Index:

Origins and Meaning

Views of John M. Gaus

Views of Robert Dahl

Administration is Culture Bound

Interaction between Culture & Public Administration

Administration & Political Environment

Administration & Social Environment

Administration & Economic Environment

Administration & Constitutional Environment

ORIGINS AND MEANING

Ecology is a branch of biology. The term ecology was coined in 1866 by the German biologist
Ernst Haeckel. In biology, ecology “deals with the relation between living organisms (plants and
animals) and their environment.”
The term ‘ecology’ is borrowed from biology and applied to the study of public administration.
Administrative ecology is concerned with the interactions and interconnections between the
administrative system and the social system within which public administration is embedded.
Thus, the ecological approach examines the links and interdependencies between an
administrative system and its environment — social, economic, cultural and political factors.
In other words, an administrative system is not only influenced by its various environmental
factors, but also it affects them.
Ecological approach has been emphasized by several scholars such as John M. Gaus, Robert
Dahl, Roscoe Martin and Fred W. Riggs. Thus, ecological approach, a post-World War II
development, is given much importance in the study of comparative public administration today.

VIEWS OF JOHN M. GAUS

The ecological approach to public administration was first proposed by John M. Gaus in his
“Reflections on Public Administration” in 1947.
“The study of public administration must include its ecology” Gaus had declared in 1947.
According to Gaus, there are 7 environmental factors which are useful in explaining the way in
which an administrative system functions:
people,
place,
physical technology,
social technology,
wishes and ideas,
catastrophe,
personality.
He stressed the importance of ecology in explaining administrative behaviour also.
Gaus urged that the future research should relate various non-administrative factors to formal
administrative elements.

VIEWS OF ROBERT DAHL

In his 1947 essay, Robert Dahl stressed the need for cross-cultural studies and referred to the
environmental effects on administrative structure and behaviour.
He observed that public administration could not escape the effects of national psychology and
of the political, social and cultural environment in which it developed.
Dahl would point out that cultural factors could make public administration on one part of the
globe quite different from public administration on another.

ADMINISTRATION IS CULTURE BOUND

Since Pub Ad is culture-bound or shaped by its setting or environment, it develops its own
peculiar characteristics in different cultural areas or environments.
Though there is manifest similarity in formal organisations of various nations, yet their informal
and behavioural patterns possess considerable diversities, each being shaped by its societal
culture.
On account of these diversities, Fred W. Riggs classified social structures into 3 types (fused,
prismatic & diffracted) and outlined the peculiar characteristics of administration in each of these
categories.
Examples of administration being culture-bound:
In Africa, we find kinship organisation (or, house societies) in different cultures: political relations
are organized around membership in corporately-organized dwellings.
Preference is given in the recruitment into services, to the local people in northern Nigeria, and
a significant number of southern Nigerians are dismissed — particularly Ibos — from the
northern service. The reasons for this are both political and cultural.
Even though in India, the civil service was developed by the British on certain principles
(general competence, integrity and impartiality, and political neutrality), the nature & role of
Indian bureaucracy cannot be understood in terms of these ideal norms, but must be studied in
terms their social and cultural traditions and orientations.
Even in the Western economically developed countries which are often grouped into one
category, public administration has not developed & functioned in a uniform pattern. For ex.,
variation in the British and German patterns of administration:
Britain is the example of entrepreneurial society in which management tended to remain
personal: taking decisions through personal bargaining and negotiation rather than through a
bureaucratic imposition of authority.
Germany has the institutionalized bureaucratic style of administration. Bureaucracy is the
dominant form of social organisation.

INTERACTION BETWEEN CULTURE & PUB AD

Cultural values of a society are not immutable. Culture is subject to change and there is a
constant interaction of culture and administration, which redefines the role of government and
public administration.
For ex., the latitude of action allowed at present to governments & public administration in the
western countries would have been unthinkable before the two WorId Wars, one major
economic depression and a Cold War which fundamentally altered popular perceptions of the
role of government.
The interaction between culture and public administration is not unidirectional, i.e., only culture
and environment affecting the administration. Rather it is bi-directional:
It is the public administrations which are playing modernising and catalytic roles in many
countries of Asia & Africa.
Just as culture itself is not unchanging, administrative culture too, keeps on changing.
Administrative culture must be compatible with its environment. It is, therefore, unrealistic to
endorse and perpetuate the administrative culture operative during the period of the British Rule
in Independent India.
Since public administration is culture bond it follows that structure of public administration of one
environmental setting cannot transplanted into a different cultural milieu.
American effort to export scientific public administration have met with negative responses not
only in such widely dispersed places as Pakistan, Vietnam, Turkey, Brazil; but in Western
European countries like Italy as well.
The experience of Prof. Riggs in Thailand and the Philippines is that the attempts to import
Western concepts into the non-Western World have often resulted in the adoption of formal
aspects of bureaucracy, but the older institutional base of a traditional society lingers on. He
calls it a dualistic situation.
He develops a model of such a dualistic administration, called “sala” model of administration in
prismatic society.

ADMINISTRATION & POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

Public Administration and political environment are closely related --> the roots of public
administration can be traced to the politics of the country; and while politics is concerned with
government, the practical implementation of government policy assumes the form of public
administration.
It is, therefore, natural that the change in political environment leads to changes in
administrative institutions.

Loyalty to the National Community:

Loyalties to family, language, religion, caste or ethnic group diminish individual commitment to
the national political system and produce the potential for political unrest and instability.
Consequences for Pub Ad from a low level of national commitment:
Such a society will suffer from social dissensions and in such situations political decision-
making becomes very difficult.
That tends to direct power upward towards bureaucracy.
The decision-making by bureaucracy adversely affects its impartiality.
France in the Fourth Republic, modern Italy and several developing countries fall in this
category.
Conversely, where national assimilation has been achieved and where the official and the public
share the same language and value system, communication between them is made easier. That
promotes trust between them and avoids the tension.

Equality and Public Administration:

In a modern society recruitment is based on equalitarian principle, i.e., ability or achievement of
the individual.
Whereas in a traditional society, the ascriptive criteria i.e., class, status, race, language,
caste etc. formed the basis of recruitment into public services.
Administrative equalitarianism reinforces social equality.
On the other hand, in an environment of social inequality when preference is given in order of
rank, everyone strives to establish his hierarchical position vis-a-vis others, so that
administrative procedures force rank orderings in society.
Indian scenario: Reservation in Government services:
In India, in every era, capability and merit have been given pride of place and even in the
present times this fact cannot be overlooked.
However, the fact has to be admitted that due to historical, social and economic factors, many
classes have been exploited for thousands of years.
It is the responsibility of the modern government to give a proper place to these classes.
In constitution, makers have provided reservation in government and semi-government services
to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and have also allotted reserved seats for them in the
legislature. As a result of such reservations, certain lower classes have come up and are slowly
awakening.
But in recent times, we see a lot of opposition to the idea of reservations, esp. on the social
media, and also on the media and even in family and friendly debates.
Intended beneficiaries are still left out; rich beneficiaries; fake beneficiaries due to corruption;
etc.
Other classes/castes who were left out, too want reservation --> Race to reservation.
The form of democracy in India:
India seldom had despotic rule. The king was undoubtedly the highest ruler but he always acted
with the advice of ministers. It is, however, important to note that modern democratic concept
does not agree with Indian culture and its social form. This social concept never allows doctrine
of equality to develop in India. It is true that due to the influence of Buddhism certain republics
were founded in this country, the chief among them being Vaishali. However, in a larger sense,
the form of Government of India was monarchical.
It is for this reason that modern democratic experiment in government faces opposition in the
country.
It is strange to note that while the illiterate citizen takes full interest in voting and election, the
educated intellectual is becoming neutral in the process of election.

Government Interference in administration:

Good government is measured by efficiency of its administration.
We have adopted parliamentary form of government, under which the government frames
policies. The task of implementation of such policies is performed by bureaucracy or civil
service.
While it is true that the civil servant is ultimately bound to obey the government, the civil service
can in no case be regarded as subordinate --> relationship b/w the government & civil service is
not that of the master and the servant.
Examples of interference in Indian scenario:
During Indira Gandhi’s time, interference in administration increased during Emergency and has
continued to grow ever since.
Misuse of transfers.

Political Framework:
The administrative system during the colonial regime was centralized, authoritarian and
repressive. Likewise, after independence, it was decentralized, democratic and welfare-centric.
Administration is thus most immediately influenced by the political system.

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

According to Riggs, the social environment of any community is dependent upon its institutions,
classes, relation between various castes, historical legacy, wealth, traditions, religions, values,
faith, ideals, etc. All these factors have a deep impression on administration.
That is why it has been said that public administration is deeply influenced by the human
element and this differs from society to society.
A civil servant imbibes the social values, ethos and traditions before he joins the public service.
The point of view and the attitude he has developed in the social milieu considerably shape his
decisions in public service. It is generally assumed that the civil servant coming from the
different urban social strata generally tends to associate himself with groups at his own level of
power and status or somewhat about it; and he is predisposed to give more weight to the ideas
of these groups.
Due to social pressure, public administration becomes alert and responsible. In addition social
awareness helps in making the administrative practices conform to public weal.
Class Structure / Indian castes:
The basis of structure of Indian society is ‘varnas’, which in course of time degenerated into
castes & subcastes.
Where mobility between classes is permitted and recognised, it is called open class system.
Where such mobility is not permitted and is rare, it is called closed class system.
The Indian caste system --> a closed class society; while U.S.A. --> an open class society.
Closed class system or castes, communal and group considerations affect the behaviour of the
administration.
Current scenario: Accusations against administration for favouring a particular class/caste, and
ignoring others.

