Changing Profile of DA

Changing profile of DA

Diffusion Theory (early 1950s)
Basic needs approach (early 1970s and mid 80s)
Entitlement approach (early 80s)
Reinventing model (Osborn and Gaebler)
Trust building (early 2000s)
2007, Vienna conf on reinventing govt
Most important thing is to build people’s trust in govt
Anti-development thesis (mid 70s onwards)

Current Status of CPA

Take photocopy from Divya

Riggs model is based on two approaches

Parson’s variables
Structural functional approach

Parson’s variables adopted by Riggs

Agraria / Transitia / Industria
Ascriptive / Attainment / Achievement
Particularistic / Selective / Universalitic
Fused / Poly-functional / Specific

Ecology and administration

Heady
Concentric circles
(Inner-outer) Political – social – cultural – economic

Topic 1: CPA

What

What is its meaning and scope?
What are the approaches within CPA?
What has been the contribution of various thinkers?
Distinct Features
Does CPA have a universal theory?
Difference from non-comparative approach?
Themes in CPA
Literary map of CPA

Why?

Why did it evolve?
Why is it needed? What purpose it serves?

How?

How did it evolve? Chronologically and conceptuallywhat is its current status?

Critical Evaluation

Limitations
What is its significance in the present day world?
How has it helped make the field of public administration more complete? How has it changed the field?
Has it contributed to the erosion of other methods or is it complementary to other methods?Or Are other approaches redundant now?
Where is it best to employ a comparative approach and where not to?
“CPA started with no paradigm of its own and developed none”. Peter Savage.
Is there a comprehensive science of CPA? <Refer: Universality of CPA>
Is CPA behavioural?
Relationship between CPA and policy process
Study of CPA has given rise to problems of methodological concerns and conceptual focus.
Has CPA been a neutral field?

What? :Meaning and scope

Meaning
Robert Jackson: CPA is concerned with making rigorous cross-cultural comparisons of the structures and processes involved in the activity of administering public affairs.
So, CPA is cross cultural and cross national.
Hallmark: Commitment to comparison as a tool of analysis
Is it only about developing countries?
No. It includes both developed and developing countries
It compares different institutions in different countries in relation to their diverse environmental settings.
Scope
Micro level: cross-institutional studies in a single country -> ideographic studies
Macro level: extends to structural and functional aspects of administration of common variables in the nations across the world
Cross temporal in dimension
Includes various comparative theories and models such as the bureaucratic model and ecological model
CPA is a caution against administrative monocultures.
CPA attempts at cross-cultural administrative theories through twin process of theory testing and theory building.
The empirical approach to CPA is an extension of the open systems theory of organisation where the very idea of one best prescription is questioned and instead of one best, the most fitting is attempted to be discovered in view of actual reality prevailing.

Dimensions of CPA

Cross cultural (eg. Developed vs Developing nations)
Cross National (eg USA vs India)
Cross temporal (eg India pre independence vs India post independence)
Supra national (eg ASEAN vs SAARC)
Sub national (eg UP vs Kerala)

What: Approaches in CPA

Universalistic Approach: seeks to find commonalities among public bureaucracies in various countries in the world by conceptual means
Weber’s bureaucratic model
Wilson’s transfer of administrative practices model
Importance of historic and comparative studies
Need to use cultural filtering lens
Ecological Approach
General systems approach
Development oriented approach

What: Contributions of various thinkers

Weber
Compared different bureaucracies
Provided the theory of domination which catalysed further comparative research
Concept of field bureaucracy (?)

What: distinct features

Relatively young sub-field
Competing and diverse approaches
Emphasis on normative considerations could be seen side by side with empirical analyses
Dominated by American scholars
Two motivational concerns: theory building and administrative problems of the developing countries

What?: Universal theory?

