Indian Political Science Association

Revisiting Comparative Public Administration in the Changed Context

Author(s): M. Bapuji and M. Koteswara Rao
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 62, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 574-584
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42743565
Accessed: 26-01-2016 05:41 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Indian Journal
of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Revisiting Comparative Public Administration
in the Changed Context

M. Bapuji*
M. Koteswara Rao**

Fromthebeginning, thestudy ofPublicAdministrationhas

tendedtoconcentrateontheadministrativesystemofa single
nation,namely,theUnited States.Theèfforts
tobroadenthe
horizonsof the disciplineresultedin the emergence of
comparativepublicadministration.Originatedduringearly
1960s,thisparadigm was short-lived
and beganto decline
withina decadeofitsexistence undertheweight ofitsown
limitations.
In 1980s,however,itsrevitalisation
hasbecome a
majorconcernof certainimportant scholarsin thefield.
Alongwithcomparative publicadministration are on
efforts
topromote thestudyofinternational
publicadministration
in
tunewiththe imperatives emerging fromtheprocessof
globalisation.

Comparativepublic administration has emergedin the USA during

early1960s enablingthescholarsof publicadministration to concentrate
on the administrative systemsof various countriesacross the globe.
Gradually,it had attainedthe statusof a sub-fieldwithinthe master
disciplineof publicadministration.Also, it had broadenedthehorizons
of naivelyparochialpublicadministration. Even thoughitsrootscan be
found in the earlier administrative theories, comparativepublic
administrationis mainlya post-WorldWar II phenomenon thatpeaked
during the 1960sand theearly 1970s.However, it beganto declinein the
late 1970s and later, as a universallyrelevanttheoryof public
administration.The attemptsto revivecomparative publicadministration
in the 1980s met with only partialsuccess. It is now imperativeto
integrate^ comparative public administrationwith international

*
Professor,
Department ofPolitical
ScienceandPublicAdministration,
Nagarjuna Guntur.
University,
**
Associate
Professor,DepartmentofAdultContinuing Extension
Education, and
FieldOutreach,
Nagarjuna Guntur.
University,
TheIndianJournal ofPolitical , Vol.62,Number
Science 4, December
2001
ScienceAssociation
© IndianPolitical

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
575 TheIndian
Journal
ofPolitical
Science

in the contextof globalisation.The presentpaper is

administration
on
premised thisassumption.

Emergenceofthefield
Comparativepublic administration emergedfromthe efforts of the
scholarsand practitionersto universalise
Americanpublicadministration
withthe generousfundingby the Ford Foundation,whichwantedto
spreadthe Americanadministrative experienceand know-howto the
developing countries for carrying the development
out projects.It had
heavilydrawn from the intellectual
contributionsof leadingscholarsof
the day in the fieldin America,notably,Fred Riggs,DwightWaldo,
FerreiHeady,G.E.Caiden,EdwardWeidner,Kempe Hope, W.J.Siffin,
PeterSavage,MiltonJ.Esman,WarrenIllechman,Lee Sigelmanand so
on. The 'significanceof such widespreadnew perspectivesand
knowledgeaboutpublicadministration duringthepost-War periodhas
everlastingeffecton thediscipline.The infusion of comparativeanalysis
into the administrativetheoryand practicestimulatednew ideas and
issuesaboutAmerica'sown administrative system.It was believedthat
suchan approachwouldhelpthethirdworldcountries in improving their
administrativeperformances as a means to achieve theirdevelopment
goals. It was also originatedformthepremisethatthe limitations of
Americanadministrative situationcan not be overcomeuntil it is
comparedwiththeexperiences ofothers(Riggs,1998:23).
Comparativepublic administration startedoff with the following
goals: (i) to finda framework for analysisthatpermitscomparisons on a
global basis among the nations;(ii) to promote special in
interest the
administrative problemsof the newly independent countries;(iii) to
createconfidence in thetransferof technologies fromthemoreadvanced
nationsto less advanced nations;and (iv) continuousscrutinyand
evaluationof previousactivitiesin orderto design more productive
methodsforcomparative studiesin thefuture (Heady,1988:573).

