COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

1. HISTORICAL & SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING ADMINISTRATIVE

SYSTEMS
Comparative Public Administration (CPA), in the sense of comparisons among patterns of
public administration in different Nation-States, evolved in 1960 from the Comparative
Administration Group of the American Society for Public Administration. However, as an
ideology, the emphasis for the need for comparative method in studying public
administration is given long back by the foremost thinker of CPA, Woodrow Wilson in 1887. He
elaborated, “We can never learn either our own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves. It
is best on the whole to get entirely away from our own atmosphere and to be most careful in
examining such systems as those of France or Germany.” He was the first comparatist
who compared American government system to the cabinet system in United Kingdom to
demonstrate that the U.S.A lacked unified authority in several fields of administration.
Following Wilson, the requirement of comparison became apparent when an American scholar,
Robert Dahl argued that, for public administration to be considered a science, it would be
necessary for a set of propositions, assumptions, or generalized principles be made about
administrative behaviour, that transcend national boundaries. Robert A Dahl outlined its
usefulness in his essay, The Science of Public Administration (1947). He said “no science of
public administration is possible unless… there is a body of comparative studies from
which it may be possible to discover principles and generalities that transcend national boundaries
and peculiar historical experiences”. Dahl emphasized the significance of comparison to
construct a ‘science of public administration’. He said, “the comparative aspects of public
administration have largely been ignored; and as long as the study of public administration is
not comparative, claims for a ‘science of public administration’ sound rather hollow.
The study of Comparative Public Administration contributes to a greater understanding of the
individual characteristics of administrative systems functioning in different nations and
cultures. Besides, comparative studies also help in explaining factors responsible for cross-
national and cross-cultural similarities as well as difference in the administrative systems.
The CAG (Comparative Administrative Group) defined Comparative Public Administration
as “the theory of Public Administration as applied to diverse cultures and national
settings and the body of factual data, by which it can be expanded and tested.” The
theoretical thrust of the Comparative Public Administration movement is evident in what Fred
Riggs has observed as the desirable character of ‘truly’ comparative studies. Riggs has stated
that the term ‘Comparative’ should be restricted, strictly speaking, to empirical,
nomothetic, and ecological studies. He highlighted three trends in the comparative study of
Public Administration: (a) from normative towards more empirical approaches; (b) shift from
Ideographic (individualistic) toward Nomothetic (universal), and (c) shift from a pre-dominantly
non-ecological to an ecological basis for the study of Public Administration.
ORIGIN OF CPA
The main objective of comparative public administration movement, as Caldwell observed, has
been “to hasten the emergence of knowledge concerning administrative behaviour––in
brief, to contribute to a genuine and generic discipline of public administration.” The other
being to analyse propositions about administration of different nations and to build a
theory in public administration for development.
Comparison of administrative systems has had a long tradition. But a focus on this aspect of
administrative studies is about fifty years old. Only after the Second World War and with
the emergence of third world nations in Asia and Africa, a vigorous interest in comparative
studies of Public Administration has evolved. Comparative Public Administration, in simple
terms refers to a comparative study of government administrative systems functioning in
different countries,belonging to different cultural and geographical setting and different periods.
The Post World War II period has witnessed the emergence of a major interest in the
comparative study of political systems. The Comparative Politics Movement and the
Comparative Public Administration Movement share many common stimuli. 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. In fact, the developments in comparative
politics in the post-world war II period have influenced the emerging developments in Comparative
Public Administration. 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 La Palombara’s ‘Bureaucracy and
Political Development’. In fact, this era called to an end the politics–administration
dichotomy and felt that both political science and administration are experimenting with the same
problems from different perspectives.
The most important characteristics of the post-World War comparative administration have
been the following:
1. A search for the framework or paradigm for comparative analysis of administration on
a global basis,
2. An interest of the researchers in the administrative problems of newly independent
countries
3. Thrust in the transfer of administrative technologies from more developed to less
developing countries, and
4. A continuing effort to devise more productive methods for comparative analysis in the
future.
Since emergence of CAG in 1960, the school of comparative public administration has
attempted to be ‘theory building’ in contrast to ‘practitioner-oriented’bias of “parochial
American public administration”. In the study of comparative administration, the emphasis is
upon comparison of administrative systems. TheSchool of Comparative Public
Administration addresses five motivating concerns:
1. The search for theory.
2. The urge for practical application,
3. The incidental contribution of the broader field of comparative politics,
4. The interest of the researchers trained in the tradition of administrative law, and
5. The comparative analysis of ongoing problems of public administration.
Initially, the CAG has focused development administration as a Third World problem. But,
today it also includes understanding of a Country’s Public Administration in its global
context. The area for comparative research is wide enough to accommodate the problems
of developed and underdeveloped countries. The major areas of research are bureaucracy,
public policies, motivation, finance, developmental aspects of administration,
administrative set up, etc. the validity of comparative study in these broad fields of Public
Administration depends much on empirical support.

Comparative Public Administration deals with administrative organizations or

systems pertaining to different cultures and settings whose similar or dissimilar features or
characteristics are studied and compared in order to find out “causes” or “reasons” for
efficient or effective performance or behavior of administrators, civil servants or bureaucrats.
The ecological perspective is the main concern of comparative administration
scholars. The economic, social and political aspects explain the way administrative systems
operate.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the field of comparative public administration has
been redefined by new research demands in response to major global transformations of
political systems. From a field drawing largely on academic political science and trends in the US
foreign aid policies, CPA has been pulled in several directions by new management and
policy needs. Comparative public administration is still the study of similarities and
differences in organization,management and policy issues for the purpose of creating
an institutionalized knowledge base to aid in making better decisions. But it seems
that academic scholars have lost much interest in comparative studies of administration
largely on account of fewer funds. Moreover, host governments have become increasingly
critical of the administration of their own domestic programmes. However, using comparative
administration lessons help government to improve domestic policy making and
implementation.
Only during the last 50 years has comparative public administration finally become a subfield
within public administration and political science that hasdemonstrated its vitality, and
has gained recognition and acceptance. After a remarkable burst of activity during the 1960s
and early 1970s, the level of enthusiasm declined, but comparativism has clearly become
established as an integral aspect of public administration and an academic discipline.
