughly two thirds pursued their

graduate study in the US. The United States is the top destination for scholars to pursue their

study outside their own countries as around 30% of course instructors in our sample are

graduates of various degree programs from educational institutions in the US.

It would be wrong to assume that the Western influence to public policy training in China

would be less extensive because 91.3% of course instructors obtained their highest

educational credentials in China. Universities across China have made tremendous efforts in

recent years to strengthen capacity building and many faculty members have been sent to

Western countries for short training programs or joint research projects, and as a result, it is

rare that a scholar from a top university in China didnt have any experience abroad. More

important, sustained efforts have been made to translate books written by Western scholars so

9
 10

that language barriers have had smaller impacts. Table 3 shows the selected list of public

policy books that have been translated into Chinese, and the list has been expanding quickly.

[Table 3 about here]

Pedagogical Focus 1: Fundamentals of Public Policy

Although there is no consensus on what consist of fundamentals in the field of public policy,

we include the following topics in this category: concepts of public policy, evolution of policy

sciences and approaches to public policy, based on the list of topics typically appear in

leading public policy textbooks, such as Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009) and Lester and

Stewart (2000). The coverage of these topics in our sampled courses is reported in Table 4.

There seems to be a strong tendency among courses instructors in East Asia to include topics

categorized as fundamentals of public policy. Given that the introductory nature of many

courses selected, the emphasis on these topics is well placed.

[Table 4 about here]

One finding may not be obvious from the coverage statistics in Table 4 is the dominant

influence of Western literature. A glimpse through leading public policy textbooks used in

courses in mainland China, Taiwan and Korea would quickly come to the revelation that

definitions of public policy in the classics of public policy written by Western scholars such

as Dye (2002) and Dror (1996) and Jenkins (1978), the history and evolution of policy

science in the US, and various approaches such as public choice, positivism, institutionalism

are often upheld as the fundamentals of public policy by East Asian scholars.

Pedagogical Focus 2: Policy Process

10
 11

Although the prominence of stage model as a policy science theory has gradually declined

among public policy scholars, the use of various stages in policy process in sequencing and

organizing contents in public policy courses seems to continue to hold its appeal. In our

analysis, we used the five steps outlined in Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009)agenda

setting, policy formulation, decision-making, policy implementation and policy evaluation

as the basis, and added two more steps featured in other classics of public policy (Jones,

1984; Lester and Stewart, 2000; Sabatier, 1999)policy legitimization and policy

terminationinto the category of policy process.

Table 4 shows that policy process receives high level of coverage among public policy

courses in East Asia, especially in mainland China and Taiwan. A close examination of

textbooks used in courses in mainland China and Taiwan reveals that both policy process and

individual stages are covered extensively in these textbooks.

The underrepresentation of some topics, such as policy legitimization in Japan and Korea and

policy formulation in Korea, can be explained by differences in definition or merely

translation of terminologiesfor instance, policy formulation and legitimization may be

considered as a part of decision-making in some countries. However, there are still

considerable disparities both across countries and across topics. For example, topics related to

policy process were covered much less extensive in courses in Japan and Korea than those in

mainland China and Taiwan, and in Japan, policy implementation was only covered by three

out of ten courses included.

Pedagogical Focus 3: Policy Context

In policy context category, we included topics concerning policy actors, policy environment,

the interaction between policy actors and policy environment, and the interaction among

policy actors.

11
 12

In particular, we included two types of topics in this category to gauge the coverage on policy

context. The first type of topics focuses on policy actors and environment for policy

development, including policy actors, political systems and societal structures. The second

type of topics deals with how policy actors interact with each other, including policy network,

public opinion, policy discourse and policy marketing. Due to differences in political systems

and societal relationship, policy context can be expected to differ considerably from one

country to another.

While the majority of courses (72.6%) covered policy actors, the rest of topics in this

category received less attention than those in fundamentals of public policy and policy

process, and substantial variations are found for both across topics and across countries. For

example, two thirds of courses in mainland China did not include political systems, and

societal structures is not covered in six sevens of courses. In comparison, instructors form

Taiwan and Korea have paid much greater attention to topics related to policy context, such as

policy network, public opinion, and policy discourse.

