COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

An Introduction

Though, comparisons of Administrative systems has had a long tradition, it is only after WWII and with the emergence of new Asian and African Nations which brought a vigor in Comparative Studies of Public Administration.The nature of Comparative Administration has vast ramifications and ranges from the narrowest of studies to the broadest of analysis. 
In simple terms, Comparative Public Administration refers to a comparative study of government administrative systems functioning in different countries of the world. 

 What are we going to learn here?

• the significance of Comparative Public Administration; 
• the nature and range of comparative studies; and 
• the conceptual approaches in Comparative Public Administration.

Comparative Public Administration - WHAT TO COMPARE?

• Its Environment.
• The whole administrative system.
• The formal structure of the administrative system - hierarchy, division of work, specialization, authority-responsibility network, decentralization, delegation, control mechanisms, procedures, etc.
• 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 informal communication and the nature of leadership.
• The roles of the individuals.
• The interaction between the personality of individuals and the organisational system.
• The policy and decision systems of the organisation that link its various parts.
• The communication system, which also involves the feedback mechanism.
• The performance of an administrative system.

An administrative system is not a  simple entity. There are intricacies of its functioning which will be highlighted in any comparative analysis.

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Comparative administrative studies can be conducted at three analytical levels: 

• Macro studies focus on the comparisons of whole administrative systems in their proper ecological contexts. For instance, a comparison of the administrative systems of India and Great Britain will comprise detailed analysis of all important aspects and parts of the administrative systems of the two nations.

It will be comprehensive in its scope. Though rare, but they are not impossible to be taken up. Generally, the relationship between an administrative system and its external environment are highlighted in the macro level studies. 

• The middle-range studies are on certain important parts of an administrative system that are sufficiently large in size and scope of functioning. For instance, a comparison of the

1. Structure of higher bureaucracy of two or more nations, 
2. Agricultural administration in two or more countries, 
3. Local government in different countries etc.

• Micro studies relate to comparisons of an individual organisation with its counterparts in other setting's.For instance, an analysis of - the recruitment or training system in two pr more administrative organisations. Micro studies are more feasible to be undertaken and a large number of such studies have been conducted by scholars of Public Administration. 

In the contemporary Comparative Public Administration, all the three types of studies exist.  Another relevant question that arises is 

• What is the range of comparative administrative studies? What type of studies? 

In fact, the scope of Comparative Public Administration studies is so wide that a variety or analysis forms a part of this branch of knowledge.

What is the range of Comparative Administrative Studies? And types of  studies

There are five types of studies(Broadly speaking), which are as follows:

A Inter-institutional Analysis

It involves a comparison of two or more administrative systems such as a comparison of the structure and working of the Home Ministry with the Defence Ministry. Such comparisons could involve the whole of an administrative organisation or its various parts.

B Intra-national Analysis

An analysis among various administrative systems functioning within a country, such as comparison of district administration in Bihar and Punjab .

C Cross-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 example of a cross-national analysis.

D Cross-cultural Analysis

It involves countries forming part or different "cultures". For instance comparing the administrative system of 

• the USSR (a socialist state) with the U.S.(a capitalist system) 
• a developed country (e.g. France) with a developing country (e.g. Algeria) 
• a developing democratic country (e.g. Philippines) and a developing Communist regime (e.g. Vietnam) 

Thus the word "cultural" has a broad connotation and involves an aggregation of distinctive  political, economic and socio-cultural traits of a particular system and its environment. 

E Cross-temporal Analysis
It involves different time-frames for analysis. For instance, Comparison between the administrative system - 

• Ashoka's reign and during Akbar's regime 
• ancient Rome and modem Italy
• During Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi etc.

A cross-temporal analysis may be inter-institutional, intra-national, cross-national or cross-cultural. For instance, 

• a  comparison of the administrative control mechanisms prevailing during the times of  Alexander, Harsha, Attaturk and Nasser will be cross-national as well  as cross-cultural. 

[Note: Because of difference in the nature of historical sources, exactness in cross-temporal studies is not possible.]

Comparative Public Administration as a study of Public Administration on a comparative basis - Nimrod Raphaeli 

[The Comparative Administration Group referred to Comparative Public Administration as the theory of Public Administration  which belongs to diverse cultures in the national 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 concerned with making rigorous cross-cultural comparisons of the structures and processes involved in the  activity of administering public affairs.]

NATURE OF COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

The comparison is an inherent part of social analysis/research. 

There is no distinction between comparative research and general social research, for the methods of the two are similar - Eisenstad.

Prior to WWII, there were several studies on comparative politics and administration but such studies were primarily descriptive and normative. 

Fred Riggs on Comparative Public Administration: [ Fred Riggs was the foremost scholar of Comparative Administration ] He had observed that there were three trends in the comparative study of Public Administration :

1. "Normative" to "Empirical", 
2. "Ideographic" to 'Nomothetic" and 
3. "Non-ecological " to "Ecological". 

1. Normative to Empirical: Traditional studies emphasized upon 'good administration',and their goals being Efficiency and Economy follow certain principles and they were influenced by the classical approach. Primarily, the western democratic model was considered to be useful for all other administrative systems - Normative Approach.

