Comparative Public Administration (CPA)

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) is a vital field of study that examines the diverse public administration systems worldwide. It focuses on understanding the structures, processes, and outcomes of these systems. The discipline emerged as a response to the growing need for a deeper understanding of how different countries manage public affairs.

Objectives of CPA

The key objectives of CPA include:

1. To analyse and compare administrative systems across nations.
2. To identify best practices and lessons learned from various contexts.
3. To understand the impact of culture, politics, and economy on public administration.

Evolution of CPA

• Comparison of various political systems has been a key concern of a political thinker since the time of Aristotle. In contemporary times, there have been published a good number of studies on comparative constitutions and governments. However, comparison of administrative systems has been undertaken only rarely by scholars. When political systems are compared, there is an obvious reference to their respective administrative systems, but such studies are only sketchy.
• Traditional comparative government and administrative studies were confined to big powers, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Italy. This was a limitation in the traditional studies. Besides, the traditional analysis focused mainly on the organization of government institutions, with a negligible emphasis on the behavioural or dynamic aspects of government systems. Most studies were descriptive in nature and not analytical, explanatory, or problem-oriented. Moreover, these studies did not take into account the interaction between government systems and their environment. Fred Riggs calls these studies the “governments of foreign countries” rather than “comparative governments”.
• It should be appreciated that before the Second World War, there were hardly any developing nations of the contemporary times. Most of them were colonies of western powers, and hence there was little interest in studying their government structures. Interest in comparative administration was only marginal in the pre-Second World War period, yet there were a few notable exceptions.
• Woodrow Wilson, in his seminal article The Study of Administration published in the Political Science Quarterly (1887), suggested that the USA should learn from European administrative systems without adopting their centralized monarchical systems. This reflected a clear comparative orientation.
• Similarly, L. D. White, who published the first textbook in Public Administration, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration in 1926, aimed at developing principles of administration applicable to countries like Russia, Great Britain, Iraq, and the United States. Such a broad interest in traditional comparative public administration laid the foundation for later advanced studies and modern orientations.

1. Experience during the Second World War:

• Several scholars of western countries, particularly the United States, had the opportunity of holding administrative positions in certain non-western nations during the war. Their experience provided important insight into the differences in administrative structures and behaviour between western and non-western nations. These differences were mainly due to variations in socio-cultural and economic contexts. The Philippines and Japan, which were occupied by the USA for a few years, offered clear examples of such diversity.

2. International Technical Assistance Programme:

• With the creation of the United Nations in 1945, there was a strong emphasis on providing financial and technical assistance to non-western countries. The Marshall Plan of the US also aimed at aiding European countries. Several US scholars were involved in these technical assistance programmes and contributed to administrative reforms in countries like India (notably the reports of Paul Appleby in 1953 and 1956). This increased interest in administrative systems of developing countries and strengthened comparative administrative studies.

3. Administrative Reforms:

• Almost all developing nations conducted studies on administrative reforms with the help of indigenous and foreign scholars. This generated vast information on administrative systems. While preparing recommendations, scholars examined and borrowed from administrative practices of developed nations, leading to cross-cultural and cross-national analysis.

4. Emergent Developing Nations:

• After the Second World War, with the decline of colonialism, many countries in Asia and Africa became independent. These nations faced challenges of socio-economic transformation, requiring strong administrative systems in areas like policy-making, planning, human resource management, financial administration, and administrative responsiveness. Institutions like the Ford Foundation provided technical assistance, training, and guidance. Interaction between civil servants and foreign experts promoted interest in comparative public administration.

5. Comparative Politics Movement:

• After the Second World War, the Comparative Politics Movement gained prominence in the United States and other countries. Scholars studying political systems also analysed administrative systems, as they are considered a subsystem of the political system. Key contributors included Leonard Binder, Joseph La Palombara, Alfred Diamant, Fred Riggs, Edward Weidner, and Ferrel Heady. The movement contributed concepts, methodologies, models, and theories to comparative public administration.

6. Behavioural Movement:

• The Behavioural Movement promoted studies on administrative behaviour in ecological settings, strengthening comparative public administration literature.

7. Comparative Administration Group (CAG):

• In 1963, the Comparative Administration Group (CAG) was established under the American Society for Public Administration and funded by the Ford Foundation (1963–1970). Fred W. Riggs served as chairman. The CAG organized seminars, produced over hundred monographs, and published anthologies on comparative administrative systems.
• It also supported research studies across Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Africa, and published the journal Journal of Comparative Administration, later renamed Administration and Society. Prominent scholars included Ralph Braibanti, Milton Esman, Ferrel Heady, John Montgomery, Fred Riggs, William Siffin, and Dwight Waldo.
• After the withdrawal of Ford Foundation funding, the CAG weakened and was eventually disbanded. In 1973, the Section on International and Comparative Administration (SICA) was established under the American Society for Public Administration. It continues to promote teaching, research, and practice in comparative public administration, and awards the Fred W. Riggs Award for outstanding contributions.