Heady says that universal theory of CPA remains elusive because
Difficult to identify the boundaries of the admin system
Implementation networks in countries vary
Constantly changing admin system
Has to be understood in ecological context
It has been behavioural

Themes in CPA

Search for theory
Compare different areas or systems
Compare different times
Compare different systems at the same time or inter-temporal
Comparative not the same as international
Urge for practical application

What: difference from non-comparative approach

Pub Ad is generally culture bound. It has evolved in UK and USA and hence its theories reflect the realities of those places. CPA goes beyond this boundary to provide a contextual understanding of administration
PA has been practitioner oriented while CPA has attempted to build theory and seek knowledge for knowledge sake. <Mohit Bhattacharya>. Comment.
Knowledge for knowledge sake is related to the functioning of CAG. CAG was very academic in its pursuit and focused more on theory building rather than studying the actual working of PA in different countries. So it was not application oriented. This academic inclination of CAG ultimately led to the withdrawal of Ford Foundation from the sponsorship
CPA facilitates reducing the egocentric and ethnocentric tendencies by emphasising that PA needs to understand and respect the differences

The Why?

Why did it evolve?

Emergence of newly independent nations
Extension of US technical assistance to developing world
Exposure to new administrative systems
Revisionist movement in academia
Behavioural and inter-disciplinary approaches in PA
Development of other disciplines – sociology, anthro
Financial assistance by FF
Globalisation

All the above can be summed in two points

Need for comparision as a pre-requisite for the development of a science of public administration
Need for comparison in the interest of practical governance and knowledge of facts

Purpose of CPA

Theory building in PA. Develop universally valid body of knowledge

Answer common problems
Identify similarities and differences
Explain factors responsible for differences
Examine cause for success and failures. Identify the best practices.
Important for administrative reforms

The How

How did it evolve?

Historical perspective

Woodrow Wilson 1887
Post second world war necessitated the development
1895-1920: Weber carried out the most important comparative research
Developed the core concept of bureaucracy as part of a comparative typology of the forms of domination: tradition, charisma and legal rationality
1930s: Finer and Friedrich had major comparative studies of bureaucracies
1947: Robert Dahl
“As long as the study of public administration is not comparative, claims for a science of public administration sounds rather hollow.” Comment.
Science of PA is atleast worthy of seeking even if not fully achievable
‘classical science of administration’ had faced objections from scholars like Dahl because it was parochial in the absence of testing in a variety of ecological context
Therefore he had termed such science as hollow.
CPA seeks to have a thorough testing before administrative principles & models are prescribed as universal or adoptable best practices.
1952: Conference on administration at Princeton University
1960s: CPA as a new intellectual endeavour
Comparative Administration Group
By 1960s CPA received three kinds of stimulus
Intellectual stimulus
Policy stimulus
Independence of new countries – development goal
Institutional stimulus
CAG in ASPA

Conceptual Perspective

Traditional (Pre WW 2)
Modern (Post WW 2)

Table 1

Traditional / Modern
Scope / Formalistic and narrow in coverage. Confined to Euro-American experiences / Wider in coverage. Covers both developed and developing countries
Relation to environment / Non-ecological (also, normative and ideographic) / Ecological (also empirical and nomothetic)
Methodology / Merely juxtaposing the description of a number of similar administrative institutions / Commitment to comparison as a method of study
Merely configurative as it stresses the characteristics of admin systems of individual countries / Makes generalisations transcending national boundaries

CAG

Contribution to PA through
Organised various seminars
Sponsored research
Adopted area approach ( 4 territories, 7 subjects)
Journal of CA
Actual contribution to PA
Widened the horizons of PA
Made PA more interdisciplinary
Made PA more logical and systematic by studying ecology
Stimulated interest in development administration
Provided the institutional arrangement at the apex level