Ferrel Heady has distinguished among four important foci of research in Comparative Public
Administration. These foci are: (a) modified traditional; (b) development oriented; (c) general
system model building; and (d) middle-range theory formulation. Writings in modified
traditional approach show continuity with the earlier literature of somewhat parochial character. It
includes basically descriptive comparison of administration in Western Countries with particular
reference to the administrative organizations and civil service systems. The development
orientation is concerned essentially with the problems of Public Administration in the
context of rapid socio-economic and political change. Its emphasis is on the capabilities of
administrative systems to direct socio-economic change in a society. The general system
model building is concerned with the study of administrative systems in the overall contexts of
their social environment. Thus its focus is generally on the whole society. However, the middle
range theory is more specific in its subject of focus, and it concentrates on certain particular
components or characteristics of an administrative system.
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ON CPA
One factor of socio-historical importance for its impact on administrative system of
India and other developing countries is that most of the entrants to thehigher
bureaucracy belonged to the English educated, professional middle class; there were very
few entrants from other sections of the society especially immediately after independence. In
India, most members of the higher bureaucracy have been drawn from families of higher civil and
military officers, lawyers, doctors, university teachers and business executives. The parents of
about 94% of the direct recruits to IAS up to 1956 belonged to this class. Recruitment to the
higher bureaucracy was highly biased in favor of professional middle class, since it
constituted less than 10% of the population but more than 90% of recruits were drawn from it.
The entrants into the higher bureaucracy are drawn from among those educated at exclusive
schools and colleges which charge high fees and hence are generally joined only by
children from the upper and richer sections of the society. The medium of instruction in these
institutions isusually English only. Of those recruited to the IAS between 1974 and 1979, more
than 60% had been educated in such schools independence, proportion of recruits educated at
exclusive schools had gone up.
The impact of such a socio-historical background was that there are great differences between
the values, norms, feelings, beliefs and information of the higher bureaucracy, the lower
bureaucracy and people. Early education of those who joined exclusive schools is in many ways
different from that of vast majority, resulting in very important & substantial differences in attitudes.
The combined influence of upper middle class homes and exclusive schools tend to inculcate
among their children, values such as those of consumerism, gigantism and the hoarding of
material goods, and attitudes such as those of lack of empathy for the poor, considering
oneself to education at exclusive colleges and schools tend to keep them aloof from those
belonging to the lower strata. Theyrarely even get an opportunity to live in villages where the
vast majority of the people live. Hence their information and understanding of the conditions
of living problems and needs of vast sections of the peoples are little. These differences of
values, beliefs and information make for lack of communication between the higher
bureaucracy, lower bureaucracy and the people.
Another factor of socio-historical importance is that the higher bureaucracy in developing
countries has been recruited predominantly from the urban areas.In India, in 1981, recruits
to the IAS, 72% had an urban background. Further, there may at best be a slight tendency for
more rural residents to get into the higher bureaucracy. This particular factor has its impact on
administrative system as one of the important functions of the bureaucracy in developing in
developing countries is to deal with poverty, its causes and consequences. If the upper
section of the bureaucracy, which plays an important role in policy formulation as well as
implementation, has little understanding of the nature of poverty in the country,
ineffectiveness is bound to result. If the common people are afraid of administrators and can
hardly speak a language understood by them, administrators understanding of people’s problems
remains wanting, and hence policies for dealing with these remain unsatisfactory. Thus lack
of communication leads to lack of effectiveness. Lack of effectiveness also results from lack
of participation by the people. Due to social distance between the administrators and the
people, and differences in their values & beliefs, administrators are unable to enthuse people &
seek their cooperation & participation.
Further, the socio-historical background has its role to play as the higher bureaucracy is
recruited predominately from the so called higher castes. People of low caste are
also generally poor and cannot afford higher education for their children. To compensate for
the age old discrimination against those having a low social status, the Constitution of India
provides for “protective discrimination” in the shape of reservation of jobs for scheduled
cases & tribes in Public Administration. For long, however, these Quotas were not filled, since
candidates of scheduled castes and tribes could often not get qualifying marks in the competitive
examination. Thus while in 1967 only 11% of the recruits to the IAS belonged to scheduled
castes, in 1981, 15% belonged to them. Similarly, the percentage of schedules tribes’ recruits
had risen from 4 to 7. These percentages were, however, still lower than their proportion in
the population. In other words, persons of low social status were still under-represented in
the higher bureaucracy. According to the study of Subblah Chaudhary in Andhra Pradesh
bureaucracy, while a majority of the officers have an urban professional middle class
background, a majority of the clerks have a rural, farming background. It has also been
found that while about 76% of officers came from upper & upper middle classes, 75% of the
clerks came from the lower and lower middle classes. Thus while the highest proportion of
forward castes was among officers, the highest proportion of scheduled castes and tribes was
to be found among clerks. This indicates a clear relationship between caste status and
bureaucratic status.
Similar is the case for religious under-representation. While all the important religious of India
are represented in the higher bureaucracy, some of them have fewer members than their proportion in
the population. Thus among the IAS recruits in 1981, about, about 88% were Hindus. Only 1% were
Muslims, 4% were Christians and 5% were Sikhs. The representation of Muslim has varied between 1
and 6% since 1957 and has been much lower of than their proportion in the population. Because of
their socio-economic background, a large number cannot avail of this opportunity. The vast majority
of our people live in villages where they have little opportunity to pursue the kind of education which
would make for success at the competitive examination. The impact of this socio-historical factor is that
the poor and those living in villages, and those belonging to disadvantages castes and religions have the
feeling that they are unjustly being denied entry into these services.
Another important factor is that the women in developing countries have always remained a
disadvantaged section of the society. There have been many social reform movement all over the wolf
mining to improve their status. The impact of this socio-historical background has been that
the representation of women in the higher bureaucracy has increased consistently. In India, among
IAS recruits for year 1957 & 1981, their percentage was about 3 and 12 respectively. Since women
constitute about half of the population, they may be said to be still grossly under-represented. As far
as developed countries are concerned, the socio-historical factors are quite different as compared to
the developing countries. In developed countries, the political scenario being different compared to the
ones under colonial supremacy, different social revolutions at different points of time have affected the
administrative systems.
CPA Vs TRADITIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Comparative public administration has two major differences with traditional public administration.