One plausible explanation for more extensive coverage of these topics in Taiwan and

Korea might be the change in political systems. For example, the transition towards

democracy has increased the scope of public participation in public affairs, and thus

topics such as public opinion and policy discourse might be gaining more prominence

in public policy education. Another interpretation is that, because in both Taiwan and

Korea, a significant number of course instructors were trained in the US, they might

be more receptive to the influence of new trends in policy research in Western

countries, such as the emergence of post-positivism approaches to public policy.

Pedagogical Orientation 4: Policy Analysis

12
 13

Defined specifically, policy analysis is determining which of various alternative policies will

most achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals

(Nagel, 1994). Policy analysis differs from other pedagogical foci in that it emphasizes more

on prescriptive as supposed to analytical and descriptive aspects of public policy, and thus has

a strong practical orientation. The topics we chose to assess the coverage on policy analysis

include key steps in conducting policy analysis (Bardach, 1999; MacRae and Whittington,

2000)identifying policy problems, determination of decision criteria, alternative

formulation, and forecasting policy outcome.

While each of these steps is indispensible in conducting policy analysis, their coverage in

public policy courses differs considerably from one step to the other. For example, in general,

constructing policy problems received much more attention than formulating policy

options and forecasting policy outcomes. Such imbalance in coverage may undermine the

potentials of public policy training in improving the quality of policy making through better

policy analysis. One explanation is that technical aspects of some steps in policy analysis,

such as forecasting policy outcomes present significant challenges for many instructors who

were trained in disciplines in which technical analysis is not emphasized.

Given the practical orientation in the study of public policy, the development of skills and

craft in conducting policy analysis is an essential component of public policy education.

However, limited attention has been directed to this aspect. The fact that policy analysis

received greater attention among courses in mainland China does not mean that sufficient

attentions are paid to the development of necessary skills and craft. Close examination of

course syllabi and leading textbooks used in these courses reveals that the subject of policy

analysis is only covered in one chapter in textbooks, and instructors rarely spent more than

one session to the whole subject. In addition, based on course requirements stated in syllabi, it

is rare (two of 23 courses in mainland China) that students are required to conduct policy

analysis for a real policy issue. While it is true that policy analysis is often a part of masters

13
 14

theses or capstone projects in graduate programs in public administration and policy, our

analysis suggests that the students are often asked to conduct policy analysis before they

receive any formal training on the subject in their course work.

The challenges in better integrating policy analysis in public policy courses may also reflect

the institutional realities in many East Asian countries. For example, policy analysis is not

required and routinely practiced in most government agencies in these countries, and the

development of the profession of policy analysts is still in its early stage. On the other hand,

however, the weakness in policy analysis in public policy training may undermine the future

progress towards more extensive use of policy analysis in government agencies.

Learning Materials: Textbooks

Learning materials from Western countries have been used extensively in public policy

courses in East Asia as nearly half of courses required at least one book authored by foreign

scholars as a part of textbooks for the courses (Table 5). While it might be reasonable to

assume that instructors with overseas training experience might have a bias towards textbooks

authored by foreign scholars, there is no evidence to support it based on our analysis. For

example, although of the majority of Chinese instructors for courses in our sample (91.3%)

obtained their highest academic credentials from domestic universities, two thirds of them

required textbooks written by foreign scholars; in contrast, although most Korean instructors

(about two thirds) were trained abroad, the vast majority of them (85%) only assigned

textbooks written by Korean scholars.

[Table 5 about here]

While course instructors may typically assign a range of reading materials, such as journal

articles, government reports, and unpublished manuscripts, to supplement the textbooks, the

14
 15

uses of such materials were not systematically documented in the majority of the syllabi in

our sample, thus our comparison is based on the textbooks specified in the syllabi. As in other

fields in social sciences at the graduate level, textbooks should not only cover the classics of

readings in the discipline, but also introduce new theories and practices.