ADMINISTRATION & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Administration is influenced by the economic set-up:

For ex., in a country with limited economic resources administrators are not in a position to
implement governmental programmes and policies successfully. But administration of a
developed country can successfully implement programmes and policies because of abundance
of resources.
Further, in a country with closed economy the scope of administration will be more, whereas in
an open economy administration will have less scope as here private parties are the key
players.
Similarly, administration can also influence economy by contributing to the formulation of
various economic programmes and policies.
Further, if administration is efficient and effective, development and growth will take place and
thus, overall economy will be impacted positively.
Thus, administration and economy affect each other.

ADMINISTRATION & CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

The administration of any country is determined by the constitutional provisions of that country.
Every living constitution has a philosophy behind it and the constitution is based on certain
values and principles, and on the basis of such a constitution depends the political and social
structure of that society.
The main principles of our constitution are not limited by any theory but are practical in nature.
The constitution is based on the principles of non-discrimination against any community and
public welfare. These principles affect our administration.
Our administration also affects (strengthens) the principles of our constitution:
Amendments to constitution like addition of “secular”, DPSPs, etc.
Giving constitutional powers to NCBC
Index:

Structural-Functional Approach

Institutional Approach

STRUCTURAL - FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

The structural-functional approach in social analysis has been used by various scholars: Talcott
Parsons, Robert Merton, Marion Levy Jr., Gabriel Almond, David Apter, F.X. Sulton
In 1955, Prof. Dwight Waldo referred to structural-functional approach in comparative public
administration for the first time.
Riggs approved the idea of Waldo. In 1957, Riggs presented an “agraria-industria” model on the
basis of this approach. Riggs was considered to be the person to have introduced the structural
functional approach in the field of CPA.
Talcott Parsons, Merton, Almond, Apter, etc. did not support its application in Pub Ad.
The exposition of structural-functional approach in the field of Pub Ad is that there is a structure
of every administrative system. By the structure and its organs (components), various functions
are performed.
In this approach,
a structure is considered as any persistent pattern of action or behaviour, and
function refers to “any consequences of a structure in so far as they effect other structures or
the total system of which they are a part.”
Structures may be ‘concrete’, such as government departments and bureaus; or they may be
‘analytic’, such as the structure of authority.
Thus, the structural-functional approach is a method of analysing the functions that are carried
out in a society, the structures that are responsible to discharge the functions, and the methods
that are adopted in undertaking the functions.
The supporters of this approach hold that public administration is like a planned dynamic
machine which can be studied like a scooter, motor car or a cycle and their parts.
Various scholars have laid down what they consider certain necessary structural and functional
“prerequisites” for the emergence of a society.
According to Riggs, there are 5 functional requisites of every society:
economic, social, communication, symbolic and political.
The same set of functional requisites apply to an administrative sub-system in which various
structures carry out a number of functions in a specified manner.

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
The institutional approach to the study of public administration concerns itself with the
institutions and organisations of the State.
The core area of this method lies in detailed study of the formal administrative structure, the
functioning, rules, and regulations of the executives, legislatures and the departments of the
Government.
It regards public administration as a purely technical and non-political organisation concerned
with getting things done efficiently.
It believes in the existence of administrative principles which are universally applicable to both
public and private organisations.
This school of thought believes that for a policy to assume shape as public policy, it has to be
determined in an authoritative manner by some institution of the State.
The defect of this approach is that it ignores the informal aspects of organisation. Hence, one
cannot get a true picture of how an organisation functions in practice. It is predominantly a
descriptive approach.
An important advocate of this approach is Luther Gulick.

Index:

Brief History of CPA

Formation of “Comparative Administrative Group” (CAG)

Factors contributing to the emergence of CPA

Influence of Comparative Politics

Traditional Approach to CPA

Post-World War II Approaches to CPA

Purpose of CPA

Characteristics / Features of CPA

Public Administration and CPA

Scope of CPA

Advantages of CPA Studies

Shortcomings

Is There a Universal Theory of CPA?

BRIEF HISTORY OF CPA

CPA is a post-Second World War development in the study of Pub Ad.

However, the dim beginnings of CPA may be traced to Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 essay “The
Study of Administration”:
“Structural likeness & functional sameness” in governments all across the world.
Wilson also agreed that this would lead to “import of foreign systems”. For this, he says:
Filtering the governments through the cultural & constitutional lens of the borrower.
American “how to do it” must get priority over “what to do”.
Our own politics must be touchstone for all the theories.
“If I see a murderous fellow sharpening a knife cleverly, I can borrow his way of sharpening the
knife without borrowing his probable intention to commit murder with it.”
Since Wilson, nothing important took place in the field of CPA studies in the US until the late
1940’s and the 1950’s.
In Germany, sociologist Max Weber carried out the most important comparative research
between 1895 and 1920. He developed the core concept of bureaucracy as part of a
comparative typology of the forms of domination: tradition, charisma and legal rationality.
Mohit Bhattacharya:
“We owe to Weber the core concept of the field bureaucracy … Since then, major
comparative studies in the USA had been made by European-trained scholars whose central
focus was: the role of bureaucracies in modern government.”
During the 1930s, European-trained scholars such as Finer and Friedrich had made major
comparative studies. The central role that bureaucracies played in modern government was
stressed in all these studies. Friedrich called bureaucracy “the core of modern government.”
After WW-II, the centre of comparative study in Pub Ad shifted to the USA.
Robert Dahl, in his essay, ‘The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems’ (1947):
As long as the study of Pub Ad is not comparative, claims for a ‘science of Pub Ad’ sound rather
hollow.
Dahl, therefore, stressed the need for crossed-cultural studies that emphasize the effects of
environment on administrative behaviour and structures.
Sustained efforts to undertake comparative studies in Pub Ad really began in the 1950’s. The
conference on administration (1952) at Princeton University showed much interest in CPA.
The golden decade in the history of CPA was the 1960’s when it emerged as a new intellectual
endeavour.

FORMATION OF CAG

The Comparative Administrative Group (CAG) was founded in 1960 under the chairmanship of
Fred W. Riggs, as a Committee of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).
Well-known scholars such as Ferrel Heady, Alfred Diamont, J. M. Gaus, Dwight Waldo, William
Siffin and Montgomery were associated with CAG.
Financially supported by the Ford Foundation, CAG sponsored research, conducted seminars
and published books and monographs. The activities of the CAG stimulated interest in CPA and
gave impetus to it.
The ambition of Riggs and the CAG was to develop a science of CPA. In fact, the CAG had the
minds, the finances and the will to create a universal theory of CPA.
Ford grant was terminated in 1971 and the CAG came to an end in 1973. The surge of 1960’s
subsided.
However, after the 1970’s, the comparative method became popular. In the 1980’s, public
bureaucracies became the centre of CPA studies. These developments laid the groundwork for
CPA to move ahead in the 1990’s.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE EMERGENCE OF CPA

In the post-WW-II period:

The emergence of newly independent nations in Asia and Africa.

During WW-II, the Western (esp. American) scholars & administrators came in contact with the
public administration of many developing countries, wherein they found some new features
which interested them.
Extension of the American technical assistance programmes to the Third World nations.
The American scholars also joined U.N. technical assistance teams. The visiting teams got
exposed to the developing countries and their administrative systems.
However, bureaucracies of the less developed nations did not respond as expected.
Naturally, there were criticisms that the American patterns of improvement were ‘culture-bound’,
and thus, out of touch with the traditions and felt needs of nations that the technical
programmes were designed to assist.
The revisionist movement in the study of comparative politics and the interest shown by political
scientists in comparing national bureaucracies.
Emergence of behavioural & inter-disciplinary approaches --> often described as Behavioural
Revolution.
The intellectual development in comparative sociology, anthropology and other disciplines.
The birth of CAG and the financial support given to its activities.
Recent globalisation of economy, and rapid developments in S&T and IT.