Firstly, public administration is generally ethnocentric (culture-bound),
whereas comparative public administration is cross-cultural in orientation and thrust. Prior to
the abandonment of the principles paradigm, it was assumed that cultural factors did not make
any difference in administrative settings.
The second difference between both is that, while traditional public administration has attempted
to build theory and to seek knowledge, the latter has purely scholarly thrust as opposed to a
professional one.
NATURE OF CPA
Fred W. Riggs, the foremost scholar of comparative public administration, observed that there
were three trends, which were evident in the comparative study of public administration. These
were: normative to empirical, ideographic to nomothetic and non-ecological to ecological.
1. NORMATIVE TO EMPIRICAL
Traditional studies on comparative politics or administration emphasized ‘good
administration’. Efficiency and economy were considered to be the primary goals of all
administrative systems. These studies focused on discovering facts about political
structures and behaviours of administrative systems rather than in describing as to what was
good for each system. Two trends which were noticeable have influenced the character of some
administrative studies in the 1960s.The first, the concept of ‘development
administration’, which focused on the goal-orientation of administrative systems, is
a normative concept. Comparative public administration seems to have emerged from the study
of public administration in the 1960s as a synthesis between the normative and the empirical
elements of analysis.
The second trend was the emergence of the label ‘New Public Administration’, which
emphasized the idealistic goal to be achieved by an administrative system and, thus,
attempted to bridge the gap between the ‘is’ and ‘should’ aspects of public administration.
1. IDEOGRAPHIC TO NOMOTHETIC
Riggs used the words ‘ideographic’ and ‘nomothetic’ in specific contexts. The ideographic
approach attempts to focus on unique cases; for example, study on a single country or a single
agency (agricultural administration unit). On the other hand, the nomothetic approach seeks to
develop generalizations and concepts which are based on analysis of regularities of
administrative behavior.
Traditional studies tended to focus on the structure of individual political institutions or single
countries. No serious attempt was made to compare various nations or systems. These studies
did no help in the process of theory building or in developing generalizations. Nomothetic
studies, on the other hand, tried to analyse different administrative systems in comparative
context in a way that will help in developing hypotheses and theories. The objective of such
studies isto examine similarities and differences of different administrative systems of
nations and then draw certain generalizations. Very few studies are available on comparative
administration systems of different nations.
1. NON-ECOLOGICAL TO ECOLOGICAL
Traditional studies, as already pointed out, were not only descriptive in nature but also non-
ecological in approach. In these studies, no serious attempt was made to relate administrative
systems with the environment in which they functioned. However, in the 1960s, Fred W.
Riggs and few others stressed on the ecological approach for comparing administrative
systems. This approach examines the interactions between an administrative system and
its external environment. However, the analysis relating to the influences of the
administrative system on the environment is still inadequate.
R.B. Jain concluded that “by looking at the problems from a comparative perspective, public
administration will be widening its horizon of interest and thereby would be in a much better
position to offer relevant and practical solutions to the problems being faced by the mankind”.
Thus, the study of comparative public administration is very important. Time is now ripe to
strengthen relations among institutions (designed for the improvement of public
administration in practically all countries of the world), both national and international, in order
to forge new modalities for concerted action to improve public administration for development.
For this purpose, it will be quite useful to establish a network of these institutions to enable
flow of information and provide opportunities for collaboration on projects.
SIGNIFICANCE
The significance of the study of Comparative Public Administration is well accepted today. It has
now established itself as one important branch (sub-discipline) of Public Administration. The
subject of Comparative Public Administration virtually constitutes a study in the direction of
the ‘expanding horizon of Public Administration’. Jun opined that comparative perspective
is needed for improving public policies and for theory building in a field of Public
Administration. Comparative method has been used in studying the contemporary system of
government and administration. The chief aim of earlier approach was to prescribe ‘ideas’ or
at least a better pattern of administrative structure and action. This approach is implicit in the so-
called ‘principle’ of Public Administration which reached its height in the ‘scientific management
movement’ with its stress on the ‘one best way’. Now there is a shift from presenting a mirror of
our ideal system before other countries or to one’s own country to descriptive and analytical
information for its own sake. Thus, the normative study of comparative administration
merged gradually into the empirical and explanatory writings on different administrative
systems. The recent trend is towards a nomothetic approach, which showed interest in
concentrate situations, case studies and particular facts. Comparative Public Administration
emphasizes on theory or testable propositionswhich assert regularities of behavior and
correlations between variables. It involves a greater interest in the environmental factors as
they interact with Public Administration.
It is argued that through Comparative Public Administration hypotheses, generalizations,
models and theories can be constructed which can collectively help in the scientific study
of Public Administration. The study of Comparative Public Administration also contributes to
a greater understanding of the individual characteristics of administrative
systems functioning in different nations and cultures. Besides, comparative studies also help
in explaining factors responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural similarities as well
as distinctions in the administrative systems.
It is an approach to revitalize the declining pace of Public Administration’s theory making
capacity. It offers to study the administrative processes and organizations in order to
explain the common problems and to find remedies to solve those problems. It attempts to
identify the characteristics of various administrations in terms of certain established
analytical categories in the light of which identification of administrative phenomena becomes
probable for as many administrative systems as possible. Policy recommendation is one of the
important outcomes of Comparative Public Administration. Waldo points out the following
significance out of Comparative Public Administration study: (a) to discover, define and
differentiate the stuff that is to be compared, whenever in the world it may be; and (b) to
develop criteria of differentiation that is useful in ordering and analyzing the ‘stuff’ once it
has been identified.
The significance of Comparative Public Administration lies in its academic utility in terms of
scientific and systematic study of Public Administration and inimproving the knowledge
about other administrative systems so that appropriate administrative reforms and changes
can be brought about in different nations. The comparative study in Public Administration has
played an important role in making the subject broader, useful and inter-disciplinary. It has
brought politics and administration closer to each-other. It has brought greater scientific outlook
in theory building. It has added increased significance to the study of administration of the
developing countries. It is certainly on account of the adoption of this inter-disciplinary study by
the writers on Comparative Public Administration that the subject of Public Administration is said
to have ‘undergone a revolution of sorts.