Meaning of CPA

• Comparative public administration is the study of public administrative systems from a comparative perspective in cross-national and cross-cultural contexts. It is a branch of Public Administration, but over time it has developed its own distinct identity. It focuses on the structure, processes, behaviour, roles, and impact of public administrative systems at the international level.
• Thus, it examines the similarities and differences among public administrative systems of various nations and regions, and the sources of diversity among them. It also studies the external environment of administrative systems and the interaction between the system and its environment.

Comparative public administration has the following purposes:

1. To understand the distinctive features of a particular administrative system or a group of systems.

2. To explain the factors responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural similarities and differences in administrative structure, functions, behaviour, and impact.

3. To examine the causes of success or failure of administrative systems in their ecological settings, focusing on the dynamic interaction between administrative systems and their environment.

4. To understand the strategies of administrative reforms, their processes, impacts, and the factors determining the success or failure of reforms.

Nature of CPA

Fred W. Riggs in his seminal article Trends in the Comparative Study of Public Administration, published in the International Review of Administrative Sciences (1962), observed that the discipline of Comparative Public Administration was experiencing three important trends, which continue even today:

1. From normative to empirical studies

2. From ideographic to nomothetic studies

3. From non-ecological to ecological studies

It is interesting to note that even today all the six types of studies co-exist in the discipline of comparative public administration, and this co-existence represents the nature of the discipline. A brief reference to these characteristics will be in order.

1. Normative Approach:

• Traditional public administration focused on the themes of efficiency and economy in administration and stressed that these two goals were the key to administrative performance. To achieve these goals, certain principles of administration were devised that were prescriptive in nature. Some of these principles were: hierarchy, unity of command, span of control, balance between authority and responsibility, specialization, and others. The emphasis in this approach was on the ‘should’ aspects of administration rather than on the ‘is’ aspects.
• Contemporary studies in comparative public administration continue to be characterized by the normative approach; the whole movement of administrative reforms is a testimony to this orientation. In fact, substantial stress on increasing the capacity to achieve progressive socio-economic goals is the prime feature of administrative systems in the non-western world. That is why the notions of “administrative development” and “development administration” have attained equal significance in the literature on comparative public administration.

2. Empirical Analysis:

• A large number of contemporary comparative public administrative studies are based on facts collected through observation, experimentation, and field surveys. Such studies have, as their locus, the national, state, regional, district, and local levels.
• There are a large number of studies on the existing nature and behaviour of administrative system, using empirical methodology being conducted in the world, including India. Such studies relate to the administrative response to developments in agriculture, industry, education, health, environment, gender justice, child welfare, care for the differentially able persons, transport, communication, and other areas.
• Such studies have been sponsored by international organizations, private foundations, national bodies, universities, and NGOs. This is a trend prevailing throughout the world.

3. Ideographic Studies:

• Ideographic studies are one-nation, one-society, one institution, or one-sector studies. Even Fred Riggs published Thailand: Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (1966). Likewise, Michael Crozier’s The Bureaucratic Phenomenon deals with French bureaucracy, and Morroe Berger’s Bureaucracy and Society in Modern Egypt is also a one-nation study.
• Interestingly, these ideographic studies are empirical in methodology and serve a great purpose in facilitating comparative analysis and even in theory building. In developing nations, there are hundreds of studies focusing on specific institutions or programmes that have significantly contributed to the understanding of administrative reality in cross-institutional and cross-national settings.

4. Nomothetic Studies:

• Fred Riggs uses the term nomothetic for studies that contain generalizations based on empirical research or observations and which facilitate the process of theory building. Such studies lend a scientific character to comparative public administration.
• However, it should not be ignored that even ideographic studies can help in creating hypotheses, which after testing might lead to the construction of generalizations. Studies by Riggs, Berger, and Crozier, though definitely ideographic, are also nomothetic in character, for their analysis and conclusions have great heuristic value (helping further research).
• In sum, both the ideographic and nomothetic approaches are mutually complementary.

5. Non-ecological Studies:

• It is true that a large number of traditional studies of comparative governments were only discussing the legal, formal, and defined functional aspects of governance, including administrative institutions. The aspect of environmental influence on the administrative system and, in turn, the impact of an administrative system on its environment was ignored or under-emphasized.
• Most studies on administrative law, personnel administration, and financial administration in most countries, even today, continue to be non-ecological. However, that does not negate their importance and contribution.