It is also a mistaken belief, however, that textbooks written by East Asian scholars would

necessarily differ substantially from those by their Western counterparts in their emphasis on

theories and practices generated in the context of their own countries. In order to gauge the

extent of such focus, we conducted an in-depth analysis on the references reported in nine

leading textbooks written by local scholars, three from Taiwan (Chiu, Wu, and Chang), three

from mainland China (Chen, Xie, and Yan), and three from Korea (Ro, Jung, and Kang).

[Table 6 about here]

It is clear that, books, especially books by foreign scholars, are heavily weighted in

comparison to journal articles, which are often considered the main sources for cutting-edge

research and new practices. There are also considerable differences across textbooks in the

number of books referenced as the percentage of total number of references, ranging from

44% in Jung, Jung and Gil (2005) to 99% Chen et al (2009). In addition, the majority of

journal articles referenced were written by foreign scholars and published in journals abroad,

and articles published in local journals only accounted for very small share in the references.

As a result, many textbooks by East Asian scholars can be seen as variants of textbooks from

Western countries.

The neglect of local scholarship in references reported in textbooks may in part reflect the

status of public policy research in East Asia. While greater efforts have been made to

introduce public policy theories and practices from the Western countries, insufficient

attentions have been paid to generate policy knowledge rooted from individual country

15
 16

contexts. In the long run, an over-reliance on learning materials imported from abroad may

inadvertently undermine the appealing of the study of public policy in providing practical

solutions to major policy challenges in East Asia.

Concluding remarks

The demand for public policy education has increased dramatically. In China, courses on

public policy analysis have been offered in over one hundred universities across the country

as a result of fast growing professional training programs in public administration. In Korea,

there are about 20 universities that offer Masters degrees in public policy. Similar

developments are also observed in other East Asian countries. There is shared optimism that

the greater emphasis on public policy education can contribute to the quality of policy-making

and governance in East Asia.

Our paper examines the current trends in public policy training in East Asia through the lens

of syllabi of public policy courses offered in graduate programs in leading universities in

mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Our analysis reveals several salient

features. First of all, public policy education in East Asia has been heavily influenced by the

theories, practices, learning materials from Western countries. Textbooks written by Western

scholars are often assigned as required textbooks in public policy courses, and the textbooks

written by local scholars are also largely dominated by theories and practices from Western

countries. Although local cases are indeed included in the textbooks, our in-depth analysis of

such cases included in selected textbooks suggests that they are often used to vindicate

theories or approaches generated by Western scholars. The under-representation of work by

local scholars in leading textbooks demonstrates that public policy research in East Asia has

not kept pace with the demand for public policy education. We believe that the

scholars/educators in East Asia can do more in generating policy knowledge. That is, to

16
 17

conceptualize and theorize based on individual country contexts, instead of merely

introducing and verifying policy knowledge generated in the Western countries.

Second, the fast growing demand for public policy education has posed significant challenges

in the area of teaching capacity. While the scholars trained in various disciplines may bring

fresh perspectives into public policy teaching and research, there is a danger of undermining

core values and approaches of the field.

Third, there is an imbalance of attention paid to descriptive, analytical and prescriptive

aspects in the study of public policy, as seen from the under-representation of policy analysis

in public policy courses. Insufficient attention has been paid to the development of skills and

craft in conducting policy analysis. The lack of emphasis on policy analysis may potentially

undermine the potential of public policy education in improving the quality of policy-making

through better policy analysis.

While one might rightly argue that the above problems might be temporary or transitional in

nature, the trends imbedded in these problems may have detrimental and potentially

irreversible impacts to the development of the field in the long run. For example, uncritically

upholding theories and practices generated in Western countries as general truths may divert

scholarship attention away from essential questions with regard to their applicability in

specific contexts. More important, the failure of public policy education in response to key

policy challenges may gradually vanquish tremendous enthusiasm and optimism placed on it

and resources allocated to public policy education may be diverted elsewhere. It is our hope

that the analysis in the paper can help to raise the awareness of these possibilities and that

individual and collective efforts can be made to elevate public policy education in East Asia

to the next level.