INFLUENCE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Conceptual framework in both political science and public administration emerged by common
stimuli and developments in the respective studies or subjects:
For both the disciplines ‘bureaucracy’ has been a common theme for discussion. Both assigned
a subordinate role for the bureaucracy in relation to political system.
Both have experienced strong dissatisfaction with the traditional approaches; they share the
dominating concern with conceptual frameworks and both are inter-disciplinary in orientation.
They have focused predominantly on the developing nations.
However, comparative models and approaches for public administration are borrowed from the
study of comparative politics. In a chronological sense, the movements in comparative politics
and comparative administration have been mutually cooperative.
In 1953, the American Political Science Association (APSA) established an ad hoc sub-
committee on comparative administration which lasted until the creation of the Comparative
Administration group (CAG) in 1963 by ASPA.
New theoretical search by political scientists like Almond, Binder, Coleman, La Palombara, Pye
and Weidner has made Public Administration as a sub-field of political system.
Political aspects of administration was given a new thrust in LaPalombara’s ‘Bureaucracy and
Political Development’ (1963).
Eric Straus: “Politics is the directive force in equating public administration from comparative
perspective”.
Difference between them: Comparative politics was a well-established and reasonably well-
ordered branch of political science. The same cannot be said for comparative public
administration.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO CPA

The pre-WW-II traditional CPA was often little more than the parallel descriptions of specific
administrative institutional patterns of major Euro-American nations at one place.
This approach is parochial in its coverage as it centred its attention on studying the formal
administrative institutions of major advanced European nations — Great Britain, France,
Germany, Italy and the former Soviet Union and the United States of America.
It is a country-by-country approach. This is certainly not a comparative approach to the study of
public administration.
The pre-War traditional approaches to CPA suffers from certain defects:
It is merely configurative as it stresses the characteristics of administrative systems of individual
countries.
As already noted, it is mostly formalistic and narrow in its coverage. It confines itself to a
particular geographical area — Western Europe and the USA. It did not touch the administrative
systems of the Afro-Asian countries and countries of Latin America. It does not make any
attempt to establish generalisations about administrative behaviour transcending national
boundaries.
The traditional approach is also non-ecological in nature. It does not take into consideration the
interaction between the administrative system and its socio-cultural environmental factors.
In 1962, Riggs also criticized the traditional CPA for being normative, ideographic and non-
ecological in its emphasis. In his opinion, the term ‘comparative’ should be used only for
empirical, nomothetic, ecological studies.
John M. Gaus also urged that the future research in CPA should relate various non-
administrative factors to formal administrative elements.
POST-WORLD WAR II APPROACHES TO CPA

In simple terms, CPA may be defined as “cross-cultural” or “cross-national" Pub Ad.

Today, CPA means the study of Pub Ad across & within governments around the world, using
the method of comparison to better describe and evaluate bureaucracies in them. Thus, CPA
has truly become comparative in its full sense.
Its coverage is also wider as it includes the developed and developing countries (Traditional
approach was confined to Euro-American experiences only). The scholarly interest in the study
of CPA has also deepened.
Post-war CPA is ecological whereas pre-war CPA is non-ecological in its nature.
Methodological orientations: The post-war CPA has commitment to comparison as a method of
study. On the contrary, the traditional approach is merely juxtaposing the description of a
number of similar administrative institutions in a few advanced countries of Europe and the USA
at one place.
Post-war approach to CPA has a tendency to make generalisations transcending national
boundaries.

PURPOSE OF CPA

The CPA has both intellectual and utilitarian objectives:

Theory building in Pub Ad, i.e., to develop a universally valid body of knowledge concerning
administrative behaviour. In other words, to hasten the emergence of a genuine and generic
discipline of public administration.
To identify similarities & differences between different administrative systems of the world.
To answer common problems and questions by studying the administrative processes and
organisations of different countries on a comparative basis.
According to Ramesh K. Arora, the major purposes of the study of CPA are:
To learn the distinctive features of a particular system or cluster of systems;
To explain the factors responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural differences in b’cratic
behaviour;
To examine the causes for the success or failures of particular administrative features in
particular ecological settings, and
To understand strategies of administrative reform.
According to Ferrel Heady, CPA addresses 5 motivating concerns as an intellectual enterprise:
The search for theory;
The urge for practical application of knowledge to the problems of developing countries;
The incidental contribution of the broader field of comparative politics to comparative
administration;
The interest of researchers trained in the administrative law tradition, and
The intensified comparative analysis of ongoing problems of public administration.
CHARACTERISTICS / FEATURES OF CPA

A fairly new development:

Its origin can be traced to the 1952 conference on administration held at Princeton University in
the USA.
It emerged only in the 1960’s as a new intellectual endeavour in the field.
Pre-paradigmatic stage:
CPA is in a pre-paradigmatic stage of development.
It is characterized by a variety of approaches with no dominant or commonly accepted one in
site as yet. This is due to different disciplinary contributions, as also due to the overenthusiasm
of CPA scholars to chart out new directions such as empirical and ecological.
Close links with comparative politics.
Ecology outlook:
It is concerned with the interaction between an administrative system and its external
environment. Administrative system also effects its environment.
Empirical nature:
CPA studies are based upon collection of facts about structural patterns & behaviours of
administrative systems. Data analysis, experimentation and arriving at generalisations of
universal applicability are also concerns of CPA.
Emphasis on development administration:
CPA is closely related to development administration which centers on the developing nations of
Third World.
In fact, development administration is referred to as a semi-autonomous sub-field of CPA.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND CPA

The CPA is a major sub-field of the larger discipline of public administration. It differs from public
administration in the following respects:
Public administration is culture bound. As a sub-system of political system in different countries,
public administration has its own cultural values, norms, folkways and socialisation process.
Contrarily the CPA is cross-cultural and cross-national in orientation.
Public administration is mostly practitioner oriented and is to be involved with the real world.
On the contrary, CPA has attempted to seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Public administration is normative and descriptive in nature.
By contrast, the CPA is empirical, analytic, problem-solution oriented and explanatory.
CPA is, thus, totally different from the traditional academic science of public administration. It
does add new and important dimensions to the study of public administration.

SCOPE OF CPA

Scope of the study of CPA covers the 3 analytic building blocks of comparative analysis:
Administrative structures (organisations);
Actors (executives and b’crats); and
Actions (bureaucratic behaviour).
All the above-mentioned aspects are dealt with in the study of CPA at different levels:
Macro-level:
Macro-level studies extend to the structural & functional aspects of administration of common
variables in the nations across the world.
It is also concerned with the comparative analysis of ongoing problems of public administration
of different nations.
Micro-level:
CPA can he pursued in cross-institutional studies in a single country. Riggs called these:
‘ideographic studies’.
For ex., Comparing domestic programmes or urban policies across boundaries of state and
local governments.
According to R. B. Jain, the future of CPA lies in micro-level studies in examinations of the
background, attitudes and behaviour of bureaucrats and those with whom they interact.
Cross-temporal:
CPA is also cross-temporal in dimension. Comparative approach can be used to describe and
analyse societies widely different in time.
Also, the administrative systems of a particular country at different periods of time can be
compared & contrasted.
For ex., comparing British Indian and post-independent Indian administrative systems. By
means of such a study, we can understand the continuities as well as the changes that have
taken place in our administrative system.

ADVANTAGES OF CPA STUDIES

Focus is on common elements in different kinds of administration and to suggest the universality
of the discipline. Thus, help to develop commonality in public administration.
Reveal the distinctive characteristics of a particular administrative system or cluster of systems.
Enable us to identify similarities & differences between different administrative systems.
Shows how administration takes on the personality and colouration of a given society.
Help us to find out what makes certain administrative institutions, devices and features work
well in one country or era while they fail dismally in another country or era. Such studies identify
the factors (social, political and cultural) that are involved in their success or failure.
Explain the differences in the behaviour of bureaucrats and bureaucracies and evaluate their
comparative performance in different countries. It also suggests the introduction of necessary
changes in the administrative system to improve the performance of bureaucracy.
Useful to deal with concrete situations and practical problem in the real world. Hence, the
practising administrator can get immediate aid from such studies in many facets of his work. For
this reason, the utility of CPA has been recognized in the field of development administration.
Can also improve our knowledge of the administrative institutions and practices in other
countries and to adopt such of them that can fit in with our nation and its systems.
For ex., Scandinavian institution of ombudsman which has been widely adopted and adapted by
different countries in the world. However, the functioning of this institution in the countries that
adopted it is not the same.

SHORTCOMINGS

CPA has strong prescriptive motivations. However, it could not develop a viable applied aspect.
The need for practical application, which was central in its early formative period, has gradually
become ‘a very weak urge.’
CPA has failed to provide help or guidance to practitioners in solving problems or removing
obstacles to developmental activities. It failed to inform the practitioners about what they did not
know.
The theories developed have not been put to empirical testing. Their inability to frame theory in
testable terms has been pointed out by critics like Henderson and Sigelman.
The comparative public administration started with no paradigm of its own and developed none.
No orthodoxy was established or even attempted. The result, according to Peter Savage, “has
been paradigmatic confusion.”
Riggs considers such confusion a virtue, a cause for excitement, normal in a pre-paradigmatic
field.
Despite its shortcomings, no one can deny the significance or value of CPA studies. Its value is
that one can gain a better conceptual grasp of the subject of Pub Ad. However, the methods
used in the analytical process of CPA are much complicated.
In today’s world, the need for comparative study of public administration across the nations is all
the more great. Certain external forces such as globalisation of economy, the need of the
nations to work within the context of international economic order and the interdependency for
the sake of economic development have exerted pressure to move in the direction of
comparative study of Pub Ad.

IS THERE A UNIVERSAL THEORY OF CPA?

According to Robert C. Fried, a universal theory of CPA remains elusive.