The study of comparative public administration is not merely an intellectual exercise of the
scholars, nor is it limited to mere comparative studies. Its conclusions have important bearing
on the whole range of public administration. The basic contribution of the comparative study is
that it has helped eliminate the narrowness of ‘provincialism’ and ‘regionalism’. The
increasing trend of comparative study in public administration has played an important role in
making this subject broader, deeper and useful. Comparative study has brought politics and
public administration closer to each other. The comparative methodology has broadened the
field of social science research which was earlier confined to cultural limitations. Comparative
revolution has brought greater scientific outlook in theory construction. Finally, it
has encouraged the process of broadening the field of social analysis.
LIMITATIONS
The comparative administration adopted the approach especially following Riggs, via grand
theory on the model of system sociology. For example, Riggs’s approach emphasizes the
development of elaborate models that “might eventually help us understand more about
administrative behavior”. The basic fault in it, according to Golembiewski, is that “eventually is
likely to be a very long time indeed.
The development of comparative administration is lacking in terms of empirical
theory. There is inadequate methodological base, lack of experience and traditions for
empirical research. Moreover, comparative administration efforts are often a scientific, if not anti-
scientific.
Lastly, comparative administration did not develop a viable applied aspect. That means that
it did not develop goal-based empirical theories. The need for practical application was central
in comparative administration’s early formative period, but it soon became a very weak
urge. Golembiewski remarks that “comparative administration is inadequately developed as a
social science, and only fitfully applies its methodology… is seen as ‘academic analysis’ and as
more beholden to the ‘knowledge for its own sake’ bias of university settings.”
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The most important characteristic features of the Comparative Public Administration are:
1. The Comparative Public Administration is in its ‘youth’. It is a relatively new field or
study in the sense that it only emerged after the Second World War. In the words of
Raphaeli, “Comparative Public Administration is a newcomer to the community of
academic instruction and research”. He has traced its origin to the 1952 conference on
Administration held at Princeton University. It was during this conference that a sub-
committee under the committee on Public Administration, entitled “Comparative Public
Administration” was established “to develop a criteria of relevance and a design for field
studies in foreign countries.”
2. The Comparative Public Administration is to use Thomas S. Kuhan’s term, in a
‘preparadigmatic’ stage, which is characterized by a diversity of approaches and
the absence of a dominant model or paradigm. In fact, there exists a plethora of
competing approaches in the field. These approaches have been classified by Fred W.
Riggs in 1962 as normative, empirical, nomothetic, ideographic, non-
ecological and ecological approaches.
3. Comparative Public Administration, according to Riggs, is characterized by the
following three trends: (a) a shift from normative to empiricalapproaches; (b) within
the empirical category, there has been a change in emphasis from ideographic to
nomothetic studies; and (c) a shift in focus fromnon-ecological to
ecological approaches. In 1962, when Riggs first described these trends, he noted that
the first trend was fairly clear, but not the second and third trends which were only
beginning to develop. The second and third trends have since then become more
dominant in Comparative Public Administration as can be seen in the emphasis
given to nomothetic and ecological approaches in the field. However, this does not mean
that normative concerns are not important in Comparative Public Administration any
more. Indeed, it can be argued that there has been a resurgence of normative concerns
in Public Administration in general and Comparative Public Administration in
particular especially with the emergence of the “New Public Administration”
movement which arose from the post-behavioural revolution in Political Science.
4. The field of Comparative Public Administration has been dominated until recently
by American scholars on Public Administration in general and members of the
CAG in particular. The CAG made a tremendous contribution to the study of Public
Administration in general and Comparative Public Administration in particular through
the sponsorship of research seminars and conferences and its prodigious output of
publications, which included a newsletter, seminar reports, teaching materials,
 occasional papers and various volumes in the CAG series published by Duke University
Press.
5. Comparative Public Administration emphasise on two primary ‘motivational
concerns’; theory building and development administration. This concern for theory
has been recognized by most scholars in the field, especially by Heady, Heaphey and
Raphaeli for example. Theory building efforts in Comparative Public Administration have
so far concentrated on two types of theories: general and middle-range theories.
Examples of general theories are Fred W. Rigg’s macro models of Agraria and Industria
and his theory of Prismatic Society. The best example of a middle-range theory in
Comparative Public Administration isMax Weber’s ideal type bureaucracy, which has
been critically reviewed by Alfred Diamant, and tested in Egypt by Morroe Berger and in
Turkey by Robert Presthus. In recent years, there has been a shift in emphasis from
general theories to middle-range theories in Comparative Public Administration.

CPA AND BEHAVIOURALISM

Behaviouralism has contributed substantially to the stimulation of comparative public
administration. Often it is described as Behavioural Revolution. It started in 1930s and 1940s
along with the Human Relations Movement but became the dominant approach after World War
II. It was developed by Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon. Behaviouralism is essentially
concerned with the scientific study of human behavior in various settings. In administrative studies
the behavioural approach has certain salient features. They are:
1. (1)Its literature is descriptive and analytical rather than prescriptive, with the studies on
motivation being an exception;
2. (2)It emphasizes operational definitions of terms and empirical study based on rigorous
methods such as field observation, controlled field experiments, and laboratory studies
or organization-like groups;
3. (3)Largely it is concerned with quantification, mathematization, and formal theory
construction.
The behavioural approach is the ‘socio-psychological’ approach and its most important champion
is Herbert A. Simon. The socio-psychological approach believes that:
1. (1)Public administration should be concerned with the study of human behaviour in
organization and the operations of the various organisations;
2. (2)The human behaviour in organization and the operations can be studied and
investigated objectively; and
3. (3)After studying the actual working of organization, generalized statements about
organization and administration can be obtained. In his book “Administrative Behaviour:
A study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organisation” Simon observes
“Before a science can develop principles, it must possess concepts” …. Decision-making
is the most important activity of administration. Human beings who work in organisations
have aspirations and desires. Their behaviour is conditioned by their psychology,
motives and social environment. The administrative science should study these ‘facts’ of
behaviour without getting involved in the question of ‘values’. Organization is a group of
people having: the behaviour of these people is subject to ‘influence’ and a student of
administration should study these behaviours wherein he will have to employ the
methods of sociology and psychology.
The focus of behavioural approach is on human
behaviour including psychology, sociology and anthropology. It claims to explain
administrative processes that are common to many forms of organization. Its emphasis is on
the ‘universal’ as opposed to the ‘provincial’ approach of the institutionalists, it has motivated
greater scientific research and systematic theory construction. “Testing of hypotheses in cross-
cultural contexts has made the study of comparative public administration a necessity. In order
to study the differing ecologies of a variety of administrative systems, comparative public
administration has borrowed concepts, tools and findings from various social sciences, and thus
has developed an interdisciplinary orientation. Behaviouralism itself has acted as an umbrella
under which comparative public administration has found several modes of interaction, not only
with public administration per se but also with other disciplines.

