COURSE WORK 2

NAME: EDITH NABATANZI

PROGRAMME: MASTERS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004

MODULE: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

DATE: 14TH OCTOBER 2018

QUESTION:

Comparative public administration differs from business administration in that the focus is on
public sector and the dynamics of governmental and bureaucratic processes which impact the
administrative role.

Analyze the statement in relation to other disciplines that contribute to the study of public
administration and clearly bring out the challenges Comparative public administration is faced
with.

Page 1 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
Public administration has been influenced by many disciplines such as Political Science, Law,
Sociology, Psychology, History and Business Management. Public Administration emerged as a
distinct discipline in the United States basing on the works of Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow
Wilson is regarded as the founding father of public administration through his assay “the study
of administration’’ which he published in 1887. In his essay; he defined public administration as
the detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every particular application of the law is an
act of administration. Public administration generally refers to the management of scarce
resources to accomplish the objectives set by the public policy.

Public administration is an interdisciplinary field that involves combining 2 or more academic

fields in a single field. As a social science discipline; Rutgers (2010) explains that public
administration is interdependent and intertwined with theories and conceptions about for instance
social justice, law and order, ethical behavior, government, responsibility and other social
constructs. He further states that public administration’s core is a concern with the nature of the
state, the role and functions of government and its institutions in their mandate in policy making
and implementation. It further concerns with the utilization of public resources and public ethos
characterized by responsiveness and social accountability (Day and Klein, 1987). According to
Thomson and Walker (2010), Public Administration works at the cross roads where several
disciplines converge.

Basing on Herman Dooyeweerd modal perspectives; Waldt (2014) identified four modalities
where public administration as an interdisciplinary field can be applied in the real world for the
purpose of useful societal interventions. These four modalities included the social, economic,
juridical and the ethical modality.

Social modality

According to Dooyeweerd social modality refers to the relationship between various actors in
society, which include their respective roles and the conventions that order the nature of their
interaction. The construction of knowledge in public administration mainly concerns with the
interrelations and interactions between the state, government and society (stillman, 1991). In the
execution of the governance role governments have increasingly become inclusive and
participatory in nature.

Page 2 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
According to Waldt (2014); Theories and models adopted and adapted by from disciplines such
as political science, sociology and philosophy have built an extensive body of knowledge
regarding elements of government, its administration and systems of government in public
administration. Some of these include organization theory, theories of bureaucratic politics,
structural – functional analysis, classical theories of state, social contract theory, public good
theory and public institutional theory.

This knowledge has been utilized by public administrators in the creation of networks for public
participation, and interactions between government, business and civil society. This knowledge
has further enhanced the use of structures and systematic processes in the management of the
public organizations and their relationship with the external environments. Key to note is the
Max- Weber’s ideal -type bureaucratic model which has the structural characteristics of
hierarchy, role specificity, specialization, career development, recruitment by merit, training,
discipline. The emphasis in the model is on rationality and efficiency.

Economic modality

Dooyeweerd refers to the economic modality as the management of resources by the state for the
general well being and prosperity of society. Through its governance structures; the state should
facilitate social- economic development through effective, efficient and economic utilization of
resources.

According to Waldt (2014); Public administration developed and adopted theories from
disciplines in economic and management sciences to enrich its knowledge in the effective and
efficient delivery of public goods and services. Some of these theories and approaches include;
rational choice theory, economic theory, contingency theory, decision theory, motivation theory,
public value theory, welfare versus prosperity/market –driven economic approaches, fiscal and
monetary policy approaches and scientific management theory.

In the public sector; resources such as financial, human, knowledge and information technology
are the inputs that public institutions use to deliver goods and services. These resources can be
used to compel people to act in socially agreed purposes like paying taxes. Public sector
administrators acquire knowledge from the economic and management disciplines in order to

Page 3 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
develop professional skills that enable them to carry out their tasks more cost effectively and
efficiently.

Juridical modality

The juridical modality according to Dooyeweerd mainly focuses on responsibilities and rights. In
the field of public administration, the state has to guarantee the individuals existence, safety and
well- being. The state regulates the economy in order to guarantee a minimum standard of living
for every individual.