Following are some important factors responsible for the failure to produce a science of CPA:
National administrative systems are more difficult to study than other political institutions (e.g.
legislatures, courts, political parties, etc.) particularly when studied in terms of performance.
The boundaries of administrative systems are difficult to establish because they consist of
agencies specialised by function, agencies at different levels of government, etc.
Implementation networks vary by function and hence variance within countries may be as great
as between countries.
Administrative agencies are constantly changing. This is a problem in CPA.
The subject matter of CPA to be studied combines diversity with complexity, change with
formalism — all to be understood only within total ecological contexts.
Countries vary in the degree of their researchable world.
You cannot compare everything. We can compare only what is comparable:
We can compare Indian administration with British administration; BUT we cannot compare
Indian administration with Chinese administration, because that comparison would be
misleading due to the system differences.
Even among several advanced countries, comparison is problematic since data tends to be
available only in the most general or the most particular sense.
A major problem with CPA is that it has been behavioural.
There is little agreement among the writers in CPA as to the methodology, approaches,
techniques, etc. to be followed in their researches.

Index:

Various Classifications

Universalist Approach

Weber’s bureaucratic model

Wilson’s transfer of administrative practices model [covered earlier]
Ecological Approach

General Systems Approach

Development-oriented approach
Rigg’s “Prismatic-Sala” model
Some Other Models

Down’s Model
Dorsey’s Information-Energy Model
Mathur’s Model

VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS

Various approaches have been suggested by different writers:

Ferrel Heady divides the conceptual approaches in the study of CPA into the following four
categories:
Modified traditional.
Development oriented.
General system model building.
Middle range theory formulation.
Henderson gave a three-fold classification of conceptual approaches in CPA:
Bureaucratic system approach.
Input-output system approach.
Component approach.
In the opinion of Ramesh K. Arora, “The Categories of Heady and Henderson are quite broad
and overlapping.” However, “This is not to deny the utility” of their classification. There are two
basic approaches (theories) in the CPA studies:
Universalist approach
Ecological approach

UNIVERSALIST APPROACH

The universalist approach seeks to find certain commonailties among public bureaucracies in
various countries in the world by conceptual means. This approach is illustrated by:
Weber’s bureaucratic model
Wilson’s transfer of administrative practices model [covered earlier]
Weber’s bureaucratic model:

Weber’s concept of b’cracy compares the forms of domination/authority: tradition, charisma &
legal-rationality. Each form of domination or authority has its matching type of administrative
staff. B’cracy is the form of administrative staff associated with legal-rational authority. It is
capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency.
Helpful in the analysis of public & private organisations in the “modern” state.
Weber’s “ideal type” is essentially useful as a tool for cross-cultural and historical studies.
Morroe Berger used the bureaucratic model in his work “Bureaucracy and Society in Modern
Egypt.”
Robert Fried has made interesting comparison between “rich bureaucracies” and “poor
bureaucracies.”
Others such as Alfred Diamont, Ferrel Heady, Micheal Crozier, etc. have adopted the b’cratic
model in their studies. They concluded that b’cratic structure has been functioning differently in
different Afro-Asian countries.
Weber’s b’cratic model is useful to explain the structural similarities between the bureaucracies
of the developed nations of Europe and North America. But it is of little analytic value for
explaining bureaucratic problems in the developing countries of Asia and Africa. It may be
adequate for an on-going bureaucracy, but it cannot deal with problems arising from
development and national building in the Third World.
Weber’s bureaucratic model also lacks elements useful to explain human behaviour within a
b’cratic environment.
Waldo found the bureaucratic model useful, stimulating and provocative. No model in the study
of CPA provides clearer and more precise guidelines than Weber’s bureaucratic ideal type.

ECOLOGICAL APPROACH

The Ecological theory (the environmental theory) contrasts with the Universalist theory. The
ecological theory signifies the interconnections between an administrative system and its social,
political, economic and cultural environment.
In other words, this theory is concerned with the interaction between an administrative system
and its external environment. How an administrative system operates in practice will be
determined by its environmental conditions. Public administration also affects its environment.
According to the ecological theory, public bureaucracies throughout the world show great
diversity because of variations in their environmental settings.
The strong advocate of ecological model in the study of CPA is Fred W. Riggs.
(Riggs --> Father of CPA)
Other important proponents of this theory: John M. Gaus, L.D. White, Robert Dahl and M.
Dimock.

General Systems Approach:

Systems approach in the study of Pub Ad came into vogue in 1960s.

This approach envisages that a system consists of various sub-systems, which are in constant
interaction with each other.
When the systems approach is applied in the study of Pub Ad, it considers an administrative
system as a sub-system within the larger social system and studies its interaction with
economic, social, political and cultural sub-systems.
The systems approach is now being widely used in organisational analysis. It is particularly
relevant to the study of complex public organisations that have elaborate structures interacting
with their external environment. F.W. Riggs used the systems approach in the study of CPA.

Development-oriented approach:

This approach is concerned with study of development administration.

Development administration may be defined as government-induced socio-economic change in
the developing countries. It has the purpose of making change for good society. It focuses on
the capacity of the administrative system to direct and adapt to such change.
This approach has attracted scholars of CPA seeking ways & means to improve administrative
performance and to strengthen the planning and execution of developmental programmes.
Edward Weidner used this model of CPA.

Rigg’s “Prismatic-Sala” model is a combination of Ecological approach, Structural-functional

approach and Ideal models.

SOME OTHER MODELS

Down’s Model:

Central assumption: Rational administrative agencies will tend to be “imperialistic”, competing

with one another for space.
According to Anthony Downs, “Every social agent is essentially a territorial imperialist. He seeks
to expand borders of his various zones and policy space, or atIeast to increase his degree of
influence within each zone.”
In his book “Inside Bureaucracy”, he argues that motivations of individual officials are diverse
such as power, money, prestige, security, etc.; and hence he categorizes bureaucrats into 5
types:
Climbers : Concerned with Power and Prestige
Conservers : Concerned with Minimizing Change
Zealots : Highly Motivated Officials committed to push for a policy or Programme
Advocates : Concerned with maximizing the resources of their bureau.
Statesman : Have sense of ‘Public Interest’ which may be advanced by increasing their power
so as to realize their goals.
Further development of each of these personality types, Downs argued, could lead to prediction
on the forms of bureaucratic politics that would be practised. Downs’ theory is useful to describe
the different types of behaviour of bureaucrats in organisations.
Downs developed Law of Counter Control: The greater the efforts made by top level officials to
control the behaviour of subordinate officials, the greater efforts made by those subordinates to
evade or counteract such control.

Dorsey’s Information-Energy Model:

Dorsey’s information-energy model is based on a synthesis of concepts of General systems

theory of:
of communications & cybernetics, and
of energy and energy conversion.
Dorsey’s model conceptualises individuals, groups, organisations and societies as complete
information-energy converters.
Energy is defined as the ability to affect some change. Energy conversion, conversely, is the
manifestation of this capacity or the process of affecting such changes.
Information can be viewed as energy in certain forms or configurations. A system converts
inputs (such as demands and intelligence) into outputs, through various conversion processes
of screening, selecting and channelising.
His basic hypothesis is that a society’s degree of development is a measure of the information
and energy surplus. Developing nations’ administrative systems usually face scarcity of
information input, storage and processing. This results in relatively smaller energy outputs
which, in turn, results in an ineffective administrative process, conservatism and lack of
rationality.
Since his approach views administrative system in the context of their environment, it is
essentially ecological.
However, according to Berenson, this model was a total failure in explaining the bureaucratic
changes in Third World countries.
Mathur’s Model:

Mathur in his study analysed Block Development Officers (BDOs) of two different states in India.
Before the analysis, he first clearly identified certain geographical, socio-economic and political
factors which present a different background for the BDOs of the two sates.
Mathur’s model employs ‘factor analysis technique’. By using this technique, Mathur developed
the major dimension of bureaucratic thinking and perceptions.
His aim is to establish an empirical pattern of the reactions of the bureaucrats to the changing
environment.
Significant for micro-level aspect of CPA:
This model, if rightly used, could furnish an insight in to politics and bureaucracy and the
perceptions and attitudes of the officials at every level of administration in relation to their work,
motivational factors and in evaluating the morale of the employees at every level of
administration.