17
 18

Acknowledgment: the authors are grateful of Dr Jesse Lan, Dr. Jose Chen, David Yu, Takaaki

Oiwa, Kuniko Fuls, Kubo Yoshichika, Naoto Hamada, Seon Joo Kang for their assistance in

collecting syllabi from Taiwan, Japan and Korea. The authors also pay their gratitude to

insightful feedback received in 6th ICPA-Forum, Taipei in June 2009 that enriched our

argument in this paper.

18
 19

Table 1: List of Course Included in the Sample (n = 62)

Country University Course Title

China Wuhan Institute of Technology Public Policy Analysis
(23) Tianjin University of Science & Public Policy Analysis
Technology
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Public Policy Analysis
Renmin University of China Public Policy Analysis
China Central Radio and TV University Public Policy
Huazhong University of Science and Public Policy Analysis
Technology
Jilin University Public Policy Analysis
Shandong University Public Policy
Sichuan University Public Policy Analysis
Guangxi University Public Policy
Hunan University Public Policy Studies
Xi'an Jiaotong University Public Policy Analysis
Nanjing university Public Policy Analysis
Xiamen University Policy Science
Fudan University Public Policy Analysis
Southwest Jiaotong University Public Policy Analysis
Beijing Normal University Public Policy Analysis
Tong Ji University Public Policy
Peking Unversity Public Policy Analysis
Tsinghua University Public Policy Analysis
Sun Yat-sen University Public Policy Analysis
Nankai University Public Policy Analysis
Zhejiang University Public Policy Analysis
Taiwan National Chengchi University Public Policy Analysis
(15) National Taipei University Public Policy Studies
National Sun Yat-Sen University Public Policy Analysis
Shih Hsin University Public Policy
National Taiwan University Seminar on Public Policy
National Chung Hsin University Public Policy
National Chung Cheng University Policy Science
Kainan University Policy Analysis
National University of Tainan Public Policy Analysis
I-Shou University Public Policy Analysis
National Hsin Chu University of Public Policy
Education
National Open University Policy Analysis
National University of Kaohsiung Public Policy
Soochow University Public Policy
Tung Hai University Public Policy
Korea Seoul National University Theories of Public Policy
(14) Korea University Public Policy Analysis
Yonsei University Introduction to Policy Studies
Inha University Introduction to Policy Sciences
Sejong University Public Policy
Ehwa Womans University Policy Making and Implementation

19
 20

Chungnam National University Introduction to Policy Science

Pusan National University Policy Analysis
Kyungpook National University Policy Analysis and Evaluation
Kongju National University Policy Analysis
Pukyung National University Policy Making and Implementation
Yeungnam University Policy Science
KDI School Analysis of Policy Process
Dong-A University Policy-Making Theory
Japan University of Tokyo Policy Analysis
(10) Meiji University Public Policy
Ritsumei University Policy Science
Hokkaido University Public Policy
International Christian University Public Policy
Keio University Public Policy
Osaka University Public Policy
Chuo University Frontier of Public Policy
Kyoto University Public Policy
Hitotsubashi University Public Policy

20
 21

Table 2: Profiles of Course Instructors (n = 62)

