s a subfield, comparative public Avs (CPA) cannot claim long history. Since the writings of Aristotle, interest in comparative governmental systems has been a lively field of academic and practical inquiry. Nations. have. been interested in. organising their executive branch of government: and-as they tried to. innovate administratively, they studied and adopted practices of other countries. In’ the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, revolutionaries and reformers in Europe looked across boundaries {for institutions to copy or reject. "Undoubtedly. the most important comparative research was eared out between 1895 and 1920, nat by comparative law professors or participants in international congress, but by a sociologist, Max Weber". We owe to Weber the core concept of the field bureaucracy — as part of a comparative typology of the forms of domination: tradition, charisma and legal-rationality. 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. ‘Comparative public administration has been widened and deepened by scholarly interest in the administration of third world countries, ‘especially after World War UI. But the field had its earlier cultivators in Europe and America such as Finer, Catl Friedrich among others, ea Comparative Public Administration Basic INTEREST aND EvoLution CPA is basically interested in cross-cultural public administration, ‘The founding fathers like Leonard White thought that cultural factors did not make any differeiice in administrative settings, as in their view, there were universal ‘principles’ applicable to situations anywhere and everywhere but, writers like Robert Dahl and Dwight Waldo pointed out those cultural factors could make public administration in one nation different from that in another. As Dahl has explained, “The comparative aspects of public administration have largely been ignored and as Jong as the study of public administration is not comparative, claim for ‘science of administration’ sounds rather hollow. CPA got real impetus in 1962, when the ‘Comparative Administration Group (GAG) of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) received fairly lavish fiznding from the: Ford Foundation at a time when the Cold War ‘vas at its height. Ford funding was terminated in 1971, as research was oriented more towards theory-building rather than empirical and prac tical problem-solving. As Ferrel Heady has put it, CPA addresses five motivating concerns the: (@) Search for theory; (b), Urge for practical application; (©) Incidental contribution of the broader field of comparative polities;‘Compararive Public Administration (@) Interest of researchers trained in the tradition of administrative law; (©) Comparative analysis of ongoing problems of public administration. CPA is different from public administration in ‘major respects: First, public administration ‘bas generally been culture-bound.The discipline USA and UK, for instance, is grounded in itico-administrative realities of the wo ‘countries, Second, public administration ‘generally differs from CPA in respect of its ‘ofigins. The discipline, as it has evoived in USA, fhas been practitioner-oriented and involved ‘in the eal world of administration. CPA, by. ‘contrast, has attempted to build theory and seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. ‘The eatlier stage of CPA was entiched by the steady growth of a subfield called development administration. From 1960 to. 1970, when development administration dominated CPA, ‘Fred Riggs chaired ASPA’s CAG Group. It 4s small wonder, therefore, that much of the: ‘work in CPA has revolved around the ideas of [Riggs-who had abiding interest in the public administration of the developing countries As Riggs desired, CPA was to be ‘empirical, nomothetic and ecologicat — that is, to put rudely, factual and scientific, abstracted and ‘generalized, systematic and non-parochial:" ‘Features oF CPA ‘There are certain distinctive features of CPA. First, it is a relatively young sub-field that ‘emerged only after World War II. Second, ‘there are competing and diverse approaches to the study of CPA which is due to different disciplinary contributions, as also due to the cover-enthusiasm of scholars in the field to chart ~ out new directions. Third, by 1962, Riges could. note more and more nomothetic and ecological approaches, indicating thereby application of scientific rigour to analysis. Alongside this ‘movement, there was simultaneously another distinet thrust noticeable among scholars in the wake of post-behavioural revolution in political science. At this phase, emphasis on normative considerations could be seen side by side with empirical analyses. Fourth, the field has been dominated by American scholars mainly due-to Ford Foundation’s support, as also due to the American scholars’ deep interest in the newly independent nations—their culture, politics and administtation. Fifth, CPA could be seen having two basic motivational concerns: theory-building and administrative problems of the developing countries. As one author has! stimmed up the two major reasons for the emergence of CPA (or why compare?): One, the need for comparison as 2 pre-requisite for the development of a science of public administration (as earlier emphasised by Dahl and others) arid Two, the need for comparison in the interest of practical governance and knowledge of facts. CPA can help students, practical administrators and other experts know and understind more about public administration in other countries, ‘Ako,CPA faclitatesthe possibility ofadministrative reform in the form of tonsplantation of certamn administrative institutions and practices from other countries.? Mrrsonouocies AND Mopets CPA has been defined as the theory of public administration applied to diverse cultures and national settings and the body of factual data, by which it can be examined and tested. While this is acknowledged as a udable objective, there are major methodological and conceptual problems involved. in ‘theory-building’. For instance, ‘democracy’ is a concept that is used liberally by most countries, irrespective of the nature of rule actually obtaining in them.