[ Note : a) Normative : establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior; b) Empirical :based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic]

But, things changed after emergence of Communist Countries and many developing countries and it became clear that a limited culture-bound normative approach to the study of Public Administration was not adequate.  After WWII, the behavior approach showed the significance of studying the facts and reality, thus, the comparative studies of Public Administration also started assigning greater importance to the study of administrative "reality" existing in different countries and cultures. [Read more about the Behavioral Approach in the Evolution of Public Administration].

Finding out facts about structural patterns and behavior of administrative systems were  the interests of these study instead of describing "what was good for each systems"

There are two important trends which have influenced the Comparative Public Administration in the past few decades or so. 

• Development Administration focuses on the goal-orientation(normative concept) of administrative system and considers reality as the basis of such goal orientation. Since early 60's, Comparative Public Administration (encompassing the field of Comparative Development Administration) has evolved a synthesis between the Normative and the Empirical elements of analysis. 
• New Public Administration  stressed the idealistic goal to be achieved in any system and tried to bridge the gap between the "is"(actual) and "should"(Ideal). In the late 60's, the New Public Administration marked the "post-behavioral" trend and its impact on most administrative analysis has been profound. [In the later post, I will explain about the New Public Administration in detail]

2 Ideographic to Nomothetic: Let's see what these terms mean according to Riggs

• 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 seeks to develop generalizations and theories which are based on analysis of regularities of behavior of  administrative systems. 

Ideographic Studies ( Earlier studies of Comparative Public Administration) focused on the study of individual nations or institutions and their approach was primarily descriptive.  And these studies lacked of :

1. Serious attempt to compare various nations and systems. 
2. Attempt to look at the similarities or differences among nations in terms of their administrative systems.
3. Were 'comparative' only in name and did not help in the process of theory-building or in developing generalizations concerning the functioning of administrative system in different settings. 

The objective of Nomothatic studies  includes

• to look at the similarities and differences of various administrative systems existing in different nations and cultures and
• then draw certain generalizations relating to administrative systems functioning at various levels and in different settings.

Nomothetic comparative studies are 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 and has contributed to knowledge in Comparative Public Administration also. Analysis or theory-building has to be based on facts and description so, a co-existence of ideographic and nomothetic studies may have to be accepted in Comparative Public Administration.

3 Neo-ecological to Ecological 
[Note: Ecology - study of interaction between a system and its environment]

There was no serious attempt to examine the relationship between the administrative system and its environment in the traditional studies of Comparative Public Administration.  This made very difficult to identify sources of differences among various Administrative systems. [Non-Ecological]

Ecological Approach: it relates to the study of interrelationship between the system and environment. This approach in Comparative Public Administration was popularized by Fred Riggs which has been regarded as an important development in the study of Public Administration.

After WWII, the most of studies of Comparative Public Administration  [were Ecological Approach]:

• were attempting to examine the environmental impact/influences on administration and
• have been looking at similarities and differences among environmental settings of different nations or cultures.

But, the analysis relating to the influences of the administrative system on the environment is still inadequate. But the approach has brought noticeable change and gaining momentum in contemporary comparative administrative analysis.

Though, Riggs presented the above three trends in Administration in 1962, he was conscious that there is bound to be a co-existence of older and newer emphasis in comparative studies. And we can see co-existence of these approaches in the literature of Comparative Administration

SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

As we had learnt (Or I have uploaded the Post on ) the scope of Public Administration(Click Here to Read). Its scope has increased enormously because 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. 

Today, Public Administration influences almost all aspects of human life and it has fueled in emergence of a number of specialized branches of Public Administration such as economic administration, social administration, educational administration, health administration, transport administration, space administration, etc. In addition to this, there are many areas which become integral part of modern day governance like state administration, urban administration, rural administration, personnel administration and financial administration etc.

Studies of Comparisons of Administrative systems can be either the whole or parts of such systems such as comparative educational administration, comparative health administration, comparative economic administration, comparative social administration and other related areas. So,it can be said that the scope of Comparative Public Administration is as vast as that of Public Administration. 

Anything that is Administrative can be compared. 

Comparative studies can be conducted at macro, middle range and micro levels. And these studies can be inter-institutional, cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-temporal.

Question: What do we include under the heading of "nature" of Comparative Administration and what do we put under the heading of "scope" of comparative Administration? 

Answer: As these two aspects are overlapping and have common stress on the types, levels and range of comparative studies, so it not a very useful effort to attempt a neat distinction between the 'nature' and 'scope' of comparative Public Administration may not be a very useful effort.

SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Today, the importance of the study of Comparative Public Administration is well accepted because of two factors:

• The academic study of Public Administration: It is believed that through Comparative Public Administration hypotheses, generalizations, models and theories can be constructed which can collectively help in the scientific study of Public Administration. 

As the old orthodoxy of principles of administration has lost its relevance, now the generalizations of administrative structures and behavior emerging out of comparative studies can help in formulating theoretical constructs which can provide a scientific basis to the study of Public Administration. 