Current status of CPA

3rd Minnowbrook conference has one important thrust of revival of CPA
As already seen, CPA underwent a sharp decline in early 70s after enjoying its peak period in mid to late 60s so much so that in 1973 CAG was disbanded as a full fledged committee of ASPA and was merged into the international committee of ASPA
Thus it suffered serious erosion in terms of its status, power and scope of activities. It was now renamed as Section on International & Comparative Administration (SICA) and although on paper it continued to have the same mandate namely to lead and coordinate CPA researches, its scope of activities was significantly narrower.
Infact for next two decades or so, it remained virtually defunct, dried of funds, having no clarity about its plan of action
However, revival efforts have been ongoing from time to time, initially they were sporadic but from mid 1990s onwards, there is a discernable resurgence in field of CPA
1990s: Osborne and Gaebler – Reinventing model opened doors again for CPA
Revival efforts
In 1981, one of the significant revival efforts was made by Charles Goodsell who recommended two new approaches to comparative analysis which were more and more significant in contemporary world namely supranational comparision and ecology & subnational comparisions
In the late 1980s, another such effort was made by John Jun who argued for revival of comparative studies by studying organisational changes and organisational development
He emphasised the utility of institutional comparisions
This created a very significant shift in focus of CPA namely shift from ‘theory building’ to ‘institution building’
It adopted an approach whereby through comparisions institutional reforms and capacity building would be yield
Thus this approach was much more practical and application oriented and gave CPA a newfound legitimacy and justification
Ferrel Heady argued for continuation of CPA because he was convinced that “CPA has attractive new opportunities.”
These new opportunities hinted here can be related to international and intra-national comparisons which could be of the nature of ones suggested by Gudsell and Jun
A major landmark came in form of Osborne and Gaebler’s 1992 study which gave the concept of reinventing government
This became a major paradigm not only for NPM and reforms perspective in PA but also became a paradigm around which CPA was to be revived.
It created a thrust for comparative reforms.
The idea was that through comparisons, lessons can be learnt regarding reinventing the role, size and structure of govt & re-engineering the processes of administrative service delivery
This again carried forward the application oriented momentum in CPA & consolidated the institution building & reforms initiatives
The current theme of CPA is towards institution and capacity building through comparisons and reinventing and re-engineering through comparisons
Very recently, 3rd MB conference in Sept 2008, has reiterated significance of CPA & has recommended its revival along the theme of comparative reforms rather than grand theory building.

Critical Evaluation

Table 2

Advantages / Shortcomings

Comparing administrative systems in different contexts -> develop commonality in public administration.

/ Prescriptive but not applied in nature

Can reveal the distinctive characteristics of a system

/ Grand theories of CPA (like Riggs’ model) are not useful to the administrative practitioners

Identify similarities and differences

/ CPA scholars have not framed their theories in testable terms

Shows relation of admin to the environment

/ Failure to draw its boundaries and set the rules as a field of study

Helps identify what makes a system work?

Explain difference in the behaviour of bureaucrats

Practicing administrators can get aid from such studies

Improve our knowledge of other country’s institutions so that it could be adopted

Significance in the present context

Gives better conceptual grasp of PA
Needed more in the present world
Globalisation
Need for administrative harmony between nations
Greater economic interaction
Greater cultural interaction
External agencies implementing programmes. Like the WB.
Can help in these spheres
Best recruitment method at different levels of administration
Implementation of certain common programmes that many governments across the world undertake. Eg. Vaccination programmes or sanitation programmes
Improve the capacities and performance
Identify the best pattern of organisation that can be used for tasks of routine nature
Can identify ways to reduce bureaucratic power, especially in developing countries
Lessen the tensions between the politicians and bureaucrats by identifying the middle path
Better policy making

Impact of CPA on PA

Provides a macro picture
Has made the field more empirical
Shift from how organisations should be to what they actually are
Extensive use of the systems approach
As a post-behavioural analysis it made the discipline more complete in its scope

Practical Impact of CPA

Scandinavian institution of ombudsman adopted worldwide
Impact on administration of development programmes
Impact on Indian Administration

Neutrality of CPA

Not always been a neutral academic field
Overt and covert biases in favour of the administrative models of Western developed democracies
Led to a lop sided view of administrative realities
Neglect of the study of strengths of pre-bureaucratic social control of community life in many third world countries
But this is changing now
With the ecological approach, an attempt is being made to study admin within a context and assess its rationality based on that
Some traditional aspects of PA in underdeveloped societies (like community management of biodiversity is being applauded as scientific, rational and resource-conserving

“CPA started with no paradigm of its own and developed none”. Peter Savage.