FrameworkofStudy:Different
Approaches
Comparative adoptedseveralapproachesforthe
publicadministration
studyof administrativesystemsof developingcountries. The notable
among themare: the GeneralSystemsApproachof F.W. Riggs, the
middle-rangeapproach of numerousscholars based on Weber's
bureaucratictheoryand the developmentadministration approachof
Esman,Weidner,Gant,Scaffer,Kempe Hope and so on. Evidently,a
more productiveand enduringfocus was on the development
administration.This paradigmenabledthe scholarsto cope withthe

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revisiting Public
Comparative Administration
intheChanged
Context 576

improvementof the capabilities of administrativesystems of

developingcountries.
contemporary
Gradually, development administrationhas become almost
synonymouswith comparativepublic administration. Originally,
developmentadministration is viewed as one, which focuses in the
administration concerningwith the developmentprogrammesand
schemes as distinguished fromthe administration of law and order.
to
According Gant,development administration was concerned withthe
of
complex agencies,management and a
systems processes government
establishes to achieve the development goals. Development
administrationis theadministration of policies,programmes and projects
to servedevelopment purposes.The aim of thetermwas "to distinguish
the focus of administration on the supportand managementof
development...fromtheadministration of law and order"(Gant, 1979:
19-20). In spiteof its immensepopularity, development administration
couldnotconvinceall thescholarsin thefield. Some scholarsquestioned
the relevanceof the concept. Siffinnotedthatthe termdevelopment
administrationis notconceptualised in anypreciseandgenerally accepted
fashion.The label identifiesa looselyrevisedinterest thatexistsbecause
some people deem it important(Siffin, 1991). Development
administration,likepublicadministration ofwhichitis a part,is a subject
matter in searchof a discipline(Swerdlow,1975: 325). Accordingto Nef
and Dwivedithedeclineofdevelopment administrationhas resultedfrom
four contingencies-crisis of social science paradigm,development
theory,political theoryand administrative thought. It was the
consequence of the incongruence between the rhetoricof new goals and
the instrumentalitiesof themachineto achievethem. Apartfromthis,
developmentadministration is a very narrowconceptand its scope
confinesto onlydevelopment issues(NefandDwivedi,1981: 61).
Recentcommentators like Siffin,Esman,Caiden,Kempe Hope and
others realised the ambiguityin the meaning of development
administrationand concede that the concept of development
administrationis imprecise,and thatit is multi-dimensional, withthe
scholarsand practitionersdisagreeing on relativeemphasis,priorityand
timing(Esman, 1991). In a similar vein, Siffin comments that
development administration is theindicative
butan impreciselabel fora
set of problemsand its subjectmatteris lackingclear boundariesand
crispdisciplinaryrigour(Siffin,1991: 9-12). Eventhough theinterest
in
development administration continues,its focushas been shiftedto the
reassessment of itsrelevanceto thedevelopingcountries in thechanging
context. The generalsystemsapproachof Riggs deals withthe entire
societywithspecialfocuson thepoliticalandadministrative sub-systems.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
577 TheIndian ofPolitical
Journal Science

has becomethemostpopularand widelyused model

His prismatic-sala
for understandingthe developing societies. After realising its
deficienciesRiggs reformulated his prismaticmodel, which offersa
framework forcharacterisingthesocietieson thebasis oftwodimensions
~ degreesof integrationand differentiation.Actually,itsuse is mostly
confinedto thesocieties,whichRiggslabels as 'orthoprismatic' which
he considers,correspondcloselyto theseveralcontemporary developing
countries
(Riggs,1964; 1973).