Waldt (2014) states that; the major disciplines that contribute to public administration in this
regard include political sciences and communication studies. Theories borrowed from these
disciplines include; the democratic theory, public choice theory, agenda setting theory, gate
keeping theory, mass/elite theory, social exchange theory, dialogue communication theory,
political systems theory expectancy value theory, social penetration theory. This created sub-
disciplines in public administration such as administrative law, public participation, public policy
analysis, and local democracy.

The public administrators use the knowledge from these disciplines therefore; to foster good
governance and utilize the “levers of power” of the state (for example, military, media, monetary
power and education system) to help provide stability of the state and maintain law and order.

Ethical modality

Dooyeweerd refered to the ethical modality as laws governing normative issues such as attitude
and generosity in society. The government should govern in a generally accepted fashion,
enforce laws and facilitate economic prosperity. The performance of the government can be
assessed basing on the public sector values or outputs. These may include quality of public
services, social equality, the trajectory of social development and level of economic growth.

The normative approach and the behavioral approach in public administration is used as a basis
by public administrators to analyze aspects to do with public sector values and ethos, culture,
service delivery standards, program evaluation as well as societal impact assessment. Knowledge
of these aspects contributes to the promotion and implementation of good governance.

Page 4 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
Accordingly; public administration borrows from various disciplines. The knowledge, skills and
values from these disciplines is utilized by public administrators in the delivery of goods and
services in the public sector. However; the concepts of public administration that work in one
setting may or may not work so well in others. This could be due to contextual factors that
influence a variety of administrative and institutional practices in public administration.

Thus Comparative Public Administration (CPA) emerged to recognize that theories and solutions
must take into account the context and culture in which they are introduced and implemented in
order to determine what outcomes will be achieved (Heady 2001:Politt 2011).

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) is the study of administrative concepts and processes
across organizations, nations and cultures. The main concern of CPA is not only to recognize
similarities and differences among administrative systems and functions but also to establish
general patterns and to discover and define successful or unsuccessful practices (Heady 2001;
Jreisat 2002).

The following are the definitions of Comparative Public Administration (CPA) as stated by other
authors; Nimrod (1979) views Comparative Public Administration as the study of public
administration on comparative basis. Robert (1980) on the other hand sees comparative public
administration as the facet of the study of public administration which is concerned with making
rigorous cross-cultural comparisons of the structures and processes involved in the activities of
administering public affairs.

According to the Comparative Administration Group (CAG) Comparative Public Administration

is a theory of public administration applied to the diverse cultures and national settings and the
body of factual data by which it can be examined and tested. Jong S. Jun (1980) on his part
stated that Comparative Public Administration (CPA) has been cross- cultural or cross- national
in orientation.

In an effort to deliver public services of a better quality at a less cost; many factors influence the
adaptation and implementation of administrative processes and practices across countries. These
factors include; cultural contingencies, corruption, the level of regime support, the general
competence of the public employees and the autocracy of the governance system (Jreisat, 2011).
Comparative Public Administration has been the main instrument for the transfer of knowledge

Page 5 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
and skills since not all countries apply administrative concepts similarly. In other words;
Comparative Public Administration is different from Business administration in that the focus is
on public sector and the dynamics of governmental and bureaucratic processes which impact the
administrative role.

Ashirvatham et al., (1944) explained the following differences related to business administration;
While the governing consideration of business administration is profit, that of public
administration is service. For example; there are certain services which government has to offer
such as education, construction of roads even though they involve financial loss. Secondly the
social welfare is the primary concern of public administration though largely characterized by
inefficiency. In business administration the aim is producing the largest quantity of goods within
the shortest time possible at minimum cost coupled with the quickest means of transporting the
articles produced. In a democratic state there are several constitutional checks which have to be
taken into account before public money is spent and this causes delays in service provision.

Thirdly; private business enjoys a degree of privacy which is denied to public business. Public
undertakings are subjected to careful scrutiny. The salaries of public officials are printed and
made available to anybody who is interested in knowing them. Irregularities of administration
are challenged on the floor of the legislative chamber. In business administration, many of the
transactions of the company are conducted behind closed doors, while their successes are
advertised widely; their failures are kept in the dark as far as possible.

A better understanding of comparative public administration is essential if governments are to

establish, maintain or improve their administrative capacity (Jreisat, 2005).The purpose of
comparative public administration is theory building, provide knowledge in understanding the
administrative problems of developing countries, to search for practical application of theory and
to carry out the comparative analysis of ongoing problems of public administration.