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MODERN ORGANISATION THEORY

Besides the literature on comparative politics, the study of comparative public administration is
influenced by the general literature on organization theory and management theory. One of the
recent developments in this field has been the contingency approach to organization theory.
“This approach tends to match thecharacteristics of environment of the organization and
the mode of production within the organization to the most appropriate structures. Such a theory
would therefore argue that organisations performing different functions and operating in
different environments should be designed differently.” The contingency approach to
organisations should have a great deal of applicability in comparative administrations.
Considerable variation in organizational structure and performance may be explained by
factors which are basic to the contingency approach.
Secondly, there have been important developments in the study of public organizations
themselves that can aid in improving the understanding of comparative public administration. The
most important of these are the increasing emphasis on the study of implementation and the
associated interest in the multi-organisational nature of most administrations. Guy Peters
observes, the implementation approach has placed increased emphasis on the changes that
a piece of legislation may undergo as it is translated from a document to a working
programme. Such a perspective combines an understanding of formal administrative
practices with an understanding of the political realities of administration in the public sector.
According to Waldo, comparative public administration (CPA) both resembles and differs from
modern organisation theory. Waldo wrote: to compare is to examine similarities and
differences simultaneously; the effort is bent forward to two main ends: (i) to discover, define
and differentiate the stuff (politics or administration) to be compared, wherever in the world it
may be; and (ii) to develop criteria of differentiation that are useful in ordering and analyzing
the ‘stuff’ once it has been identified.
He adds that, CPA shares with modern organization theory a concern for methodological
problems; a reliance on models such as the systems framework and structural
functionalism; an interdisciplinary orientation a search for universal concepts, formulas,
and theories; and an emphasis on empirical description. CPA differs from modern
organization theory, however, in its explicit comparative perspective, its focus on cultural
diversity, and its fascination with Weberian bureaucracies.
Though it was at one time widely believed that CPA was the area of greatest promise in
contemporary public administration, Waldo feels that promise has yet to be fulfilled. CPA tells us
about the relationship between administration and social ends, the critical dependence of
civilization on effective governmental administration and the difficulties in transferring the
Western model of administration to other cultures. But the basic problem of the CPA
movement was the distance between the theoretical models employed and the evidence of field
research. And even with its strong theoretical bent, Waldo asserts that the movement failed to
produce anything in the way of rigorous theory.
The pressure for practical results led to a switch from CPA to developmental administration,
though such a switch did not produce encouraging results. Waldo charges that the developmental
perspective has assumed that to be developed is to be “Western”. The result, he asserts, is
that developmental administration has become a powerful and subtle ideology with the
characteristics of a “world-girdling religion ,” and the effort to achieve development has amounted
to little more than an effort to reproduce the Weberian model of bureaucracy.

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CURRENT STATUS OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Comparative public administration, in method and in content, has not successfully integrated with the
main field of public administration, to the detriment of both. With globalization and changes
in information technology, the current separation impairs public administration education.
Nevertheless, public administration today is at the center of the human endeavor to restructure and
reshape societies from within, to be viable components of this still unfolding but rapidly growing
phenomenon known as globalism. We are not witnessed an old system passing away in its entirety and a
new global system being born to replace it. Instead, it seem that we are heading into a profoundly
changing order. The economic revolution remains in progress, and the world’s political boundaries are
given in to the free movement of people, goods, information, ideas, and even cultural
values. Knowledge, too, regularly crosses cultural boundaries in important areas such as finance,
technology, and management. To be sure, these changes and developments do not mean the traditional
nation-state is dead but they do underscore the magnitude of the problems facing the contemporary state.
One such problem for modern states, particularly those of developing countries, is a growing
concern about the capacity of public institutions to shoulder new responsibilities and to
ensure fair dealings within the new global structure. Whereas students of comparative
administration realize what is changing in this transitional mode, they are not certain of what
is emerging as the new global system. The change, however, is creating new
opportunities while imposing formidable challenges for public administration. One
such challenge is the trend toward allocating a greater role for the private sector in national
development, which has shifted the responsibility of public administration from managing
to facilitating economic activity. What is implied here is more than aneed for “entrepreneurial
qualities”. The public administration literature is full of propositions offering alternatives to the
often-denounced traditional system of administration (bureaucracy). Space does not permit a full
examination of these alternatives, but the New Public Management movement is
representative.These alternatives intended or not, are simply grounded in instrumental
rationality, which ultimately would erode fundamental values-indeed, the foundations—of
representative governance.

CPA Vs TRADITIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ferrel Heady (1984) in Henry (1999:32-33) posited that CPA addresses five “motivating
concerns” thus:
 as an intellectual enterprise – the search for theory;
 the urge for practical application;
 the incidental contribution of the broader field of comparative politics
 the interest of researchers trained in the tradition of administrative law; and
 the comparative analysis of on-going problems of Public Administration.
Henderson observed that the Riggsian ideas dominated the earlier works in the field of CPA. The
intention of F. W. Riggs and other Comparative Public Administrationists was to utilize the field
to provoke and strengthen theory in Public administration. Riggs opined that CPA is to do this
by being “empirical,nomothetic and ecological”, which implies
being factual, scientific, abstracted and generalizable, systematic and non-parochial.
The above averment essentially implies that CPA is theory based which underscores a basic
difference that CPA has with the wider discipline – Public administration. Public administration is
basically “practitioner- oriented” or practical for short emphasis. From its inception, CPA has
focused more on “theory-building”- seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Another basic difference CPA has with Public administration is that the latter is culture-bound,
while the former with its emphasis on theory is abstract and non-parochial. Public
administration on its own is parochial with its inclination towards specific culture which reinforces
its practical nature.