and Decline
Shortcomings
In spiteof theseapproachesno agreeduponparadigmemergedin the
studyof comparative publicadministration,whichdeniedthe fieldthe
claim of scientificstatus. PeterSavage highlighted thisparadigmatic
vacuumby explicitly stating:'Comparativepublicadministration started
withno paradigmof its own and developednone.... (Its) literature
displays an exchange of idiosyncratic theoreticalformulations and
organising perspectives,manyof whichhave moreto do withacademic
orpersonalfancythananygenerally acceptablecumulativepurpose.' He
wenton sayingthatthetheories, modelsandconceptsof thefielddid not
reflectthe realitiesof global problemsand issues thatgave rise to the
field(Savage, 1976:417).
Afterthe remarkable burstof activityduringthe 1960s and early
1970s the initialenthusiasm amongthe scholarsof comparative public
administrationstudies declined and the mood became introspective.
Howeverthe comparative methodclearlybecame an integralaspectof
publicadministrationas an academicdiscipline(Savage, 1976). Various
scholarsattributedseveralreasonsforthedeclineof comparative public
administration.Caiden and Caiden (1990: 368) elaborated the
shortcomings of Comparative Group(CAG) thatit was
Administration
too academic sufferingfromoverly detached scholarlyobjectivity,
empirical,too culture-bound,
insufficiently too isolated, it was too
andthatithadtoofewacademicpay-offs.
idiosyncratic
Riggs respondedto thecriticism againsttheCAG. He pointedout
that the institutional more specificallythe funding,are
constraints;
responsibleforthe loss of interestin comparative He
administration.
furtheradds thatwhileCAG has wantedto studyall aspectsof public
administration the termsof its grantrestrictedit to development
administration.AtthesametimeRiggscondemned theCAG foritsivory
towerimageand also foritsfailureto bridgethegap betweenacademic
lifeand practice.Concurring withRiggs,PeterSavage commented that
theCAG did notproducesociallyusefulliterature;itwas nota matterof
producing'bad medicine' but 'no medicine' (Savage, 1976: 419).

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revisiting Public
Comparative Administration
intheChanged
Context 578

Savage,Jun,RiggsandKeithHenderson referred
to theloss ofidentity
of
comparativepublic administration
althoughwith somewhatdifferent
interpretations.
PeterSavage notesthattheimpactof comparative administration
has
been significantand lasting enough that we no longer need any
'movement'becauseitsconcernandperspective havebecomepartof the
broader disciplines of political science and public administration,
parallelingsomewhatthe earliereffectof the behaviouralmovement
(Savage, 1976: 415). On otherhand,Junis of theviewthatcomparative
as an isolatedfieldserveditspurposesand shouldbecome
administrative
as integralpartof the fieldof public administration(Jun,1976: 647).
Riggs also predictedthe convergencebut in a different way that
comparativeadministration will become the masterfieldwhile public
administration
becomesthesub-field withinit (Riggs,1976: 652). Keith
Hendersonvisualiseda sortof identity crisisin thefieldsince anything
can be included within the scope of comparativeadministration
(Henderson,1969:75).

RevitalisationofComparativePublicAdministration
Althoughthetermination of theFordFoundation Grantwas themain
reasonfortheCAG's demise,manyofthescholarsarguedthatitsdemise
was due to lack of a cleardefinitionof theparameters of theemerging
field. Heady concludes that the most frequentcomplaintagainst
comparative publicadministrationis thatithas failedto establishitselfas
a distinctfieldof studycoveringspecificissues and no consensushas
been emergedallowingspecificattention on the empiricalstudiesfor
testingthetheories(Heady,1989).
However,attempts have startedto preventthe downwardtrendof
comparative public administration
duringearly1980s. Many of theold
as well as the new timersworked for the revival of intereston
comparative publicadministration. Some of thebestbrainsin thefield
triedto revitaliseit. FerreiHeady spearheadedtheresurrectionefforts.
He advocated'an outlookof anticipation ratherthandisenchantment'
(Caiden and Caiden,1990:375).But therevivalistsare awareof thenew
realities.Theywantedto infusenew spiritand place thefieldin a new
direction.Therewas a strongfeelingamongthe revivalistsincluding
Heady that the contentsof public administration and its sub-fields
includingcomparative publicadministration
have become outdatedand
outmoded. Hence it could adopt itselfto the fast changingworld
situation. As Heady emphaticallynoted: "At this juncturewhat
comparative publicadministrationneedsis notprolongedpostmortems of
thepastcontributions butvigorouspursuit
ofattractive
newopportunities.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
579 TheIndian
Journal
ofPolitical
Science

