How has reform changed Chinese and American civil service systems in light of China’s landmark reform in 1993 by contrast to the aftermath of the U.S. Civil Service Act of 1883? While there are significant differences, remarkable administrative and political similarities also emerge. Particularly salient is the role of educational systems in the civil service development of both countries. Surprisingly, this comparative analysis finds a common struggle to balance professional expertise with political accountability and control. King Kwun Tsao of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and John Abbott Worthley of Seton Hall University argue that further comparative research is essential to hone an improved understanding of China specifically as well as civil service systems generally.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The 1998 administrative reforms in China provide a pregnant context for comparative analysis of the “reinventing government” movement. Described in some detail, the reforms are compared with the recent administrative reform experience in the United States. Significant similarities are illuminated using the prisms of ideology, politics, history, bureaucracy, and economics. Insight emerges on the role of experience, leadership, and technical-political expertise in administrative development. The analysis concludes that the art and science of global public administration can be advanced through increased comparative analysis of non-Western developing systems with the more developed Western administrative states.

Professor Ali Farazmand's seminal article on “Building Administrative Capacity for the Age of Rapid Globalization: A Modest Prescription for the Twenty‐First Century” is a powerful and comprehensive treatise on the nature and characteristics of governance and public administration—indeed, a manifesto for action. The content is rich and the scope is wide. The timely discussion offers operational concepts that can be used to analyze and remedy the economic and political ills that have resulted from many years of ideologically charged laissez‐faire capitalism, including the current global credit crisis and financial meltdown (Friedman and Friedman 1990; Krugman 2007) that have affected governments and governance capacity worldwide.

As a new world economy emerges what is being learned about the accompanying phenomenon of administrative corruption? To probe this question we combine study of current developments in China with prevailing theories of corruption. The administrative corruption experience, as it has unfolded during the economic development thrust of the Deng reform era, is described and analysed in a comparative context. In specifically interjecting the American experience we suggest that a balanced control response to corruption —rather than an elimination focus—could be a fruitful avenue for policy and research, and that informal, social approaches to corruption control are pregnant with possibilities. China's experience offers a significant opportunity to push the margin of wisdom on these issues as they relate to economic and political development.