Jreisat (2011) states the comparative approach is necessary in the transformation of knowledge
in the field of public administration due to the increase in the global interdependence of nations,
information technology and the drive for democratization in various countries. Comparative
Public Administration has several challenges because of the difficulty in using a single approach
or methodology when comparing administrative systems.

Page 6 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
Based on the literature review of various authors and scholars; Fitzpatrick et al., 2011;
identified 4 persistent challenges of comparative public administration. These include the lack of
consensus over the definition of the field, insufficient integration of Comparative Public
Administration in the field of public administration in general, consistent lack of theory and the
role culture should play in that theory ,methodological shortcomings where some Comparative
Public Administration scholars have criticized the research literature for the scarcity of empirical
data or quantification as well as other concerns that reflect the difficulty and complexity inherent
in conducting good research across countries.

According to Fitzpatrick et al., (2011); Results of Analysis of 151 comparative public

administration articles from 2000 to 2009 indicate the following challenges in comparative
public administration studies

1. Use of entire countries as units of analysis

Much as comparative public administration is meant to compare states or provinces, cities and
regions within countries or even continents; Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) noted that 80% of
Comparative Public Administration articles used countries as their units of analysis. The focus
on the countries is appropriate for studying public administration issues that have a national
impact, but they hardly provide useful information for the practitioners at the regional and or
local levels or permit us to understand more about the cultural differences between regions of
countries.
They recommend that Comparative Public Administration should be comparative at many levels
and not only at national level for example; Devas and Grants (2003), study of citizen
participation in local government in Kenya and Uganda provided useful insights into the role of
culture in citizen participation at the local level. Another example was Anderson and
Vanhaerhoven (2007) study which used a large sample of 390 municipalities in 4 South
American counties to test the ways in which local level political factors influence public
participation at the municipal level regardless of whether national governments are centralized or
decentralized. Such studies involving sub-national units of analysis provide insights on the
factors that shape public administration outcomes that might be overlooked by restricting the
field to national level comparisons.

Page 7 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
 2. Sample size and methods of selecting samples
According to Fitzpatrick et al., (2011); 61% of researchers in cpa studied less than 4 countries or
other units of analysis in those countries. 41% chose to study 2 countries while 21 studied 3
countries. These common small sample sizes attest to the reliance on qualitative analysis of
existing government documents and research to contrast a relatively small number of countries.
Such sample sizes provided the opportunity to study the countries or other units of analysis in
more depth using qualitative information, although the relatively rare use of interviews,
observations and other means of data collection indicate that the authors may not have taken
advantage of these opportunities.
Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) noted that few of the authors acknowledged a common limitation of
small comparisons, namely the problem of too few cases and too many variables.

3. Method of selecting samples

Appropriate sampling is one of the most important methodological issues in comparative work.
Identification of appropriate countries to compare is difficult. Much as convenience sampling has
been used in the broader field of public administration it is particularly inappropriate in
Comparative Public Administration. Majority of the researchers of Comparative Public
Administration use purposive sampling as a way of addressing the too few/ too many variables
problem.
The countries or the units to be compared must be identified with consideration for the theories
or concepts to be tested. Before the research begins the researchers must consider whether they
want to compare “most similar” countries to examine or describe administrative processes or
institutions or “most different” or some combination of the two.

A careful mix is recommended, if two entities are similar in everything, they are the same entity;
if they are dissimilar in everything, they are not comparable. The comparisons in which we
should engage lay between these two extremes whose attributes are in part shared (similar) and
in part non-shared (incomparable) (Sartori, 1994).

4. Definition of key concepts

Defining key concepts can be particularly difficult in comparative researches because of the
problem of conceptual equivalence (making sure that the constructs and terms used in the
research have the same meaning across different countries or even regions of the same country).

Page 8 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
Problems of misinterpretation; there is the problem of misinterpretation of the same
administrative and political phenomena when comparison is carried out. The same phenomena
can be given a different meaning depending on the context. For example; a change of power
through a military coup detat in Africa can be likened to a democratic election in the western
world. The fact is that the meaning of n action depends on the convetion of the country
concerned. Thus comparing like with like is not always a straight forward task. It requires some
knowledge of each of the units, organizations or institutions one is comparing.

Researchers of Comparative Public Administration must consider how definitions of key

constructs will work across different cultures. Comparative research not only requires mixed
methods to obtain an in-depth understanding of the variables and interactions being explored but
also calls out for greater explicit use of interviews, observations and surveys of government
officials’ experts and citizens.

For example; Cheung (2006), compared devolution and budgetary reform in Singapore and
hongkong using principal-agent theory and made use of existing documents, interviews and
surveys of budgetary officials to draw conclusions. Surveys can also be used as a useful
supplement to interviews when the number of officials or other data sources are large.

5. Human behavior
This deals with the fact that administration is aimed at solving social problems in society. Hence
the study of human beings as they behave or as they are expected to behave under certain
conditions. This concern with human being greatly limits the immediate need for comparative
analysis since human being is difficult to predict.

6. Comparative Public Administration lacks its own Theory

Scholars have consistently noted the lack of theory (Riggs, 1962; 1964). Comparative Public
Administration scholars have struggled for years with defining boundaries for the field and
establishing its boundaries for the field and establishing its place as a sub-discipline of public
administration.
Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) found that Comparative Public Administration articles used theory, but,
generally used mid level theories from their own fields such as political science, sociology, and
public administration. He stated that comparative public administration lacks a clear identity

Page 9 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
because what it has to offer researchers concerns methodology like sampling issues specific to
comparative administration, considerations regarding units and levels of analysis, etc, but not
theory.

Comparative scholars also have quite persuasive arguments for the importance of comparative
research but such arguments are not theory.

Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) recommend that comparative scholars should dispense with defining
boundaries and instead work to tear down those boundaries and expand beyond a sub discipline
to an area that all public administrators should know.

7. Culture and normative values

Culture is considered as the values, views, norms or attitudes of the regions being studied or
individuals or groups in the region. Many comparative scholars speak of the importance of
considering and understanding cultural context when comparing implementation and outcomes
in different countries (Adler, 1983; Riggs 1962, 1991).
According to Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) only one third of the Comparative Public Administration
articles reviewed included culture as a significant variable. Obtaining such knowledge and
understanding is one of the great difficulties of comparative work, but ignoring cultural norms,
values, and traditions leads to misinterpretations of findings. Interventions or administrative
innovations may be viewed as ineffective because of the nature of the intervention itself, rather
than because of cultural norms that influence the implementation or impact of the innovation.

According to Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) believe that comparative research should be integrative
and intensive in order to truly add to our understanding of the interactions of institutions,
administrative processes, and cultural values in different countries to permit us to develop valid
typologies and theories.

8. Scarcity of literature on developing countries

Most researches in comparative administration are carried out in developed countries instead of
developing countries.
According to Riggs (1964); the lack of progress in fostering administrative capacities in the
developing countries was due to exporting western administrative practices. The major stream of

Page 10 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
comparative research began with a focus on studying developing countries as a way to solve the
administrative problems and socio-economic growth in the newly created states.

Contrally to this; a review of articles by Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) showed 9 % of the articles
addressed development as a subject matter. Countries from Africa and south America were not
commonly included in the articles as compared to developed countries especially the United
Kingdom and the United States.

Since comparative research provides valuable insights into how governments can better provide
public services such as health care, education and foster economic development comparative
research should move beyond its focus on the United States, Europe and Asia. We cannot learn
how administrative policies and systems work if comparative researches restrict themselves to
primarily developed western and Asian countries.

9. Variations of concepts used for analysis:

Too many variables and too few countries; for instance, there are over 180 countries in the
world. Given the number of countries available in the world, it is indeed difficult to find how
they are identical in all respects except a few. This can be attributed to differences in the political
systems and socio-cultural backgrounds. As such, comparing administrative and political
systems cannot be easily carried out because data collected for analysis cannot be controlled as
in the natural sciences due to the inconsistencies and differences in the administrative and
political systems.

10. Environmental factors

According to Riggs (1964); the lack of progress in fostering administrative capacities in the
developing countries was due to exporting western administrative practices. He proposed a
culture- centered framework (or ecological approach), assuming that a country’s public
administration system was heavily influenced by its environment for example; political,
economic, social, and symbolic institutions. These factors between countries greatly limit the
possibility of generalizing public administration concepts and practices.
Accordingly; one cannot easily manipulate administrative structures like the legislature,
executive, civil service and bureaucracy, because of the inconsistencies in the behaviors of these
institutions.