He also emphasisedtheneed to grasptherealitiesand build ideas and

evenconceptsbased on them.At thesametime,it was realisedthatthe
western influenceon comparativepublic administration dwindled
EndorsingthisfactCaidenand Caiden comment:already
significantly.
the westernstrongholdon comparativepublic administrationhad been
brokendown by the challengespresentedby Japanand severalother
Third World Countrieswhich have performedextremelywell in
economic developmentwithoutadoptingthe Westernadministrative
methodsandtechniques(CaidenandCaiden,1990:387).
It was suggestedthatfor the revitalisation of comparativepublic
administration one should attempta comparisonof the comparative
studiesof theearlyperiodwiththoseof 1980s. Evidently, in theearly
period the comparative studies were confined to the national
bureaucracies butin 1980s theyhave to concentrate on theinternational
bureaucracies and worldorganisations (Caiden and Caiden, 1990: 388).
The IMF, whichemergedas a potentworldeconomicorganization has
been virtuallydictatingtermsto severaldevelopingcountrieswhile the
WorldBank is exercisingtremendous influenceon theGovernments of
thedevelopedas well as developingcountries.Boththeseagencieshave
createda situation
wherecomparative publicadministrationis requiredto
go beyond thetraditional
concerns of publicadministrationand takeinto
considerationthese international fundingagencies along with other
public/privateinstitutions
workingat international and nationallevels
(Caiden and Caiden, 1990). Long back,Junpredictedthatcomparative
publicadministration wouldgo beyondpurelyadministrative systemsto
includecomparisonof methodsand strategies of organisational change
and development in a crossculturalcontext.He also calledforthestudy
of debureaucratisation process and the activitiesof non-bureaucratic
organisations(Jun,1976: 645).
Severalscholarsagreedthatcomparative publicadministrationshould
be treatedas a generalised
globalframework fortheunderstanding of the
problemsfromglobalperspective in view of theshrinkage of theworld
and its inter-dependence.At a later stage, comparativepublic
administration researchhas focusedon thegrassroots agenciesinvolved
in bringingabout rural developmentin the Third World Nations.
Scholarspaid increasedattention on analysingtherole of new formsof
organisations designed for the deliveryof non-routine servicesto the
sociallyand economically marginalised masses in theThirdWorld.
MiltonEsman'sstudieson the'constituency rolein the
organizations'
ruraldevelopment in severalSouthAsian Countrieshave starteda new
trendin comparative publicadministrationstudies(Esman,1978). Thus
itis clearlyevidentthatin recentdecadesthesestudieshavegonebeyond

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revisiting Administration
Public
Comparative intheChanged
Context 580

the boundariesof individualnations,public bureaucraciesand public

enterprises. More than that they have gone beyond the limits of
administration(Caiden and Caiden, 1990: 389). Subsequently,
comparativestudyof publicpoliciesgainedcurrency and the studyof
comparativepublic policies became a leadingsub-fieldwithinpublic
administration.
Notwithstanding thesedevelopments, FerreiHeady is veryconfident
about the futureof comparativeadministration and predicts that
comparativeperspective will inevitably become more prominent,
enrichingpublic administration the
by identifying horizons in
of interest
such a way that understanding of one's own national system of
will be broadenedby placingit in a cross-cultural
administration setting
(Heady, 1989). Caiden and Caidenwereconvincedthatthedownward
trendof comparativepublic administration was arrestedin the early
1980s. They argued that the revitalisation of comparativepublic
administration could be illustratedby comparing the scope of
comparativestudiesin themid-1980swiththatof20 yearsbefore.In the
earlyphasecomparative studieshad concentratedon thenation-stateand
thenationalbureaucracy.By the 1980s,international bureaucraciesand
worldorganisationscouldattract theincreasedattentionofthescholarsof
comparativepublicadministration (CaidenandCaiden,1990: 388).

ConvergenceofComparativeand InternationalAdministration
In 1980s,alongwithcomparative publicadministration, 'international
administration'also is promoted, though in a desperateand disjointed
manner. While comparativepublic administration concernswith the
studyof administrative systemsof different nations,the international
public administration focuses on the administrative operationsof
agencies(Heady, 1989: 571). In spiteof thisdifference,
international
Heady attempted to forgea sortof convergence betweenthesetwo sub-
a
fields. In his opinion major and continuingconcern of both
comparative and administration
international has been thesearchforan
appropriateframework or paradigm analysis. However,in neither
for
case has this searchbeen successfulin identifying and establishinga
single paradigm common for both the fields. As Heady emphasised
comparative public and
administration international
public administration
are similar in the sense that both avoid concentrationon the
administrativesystemof anysinglenation.Further, theyalso havemany
commonattributes makingtheirunionadvantageous (Heady,1989: 571).
The convergencebetweentheinternational and
publicadministration
comparativepublic has
administration now been on the agenda of
academic and professionalbodies in America. The Section on

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
581 TheIndian
Journal
ofPolitical
Science

International
and Comparative Administration(SICA) of the American
Society forPublicAdministration (ASPA) has been playingan activerole
in thisconvergence process. The CAG had been mergedwiththeSICA
in mid-1970s. Headyforcibly putsforth
his plea fortheconvergence of
the two sub-fields.In his opinionwhatshouldbe the agenda forthe
futureof thesetwo fieldsis to combinetheforcesmoreeffectively by a
closerfamiliarityon thepartof each groupwiththeworkof theother,
leadingto a gradualconvergenceforthe benefitof both comparative
public administrationand international administration(Heady, 1989:
590).