*Administration’190 itself may not be the same thing everywhere: AS R.B. Jain has pointed out, "Phe study of CPA has given rise to problems of methodological concern and of conceptual focus. Scholars have been greatly preoccupied with the construction of models and-typologies of political regimes and. institutions and the delineation of geographic cultural ateas—an activity prominent also in and shared. with comparative politics. The. range of concepts associated with the term ‘bureaucracy’ and its ideal type has been extensively used.'The so-called achon theory:and the concepts. and language of (Parsonian) structural-funetionalism have often been involved and. related and overlapping but different and broader concept of ecology is also. frequently set forth as important. Equilibriuin theory, particularly the idea. of a ‘system’ with ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’, is promunent. Most,of the concepts and phrases of contemporary. behavioural science are being. used and there is reference, for example, to matters such as communication theory and rmula-vartan analysis” 2 ‘Two Mopets Although there have been intermittent efforts to construct ‘rhodes’ of administration, twvo major ‘models’ have come up for discussion among students of CPA: The Bureaucratic Model and the Prismatic-sala Model. ‘The bureaucratic model is derived from Max ‘Weber’ conceptualisation of bureaucracy’as the ‘most rational organisation. The Weberian model has been discussed in details éMewhere. 1 has been getierally accepted that the legal-rational concept of authority is normally associated with the’ developed capitalise democracies and they alone are capable of sustaining. administrative structures approximating the bureaucratic model. Comparative studies on bureaucracy ate humerous. More notable scholars, like Mortoe Berger, Alfred Diamont, Fertel Heady and Robert Presthus have come out with revealing, New Horizons of Public Administration conclusions that the bureaucratic structure has fumetioned differently indifferent Afro-Asian countries. The studies have brought out close interactions between the administrative sub- system and the broader political system. It is quite common to observe that the boundaries of administrative organisations are difficult to maintain in situations of over-politicisation. The administrators have often crossed over to the political system’ and the same behaviour of boundary-crosing has been quite common among the politicians also. Personal loyalty, ideological pressures and cultural traits have been found to be influential in real life administrative operations. The size of the publie sector measured: in terms of certain indices such as economic growth, population, buoyant revenues, social and political changes etc. has been another ‘important dimension of comparative studies on public bureancracies. Theories of the New Right have advocated. down-sizing of government; whereas the developing countries have opted for-enlargement of the public sector. Robert Fried has made interesting comparison between, ‘rich bureaucracies’ and "poor bureaucracies’. Also, his analysis of bureaucratic power in terms of control ver state poticy and that over society opens up possibilities of new ways of comparing bureaucracies. Again, the roles of “military bureaucracies’ and ‘civil bureaucracies” are interesting typologies for comparative bureaucratic studies.* The phenomeron of environmerit-adiitis= tration interaction has been studied in depth by Fred Riggs whose ecological model has been as influential in. administrative analysis as Weber's bureaucratic model. Commonly known as the prismatic-sola model, this second model has been based on the Parsonian structural finctional approach. The Riggsian model, as elaborated in the following chapter, atvenipts to’ exam= ine how public administration is performed by different types of social structures. In this highly imaginative model, the administrativeComparative. Pubic Administration 11 system is placed within the framework of a + system (enyironment), The gund theory “of prismatic society has influenced theorising irr “development administration—a sub-field which “has often been equated with comparative public “administration. The idea of ‘enclave’ develop “ment through introduction of micro instiu= “tions to push through development within the framework of under development has been one -distinet trend in, comparative administative ex- _ Periments.in developing countries. As 2 category by itself, development admin- stration’ has flourished within the larger corpus ‘of CPA literature with contribution from schol- ars belonging to different disciplines and nations. ‘One recurring stand has been that developaient administration is not only ‘different’ tioin ad- “ministration in the developed countries; itis alo substandard or of lower quality, compared to administration in the ‘First World’. As Rob- ert Fried has commented, “The development administration approach to comparative public administration tends to validate a Manichean view of administrative systens—all wonderful in the North, all despicable in the South (or vice versa). Tt tends to miss the hidden rationalities in Third World administration — the means of being effective and respectfill of human dignity in different cultures, It tends to downplay the effectiveness and humanity of pre-bureaucratic, informal social teans of controlling behav- jour and solving problems (e.g. crime control in Japan). It exaggerates the irrelevance of Third ‘World studies for understanding of the advanced world... and downplays the potentialities for itrational-bureaucratic performance in the ad vanced world. ft produces the same unrealistic view of government bureaucracy performance in the Third World as its objective correlative— the often idealised, just as often demonised, performance of advanced world bureaucracies”.” ‘What it amounts to is that CPA has not always been a neutral academic field. There have been both overt and covert biases in favour of the administrative moriels of Western developed de- ‘mocracies, This has often Jed to lop-sided view of administrative reality and a certain neglect of the study. of strengths of pre-bureaucratic soctal control of community life in many of the ‘Thitd World countries. Only now, for instance, the community: management of bio-diversity in some of the so-called underdeveloped socie~ ties is being applauded as scientific, rational and resource-conserving, PROBLEMS OF APPLICATION Applicability of the models of CPA in specific country situations has its problems. At the time of framing of India’s Constitution, for ‘example, the idea of federilism was debated by the founding fathers: and what they actually adopted was different from the traditional model of federalism. India’s past history of governance and the special needs of the country weighed heavily in the minds of the framers. The models ‘of CPA thus serve as a framework for analysing different aspects of administrative phenomena in a comparative perspective and they are useful in revealing clearly the social, economic and political Bases in which administrative institutions ate rooted. As R.B. Jain has observed: “The central problem in the study of CPA is that it is large enough to embrace all the phenomena that should be embraced without being, by virtue of its large dimensions, too unwieldy. ‘The second problem is relating the universal and the unique in one system. The idea of universal runs through administrative study, for example, in the assertions of the ‘founding fathers’ to the ‘most sophisticated of our contemporaries in the field but to make comparisons implies not only the identification of the universals but also discovering a criterion of differentiation” ‘Current Status In USA, the Comparative Administrative t '192 Group disbanded in 1973 immediately after the stoppage of financial support from: the Ford Foundation; it merged with the International ‘Committee of the American Society for Public Admimstration. Reflecting on the gradual decline of CPA, Golembiewski wrote: “Public admumstration should take note of the fact that comparative administration's failure rests substantially on a self-imposed failure experience It set an unattainable goal, that is, in its early and persisting choice to seek a comprehensive theory or model in terms of which to define itself” Forure Prospect Lack of financial support, for a time, reduced academic interest in comparative administrative research, The real work of public administration has, however, presented many opportunities, in recent times, for innovative comparative seudies. For instance, there is today increasing inter-state interactions due to globalisation’ and ‘liberalisation’ policies dictated by international funding agencies and inSuenced by the forces of international economic transactions. The interactive efforts in the performance of states can thus be a good theme for comparative analysis. ‘The issue of"human rights'is currently engaging the autention of international institutions and national governments. Comparative studies of “human rights’ enforcement could be another major area of comparative study. There is yet another trend noticeable in governmental circles—the co-production of results in the public sector. Public bureaucracies, private firms, voluntary agencies and community- based organisations are coming together more and more, blurring the distinction between ‘public’ and “private? management. Now in different situations, the nations are promoting co-production and creating a climate of ‘New Horizons of Public Administration networking of ‘governance’. All these go to constitute a new thrust toward comparative governmental analysis. This optimistic climate of comparative administrative studies has been aptly described by Robert Fried in the following words:"The international interdependency of bureaucracies... the universalising of demands for human rights; the crucial role of publics in resisting or promoting reform; chancy the inacure of status as a. member of First, Second of Third Worlds—all of these present students and practitioners of comparative public administration with unexpected challenges to understanding, unexpected opportunities for research and conceptual development, ‘unexpected excitement. It seems CPA is poised today for resurrection, as the situation worldwide is getting more and more propitious for comparative administrative analysis. REFERENCES 1. Nicholas Henry, op, cit p31. 2, Jon S.T, Quah, “Comparative Public Administration: ‘What and Why?” in Ramesh K. Arora (ed), Perspectives in. Administrative Theory, Associated ‘Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979. 3. RB, fin, “The State ofthe Study of Comparative Public Administration in India", The Indian Journal of Public Adminstration, January-March, 1991. 4. Robert C Fried, “Comparative Public Administration; The Search for Theories’, in Naomy B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky (eds), Pi Addminisition: The State of the Disdpline, Afiiaced East-West Press Pvt. Ltd, New Defhi, 1990. 5. Robert C.Fried, op ct.3, R.B. Jam, opie 6. RB Jain, opcit 7. Robert T. Golembiewski, Public Administatin as « Developing Discipline. Pert I: Pespecves on Past ad Present, Marcel Dekker New York. 1977, p. 147. 8 Robert C. Fried, op cit