Content China (23) Taiwan Japan Korea Total

(15) (10) (14)
Course instructor background
PhD 16(69.6%) 14(93.3%) 7(70%) 14 51 (82.3%)
(100%)
Master 2(8.7%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (10%) 0 4 (6.5%)
Undergraduate 5 (21.7%) 0 2(20%) 0 7 (11.3%)
Highest degrees from (local universities: 64.3%, overseas universities: 35.7%)
China 21 (91.3%) 0 0 0
US 1 (4.3%) 9 (60%) 1 (10%) 7 (50%) 18 (29.0%)
Taiwan 0 5(33.3%) 0 0
Japan 0 0 9(90%) 0
Korea 0 0 0 5 (35.7%)
UK 1 (4.3%) 1 (6.7%) 0 0
Others 0 0 0 2 (14.3%)
Field of study of the course instructor
Public 15 (65.2%) 13 (86.7%) 4 (40%) 12 44 (71.0%)
admin/policy/analysis (85.7%)
Economics 1 (4.3%) 0 2 (20%) 1 (7.1%) 4 (6.5%)
Political science 2 (8.7%) 1 (6.7%) 0 1 (7.1%) 4 (6.5%)
Law 1 (4.3%) 1 (6.7%) 3 (30%) 0 5 (8.1%)
Others 5 (21.7%) 0 2 (20%) 0 7 (11.3%)

21
 22

Table 3 List of Public Policy Textbooks Translated into Chinese (Selected)

Year of
Title Author(s) publication
New Science of Management Decision Simon, Herbert A. 1982
Systems analysis and policy science Klawn, R.M. 1987
Lindblom, Charles
The Policy-Making Process E. 1988
Public Policy-Making Anderson, James E. 1990
Making Public Policy Kelman, Steven 1990
Encyclopedia of Policy Studies Nagel, Sturt S. 1994
The Public Policy Dictionary Kruschke, Earl R 1992
Policy Making in the Crisis Dror, Yehezkel 1996
Theoretical foundations of public policy Bromley, Danniel 1996
Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning (2nd Patton, C & D.
Edition) Sawicki 2001
Public Policy Making: Process and Principles Gerston, Larry N. 2001
Weimer, D. & A.
Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (2nd Edition) Vining 2002
Public Policy Analysis (2nd edition) Dunn, William 2002
Understanding Public Policy Dye, Thomoas R. 2002
Top-Down Policymaking Dye, Thomoas R. 2002
Evaluation of Public Policy Fischer, Frank 2003
Post-modern Public Policy Cobb, John B. 2003
Agenda, Alternative and Public Policies Kingdon, John W. 2004
New Public Policy: Public Policy for Democracy Ingram & Schneider 2005
Policy Paradox Stone, Deborah 2006
Studying Public Policy: Policy cycle and Policy Howlett, Michael et
subsystem al 2006
Theories of the Policy Process Sabatier, Paul A. 2006
Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of
Public Administration Peters, Guy B. 2007

22
 23

Table 4: Coverage Based on Course Contents (n = 62)

Content China (23) Taiwan Japan Korea Total

(15) (10) (14)
Fundamentals of Public Policy
Concepts of Public Policy 23 (100%) 14(93.3%) 7 (70%) 9 (64.3%) 53 (85.5%)
Evolution of Policy 19 (82.7%) 10 (66.7%) 6(60%) 10 45 (72.6%)
science (71.4%)
Approaches to public 14 (60.9%) 10 (66.7%) 6 (60%) 9 (64.3%) 39 (62.9%)
policy
Policy Process
Agenda setting 18 (78.3%) 8 (53.3%) 5 (50%) 7 (50%) 38 (61.3%)
Policy formulation 15 (65.2%) 11 (73.3%) 9 (90%) 5 (35.7%) 40 (64.5%)
Decision-making 16 (61.9%) 12 (80%) 6 (60%) 7 (50%) 41 (66.1%)
Policy legitimization 15 (65.2%) 4 (26.7%) 1 (10%) 4 (28.6%) 24 (38.7%)
Policy implementation 18 (78.3%) 13 (86.7%) 3 (30%) 6 (42.9%) 40 (64.5%)
Policy evaluation 20 (87.0%) 14 (93.3%) 5 (50%) 6 (42.9%) 45 (72.6%)
Policy termination 12 (52.2%) 7 (46.7%) 2 (20%) 5 (35.7%) 26 (41.9%)
Policy Context
Policy actors 17 (73.9%) 11(73.3%) 9 (90%) 8 (57.1%) 45 (72.6%)
Political systems 9 (39.1%) 8 (53.3%) 7 (70%) 6 (42.9%) 30 (48.4%)
Society structures 4 (17.4%) 4 (26.7%) 7 (70%) 7 (50%) 22 (35.5%)
Policy network 4 (17.4%) 6 (40%) 2 (20%) 5 (35.7%) 17 (27.4%)
Public opinion 4 (17.4%) 9(60%) 5 (50%) 7 (50%) 25 (40.3%)
Policy discourse 0(0) 8 (53.3%) 0 6 (42.9%) 14 (22.6%)
Policy instrument 12 (52.2%) 9 (60%) 3 (30%) 4 (28.6%) 28 (45.2%)
Policy marketing 2 (8.7%) 4 (26.7%) 0 1 (7.1%) 7 (11.3%)
Policy Analysis
Constructing policy 21 (91.3%) 12 (80%) 2 (20%) 8 (57.1%) 43 (69.4%)
problems
Determination of 16 (69.6%) 3 (20%) 1 (10%) 7 (50%) 27 (43.5%)
policy objectives and
criteria
Formulating policy 12 (52.2%) 6 (40%) 1 (10%) 5 (35.7%) 24 (38.7%)
options
Forecasting policy 15(65.2%) 6 (40%) 0 5 (35.7%) 24 (38.7%)
outcome
Average number of topics 12.4 12.6 6.8 9.7
covered in each syllabus