Globalisation:Implicationsfor Public Administration

and Its Sub-
Fields
Globalisationand subsequent New WorldOrderhave implications
forpublicadministration and its sub-fields
includingcomparative public
administration.Globalisationin relationto public administration is
internationalisationwhich means an increasinginterestin the cross-
countryrelationsamong the organisations thatare identifiedand the
communities thatextendbeyondthenationaljurisdiction.It was widely
acknowledgedthat globalism has changed the nature of public
administration worldwide.As correctly notedby severalscholarsin the
marketisation
field,globalisation, andprivatisation
processeshave totally
alteredthe boundariesof public administration in bothdevelopedand
developingcountries.Almostall the countriesaroundthe worldhave
initiatedthe process of restructuring theiradministrativeapparatusin
orderto enablethemto adjust to thenewdevelopments.These scholars
also assertthatemergingglobal public administration is based on a
numberof structural readjustments thathave been takingplace in the
world.Thesereadjustments havebeenin theformofredefining thescope
andboundaries ofpublicandprivatesectors,ofadministrative reforms,of
civil servicereform, of organisational and
reconfiguration restructuring
andmanymore(Farazmand,1994:81).
Evidently,the emergingNew World Order demands public
administrationwhichis farless parochialto getgenuinelyglobalisedor
It is widelyacknowledged
internationalised. thatseveralcurrent human
problemscan notbe tackledon a country by country basis butonlyon a
global basis throughan enlargedinternational policy makingnetwork
relyingon expandedinternational networksand much
organisational
improvednation-state administrative
systems.These scholarsalso assert
thatparochialsolutionswill notwork,butonlyexacerbatetheproblems.
Publicadministration needstojettisonmuchof itsparochialism (Caiden,
1994: 59). Riggs and Caiden confirmthe view of these scholarsby
emphasizing thechangedroleof publicadministration in tunewiththese

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revisiting Public
Comparative Administration
intheChanged
Context 582

new developments and call foran expanded,comprehensive,pluralistic

and 'public role forpublic administration'
in the future(Zamor and
Khator,1994:7).
A significant and recentphenomenon, whichreinforces the need of
comparative studiesin publicadministration, is knowledgeexplosion.It
is difficult
to analyse its effectscriticallybut sufficeto say thatits
implicationsare profoundon the theoryand practice of public
administration in bothdevelopedand developingcountries. Recently,
Riggs in his essay on the SICA feltthatthis explosionwould help
understand Americanadministrative systembetterby encouragingthe
studyof thissystemin comparison withothersystems(Riggs,1998: 22).
He pleadsthatthemandateto promotecomparative publicadministration
expressedin thetitleof SICA needs to includetheUnitedStates. He
remindedthe SICA membersthatthe studyof foreignadministrative
systemscould help themto gain deeperunderstanding of American
publicadministration.He added thatsuch an understanding would enable
them to work more effectively for the improvement of theirown
administrativesystem(Riggs,1998:23).

FutureAgenda
All these developmentsdemand a public administration that is
all
distinctive, encompassing and more genuinely comparativeas well as
global. The popular slogans of marketisation,globalisation and
alteredthenatureofpublicadministration
havedrastically
privatisation in
boththedevelopedand developingcountries.The emergingglobalness
of administrative
systemincreasingly socialisedthe bureaucratsof the
international
community inwhichvalues
intoa globalvillagelikeculture,
and normsof administrative behaviourwill originatefromdifferent
sources. The new global administrative systemalso demandsa huge
global bureaucracycharacterisedby extreme diversity,extensive
complexityandsignificantinterdependence.
The emergenceof globalpublicadministration alongwiththeglobal
bureaucracyinnearfuture willhavemajorimplicationsforadministrative
theory, public administrationeducation and practice. These
developments warrant thescholarsand students
of publicadministration
to thinkgloballyratherthanparochially. Thinkinggloballyenables
publicadministration thefieldbetterthanthepast.
scholarsto understand
This emphasisesthe need to integratethe new understanding intothe
theory and practiceof public administration.This also calls for the
rediscoveryof comparative as well as international
publicadministration
(ZamorandKhator,1994: 1).
administration