Index:

Riggs: The Man and His Works

Main ideas of Riggs on CPA

Trends in the study of CPA

Ecological and structural-functional approaches
Ideal models
Agraria – Transitia – Industria

RIGGS: THE MAN AND HIS WORKS

Fred W. Riggs, a brilliant social theorist, is regarded as the Father/Godfather of CPA movement.
Riggs, a citizen of the USA, was born at Kuling in China in 1917.
Riggs has been professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Riggs was the chairman of Comparative Administration Group (CAG) of the American Society
for Public Administration (ASPA) since its inception in 1960 until 1970.
Being an adroit academic entrepreneur, Riggs successfully persuaded the Ford Foundation to
commit substantial funds over several years of time to support the newly born CAG. The
activities of CAG under his leadership have stimulated interest in CPA with special reference to
development administration problems.
Riggs’s major effort was devoted to the understanding of non-Western countries.
Riggs is a prolific writer:
“The Ecology of Public Administration" (1961).
“Administration in Developing Countries: Theory of Prismatic Society” (1964). This work is
regarded by Ferrel Heady as the most notable single contribution to CPA.
“Frontiers of Development Administration”(1970)
“Administrative Reform and Political Responsiveness”(1971)
“Prismatic Society Revisited" (1973)
“Applied Prismatic” (1978)
“Development Debate” (1987)

MAIN IDEAS OF RIGGS ON CPA

[I] Trends in the study of CPA

In 1962, Riggs identified the following 3 important trends in the study of CPA:
A shift from normative to empirical studies:
Normative studies prescribe ideal patterns of administrative structure and action, while empirical
studies are characterized by a growing interest in descriptive and analytical information for its
own sake.
A shift from ideographic to nomothetic studies:
Ideographic studies concentrate on case study of the single agency or country, cultural area,
etc. Most of these studies are limited to an explanation of the formal structure and administrative
organization in a particular geographical area.
By contrast, nomothetic approach seeks generalizations, laws, hypotheses that assert
regulations of behaviour and correlations between variables. This approach can be sub-divided
into two categories:
Homological: Compares similarities & differences between structures of various administrative
systems.
Analogical: Analyses functions that are the consequences of structures.
In a sense, the ideographic and nomothetic approaches are complementary. The area and case
studies provide a foundation for comparative analysis and nomothetic analysis establishes
conceptual frameworks for the area specialist.
A shift from non-ecological to ecological studies:
The non-ecological approach views administrative systems as abstract entities to be examined
apart from environmental influences.
On the contrary, the ecological approach emphasizes the environmental factors affecting the
organization and functions of administrative systems.
Riggs described the first trend as fairly well established, and the second and third trends as
‘perhaps only just emerging.’
In Riggs’s opinion, the term comparative administration should be used only for ‘empirical,
nomothetic and ecological — that is to put crudely, factual and scientific, abstracted and
generalizable, systematic and non-parochial.”
According to Riggs, CPA is opposed to normative, ideographic and non-ecological studies.

[II] Ecological & Structural-Functional approaches

Riggs used the ecological and structural-functional approaches in his CPA studies.
Riggs is primarily interested in conceptualizing on the interactions between administrative
systems and their environment.
In analyzing the different administrative systems from the ecological point of view, Riggs also
used the structural-functional approach.
Riggs used this approach in developing his typologies for comparative study of administrative
systems of the Third World developing countries. On the basis of this approach, Riggs
constructed his ideal models such as “Agraria”, “Industria”, “Fused”, "Prismatic” and “Diffracted”
societies.

[III] Ideal models

Riggs constructed certain ideal models for the study of developing societies and their
administrative systems on a comparative basis.
A model refers to any “structure of symbols and operating rules which we think has a
counterpart in the real world”.
According to Riggs, ‘If the model is well chosen, it helps us to understand the phenomenon to
which it is applied; if poorly chosen, it leads to misunderstanding.’
The models developed by Riggs represent different societies according to different social
structures.
Riggs constructed the “agraria – transitia – industria” (1957) & “fused – prismatic – diffracted”
typologies to study the administrative systems in a comparative context.
Agraria – Transitia – Industria

Riggs prepared “agraria – transitia – industria” typology in 1957. It is an important theoretical

construct in CPA.
Societies operating under an agricultural economy are termed “agraria”. Agraria represents a
pure traditional society, an example of which was Imperial China.
Societies operating under an industrial economy and dominated by industrial institutions are
called “industria.” Industria represents a pure modern industrial society, an example of which is
the contemporary USA.
Thus, Riggs distinguished between two types of societies — societies dominated by agricultural
institutions and societies dominated by industrial institutions.
“Agraria” and “industria” are pure or ideal models, which do not exist in practice.
“Transitia” represents a transitional stage between “agraria” and “industria” and possesses the
characteristics of the both. Thus, transitia symbolizes a transitional society moving from the
stage of “agararia” to that of “industria.”
Here Riggs depicted development as a unidirectional movement from the traditional agricultural
societies to the modern industrial societies.
AgrariaIndustria
Dominance of ascriptive values or norms (Recognition of status and custom)
Dominance of achievement norms

There are particularistic and diffused patterns

Universalistic and specific patterns

Stability of local groups and there is very limited social and spatial mobility

A high degree of social and spatial mobility

Simple and stable occupational differences

Well developed occupational patterns

Existence of differential stratification system

Prevalence of an egalitarian class system

Thus, the characteristics of an agricultural society are quite opposite to those of an industrial
society.
Limitations of “Agraria – Transitia – Industria” typology:
The models give very little emphasis to the analysis of the administrative system per se. The
major stress is on the environment of the administrative system.
The system does not provide sufficient mechanisms to analyse mixed societies, since modern
societies always have some agrarian features.
It is too general and abstract to bear any resemblance to real societies in existence.
The typology assumes a unidirectional movement from the agrarian to the industria.

Index:

Fused – Prismatic – Diffracted

Fused Model

Diffracted Model

Prismatic Model

Prismatic-Sala Model

Heterogeneity
Formalism
Overlapping
5 different dimensions of overlapping
The Problem of Change in a Prismatic Society

Fused – Prismatic – Diffracted

The limitations of ‘agraria–industria’ model and the criticisms against it forced Riggs to abandon
it and construct the ‘Fused–Prismatic–Diffracted’ model.
In developing this model, Riggs employed the more manageable variables (key concepts) of
formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping.
The typology of “fused, prismatic, diffracted” societies is based on the structural-functional
approach.
Riggs observes that in some societies, a particular Structure fulfils only one Function.
Based on differentiation of the functions of social structures, Riggs classified societies into the
hypothetical models of:
‘fused’ --> traditional undeveloped societies;
‘prismatic’ --> developing Third World societies;
‘diffracted’ --> modern developed Western societies.

The process of transition of a ray through a prism is taken symbolically to explain the process of
transformation of a society:
the starting point of the ray is termed as fused,
the process of internal vibration of the ray within the prism is called prismatic, and
finally when the ray comes out of the prism it gets diffracted to project a rainbow.
On the same analogy,
various social systems in the early stages of the process of development would be fused,
in the transitional stage prismatic, and finally,
at the end they would be in a complete diffracted stage as explained by Riggs.

FUSED MODEL

A fused society has no classification of functions --> A single structure performs all functions
(multifunctional structure).
The fused society is structurally undifferentiated and is similar to white light fused. For this
reason, the question of integration or the possibility of malintegration among social structures
does not arise in the fused society.
These societies heavily depend upon agriculture with no industrialisation and modernisation.
Communications are weak --> people do not have any information about various changes in the
society.
The administrative sub-system in a fused society is called ‘chamber’. An official typically
performs a wide range of functions affecting political, administrarive and economic activities.
Economic scene in a fused society: Barter system, and a kind of price indeterminacy prevails.
Govt. is NOT responsible & accountable to the people; though public has an obligation to
respect the govt.
Examples: Traditional agricultural & folk societies, traditional tribal societies, etc. In such a
society, the family and the tribal chief perform all the necessary functions such as enforcing
rules, settling disputes and caring for the health and safety of the community.
The administrative system is based on structure of the family and special “sects”.
The King and his nominees enjoy the coercive & absolute powers, which they generally use to
protect their own personal interest.
These societies do not differentiate between justice and injustice, formal and informal set-ups,
and governmental and non-governmental activities.
Ascriptive values play a predominant role in the society, and the behaviour of the people would
be highly traditional. Age-old customs, beliefs, faith & traditional ways of living enable people to
live together and control their behaviour.
Riggs selected Imperial China and the pre-revolutionary Siamese Thailand as examples.

DIFFRACTED MODEL

A diffracted society is one where every function has a corresponding structure that specializes
in its performance. Such a structure is functionally specific.
The diffracted model is like a white light refracted into all the separate colours of rainbow.
Examples: The highly developed modern industrial societies of Western Europe and the US.
Its features are:
The diffracted society is highly differentiated and integrated.
A universalistic pattern of norms and achievement-orientation.
All organisations and structures in the society are created and based on scientific rationales.
Communications & technology are highly developed.
Cordial public relations exist between government and the people. People obey laws of their
own free will.
Governments would be responsive to the needs of the people and protected human rights.
Government officers have no coercive and absolute powers.
Marketised Society: The economic system is based on market mechanism. Prices are
predominantly determined by market factors (i.e. supply and demand and free access of all
persons to the buying and selling of all goods.)
The administrative sub-system of a diffractive society is called ‘office’. The bureaucracies of a
diffracted society have become much more functionally specific “as the chief — though by no
means the only — agents for performing administrative tasks.”
[Riggs strongly suggests that such a “functionally narrowed bureaucracy”, effectively controlled
by other political institutions, may well be one of the requisite institutional means for achieving
integration in a differentiated society.]
Both the ‘fused’ and ‘diffracted’ models are ideal ones with little basis in reality. For Riggs, these
pure models are relevant only as tools to be used in explaining the prismatic phenomenon of
developing or transitional societies.
Riggs’s primary interest has been to highlight the administrative problems of transitional
societies. Therefore, his major focus of study has been on “prismatic society”.