In 1947, Robert Dalh had observed that a science of Public Administration cannot be conceived of without adopting a comparative approach. 

The study of Comparative Public Administration also contributes to the greater understanding of the individual characteristics of administrative systems functioning 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. 

• Its relevance to the empirical world: Through a study of comparative Public Administration, administrators, policy makers and academicians can examine causes for the success or failure of particular administrative structures and patterns in different environmental settings. 

Through Comparative Public Administration, the administrators or policy makers can learn about the Administrative practices followed in various nations and then they can adopt those practices which can fit in their own nations and systems. The importance of Comparative Public Administration lies in its academic utility in terms of scientific and systematic study of Public Administration and in improving the knowledge about other administrative systems so that appropriate administrative reforms and changes can be brought about in different nations. .

CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES IN COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

After WWII, a number of approaches have emerged in comparative administrative analysis which is mostly based on an adaptation of the developments in comparative anthropology, comparative sociology and comparative politics:

1 Bureaucratic Approach

The most influential of the approaches is Max Weber's ideal-type bureaucratic model which has structural characteristics of 

• hierarchy, 
• specialization, role-specificity, 
• recruitment by seniority-cum-merit, career development, 
• training, discipline, 
• personal and official means, etc.

 The emphasis in the model is on rationality and efficiency. Notable scholars have conducted studies in a comparative context employing the bureaucratic model of Weber include Michael Crozier (on France), Roy Laird (on the Soviet Union) and Morroe Berger (on Egypt). 

Dwight Waldo views Weber's bureaucratic model as a "paradigm" of Public Administration. 

Limitation: An ideal-type model and specific context of a legal-rational authority system poses constraints in the application of Weber's model to the comparative study of bureaucracies. But the model is still useful for an analysis of the bureaucracies of the developed countries.  

2 Behavioral Approach

The behavioral approach emphasizes '"acts", rigorous scientific methods of data collection and analysis, quantification, experimentation, testing, verification and an interdisciplinary orientation. It focuses on the analysis of human behavior in administrative settings.

3 General Systems Approach

Further, the general systems approach views an administrative system as a subsystem of the society. It looks at various parts of an administrative system (formal organisation. informal organisation, roles, individuals) and examines the inter-linkages among various parts. Besides, the approach analyses the dynamic interactions between the administrative system and its external environment.

4 Ecological Approach

One of the most popular 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 behavior of the administrative system as well as the influence of the administrative system on these environmental structures is highlighted in the ecological approach.

5 Structural-Functional Approach

[The approach is drawn mainly from Anthropology and Sociology] 
Definition: 
A structure is a pattern of behavior that has become a standard feature of a social system. Whereas, a function denotes the impact of a structure on another structure and the interrelationships among various structures. 

It was Fred Riggs who has successfully applied the ecological and structural-functional approaches in his analysis of societies and their administrative systems. His study based on this approach - "agraria transitia-industria" systems, was developed in 1957 and superseded by the typology of "fused-prismatic diffracted" societies(1959) (known as Prismatic Sala Model).
Important notes on Fused-Prismatic Diffracted society:

1. Prismatic: The mid-area on the continuum between the "fused" and the "diffracted" models. 
2. Fused: A social system where all structures are highly diffuse. [Functionally diffuse: A structure that performs a large number of functions.]
3. Diffracted: A Social system where all structures are very specific.

Rigg's Prismatic-Sala-Model(a popular contemporary model-building in comparative Public Administration):

• Sala - Administrative System of Prismatic Society 
• A prismatic society is characterized by a growing degree of structural differentiation but not matched by an equal degree of integration (coordination) i.e., integration lag which is reflected in almost all aspect of the functioning of a prismatic society.
• A prismatic society and its 'sala' are characterized by 'heterogeneity', formalism and overlapping. [Heterogeneity: The simultaneous presence, side by side, of quite different kinds of systems, practices and view points. Overlapping: The extent to which what is described as "administrative" behavior is actually determined by non-administrative criteria, i.e. by political, social, religious or other factors.]
• Further, overlapping has five dimensions: 

1. poly-communal-ism [Poly-Communal: Society composed of many communities;] 
2. poly-normativism [Poly-normative: Refers to the characteristic myth system of the "prismatic" society.] 
3. bazaar-canteen model [Bazaar-Canteen :The"economic scene" in a prismatic society;]
4. authority versus control and 
5. nepotism.   

• These features relate to the social, cultural, economic, political and administrative systems of the prismatic society.

Despite criticisms and certain inherent methodological limitations, the prismatic-sala model has fascinated the students and practitioners of Public Administration in "developing" countries. 

6 Development Approach
The main focus of this approach are goal orientation, change-orientation, progressiveness, innovative-ness, participation and responsiveness etc which are the characteristics of a dynamic administrative system. [We will learn more on Development Administration in other Posts]

Besides, the above there are a number of other less known approaches to comparative administrative analysis such as "information-energy' model of John Dorsey and decision-making model of 'Martin Landau. The experimentation phase in mode-building in Comparative Public Administration isn't vigorous anymore. However, the enthusiasm for understanding the varieties of administrative patterns is alive in the scholarship of Public Administration.