Notwithstanding the theoretical inclination of CPA as presented by Henry, Fried observed that the
mainstream scholar of CPA are still trying to construct a theory and that “Universal theory
remains elusive”. This he noted thus: that national administrative systems are far more
difficult to study than other social institutions in view of the difficulty of performance
measurement, indeterminable boundaries, cultural variations among nations, and other
uncertain phenomena. Wart and Cayer observed on the basis of in-depth research that articles
on CPA were far “more practitioner-oriented, more empirically rooted, more likely to make
policy recommendations and more concerned with developing methodologies than were
articles on this topic in the past”. They concluded however that CPAlacks features giving it clear
identity and largely remains ambiguous.

PURPOSES OF CPA OR WHY COMPARISON IS NECESSARY

 Comparison is fundamental to all human thought.
 It is the methodological core of the humanistic and scientific methods
 It is the only way a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of political
systems can be obtained.
 Comparison in phases (past and present) and experiences of nations aid indepth
understanding of political and administrative institutions.
 Comparison of politics and administration of other societies affords the benefits of
identifying political alternatives and remedying short comings in our national life.
 It widens our horizon of political possibilities by taking us beyond the precincts of
familiar arrangements and assumptions.
 It assists in developing explanations and testing theories relating to how political and
administrative processes/changes occur.
 As a corollary, it affords the opportunity of assessing the developmental models,
theories, assumptions, phases or processes of nation-states in relation to others.
 The comparative approach facilities an initiation of general theories of
political, economic and socio-cultural relationships between countries.
 By comparing the experiences of many institutions and settings with underlining
political theories, the comparative method offers a potent tool for thought and analysis.
‘CLASSICAL’ CPA Vs ‘NEW’ CPA
Spurred and triggered by events at the international level, comparative public
administration moved from the theoretical emphasis of the ‘classical era’ to a new empirical
emphasis that tries to make better decisions in public policies and management. For
modernizing governments to improve domestic policy making and implementation, they need
to know what systems and skills are required to make them work.
The classical CPA era (generally speaking, from 1961 to 1980) includes influences of the
periods of the US foreign and programme, bilateral programmes of theFrench and English with
former colonies and of UN agencies such as UNDP, WHO, the World Bank and the IMF. But
the driving force of most CPA scholarship during this period was the United States-AID- Cag
doctrines. The systematic successes of the post-war Alliance Programme in Europe and
the Marshall Plan (a programme of reconstruction for Western Europe became the prevailing
model of development for the new nations), for example, generated optimism and excitement
about using administrative means for administrative reforms in the developing
countries. In short, CPA in this period stressed transfer of Western technology, export of
political democracy, modernization of the government machinery through external
inducement, training by foreign experts, designing planning systems and setting of
institutes of public administration. Like the Alliance Programme itself, which applied to
advanced industrial nations, the approach to developing countries was top-down and
presumptuous. The classical era produced mostly rhetorical debate about the meaning of
development and strategies of achieving goals of nation-building and socio-economic
progress. Issues between Western democracy and socialist alternative were debated, producing
an appreciation for the complexities of local cultures and institutions. But lacking the infrastructure
and skills of the original Marshal Plan target countries, few developing countries grew or
developed under the influence of their foreign aid or CPA model building.
There were very few comparative studies of programme or policy administration. The field
studies that were performed were largely case studies of particular programmes, from
which comparative lessons were often proffered but rarely followed up in later studies. In
developing countries comparative studies often boiled down to case studies, such as the Braibanti
study of the Pakistani civil service. In the early 1980s, the agenda of comparative public
administration was affected of a long period of fiscal conservatism and skepticism in the
Unites States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In the early 1990s, it was also affected
by the pull of events in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Latin America requiring new
applied knowledge.
The general trend in foreign aid programmes has been to shift funds from direct government
assistance to NGOs and private agencies as well as efforts to reduce the state in productive
activities through (SOEs). Trade and investment are becoming the preferred solutions to
nation building. To the extent that the government was the focus of aid, it was primarily
to downsize of budgeting, personnel and programme management. Also, the CPA agenda
was affected by the notion that traditional government solutions were not very effective
either in the United States and Europe or in the developing countries. Thefocus became models
of reform and methods of turning around government agencies.
Faced with the problem of fewer resources and increased scepticism, the new CPA agenda has
been less interested in theory building than in application and translation of existing
theories into practice. As with the past CPA efforts, stimulating democratic capitalism. With
these interests new CAP studies have poured out in the traditional areas of public budgeting,
public personnel management, intergovernmental relations, and public management. In
contrast to past debate over such items as turf or field definition, and the quest for middle-range
versus systems theory, CPA research began to focus on the application of organization
theory to comparative management and policy problems. For the first time a concerted effort
has been made on several fronts to examine the determinants of organizational efficiency and
effectiveness in comparative perspective. It may be mentioned here that the CPA agenda is no
longer simply determined by the flow of US foreign aid money. Funding for applied public
sector administrative studies is now solidly multinational, primarily through such institutions as
UNDP, EC-PHARE, the World Bank and the IMF.
To conclude, a fortuitous set of circumstances exists for comparative public administration
work in the future. The new CPA approach has been strengthened by (a) application of
older perspectives, such as ‘functionalism and systems analysis’, and introduction of new
theoretical perspectives, such as ‘public choice’, ‘new institutional economic’ theories, ‘reinvention
of government’ and ‘good governance’, and (b) focusing research on public policies and
public management in the developing countries.
It is observed that comparative administration is moving towards a ‘reinvigorated
functionalism’, stimulated by the growth of new public management as a significant influence
in public administration and in development administration particularly. New public management
(NPM), essentially a market-oriented approach in public administration that distinctly
included performance-based management and institutional reform is concerned with
operational capabilities of intuitions. Public management is seen as ‘managerialism’ by some,
and as ‘ill-defined economicism’ by others, who view it as a ‘neoliberal austerity programme”
uncritically oriented towards economic growth at home and aboard, through an array of disparate
goals and means that include privatization, globalization and liberalization, reduction of
government spending and lowered trade barriers. The NPM has become a dominant
perspective in public and comparative administration. The NPM approach is accepted by many
developed and developing countries because of its utility and emphasis on performance
management and accountability. This approach is views as a new mode of governance.
Neoliberal policies of reduced government size and lowered trade barriers are given
much credit for improved Asian economies (particularly in China and India), but doubts have
been raised about the possibility and desirability of their wide application. Critics point out that,
over the long term, the East Asian model is unsustainable in the absence of a balance between
economic and social policies (violation of human and labour rights). A few scholars
have criticized the World Bank’s neoliberal institutionalism, in particular for taking
management techniques to replace what are in fact governance decisions. Stubbes Writes: The
tenets of the approach have certainly infused development agencies, INGOs and ICCs, (with) the
core components of the new public management (being) the de-regulation of line management;
the conversion of civil service departments into free-standing agencies and enterprises;
performance-based accountability through contracting; and competitive mechanism including
internal markets.
