{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03748197981739548, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006246996636232581, 'mean_word_length': 5.087719298245614, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Debate: Origins, ambivalence and relevance in comparative public management research

Origins Drechsler reads from Wanyanshu great parallels with modern concerns and found Wang’s solutions ‘completely be in line with important strings of 21st-century public administration research’. It is because of its contemporary relevance that Drechsler treats the text as an ‘origin’ of modern public management (PM): ‘I explain its proposals from today’s globalized Western public management perspective, rather than from an historical one’. For Xu et al., on the other hand, to claim ‘origin’ one must demonstrate ‘causal links’ by identifying ‘the mechanism by which the original idea or practice evolved over time and disseminated to other places’. Between Wanyanshu and modern PM, ‘even if both deal with identical or similar perennial issues’ does not warrant an ‘origin’ claim. ‘Empirical evidence’ is needed that ‘the modern proponents of those [Western] practices were influenced by, or at least aware of, Wang Anshi’s ideas’. Xu et al.’s survey of the literature found no reference of Wanyanshu, and accordingly they ‘raise doubts about the legitimacy of leaping from comparative research to a claim of origins’. Xu et al. then propose to ‘push back the origins of Chinese statecraft by 2,000 years’. Their candidate of origin is Zhouli, an ancient classic of the Western Zhou (1045–771 BC) PM system. Now Drechsler’s mistake appears clearer: starting with Wanyanshu instead of Zhouli he failed to appreciate the ‘older and greater Chinese contributions to global public management’. While I appreciate Xu et al.’s proposed study on Zhouli, I think that researchers can start with any historical text and attribute it as the ‘origin’ of modern public management if parallel concerns and useful implications are found. Studying post-Zhouli texts does not necessarily lead to ignorance of ‘older and greater Chinese contributions’. Xu et al. are planting an apple, whereas Drechsler is growing an orange. It is futile to criticise the orange because it does not taste like the apple.