23
 24

Table 5: Coverage Based on Course Contents (n = 62)

China Taiwan Japan Korea Total

Required textbook
Foreign only 1 (4.3%) 6 (40%) 2(20%) 1 (7.1%) 10 (16.1%)
Local only 8(34.8%) 4 (26.7%) 5(50%) 12 29 (46.8%)
(85.8%)
Both Foreign and 12(52.2%) 5 (33.3%) 1(10%) 1 (7.1%) 19 (30.6%)
local
Unknown 2(8.7%) 0 2 (20%) 0 4 (6.5%)

24
 25

Table 6: Analysis of Local Textbooks in Public Policy

Taiwan China Korea

Textbook Public Public Public Public Policy Introduction Public Policy Introduction Introduction Public Policy
title Policy Policy Policy Analysis to Public Science to Public to Public Analysis
Analysis Policy Policy Policy
Author Chiu Wu (2008) Chang et al. Chen et al. Xie et al. Yan et al. Ro, Wha Joon Jung, Jung Kang, Keun
(year) (2008) (2004) (2009) (2009) (2008) Gil et al. Bok
Highest PhD in PhD in PhD in PhD in public Master Under- PhD in public PhD in PhD in public
degree public public public policy graduate policy public policy policy
policy policy affairs
Reference 309 77 131 261 38 139 412 513 155
(total)
In the form of books
Total 241 59 (77%) 100 (76%) 259 (99%) 35 (92%) 114 (82%) 297 (72%) 223 113 (73%)
(78%) (43.5%)
Average: 77% Average: 91% Average: 62.8%
Foreign 228 46 75 184 25 87 251 190 71
books
Local 13 13 25 75 10 27 46 33 42
books
Local 8 (2.6%) 6 (7.8%) 17 (13%) 11 (4.2%) 8 (21%) 13 (9.3%) 29 (7.9%) 19 (3.7%) 28 (18%)
textbooks Average: 7.8% Average: 11.5% Average: 9.8%
In the form of Journal articles
Total 68 (22%) 18 (23%) 31 (24%) 2 (1%) 3 (8%) 25 (18%) 115 (28%) 290 42 (27%)
(56.5%)
Average: 23% Average: 9% Average: 37.2%
Foreign 57 10 25 2 2 15 91 223 19
articles
Local 11 (3.5%) 8 (10.3%) 6 (4.5%) 0 1 (2.6%) 10 (7.1%) 24 (6.5%) 67 (13%) 23 (15%)
articles Average: 6.1% Average: 3.2% Average: 11.5%

25
 26

References

Bardach, Eugene, 1999, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More
Effective Problem Solving (Los Angeles: CQ Press).