In USA, UK, and in many European countries, public management has focused on the
government reinvention and governance. The comparative focus has been on practical
issues of policy and administration, ranging from performance-based procurement and
contracting to performance budgeting and performance measurement. One group that
is promoting the comparative study of public management as the focus for Comparative
Administration is the International Public Management Network (IPMN), which began in USA, it
is broadly international. With its two journals, International Public Management Journal
(IMPJ) and the web-based International Public Management Review, the IPMN
promotes the comparative study of public management as the focus for comparative
administration.
For doing comparisons in the European Union, the public management institute at Catholic
University at Leuven, Belgium has been instrumental in developing a set of performance
indicators comparing national-level public sector performance in policy areas such as health
and public welfare. In addition, the European Common Assessment Framework (ECAF) has
been developed at the European Institute of Public Administration in Maastricht, Belgium in
concert with Public Management Institute to assess programme quality and policy
performance across public sector organization in Europe.
Managerial approaches such as NPM, to development have growth in influence notwithstanding
a “disjunction between processes and effects” in the application of discourse originating in the
developed world to different dominion of developing nations. But because of its emphasis on
government accountability, performance-based managerial approach can prove to be
conducive to institutional responsiveness and responsibility. Significant theoretical and
applied consensus in comparative administration and, in particular, in development
administration, may be built around this prospect. Guess and Gabrielyan conclude that “a
fortuitous set of circumstance exists for CPA work in the future”. They add, “While the challenges
created by a changing world order have never been greater, the use of applied methods
and growing international interest in the results of public sector reform have created a
variety of scholarly resources equal to these new challenges” thus the study of comparative
public administration promotes a reinvigorates theory building in public administration.
CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE
 Increased inter-state interaction due to globalization has a profound impact on the
performance of States, which could be fruitfully compared by CPA.
 Increasing International interdependence of bureaucracies e.g. for security, needs comparative
studies.
 Action groups related to human rights, child labour, environment, gender, justice & disabled are
coming together- leading to comparative studies e.g. for environment, Green peace is
having global appeal. So is the case with human right organizations having global interlinking
(Amnesty).
 Trends toward co-production of results – public, private and IIIrd sector are coming together
for networked governance. Their broad strategies and institutional involvement especially in
civil sector and effectiveness can be compared e.g. IRC in USA and TRAI in India.
 Disaster Management by different countries can be compared to benefit all.
 Structural reforms in context of LPG- how accepted or rejected in I and III world-makes
comparative studies very imp. What is the nature of state on the first and third world – How does
it affect/ influence the contextual relevance of state and market has encouraged CPA. Good
 Governance calls for adopting the best practices from other countries for the general welfare
of the society. This makes CPA highly important.
 Community management of biodiversity in III world needs to be scientific and rational.
Sharing developmental experience is highly important in this context. Overall today, there is optimistic
climate for CPA. So it is poised for renunciation.
CONTEMPORARY COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Comparative public administration is currently devoted to the task of building ecological and
developmental models useful for cross-cultural analysis. In this regard, the field is designed to
transcend the limitations of American administrative theory and of Weberian analysis.
The Comparative public administration movement emerged in an environment which included
such factors as the spread of American occupational administration during and after World War
II, the emergence of a host of developing countries, the extension of technical assistance
to these countries, the involvement of academicians in the administration of this assistance,
and rapid growth of behavioural sciences in general and comparative politics in particular.
Because of the interest of the Ford Foundation – the institution which financed the CAG for about
a decade – in the problems of the developing countries, and the resultant involvement of scholars
in the administrative systems of such countries, a geographical division of labour has emerged
between the American public administration and comparative public administration, the latter
being interested primarily in the continents of Africa, Latin America, and particularly Asia. This
interest in the study of societies with highly differing cultures has stimulated new thinking in the
field. Scholars in comparative public administration, led by Riggs, have been in search of new
concepts to explain the dynamic and developmental aspects of administrative systems seen
from a cross –cultural perspective. These scholars are striving to build truly ecological constructs,
i.e., those capable of explaining the impact of environment on the administrative system, and vice
versa.
However, such efforts to construct models containing elements of reciprocity have not had
entirely satisfactory results to date. For example, the dominant concern of Riggs’s prismatic model
has apparently been with the impact of social environment on the administrative system. The
treatment of bureaucracy’s influence on the environment has been relatively weak. Thus, Riggs
has not developed a balanced interactional analysis. On the other hand, writers on development
administration have often considered administrative system as an independent variable and
treated developmental goals as dependent variables. Such single factor models of analysis could
fall short of the ideals of an ecological approach, for, once again, the analysis would not be truly
interactional as the reciprocal influence of the environments upon administration would be
neglected.
Moreover in the literature on development administration, writers have not discussed extensively
the way an administrative system may affect the developmental process in society. Some
attention, however, has been given to the problem of administrative reform, particularly its
institutional aspects. It is clear that comparative administrative analyses requires dynamic models
of change. Such models should contain a two-fold perspective, one which encompasses
an analysis of the internal conditions that affect administrative innovation, and the ecological
conditions which favour or frustrate such innovation. Such analysis must envision modal
developmental sequences within diverse contexts. In a related area, the normative concern with
a balance between the bureaucracy and the broader political system – a continuation of the
Weberian tradition-must give way to constructs which are not biased against rapid social change
stimulated primarily either by the bureaucracy or by the political leadership.
As far the ecology of the contemporary scholarship in comparative public administration is
concerned, the most significant variables seem to be associated with the complexities of
modernization and diversity, which in turn are concerned with the dynamic pf social change.
Administration, and particularly public administration, is intimately involved in the entire process
of modernization. In other words, conceptual constructs in comparative public administration
should have the following elements in order to respond to the challenges of modernization:
1. cross-cultural compatibility: allowing broad comparisons among administrative
systems in Western as well as different non-Western settings;
2. developmental dimensions: giving comparison a broad linkage with the question of
modernization;
3. ecological perspective: studying interactions between the administrative systems and
their environment: an ecological perspective would suggests diverse developmental
models rooted in particular sets of somewhat similar systems, and standing between
discrete non-comparative approaches and those seeking universal comparative
categories.