CPA tested some pre-existing paradigms (dichotomy, Weber’s bureaucracy etc)
What Savage is suggesting is that CPA did not have its own theory and was actually working with some pre-existing theoretical paradigms
This is correct because to begin with, CPA’s only emphasis was on theory testing and for that it utilized some pre-existing & widely used theories namely Weber’s ideal type bureaucracy, politics administration dichotomy theory
The main idea was to discover their applicability, functionality & disfunctionality in specific context.
However, it would be an exaggeration and unfair to CAG to say that it did not even develop any new paradigm
Infact many new models were developed which sought to give insight into the features of underdeveloped societies in contrast with transitional and developed societies
The most noteworthy in this context are the agraria industria models and the fused prismatic society models given by FW Riggs
Infact, the prismatic sala model or ‘salacracy’ given by Riggs is highly valued & appreciated for giving an insightful analysis of the constraints which administrative system encounters under a transitional ecology of a developing society

What are the issues of contention in CPA?

Topic 2: Ecology and Administration

What?

Contrasts with the universalistic theory
Signifies the interconnections between an administrative system and its environment – social, political, cultural and environment
Public bureaucracies show great diversity because of variations in their environmental settings
CPA scholars who used the concept of ecology
J M Guas
Ferrel Heady
Riggs

J M Guas

First person to talk about use of ecology in PA
1940s, he drew upon the works of a number of sociologists who had shown importance of ecology in understanding social institutions and processes
Guas argued that PA is influenced by surrounding factors namely historic, sociological and political factors
Identified six ecological factors that influence PA systems
People
Place
Physical technology
Social technology
Personality and aspirations of people
Catastrophies

Heady

Concentric circles model of ecology
He argued that different components or elements of ecology affect the administrative system differently
He used ecology as a set of concentric circles with the argument that the innermost circle covering the administrative sub-set will have the biggest and strongest influence on administration
According to him the political features lying in ecology are the strongest because political setup sets the tone of administrative functioning

Riggs

Riggs wanted to describe how different ecologies can have different structural-functional features
He observed that if ecological considerations are helpful in understanding one’s own administrative system, then they must be doubly useful in carrying out comparisons
Based his theory on Parson’s Structural Functional approach and Pattern Variables
Which 3structures perform which functions
With what effectiveness or lack of it
Thus interaction between admin sys and ecology in above two manners

Topic 3: Riggs

Sala is like a multi-functional room

Riggs: CPA is to be “empirical, nomothetic and ecological – that is, to put crudely, factual and scientific, abstracted and generalizable, systematic and non-parochial”

Agraria-Industria Classification

Based on three of the pattern variables suggested by Parsons
Ascription behaviroual pattern vs Achievement behavioural patter
Particularistic BP vs Universal BP
Fused Functioning vs Specific functioning
Ascription: grant status to someone based on birth and inheritance rather than on personal characteristic and merit
Achievement: status or benefits being granted two people purely on merit and not on reasons like family lineage, religion, region, caste etc
Particularistic: which favour a narrow base for taking social decisions rather than a generalised or universal
Inward looking decision making dominated & motivated by particular or private interest
Universalistic: Outward looking decision making wherein collective interest of society guides DM & pub institutions behave in the wider interests of the entire class of stakeholders
Fused: various functions or responsibilities are being simultaneously performed by a single structure or institution
Specific: social structures and administrative institutions which perform very specific and demarcated function

Table 3