PRISMATIC MODEL

A society or social system that stands midway between the fused and the diffracted models is
known as the “prismatic society.”
No society can be exclusively called either fused or diffracted; all societies are generally
prismatic in nature.
The character of every society and their relativity either to the fused or to the diffracted society,
depends on the nature of its various structures and the functions carried out by them.
It is so called because it is similar to the prism through which fused light passes to become
refracted into a multi-coloured rainbow.
It stands for the ideal type of a Third World country developing from traditionality to modernity.
Prismatic societies have neither the undifferentiated institutions of traditional societies nor the
fully differentiated institutions of modern society. In other words, it combines relatively fused
traits with relatively diffracted ones.
The institutions in prismatic societies are legal-rational in form (in manifest function) but
traditional in fact (in latent function). Modernity and tradition coexist in uneasy companionship.
In a prismatic society, differentiation of new structures occurs faster than the society can
integrate them. ( I < D )
There is a lack of coordination among prismatic social structures.
In the transitional prismatic societies, the bureaucracies are neither diffused nor narrowly
specific. They are mainly intermediate as to the degree of functional specialisation. They also
contribute to the malintegration by not meshing well with the other institutions within the political
system.
In a prismatic transitional society, social change is incomplete because in such a society, new
groups are mobilised faster than the society can assimilate them.

Prismatic-Sala Model

The prismatic society has its appropriate administrative system. Riggs has formulated the most
elaborate prismatic-sala model for studying the administrative sub-system of the prismatic
transitional society.
This model is designed to analyse the behaviour of the prismatic bureaucracy in the context of
its ecology.
Riggs has borrowed the Spanish word “sala” for the prismatic bureau.
Sala means a government office, where administrative business is transacted, and a personal
room in a home where traditional family functions are performed, or church or public hall.
The prismatic sala combines the traits of both the fused ‘chamber’ and the diffracted ‘office’.
It merges administrative tasks with traditional functions.
The bureaucrats in the prismatic society are called “sala men”.
Both the prismatic society and its administrative sub-system (the sala) are characterised by the
3 basic features:
Heterogeneity,
Formalism, and
Overlapping.

FEATURES OF PRISMATIC-SALA MODEL

(1) Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity refers to the simultaneous presence, side by side, of quite different kinds of
systems, practices and viewpoints.
A prismatic society is characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity:
Modern structures and practices coexist alongside traditional ones in uneasy companionship.
There are urban areas with a high degree of structural differentiation and a sophisticated
intellectual class who have a Western rationalistic outlook. On the contrary, in the rural areas,
traditional values and outlook prevail.
Bullock carts coexist with automobiles.
In the field of education, western type of education co-exist with traditional Gurukulas.
Hospitals with all modern facilities giving allopathic treatment co-exist with AYUSH centres.
In the prismatic society, the administrative structures also are characterised by heterogeneity:
The sala exists along with modern bureau and traditional courts.
In the cities, officers use computers, fax and other traditional means of communication. On the
other hand, in rural areas, the village head plays all the roles — political, administrative,
religious and social — himself.
Chaprasis coexist with telephones as aids to administration.
One can find Western style administrative institutions, but the administrative behaviour is guided
by ascriptive motivations of a traditional society.
Mal-integration, Tensions and Instability in heterogeneous society:
Although equal opportunities exist for all, only some people are privileged enough and hope to
get the jobs in higher echelons.
Those who fail to get jobs would waste no time in forming ‘pressure groups’ against the
government and start agitations on some pretext or the other.
Despite the existence of a government duly elected through democratic processes, it would not
be in a position to control the people.
The people in power would make all efforts to protect their interests and stick to power.
Thus, there is always a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of facts giving rise to tensions
and instability in the society.
The problem becomes much complicated in a poly-communal society where different
communities try to pull the society in different directions in furtherance of their own sectional
interests.
Lack of integration thus forms the basic feature of a prismatic society.
The existence of heterogeneous structures, practices outlooks and traits create complex
behaviour patterns in the prismatic society. These elements also introduce numerous
complexities and difficulties in formulating and implementing policies. Therefore, heterogeneity
contributes to both formalism and overlapping.

(2) Formalism

According to Riggs, formalism is the extent of discrepancy/incongruence existing:

between what is formally prescribed and what is actually practised,
between norms and their practices,
between formal structures and actual modalities.
between the impressions given by constitutional principles, laws & regulations; and their actual
observance in practice.
In contrast to the formalism in a prismatic society, there is a high degree of realism in the fused
& diffracted societies.
Formalism may significantly affect the quality of administrative action and behaviour:
In a prismatic society, usually behaviour does not correspond to the declared intentions of laws,
rules and regulations.
Norms and values seem to enjoy mostly theoretical respect (exist only in the record rooms of
the government). They are not respected in practice.
In India, untouchability is abolished in principle, but one can come across it here and there.
Merit system may be the legal method for recruiting bureaucrats, but actual appointments may
be made on the basis of non-merit considerations such as caste, obligations to family and
friends, etc.
Thus, administrators in prismatic society allow non-administrative criteria (e.g., social and
economic) to influence their administrative actions.
The behaviour of the b’crats would be highly unpredictable, inconsistent and depends on the
situational variables.
Thus, formalism reflects an urge to make things seem more, as they presumably ought to be
rather than what they actually are.
Formalism is the essence of the theory of the prismatic society of Riggs:
It is the basis for understanding the essentially paradoxical nature of prismatic societies.
It accounts for the existence of wide deviations in the actual behaviour of the sala men from the
declared intentions of rules & regulations.
Formalism gives rise to administrative evils such as red tape, corruption & inefficiency, passing
the buck, etc.
Formalistic behaviour is caused by:
the lack of pressure on the government towards the programme objectives,
the weakness of the social power to influence the bureaucratic performance, and
a great permissiveness for arbitrary administration --> natural inclination of the employees
towards collecting easy money; or the existence of chances for mal-administration.
Examples of formalism in India:
Prohibition laws are respected more in violation than in observance.
The town planning regulations are more violated than observed.
Constitutional Formalism:
The gap between the constitutional principles and their actual implementation.
For ex., in India the Constitution legally vests the governance in the hands of the elected
representatives of the people, but in practice the real governmental power & influence are
wielded by some individuals or groups of people outside the Parliament.
Constitution entrusts law making responsibility to legislators but in reality they spend only a little
time in law making; and concentrate more in power-politics, ignoring their legislative
responsibility. This facilitates the b’cracy, in the prismatic societies, to play a major role in law-
making. The bureaucrats even form groups or align themselves with various political leaders.

(3) Overlapping

It refers to “the extent to which formally differentiated structures of a diffracted society coexist
with undifferentiated structures of a fused society.”
In a prismatic society, modern as well as old and traditional structures carry on functions.
But in reality, the functioning & behaviour of the modern structures (such as parliament, govt.
offices, schools, market, etc.), are greatly influenced by the old & traditional structures (such as
the family, caste, religion, etc.)
The old & traditional structures continue to dominate the various functional areas in the social
system. Usually, only lip-sympathy is paid to the new norms & values, while in practice greater
significance is attached to the old values & practices.
Overlapping also exists in the sala:
It refers to “the extent to which what is described as administrative behaviour is actually
determined by non-administrative criteria", e. by political, economic, social, religious or other
factors.
Because of overlapping, administrative functions are performed in prismatic societies, by
structures specifically oriented towards these functions as well as by other structures.
In the prismatic societies administrative structures interfere in the functioning of non-
administrative structures. And again, non-administrative structures interfere in the work of
administrative structures.
The social role of prismatic administrator (sala-man) often overlaps with his official role and,
thus, causes a lot of confusion and mal-adjustment.
In a prismatic society, overlapping has 5 different dimensions:
Nepotism,
Poly-communalism or “clects”,
“Bazaar-canteen model”,
Poly-normativism and lack of consensus, and
Authority vs control.

(a) Nepotism:
In a prismatic Society, there is much nepotism in recruitment and other personnel matters.
The sala officials have social obligations to family and friends who need security against
unemployment. They give preference to family members, relatives and friends in making
appointments to government positions.
Promotion is also primarily based upon loyalty to the superior.
Similar non-merit considerations may greatly influence assignments, transfers and other
personnel actions within the service.
In a prismatic society, the conduct of administrative business is based on discriminatory
treatment. Universal norms in administering laws are generally disregarded.
According to Riggs, in a prismatic society, one cannot separate purely legal-rational
administration from the social, economic & political obligations that converge upon the manager
of sala.