4. Goal-orientation: stressing unique goals of particular cultures in relation to their
administrative systems.
Incorporation of these elements in the conceptual constructs in comparative public administration
would permit analysis of “comparable” as well as diverse administrative systems from the
ecological-developmental and goal-orientation angles. In brief, then, the elements of ecology,
development, goal –orientation and cross-cultural comparability have to be tied together in
comparative administrative analysis, as any one element stripped of others may prove to be less
than meaningful.
Presently, comparative administrative analysis has developed for the most part, on the
macro and “middle range” levels. Collection of broad generalizations and hypothesis is
developing while the empirical testing of these prepositions is being left the future. Thus, in the
area of empirical analysis, comparatively public administration is far behind American public
administration. Nevertheless, in some other areas the comparative theory can contribute to the
American administrative theory, for example, by way of proving certain prepositions like those
dealing with prismatic elements in a diffracted society and positive formalism. Likewise,
comparative public administration can use the rich collection of prepositions developed in recent
years by American Administrative theory and test the extent to which such prepositions are
culture-bound. With the growth of large scale complex organisations in developing nations, it may
be expected that in the future even the early American administrative theory could serve a
heuristic purpose by suggesting certain prepositions on the internal organizational operations in
comparative context. The notions of economy and efficiency could be of great relevance to the
emergent nations, which, out of necessity, are dedicated to the modernization tasks needing
maximum results with severely limited resources. Similar relevance could hold true for writings on
human relations.
As we move along the 1970’s “new” public administration in the United States is gaining favour
among scholars. Concerned with phenomenological approach, conceptually, and with humanistic
orientation, motivationally, the major thrust of the “new” public administration appears to be on
enhancing the role and capacity of public administration to meet the challenges of, and to direct,
social change. In addition, there is another new focus in organisation theory. Students of
“temporary society,” such as Warren Bennis and Philip Slater, are talking of certain desirable
changes in organizational structure and internal environment in response to the challenges of the
changing social environment. Both of these foci- “new” public administration and of “temporary
society” – are concerned with the problems relating to administration-environment interaction, and
to socio-administrative change in this interactional context. In other words, both possess an
ecological-developmental orientation, though with differing emphasis. It appears, therefore,
that comparative public administration and the contemporary American administrative
theory share some common major concerns, in the foreseeable future, comparative public
administration is likely to strengthen its own identity, although, eventually, a desirable course
could be a gradual convergence of American public administration and its comparative
counterpart.

FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A realistic assessment of present situation is necessary for comparative public administration to
reach its potential. Such assessment has to produce a clearer vision and suggest how to improve
integration with the main filed. But, for a better understanding, there must be an awareness of
how we got here. The early mission and priorities of the comparative movement were articulated
by Fred Riggs and Ferrel Heady, as well as other scholars, including Dwight Waldo, Milton
Esman, Frank Sherwood, Ralph Braibanti, John Montgomery, James Heaphey, and Willian
Siffin. Their contributions underlines the need to conduct more empirical studies and to
shift from ideographic (distinct cases) to nomothetic approaches (studies that seek explicitly
to formulate and test propositions).
One of the most significant early articulations was the accentuation of ecological influences
on administrative functions. Another motivating concern of the comparative perspective was
the search for theory and for reforming administrative practices. Many newly independent
countries used early comparative administration scholarship to build the necessary
capabilities for external negotiations for foreign aid. Thus, the reform of administrative system
was mostly a stopgap or an opportunities process rather than well thought-out plan with
articulated objectives and methods. Administrative reform programs for developing
countries have been criticized for ignoring the context of the tradition of democratic
representation and for failing to develop institutions with operational capacities to improve
prevailing low performance and accountability standards. Yet, at the end of the 1970s, cross-
cultural studies had achieved preeminence in university teaching and research, on both
public and business administration curricula.
Looking ahead, in twenty-first century, comparative administration is in search of a new
focus and a new momentum to meet current challenges. One major challenge to researchers
in constructing comparative studies is “Resolving issues of purpose and method.” Properly
constructed, comparative research consists of the evaluation of competing explanatory
frameworks, the testing of models across spatial structures/cultures/organizations/contexts and
the comparison of different instruments for achieving the same end. Resolution of these issues
will be judged by their relevance to practice and their link to the main field of public administration.
Improving the relevance and integration of comparative studies depends on developing
generalizations from aggregated of particular facts that have reliably established. Without
ignoring the concentrations and distinctiveness of the cases being investigated. Whereas
early comparative knowledge was derived mainly from single-case analysis, which often
served as the empirical base for developing tentative generalizations, the current need is for
multiple cases from different context. Knowledge of the operating attributes of the system
subject of study is critical not only for developing generalizations, but also to ensure the
relationship between the particular (the operating system) and the general (the context) is
complementary and coherent. Despite many pessimistic assessments, “the crisis of
confidence” in comparative research is not unique. Current and future research has to
respond to the need for more empirical, nomothetic studies while employing investigation
tools that can accommodate ecological factors. There is need to specify conditions and variables
that determine relationships through empirical evidence gathered from case studies and refined
middle-range propositions. After establishing the overall objectives of future comparative
research, there is a compelling need for an adaptable framework to reconcile systematic
comparisons of different administrative systems.
Such a framework has to manifest certain attributes:
 A wide range with the capacity to harmonize disparate existing research findings of
previous comparative studies.
 Flexibility to balance the conceptual and practical concerns of the filed.
 Adaptability in the face of contextual variations on the ground.
 Openness to incorporate indigenous models and native patterns of study and
application, along with Western concepts and models
CONCLUSION
Today’s public administration functions in a different time and faces different challenges, requiring
new concepts and methods. Realizing the massive influence of unfolding globalism, comparative
public administration opens the door for effective adjustment and transition from traditional,
ethnocentric perspectives to a wider scope that integrated knowledge from various places and
cultures. There is no one way to get to the place where public administration ought to be. However,
clear objectives, ratified application of theoretical perspectives, and updated research instruments would
give the comparative approach a better chance of constructing frameworks and contributing to scholarship
that enriches public administration and ensures its adaptability to current global conditions.