GK website:

Comparative Public Administration

After World War II, many developing countries became free from colonialism. The
United Nations also emerged with the development of developing countries as
one of its goals. The international technical assistance and co-operation
programmes also started. It was widely felt in the western countries as well as
the developing countries that administrative capability of the latter was required
to be enhanced so that they could fully utilize the assistance being offered to
them. It was in this light that comparative public administration came into
picture. It emphasized on the comparative analysis of the experiences of the
developing countries to cope up with their problems.
In 1961, comparative public administration was defined by Comparative
Administration Group (CAG) as the theory of public administration applied to
diverse cultures and national settings and the body of factual data by which it
can be examined and tested. It means that CPA doesnt just mean the
application of concepts of public administration to different ecological settings
but also entails obtaining some factual data by which the government
administrative systems of different countries could be compared and analyzed.
Although in all the modem social sciences the importance of comparative studies
has been widely recognized, anthropology and sociology were the first disciplines
to take lead in this sphere. Herbert Spencer, Vilfred Pareto, Emile Durkheim
andMax Weber, who are considered to be the founding fathers of sociology had
comparative sociology as their main area of study. But due to several constraints
such comparative study was slow to originate in public administration.
Origins of Comparative Features
It was Woodrow Wilsons seminal essay in 1887 The Study of Administration
the publication of which is considered to be the beginning of the academic study
of public administration. Wilson argued for comparative studies in administration
e. g. some of the good practices prevailing at that time in Europe could be
borrowed in American public administration. Taylorism which influenced
American administrative theory considerably had become sort of international
movement in 1920s. Lenin applied some of its ideas in Soviet Union. Leonard
White stressed the cross-cultural character of the principles of public
administration. He observed in 1936 that a principle of public administration is
as useful a guide to action in the public administration of Russia as of Great
Britain, of Iraq as of the United States. Later on Human Relations movement,
though could not develop a cross-cultural approach, still emphasized some
variables of internal environment of the organization as important towards its
efficient functioning.
After World War II, scholars such as Edwin Stene,Herbert Simon and Dwight
Waldo made a call for the scientific explanations in the administrative theory
and scholars such as Robert Dahl vigorously argued for cross-cultural analysis
in public administration.
Before the World War II also there were some studies on comparative
government and administration but post World War II literature is full of criticism

against those studies arguing that they were not truly comparative and
ecological in their content. The main accusations are:
1. It made only the Western countries as its point of study. So it was culture
bound in content.
2. It emphasized only constitutionalism and values of western liberal
democracy. So it was normative in its approach.
3. It assumed that every political and administrative system evolves the
same way as did the western systems. So it was parochial in character.
4.

It was not ecological in nature.

5. Cross cultural and cross temporal features were lacking.

The Comparative Public Administration Movement
Though the literature on comparative government and administration existed
earlier also but post World War II this literature underwent a phenomenal change.
Comparative Public Administration emerged in true sense only after World War II.
The main reasons being:
1. After World War II, Marshall Plan was started for the economic recovery of
Europe and Point Four programme was enunciated for the developing
countries. American public administration scholar turned practitioners
were involved in such programmes. They realized that many of the
problems of other countries could not be solved just by the traditional
Americal public administration structures and institutions. Different
cultural contexts of different countries forced them to think in tems of
comparative studies of the administrative systems. Soon United Nations
technical assistance teams were formed. The government of United
States, many academic universities, multilateral bodies and private
foundations etc soon joined hands to embark on a path of international
administrative reform.
2. The newly independent Asian & African countries were in the varying
stages of social, economic and political development and there existed no
studies on their public administration systems. For these countries to
transform to modern developed nations the capability of their
administrative systems had to be enhanced. For that to happen
contextual studies of their administrative systems had to be made. It
was this objective with which the comparative public administration
movement started.
3.

There was an intellectual curiosity to develop a science of public

administration e. g. Robert Dahl asserted that as long as the study of
public administration is not comparative, claims for a science of public
administration sound rather hollow. Robert Jackson also mentioned that
science of public administration, if not fully achievable, is at least worthy
of seeking and that the scientific study of public administration required
the study of various administrative patterns in the cross- cultural and
cross-national settings and the rigorous comparative analysis of

empirical findings from such studies will help in constructing a general

theory of public administration.
4. Behaviouralism in administrative studies concerns itself with the scientific
study of human behavior in various contexts and makes use of
propositions drawn from other social sciences also. So it is necessarily
inter-disciplinary in character. This interdisciplinary and cross-cultural
approach has necessitated the study of comparative public administration.
5. Post World War II, generous financial assistance was provided to the
scholars of comparative public administration by aid giving agencies in
USA like Ford Foundation or Agency for International Development etc.
Their interest was to know more about the administrative systems of aid
receiving countries.
6. At that time cold war had started and developing nations were important.
Therefore for the western countries to have an interest in the development
of developing nations had a practical connotation as well.
In 1952, the first attempt was made to start the study of comparative public
administration when a Conference on Comparative Administration was sponsored
at Princeton by Public Administration Clearing House. William J. Siffin was the first
American scholar to write a book on CPA entitled Toward the Comparative Study
of Public Administration in 1956. The next important event was in 1963 when
the Comparative Administration Group (CAG) was set up. It was set up as a
committee of American Society for Public Administration. CAG was funded till
1971 by the Ford Foundation and noted CPA scholar Fred Riggs chaired it till
1970. The main aim of CAG was to analyze the problems of developing countries
in the context of their own cultural, historical, social, political and economic
environments and to suggest remedies to the practitioners in development
administration. CAG sponsored research in Asia, Latin America and Europe. The
period between 1963 and 1976 is known as the golden era of comparative public
administration. A galaxy of scholars like Fred Riggs, Braibanti, John Montgomery,
Ferrel Heady and Dwight Waldo etc were associated with the Comparative
Administration Group. In 1972 CAG was merged with the International Committee
of American Society of Public Administration (ASPA) and Section on International
and Comparative Administration (SICA) was formed.
CPA : An Enterprise in Theory Building
Comparative Public Adminisration has actually made public administration truly
interdisciplinary as all kinds of social sciences have contributed towards its
growth. Theory building has been an important priorities of CPA movement as
noted American scholar Caldwell observed that the objective of CPA is to hasten
the emergence of a universally valid body of knowledge concerning
administrative behavior. Amitai Etzioni also mentions that comparative study
will establish truly universal propositions of administrative theory. According to
Ferrel Heady comparative public administration has five motivating concerns
viz:
1.

The search for theory building

2.

An urge for practical application

3.
4.
5.

Contribution from comparative politics

Interest of the scholars of administrative law
Cross cultural analysis of the problems of Public Administration systems

CPA: Treading a Paradigm or still Pre-Paradigmatic?

The study of any scientific discipline passes through many stages before arriving
at a stage which is the foundation for continuing as a coherent discipline. This
foundation stage is acceptable to most of the scholars of that scientific discipline.
This stage is called a paradigm in that discipline or the dominant model. Before
this paradigm, a number of competing views and propositions exist and a
unanimous view regarding the path which the discipline should take is lacking.
This stage has been termed as pre- paradigmatic stage by Thomas Kuhn.
Scholars like William Siffin have described comparative public administration as a
field in confusion because of the diversity in the view points existing in the
literature. But it is a matter of debate whether this pre-paradigmatic stage is
good or bad for the development of CPA as a field of inquiry. Social Sciences by
their vary nature are prone to contestations from diverse view points and lack of
consensus regarding the dominant view in the discipline can not be taken
necessarily as fatal for the discipline, though it doesnt mean that a systemic
coherence is not required between different paradigms. CPA at present is passing
through a poly-paradigmatic process. It is characterized by a number of
competing approaches. Riggs has identified a number of them as normative,
empirical, nomothetic, idiographic, non-ecological and ecological approaches.
Trends in Comparative Public Administration Studies
Fred W. Riggs, the foremost scholar of comparative public administration,
observed that three trends were visible in the CPA studies. These are:
1.

From normative to empirical

2.

From ideographic to nomothetic

3.

From non-ecological to ecological

The empirical approach means to suggest some conclusions on the basis of

actual field study instead of normative suggestions e. g. traditional comparative
politics & administration emphasized good administration and efficiency &
economy were considered as virtues for administrative systems in all contextual
settings.
The ideographic approach focuses on unique case or case study method while
nomothetic approach focuses on generalizations, laws or hypotheses that
predict the behavior.
Riggs also emphasized on studying the administrative systems in the contextual
settings in which such systems existed. This ecological approach emphasized on
studying the inter-relations between the administrative system and the external
environment in which it existed.
Different Approaches in Comparative Public Administration

There are different approaches which the scholars in comparative public

administration have taken to study the subject. According to Henderson the
literature of CPA can be classified into three main areas of emphases:
1.

The bureaucratic system approach

2.

The input-output system approach

3.

The component approach

Most acceptable classification of the approaches has been done by Ferrel Heady.
Ferrel Heady in his book PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : A COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE gives four main approaches in the literature of CPA:
1.

Modified traditional approach

2.

Development oriented approach

3.

General system model Building

4.

Middle range theory formulation

As already explained earlier the pre World War II literature on CPA was parochial
in its approach concentrating on just few administrative systems. The modified
traditional approach to CPA was the continuance of that approach only though
the focus shifted to some comparative aspects of different administrative
systems. These studies were largely descriptive and included topics such as
personnel system and administrative organization etc.
The development oriented approach focuses on the essentials of the
administrative system which should be developed in order to meet the
necessities of a society which is experiencing large socio-economic, cultural and
political changes. The aim is to develop the administrative systems so that the
publically stated goals of the governments in such societies could be achieved.
The general system model building approach is a comprehensive approach which
focuses on the administrative systems in the larger context of its environment. It
focuses on whole of the social environment. The prominent scholar who
contributed a lot to this approach was Fred W. Riggs who made ideal types
models for societies. John T. Dorsey who gave information energy model also
belongs to this category.
While the general system model emphasized on building comprehensive models,
of administrative systems, the middle range formulation concentrated on just
few components of administrative system. The most famous middle range model
is bureaucratic model. It is based on Max Webers ideal type of bureaucracy.
Out of the above described models, the most commonly used models for the
purpose of comparative public administration today are: the bureaucratic model,
the Riggsian models and development administration approach. These may also
be called the foci of comparative public administration literature.
Historical and Sociological Factors Affecting Administrative Systems
Every nation today has an administrative history which has a considerable
influence in the evolution of its administrative systems to the present form. Long

years of rule by some foreign powers, the despotic kings, a culture based on
consensus or conflicts, anarchy during some time periods, violent disruptions
during the transfer of power, balance between military and civilian
bureaucracies, a culture of empowering communities or centralizing trends in
administration etc. are some of the examples of historical and sociological
factors which affect the administrative systems.
Ancient and medieval civilizations have contributed directly towards evolving
nation state as the dominant model of ordering society with bureaucracy as the
most common form of large scale organization. Modern all encompassing
bureaucratic organizations are the result of long years of centralization of power.
Gerald D. Nash in his monograph Perspectives on Administration: The Vistas of
History cites numerous examples where the societies have succeeded in
substantially progressing culturally because of supporting achievements in
administration and vice-versa. To sustain a society at the previously developed
level the administration has also to develop its capabilities coherently otherwise
the society declines. Examples can be taken from ancient Egypt and China,
Greek city states and the countries during the last two centuries.

The civilization in which a society develops and administrative organizations are

mutually dependent. Karl A. Wittfogel has written on historical aspects which led
to the growth of complex bureaucratic systems in his book Oriental Despotism:
A Comparative Study of Total Power. The oriental river valley civilizations
required high degree of organized effort to construct the irrigation and flood
control works which could be obtained only through governmental institutions.
The result was the emergence of bureaucratic offialdom through which total
power was exercised by the rulers of those societies. Bureaucracies were crucial
for the success of the rulers of the empires. Through the enhancement of the
capabilities of the bureaucratic institutions, societal control and regulation could
be achieved. It also helped in stabilizing the societies. The result was the
considerable dependence on the bureaucratic systems for the political survival.
This resulted in autonomy also of bureaucracy to some extent. This was the
reason why the bureaucratic institution deviated from the service orientation and
became self serving institution. This is the broader reason why administrative
sub-system in many of the countries today have become a force in itself. Thus
historical and sociological factors are crucial towards shaping the present
administrative systems.
Some of the historical & sociological features in developed societies
which have direct bearing on their administrative systems are:
1. Different roles are distributed according to achievement rather than
ascription. This is the reason why bureaucracy also has merit as the
standard basis of recruitment.
2. The broader structure of the society is highly differentiated and
functionally specific, this has the direct result that bureaucracy there has
high degree of internal specialization.

3. Rational and secular methods are appreciated in the polity. The traditional
values are no longer attractive. This has resulted into secular and
impersonal system of administration.
4. The range of political and administrative activities in such societies are
extensive. Still effective political control, public awareness of their rights, a
culture of accountability, transparency and mass participation has resulted
into instrumental administration which exists for the effective
achievement of public policies. The administrative system is close to
Weberian ideal type bureaucracy in both structural and functional
dimensions.
5. As the society has most of the professional and occupational categories
the bureaucracy also identifies itself with professionalization with public
service as a profession.
6. Historically the political system has been stable and developed in these
countries thats why there is clear demarcation between the role of
bureaucracy and politics. The bureaucrats do not usurp the roles of
politicians and are primarily tasked with rule implementation and to a
lesser extent rule making. This is in quite contrast to developing countries
where bureaucrats have historically played an important role even in
political processes.
7. Historically the political system and bureaucracy have developed together
in such countries over a considerable period of time resulting in a
balanced political growth. Thus bureaucracy is under effective political
control.
8. Both Germany and France have been victims of severe political instability
and political change has been abrupt and frequent. This is the reason that
bureaucracy has always rose to the occasion and given an administrative
stability to the nation. This has also resulted into the professionalization of
the bureaucracy and the French and German bureaucracy are today
considered to be closest to Weberian style of bureaucracy.
9. In the Civic Culture countries like Great Britain and the United States,
the political development has been relatively stable. Politics and
administration grew simultaneously. At no point has the administrative
machinery been called to share the whole burden of the government due
to the political breakdown. This has resulted into slow professionalization
of the bureaucracy in these two countries in comparison to France and
Germany and in imbibing characteristics similar to the Weberian style of
bureaucracy.
10.In Europe, the nationalism movement was one of the uniting factors under
one government with people speaking one language. However the
developing countries are the result of colonialism and do not exist due to
some common political loyalty. Their population comprises of different
ethnic groupings some of them opposed to assimilation. These features of
developed and developing countries are also manifested in the
administrative systems of these countries.

All the above mentioned factors amply prove that the administrative
systems in various countries are significantly influence by their own
historical and sociological factors.

II)Administration and Politics in Different Countries

The administrative systems of various countries were classified in our last article
while discussing the Bureaucratic Approach to comparative public administration.
Here the administration and politics in some countries will be discussed in detail.
The countries selected for discussion purpose are: The United States of America,
The Great Britain, France, Japan, China and India.
The United States of America
The political cultures of the USA and UK have been described as the civic
culture by Ferrel Heady, Almond and Verba. Civic culture means a culture which
is participant and pluralistic. This is a culture based on communication and
persuasion, diversity and consensus. As a result of this culture the political
system in USA has been able to maintain stability and legitimacy.

In United States there has been a good balance between political and
administrative development. Compared to the bureaucracies of France and
Germany, the bureaucracy of USA has been slow in becoming professionalized
and acquiring characteristics of classic Weberian bureaucracy. Spoils system
was prevalent here upto the late 19th century when through the Pendleton Act in
1883, it was abolished. Through this act the recruitment and promotion in the
civil service started to be done on the basis of merit and not patronage though
this started only at the federal level and not at the state or local level.
In USA the bureaucracy is seen as a neutral instrument of government. Congress
has the power of executive reorganization i. e. for the creation or abolition of
executive departments. The head of the department is secretary who is
appointed by the President but the Senate has to confirm it. A new Merit Systems
Protection Board and Personnel Management agency have been created at the
central level for the personnel management.
Position rather than rank of the public officials is emphasized in the US
system. Officials are selected on the basis of the requirements of the position. In
this way the US system is different from the British or Indian administrative
system. Senior Executive Service (SES) was constituted in US has been

constituted in US since 1978 on the recommendation of the Second Hoover

Commission. The members of this elite service occupy the top echelons of the
administration. The US administrative positions are divided into grades
reflecting levels of responsibility. The top three grades are called super grades
and are usually occupied by professionals.
In the US administrative system more specialized positions are there who are
filled on the merit basis but the career advancement of these professionals is
much less planned than in Britain. The upper ranks of US bureaucracy are
considerably representative of American society and it is less elitist than other
countries. It is due to less class distinctions in the American society. There is no
constitutional protection for the civil servants and mutual transfers between
public and private sectors is quite common. The legislative branch regulates the
various areas through the independent regulatory commissions. In fact such
commissions are American innovation.
Unlike in British system, the civil servants are not covered in the veils of
anonymity and secrecy. The role of bureaucrats in policy making is very well
accepted by the politicians and they have to face public criticism and reaction in
case of faulty public policy making. One quite distinguished feature of American
administration and politics is no clear cut distinction between the career and
non-career executives. They are quite mixed up in the higher positions in
administration. In fact there is lack of demarcation between political and
bureaucratic spheres. On the whole Americans have produced a governmental
system which is internally competitive, is more experimental and has a less
powerful but dynamic bureaucracy.
The Great Britain
Like that of the United States, the culture of the Great Britain is also termed as
that of civic culture because the culture prevailing here is also participant and
pluralistic. As the political development of the country didnt have any violent
disruptions, the political and administrative change were gradual. This gradualist
pattern allowed the nominal monarchy to remain in this country in the presence
of a unitary, parliamentary government. Due to this slow political development,
both political and administrative systems of the country developed
simultaneously in balance. At no point was administrative system dominant on
the political one.

It was in the middle of 19th century that the British civil service started to be
recruited on the basis of merit leaving the patronage system. It was brought
about by the famous Northcote-Trevelyn Report of 1854. With this system the
foundation of a career based bureaucracy was laid in Britain in which recruitment
and career advancement both were based on merit rather than nepotism.
Due to the high level of political participation in the British society, the role of
civil service is regarded as service oriented and there is firm political control
over bureaucracy. This is the reason why bureaucracy is considered to be the
neutral agent of political decision makers.
A ministry is headed by a minister and there is a post of permanent secretary
below it who is the administrative head. For managing the personnel matters,
there is a Civil Service Department directly under the Prime Minister. Before
World War II, the British civil service used to be elitist with only people from
higher strata of society joining it but the social and education base of the civil
service has broadened for the last three decades. A career civil service exists in
which officials are generally taken at an earlier level only and the mutual
exchange of officers between public and private sectors is prohibited.
Anonymity and neutrality are the hallmarks of British administrative system. The
bureaucrats are duty bound to give advice to the ministers who are responsible
politically for the discharge of governmental functions with the assistance of
bureaucrats.
This system allows the civil servants to be kept out of the public criticism directly
though at higher levels they are involved in the policy making along with the
concerned minister. The measures to ensure the accountability of administration
are quite extensive in view of the increasing powers of the executive due
todelegated legislation. On whole, the British administration may be described as
orderly, cohesive and prudent.
France
In France the President is directly elected by the universal suffrage and he
appoints the Prime Minister and terminates his tenure if the need arises. The
President is so powerful that he can overshadow the parliament, the
constitutional council and the council of ministers. The Prime Minister carries out
the policies of the President and is answerable to the Parliament for it. In theory
the government remains collectively responsible to the Parliament while in
practice it is responsible to the President.

France witnessed continuous political instability for the last two centuries and at
some points violent disruptions were there in the political system. Fifth Republic
came into being 1958. Despite so much of political turbulence France like
Germany has been marked by administrative and bureaucratic stability. The
administrative apparatus that had been created to serve the ancient regime
transferred and maintained its allegiance to the nation, after the brief disruptions
due to revolution, whether the government in control was an empire or republic.
Due to the political instability the administrative apparatus of the country was
called upon to take the governmental responsibilities many a times and this is
the reason that the French bureaucracy is a fully developed classic Weberian
type of bureaucracy. This is the reason why France and Germany are called
classic administrative systems.
Unlike Britain and India, there is no single body responsible for running of civil
service system. Each ministry is responsible for its own staff. Also the civil
servants can participate in political activities unlike Britain and India. The French
civil service is organized on the basis of corps. These are basically the
categories of staff taking part in administration and recruitment takes place in
these corps. In France centralized form of administration exists since the very
beginning and due to this the French civil service is very powerful. It has been
accorded a higher place in comparison to the ordinary citizens. Law experts
dominate the civil service.
A system of administrative courts exists in France in which cases against
administrative excesses are decided. These courts are headed by council of
state which decides the way these courts are expected to function. Civil
servants not only control the massive administrative machine but also occupy
the important positions in politics, public and private sectors. Democratization of
the civil service has not occurred to much extent as the higher education is
primarily confined to upper social classes only. In 1946, the civil servants have
been clearly given a right to organize trade unions. Right to strike also exists
provided essential services are not hampered. On whole civil service system in
France is highly organized, very powerful & influential and resembled most
closely the ideal type of bureaucracy.
Japan
The constitution of Japan makes Diet, the parliament, the highest organ of the
state in which executive is responsible to it. The Prime Minister of Japan is
designated by the resolution of Diet. The emperor is only the nominal head of the
state. The powers of emperor of Japan are practically nil in comparison to the
British monarch. British monarch has the right to be consulted by the Prime
Minister, Japanese emperor has none. He does not actually have power to
interfere in important decisions of government. Still the emperor of Japan is
considered as the living symbol of Japans history and is very much loved by the
citizenry. Prime Minister is the head of the executive and the head of his cabinet
secretariat finds a seat in the Japanese cabinet. He is called Director of cabinet
secretariat.

Japan has been termed as a bureaucrats paradise and the wonderland of

bureaucracy by the scholar Chitoshi Yanaga. The Japanese bureaucracy is
democratized to some extent though still the bureaucrats are recruited from a
narrow social base only. In recent times the Japanese bureaucracy has been
downsized and executive agencies have been created. The civil service is
organized on the basis of career system. Intense competition to Japanese civil
service is quite remarkable. Like some other countries, large chunk of candidates
being selected in the civil service come from some prominent universities like
the Tokyo University. This feature is even more pronounced than the recruitment
of Oxford and Cambridge graduates in British civil service. The civil service is
dominated by law background candidates.
A unique feature of the Japanese civil service is quite limited lateral mobility of
civil servants between different ministries. A civil servant is likely to remain in
the ministry which he enters. This restricted inter-ministerial lateral mobility
promotes the loyalty towards a ministry or department and not towards the
whole of civil service which sometimes results into compartmentalization among
different administrative units. Another feature is lucrative post-retirement jobs
that the Japanese bureaucrats get. The retirement age is less (around 50 years)
and generally after a civil servant retires the attractive private sector of Japan
takes him up on highly paid jobs which are commensurate with their earlier
experience.
Distinction between bureaucracy and politics is quite blurred in Japan and
bureaucrats generally quite actively take part in the political decisions of the
government. This results into the political activism of the civil servants. Due to
very long period of political dominance of only one political party, the Liberal
Democratic Party, the higher civil servants have come to be identified with the
ruling party. Many of the ministers in government have been former bureaucrats.
The existence of Deliberation Councils is another feature of Japanese
administration. These councils have representatives of government, private
sector and civil society. Before public policy making there take place
deliberations within these deliberation councils and suggested reforms are taken
into consideration by the government. This shows that Japanese administration is
responsive towards citizens views and the politics engenders a consensual
polity.
In sum, Japanese bureaucracy has successfully managed the change in post war
years and given the country much needed stability. Bureaucracy though has lot
of political weight still transformed itself in consonance with the needs of
changing and industrializing needs of the country.

China
In a democracy the government & administration of the day are duty bound to
be accountable to the citizens of the country while in a communist country it the
party to which the administration has to be accountable. The emphasis on the
state administration to be responsive to the party creates conflicts. A bureaucrat
faces dilemma between acting as a public official and as a committed party
worker. From the early years in 1949 the communist China adopted Soviet
model and the state bureaucracy was entrusted with the task of implementing
rapid socio-economic changes. In 1957 a movement called Great Leap Forward
was started for rapid progress on all fronts. Slogan politics takes command was
given by the Communist Party of China (CCP) to motivate the people and the
government. The state administration was found to be too centralized and
overbureaucratized. Decentralized efforts like involving the rural communities in
increasing the agricultural production were started though industrial
development was not lost sight of. Great emphasis on four modernizations has
been laid by the Chinese administration: of industry, agriculture, science &
technology and the military and the reform of bureaucracy was considered as
pre-condition for achieving these four modernizations. Some of the measures
by which the bureaucracy has been sought to be reformed in China are:
1. Advanced education for bureaucrats in China itself as well as in foreign
countries
2. Emphasis on technical expertise as the necessary qualification for
recruitment
3. Expertise rather than seniority was emphasized in ranks of bureaucracy
4. The number of ministries and agencies were reduced and the staffs
rationalize
5. Public opinion was given an important emphasis on judging the
performance of lower level officials

The Chinese political system operates on democratic centralism in which the

final decision making authority is highly centralized. The National Peoples
Congress (NPC) is theoretically the highest organ of the sate but it meets only
during the annual sessions. In between the annual sessions its standing
committee is the highest authority. However the State Council which is akin to
state cabinet is responsible for directing all the ministries and administration.
NPC acts like Parliament of China. The Communist Partys Central Committee can

recommend NPC to designate or remove the members of the State Council

including the Premier. NPC has a five year term and it meets once in a year.
Standing Committee of NPC exercises its powers between the annual sessions.
The constitution of China can also be amended by NPC. Constitution enjoins that
the State Council should consist of a premier, vice-premiers, vice-ministers and
the heads of the national ministries and commissions. In effect however due to
the large size of the state council, it is the inner cabinet which exercises all the
powers practically. It consists of premier and vice-premiers.
Constitutionally the whole country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions
and municipalities which are directly administered by the central government. At
the local level, there are peoples communes and towns. The term autonomous
is a misnomer and like other regions only the autonomous regions are very much
part of the centralized administrative hierarchy. They are largely made on the
considerations of minority groups.
The Chinese government is controlled and directed by the communist party by
the interlocking system of party personnel and party having a parallel structure
to that of the government. The party even maintains a shadow government. As
the government is manned by party functionaries also, the public officials receive
instructions both from the government as well as the party but the instructions
from the party high command are supreme.
The bureaucrats in China are called as cadres or kanpu. There are three
levels of cadres: leading cadres, intermediate level cadres and the basic level
cadres. These cadres are classified into three broad categories: state, local and
military. A cadres rank is determined not necessarily by the seniority but by the
educational background and technical competence. The new generation of
leaders in China argue that there should not be distinction between party
ideologues i. e. reds and the technically qualified i. e. experts. They insist on
creating red and expert cadre which is both ideologically oriented and
technically competent.
The Chinese bureaucracy has carefully managed to have a centralized system
and a higher degree of administrative stability though the rising levels of
inequality and turbulence in Chinese society call for some radical shifts in
politico-administrative settings of China.
India
The politics and administration in India today are a result of two sets important
historical events. The first one is colonial legacy and the second one is the
democratic welfare state set up by Indian constitution after independence. An
administrative class called Indian Civil Service (ICS) was the most notable
legacies of British times in independent India. The colonial administration was
regulatory in nature with no developmental roles to perform and was
authoritarian, unresponsive and paternalistic in character though some minimum
welfare functions like construction of roads, railways, colleges and hospitals were
performed. The civil service was not just an instrument of public policy execution
but had the policy making in its own hands. The ICS though an instrument of the
British was an integrating force in the Indian polity and was efficient despite the
inherent diversity of India.

The bureaucracy that India inherited at the time of independence was totally
new to developmental tasks, was trained only in rule application and had no
concept of accountability to the people. After independence, President of India
has been made the head of the state as well as head of the executive of the
country. The work of the government of India is divided into various Ministries
headed by Ministers. The Prime Minister presides over the Council of Ministers.
Work is assigned to the various Ministries through the rules framed under Article
77(3) of the constitution. Secretary is the administrative head of the Ministry or
Department.
Some ministries have subsidiary organizations called the attached or subordinate offices under them for helping in the execution of policies. Generally a
ministry composes of a minister along with some deputy ministers or
parliamentary secretaries, a secretariat with the secretary as its head and the
executive department headed by a director general or inspector general.
Two important features of Indian bureaucracy are: anonymity and neutrality.
Though the administration is responsible for the execution of the policies,
individual civil servants are not directly responsible to the legislature for the
some deviations in the execution. The concerned minister is responsible thus
anonymity protects the civil servants from public criticism. Further the civil
servants are expected to be neutral in their outlook and are expected to serve
the governments of every political ideology with equal zeal. Though there have
been debates about whether such a neutrality is possible or not, or whether it is
desired but still the civil servants are expected to show such levels of neutrality.
The secretary who is the administrative head of a ministry is designated as
secretary not just to a particular ministry but to the government of India. He is
expected to have a thorough knowledge of the whole functioning of the
government of India not just of a particular ministry. He is the principal policy
adviser to the minister.
Another administrative innovation in India has been the All India Services.
Constitution of India provides for two All India Services (AIS): Indian
Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS). It also gives power to
the Parliament for the creation of other AIS. Indian Forest Service (IFS) has been
created subsequently. The officers of All India Services serve the state
government as well the central government. While serving the states also they
are under the disciplinary control of the central government and remain the
employees of the central government. As a whole the civil services in India

consists of three broad categories: the All India Services, the Central Services
and the State Services.
Though the India administrative system is dominated by generalists but a unique
feature of the civil services in India is that more and more of specialists and
technocrats like doctors, engineers, economists and lawyers are joining the civil
services. Also the bureaucracy is of mammoth size.
After independence the guiding principles of India administration and politics
were: welfare of its citizens and the accountability to them. The state became
the major promoter of planned change. The nature of administration changed
totally from the regulatory one before independence to the developmental after
independence but the instrument of state to carry out such objectives of the
state remained the same the age old colonial bureaucracy veiled by secrecy it
its functioning and unresponsive to the citizens. A study of Ralph Braibanti
confirms that despite independence the norms of Indian bureaucracy remain
same as were there during colonial times.
Renowned scholars like C. P. Bhambhri and V. Subramaniam have undertaken
studies to study the socio-economic background of members of Indian
Administrative Service (IAS). They have found that they are elitist by background
and are urban educated & professionally qualified middle class of the country.
The proportion of rural areas is less According to C. P. Bhambri, in Indian context
there is incongruence between the orientation & attitudes of higher civil service
and the national goals such as equality-secularism, social justice and democracy.
Rural farming families, lower income groups etc. have little representation in
these services. Sometimes the attitude of civil servants is manifest in the bias &
prejudice for their social class.
Traditionally the Indian civil services are considered to be obsessed with rules &
regulations, having lack of initiative & dynamism and resistant to new changes &
ideas. Policies such reservation system in the recruitment to civil services have
failed to some drastic effects on the attitude of the civil servants as once part of
the civil service those from lower castes are also no different behaviourally from
the rest.
In the Western nations, economic development and prosperity took place later
than the political and administrative development. They took years to achieve it
but in India we have sought to achieve this in shortest possible time and that too
without any forceful or totalitarian measures. So in India the administrator is
seen as an agent of modernization and social change.
The simultaneous presence of extreme impersonality and susceptibility towards
the external pressures is one of the paradoxes of Indian administration. It is most
unfortunate that the administrators have lost much of their credibility today in
India. This has to be changed by clearly defining the domains of both
administration & politics and sticking to it in true spirit.

Ecology and Administration

The bureaucratic approach is primarily based on Webers ideal type of
bureaucracy. Though this model was quite useful for comparing the

bureaucracies of the western countries it could not serve the purpose for the
developing countries. The reason being that the western countries had stable
polities and the conditions prevailing there resembled those assumed for
classic bureaucratic system suggested by Weber. Such were not the conditions
prevailing in the underdeveloped countries. So after the World War II when there
was an urge to study the admninistrative systems of developing countries the
bureaucratic approach (based primarily on structural & functional aspects of
bureaucracy) could not serve the purpose well. When the technical assistance
programmes etc. were started for the developing countries in post war times,
there was a natural curiosity on the part of the donor agencies to know what
type of administrative systems these developing countries had and whether they
would be able to absorb the kind of assistance being provided to them. Hence
studies were started to study administration of developing countries and the
private foundations such as Ford Foundation sponsored such studies. The
features of administrative systems in these countries were quite different from
those of developed countries and approaches such as bureaucratic approach
were found lacking. Thus came the necessity for developing a new approach
towards the comparative public administration. Two approaches emerged as a
result of this necessity. The first one was ecological approach and the second one
was the development administration approach.
The Ecological Approach to Comparative Public Administration
The basic assumption of ecological approach is that administration does not exist
in vacuum. Bureaucracy is one of the several basic institutions existing in the
society. Thus inter-relationships of bureaucracy with other sub-systems existing
in the society is the crux to understand its structures and functions. These
other sub-systems could be political, social, cultural and economic etc.
Bureaucracy as an administrative sub-system exists with these other subsystems in a society. Thus for understanding the structure, role and functions of
bureaucracy, the influence of these political, socio-cultural and economic subsystems on bureaucracy and vice-versa are to be studied. It has to be noted that
in ecological approach two way interaction between a system and its
environment is considered i. e. it is not only the influence of the external
environment on the system but also the systems modifying influence on the
external environment. Most of the scholars have concentrated on the social
environmental influence on the administrative sub-system rather than
bureaucracys influence on the social environment. So there is a need to develop
a more balanced interactional analysis.
The ecological approach can be traced back to the writings of John M. Gaus
whose work in turn took inspiration from the sociologists. Gaus was primarily
interested in knowing key ecological factors for understanding the American
Public Administration and he found some factors quite useful e. g. people, place,
physical & social technology, wishes & ideas, catastrophe & personality. Robert
Dahl, Roscoe Martin and Fred W. Riggs are other prominent writers in this field.
According to Riggs, only the studies which are empirical, nomothetic and
ecological are truly comparative. Ecological approach believes that as all
plants can not grow in all climates similarly all administrative subsystems can
not be successful in all ecological settings.

According to Ferrel Heady, the environment of bureaucracy can be understood in

terms of concentric circles with bureaucracy at the center as shown below :

Since bureaucracy is most closely in interaction with the political sub-system,

thats why, the circle depicting the political system is the innermost circle. Since
the larger society can be considered a general system it shown as the largest
circle. The circle depicting economic sub-system lies in between.
For doing a comparative analysis of different nations, they can be classified into
some basic categories based on some decisive environmental factors. These
factors could be of social and economic nature. Based on this approach the
different nations could be classified into developed and developing countries.
This approach uses development as the basis of classifying various countries.
However this approach does not put countries in two polar extremes of
developed and developing, rather the countries are located on a continuum,
with the former placed on upper scale of development and the latter on relatively
lower scale of development. This approach is called the development
administration approach. As can be seen the development administration
approach itself is largely ecological.
One of very important approaches in ecological analysis is structural
functionalism. Riggs, the foremost theorist in the field of comparative public
administration has used this approach to understand the administrative subsystems in the context of transitional societies. We will first study what is
structural functional approach and then move on to the Riggsian models & their
critiques.
The Structural Functional Approach To Ecological Analysis
The structural functional approach assumes that every function in society is
performed by some structure (or to be more precise social structure). A
structure may perform different functions and a function may also be performed
by a combination of structures. In this approach a social structure is considered
as any pattern of behavior which has become a standard feature of a social
system. An interesting point is that structures may be concrete like

governmental departments etc. or may be abstracts like structure of

authority.
The social structures having resemblance to each other in different
environmental settings may perform different functions and so if some society
doesnt have some particular structures then it doesnt mean that some
functions would also be missing from that society. Also the social structures are
not always unifunctional. In traditional societies a structure may perform many
functions e. g. administrative & political functions are performed by more or less
the same institutions. All this shows that structures and functions do not have a
one to one relationship between them and the actual relationship should be
determined by empirical research for different contextual settings. This approach
focuses on the interactions among various structures of the social system and
of the social system with its external environment. According to this approach
there are some pre-requisite structures and functions for the survival of the
society. Riggs mentions five functional requisites for any society as well as for
the administrative sub-system:
1.

Economic

2. Social
3. Communicational
4. Symbolic
5. Political
It was Dwight Waldo in 1955 who first all suggested using the structural
functionalism in the field of public administration. Ever since Riggs has been the
foremost user of this approach. Using this approach he came out with his Agraria
Industria typology and the models of Fused-Prismatic-Diffracted societies. The
structural functional approach proves that though indigenous structures and
institutions of non-Western nations may prove to be dysfunctional from the
Western standards still they are functional in their own social settings. It will be
further discussed while discussing the Riggsian models.

Current Status of Comparative Public Administration

The contemporary comparative public administration is concerned with the
complexities of social change in the context of modernization and diversity.
These complexities are:
1.

What really is modernization?

2.

What role does diversity play in modernization?

3.

What are the context specific processes of modernization?

4.

What is the difference between cultures which have modernized

themselves?

Influenced by the events at the international level, the comparative public

administration has moved from the theoretical emphasis of the classical era

to a new empirical emphasis that guides in making better decisions in public

policies and management. For this to happen the modern governments should
know what skills and institutions are needed.
The classical comparative public administration (generally from 1961 to 1980)
stressed transfer of Western technology to the non-western world, export of the
ideas of democracy, modernization of the administration through external
support, training by foreign practitioners and setting of institutes of public
administration etc. The classical era produced mostly the rhetorical debates
about what constituted development and how it could be achieved. An
appreciation of the local cultures and environments was emphasized while
framing the development policies but the only few developing countries
developed with the help of foreign aid or comparative public administration
model building. The primary reason was that the developing countries didnt
have the kind of infrastructure which the Marshall aid receiving countries of
Europe had at that time. So the success of Marshall Plan could not be replicated
elsewhere. In developing countries, comparative studies used to be confined to
the case studies, such as the case study of Pakistani civil service by Braibanti.
The comparative lessons were often offered but were rarely followed in later
studies.
The focus of foreign aid programmes have now shifted from direct government
assistance to non-govemmental organizations and private agencies. The efforts
have been on reducing the role of state in direct productive activities. Trade and
investment are being seen as the solutions to nation building. If the government
receives aid now then it is for downsizing the civil service and not primarily for
reinvigorating basic governmental functions of budgeting, personnel
management etc.
Fewer resources and increased doubts about the applicability of theory building
the focus of new CPA has shifted from constructing new theories to application of
the already existing ones. In contrast to the past debates over middle range
v/ssystems theory, the new comparative public administration has been on
finding solutions to policy problems. The comparative public administration is no
longer determined by the flow of US foreign aid money. Funding for
administrative studies is no truly multilateral e. g. through UNDP, the World
Bank, the IMF and EU.
The comparative public administration is moving towards a reinvigorated
functionalism stimulated by the growth of new public management. The
comparative focus has been on practical issues of policy and administration e. g.
performance based procurement, performance budgeting and performance
management. The International Public Management Network (IPMN) through its
two journals International Public Management Journal (IPMJ) and International
Public Management Review (IPMR), promotes the comparative public
management as one of the focus of comparative administration. The Public
Management Institute at Catholic University in Belgium has developed a set of
performance indicators to compare national level performance of public sector in
policy areas such as health and public welfare. The changing world order has
created a set of conditions in which the international interest in the results of
public sector reform is increasing rapidly.

The comparative public administration now focuses on non-governmental

structures, international bureaucracies and post-bureaucratic structures such as
the nongovernmental organizations and public private partnerships. New
challenges like sub-nationalism, ethnicity, balkanization etc. are the important
concerns of comparative public administration now which were never there for
the traditional CPA studies. The traditional CPA literature did not have much
empirical data due to lack of awareness about different systems while due to
enhanced information & knowledge, the new CPA doesnt face any such
constraints. Earlier the national governmental organizations such as the Planning
institutions, national bureaucracy etc used to be the study point while the new
trends in CPA emphasize even the study of supranational organizations such as
WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. This shows that now international bureaucracy
and global administrative systems are being studied and not just the
bureaucracy confined to a nation. Liberalization, privatization and globalization
have influenced the spirit of CPA to a large extent. This influence has made debureaucratization as one of the focus.
The humankind today faces global problems for which global solutions are to be
found. This has forced public administration to be truly globalised and have an
international outlook rather than a narrow country specific view. Terrorism,
gender issues, environmental concerns, civil society initiatives & participation,
human rights, labour laws, self help groups, trade barriers etc. are some such
issues which have to be tackled globally. This aspect has also helped evolve the
new CPA outlook.
Riggsian Models and their Critiques
To study the administrative sub-systems and the problems associated with them,
social scientists and the scholars of public administration have constructed
models. Fred W. Riggs developed some models to study the
administrative sub-system of the developing countries. In 1956 Riggs
gave the Agraria-lndustria model.
Agrarian and Industrial Model
Riggs classified societies into agricultural and industrial societies i. e. the
agrarian and the industrial. The models were developed to study the political and
administrative transitions in such societies. Imperial China and contemporary
America were the prototypes of these agraria and industria ideal types
respectively. Riggs assumed that all societies transformed from agrarian to
industria at some point of time in history. The features of the agraria were
described as follows:
1.

Ascriptive, particularistic and diffuse patterns were predominant in

such societies.

2.

Limited social and spatial mobility

3.

Relatively simple and stable occupational differentiation

4.

Existence of differential stratification system

Similarly, the characteristics of a modern industrial society i. e

industria were given as follows:

1.
2.

Universalistic, specific and achievement norms were predominat in

such societies.
Higher social and spatial mobility

3.

Well developed occupational system insulated from other social

structures

4.

Egalitarian class system based on generalized patterns of

occupational achievement.

5.

Prevalence of associations, i. e., functionally specific, non-ascriptive

structure.

However it was observed that these two polar type models were not helpful in
studying the transitional societies i. e. the societies which are not yet fully
industrialized but are far more industrialized in comparison to the agrarian
economies. To overcome this problem Riggs developed an equilibrium model
transitia for the transitional societies but this was less developed.
The agrarian-industria model was criticized on the following grounds:
1. The industria does not exist in isolation but has agrarian included in it.
So two separate polar type of societies do not exist.
2. This model assumes a unidirectional movement of the agrarian society to
the industrialized society.
3. The classification of the societies into two types of societies is too abstract
and general.
4. The analysis of the administrative sub-system was not dealt with in detail
rather the environment of the administrative sub-system was explained
more.
5. The transitional societies could not be studied with the help of these
models.
Riggs himself soon abandoned these models and developed the concept
of fused- prismatic-diffracted societies.
Model of Fused-Prismatic-Diffracted Societies
The ideal models of fused, prismatic and diffracted societies aimed at studying
the prehistoric, developing and developed societies. While explaining the
concept of structural- functional approach it was mentioned that social structures
may perform large no of functions in some societies. This is called multifunctionality and such social structures are called functionally diffuse. On the
other hand functionally specific social structures perform only prescribed
limited functions. Riggs calls functionally diffuse societies as fused and the
functionally specific societies as diffracted. The society which is intermediate
between these types of societies is called prismatic society. Prismatic society
has features of both fused and diffracted societies. Riggs emphasized that all
societies are generally prismatic and no society could be called purely fused or
diffracted. It should be noted that Riggs developed fused-prismatic-diffracted

models only for heuristic purposes and their exact characteristics are not found
in any actual society.
Prismatic societies have following features which are in between those
of fused and diffracted societies:
1. In between universalism of diffracted societies and particularism of
fused societies, the prismatic societies are characterized by selectivism i.
e. somewhere between universalism and particularism.
2. Similarly intermediate between achievement norm of diffracted societies
and ascription norm of fused societies the prismatic societies are
characterized by attainment norms i. e. people progress in society partly
by achievement and partly by ascription.
3. Between functional specificity and functional diffuseness,
polyfunctionalism was coined by Riggs to explain multifunctionality of
social structures in prismatic societies.
The focus of this model of Riggs is the study of administrative sub-system sala of
prismatic societies and its interaction with other social structures and their
environment because the primary concern of Riggs has been the study of
administrative problems of the developing or transitional societies.
The basic characteristics of the prismatic societies are:
1. Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity refers to the simultaneous presence, side by side, of quite
different kinds of systems, practices and viewpoints. It means presence of
features of both fused and diffracted societies e. g. presence of sophisticated
intellectual class in urban areas while in rural areas still traditional rural elders
have many political, religious, administrative roles etc. This may happen due to
uneven social change. Similarly the administrative sub-system of prismatic
societies sala exists along with modern bureau and traditional courts or
chambers.
2. Formalism
Formalism means the incongruence between the formally prescribed and the
effectively practiced i. e. between the norms and the realities. Opposite of
formalism is called realism. For example, the rules may prescribe a certain set of
behavior by the government officials while they act in a different way
considerably. The diffracted and fused societies have high degree of realism. Due
to formalism, the public officials have lot of discretion in implementing the laws
of the land. The broad reason why such formalism develops in a prismatic society
is lack of ability of the society to guide the performance of the institutions in
society i. e. lack of awareness in public, lack of commitment towards the societal
objectives etc. This type of formalistic behavior encourages corruption in a
prismatic society.
Due to such a formalism-realism dichotomy between the prismatic and
diffracted societies, attempts towards administrative reforms in diffracted
societies lead to the desired changes in administrative system however in the
prismatic societies as the public officials indulge in behavior which is quite

different from the officially prescribed one, all the attempts to bring about
administrative reform have only a superficial impact.
3. Overlapping
It refers to the extent to which formally differentiated structures of a diffracted
society coexist with the undifferentiated structures of a fused type. In diffracted
society there is no overlapping as the various structures of the social system
perform the specific functions in a more or less autonomous way while in a fused
society all the functions are performed by the same social structure (which is
generally the Chief Executive of that society) so there is no scope of overlapping
in fused societies also. However in a prismatic society though modern
differentiated social structures are created still the society is dominated by the
undifferentiated structures. In the administrative subsystem sala overlapping
means that the actual administrative action is determined by nonadministrative criteria such as social, cultural, political, economic or religious
factors etc. Overlapping is manifest in a prismatic society by many features e. g.
nepotism, poly-communalism or clects, poly-normavativism, lack of consensus,
separation of authority and control. These are described below:
a) Nepotism
In contrast to the diffracted society, in prismatic society the considerations of
caste, religion, family and loyalty etc. are the deciding factors in
officialrecruitment. This is there despite the fact that officially these criteria are
prohibited. In diffracted society universalism is the criteria for official
recruitment. This is due to the fact that in prismatic society selectivism which
is intermediate between universalism and particularism prevails i. e.
sometimes universalism is followed while at others particularism is followed. This
all depends on the people to be selected and favours they find with the selecting
authority.
b) Poly-Communalism or Clects
Poly-communalism refers to the simultaneous existence in a society of various
ethnic, religious and racial groups which remain quite hostile to each other while
in existence. These groups represent various interest groups existing in the
community. These groups are termed as clects by Riggs and they are
characterized by attainment norms, selectivism and poly-functionalism. Clects
are functionally diffuse and carry out semi-traditional type functions but clects
are organized in a modern way.
According to Riggs, ecological factors affect the administrative system also, so
the existence of clects affects sala also. As a result the public officials develop a
loyalty toward the community more than that toward the government. In the
official recruitment, dominant minority community gets disproportionate
representation. To balance it quota system is started but it results in mutual
hostility among the various groups existing in the society.
Quite often, the sala officials develop close nexus with some particular clects and
start functioning as their agents. This affects the functioning of the government
very badly and generates corruption.
c) Poly-Normativism Lack of consensus

Poly-normativism is a unique feature of the prismatic societies. This means that

the traditional behavior pattern co-exists with new sets of norms. This results in
lack of consensus on norms of behavior. This affects the sala also. Sala officials
though publicly claim to follow objective, universalistic and achievement oriented
norms actually follow subjective, particularistic and ascriptive behavior. The
recruitment of public officials is generally done from certain groups only. Even if
recruitment is done based on merit the career advancement of the officials is
affected by ascriptive values. The relationship between the citizens and sala
officials is also affected by poly-normativism. Though the citizens expect the
public officials to be honest and rule abiding yet they do not have these virtues
and avail benefits out of turn.
d) Separation of Authority and Control
In a prismatic society the authority and control structures are separated. Though
such type of societies have highly centralized and concentrated authority
structures in the society still the control system is highly localized and dispersed.
This means that there is a separation of de-jure authority (i. e. legitimate
power) from de-facto control (i. e. illegitimate power). This control system finds
roots in societys culture of poly-communalism, clects and poly-normativism. This
affects the politician-administrator relationship also in a prismatic society and
results in unbalanced polity in which the sala officials extensively influence the
policy making process. This upper hand of bureaucrats in the exercise of power
makes the political process weak and the administration becomes unresponsive
in prismatic societies. According to Riggs in such scenario if the public
administration in transitional societies is strengthened then it blocks the political
development. The sala officials become too powerful but weak as administrators.
This results in nepotism in recruitment, corruption and inefficiency in the
administration of laws.
Bazaar Canteen Model The basis for the Prismatic Economy
Economic sub-system of prismatic society was termed as bazaar canteen by
Riggs. Market forces of supply and demand determine the prices in a diffracted
society but in a fused society society areana factors (considerations which
determine balance of power, prestige, solidarity, other religious, social and
familial factors) dominate. In a prismatic society, both market and arena factors
interact in such a way that they produce a state of price indeterminacy and a
price which might be called common to all could not determined for a service
or commodity. The economic sub-system in prismatic society behaves as
subsidized canteen, where the goods and services are provided at lower rates,
for the members of special clects or for politically influential groups who have
access to the canteen and as tributary canteen, where higher prices are
charged, to the outside members. This means that in prismatic societies the
prices charged for the public services vary according to the relationship between
the sala official and his clientele.
This bargaining culture prevailing in the economic sub-system of the prismatic
societies affects the financial administration also particularly areas such as
budgeting, accounting, auditing, collection of taxes etc. The collection of
government revenues also gets adversely affected resulting in low emoluments

to the public officials. Such an atmosphere breeds corruption by the public

officials to increase their income.
Exogenous, Endogenous and Equi-genetic Changes in societies
After considering the main features of prismatic societies we now turn our
attention to studying the process of change in societies. If change is caused
primarily by external pressures like technical assistance programmes the change
is called exogenous, on the other hand the change emanating due to internal
processes is called endogenous change. Equi-genetic changer results when
both external and internal pressures for change act in equal measure. In
prismatic societies both exogenous and endogenous changes take place however
if the process of diffraction is more exogenetic then the prismatic phase has
more formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping. Such societies are called exoprismatic societies. In endo-prismatic societies the prismatic phase is more
endogenetic and the effective behavior precedes the formation of new
institutions while in exo-prismatic societies first the formal institutions are
created and then it is expected that the behavior of social structures will change
according to the newly prescribed norms. Latter is the case generally in
developing countries which try to absorb the external pressures in minimum
possible time but actually result in more formalism, heterogeneity and
overlapping.
Criticisms of Riggsian Models
The Riggsian Prismatic Sala Model was criticized on the following
grounds:
1. In Riggsian analysis the major focus is on the impact external
environmental factors on the administrative sub-system and not the other
way round. For any study to be called ecological, it has to study the
interactions of the system with its environment i. e. the effect of
external environment on the system and systems effect on the
environment. Riggs has considered the impact of external socio-cultural,
economic and political factors on sala but he has not much considered the
impact of sala on socio-cultural and economic factors though the effect on
political environment has been considered to some extent. As in prismatic
societies the administrative subsystems are relatively autonomous
capable of directing socio-economic change, the effect of such autonomy
on socio-cultural dimensions also needs to be studied.
2. The main aim of Riggsian models seems to be the study of external
environmental settings and not the administrative sub-system per se. The
prismatic model gives a vivid picture of social system in a transitional
society but not that of the components & details of administrative subsystem. The input side i. e. the environmental factors affecting the
administration have occupied much space in Riggsian models rather than
the output side of administrative sub-systems i. e. analysis of work output
efficiency of different administrative sub-systems in different contextual
settings various organs of administration etc.
3. Riggsian models do not look into possibility of relative independence of
various social structures. It may be possible that a transitional society

has prismatic socio-cultural sub-systems while quite diffracted

bureaucratic sub-system. Such is the case in countries like India and
Malaysia. Thus prismatic society can not be considered to have all the
components as prismatic, there may be cases when some social structures
in such society are relatively diffracted in comparison to other. So there is
a need to consider different mixed categories in prismatic model.
4. It can not be generalized, as has been done in Riggsian models, that
formalism always enhances the power of the bureaucrats or that power
of administrators is indirectly proportional to the administrative
effectiveness. Much depends on the way the terms like power are
defined.
5. Inter-relationships among several structural conditions should have been
taken into account by Riggs to make his study more effective. R. S. Milne
has talked of certain structural characteristics which have led to the
emergence of other structural features e. g. according to him under two
conditions bureaucrats may not become powerful. First, if there is a culture
of civil service neutrality and second, if the politicians could be sufficiently
powerful so that they control the bureaucrats. In India both these
conditions exist to some degree, in Pakistan the first one is there but not
the second while in Philipines the second one exists not the first one. So
different analytical categories need to be made out of the uniform
prismatic model to take into account the structural variations in different
countries and to avoid the general statements regarding the transitional
societies.
6. Overlapping is not necessarily dysfunctional and sometimes it brings along
with it new ideas and interesting change. In fact countries like United
States sometimes set up two or more competitive agencies whose areas of
function will overlap and will result in some wastage but will also bring out
some new innovations. Michael Crozier supports this view. John
Montgomery says that one of effective ways of administrative reforms is to
duplicate functions, to start competition with old bureaucracy or to bypass
it altogether. Thus overlapping per se does not always mean
dysfunctionality and wastage of resources and Riggs should have
considered this aspect to increase the heuristic purpose of his study.
Prismatic Model Truly Negative or Negative from Western Bias
The social behavior in a prismatic society has been assumed to be negative in
itself by Riggs. He has used terms like normlessness, ritualism, mimetic,
myths and double talk etc. to show the functioning of the prismatic societies.
Obviously the use of such terms shows that the basic character of prismatic
societies has been assumed to be negative. This shows that Riggs sees
everything associated with prismatic society as a dyfunctionality. While in a
diffracted society the aberrations have been explained with much more
sophisticated terms like market imperfections and frictions.
Riggs Theory seems to have put the United States society and its society as a
standard model and lack of development in developing countries has been taken
as dysfunctional. He chose only those actions in a prismatic society which appear
to violate the standards of economy, efficiency and morality of the West while

the bad economics, inefficiency and immorality of the West have not been
mentioned. His model sees only negative aspects of political, economic, social
and administrative sub-systems in developing societies. Monroe points out
American social structures can not be taken as standard diffracted society and
they have a number of prismatic characteristics e. g. in civil rights matter the
true spirit of American constitution is violated, corruption in highly placed offices,
regulatory agencies often indulge in discriminatory behavior, tax loopholes etc.
This means that Riggs has underestimated the prismatic traits of even relatively
diffracted societies and as a result has discussed the behavior of social
structures in diffracted societies only on the basis of officially prescribed
behavior. If analytical categories of effective behavior in relatively diffracted
societies are created and then compared with the prismatic model then the
negative character of prismatic societies would not be as much negative. So, to
see the true characteristics of prismatic societies and their sub-systems the
academic analysis has to be freed from the Western bias.
Formalism Context decides the functionality
According to Riggs, formalism refers to the degree to which incongruence exists
between the formally prescribed and the effectively practiced. Riggs has
considered this feature of prismatic societies as dysfunctional to the
achievement of public policy goals of the prismatic societies as it leads to official
corruption, arbitrariness, inefficiency etc. However for judging whether a
structure is eufunctional or dysfunctional, it has to be seen in the ecological
context. This important aspect has been neglected by Riggs. Riggs has equated
formalism with negative development. However it has been the experience of
development practitioners that strict adherence to the rules and regulations i. e
realism showed by the bureaucrats can prove to be a hindrance for the
development. Even in an atmosphere where little respect is there for the formally
prescribed rules and regulations, formalism can be exploited to further the
objectives of the government by freeing the government of red tapism and
making the bureaucratic process faster. Valsan has propounded the concept of
positive formalism to bring into highlight the positive development ushered in
by such formalism. Interestingly R. S. Milne has gone to the extent of
recommendingtraining the civil servants in positive formalism as far as
practicable. All this discussion highlights the fact that the functionality of
formalism is decided by the context in which it is being used. It may be
dysfunctional if used in the context of classic Weberian type of bureaucracies
e. g. existing in France, Germany etc. but could be eufunctional and
developmental if practiced to a practicable limit in developing countries like
India.
Conclusion
The bureaucratic approach and the ecological approach to study the comparative
public administration differ in regard to the number of ecological elements
incorporated in them. In Weberian scheme of things the administrative subsystem was considered with reference to the nature of the socio-cultural norms
of authority system while the impact of economic environment was only sketchy
but in Riggsian models the socio-cultural and economic aspects of the
administrative ecology are discussed in much more wider context. As far as
interaction between political and administrative systems are considered both the

scholars have given ample attention to it. Both Weber and Riggs have chosen
nations at a particular stage of their socio-economic development as the subjects
of their study. Weber studied bureaucracy of West while Riggs was mainly
interested in studying the problems of administrative sub-systems sala of
developing countries in transition. The administrative patterns of fused or
diffracted societies were not his prime consideration. Both Weber and Riggs lack
in their comparative studies to explain development in various sub-systems
particularly administrative sub-system. Webers assumption of unilateral
development towards bureaucratization can not help solve present day
problems while Riggs contribution to development administration has been
outside his ecological models.
Riggs contribution to the study of comparative public administration has been
phenomenal. As Ferrel Heady has mentioned mere acquaintance with all his
writings on comparative theory is in itself not an insignificant accomplishment.
The ideal type models of Riggs have influenced much research in comparative
public administration.
They are designed to suggest certain relationships among the different variables
they incorporate. The rigour of scientific theory should not be expected in these
frameworks. Ecological models help only qualitative comparisons among various
societies. Their utility is limited as they use impressionist categories like more or
less prismatic or the problems faced while measuring diffraction. In spite of these
and other operational problems, the ecological model has brought consciousness
of interaction between administrative system and the social environment around
it.