(b) Poly-communalism or “clects”:

It refers to the existence (in prismatic society) of several ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic
groups side by side but in a hostile interaction with each other.
Riggs calls the typically prismatic group a “clect”:
CLECT = CLub (diffracted society) + sECT (fused society)
Use modern associational methods of organisation + Retains diffuse & particularistic goals of a
traditional type.
Membership is restricted to persons who share a common traditional background and, thus, can
trust each other.
The prismatic ‘groups’ (or clects) develop dual purposes:
A communal orientation, drawn from traditional customs and
The particular aspirations of their members for special economic privileges.
Poly-communalism in a prismatic society affects the society as well as the behaviour of sala
bureaucrats:
Each community fights for various special privileges (housing, economic benefits, etc.) for their
community. Usually, the dominant community gains more privileges and benefits.
This creates dissatisfaction among the large number of people who belong to other
communities.
In the prismatic plural society, different communities try to pull society in different directions to
fulfil their own narrow communal interests. In such a situation, decision-making becomes
difficult.
In a poly-communal situation, the sala officials sometimes function like clects:
Furtherance of Nepotism --> They show greater loyalty to their respective communities, sects,
castes, tribes and religions than towards government.
They discriminate between their own community and others, in administering laws and applying
rules & regulations.
A policy may be applied “selectively” for members of the favoured community.
Sometimes, formation of clects takes place in the ‘sala’ --> comes in the way of achievement of
universalistic norms.
(c) Bazaar-canteen model:

The economic scene (i.e. the economic sub system) in a prismatic society is called bazaar-
canteen.
In a diffracted society prices are determined by market factors of demand and supply.
In a fused society, arena factors — a law of exchange and barter system — determine the
economic transactions and produce a kind of price indeterminacy.
In a prismatic society, both the market factors and the arena factors interact with each other and
produce a kind of price indeterminacy.
Creates an economic system that formally resembles a market but actually works like a
traditional economy. The resultant price-indeterminacy promotes a bazaar type atmosphere in
the prismatic economic scene.
In the prismatic bazaar, the prices of goods and services are not fixed and each transaction is
based on bargaining. As a result, different persons are charged different prices for the same
good or service.
Thus, persons with high social & political status can get goods and services at a cheaper rate
than people from an oppressed community. Persons with high status and influential persons
have access to all sorts of privileges to which they have no legal rights. People of a favoured
community are given a preferential treatment.
In short, in a prismatic society, the presence of market structures such as banks, car dealers
and trade commissions is only a screen for a great deal of informal bargaining over such things
as interest rates, prices, salaries and the value of land.

(d) Poly-normativism and lack of consensus:

In a prismatic society, a new set of norms coexists with the traditional ways of behaviour and of
doing things. People subscribe to different values and norms.
Consequently, divergences and differences appear in society. This leads to lack of consensus
on issues and policies and creates difficulties in decision-making.

(e) Authority vs. Control:

Riggs observes that in a prismatic society, the power structure consists of a “highly centralised
and concentrated authority structure overlapping a control system that is highly localised and
dispersed.”
There exists a separation of authority and control:
Authority --> officially sanctioned or legitimate power
Control --> real but unofficially permitted or illegitimate power
In practice the de jure ‘authority’ succumbs to the de facto ‘control’.
The authority of the sala overlaps with the society’s control structures which are based on poly-
communalism, clects and poly-normativisim.
One can find unequal distribution of power, privileges, resources and services.
Reluctance of change:
As an outgrowth of change, new communities and new leaders emerge, but the traditional elites
are reluctant to grant them much power.
The traditional elites, anxious to retain their dominant position, are unusually preoccupied with
acquiring and maintaining power. They attempt to grab power through coercion, violence,
money and muscle power, or charismatic rule but rarely through constitutional authority.
They also tightly control the resources of the society.
Relation with politics:
Generally, a prismatic society has “unbalanced polity” in which the b’crats dominate the politico-
administrative system.
The sala bureaucrats are power maximizers and try to exploit the ambiguity in any situation to
serve their own power without reference to the goals of the agency. They are motivated by self-
aggrandisement and self-protection.
Because of their unusual weight of power, the sala officials enjoy the privilege of interfering
frequently in political policy-making.
A weak prismatic political system and leadership fail to control the powerful bureaucracy. As a
result, the control over administration by legislators, judges, political parties, pressure groups
and public opinion also become ineffective. The concentration of power in the hands of the
bureaucrats may result in their unresponsiveness to needs and wishes of the people.
Inefficiency:
Riggs has suggested that there is an inverse ratio between administrative output and
bureaucratic power. The more powerful officials become, the less eflective they become as
administrators.
The heavy weight of bureaucratic power lowers administrative efficiency.
According to Riggs, the sala administration is “basically wasteful and prodigal.” It is associated
with institutionalised corruption, nepotism in recruitment and inefficiency in rule application.
Self-aggrandisement & self-protection rather than service to the people characterises b’cratic
operation. There is thus always a pronounced gap between formal expectations and actual
behaviour. The total impact of sala administration defeats the essential aim of development,
namely the achievement of the desired social and economic change in a developing transitional
society.

THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE IN A PRISMATIC SOCIETY

The pace of development in any society depends mainly on the availability of favourable
conditions for change in the system.
Western societies witnessed relatively longer time-span for their development and were able to
adjust their behaviour gradually to the desired patterns. In the process of development they
experienced less formalism, heterogeneity & overlapping, than the contemporary transitional or
developing societies.
Generally, in a prismatic society the pressure for change comes from both internal & external
sources:
If pressure is primarily external (formerly by foreign Technical Assistance Programmes) it may
be called ‘exo-geneous’ change.
If the pressure is primarily internal (normally by administrative reforms) it may be called ‘endo-
geneous’ change.
And if the change is the result of both external and internal pressures, it may be termed as
‘equi-genetic’.
Riggs explained the dilemma of change in the manner that:
the more exogenetic the process of diffraction, the more formalistic and heterogeneous its
prismatic phase;
the more endogenetic, the less formalistic and heterogeneous.
Thus, the greater the formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping the greater the state of ‘exo-
prismatic’ and the lesser the ‘endo-prismatic’ character of change.
Such a difference occurs because, with endogenetic change, ‘effective’ behaviour precedes the
creation of new formal institutions, but in an exogenetic transformation the sequence is
reversed.
Paradoxically, in their bid to absorb the externally induced change in the shortest possible time,
prismatic societies face the possibilities of higher formalism, heterogeneity and ‘the severity of
revolutionary tensions’.

Index:

Modified Prismatic Theory / Bi-Linear Prismatic Model

Criticism of Riggs & his Theories

Significance of Riggs & his Theories

MODIFIED PRISMATIC THEORY

or BI-LINEAR PRISMATIC MODEL

In his later work “Prismatic Society Revisited” (1973), Riggs has modified his original views
about the prismatic theory (society).
In his new formulation, Riggs suggests a “two-dimensional approach” (or, Bi-linear model) in the
place of his original “one-dimensional approach” (or, Uni-linear model).
The original dimension was degree of “differentiation” and in his new formulation, Riggs has
introduced the second dimension of degree of “integration.”
Integration means a mechanism to tie together, to link up, to mesh, to coordinate the various
kinds of specialised roles.
Along the original degree of ‘differentiation’, Riggs had divided societies into 3 types: ‘fused’,
‘prismatic’ and ‘diffracted’.
But according to his two-dimensional approach, the two basic societal models of diffracted and
prismatic are further sub-divided into finer types on the basis of degree of ‘integration’.
Accordingly, diffracted societies are re-conceptualised as:
‘eo-diffracted’,
‘ortho-diffracted’ and
‘neo-diffracted’.
Similarly, prismatic societies are divided into:
‘eo-prismatic’,
ortho-prismatic’ and
‘neo-prismatic’.
According to the two-dimensional approach, as Riggs claims, the prismatic conditions may
occur even in developed societies such as the USA.
Reason for change of mind:
In the original prismatic model, “degree of differentiation” was considered to be the only
standard against which prismatic societies were judged; i.e., it was believed that the higher the
degree of differentiation, the greater the degree of diffraction.
However, this inferential relationship cannot adequately explain the following: when a social
system is already differentiated/diffracted, and yet is malintegrated as a whole, how can it
remain stagnated in a prismatic social state? (Riggs, 1973)

In contrast, the “bilinear path” proposes that a prismatic can be found in different societies in
various degrees of differentiation. Consequently, prismatic societies are not limited to
underdeveloped countries.
Riggs added a “degree of conformity” axis. More precisely, the more differentiated a society is,
the greater the need for conformity in order to reach a state of diffraction.

Riggs’ theory is based on non-conforming behavior as found in Western societies:

Metropolitan crises,
Student boycotts,
Social distancing,
“The hippy phenomenon”
Abrupt rise of the Nazi and Fascist movements in Europe, as well as the Great Depression of
the 1930s represent two vivid examples.
Heterogeneity was also observed: Racial discrimination, Ethnic riots, etc.
Such characteristics particular to prismatic societies were observed in highly developed
countries.
USA was thus re-classified as “neo-prismatic”.