6. Ecological Analysis:

• No doubt, the ecological approach is the key to the understanding of comparative public administration. For elevating the ecological approach to its present respectable status, credit goes to Fred W. Riggs, who emphasized the need to look at the relationship between an administrative system and its environment from a dynamic perspective.
• A large number of comparative studies in public administration, whether ideographic or nomothetic, have been ecological in orientation. Thus, the trend from non-ecological to ecological analysis is undoubtedly a preferred path in the evolution of comparative public administration.

Scope of CPA

• The scope of comparative public administration is as large as that of public administration itself. Hence, any administrative facet—structures, processes, behaviour, impact, environment—when examined from a comparative perspective, falls within its scope. A few types of studies that explain this scope are as follows:

1. Cross-institutional Analysis:

• When two or more institutions or organizations are compared in terms of their structure, functions, processes, environment, and impact, such an analysis is called cross-institutional analysis.
• For instance, there can be a comparison between the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh and that of Tamil Nadu, or a study of the Agriculture Department across major states of India. Likewise, comparisons can be made between the School Education Department and the Higher Education Department of West Bengal in terms of efficiency and innovativeness.
• There can be innumerable and diverse examples in this context. This approach is most evident in traditional comparative studies.

2. Intra-national and Cross-national:

• Intra-national comparisons relate to the comparison of administrative structures within the same country. This may include inter-district, inter-division, or inter-state comparisons (e.g., within India).
• However, when administrative systems or their subsystems in two or more nations are compared, it is called cross-national analysis.
• For example, comparing the health administrative systems of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar is intra-national, whereas comparing India’s health system with that of Bangladesh is cross-national.
• Such studies are relatively few due to the need for massive resources and distinctive methodology.

3. Cross-national but Intra-Cultural:

• When comparisons are made between administrative systems of nations belonging to the same culture, they are called cross-national but intra-cultural studies.
• Though defining culture can be difficult, it is generally assumed that developed nations and developing nations represent different cultures.
• For instance, studying the status of women in administrative systems of India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka is cross-national but intra-cultural, whereas including countries like Germany and Nepal would make it cross-cultural as well.

4. Cross-national and Cross-cultural:

• Studies comparing administrative systems of nations belonging to different levels of socio-economic development fall under this category.
• For example, comparing administrative structures of social justice in the U.S., Argentina, UAE, and Nigeria represents cross-cultural (and cross-national) analysis.
• Here, culture may also refer to the political system. For instance, the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam share a similar culture (communist systems), but comparisons like India vs Vietnam or Cuba vs Italy are cross-cultural.
• It should be noted that cultural categories of nations can change over time.

5. Cross-temporal Studies:

• Temporal refers to time. Comparative studies involving two or more distinct time periods are called cross-temporal studies.
• For instance, a comparison of district administration in pre-independence and post-independence periods is cross-temporal. Similarly, comparing environmental administration in the Mauryan period with that of independent India is also a cross-temporal analysis.

Significance of CPA

The positive influence and contribution of comparative public administration are summarized as follows:

1. Scientific Study of Public Administration:

• Robert Dahl, in his article The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems (1947), observed that there cannot be a science of public administration without comparative analysis. Similarly, James Coleman stated, “You cannot be scientific if you are not comparative.”
• Through comparative analysis of administrative systems, new insights into administrative reality in cross-national contexts are generated. These insights serve as hypotheses, which can be empirically tested to derive generalizations applicable to multiple nations.

2. Inter-disciplinary Orientation:

• Comparative public administration draws concepts and methods from Political Science, Sociology, Economics, Anthropology, and Psychology.
• This inter-disciplinary orientation has broadened and enriched the study of public administration, with contributions from scholars across various disciplines.

3. Strengthening Ecological Orientation:

• Traditional public administration focused mainly on administrative structures in western countries like the U.S., Great Britain, and France, treating the environment as given.
• Modern comparative public administration emphasizes the ecological approach, highlighting the relationship between administrative systems and their environment, making analysis more realistic and dynamic.

4. Universalism:

• Comparative studies have challenged parochialism in western scholarship. The non-western world has developed its own administrative reality, contributing to a broader understanding.
• This has led to conceptual transformation in administrative analysis, promoting universalism.

5. More Rational Use of Foreign Assistance:

• Comparative studies have acted as catalysts for capacity building in nations receiving aid from international agencies and major powers.
• This has led to a more prudent utilization of foreign assistance, based on cross-national experiences.

6. Holistic Approach:

• Though grand theories from disciplines like Political Science, Sociology, and Anthropology may not always strengthen scientific precision, they have encouraged a holistic approach.
• This systemic perspective enhances understanding of administrative systems and their subsystems.

7. Administrative Development:

• Comparative public administration emphasizes improvements in structures, processes, and behavioural patterns of administrative systems.
• It highlights the role of effective administration in accelerating socio-economic and political development.

8. Development Administration:

• The concept of development administration has emerged as a major contribution. It is goal-oriented and change-oriented, acting as a key driver of holistic transformation and national progress.

9. Administrative Reforms:

• Cross-national experiences of administrative reforms in countries like Britain, Zaire, Indonesia, Bolivia, Sweden, and India have inspired goal-directed change globally.
• Organizations like the UNDP and the World Bank have supported this movement, promoting good governance as a central strategy.

10. Responsiveness:

• The systems approach and ecological approach emphasize inputs from the environment in the form of demands and support.
• Administrative systems are expected to align their outputs (decisions and actions) with these inputs. The role of throughputs ensures greater rationality and efficiency.
• This has made administrative systems more responsive to people’s needs and aspirations.

11. Overcoming False Impressions:

• Traditional theories relied on a structural approach, often labeling non-western countries as less developed due to the absence of certain formal structures.
• The structural-functional approach in comparative public administration shows that all systems perform similar functions, though structures may differ.
• In developing nations, administrative structures are often multi-functional, breaking the idea of a strict structure-function relationship.
• This insight has corrected misconceptions and highlighted the competence of administrative systems in developing countries.

Approaches of CPA

Structural-Functional Approach

The structural-functional approach, like the general systems approach, is a grand theory. Among scholars who contributed to its development are Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, Marion Levy Jr., Gabriel Almond, and David Apter. In comparative public administration, Fred Riggs has been the chief proponent of this approach.

Premise:

To understand this approach, it is essential to grasp the meaning of ‘structure’ and ‘function’. These terms have distinct meanings compared to traditional analysis.

A structure is defined as a pattern of behaviour that becomes a standard feature of a social system. Structures may be:

• Concrete structures (e.g., government departments, corporations, bureaus)
• Analytic structures (e.g., authority, power, control, accountability)

Thus, the concept of structure goes beyond formal structures.

In traditional analysis, function means task, but in this approach, it has two meanings:

1. Interdependence or relationship between structures
2. Consequences or influence of one structure on another or on the system

These concepts emphasize reciprocity, interrelationship, and system dynamics. For example, relationships between planning and finance, authority and responsibility, and control and accountability reveal the administrative dynamics.

Multi-functionality:

A structure may be unifunctional (performing one function) or multifunctional (performing multiple functions).

• Unifunctional structures: e.g., Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
• Multifunctional structures: e.g., Prime Minister’s Office, Police Department

In developed countries, due to higher specialization, structures tend to be unifunctional, whereas in developing countries, they are more often multifunctional.

In a democratic setup, bureaucracy performs multiple roles:

• Political role
• Economic role
• Social role
• Cultural role
• Technological role

Thus, an administrative system interacts with and influences political, economic, social, cultural, and technological systems, while also being influenced by them.

Multi-structurality:

A function may be performed by one or multiple structures.

Administrative functions are not limited to bureaucracy alone. Other actors include:

• Politicians (policy and law-making)
• Economic system (resource allocation)
• Social groups (pressure and participation)

This highlights the shared responsibility and distributed functioning in governance.

Requisites and Pre-requisite Functions:

The approach identifies:

• Requisite functions (essential for continuity)
• Prerequisite functions (essential for origin and survival)

According to Fred Riggs, key functional requisites are:

• Economic
• Social
• Communicational
• Symbolic
• Political

Administrative systems perform functions like policy-making, decision-making, planning, financial management, human resource management, and citizen participation.

Prerequisites for administrative systems include law, manpower, and finances.

Application:

Gabriel Almond emphasized the rule-implementation function, while recognizing administrative involvement in rule-making.

David Apter highlighted the role of administration in modernization.

However, Fred Riggs made the most significant contribution by applying this approach in his models:

• Agraria–Industria model
• Fused, Prismatic, and Diffracted societies

These models explain cross-national and cross-cultural administrative realities.

Merits of the Approach:

1. Provides a dynamic view of structures and functions
2. Is systemic, focusing on interrelationships
3. Is value-neutral
4. Emphasizes functional similarity despite structural differences
5. Shows that absence of structure ≠ absence of function
6. Recognizes importance of indigenous structures
7. Has a strong ecological orientation

Limitations:

1. Too abstract and grand for practical application
2. Difficult to identify all functions of a structure
3. Difficult to identify all structures performing a function
4. Too generalized for precise comparative analysis

General Systems Approach

The general systems approach had its roots in the disciplines of Sociology and Anthropology. It focused on the analysis of a society, its parts, and their interdependence. Talcott Parsons, through his work The Social System (1951), popularised the concept of the social system.

Concept of System:

The concept of a system involves the study of:

1. Parts of a system (sub-systems)
2. Interactions and interdependence among parts
3. Dynamic relationship between a system and its environment

While examining this interaction, the environmental influences on a system are categorized as:

• Demands
• Support

System Process:

1. Processing of inputs is called throughputs, which integrate inputs to make the system functional.
2. The response of the system is in the form of outputs (decisions and actions).
3. Through feedback, outputs generate further inputs, creating a continuous input–throughput–output cycle.
4. Balance within subsystems and between system and environment is called dynamic equilibrium.

Initiatives in Comparative Public Administration:

In The Study of Public Administration (1955), Dwight Waldo suggested adopting modern social science approaches in public administration.

Fred W. Riggs applied the general systems approach in his typology of:

• Agraria–Transitia–Industria
• Fused–Prismatic–Diffracted societies

These models explained administrative systems in a comparative context.

Merits:

1. Focus on the whole administrative system, not just parts
2. Emphasis on interactions and interdependence among subsystems like personnel, finance, planning, policy, and decision-making
3. Promotion of ecological analysis, studying the influence of political, economic, social, and cultural environment on administration

Limitations:

1. Concepts like system, environment, input, throughput, output, and dynamic equilibrium are abstract and difficult to operationalize
2. Too general for empirical research without clear definitions
3. Difficulty in identifying all inputs, throughputs, and outputs
4. Study of the whole system requires extensive resources, time, and collaboration, especially in comparative studies

Conclusion:

With the decline of grand theories after the mid-1960s, the systems approach lost much of its prominence. However, it contributed significantly by promoting a holistic perspective and emphasizing the importance of analysing administrative systems within their ecological context.

Behavioural Approach

During the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the behavioural movement became the dominant approach to the study of societies and organizations. It focused on the scientific study of human behaviour in different settings. In Political Science and Public Administration, it emerged as a protest against traditional, historical, and normative analysis.

The behavioural approach in public administration borrowed concepts and methods from Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Political Science.

Features:

The behavioural approach has the following characteristics:

1. It is descriptive and analytical, not prescriptive or normative, focusing on “What is?” rather than “What should be?”
2. It uses rigorous methods like field research, experimentation, and observation
3. It emphasizes quantification and mathematization
4. It aims at theory construction through systematic methodology
5. It is inter-disciplinary in nature

The behavioural approach significantly contributed to comparative public administration. Theory building requires testing hypotheses across different organizations, societies, nations, and cultures.

Notable scholars using this approach include Robert Presthus, Morroe Berger, Michael Crozier, Kuldeep Mathur, and Richard Taub.

Decline:

In the late 1960s, Post-Behaviouralism emerged, leading to the New Public Administration movement. This approach emphasized the importance of values and normativism, arguing that both facts and values must be included in public administration studies.

As a result, comparative public administration became more policy-oriented and action-oriented, focusing on issues like poverty, education, health, environment, and gender justice.

Positive Impact:

The behavioural approach contributed in the following ways:

1. Shifted focus from normative to empirical studies (highlighted by Fred W. Riggs, 1962)
2. Made the discipline more scientific through data collection, observation, and quantification
3. Introduced dynamism by focusing on behaviour of administrators and organizations
4. Promoted ecological awareness by emphasizing the environmental context
5. Encouraged intellectual cooperation among scholars and institutions globally
6. Broadened the scope of public administration

Limitations:

1. Overemphasis on facts was challenged by post-behaviouralism
2. Difficulty in applying uniform methodology across cross-cultural systems
3. Lack of sufficient scholars in non-western and communist nations
4. Shortage of financial and technical resources, especially after the disbanding of the Comparative Administration Group (1970)

Conclusion:

Despite its limitations, the behavioural movement left a lasting (indelible) impact on comparative public administration. Over time, it evolved by integrating both empirical and normative orientations, and its methodology remains a key feature of contemporary studies.

Bureaucratic Approach

Introduction:

Comparative Public Administration is a sub-system of the broader discipline of Public Administration. Since it is a social science, it cannot have theories that can match the scientific constructs of natural sciences that are a result of empirical (factual) studies. A theory is the consequence of certain tested hypotheses in a particular context with well-defined concepts and definitions. It can describe, as well as, predict certain outcomes based on the maxim of cause and effect. Such theories do not generally characterize the study of social sciences, including comparative public administration.

A theory is a model. Again, the term ‘model’ is used in a loose sense in comparative public administration. As eminent scholar Dwight Waldo observes that a model is “simply the conscious attempt to develop and define concepts, or cluster of related concepts, useful in classifying data, describing reality, and/or hypothesizing about it.”

Thus, a model:

1. Simplifies concepts

2. Relates various concepts with each other

3. Classifies data

4. Attempts to create hypotheses concerning possible reality

A theory is a more sophisticated tool than a model. While a model contains logical consistency and has analytical utility, it cannot assert the truth or falsity about a described reality. A model helps in studying reality, but it cannot be as exact as a theory, and it does not have predictive competence.

There are two significant examples of models in the study of comparative public administration:

• The ‘bureaucratic’ model of Max Weber

• The ‘prismatic-sala’ model of Fred Riggs

Both are ‘ideal-type’ models which imagine what a fully developed administrative system in ‘developed’ and ‘transitional’ societies is likely to be.

The most common conceptual constructs in comparative public administration are ‘approaches’, which focus on the way an administrative system can be viewed. An approach is an orientation and a way of looking at a system. There are no testable hypotheses inherent in any approach, though one can create hypotheses based on relationships among variables used in a model.

An approach can help in constructing models, which in turn can propose hypotheses for testing to create a theory. Thus, in the hierarchy of conceptual constructs:

• Theory is at the top

• Models are in the middle

• Approaches are at the bottom

Nevertheless, an approach can open the gates of ideas, thoughts, and probabilities, helping advance the conceptual and theoretical basis of analysis.

In comparative public administration, five eminent approaches/models help in understanding administrative realities:

1. Bureaucratic System Approach (Bureaucratic Model)

2. Behavioural Approach

3. Systems Approach

4. Structural-functional Approach

5. Ecological Approach

The ecological approach is examined in the unit on Fred W. Riggs, as the Riggsian analysis draws heavily from this approach.

Bureaucratic Approach:

Max Weber (1864–1920) was a German sociologist who created a series of ‘ideal-type’ models. He was a historical sociologist who studied administrative systems of various nations and constructed logical relationships based on them.

To understand his ideas, it is essential to grasp the concept of ‘authority’. According to Max Weber, authority is “the probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons.”

Earlier thinkers of Public Administration, such as Henri Fayol and Harvey Walker, believed that authority had a legal basis. According to them, a leader possessing legal authority has the right to get orders obeyed. However, Weber rejected this view and introduced the ‘acceptance theory of authority’, emphasizing that authority exists only when it is accepted by subordinates. If people do not comply, authority does not exist.

Thus, authority becomes a relationship between the giver and the receiver of an order, with greater importance given to the acceptance by the receiver. A command is followed only when it is seen as ‘legitimate’.

The legitimacy of authority depends on three main grounds:

1. Legal-rational authority – Based on laws, rules, and rationality, and supported by belief in the legality of normative rules and the right of those who issue commands.

2. Traditional authority – Based on the sanctity of traditions and long-established customs.

3. Charismatic authority – Based on faith in the exceptional qualities, charisma, or supernatural appeal of a leader.

In brief:

• Legal-rational authority → depends on laws and rules

• Traditional authority → rooted in traditions

• Charismatic authority → based on charisma of a leader

Each type of authority gives rise to a distinct administrative system:

• In traditional authority, administration is guided by customs and conventions, lacking clear job descriptions, hierarchy, formal recruitment, promotion systems, and training.

• In charismatic authority, administration depends on the will of the leader, who controls recruitment, powers, responsibilities, promotions, and benefits.

• In legal-rational authority, the administrative system takes the form of ‘bureaucracy’, characterized by formal rules, structured hierarchy, and defined roles.

The Bureaucratic Model:

The bureaucratic model as postulated by Max Weber has the following characteristics:

1. Administrators are subject to authority only in their official positions. Only formal authority is considered legitimate, not informal authority.

2. All offices are arranged in a hierarchy, ordered by authority and responsibility. At the top is often a non-bureaucrat (an elected representative).

3. Each officer has defined competencies and clear job responsibilities.

4. Staff members are appointed through a free selection system.

5. Officers are selected based on technical competence through systematic rules and procedures.

6. Specialized knowledge is the basis of entry into bureaucracy and a source of superiority.

7. Members are paid fixed, graded salaries; pensions are provided based on rules, service period, and status.

8. Office is the primary occupation; part-time or parallel jobs are not allowed.

9. There is a career system with promotion based on seniority and/or merit.

10. Officials are separated from the means of organization; official property cannot be used for personal gain (to prevent corruption).

11. Officials are subject to discipline and conduct rules, with a system of punishment for violations.

12. Administration operates on rationality, ensuring maximum efficiency in the use of resources (money, manpower, time).

13. Compared to traditional and charismatic authority systems, bureaucracy is the most efficient administrative system.

Weber observed that capitalism has been a catalyst in the growth of bureaucracies, as large-scale organizations require structured administration. Thus, bureaucracy applies not only to government systems but also to private sector organizations. He even regarded Vatican City as one of the most developed bureaucratic systems.

Merits of Bureaucracy:

As noted earlier, an ideal-type bureaucracy is not found in empirical reality. It is an ‘imagined system’ that represents a fully developed administrative system, often described as a ‘utopia’. Nevertheless, most developed countries have modeled their administrative systems on the Weberian bureaucratic model, and many developing countries also aim to adopt this framework.

Although there are gaps between the ideal-type model and actual reality, these do not reduce the importance of the bureaucratic model proposed by Max Weber. No alternative model has emerged that can effectively compete with the Weberian model of bureaucracy. The eminent scholar Dwight Waldo even described it as a ‘paradigm’ of public administration. Furthermore, the Riggsian prismatic-sala model also draws heavily from the Weberian typology of authority systems.

The universal acceptance of the Weberian model is due to its strong positive features, which make it one of the most effective administrative systems:

1. It is governed by laws and rules.

2. It follows an objective approach.

3. It is highly efficient and rational, more than traditional and charismatic systems.

4. It establishes a well-defined hierarchy of offices.

5. It emphasizes specialization of knowledge.

6. It ensures clear job responsibilities for all personnel.

7. It provides a structured compensation system (salary, pensions).

8. It is based on merit, which can be enhanced through training.

9. It enforces discipline and conduct rules.

10. It promotes social leveling, allowing equal opportunity across society.

11. It helps in discouraging corruption.

Thus, despite being an ideal construct, the Weberian bureaucracy continues to serve as the most influential and widely accepted model in public administration.

Impact:

Almost all countries of the world—whether developed or developing—have institutionalized bureaucratic systems in one form or another. Even nations with monarchies or one-party systems have adopted the basic features of bureaucratic structures and procedures. While there is diversity in application, this variation is common across all patterns of governance.

The Weberian bureaucracy, proposed by Max Weber, is an ideal-type model, and no real bureaucracy is expected to fully match it in practice. It must be emphasized that ideal-type bureaucracies are not empirical (real) systems, but rather imagined constructs that guide and inspire the development of real-life administrative systems.

There are often references to the weaknesses of bureaucracies in many countries. However, these weaknesses arise not from the bureaucratic model itself, but from the actual functioning and conduct of bureaucratic systems in practice.

New Public Administration

New Public Administration is a significant development whose origin can be traced to the end of the 1960s. It emphasises some new and some old values of public administration.

It supports client-based public administration. Its interests are focused on de-bureaucratisation, decentralisation, democratic decision making, etc. It retains its belief in value-dispute. It is inevitably associated with the famous Minnowbrook deliberations held in the USA in the late 80’s. New Public Administration must be distinguished from old public administration, which refers to the writings in public administration from 1940-60.

This distinction is characterised by the following four shifts

(i) From administrative specialities like purchasing, personnel etc to pragmatic concerns.

(ii) From the chief executive to actual administrative problems.

(iii) From general abstract principles to the specific contextsof individuals, departments and programmes.

(iv) From mere goals of efficiency and economy to larger concerns for political values and democratic functioning. The urge for change resulted in various conferences in America. Two most important are as follows

(a) Philadelphia Conference Major view points expressed in this conference were

• Too much perfection of hierarchy and internal process in administrative organisations results in rigidities in administrative performance.
• Attention should be towards urban squator, unemployment, poverty, pollution, etc.
• Education and training programme in public administration should include social sensitivity.

(b) Minnowbrook Cenference A year later in 1968 comparitively young scholars met at Minnowbrook to critically review the relevance of the study and practice of public administration. There was shift from a study of administrative practices to concern for policy issues. To the twin goals of Classical Public Administration, namely efficiency and economy has been added the third one of social equity.

Goals of New Public Administration

The goals of new public administration are as follows:

• Relevance It suggests that administrators should deal explicitly with political and normative implications of all the administrative actions. Therefore, relevance of administrative actions to the public should be kept in mind.
• Social Equity Its aim should be to bring about social equity and harmony and social integration in the society.
• Value It emphasises on personal values that benefit the elite sections of the societies should be rejected.
• Change public administration is generally considered to be status-quo oriented. The Minnow brook conference attempted to make the discipline more relevant and social equity oriented through change and innovation. The administrator was considered as a change agent. Hence, the discipline needs to be receptive to change.
• Participation The conference advocated greater participation by all in an organisation in matters of public policy formulation, implementation and revision.
• Client Focus The New Public Administration advocates a ‘client-focussed administration’. It stress that administrators should be active in sensing public needs and responding to them.

Development Administration

Edward Weidner defined it as the process of guiding an organisation toward the achievement of progressive political, economic and social objectives that are authoritatively determined in one manner or the other. Its purpose is bringing out fundamental change in administration that leads to political development, economic growth, and social change.

The meaning and importance of administrative development as an ingredient of development administration has been well summed up by Caiden in the following words, “administrative reform is an essential ingredient of development in any country, irrespective of the speed and direct of change”. The predominant concern of development administration is to design and administer such development programmes which meet the development objectives.

Features of Development Administration

• Change Orientation Development administration can not be status-quo (situation) oriented. No development can take place unless and until it introduces certain positive changes in a system. Change such as structural reorganisation of administration, innovative programme to increase production remove unemployment, poverty etc, new schemes to improve employer-employer relations must form a part of development administration. Goal Orientation These changes need to be tackled systematically by fixation of priorities and goals.
• .Innovative Administration It is interested in identifying and applying new structures, methods, procedures, techniques, policies, planning projects and programmes so that the objectives and goals of development are achieved with minimum possible resources and time. It leads to the speedy realisation of goals.
• Client Oriented Administration It is positively oriented towards meeting the needs of the specific target groups, like small and marginal farmers of landless agricultural labourers and rural artisans in India. The socio-cultural and political-economic progress of these sections forms the essential basis of performance appraisal of development administrators. The administration is involved in the betterment of the lot of the deprived and weak.
• Participation-Oriented Administration It purposes the principle of associative and participative system of administration. Here, people are not treated as passive recipients of benefits or goods and services. They are taken as active participants in the formulation and execution of development plans, policies and programmes. It involves giving people an increasing share in the governance and management of development affair of the government.
• Effective Co-ordination To achieve maximum results, wastage of resources, time and cost has to be avoided. Development administration has to co-ordinate the activities of development agencies and organisations to integrate their efforts and energies for the realisation of development goals. This would even save the administration from the problems of duplication of functions, neglect of important functions and unnecessary focus on irrelevant or marginally relevant activities.
• Ecological Perspective It shapes the environment politically, socially and economically and also gets affected by it in turn. It is not a closed system. It receives a feedback from the social system and responds to the demands put on it by the system. It requires the qualities of flexibility and responsive ness in administrative actions and methods.

New Public Management (NPM)

New Public Management is a label used both to define a general trend towards changing the style of governance and administration in the public sector and to describe a number of reforms that were carried out in several countries during 1980’s and 1990’s. A time was when the public bureaucracy was viewed as a sure solution to all problems encountered in the society. The two defining pillars of New Public Management are the Public Choice Theory and Neo-Taylorism. New Public Administration must be viewed in this larger perspective.

The term ‘New Public Management’ was coined by Christopher Hood in 1991 in his paper entitled A New Public Management for all Seasons, it was published in Public Administration and refers to the wholesale induction of the core values of business administration into public sector. The New Public Management has the following central doctrines:

• A focus on Management not policy, and on performance appraisal and efficiency.

• The disaggregation of public bureaucracies into agencies which deal with each other on a user-pay basis.

• The use of quasi-markets and contracting out to foster competition.

• Cost-cutting and a style of management which emphasises output targets, limited term targets, monetary incentives and freedom to manage.

Paradigms of New Public Management

New Public Management has the following eight driving paradigms:

(i) Developing authority, providing flexibility.

(ii) Ensuring performance control and accountability.

(iii) Developing competition and choice.

(iv) Providing responsive service.

(v) Improving the management of human resources.

(vi) Optimising information technology.

(vii) Improving the quality of regulation.

(viii) Strengthening steering functions of the centre.

New Public Management must not be confused with New Public Administration (NPA). NPA sought to make public administration value-based. It recognised the worth of individual and was committed to his development in all dimensions. NPM has a different origin. Since seventies, a new breed of scholars evincing interest in public administration has been emerging in the West and even faculty positions for them have been created in some universities. They are generally decorated with management degrees. NPM views public administration from the managerial angle and applies management solutions to problems and concerns of public administration.

New Public Management and Capacity Building

Capacity building and development of core public management systems is needed to strengthen the ability of the state to generate methodologies, strategies and actions. It is also needed to assist public and private sector organisations, communities and individuals in improving performance in the design and delivery of assistance programs and services. This will require enhanced leadership, increased accountability of public managers and strong management systems. Five themes of NPM are as follows:

(i) Adoption of private sector management practices in the public sector.

(ii) Emphasis on efficiency.

(iii) A movement away from input controls.

(iv) Performance targets.

(v) Improved reporting and monitoring mechanisms.

NPM is guided by the principle that the economic market should be used as a model of political and administrative relationships.