Page 11 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
 11. Boundary problems
The classification of systems and their elements have boundary problems. That is, how one
defines the nature of concepts to be used for analysis varies across boundaries for example; a
strong leadership in one country could be seen as dictatorship in another. Definition of concept is
in fact a problematic issue in comparative analysis.
Dr. Nelson Mandela was a nationalist in Africa but was on the other hand seen as a terrorist in
Britain during the period of apartheid. What one says depends on the perspective one is viewing
the concept from. In the light of this fact; one can say that comparative analysis is confronted
with the problem of ethnocentrism and parochialism.

In conclusion; Comparative public administration has been attempting to expand and broaden
administrative knowledge in response to needs and demands of the public sector and society at
large. Despite the above mentioned challenges of Comparative Public Administration; it is
important for public administration to continuously adopt comparative approach because it is
wiser to examine how a topic of interest is working in other settings especially ones with
different cultural norms. This will equip public administrators with broader knowledge, values
and skills to efficiently and effectively deliver a better quality of public services in their local
setting.

Page 12 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
REFERENCES:

Adler J. (1983) Typology of Management Studies Involving Culture. Journal of International

Business Studies 14(2): 29-47.

Anderson, Krister, And Frank Van Laerhoven (2007) From Local Strongman to Facilitator:
Institutional Incentives for Participatory Municipal Governance In Latin America. Comparative
political studies 40(9) 1085 -1111.

Ashirvatham E. and Asirvatham E. (1944) Public and Business Administration. The Indian
Journal of Political Science, vol.5 No.3 222-229.

Cheung B. L. (2006) Budgetary Reforms In Two City States: Impact on the Central Budget
Agency In Hong Kong And Singapore. International review of administration sciences. 72 (3):
341- 61.

Day, P. & Klein, R. (1987) Accountabilities London: Tavistock.

Devas, Nick and Ursula Grant (2003) Local Government Decision- Making: Citizen
Participation and Local Accountability: Some Evidence For Kenya and Uganda. Public
Administration and Development 23 (4): 307 -16.

Dooyeweerd H. (1953) A Critique of Theoretical Thought. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris

Dooyeweerd H. (1996) Essays in Legal, Social, and Political Philosophy. Lewiston, New York,
NY: Edwin Mellen.

Fitzpatrick et al., (2011) A New Look at Comparative Public Administration: Trends In Research
And An Agenda for the Future. Public Administrative Review 821 -830

Heady F. (2001) Public Administration; A Comparative Perspective. 6th Ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall

Jreisat E. (2002) Comparative Public Administration and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Page 13 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004
Jreisat E. (2005) Comparative Public Administration Is Back In, Prudently. Public
Administration Review. 65(2): 231 -42

Jreisat E J. (2011) Commentary – Comparative Public Administration: A Global Perspective.

Public administration review. 834 -838

Khan H A (2008) An Introduction to Public Administration. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

Politt, C. (2011) Not Odious but Onerous: Comparative Public Administration. Public
Administration. 89 (1): 114 -27.

Riggs F W (1962) Trends In The Comparative Study Of Public Administration. International

Review of Administrative Sciences 28(1):9-15.

Riggs F W (1964) Administration In Developing Countries: The Theory Of Prismatic Society.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Riggs F W (1991) Public Administration: A Comparativist Framework. Public Administration

Review 51(6): 473 -77.

Riggs F (1998) Public Administration In America: Why Our Uniqueness Is Exceptional And
Important. Pubic Administration Review 58(1): 22-31.

Sartori G (1994) Compare why and how: comparing, miscomparing and the comparative
method. In comparing Nations: concepts, strategies, substance, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Stillman II R.J. (1991) Preface to Public Administration; A Search For Themes and Direction.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Waldt G (2014) Public Administration and Transdisciplinarity: A Modalistic Approach toward

Knowledge Co-Construction. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. vol.4, No.
6

Woodrow Wilson (1887) The Study of Public Administration. Political Science Quarterly.

Page 14 of 14
18/MPA/KLA/WKD/0004