GOLD Report I - UCLG

71Table 8Size of Local Government Personnel in the Asia-Pacific RegionCountry Local government personnel Total public sector personnel Share of local government personnelin total public sector employmentAustralia 147,500 1,357,600 11%China 5,000,000 (est.) n/a 92%India n/a n/a n/aIndonesia (2006) 2,781,476 3,635,816 77%Japan 1,432,494 2,311,920 62%Malaysia 58,000 829,000 7%New Zealand 21,680 227,220 10%Pakistan n/a n/a n/aPhilippines (1999) 390,561 1,445,498 27%Korea, Rep. of (2006) 345,989 611,219 56%Thailand n/a n/a 20%Vietnam n/a n/a 60%Source: UCLG Country Profiles (2007): Figure 7.1.manage, discipline and dismiss civil servants,including those in local government.The recruiting body is likewiseresponsible for the discipline and dismissalof appointees. At the other end of thespectrum, in Australia and New Zealand,local councils appoint the Chief ExecutiveOfficer (CEO) but all other staff areemployees of the CEO. In Pakistan, provincialauthorities largely determine theappointment of senior local governmentpersonnel, with district and city establishmentscomposed basically of secondedfederal and provincial civil servants. InIndonesia, despite a radical decentralizationreform, the central government stillexercises substantial control over localgovernment staff appointments. In India,selection and recruitment of local governmentstaff is done by either the localauthorities themselves or by a state levelbody concerned with recruitment. Localgovernment in Malaysia can recruit, train,promote and discipline their personneland even manage pensions but all theseactions require approval by state government.Local budgets are also subject tostate supervision.In Thailand, the strong vertical connectionsbetween local officials and officialsof the central government (especially inthe Department of Local Administration ofthe Ministry of Interior), who handed outjobs, have been dismantled and personneldecisions are now largely under the powerof the local executives. Bureaucrats residentin Bangkok often resist transfer tothe provinces, which involves moving andpossibly less authority and lower pay.However, transfers to local governmentsare more attractive for provincial officialsgiven that provincial offices and districtoffices have lost authority as a result ofdecentralization and the transfer does notrequire a change in residence.