Beyond the Myth of Non-Western Bureaucracies

For decades, policymakers and scholars have relied on neat labels to describe how governments function: “Latin American bureaucracy,” “post-communist administration,” “Asian model.” These categories are supposed to provide clarity, but they may be doing more harm than good.

A recent article in Public Administration and Development takes a hard look at this conventional wisdom, using data from 29 countries across Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The result is that the realm of public administration is far more diverse — and far less predictable — than those labels suggest. In her article, Marlene Jugl (Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University) sets out to challenge a deeply rooted bias: the tendency to interpret non-Western systems through overly broad and often Western-centric categories.

The Problem with “Non-Western” Labels

At the heart of the study lies a simple but powerful critique. For years, administrative systems outside Europe and North America have been grouped into catch-all categories. As Jugl puts it, “Non‐Western countries are often summarized under broad labels, such as post‐communist or postcolonial.”

The point here isn’t just terminology — it’s accuracy. These labels assume a level of similarity that often doesn’t exist, masking deep institutional differences between countries that share little beyond geography or history.

A New Way to Read Governments

Instead of starting from historical “traditions,” Marlene Jugl flips the approach. She builds a classification based on how administrations actually function today.

To do this, the study examines 10 key features — from politicization and bureaucratic professionalism to decentralization and citizen participation — and condenses them into two broader dimensions:

• Citizen orientation: whether public administration primarily serves citizens or political and bureaucratic elites
• Structural concentration: how centralized or fragmented the state apparatus is

As Jugl explains, “Rather than classifying countries based on shared historical trajectories, I explicitly start from recent empirical data to map contemporary administrative systems.”

This shift moves the debate from theory to evidence — and the results reveal patterns that defy conventional wisdom.

Three Regions, Many Realities

Asia: One continent, two administrative worlds

The study finds a sharp divide within Asia. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore show relatively high citizen orientation and low levels of political interference. In contrast, countries such as India and Bangladesh display more fragmented systems and stronger influence from political actors.

What emerges is not an “Asian model,” but at least two distinct administrative patterns.

Eastern Europe: Beyond the “post-communist” myth

Often treated as a single bloc, Eastern European countries turn out to be anything but uniform.

Some — especially those more integrated into the European Union — display administrative features more similar to Western Europe, including higher accountability and stronger citizen orientation. Others remain more centralized and politicized. The difference is so strong that the “post-communist” label has begun to lose analytical meaning.

Latin America: A region split in two

Latin America also defies expectations. Rather than a single administrative tradition, the study identifies two broad groups.

Countries like Chile and Costa Rica show relatively strong accountability and citizen-focused governance. Meanwhile, others — such as Mexico and Peru — struggle with higher politicization and weaker institutional trust.

This internal divide reflects long-standing structural differences, but the data makes one thing clear: there is no single “Latin American bureaucracy.”

A Different Approach

The implications go well beyond academic classification. Understanding how administrations actually work is crucial for policy design. Reforms that succeed in one country often fail in another not because they are flawed, but because the institutional context is fundamentally different. And to know that we need a more accurate classification of contexts.

As the paper notes, comparative analysis helps determine “whether lessons… can be transferred from one context to another.”

The study ultimately paints a nuanced global landscape. Differences within regions can be just as large as those between them. Some non-Western countries resemble Western systems in key respects, while others follow entirely different paths. This complexity is not a flaw — it’s a more accurate reflection of reality.

As Jugl concludes, “The empirical picture… is more complicated and blurred than the simplified ‘traditions’ used in the literature.”

Rather than grouping countries into rigid categories, the study encourages a more flexible, evidence-based approach — one that recognizes diversity, avoids assumptions and reflects how public administration actually works today.