Birkland, Thomas A., 2001, An Introduction to the Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and
Models of Public Policy Making (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe).

Brunner, Ronald D., 1997, Teaching the Policy Sciences: Reflections on a Graduate Seminar.
Policy Sciences, 30, 217-231

Chang, S.S., 2004, Public Policy Analysis. (Taipei: Wu Nan Press).

Chen, C.M., 2009,. Public Policy Analysis, (Beijing: Renmin University Press).

Chiu, C.T., 2008, Public Policy (Taipei: Ju Liu Press).

Dye, Thomas R., 2002, Understanding Public Policy (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson
Prentice Hall).

Gao, S., 2004, On Public Policy Research: Localism and Empiricism. Chinese Public
Administration, 6, 93.

Howlett, Michael, Ramesh, M., and Perl, Anthony, 2009, Studying Public Policy: Policy
Cycles and Policy Subsystems (Don Mills: Oxford University Press).

Jan, C.Y., 2003,. New Public Policy History, Philosophy, Globalization (Taipei, Hua Tai
Press).

Jones, Charles O., 1984, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy (Monterey, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole).

Kim, J.H., and Kang, M.G, 1992, A Study of Public Policy Education in Korea, Korean
Policy Studies Review, 1,42-62.

Lester, James P., and Stewart, Joseph, 2000, Public Policy: An Evolutional Approach
(Canada: Wadsworth Thomson Learning)

Lee, H.Y., 2007, A Preview on the History of Korean Policy Sciences Prior to the Foundation
of the Korean Association for Policy Studies in 1992. Korean Policy Studies Review, 16(2),
1-29.

Lindblom, Charles E., 1968, The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs (NJ: Prentice-
Hall).

MacRae, Duncan, and Whittington, Dale, 2000, Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis
and Discourse (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press).

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu_koutou/senmonshoku/08060508.htm, accessed on 30 Jan,
2012.

Mok, J.H, 2007,. Suggestions for Analyzing and Developing Korean Public Policy Education.
Korean Policy Studies Review, 16(4), 97-118.

26
 27

Nagel, Stuart S., 1994, Encyclopedia of Policy Studies (New York: M. Dekker)

Park, Y., 2009, Korean Public Policy Programs: Past, Present, and Future, in: Proceedings of
the 6th International Comparative Policy Analysis Forum Workshop, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.(7) 1-
21.

Qian, B., 2007, On Localization of Public Administration: A Review of the Book Public
Administration in China. Education and Research, (3), 41-48.

Ren, S., 2002, Public Management toward Localized Research: Limitation, Logic, and
Relationship. China Public Administration, 10, 12-20.

Rethemeyer, R. Karl, and Helbig, Natalie C,, 2005, By the Numbers: Assessing the Nature of
Quantitative Preparation in Public Policy, Public Administration, and Public Affairs Doctoral
Education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 179-191.

Romero, Francine S., 2001, The Policy Analysis Course: Toward A Discipline Consensus.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 771-779.

Sabatier, Paul A., 1999, Theories of the policy process (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press).

Straussman, Jeffrey D., 2008, Public management, politics, and the policy process in the
public affairs curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 624-635.

Watanabe, S.P., 2009, Where Do They Belong in the Job Markets? A Comparative Analysis
of Public Policy Program Graduates in the United States and Japan, in: Proceedings of the 6th
International Comparative Policy Analysis Forum Workshop, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. (5) 1-18.

Wu, X., and He, J., (2009, Paradigm Shift in Public Administration: Implications for Teaching in
Professional Training Programs. Public Administration Review, 69, s21-s28.

Xie, M., 2009, Introduction to Public Policy (Beijing: Renmin University Press).

Yan, Q., 2008, Public Policy Science (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press).

Xu, L., 2005, Localization of Material on Public Policy Analysis. China Science and
Technology Information, 13, 232.

27