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
583 TheIndian ofPolitical
Journal Science

In conclusion,thereis a definitedearthof paradigmsin public

administration thatwould enable the practitionersof the disciplineto
becometruly'comparative and global'. This stressestheneed fora new
approachinpublicadministration. The newnessofthisapproachdepends
upon the identificationof what is lackingin the existingapproach.
Further,therelevanceand credibility
of thisnew approachdependsupon
incorporating the changesthathave been takingplace at nationaland
globallevels.

References

Caiden,G. E. (1994). "Globalizingthe Theoryand Practiceof Public

" in Jean-ClaudeGarcia-Zamor
Administration and RenuKhator(eds),
PublicAdministration
intheGlobalVillage, Praeger.
Westport:
Caiden,G.E. andNaomiCaiden(1990)."TowardThe Futureof Comparative
in O.P.Dwivedi
PublicAdministration", andKeithHenderson(eds.),Public
in WorldPerspective
Administration , Amos,Iowa: Iowa StateUniversity
Press.
Dimension
Esman,M.J.(1991).Management ofDevelopment: and
Perspectives
et:Kumarian
Hartfort,
Strategies, Press.
Administration
(1978). "Development and Constituency
Organization",
Review
PublicAdministration pp.166-177.
, Vol.38,No.2,March-April,
Ali (1999). "Globalization
Farazmand, and PublicAdministration",
Public
Administration
Review, Vol.59,No.6,November/
December.
(1994). "TheNew WorldOrderandGlobalPublicAdministration:A
CriticalEssayin Jean- ClaudeGarcia- ZamorandRenuKhator(eds.),
PublicAdministration
intheGlobalVillage, pp.61-81.
Praeger,
Westport:
Gant,George(1979).DevelopmentAdministration: Goals,Methods,
Concepts,
Madison:UniversityofWisconsin
Press.
Heady,Ferrei(1998). "Comparative and International
PublicAdministration:
Building Intellectual
Bridges",PublicAdministration
Review, Vol.58,No.l,
January-February,pp.32-39.
(1989)."IssuesinComparative andInternational inJack
Administration",
Robinet al (eds.),Handbook NewYork:Marcel
ofPublicAdministration,
Dekker (2nd pp.571-594.
Edition),
Henderson, Keith(1969). "Comparative PublicAdministration:The Identity
Crisis",Journalof ComparativePublic Vol.
Administration, I, No.l,May,
pp.65-84.
S. Jung
Jun, (1976) "Renewing theStudyofComparativeAdministration: Some
Reflectionson the Current PublicAdministration
Possibilities", Review,
Vol.36,No.6,November-December, pp.641-647.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Public
Comparative
Revisiting Administration
intheChanged
Context 584

Nef,J.andO.P. Dwivedi(1981)"Development TheoryandAdministration:

A
FenceAround an Empty lot?"TheIndianJournal
ofPublicAdministration,
Vol.27,No.l,January-March,pp.42-66.
Riggs,F.W.(1998)."PublicAdministration
inAmerica,
WhyOurUniqueness is
Exceptionand Important", PublicAdministration
Review,Vol.58,No.l,
January-February,
pp.22-30.
(1976). "The Groupand the Movement: Notes on Comparative and
Development PublicAdministration
Administration", Review,vol.36,No.6,
November-December, pp.648-654.
(1973). PrismaticSocietyRevisited,
Morristown,N.J.:GeneralLearning
Press.
(1964).AdministrationinDeveloping : TheTheory
Countries ofPrismatic
Societies,Boston:
Houghton Miffin.
Savage, Peter (1976). "Optimismand Pessimismin Comparative
PublicAdministration
Administration", Vol. 36,No.4,July-August,
Review,
pp.415-423.
W.J.(1991)." Problem
Siffin, ofDevelopment " in Farazmand
Administration
Ali (ed.), Handbookof Comparative and DevelopmentAdministration,
NewYork:MarcelDekker, pp.5-13.
Swerdlow, Irwing(1975).ThePublicAdministration
ofEconomic Development,
NewYork:Praeger.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:41:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions