conceptual approaches in comparative public administration

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
Structure
,
5.0
5 I
5.2
5.3
5.4
Objectives
1ntrod;uction
What to Compare?
Levels of Analysis
The Range of Comparative Studies
5.4.1
54.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.5
Inter-institutional Analysis
Intra-national Analysis
Cross-national Analysis
Cross-cultural Analysis
Cross-temporal Analysis
Nature of Comparative Administrative Studies
5.5.1 Nonnat~veto E~npirical
5.5.2 Ideographic to Nomothetic
5.5.3 Non-ecological to Ecological
5.6 Scope of Comparative Public Administration
5.7 Significance of Comparative Public Administration
'5.8 Conceptual Approaches in Comparative Public Administration
!
.
5.8.11 Bureaucratic Approach
5.8.2 Behavioural Approach
5.8.3 General Systems Approach
5.8.4 Ecological Approach
5.8.5 Structural Functional Approach
5.8.6 Development Approach
5.9
5.10
5.1 1.
5-19
Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Some Useful Books
Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
5.0 OBJECTIVES
After you have read this unit you should be able to:
9
explain the significanceof Comparative Public Administration
* explain the nature and range of comparative studies: and
describe the conceptual approaches in Comparative Public Administration.
I
521 INTRODUCTION
Dear student, comparisons of administfative'systems has had a long traditibn. But a focus
on this aspect of administrative studies is about forty years old. Only ttfter the Second
World War and with the emergence of new nations in Asia and Africa, a vigorous interest
in compar*ve studies of Public Administration has evolved. Comparative Public
Administration, in simple terms, refers to a comparative study of government
administrative systems functioning in differentcountries oE the world. The nature of
Comparative Administration has vast ramifications and ranges from the narrowest of studies
to the broadest of analysis. To understand the meaning of Comparative Public
Administration, it would be desirable to look at the types of comparative public
.
administration studies undertaken by scholars in the field. In this unit we shall examine the '
meaning, scope, and nature of Comparative Public Administration. We shall also discuss its
conceptual approaches.
The Nature of Public
5.2 WHAT TO COMPARE?
Administration
In comparative (public) administrative studies, the unit of analysis is an administrative
system. Therefore, the focus is either on the .whole of an adtllinistrative system or on its
various parts. Briefly, the subject matter of comparison would be one or dl of the
following phenomena:
i) Environment of the administrative system.
ii) The whole administrative system.
iii) The formal structure of the administrative system with a focus on the pattern of
hierarchy, division of wgrk, specialisation, authority-responsibility network,
decentralisation, delegation, control mechanisms, procedures, etc.
iv) The informal organisational patterns existing in an administrative set-up, including
the nature of human groups, the relationships among individuals, motivational
system, the status of morale, patterns of infomial communicatiori and the nature of
leadership.
The
roles of the individuals.
V)
vi) The interaction between the persoinality of individuals and the organisational system.
vii) The policy and decisional systems of the organisation that link its various parts.
viii) The communicational system, which also involves the feedback mechariism.
ix) The performance of an administrative system.
You would notice from the foregoing discussion that an administrative system is noj-a
simple entity. There are intricacies of its functioning which will be highlighted in any
comparative analysis.
-
5.3 LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Comparative administrative studips can be conducted at three analytical levels: macro,
middle-range and micro. Macro studies focus on the comparisons of whole administrative
systems in their proper ecologicai contexts. For instance, a macro study would involve a
comparison of the administrative systems of India and Great Britain. it will conlprise
detailed analysis of all important aspects and parts of the administrative systen~sof the two
nations. It will be comprehensive in its scope. Though the studies of macro level are rare,
they are not impossible to be taken up. Generally, the relatisnsl~ipbetween an
administrative system and its external environmentme highlighted in the macro level
studies. The middle-range studies are on ckrtain important parts of an administrathe
system that are sufficiently large in size and scope of functioning. For insthce, a
comparison of the"structure of higher bureaucracy of two or more nations., s comparison of
agricultural administration in two or more countries or a comparison of' local government
in different,countries will form part of middle-range studies.
I
Micro studies relate to comparisons of an individual organisation with its counterparts in
other setting's. A micro study might relate to an analysis of a small part of an
administrative systein, such as the recrukment or training system in two pr more
administrative organisations:Micro studies are m0.m feasible to be undertaken and a,large
number of such studies have been conducted by scholars.of PublicA~ninisaation.In th;
contemporary Con~parativePublic Administration, all the three types of studies mexist.
'
Another relevant question that arises is what is the range of comparative administrative
studies? What type of sttidies arepnerally included in this realm? In fact, the scope of
Comparative Public Adminjstration~atudiesis so'wide that a variety or analysis farm part of
this branch of knowledge.
- .
,
.
5.4 THE R4NGE OF COMPARATIVE'STUDIES,
Let us now briefly outline the types of comparative adminish-ativesadies. Broadly there,
are five types of studies. They are:
Comparative Public
Administratian
5.4.1 Inter-imstltatiomnal Analysis
It involves a comparison of two or more administrative systems. For instance, a
comparison of the structure and working of the Home Ministry of the Government of India
with the Defence Ministry will be a case of inter-institutional analysis. Such comparisons z
could involve the whole of an administrative organisation or its various parts.
5.4.2 Intrpnational Analysis
'.When an analysis in a comparative perspective is taken up among various administrative
systems functioning within a country, it would be an intra-national analysis.' Comparison
of district administration in Bihar and Punjab would be an example of such an analysis.
5.4.3 Cioss-national Analysis
When two or more administrative systems (or their parts) are compared in the settings of
different nations, this would be cross-national analysis. For example, comparing the
recruitment of higher civil service of China, Thailand and Tanzania will form an examflle
of a cross-national analysis. '
5.4.4 Cross-cultural Analysis
,
A cross-national analysis of administrative system involves countries forming part or
different "cultures", this would be called a cross-cultural analysis. For instancf, comparing
the admisiistrativesystem of the USSR (a socialist state) with the U.S.(a capitalist system)
could be termed a cross-cultural analysis. Even a comparison between a developed country
(e.g. France) with a developing country (e.g. Algeria) or between a developing democratic
country (e.4. Philippines) and a developing Communist regime (e.g. Vietnam) will be
covered in a cross-cult&al comparison. Thus-the word "cultural" in the category "crossculiural" has a broad connotation and involves an aggregation of distinctive political,
economic and socio-cultural traits of a particular system and its environment.
r
Such a comparison involves diff2rent time-frames for analysis. For instance, a cornparisoa
between the administrative system prevailing during Ashoka's reign and during Akbar's
regime would be a cross-temporal analysis. Likewise, comparisons,between the
administrative systems of ancient Rome and modem Italy, or between the administrative
practices prevailing during thd period of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi would fall
under the rubric of cross-temporal analysis.
,
A cross-temporal analysis may be inter-institutional, intra-national, cross-nationai or crosscultural. For instance, a comparison of the administrative control mechanisms prevailing
during the times of Julius Caesar, Alexander, Harsha, Attaturk and Nasser will be crossnational as well as cross-cultural. Exactness in cross-temporal studies is not possible
because of differences in the nature of historical sources available for various periods. But
some broad conclusions on the basis of existing sources can be reached throu h sucll
studies. Nimrod Raphaeli has defined Comparative Public Administration a stu y of
Public Administration on a comparative basis. The Comparative Administration Group
referred to Comparative Public Administration as the theory of Public Administration which
belongs to diverse cultures in the'na!ional settings and the body of factual data by which it
can be expanded and tested. Robert Jockson has defined it as the phase of study which is
-coneemcd.with making rigorous'cross-cultural cornparhons of the structures and processes
involved in the activity of aPministering public affairs.
ti
--
d e c k Your Progress I\
NO& : i) Use the space below for your answgrs.
ii)'~heckyours answers with those given at the end of the unit.
1) What are the units of analysis in Comparhtive Public Administration'?
':
'IIre Nature (IT f'ubi~c
Adri~itristrrtion
.......................................................................................................................................
2) What is.cross cultural analysis'?
.................................................. .....................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................
...................................................
.
,
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
3) Explain cross temporal analysis.
.......................................................................................................................................
0,
li
I
5.5 NATURE OF COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
STUDIES
,
1:
,
I
Some scholars believe that conlparison is an inherent part of any social analysis and
whenever we examine any social problem or issue, we cannot do so without employing the
comparative approach. Famous social scientist, Durkheim, subscribed to this approach.
Further, Eisenstad believes that there is no distinction between comparative research and
general social research, for the methods of the two are similar. On the other hand, there are
other scholars who believe that comparative inquiry has special focus and techniques.
Before the Second World War, there were; several studies on comparative politics and
administration but such studies were primarily descriptive and normative. Fred Riggs, the
toremost scholar of Comparative Administration had observed that there were three trends
which were noticeable in the comparative study of Public Administration. These were :
.I) "normative" to "empirical", 2) "ideographic" to '$ornothetic" and 3) "non-ecological"
to "ecological". We shall~now-brieflyrefer to thcse trends.
5.5.1 Normative to Empirical
Traditional studies of Public Administration were very much influenced by the classical
approach. These studies emphasised upon 'good administration' which was based on
following cettain ideal principles. Efficiency and economy were considered to be the
primary goals of all administrative systems and there were certain principles of formal
organisation which helped-in the achievement of these goals, nlerefbre, a few models of
administration, primarily of the western democratic world, were considered to be useful for
all other administrative systems. As a number of developing countries emerged on the
scene and with the success of the comn~unistsystems in various p m of the world, it
became clear that a limited culture-bound normative approach to the study of Public
ldministration was not adequate. The behaviourd approach highlighted the value of
studying the facts and reality ir,a significant manner and therefore the comparative studieh
of Public Administration after the Second World War started assigning grater importance
to the study of administrative "reality" existing in diffe~ent.countries and cultures. These
patterns and behaviom of
studies were more interested in finding out facts about smcadministrative systems rather than in describing as to what was good for each system.
In &is context, it may be mentioned that two important trends have influenced the
character of some administrative studies in the past two decades or so. First, the cowept'of
'T)evelopment Administration" which focuses on the goal-orientation of administrative
I
,
I
system is basically a nonnative concept .Thougl~r l con\iders reality as the basis of such
goal4rientation, the emergence of Development Admtn~strationas a focus inquiry since the
early sixties, Comparative Public Administration (encompassing the field of Comparative
Development Administration) has evolved a synthesis between the normative and the
elements of balysis.
The second movement that bas influenced the nature of Comparative administrative ~tudies
is phe Flew Public Administration which stressed the idealistic.goal lo be achieved h! an
system and thus tried to bridge the gap between the "is" and "should"
aspects of Public Administration. In the late sixties, the New Public ~dministrationmarked
the "post-behavioural" trend and its impact on most administrative analysis has been
profand. .
Z
9.5.2 Ideographic to Nsmsthetic
The words "ideographic" and "nomothetic" have been used by Riggs in specific contexts.
An ideographic approach concentrates on unique cases, e.g. a historical event, study of
single agency, single country or even a single cultural area.
,
Nomothetic approach, on the other hand seeks to develop generalisations and theories
which are based on analysis of regularities of behaviour of .administrative systems. Thus
earlier studies of Comparative Public Administration which were ideographic in character
focused on the study of individual nations or institutions and their approach was primarily
descriptive. No serious attempt was made to compare various nations and systems.
Generally, within a volume on comparative governmental administraiion, there were
separate chagters on different nations, without any attempt to Imk at the similarities or
differences among such nations in terms of their administrative systems. These studies,
therefore, were 'comparative' only in name and did not help in the process of
theory-building or in developing generalisations concerning the functioning of
administrative system in different settings.
Nomothatic studies analyse various administrative systems in comparative context in a
manner that will help in the generation of hypothesis and theories. The qbjective of such
studis is to look at the similarities and differences of various administrative systems
existing in different nations and cultures and then draw certain generalisations relating to
administrrltive systems fuqctioning at various levels and in different settings.
It may be noted that the ernphas~son nornothetic compai-ativestudies is more noticeable in
the United States of America than in Europe or Asia. Presently, a large number of
comparative administrative studies are ideographic in character. Bven these studies, it
must Ik admitted, contribu'le to knowledge in Comparative Public Administration. Analysis
or theory-building has to be based on facts and description. And therefore, in the present
state of comparative administrative studies, a co-existence of ideographic and nomothetic
studies may have to be accepted.
5.5.3 Noa-ecological to Ecological
The traditiqpal studies of Comparative Public Administration were mainlv non-ecological,
These studies mentioned about the environmgnt of administrative system only in a casual
manner, There was no serious attempt to examine the relationship between the
administrative system and its environment, Thus, it had become very difficult to identify
the sources of differences among various administrative systems. Howeyer, studies
undertaken after the Second World War have been specifically looking at similarities and
differences among environmental settings prevailing-in different natioirs and cultures and
have been attempting to examine the impact of environment on the administrative system
an the onk hand ar .d the influence of the administrative system on the environment, on the
other. Tne well-kno*!n ecological approach relates to the study of interrelationship
between the system and its environment. This approach, popularised by Fred Riggs, has
been regarded as an important development in the study of Public Administratiad.
I
"
It may be noted that most of the ~omparativestudies of Public ~dministrationafter the
Second World War have been referring to the environment of the administrative sygtems,
but the @n emphasis is still on analysing the impact of the environment on Public
Administratior). The analysis relating to the influences of the administrative system on the
'environment is still inadequate. Nevertheless, a change in emphasis is noticeable and the
ecological onentation is gaining stronger footing in the contemporary comparative
- adrnidsLsp'ti.ve anajysis.
>
.?
I-
Compnrntive Public
Administration
he Nature of Pubik
Administration
At this stage it may be painted out that when Riggs presented the above three trends in
1962; he was conscious of the fact that thsre is bound to be a co-existence of older as well
as the newer emphasis in the comparative studies. Accordingly, today there are normative
as well as empirical, ideographic as well as nomythetic and non-ecologicd aq,wdl a!.
ecological approaches co-existing in the literatile on Comparative Administratiem '
Check Your Progress 2
Note : i) Use the space below for your ahswers.
'ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of kbe unit.
1) Distinguish betweep normative and empirical studies:
2) How edologiral studies are'different from non-ecological studies?
........................................................................................................................ ...+..,...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
...............................
.........................................................
i...............;-.:.:.b.;:..,.::i.A,
..,..-,: :
r..:
5.6 SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
.ADMINISTRATION
' The scope of Public Administration has increased enormously during the twentieth century. '
The importance of Public Admiqistration has grown substantially with the success of the
~ussiahRevblution, increased role of state during and after the Second World War,
measures of welfare adopted in most of the countries and growth of large number of
'developing countries. Taday, Public Administration influences almost all aspe~gi~f human
life. Even in a capitalistic country like'the USA, the role of govemment has expanded in an
effective manner. The net result of this increased role of state or govemment has&eltn that
large number of specialised branches of Public Administration have come up'on the scene. I
Some of these branches aie economic administration, social administration, educational
administration, health administration, transport administration, space administration, etc.
Besides, there are areas such a s state administration, urban administration, rural
administration, financial administration and personnel administration which have *become
istegrd p&s 6f the vocabulary of govemment. Therefore, when we comp'are
administrative systems existing in various nations or cultures, we can compare either the
'
whole of the administhive systems or some important parts of such systqms. Today, we
find a number of studies on comparative educational administration, comparative health
administration, compaktive economic administration, comparadve social adqhinistration
and other related areas. Further, there are a very large number of,publicationa on
comparative urban administration and comparative rural administration. It be~omes\ckar
that t h e s m p of Comparative Public Administration is as vast as that of its mother
discipline, vk Public Administration. Anything that & ' a ~ t l v e can
' be
compared.
Whi* di~ussingthe scope of Cotnparative Public ~dministratian,not only the specia,laed
branches ,of administration have' to be taken into W W ~ Further
.
it also needs to'be , '
i
1
;
stressed once again that comparative studies can be conducted at macro, middle-range and
micro levels. These studies can be inter-institutional, cross-national, cross-cultural and
cross-temporal.
Here an interesting question arises: what do we include under the rubric of "nature" of
Comparative Administration and what do we put under the heading of "scope" of
comparative Administration? The best advice that can be given to students of Public.
Administration is that to attempt a neat distinction between the 'nature' and 'scope' of
comparative Public Administration may no! be a very useful effort. These two aspects are
overlapping and have common stress on the types, levels, and range of comparative
studies.
Now a brief reference to the'signiticance of Comparative Public Administration is in order.
5.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
The importance of the study of Comparative Public Administration is we'll accepted today.
There are two factors that make comparative studies significant. The first factor relates to
the academic study of Public Administration. It is believed that through Comparative Public
Administration hypotheses, generaliaations, models and theories can be constructed which
can collectively help in the scientific study of Public Administration. The.old orthodoxy of
principles of administration is not considered valid anymore and therefore now it is
believkd that generalisations relating to administrative structures and behaviour emerging
out of comparative studies in diff~rentnations and cultures can help in formulating
theoretical constructs which can provide a scientific basis to the study of Public
Mministratian. It may be mentioned that way back in 1947, a very eminent political
scientist, Robert Dalh had observed that a science of Public Administration cannot be
conceived of without adopting a comparative approach. ,
,
The sludy ol' C'umparat~vePublic Administration also contrihatcs to P greater understanding
of the ~ndividualcharacteristics of administrative.systems functidning in different nations
and cultures. Besides, comparative studies also help in explaining factors, responsible for
cross-national and cross-cultural similarities as well as differences in the administrative
systems.
The second important function of Comparative Public ~dministrdtionrelates to its
relevance to the empirical world. Throu~ha study of ~ o m ~ a r a t iPublic
v i Administration,
administrators, policy makers and academicians can examine causes for the success or
failure of particular administrative structures and patterns in different ewironmental
settings. It is interesting to find out through comparative analysis as to which important
f environmental factors help in the promotion of adn~inistrativeeffectiveness and which
t
administrative structures function appropriately and successfully in what type of
i environmental settings, Lastly, an administrator or policy maker can, through comparative
studies o l I'ublic Administration, have greater insight into the prtwss and slratcpics of
' administrative reforms. He can look at the structures of administrative reforms adopted by
, various nations and examine those strategies and methods which can be helpful in his own
'.country. In other words, through ('omparative Puhlic Administralion, we learn about the
Finistrative practices followed in various nations and then we can endeavour to adopi
those practices which can fit in our own nations and systems.
The importance of Comparative Public Administration lies in its academic utility in terms
6fscientific and systematic study of Public Administration and in iqproying the knowledge
about other administrative systems so that 'appropriate administrative reforms and changes
can be brought about in different nations. .
'1
' 9
Check Your Progress 3
,
\Nde: i) U'se the space below for your answers.
'
ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the unit.
1) What is the scope of Comparative Public ~dministration?
Comparative Public
Adminislration
The Nature of Public
Administration
2) How comparative studies are relevant for administrative reforms?
CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES IN COMPARATIVE
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
1c
I
a
There are a number of approaches, models and theories presently characterising the
subject-area of Compa~ivePublic Administration. Particularly after Second World War, a
number of approaches have emerged in comparative administrative analys&. Much of this
effort is based on an adaptation of the developments in comparative ant~opology,
comparative sociology and comparative politics. We will now study different approaches
in a nut-shell.
5.8.1 Bureaucratic Approach
-an.fie~most
influential of the approaches is Max Weber's ideal-type buryucrati model. This
of hierarchy,"specialisation,role-specificity, recruitment by
by seniority-cum-merit, career development, &thing, discipline,
personal and official means, etc. The emphasis in the rnode1.i~on
%
\
'
'I$e,re h e beea,a number of studies conducted in a comparative context employing the
bureaucfqtic mod4 of Weber. Notable scholars in this area include Michael Crozier (on
Fiance), %RoyLairdton the Soviet Union) and Monoe Berger (on Egypt). The
methodological limifation of an ideal-type model and specific context of a legal-rational
I authority system'$ses constraints in the application of Wdber's model to the eompr!tive
,
study of bureaucracies. Nvertheless, for an analysis of the bure,aucracies, of the deweloped
countries, the model is still considered eminently useful. Dwight Waldo views Weber's '
burwucratic model a's a "paradigm" of Public Administration. .
.
a
Particularly after Second World War, a number of apprdaches have emerged in- ,
comparative administrative analysis. Much of this effort is, based on an adaptation of the
developments in comparative anthropology, comparative sociology .and comparative ,
politics.
5.8.2 Behavioural Approach
The behavioural approach emphasises '"acts", rigorous scientific methods of data
collection and analysis, quantification, experimentation, testing, verification and an
interdisciplinary orientation. It focuses on the analysis of human behaviour in.,
admin'istrative settings.
,
,
5.8.3 General Systems Approach
Comparative Public
Administration
Further, the general systems approach views an administrative system as a subsystenl of
the society. It looks at various parts of an administrative system (formal organisation.
informal organisation, roles, individuals) and examines the interlinkages among variou~
parts. Besides, the approach analyses the dynamic interactions between the administrative
system and its external environment.
\
5.8.4 Eeologieal ~pproaelh
One of the most pop* approaches in Comparative Public Administration is the ecological
approach which has been stressed considerably by Fred Riggs. This approach examines the
interactions between an administrative system and its external environment. Thus the
impact of the political system, economic system, social system and the cultural system, on
the structure and behaviour of the administrative syste& as well as the influence of the
administrative system on these environmental structures is highlighted in the ecological
approach.
5.8.5 Structural-Functional Approach
A related approach, drawn mainly from Anthropalogy and Srxiology, is the structuralfuncti~nalapproach. A structure, according to this approach, is a pattern of behaviour that
has become a standard feature of a social system. Further, a function denotes the impact of
a structure on another structure and the interrelationships among various structures.
Fred Riggs has successfully applied the ecological and structural-functional approaches in
his analysis of societies and their administrative systems. His typology of "agrariatransitia-industria" systems, developed in 1957, was superseded by the typology oS "fusedprismatic diffracted" societies that was constructed in 1959. For the,past thirty years or so,
Rigg's model of prismatic society and its administrative system known as "sala" has ruled
[he contemporary model-building scene in Comparative Public Administration. Despite
criticisms and certain inherent methodological limitations, the prismatic-sala model has
fascinated the students and practitioners of Public Administration in "developing"
countries. A prismatic society, according to Riggs, is characterised by a growing degree of
structural differentiation but not matched by an equal degree of integration (coordination).
This integration lag is reflected in almost all aspects of the functioning of a prismatic
society.
A prismatic society and its 'sala' are characterised by 'heterogeneity', formalism and
overlapping. Further,. overlapping has five dimensions: poly-communalism, polynormativism, bazaar-canteen model, authority versus control and nepotism. These features
relate to the social, cultural, economic, political andladministrative systems of the
prismatic society. The details of these characteristics are found in all important books on
Public Administration.
5.8.6 ~ e v e l o ~ m e Approach
nt
A very well-known conceptual approach in Comparative Public Administration is of
'Development Administration' which has been elaborately dealt with in a separate unit.
This approach focuses on certain characteristics of a dynam~cadm~nrstrativesystem, e.g.
goal-orientation, change-orientation, progressiveness, innovativeness, participation and
responsiveness.
Besides, the abovei there are a number of other lessiknown approaches to comparative
administrative analysis. These include "information-energy' model of John Dorsey and
decision-making model of 'Martin Landau. Nevertheless, other models have not been able
to match the comprehensiveness and acceptability of Weber's bureaucragic model, Rigg's
prismatic model and of course, the construct of Development Administration.
It gppears that the experimentation phase in model-building in Comparative Public
Administration is not vlgorous anymore. However, the enthusiasm for understanding the
varieties of administrative patterns is alive in the scholarship of Public Administration.
That is why, one can hope formewer dimensions of Comparative Public Administration
emerging on the scene'in the'times to come
check Your ~rogr;iB"s
4
Note : i) Use the space below for your answer.
,
ii) Cheok your answer with those given at the end of the unit,'
'S
47
L
I
I
.
-".
,
\ The Nature of Puhlk
1 ) Explain the bureaucratic.approach.
,
AdmlnMraUon
I
..........................................................................-.......................................-..................
,
5.9
LET US SUM UP:
1
I
comparative appr&ch has became an integral part of the Social ~ c i & inquiry. No
i exercise of systematic Social Science researchcah be complete without a comparative
focus. In this unit, we have examined the meaning and nature of Comparative Public
Administragon and its scope and significance. We have also examined the different
approaches to the study of Comparative Public Administration.
4
.
5.1Q KEY WORDS
Bazaar-Canteen :The "economic scene" in a prismatic society.'
2 ,
Diffracted : A social system where all structures are very specific.
Formal : The official norm, the theory, what ought to be done, as expfessed in
Constitutions, laws, rules and regulaiions.
Functionally diffuse : A structure that performs a large number of functions.
Fused : A social system.where all structures are highly diffuse.
Heterogeniety : The simultaneous,presehce, side by side, of quite different kinds of
systems, practices and iiew pbints.
, Overlapping : The extent to which what is described as "administrative" behaviour is
actually determined by non-administrative criteria, i.e. by'political, W i d , religious or
I
other factors.
Poly-rommunal: A society that is composed sf several communities.
Poly-functional : A structurj!is poly-functional whose functions are more diffuse than
,
those of an association, but more specific than those of a traditional family.
Poly-normative : Refers to the characteristic myth sy&m of the "prismatic" society.
Prismatic : The mid-area on the continuum between the "fused" and the "diffracted"
models.
,
W a : The prismatic bureau.
Structure : A pattern of behaviour which has become a standard-featweof a social
system.
tI
I
,
,
,
,
%
1
I
5.11 SOME USEFUL BOOKS
4
,r .
*. ..
Arora, Ramesh K., 1985: Comparative Public A&nistrotion;.Associated publishing"
House: New Delhi.
.
Raphaeli, Nimrod, 1.%7. ~ e a d i n g in
s Corhparative Public Administration; Allyn iurd
Baconi: Boston.
--
I
I
Riggs, Eied, 1964. Administration in Developirrg Cowrtries: The theory of P r i s M c
Swiery; Houghton Mifflii: Boston.
Varqa, S.P.and Sharma S.K,,1983. Conipantiw Abministratian; IIPA : New Delhi..
.
'
*
\
e
I
-
Comparative Public
Administration
5.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
I
I
I
i
,
chick your Progress 1
I ) See Section 5.2
2) See Sub-section 5.4.4
3) See sub-Section 5.45
,
Check Your Progress 2
1) See Sub-section 5.5.1
2) See sub-bection 5.5.3
Check Your Progress 3
1) See Section 5.6
2)SeeSection5.7
-
\
~ h & kYour Progress 4
1 X See Sub-section 5.8.1
I
I
>
i
t
F
.
'
I
.
--."
I
I
.
.
I
5
I *
,
I
\
I
. a
. $1
.
'