CRITICISMS OF RIGGS & HIS THEORIES

The new vocabulary coined & used by Riggs creates confusion than clarifying them --> Mere
use of certain new words borrowed from physical sciences cannot make Pub Ad a science.
Riggs has neglected the influence of administration on its social and political environment. Not
Truly Ecological !
Ramesh K. Arora’s criticisms:
Model has a Western bias --> Prismatic traits seem deviant when viewed from vantage point of
diffracted society.
The terms chosen by Riggs to describe prismatic traits are value laden.
Emphasised negative aspects of prismatic behaviour; but failed to capture positive features of
life in 3rd World nations.
His theory demonstrates the differences between bureaucracy in developed societies and the
kind of administration Riggs saw in the developing countries.
Overlapping – A Restricted Concept:
‘Overlapping’ is limited in scope --> only indicates the simultaneous existence of traditional
institutions & those patterned after Western practices. It does not include certain other sources
of overlapping found in transitional societies.
What is true of a developing/prismatic society may also be true of a “relatively diffracted society”
like USA.
Michael Crozier observed that American administrators “do not mind setting up 2 or 3
competitive agencies…”
Moreover, overlapping per se is not dysfunctional to the process of administrative development.
In some cases, as Crozier remarked, it might bring “new ideas and interesting change”.
In Riggsian terms, formalism (the degree of discrepancy/incongruence) is dysfunctional for
developing countries:
But a particular structure may be eufunctional or dysfunctional depending, among other things,
on its environment.
To counterbalance the Riggsian “negative” formalism, Valsan has presented a new concept of
“positive formalism”.
Considering some empirical examples of Pub Ad in India, the Philippines, and Stalinist Russia,
Valsan found that formalism seemed to bring forth “a positive and creative effect useful for
development,” by skipping several slow-moving routines of govt., and carrying out the works in
time.

Micheal L. Monroe’s criticism (similar to Arora’s):

Prismatic theory reflects standards from a Western frame of reference for evaluating activities in
the prismatic societies.
Also, Riggs did not look for evidence of prismatic conditions in developed countries such as the
USA. They occur in the form of hippy phenomenon, race riots, urban crisis, etc. that are
symptoms of mal-integration.

The Riggsian prismatic-sala model suffers from over-generalisation as the so-called developing
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are not a homogeneous category. Any meaningful
conceptualisation has got to reckon with the subtle peculiarities of the new nations in terms of
their culture, history, administrative tradition, etc.
Hence, the prismatic-sala model alone seems to be inadequate for the study of the
administrative systems of even the so-called prismatic societies.
Daya Krishna feels that diffracted model is impracticable & unwarranted. Diffracted society
represents the equilibrium state and stands for the stability and preservation of the system.
Thus, diffracted society is not a desirable society.
Hahn-Been Lee feels that Riggs’ models are not helpful to know the process of social change in
development. He considers these as equilibrium models:
Equilibrium models facilitate very much in preserving/maintaining the system, but not
introducing any change in the system. Thus, Riggs’ models are not useful when the objective of
administration is to change the system.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RIGGS & HIS THEORIES

Riggs’ model contributes to a better understanding of the real developing societies undergoing
rapid socio-economic and administrative changes. His theory is sensitive to the ecology of
administration.
The Riggsian theory is useful to direct the professional administrators on the right lines in their
efforts to develop solutions to the administrative problems in the transitional societies according
to their local conditions.
The theoretical framework of sala model has taken cross-cultural studies towards great
objective and encouraged several empirical studies on the administrative system of developing
countries.
Father of CPA: His ecological approach is regarded as the single most important intellectual
breakthrough in the study of Pub Ad in the post-World War-II period.
This approach not only invalidates the classical writers’ principles approach and their main
beliefs but also touches horizons wider than those of the classical and behavioural approaches
as well.

Index:

Riggsian Models in Development context

Limitations of Riggsian analysis of Development Administration

RIGGSIAN MODELS IN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

According to Riggs, Development Administration refers to organised efforts to any out

programmes or projects initiated through those involved in serving developmental objectives.
Ecological approach to Development:
Administration cannot normally be improved very much without changes in environmental
constraints (infrastructure) that hamper its effectiveness;
the environment itself cannot be changed, unless the administration of development
programmes is strengthened.

“Development Administration” & “Administrative Development”:

Riggs has found in these two a ‘chicken & egg’ relationship.
According to Riggs, ‘development administration’ by implication involves ‘development of
administration’.
Whatever be the sequence, it is undeniable that administrative development is an essential
corollary to Development Administration. They reinforce each other in achieving developmental
objectives.
Administrative Development, implies the enhancement of the capability of an administrative
system to achieve the prescribed progressive goals.
The procedure depends on:
modernisation of administrative structures and processes;
induction of a spirit of innovation;
cultivating a highly motivating climate;
rising differentiation;
effective integration; and
positive latitudinal & behavioral changes among administrators.
The strategies of administrative reform are a part of the procedure of Administrative
Development.
Imp. Note: There is a similarity in Riggs' stress on administrative development and F.W. Taylor’s
emphasis on increasing effectiveness of an administrative system in order to reach its
prescribed goals.

Riggs considered differentiation & integration as the two key elements in the process of
development. The levels of differentiation & integration represent diffracted and prismatic
conditions of development:
If the society is highly differentiated and poorly integrated, it is prismatic. ( I < D )
Diffraction leads to development. Also, higher the level of differentiation and integration, the
greater the level of development; and the lower their level, lesser the development.
In the same way the level of mal-arrangement between differentiation and integration results in
the different levels of prismatic conditions.

The level of differentiation in any country depends upon the technological and non-technological
factors.
More development of technology --> higher level of differentiation.
The integration depends on the important factors:
(i) penetration, and (ii) participation.
Penetration is the ability of a government to make and carry out decisions throughout the
country.
Participation = receptivity to law + willingness to help carry out the laws & policies which
government has formulated.
Participation, thus, has 2 imp elements:
(1) willingness of the people to participate, and
(2) ability of the people to participate.
The more the willingness and ability to participate on the part of the people, the higher the level
of participation in the governmental affairs.
Thus, penetration & participation facilitate the integration of differentiated structures resulting in
development.

LIMITATIONS OF RIGGSIAN ANALYSIS OF DA

Development NOT the focus:

Development administration as a design/structural problem is not the focus of Riggsian analysis.
Nor does Riggs examine the operational problems of development administration in diverse
situations.
The structural or operational issues have to be explained on the basis of empirical findings on
the ground realities. Such issues cannot be discussed a priori (theoretically).
Not prescriptive!
The prismatic model has doubtful utility in analysing the process of social change. Hence, it is
not very useful when the objective of development administration is social change or to find out
the stages of development.
The total impact of sala administration defeats the main aim of development, i.e., social change
and economic development:
The nature of the prismatic society adversely tells upon the phenomenon of “administrative
development”, that in turn hinders the working of development administration.
The nature of administration & behaviour of bureaucracy come in the way of achieving the
objectives in developing programmes. The administration is associated with institutionalized
corruption, red tape, passing the buck, etc.
Self-aggrandizement & self-protection, rather than service, to people characterises bureaucratic
operation.
Daya Krishna finds no logic in the 3-fold classification of the societies in the background of the
concept of ‘development’. If America is a prismatic society, all developing countries in the world
would, like to continue to be prismatic societies.

[UPSC 2016] “Riggs observed that three ‘trends’ could be discerned in the comparative study of
Public Administration.” Discuss.
(10 marks)
[UPSC 2016] “Fred Riggs continuously changed his theory in order to create the perfect model.”
Comment.
(20 marks)

[UPSC 2014] Critically examine the Riggsian concept of differentiation in context of post-
globalisation era.
(10 marks)

[UPSC 2013] Comparative Public Administration both resembles and differs from modern
organisation theory. Elaborate.
(10 marks)

[UPSC 2013] “…in most cases … newly independent states, of the nations of Africa, Asia and
Latin America, despite their differences … are in transition.” (Ferrel Heady). What common
features are indicative of characteristics of their Administrative patterns (cultures)? (15 marks)

[UPSC 2015] How does Ferrel Heady rationalise the three stages of development in
comparative administration?
(20 marks)

[UPSC 2012] “Riggs’s classification of societies into fused, prismatic, and diffracted is built
around the concept of differentiation.” Analyze.
(12 marks)

[UPSC 2012] Comment on the reasons why universal theory remains elusive in comparative
public administration.
(20 marks)

[UPSC 2007] “Not to be comparative is to be naively parochial” (Riggs). Comment.

(20 marks)

“John T Dorsey’s Information-Energy model’s basic hypothesis is that a society’s degree of

development may be measured in terms of the size of information and energy surplus.’’
Critically examine.
(10 marks)

The globalization has led to the revival of CPA. It is transforming Public Administration into a
truly cross cultural and cross national discipline. Discuss.
(10 marks)
“Present-day Riggs” is in fact the most blunt and harshest critic of “former Riggs.” Comment.
(10 marks)

Societal transition from fused to diffract through prismatic illustrates the societal achievement of
dynamic equilibrium. Critically examine.
(10 marks)

The development administration approach to CPA tends to validate a Manichean view of

administrative system. Analyze.
(10 marks)
[Hint: Manichean view -- having a dualistic view; of two extremes and nothing in between; either
something is good or evil; black or white, no gray area in between]

Riggs, in his later work “Prismatic Society Revisited”, emphasized that his earlier
conceptualisation was a mistaken one-dimensional approach and suggested a new definition of
prismatic society based on a two dimensional approach. Elaborate.
(15 marks)

Riggs CPA was thought to be empirical, nomothetic and ecological, but finally after theorization
it was opposite of what Riggs thought. Explain.
(15 marks)

The Riggsian model suffers from the overgeneralization, as so called developing countries are
not a homogenous category. Explain.
(15 marks)

Does the Indian social reality represent the characteristics of prismatic society? Explain with
illustrations.
(20 marks)

Comparative public administration is the “quest for patterns and regularities in administrative
action & behavior”. Elaborate.
(20 marks)