Indian Political Science Association

Indian Political Science Association
COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : PROLOGUE, PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND

PROMISE
Author(s): Dwight Waldo
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 24, No. 3 (1963), pp. 177-216
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41853973 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:36
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 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : PROLOGÛË,
PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND PROMISE
By
Dwight Waldo*
My object in this paper is to review and analyze the comparative

public administration"movement." I seek to understandit in termsof
its origins,its presentactivities,its products and its aspirations. I wish
also to probe into some of the crucial problems of methodologyand
philosophythatare posed.
As thesecrucial problemsare crucial ones for the whole enterprise
of Social Science, probed and arguedagain and again, it is quite unlikely
thatI shall be makinga significant contributionto theirresolution. How-
ever, the setting which the issues will be posed may at least help in
in
dramatizingtheirimportanceand throwingthem into clearer relief. For
the settingis the contemporarywhole world and the issues,whilein the
mostprofoundsense "academic," relatein a most profoundway also to
thepresentand futureof thisworld. At least- if thissounds too pompous
and pretentious - it is true if what objectiveswe seek and the techniques
we use in theirpursuitin so-called technicalassistance programsare of
consequence. Nor are the mattersthatconcernme relatedonlyto techni-
cal assistancein any strictsense. Certainlytheyrelateto the varied ends
and the appropriatemeans of "business" in differing nationaland cultural
settings.
The Developmentof Public Administration
It is appropriateto begin with some observationson the develop-
* Professor
ofPolitical
Science& Director oftheInstitute
ofGovernmental Studies,
Universityof Californiaat Berkeley (USA). This paperwas preparedfor
Symposium on BusinessPolicyorganized by the GraduateSchoolofBusiness
HarvardUniversity
Administration, on April8-11,1963. We are extremely
to the author,to the GraduateSchool,and especiallyto Professor
grateful
KennethR. Andrews, oftheSymposium
organizer forallowingusto publishit in
theIndianJournal of PoliticalSciencebeforeit is eventuallypublished as a
partoftheSymposium proceedingsbythe DivisionofResearchof theHarvard
School.(Editor
Business )
AUTHOR'SNOTE: I ampleasedthattheEditorhasthought highly enough
ofthispapertowishtopublish itin TheIndianJournal of PoliticalScience.As
printedhere,it standsas presentedat theSymposium inApril,1963. It willbe
somewhatrevised,in lightof criticalcomments and secondthoughts, when
inthevolume
published ofconférence proceedings. observations
Critical on the
arewelcome.
ideasexpressed
177

178 "THEINDIANJOURNAL
OF POLITICALSCÍENCĚ
mentof Public Administration, forthe developmentof ComparativePublic

Administrationand its present problems are most clearly viewed in
historicalperspective:The logical problemsare-relatedto a chronological
development.
By Public AdministrationI referto the discipline- or perhaps one

should say the course of studyor curriculum,as it is not very "disciplin-
ed" - not to the activityof àdministratorsor civil servants. That is to
say,therewas publicadministration beforethereWasa self-conscious; study
and teachingof Public Administration, just as business preceded a self-
conscious study and teaching of Business-Administration.The first
textbooksand curriculaof Public Administration in this countrycame in
the Twenties. The authorsof thesetextbooksand the organizersof these
curricula were for the most part professorsof Political Science. Thè
discipline(or course-orcurriculum)consistedof informationfrom several
differentsources,held togetherin the mindsof the believersby certain be-
liefs about science, about government,about the nature and purpose of
administration in generaland public administrationin particular/
The beliefsabout governmentand public administrationthat'werè

most importantare perhaps these: that the proper ends of government
are foundin the ends of the people it serves; that the entireprocess of
governmentcan be dividedinto two phases; to decide on policy and then
tó execute or carry out the policy; that the values and processes of
democracyapply to the firstof thesephases and thatit is here (in voting,
legislating,etc.) thatthe congruenceof the ends of governmentwith thé
ends of the people is broughtabout ; that the values and processes of
democracyhave no (or at least little)directrelevancyto the second phase,
the execution of decisions,but ratherare securedthroughthe firstphase.
That /sto say, democracyunderconditionsof theTwentiethCenturymeans
not directpopular participationin government or even direct"meddling,"
but control throughpolitical parties and by the electoral and legislative
processesof agents(officials)who would both pose meaningfulalternatives
forchoice, and directand be responsibleforthe actions of civil servants.
Much of this is epitomizedin the transitionfromtheNineteenthCentury
"spoilsman" to the TwentiethCenturycivil servantor careeremployee.
The substantialseparationof democracyfrom that part of govern-
ment concernedwith executingor administering policy permitted- in the
view of the foundersof the discipline - the application to this part of
governmentof very importantvalues and processes. It permitted,for
example, the application to governmentaladministration of the growing
on
emphasis specialization and professionalism in American life*in general,
of bureaucracy in its sociological sense as against amateurism or
democraticchaos. Most importantly, it permitteda definition of a disci-
pline of Public Administration
as a science(or at least subject to scientific

COMPARATIVE
WBUC- ADMINISTRATION IÌ9
methodology1),a science focuscd upon one end, efficiency.Thjs sciençe

was conceivedas value-freeor, alternatively,single-valued, depending on
whetherefficiency wàs viewed as a value to be pursuedor an end which,
bydefjnition,eliminatedvalues when pursued. In any case, the choiçç
of çnds was posited as a pre-administrative act, and both the processof
administrationand the scientificstudy of administrationťhad as their
purpose the most efficient
pursuitof theseends.
The centralobjectivesof the scientificstudy of administrationwere
presumed;to be scientific"principles." These principleswereconceived
as beinganalogous to tiróseof physics^-or perhaps engineering,for they
wereconceivedboth as descriptiveand prescriptive, as statementsof cause
and effectand as having an imperativequality, given the acceptance of
efficiency as thç goal of administration. In a mannerthat succeeds in
appearing quaint to all shades of contemporarysocial sciencethinking,
'y. F« Willoughbyput it thus:^"There arefundamentalprinciplesof general
application, analogous to thosecharacterizing any science,whichmustbe
jobsefrved. if the end of administration,efficiency in operation,is to be
secured; and... these principlesare to be determinedand theirsignificance
made known,onlyby the rigidapplicationof scientificmethods."2 L. D.
White, the author of the firsttextbook on Public Administration, stated
hi§ conceptionof "principle" in a way highly relevant to the present
purpose of probing the significanceof comparativestudyforscienceand
action: "A principle,consideredas a testedhypothesisand applied in the
lightof jts appropriateframeof reference, is as usefula guide to action in
thepublic administration of Russia as of Great Britain,of Irak as of the
United States." ' Holding in view that we are tryingto teach Business
Admini$trationto the Pakistanis-^nd Public Administrationto the
Korpans,is it "principles"we are tryingto convey? Or what?
Yòu are perhaps ahead of me- but I call your attentionto the
similarityof the mode of thinkingof Willoughbyand White to that of
FrederickW. Taylor and his followers in the Scientific.Management
movement. Taylor's object was "the developmentof a truesciencé,*a
"one best way,"by whathe conceivedto be the tested scientificmeans of
carefulobservátion,measurement,generalization. He and his followers
had no. doubt that their truthswere universais,and in fact Scientific
1 Thefounders werenqtveryclearon thispoint. Thus,W. F. Willougjhby, the

authorofthefcèçônd textbook,Wrote "ifnotâ science,
irt1919thatadministration
a subject'
to:thestudyofwhichthescientific methodshouldbe rigidlyapplied."
Introductionto G. A. Weber'sOrganized fortheImprovement
Efforts of Methods
ofAdministrationintheUnited States(NewYork: 1919),30. Laterwriters have
hadavailablea literature methodand philosophy
on scientific presentingsharp
betweenpureand appliedscience,scienceandtechnology,
distinctions andso
forth..Thevalidityofsuchdistinctionsis another
matter.
2 "TheScience ofPublicAdministration," inEssaysinPolitical
Science(Baltimore:
1937),J.M. Mathews andJ.Hart,cds.,39-73,39.

180 ŤHE INDIANJOURNAL
OF POLITICALSCIENCE
Management had become an internationalmovementand organizationby

the 1930's. The similarityin thinkingbetween early Public Administra-
tionand ScientificManagement is not accidental; Public Administration
was heavily in debt to the ScientificManagementmovement. In the
openingsentenceof thefirsttextbook(in 1926) Whiteexplicitlystatesthat
his base is management,not law. Public Administrationand Business
Administrationwere not only born in the same period, but had many
commonancestors.
Perhaps,in considerationof thelater discussion,I should be explicit

as to thenatureof the ''principles"of public administration, as conceived
in the 1930's. These principles for the most part concernedtheoryof
organizationas representedat that time forBusinessAdministration by
Mooney and Reiley's Onward Industry ' (or the laterPrinciplesof Organi'
zation by Mooney) and for Public Administrationby the collection of
essayseditedby LutherGulick and LyndallUrwick,Papers on the Science
of Administration (1937). More specifically, theyconcernedsuch matters
as hierarchyor the "scalar principle," specialization and the "functional
principle,"the distinctionbetween staffand line and their properinter-
relation,executivefunctionsand co-ordinatingprocesses. They purported
to tell one how he ought or mustorganize and operate if he wishedto
achieveends soughtby organizationsefficiently.It is characteristicof the
literature that while the existence and importance and indeed the
inviolabilityof theprinciplesare assertedconfidentlythere is nevertheless
much "looseness" to a later generationhighly self-consciousabout
methodological problems and scientific criteria of exactness. The
principles were broad, imprecise and unqualified, generalizations
(Graicunas' precisionon the span of control is the only exception that
comes to mind)as to how one oughtto act if he wishesto be efficient.
The 1940's werea traumaticand crucial period for Public Adminis-
tration. One importantphenomenonwas that themajorityof activeand
potentialacademic teachersand writersin thedisciplineheld positions- or
at least had "administrativeexperience"of some kind- in themilitaryor
in some war-related civilian agency. The result was naturally a
simultaneous broadening and sharpening of vision. Negatively,the
existingtextbooksseemedinadequate,inaccurate,dull; positively,reports
on new experiencesand new perspectivesswelledto a large volume.
A second phenomenonwas thatcriticaldissatisfactionwiththe older
signaledin the 1930's, delayedor restrainedby the War,3 burst
literature,
forthin the late 40's. ThreeitemsthatI thinkwereespeciallyimportantin
thiscriticalattackwere RobertA. Dahl's '"The Science of PublicAdminist-
ration: Three Problems,"1 Herbert A. Simon's Administrative Behavior-,
3 Notentirely
: See Schuylcr
C. Wallace,FederalDepartmentalization
: A Critique
ofTheories
ofOrganization(NewYork: 1941).
* 7 rubíteAdministration
Review 1947),1-11.
(Winter,

COMPARATIVE
PUBLICADMINISTRATION 181
A Studyof Decision-MakingProcessesin Administrative Organization,s and

my own The Administrative A
State-, Study of the Political Theoryof
AmericanPublic Administration.6 In general,the chargesmade and argued
were that the early writershad proceeded on premisestheyhad not
examinedcritically(if indeedtheyhad been aware of them),that theyhad
often confused and unwarrantly mixedfactand value categories,thatthe
claim to a knowledgeof scientifically
respectableprincipleswas premature
and presumptuous,that the understandingof scientificphilosophyand
methodologywas veryinadequate if not indeedquite erroneous.
It would be inappropriateto commenton my own book, and it is
unnecessaryto commenton Simon's : It has probably been betterknown
and more influentialin BusinessAdministration thanin Public Administ-
ration. But Dahl's essay is worth a brief look because it puts the
question of the significanceof comparativenessfor the developmentof
theory. Actually,onlyone of the "three problems" he saw as posed in
an attemptto make Public Administration a scienceis concernedexplicitly
withcomparativestudies; but in fact the othertwo problemsare involved,
indeedmagnified, in a seriousattemptto use comparison in the develop-
mentof theory.
The firstproblem"of constructing a scienceof public administration
stems fromthe frequentimpossibilityof excludingnormativeconsidera-
tions fromthe problemsof public administration."(1) The discussion
charges that the traditionaltheoryof organizationand administration had
confusedand unjustifiably conflatedfactand value categories,as seen by
its treatmentof efficiencyand by its responseto such "public" mattersas
responsibility.The conclusionis that while the distinctionbetweenfact
and value is important,nay crucial,"the studentof public administration
cannotavoid a concern with ends...to refuseto recognizethat the study
of public administrationmust be foundedon some clarification of ends is
to perpetuate the gobbledygook of science in the area of moral
purpose." (3)
The second problem"stemsfromthe inescapablefactthat a science
of public administrationmust be a studyof certain aspects of human
behavior."(4) The discussionhere concerns,in part,familiarmethodologi-
cal problemsarisingfromthe diversity,complexityand non-repeatability
of the phenomena,but centersupon a tendencyef writers(the shaft is
directedtoward the invitingtargetUrwickpresents!) to build a theoryon
a vastlyover-simplified
view of human nature. The' writers,he charges,
ask us to accept a ludicrouslyover-simplifiedAdministrativeMan
rather like- in fact related to- Eighteenth Century Rational Man.
Administrative theorymustcomprehendor at least allow fortheemotional
8 (NewYork: 1947.)
0 (NewYork: 1948.)

18¿ OF POLITICALSCIENCE
THE INDIANJOURNAL
and non-rational; it mustbe sensitiveto biases derivingfromits historical
and geographicalmatrix:from capitalism,industrialism,rationalism,and
so forth.7
The third problem Dahl presents is 1at thé center of tny later
concerns: the relationshipof "principles" to comparativestudy. Public
Administration, he charges,has been all but oblivious to the significance
of *h.e social settingof administration. It has assumed that thereare
organizationaland administrativeuniversaisratherthanprovingthat there
are.; building on a parochial base, it pretends to universality. He
concludes:
1. Generalizationsderivedfromthe operation'of public administ-
ration in the environmentof one natión-sťáteCannot be
in a different
universalizedand applied to public administration
environment.;.
2. There can b.e no trulyuniversal;generalizationsabout public
administrationwithouta profoundstudyöf varyingnationaland
social characteristicsimpingingon public administration,to
determinewhataspects of public administration, if any,are truly
independentof the nationaland social setting...
3. It,followsthatthe studyof public administrationmustbecome a
much more broadly based discipline,resting on a narrowly
not
defined knowledge of techniquesvand processes,;but rather
extendingto the varyinghistorical,sociological,; economicand
otherconditioningfactors...(1 1).
The Rise of ComparativePublic Adjninistration

In referring to myfilesOfPublicAdministration Reviewto re-examine
bahl^ essay,I am remindedof its relationshipto the course of eventsas
well as to intellectualdevelopments. For in the post-Waryears Public
Administration Review was sprinkledwith accounts of foreignadminist-
ration, or at least of administrationof some unusual typein an unfamiliar
setting. Students of Public Administration werescattered$boutřthe world
during the War and were deeply involved in two areas by the post-War
Occupations. What they were moved to writeout of theirexperiences
was of course largelyreportoria,!* but some essaysmoved beyondsimple
descriptionand intocontextualand.comparativeanalysisof some depth?
7 And"Ifthere is evertobe a sciencçofpublicadministration

it mustderivefrom
an understanding of man'sbehavior intheareamarkedoffbytheboundaries
of
publicadministration."
(7) Emphasis added.
8 MiltonJ. Esman's"JapaneseAdministration- A Comparative'
View,"? Public
Administration
Review (Spring remains
1947),100-112, todaya sophisticated
and
useful
essay.

PUBLICADMINISTRATION
COMPARATIVE 183
As historyhad it, War and Occupationwerethe beginningand not

the end of overseas interestsand operations. The Marshall Plan for
economic recoveryin Europe grew'into, or was succeededby, thePoint
Four programforso-calledunderdevelopedareas/ The idea of aid to the
distressed was expanded into the idça of "technical assistance" in
economic,social and politicaldevelopment. The various programsof the
U.S. Government,and those of the United Nations and privatefounda-
tions, have engaged scores, probably hundreds,of teachersand writers
identifiedwith the field of Public Administrationin overseasassignments.
These »assignmentshave generallybeen in exotic culturesand forperiods
of residenceof at least a year. In fact, a new professionalspecialization
may be developing,for some persons have been abroad formorethana
decade, movingfromone assignmentto another.
In light of these facts perhaps we should be surprised,not ;thata

literatureof and self-consciousinterestin ComparativePublic Administ-
ration has developed, but that the developmenthas been so slow and
halting. If the latterneeds explanationI thinkit can be in these terms:
First, that it tended to be presumedyear to year that the programsof
assistance were "temporary." Second, thatwe tendedto presume(albeit
frithvaryinglevels of sophisticationand self-awareiiess)that Sve knew
what Public Administrationas a discipline ¿y and what publicadminist-
rationas a practiceoughtto be- otherwisewhyshould we be going out to
reachit or installit? The presentinterestperhapsstemsfrom<ourfailures
ratherthanfromour successes, frombitterexperiencesand ruefulreflec-
tions. On the basis of myown experience,myannual "foreignaid" worry
that four billion dollars is not proportionateto the need is simultaneously
increasedand temperedby my reflectionthatwe haven't the clarity of
objectives,trainedmanpowerand know-howto spend thatmuchmoney
on overseasassistance withoutserious risk of more harm than good to
both receiverand giver.
In any event- Comparative Public Administrationgrew from
tentativebeginningsin the early post-War years into a contemporary
"movement"of considerablesize, complexityand intensity. For present
purposes it sufficesto note that courses (mostly graduate) in the subject
began to appear (I introducedone at the University,of Californiain 1948)
ançl are now offered in perhaps a score of ; thatin the early
institutions
50's theAmericanPolitical Science Association establisheda committeeon
comparative administrationand that this was followed by a special
committee - now the Comparative Administration Group- of the
AmeticanSocietyforPublic Administration.;_that the foundationsbecame
íňierestétí-atrďbègan to give support; that beginningin 1952 several

184 THE INDIANJOURNAL
OF POLITICALSCIENCE
special conferenceshave concerned themselveswith the subject.' The

ComparativeAdministration Group is the presentfocusof interest,and is
in the early stages of a three-yearprogram (financed by The Ford
Foundation) of researchand otheractivity.
RelationshipswithOther Developments
Of more importforour purpose than the mere historyof the move-
ment are its relationshipswith certain developments-and perhaps lack
of developments - in Public Administrationand Political Science. We
face herea tangledskeinof ideas and interrelationsof which it is hard to
speak accurately and briefly. But the attemptmust be made. I shall
limitmyobservationsto three themes: First, certain general tendencies
and problemsin Public Administration and Political Science; second, the
significanceof HerbertSimon's work; and third,the significanceof the
ComparativePoliticsmovement.
I notedabove thatthe matrixof ideas that gave meaningand force
to Public Administrationduring the 20's and 30's collapsed in the 40's
underthecombinedimpactof new experienceand criticalanalysis. During
thepast 15 yearsPublic Administration às a focus of researchand teach-
ing, as a course of study or curriculum, has not onlysurvivedbut in many
ways has grown. In many respects, certainly,the growth has been
' there has been, in reactionto theolder self-confident
healthy." Certainly
parochialism, general willingnessto incorporatenew data, new ideas,
a
new influences. There has been considerableexperimentation with new
approaches;10 there has been a strenuous attempt to relate Public
9 On the historyof the movement see especially
: W. J. Siffin, 'Toward the
Comparative Studyof PublicAdministration," inToward theComparative Study
ofPublicAdministrât
ion>Siffin, ed. (IndianaUniversity, 1957); Fred W. Riggs,
4'Trendsin the Comparative Studyof PublicAdministration," 28International
Review ofAdministrative Sciences{No. 1, 1962),9-15; FerreiHeady,"Compara-
tivePublicAdministration : Concernsand Priorities," inPapersinComparative
PublicAdministration, Heady,ed.(Institute ofPublicAdministration, AnnArbor:
1962); and R. S. Milne,''Comparisons andModelsinPublicAdministration,"
Studies
10Political (February 1962),1-14. TheSiffin andHeadyessaysintroduce
ofessays; all areexcellent
collections forsummary, perspective, and introduction
to othersources.The June1960issueof Administrative ScienceQuarterly is a
"SpecialIssueon Comparative PublicAdministration" containing essaysboth
andgeneral.Comparative
specialized inAdministration
Studies (Pittsburgh: 1959)
editedbyJames D. Thompson, PeterB. Hammond, RobertW. Hawkes,Buford
H. Junker, and Arthur Tuden,is an interestingvolume thatseeksto bridge the
gapbetween "public"and ''business"administration to comparative administ-
ration.See especiallyChapter1, "On the Studyof Administration". For
further seeComparative
exploration, PublicAdministration : A SelectiveAnnotated
, by FerreiHeadyand SybilL. Stokes,
Bibliography 2nded. (Institute ofPublic
AnnArbor: 1960).
Administration,
10Perhaps tnemostnotable ot theseis tne "case approach,undertheCommit-
tee on PublicAdministration Casesafiditssuccessor, the inter-university Case
(Contd. onnextpage)

COMPARATIVE
Administrationto other "fields", especially the various social sciences,

as therecenttextbookswitness.
But whilethe disciplinehas greatlyexpandedit has remained "undis-
ciplined." That is to say, therehas not developed any core of unifying
and organizingideas to replacethosediscreditedin the40's. I appreciate
thatno social sciencelacks its deep schisms,but we are so amorphousas to
make schisms difficult ! We unite in paying dues to the Society; and
possiblyin payingrespectto sòme colleague's ability- but not to his ideas.
Perhapsthereis no reason in the logic of things why we should be a
disciplinein thesense <?fhaving a common philosophical-methodological
outlook. Perhapsthe properanalogy is to a profession - medicineor law,
-
forexample not to a scientificdiscipline. However, the presentlack of
a sense of unity aiid directionrelates to the hopes some entertainfor
ComparativePublic Administration : I believe it is correctto say that
thereis a hope thatthrough mastering we shall achieveunity.
diversity
As notedabove, Public Administration was createdby professorsof
PoliticalScience,and the two fieldsof studycontinueto have close and
importantrelationships < Fbr more than twentyyears therehas been a
separate professionalsociety,and in some instancesPublic Administration
stands as a separate school ór curriculumor is combined with Business
Administration.But morecustomarily.Public Administration is taughtas
a course or branchof PoliticalScience,and the parentdisciplineshows no
dispositionto exclude its offspringfromits journals and meetings. By
definitionPublic Administrationis a part of the governmentalprocess,
afterall, even thoughit draws ideas and techniquesfrommany fieldsof
knowledgeand relatesto a multiplicity of functionalareas such as welfare,
agriculture, and education. What has happened in Political Science is
therefore,also relevant to the development of ComparativePublic
Administration.
"Behavioralism"is the one word that best signifiesand summarizes
the development of Political Science during the past fifteenyears.
Behavioralismis a controversialword even in its definition, but in general
it refersto a desire and an attemptto make Political Science genuinely
scientific. In generalit describesor impliesan attemptto move fromthe
philosophicalto the positive,the empirical,the existential; to separate
questionsof factfromquestionsof value and to maketheformertheproper
concern of Political Science; t©learn and make use of proper scientific
methodology ; to draw inspiration,knowledge,and concepts fromand to
from
(Contd. page)
previous
someeightycases have been published
Program, and as manymoreare in
This is the mostnotable,but nottheonly,
preparation." caseseriesinPublic
See EssaysontheCaseMethod
Administration. in PublicAdministration,
Edwin
A. Bock,ed., published CaseProgram
jointlyby the Inter-University andthe
International ofAdministrative
institute Sciences andNewYork: 1962).
(Brussels

î$6 THE INDIANJOURNAL'
OF POLITICALSCIENCE
join morecloselywithrelated fields of studythatare deemed ''behavioral

science"; to seek more,and moreunified,empiricaltheory.11
The behavioral movementhas substantiallyalteredPolitical Science
without,however,thoroughlytransforming it. Some new areas'of study
have been developedor else have beentransformed-forexample,the study
of votingbehavior. Shiftsin emphasis,in the relativeproportionsof man-
power and money,and:in*fashionablemodes of studyhave occurred. No
significantsegmentx>f Political Science remainsunaffectedby the new
Currents; but some segmentshave charigôdremarkablylittle. For all the
tumultand change therehas'been no thoroughconversionof a discipline;
uneasinéss,uncertaintyand controversy remain.
That Political Science has been so "old fashioned,"lagging behind
its sisterdisciplinesin the movementtowardScience, strikesme,as easily
explicable. I find the explanationin differences in disciplinaryrole anel
function.Political Science by historicaldevelopment,institutionalinvolve-
ment,and public expectationis deeply rooted in the.normative-more so
than psychology, : sociology, and anthropology,probably moré "so than
économies,thoughhere comparisonbecomes-very-complex. My point is
fliatPolitical Science is deeplyinvolvedboth in the processes qf defining
and inculcatingcivic loyaltyand öf shaping and executingpublic policy.
Obviouslyany requestto be value-neutralabout the moral,imperati ves of
patriotism, of of
constiťutioríalismt, democracy, of traditional values asso-
ciated withlibertyand equality; any driveto' abandon the ought in favo#
of the is; any push to make Political Seiende a value-free, -descriptive
enterprise,is bound to createconfusion,raise tensión,cause controversy.
In general,theimpactof behavioralism on the Public Administration

band of the Political Science spectrumhas been;sjow and halting. The
reasons relate, certainly,to the mattersI have just indicated. Birtherejrç
posed a special,question. ; Herbert Simon's Administrative JBehaviqr was
not only a critiqueof the old Public Administration, it offeredin its[place
a stronglyargued reconstructionof the. study of administration, along
behavioral lines.. This work, it is agreed, has been influentialin social
Sciencegenerally. But I thinkit.is correctto say thatit was receivedwith
deep reservationsand oftenwithhostilityby studentsof Public Adminis-
tration,and tha whileits influencelong run"andindirectlyhas been fairly
large this influencehas been just that: long run and indirectly. Since
^4 ministratileBehaviorwas directlyfocused on Public Administration, it
would have been a reasonable presumptionthat its influenceWould have
11See myPoliticalSciencein the UnitedStatesof America : A TrendReport

(UNESCO: 1956),especially
Chapter11,fora fulleraccountpf the natureand
impactpf behavioralism.
A supplement and a mocèrecent viewis contained
in
thesymposiumTheLimitsofBehavioralisminPolitical ].C. Charlesworth,
Science,
BytheAmerican
ed.*sponsored ÀcadeníyofPoliticalandSòçíalScience(October
J962):

COMPARATIVE 18^
been immediateand great on the studyof Public Administration. How

does one explain the contrary?
I offerthe followingexplanation. A centraltenetof the old Public
Administration,you will recall,,was the separation of "politics" and
"administration." As againt JacJcsonian direct democracywas-posed a
schemedeemedappropriatefora complex industrialsociety,restricting the
pitizen's role to the political (deciding) and permittingadministration
(carryingout decisions) to become an area of professionalism, expertise,
science. The »criticalattack of the 40's was centeredupon this attempt
rigidlyto separate the political and the administrative, and by 1950 the
idea thatseparationwas eitherpossible or desirablewas quite discredited.
It seemed obvious from a wealth of personal experienceand scholarly
studythatthepolitical ánd the administrative were intimatelyjoined over
khz major area of public administration, that policy-makingof various
importantkinds and high levels cannot be kept free from bureaucratic
participation. Some went furtherand argued that it is desirablethat
ínteréstgroups and perhaps politicalpartiesseek to influenceadministra-
torsdirectly; or tha'tadministratorsshôuldbe active iii policy-makingand
in
pèrha'ps'èven partisanpolitics.
Now 4he ^reforipulatipn offeredby Simon was certainlyin some
respect^ novel and radical, but it was, curiously,in some respectsmuch
'
like the scheoia of the.Qlc^PubìicAdministration. To be precise,in . three
crucialways: First,basing himselfon logical positivism,Simon proposed
a rigiddistinctionbetweenquestionsof value and,questions of fact. This
is certainlya different distinctionfromthátbetweenpoliticsand adminis-
tration, but it is, like the latter,a sweeping two-folddivision of the
"universe." Second, having" rigidlyseparatedvalue and fact,Simon argued
that the latter- includingthe facts of public administration - are subject
studyin exactlythe same way that factsin the realms of the
to scientific
«aturai sciencès are subject to scientificstudy.. He thus "rescues" and
places on new and higherground the1beliefand argumentof the Fathers
thatPublic Administration is subjectto science,potentiallyif notpresently.
?Tbïrd,Simon' took the discredited conceptof efficiencyas the goal of the
scientificstudyand practiceof public administration, carefullydefinedand
refihedit, and placed it again at the centeras thè criterionby whichan
àdministrator mustbe ^guidedin the factualaspects of decision-making.
The argumentof Administrative Behavioris powerful,complexand
subtle. No studentin Public Administration could "refute" it.32 Yet in
12The mosteffective criticalattackto daté is, I think,HerbertJ.Storing,The

ScienceofAdministration,"inEssaysontheScientific Studyof Politics,Storing,
ed. (NewYork: 1962). In general, I findhiscriticism ; I thinkhe has
persuasive
found weaknesses
critical inSimon?s forjmilatiops. I addthowever, thatI do pot
wishtoassociatemyself withthe "positive"as'against the"critical*'
partofthe
philosophyandmethodology ingenerai
represented bytheauthor»of fnebook:
"Straussisni'.ÎM becauseto mgny
add.thjs ofjnyprofessional-colleaguesSïraussisirç
toseveral
is anevilequivalent ofthe"CapitalSifts.

OF POLITICALSCIBNCE
overwhelming numbersthesestudentsrefusedto believeit, to be persuaded

and converted. They may have been- and increasinglythey were-
interestedin and knowledgeableabout some of the mattersdiscussedby
Simon,in Administrative Behaviorand his laterworks- for example, the
role of authorityand communication; but on the centrál tenetsthey
remainedunconvinced. The reason is, I think,that theconceptualscheme
did not accuratelyreflectthe "real world" of publicadministrationas they
experiencedor observed it. All the points about factand value may be
trueas a matterof logical analysis,theythought,but in the real world of
administrativeaction fact and value are alwaysjoined, and "organically"
joined : The abstractionsdo not describe the essential facts of this real
worldor enable us "better"to deal withit.
You may recall thatChesterBarnardwrotea Foreword to Adminis-
trativeBehavior,in which he Says inpraise of the book, "It has theright
'feel'." I presentforyourreflection an interesting paradox. Barnardwas
an experienced administrator as well as a major writer on administra-
tion and he found the book "right." But studentsof administration
generally, including-especially including- the moře experienced ones,
found it "wrong." Simon did his doctorate in Political Science, and
Administrative Behavior is oriented toward Public Administration;but
studentsof Public Administrationwere not persuaded. Students of
Business Administration, on the otherhand, tendedto be admiring,and in
this they were joined by an impressivearray of behaviorallyoriented
studentsfroma varietyof disciplines. Simon's career turnedmore and
moretowardBusinessAdministration, his relationswith Public Adminis-
trationbecamemore and more attenuated.
How is one to account forthesefacts? I do not- understandably -
thinktheyare accountedforsimplyby attributing intelligenceto thosewho
found Simon Right and ignoranceand errorto those who foundSimon.
Wrong. I suggest,rather,that the explanation lies in differences in pro-
fessional experience,outlook, and objectives, and in what broadly is
indicatedby thephrase,sociologyof knowledge.. I thinkthatthe matters
involvedrelateto the studyof ComparativeAdministration : to motivation
in studyingit, to the approach taken, to the resultsachieved. Before
speculatingon thissubject,however,I wish to review brieflythe develop-
ment of the study of ComparativePolitics for, complementaryto and
interrelatedwith the developmentof ComparativePublic Administration,
it is a necessarypart of the "story."
ComparativePolitics as a focus of inquiryand as an accepted term

has developedin the same period- roughlythe past 15 years- as Compara-
tivePublic Administration.In general,it is a responseto the same stimuli
and motivations: essentiallyto theemergenceof new non-Westernnations
and America'sworld-wideinvolvement, and to the complex of objectives,
conceptionsand methodsdesignatedby thetermbehavioralism.

COMPARATIVE
For decades therehas been a fieldof Political Science designatedby

thetermComparativeGovernment. It was concernedratherdirectlywith
the comparison of constitutionsand constitutionalsystem,legislatures,
executives,party systems,and so forth. It was not necessarilynaive ;
certainlythe better students knew that governmentdid not exist in a
vacuumand some made a strenuouseffortto relate governmentalsystems
to their total physical and socio-economic contexts. Also, there was
considerableinnovationor experimentationbefore World War II, as the
namesLowell, Michels and Lasswell suggest.
Be that as it may, the post-War years have witnesseda wave of
protestagainstComparativeGovernmentand an attemptto replaceit with
ComparativePolitics.13 The chargesagainsttheold ComparativeGovern-
ment ran as follows: that it was limitedin its interestsand its conceptsto
Westerncountries; thatit was too normativebecause of its commitment to
thevalues of constitutionalismand Westernliberal-democracy (and perhaps
too naive in a belief that there is a natural evolutionin thisdirection);
that it concerneditselftoo much with studyingwordsand too littlewith
studyingaction; that it concentratedon institutionsto the neglect of
processes; thatit was too descriptiveand naivelyempirical,too littleanaly-
tical and sophisticatelytheoretical; that governmentwas studiedwithout
properlyrelatingit eitherto themotivationof theactors on the one hand
orto its socio-economiccontexton the other; thatthe othersocial and
(or) behavioral sciences were in manyways moreadvanced than Political
Science and that they should be combed for concepts and techniques
valuable in studyingComparativeGovernment; thatmore attentionneeds
to be given to the study of scientificmethod and to the crucial role of
theoryin thescientific enterprise.
"Movements"such as the ComparativePoliticsmovementdo not of
course have abrupt beginnings,but 1953 was a significantdate. In that
yearthe Social Science ResearchCouncil sponsoreda SummerSeminaron
ComparativePolitics that enabled the Young Turks to compare notes,
reinforceconvictions,and to prepare for scholarlyand polemicalaction.
Since thentherehas been a continuingstreamof the "new" literature,and
the creation by the Social Science Research Council of a continuing
Committeeon ComparativePoliticshas aifordeda centralbase of material
and moral support.
13OntheComparative Politics movement sec:"ResearchinComparative a

Politics,"
on
report a Summer Seminar on Comparative Politics
sponsored by S.S.R.C.,
withComments by six non-participants,42 American PoliticalScienceReview
(September 641-75
1953), ; RoyMacridis,The Study of Comparative Government
(New York: 1955); DavidEaston,"Approachto the Analysis of Political
Systems,"9 WorldPolitics(April1957)383-400 ; and GabrielAlmondand
JamesS. Coleman,cils.,ThePolitics
oftheDeveloping Areas (Princeton: 1960);
David Apter,''A Comparative MethodfortheStudyofPolitics," 14American
Journal
ofSociology(November 1958),221-37.

OF POLITICAL-
SCARCE
' As-indicated,the ComparativePolitics and the Çp^pariMjvePublic
Administrationmovementshave had much in common in outlook ;and
aspiration. Since both have taken the entire world as theirscientific*
universe,both have been engaged in an heroicattemptto findor creafcg
theoreticalconstructsadequate for the task of world-widecomparison.
Since "To compare is to examine similaritiesand differencessimul;
taneously," the effortis bent toward two main ends : (1) to discover,
defineand differentiate the "stuff"(politicsor administration)to be com-
pared, wherever in the world it may be; and (2) to develop criteriaof
differentiationthatare usefulin orderingand analyzing the "stuff" once
it has been identified. In thistask the contemporarystock of proved or
fashionableconceptsin the social sciences (as well as those "indigenous"
to Political Science) has been drawn upon extensively. The works of
Weber and Parsons, structural-functionalism as conceived in- -various
'sources,the conceptof culture,the decision-makingschema, communica-
tions theoryand cybernetics,systemstheory-all theseand severalmore
sources have been drawn upon by both movements. If the results
sometimesseem elaboratelyirrelevantor somewhatbizarre,this judgment
should be temperedby the reflectionthat the task is, às I said above,
"heroic.
Not only is theresimilarity betweenthe two movementsin objectives,
outlook, and core concepts, there is an overlappingof researchinterests
and professionalactivities. In the springof 1962, for example-perhaps
I should say notably- the Committeeon ComparativePolitics sponsored
a Conferenceon Bureaucracyand Political Developmentat theCenter for
Advanced Studyin the BehavioralSciences. Certainlystudentsof Public
Administration perceivepoliticsas part of or at least affecting
administra-
tion, and students of Politics perceive that what takes place in public
administration is a part of or at least affectspolitics.-
i .„ -f
But to4speak of Comparative Politicsas only revisingor replacing
ComparativeGovernmentas one part of Political Science,or to speak of
ComparativePoliticsas a Siamese twinof ComparativePublic Administra-
tion,does not do justice to the facts. For ComparativePolitics has been
not simplyan effortto redefineand transformComparativeGovernment,
it has also been (or been involvedwith)an effortto redefineand transform
Political Science.1* The students concerned, that is, have been deeply
involved in the behaviorallyinspiredeffortto definethe "political" which
is the propersubjectof the "science;," to delineate "the political system"
as an entityconceptuallyif not empiricallydistinctfrom the total social
system and its other sub-systems. P'ublic administrationis then a
part of politicsin thisuse of the term,in thesesweepingconceptualizations
14David Eastorťs,The PoliticalSystem : An InquiryintotheStateof Political
Science(NewYork: 1953)is important inthisconnection.? of the
%Hisdefinition
as "ihc authoritative
political allocationofyalues"hasbeenwidelyinfluential.

-fflàhlQ■
eOMPARřÁŤÍ-VB ADMÕHSTR
ACTION d9 1
theHuniverse of Politica)*Science, Politics,-thatis; is used ip; its-jclassic

pr»genericsense,not in its morelimitedsense to designate- only theactions
of voters,pressuregroups,politiciansand politica]parties.
It will bê usefulto reviewbrieflya prestigiousrecentessay,Gabriel
Almond's "A FunctionalApproachto ComparativePolitics,"15, as illustra-
tive öf what has just beensaid and to preparethe way fora closer look at
Cpmparative Public Administration.This essay is centrallyconcerned
witha définitionof "thé political system"; this is viewed as a necessarý
prefaceto the studyof Political Science in generaland to the enterprise of
in
comparison particular. He definesa politicalsystemas "...that system
of interactionsto be foundin all independentsocietieswhich performsthè
functionsof integrationand adaptation(both internallyand vis-a-visother
societies)by means of the employment, or threatof employment, of moře
or less legitimatecompulsion.16 This political system he distinguishes
fromothersocial systemsby three"properties":
(1) comprehensiveness,
arid
(2) interdependence,
of
(3) theexistence boundaries.
By comprehensiveness is meant all interactionswhich affect the
use or the threatof use of physicalcreation. By interdependence
is meant
thatone subset of interactionsproduces changesin all othersubsets. By
the existenceof boundaries is meant that there are points where other
systemsend and the politicalsystémbegins.
In developingthecharacteristics of the politicalsystemas he viewsit,
Almondadopts but expands>up,on some categoriespreviouslyset forthby
David Easton; and he adapts th. language of input-outputanalysis which
is fashionable both in ComparativePolitics and in ComparativePublic
Administration. The political-system is fed inputs that are processed
throughthe output functionsinto policy decisions. The input"functions
include: (1) political socialization and recruitment, (2) interestarticula-
tion, (3) interest aggregation, and (4) political communication. The
output functions include: (1) rule-making,(2) rule-application,and
l(3) rule-adjudicátion. These last are the "functionalequivalents" of the
legislative,the executive,and the judicial. Political structuresor institu-
tions fexistor are constructedto fulfileach of these furetions. The
"modernity"of a systemis a functionof the extentto whichstructural
differentiationand role differentiation have takenplace.
15TheIntroduction intheAlmond andColemanvolumecitedabove,3-58. Alfred

Diamanťs"TheR,elevançeofComparative
Politics
to the Studyof Comparative
Administration,"5 Administrative
ScienceQuarterly(June1960),87-112,isan
discussion
excellent ofvarious itis a com-
questions.Centrally,
methodological
parisonof"GeneralSystems"models
and"PoliticalCulture"
models.
jr.7#

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
I will note two things at this point. The firstis that, as this
schemaputativelyembracesthe entirearea of the "political,"includingthe
phenomena ordinarilydeemed to be designated by the term "public
administration,"so some of the schemata proposed for the study of
Comparative Public Administrationgo far beyond the "administrative."
Some of them,in fact, embrace not only the "political" but the entire
socio-physicalcontext. The second point is that, while most studentsof
ComparativePublic Administrationwould find somethingof value for
theirenterprisein Almond'sschema,theywould argue that it providesno
clear differentia
and directions. The activitiesand functionsof public ad-
ministrationare by no means all "output" : for example, public schools
performan important"input" functionunder the categoryof "political
socializationand recruitment,"and a greatdeal of "interestaggregation"
may take place withinthe administrative
process.
Of Trends,Methodsand Models
In a recentessay on "Trends in the Comparative Study of Public

Administration,"Fred Riggs- who by most criteria would be adjudged
the leading student of Comparative Public Administration - says that
three trends may be discerned duringthe past half-century.Of these
he judges the firstto be 'fairlyclear," but the second and thirdto be
"just emerging."
The firstis a shiftfromnormativetowardsempiricalapproaches. By
the normativeis meant "one in whichthechiefaim is to prescribe'ideal',
or at least 'better',patternsof administrativestructureand action,"17in
terms of such criteria as efficiencyor "public interest." Empirical
approaches,on thecontrary,are identifiedwith "a growingawarenessof
moreand morerelevantphenomena,with"a growinginterestin descriptive
and analyticinformation forits own sake."18
The second is a shift from idiographic towards nomothetic

approaches. An idiographicstudyis definedas "one whichconcentrates
on the unique case- the historical episode or 'case study', thesingle
agencyor country,the biographyor the 'culturearea'..."19 A nomothetic
study,by contrast,is one "which seeks generalizations,'laws', hypotheses
thatassertregularitiesof behavior,correlationsbetweenvariables..."20
17Loc.cit.,9.
i» Ibid.,10.
" Ibid.,11.
20Ibid. Nomothetic studies
are further dividedbetween studiesand
homological
analogical theformer
studies, focuses in different
upon"structures systemswhich
have parallelcharacteristics,"
the latteruponfunctions,which"oftencanbe
interms'of
characterised variables."(13) Hisown interests
andthemostpromis-
ingpathofresearch areidentified
withthelatter.

COMPARATIVE
The thirdtrendis fromnon-ecologicaltowardecological approaches.
These terms are not defined,presumablybecause definitionis deemed
unnecessary. But we are informedthat mere recitationof the factsof
geography,history,social structure,and so forthis not enough, "for
ecologyimpliesnotjust a characterizationof environments,
but ratheran
analysisof thepatternsof interactionbetweenthe subjectof studyand its
environment."'1
In general,myown perceptionof trendsis in agreementwiththat of
Riggs. This, presumably,has been indicatedin various ways. However,
thereare differingemphasesand varyingperspectives. The periodof time
he reviewsis much longer- the past fiftyyearsor more; and his fieldof
visionis wider,as he includesin his reviewvarious materials(for example,
some European materials)thatI omit. . We are both interestedin trends.
But he is not interested,as I am, in accountingfor and analyzingthe
burgeoningof interest,the developmentof a self-conscious"movement"
(whichhe pre-eminently represents),duringthe past decade.
As the next step in understandingand assessing the Comparative
Public Administration movement,let me indicate some of thetrendsand
qualitiesof the recentliteratureand try to characterizethe movementis
termsof disciplinaryconnectionsand borrowings,of key concepts and
techniques.
Firstof all it should be observed that, while thereis a revolution
under way, there is considerable continuityof previous interestsand
methods. These interestsbecome more sophisticatedand the methods
more refined,but the continuityis unmistakableand important. Ferrei
'
Heady has recentlyused the term"modifiedtraditional to designatethis
partof the literature.21In termsof the subject to which it is addressed,
whatis meantby "traditional"is thatattentioncontinuesto be addressed
to the traditionalcategories of administrativeanatomy and physiology:
to chain of command,staffservices,personnelclassification, co-ordination,
departmentalization, and so forth;and to commonor "universal"functions
of : to
or problems government military administration,planning, welfare
services,regulatoryactivities, and so forth.
Thereis the further implicationthatthestudies so described have *
"practical" bias or intent,thattheyare "normative"in the sense that they
are addressed(at various levels of intentand consciousness) to improve-
ment, reform,or at least increased efficiency.As indicated,there is
of national and
increasingsophistication. There is increasingawareness
«i Ibid.,15.Riggsherebacksup a stepand saysof the ecologicalapproach, My
forthe
then,is nottoclaima trend,but ratherto indicatea necessity
point,
future."He concludes wouldbe to consideras 'truly*
: "My own preference
comparative which
onlythosestudies nomothetic,
areempirical, andecological.
ts Loc. cit.,4.

194 THB INDIANJOURNAL
OF POLITICALSCIENCE
cultural differences,
less dispositionto presumethatAmericanor Western
is
experience directlyrelevantto problemselsewhere. In what struckme
as the most intriguingfeatureof his essay on Trends, Riggsspecifiesa
three-fold evolutionin the normativeliterature. There is firstthe "mirror
forAmerica"period of two or more generationsago, in which Americans
(such as Woodrow Wilson) studied European administration and held it
up as a model for us to emulate. This was followedby the "mirrorfor
others"style,in which our own experiencewas held up as a guide for
the "underdeveloped"areas.28 We have now enteredthe"mirrorforall"
periodin whichthereis muchcomparisonof institutions and practicesinall
"advanced" countries and the studenttries to identify"good" features
whereverhe findsthem and to specifywhat,in a general way, should be
done if developmentor progressis desired.21
Anotherdevelopmentshould be noted,one thatis not "traditional"

nor yet "behavioral," one that is certainlya part of what I have
characterizedas a "burgeoning"of interestand activitybut not yeta part
of the "movement"in the sense that it shares in the dominantmethodo-
logical beliefsand aims. I referto the extensionof the casé methodto
the studyof comparativepublic administration. More particularly, I refer
to the use of the case method as developed for the study of public
administrationduring the past two decades.25 Some six or sevenyears
ago, the Inter-UniversityCase Program began to promotethe writingof
"cases" abroad, and thishas become a vigorousand successfulenterprise
in a numberof countries. While the I.C.P. group has shared the dis-
satisfactionwith the "old" Public Administration-indeed, the case
methodwas motivatedby such dissatisfaction,was an attemptto sweep
away preconceptionsand approach "reality" afresh- it has by definition
remainedthe case method,the essence of which is an investigation and
probing in depth of particular situations or events. That is, in the
terminology employedby Riggs above, it is intenselyidiographic,whereas
themethodologicalcommitmentof behavioralism,on which the current
movementfeeds, is stronglytowardthenomothetic. To be sure,thereis
no strictseparation: Some students(JamesFesler and HerbertKaufman
come to mind) are identifiedboth Withthe case programand with a
commitment to a more "scientific"study of comparative administration.
Some*argue thatthe two methods are mutuallyreinforcing, not exclusive
28Ofcourse,welittle thatthiswaswhatweweredoingsince,however
appreciated
parochialour interests
andourempirical base,thelanguage
andthepresumption
wasinterms of"universais."
14TheHandbook ofPublicAdministration,
issuedbytheTechnicalAssistancePro-
grammeof the UnitedNationsis the outstanding exhibit
here. Fora highly
review
perceptive ofthisdocument,
seeEdgarL. Shor,"Comparative Administra-
tion: StaticStudyVersusDynamicReform," 22PublicAdministration
Review
(September1962),158-64.
26See footnote
10.

COMPARATIVE
řUBLlCADMINISTRATION 195
or antagonistic. But of differingperspectivesand expectation, and of

some personaland intellectualtension,thereis no doubt.
Turningto the self-consciousmovement,I trynow to characterize

it by indicatingdisciplinaryorientationsand conceptual foci. There is
strongattractiontoward,interactionwith,and borrowingfrom Sociology.
There is some attractiontoward,but no reallysubstantialborrowingfrom
or relianceon Social Psychologyand Anthropology. There is very little
attractiontoward,borrowingfrom,or interrelation withEconomics,Busi-
ness Administration, or
Psychology, History.26 Of some of these fieldsI
shall,by implication, have considerable to say below. Of others,a few
remarkshere: As toEconomics,thereis perforcea close contiguityof a sort.
Afterall, "development,"whichin some senseis both cause and object of
the study of comparativepublic administration,is usually conceived as
economicdevelopment,in whole or part; and some of the "comparative"
literature,such as that on national planning,is primarilythe product of
economists. However,certainprofessionalblindnesses,intellectualhabits,
and disciplinaryjealousies have keptthe close relationshipfrom becoming
a partnership,muchless a marriage. As to Psychology,there has been
no serious attempt(with which I am familiar),to apply in comparative
studyany of the apparatusof "academic" psychologypertainingto such
thingsas learning,personalitydevelopment,adjustment,and motivation.
For that matter - and this is more remarkablein view of the large
"domestic1' literature-there is no employmentof the concepts and
methodologyof the Small Group. As to History,while "in principle"
past behavior is as legitimatean object of behavioralresearchas present
behavior,the methodologicaldifficulties (observation,measurement,etc.)
are multipliedin an effortto combine the two. For non-Westernand
especially primitiveareas the problemsare multipliedagain; thepresent
is verypresent,the futurepresseshard.
To advance to methodologicalconcernsand conceptualfoci: There

has been a great preoccupationwith "models." There has been much
activitycenteredupon the constructionof typologiesof political regimes
and institutionsand the delineation of geographic-culturalareas- an
activity prominentalso in and shared with ComparativePolitics. So-
called action theoryand the concepts and language of structural-func-
tionalismhave been often employed. The range of concepts associated
with the term bureaucracyhas been extensivelyused. The concept of
culturehas oftenbeen invoked; and the related and overlapping but
26Onecannot, ofcourse,describe
whattakesplacesolelyin termsof disciplinesor
fields.Thereis constant changeof "lines"; new"interests"
formand reform,
withinand without olderdisciplines.Much of contemporary organizational
researchcanbecharacterized
moreclearlybythe institutional
location(e.g., the
"plant")or by the methodologicalfocus(e.g.,decision-making
theory)thanby
itwithan academic
identifying discipline.

196 OF POLITICALSCIENCE
.THEINDIANJOURNAL
different and broader concept of ecology is also frequentlyset forth as

important. Equilibriumtheory, and particularlythe idea of a "system"
with"inputs" and "outputs,"is prominent.27 One encounterssomewhere
most of the popular concepts and phrases of contemporarybehavioral
forexample,to such mattersas communications
science; thereis reference,
theoryand multivariateanalysis. There are "gaps," however,such as the
absence of small group theory,noted above. Surprisingly, and perhaps
the termdecision-makingand the words closely associated
significantly,
with this schema are seldom encountered. (This relates to theproblem
posed above: the differentialimpact of the work of Herbert Simon in
BusinessAdministration and Public Administration.)
I turnnow explicitlyto the use of "models," by whichI mean simply
theconscious attemptto develop and defineconcepts,or clustersof related
concepts,usefulin classifyingdata, describingrealityand (or) hypothesiz-
ing about it. As indicated,thishas become a popular activityin the past
fewyears,and it is impossibleto do morethan indicatethe natureof some
of the moreprominentmodels. It should be emphasizedthatthesituation
is one of rapid change, and that the models are not necessarilydiscrete,
logicallymutuallyexclusiveentities,but rathercan be "joined" to different
or larger models or "telescoped" one withinanother(at least in the mind
and intentof the theorist).18
The bureaucratic model is one of the most widely used. By
bureaucraticmodel is meant the ideal-typicalmodel of bureaucracyas
developedby Max Weberand since further developed,"applied," criticized,
and altered. This model is so well knownthatto sketchit is unnecessary ;
and thecomplexitiesof a serioustreatment farbeyondpresentpossibilities
and purposes. I limit myselfto some observationsand to directingyour
attentionto a first-class
treatmentof the subjectnot in your normal field
of vision.
The firstobservationis purelypersonal : that I have found the
bureaucraticmodel so useful,so stimulatingand provocative,that fifteen
yearsafter"discovering"it, I feel I have still much to learn throughthe
avenues to explorationit opens. It came to myattentionjust at the point
at which,dissatisfiedwiththe old Public Administrationas culture-bound
27As Economics is muchconcerned withthesematters thiswouldseemto question

the above assertionthatthe relationshipwithEconomics is notclose. Butthe
borrowingor inspiration, as I understandit, is fromSystemsTheory,not
Economics.
28Surveying
thepresent Headyconcludesthat"majortendencies
situation, among
themorecomprehensive theory efforts"
building canpresently be designatedas (1)
"modifiedtraditional" (WhileI havediscussedabovethis"traditional"literature,
itdoesofcourserepresent orfollow a "model"ina general sense,whether thisis
recognizedor not.); (2) "equilibrium or input-output" ; (3) "bureaucratic
; and(4) "ecologically
orientation" oriented."Loe.cit.,4.

COMPARATIVE
and pretentious,
I soughta "universal framework,"a grammarand syntax
to enable one to deal with "administration"whereverand wheneverhe
encounteredit. Whetherit is in fact such a properand usefuluniversal
framework, whatkindof a universalframework it purportsto be or can be
made, thesemattersare of coursecomplicatedand controversial.
The second observationis thatonly in connectionwith this present
reviewdid I appreciatethatnot muchempiricalresearchhas been done by
studentsof Public Administration(as against Sociologistsand others) in
whichthe bureaucraticmodel is formallyand seriouslyused.29 In part no
doubt I was misled by my own preoccupations and enthusiasms.
However,thereis,I conclude,muchmore thanthispurelypersonal factor
involved. The point is, perhaps,thatthe Weberianconstructhas become
so well knownamong us, so much a part of our intellectualorientation
toward the studyof ComparativePublic Administration, that,thoughwe
have little used it ourselves in carefulresearch,it has generallybeen
present in the form of (perhaps unexpressed) premises and (perhaps
unarticulated)hypothesesin our teaching and our own explicit model
building.
The essay to whichI directyourattentionis "The BureaucraticModel :
Max Weber Rejected, Rediscovered,Reformed," by Alfred Diamant.10
In thisessay Diamant reviewsthevastarrayof "bureaucratic"scholarship;
carefullyand penetratinglyexamineswhatWeberwroteon and relatingto
bureaucracy;evaluates, relates and classifies; and ends by settingforth
proposals "for the comparative analysis of bureaucracies; using the
Weberian ideal-type, as we have modified it." I "incorporate by
reference"this essay as expressingmyown point of view- but betterthan
I could expressit!
Amongstudentsof ComparativePublic Administration proper,the

most prominent "model builder" is Fred W. Riggs. In fact, Riggs has
a
developed not just model, but a series of overlappingand interrelated
29RobertV. Presthus is a conspicuousexception.See "The Social Bases of

Bureaucratic Organization," 38 Social Forces(December1959) 103-8,and
"Weberianv. WelfareBureaucracy Society,"6 Administrative
in Traditional
Science Quarterly (June1961) 1-24; "Behaviorand Bureaucracy in Many
Cultures,"19PublicAdministrationReview(Winter1959)25-35; "The Sociology
of EconomicDevelopment," Journal
1 International of ComparativeSociology
(September1960) 195-201.These essays discuss various methodological
problemsin additionto presenting in "Weberianv. Welfare
(and applying,
Bureaucracy") the bureaucratic model. For a "Public Administrationist"
approach seealso, EdgarL. Shor,"The Thai Bureaucracy," 5 Administrative
ScienceQuarterly(June1960)66-86.
30In thePaperseditedbyFerreiHeadyand SybilL. Stokes,citedabove,59-96.
See also,FerreiHeady,"BureaucraticTheory andComparativç 3
Administration,"
ScienceQuarterly
Administrative (March1959)509-25.

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
modelsas his thinkinghas developed.31 I can only outline some of the

mainideas of a fewessays.
In 1957, Riggs set forthhis firstmajor model,in a lengthyessaytitled
Agrariaand Industria: Towardsa Typologyof ComparativeAdministration ,88
This is an attemptto findand definewhatI called above a "universalframe-
work." The searchhas turnedtowardsSociology and Anthropology, and
especially to the language of structural-functionalism;33 the object is to
findthe critical range of administrativevariables withinthe entirerange
of the social, economic and political. As the termssuggest,Agrariais a
model of a pure traditionalagriculturalsociety,Industriaof a pure modern
industrialsociety. "Transida" is the model of a societyin transitionfrom
Agrariato Industria.34 There are sub-modelsof the models; the analysis
of the interrelations of the social, economic, governmentaland, more
strictly, are tracedout in some detail. There is physiology
administrative,
as well as anatomy: especiallythereis an attemptto specifythe dynamics
of transition.
This model has been further"developed." Specifically,Riggs has
changedthe key termsfromAgraria-Transitia-Industria to fused society-
prismaticsociety-refracted society. This model is, in his hope and intent,
"inductive*'instead of "deductive" as was the earlier. It sets up "ideal
types, not to be foundin any actual society,but perhapsapproximatedin
some, and usefulforheuristicpurposesand as an aid in the organization
of the data."35 In any event thereare various changesand refinements,
thoughthebasic schemaremains.
31Thevolume ofRiggs*writings,bothpublished andunpublished, is so greatthat,

as FerreiHeadynotes(bothseriously andhumorously), "mereacquaintance with
all hiswritings
oncomparative theory is initself
notan insignificant
achievement."
In mostrespectsRiggsis thecentral figure inthe Comparative PublicAdministra-
tionmovement. He is theChairman of the so-calledComparative Administra-
tion Groupof the AmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration. The Ford
Foundation madea sizablegrant
recently to theSocietyfora three-year program
of activity,chieflyresearch, in thearea of comparative publicadministration,
focused especially
uponproblems ofdevelopment andassistance; theComparative
Administration Groupis the"agent"fortheprogram.
32In thevolume editedbySiffin,citedabove,32-116.
33Forthis* Riggsin his introduction creditsmy Studyof PublicAdministration
(NewYork: 1955),inwhich I hadarguedtheprobablevalueof the conceptof
culture, andofstructural-functionalism,intheattempt tofinda framework broad
enough tobe freeofparochialbiasandcontaining conceptualtoolsenablingus to
discriminatebetween typesofadministration. TalcottParsonsand MarionLevy
aredrawn uponand,especially^ F. X. Sutton.
84Presumbly, whatingeneral theseterms"imply"is knownto this group. See
especially 29.
35Thenew hasbeensetforth in a number ofessays. I have beforemc
terminology
"Modelsin the Comparative Studyof PublicAdministration," mimeo,1959.
Quotation from22.

COMPARATIVE 199
As Riggs*writingsare voluminous,I shall not attemptfurtherelabo-

ration or summary. Sufficeit to say thatvariousessaysdevelop various
aspects of the basic models; that Riggs*emphasis upon ecology, noted
above, is oftenprominent ; and thathis entireeffortmustbe viewedin the
binocular perspectiveprovided,on the one hand, by his long residenceand
considerableexperiencein southeastAsia, and, on the other,his above-
noted methodologicalcommitmentto the "empirical, nomotheticand
ecological."36
An example now of an input-outputmodel : John T. Dorsey's
"information-energy model."37 This model has threeconceptualsources,
as seen by the author. One is his (long-standing)interestin communica-
tions theoryand cybernetics as applied to organization. Anotheris some
theoriesof energyand energyconversion. Anotheris the work of the
4
'generalsystems"theorists.
In brief, Dorsey proposes that societies be conceived as highly
complex information-processing and energy- convertingsystems(composed
of subsystems, includinghuman individuals,who may be similarlyviewed).
In general, high informationinput, storage and processingpermitshigh
energy output. The "underdeveloped" societies are those in which
informationinput, storage and processing,and hence the energyoutput,
are comparativelylow. Dorsey feelsthatsuch a conceptualisation"should
be usefulin the analysisof social and politicalsystemin general,"and that,
in particular, it should have utility in understandingproblems of
administration and developmentin underdevelopedsocieties.Severalpages
of hypothesesabout such underdevelopedsocietiesare suggested.38
I have dealt brieflyand perhaps crudely with Dorsey's model and
should in fairnessadd thathis modestyis proportionateto thegrandeurof
his model: "What followsis at mostonly a beginning. It is crude and
incomplete." His model is not, however,simplyan armchairconstruction;
it is relatedin his thoughtand researchto significantfield experiencein
east Asia.
As now has been oftensuggested,"development"is a concernof the
model-builders,sometimesonly peripherallyor ultimately, as withRiggs,
but sometimescentrally. One might,then,speak of a developmentmodel,
or developmentmodels, as some haveveryexplicitly. However,I reserve
considerationof thismatter.
36See "An EcologicalApproach : The Sala Model,"in volumeeditedby Heady

andStokes,19-36; andTheEcology (NewDelhi: 1961).
ofPublicAdministration
37"AnInformation-Energy Model," inthe volume,
Heady-Stokes 37-57.
38Anexample : "L. The relativescarcity inputsto controland
of information
maintenance systems inadaptations
results andofthesystem
ofsuchsubsystems as
a wholeto itsenvironmentunderrelatively ofuncertainty.
highdegrees
Hypothesis: Administrative occursundçrconditions
decision-making of
highuncertainty."
relatively 51.

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
"Problemsand Promise
A yearago, speakingat theInstituteof Social Science in The Hague,
I made thestatementthatbecause of theComparativePublicAdministration
movementwe should know withina decade a greatdeal more than we do
now about whethera "science of administration"is possible, or more
likely,in whatsenses it is possible. I had in minda wide rangeand variety
of problems,but centrallythe problemwhetheradministrativemeans can
be divorced fromthe ends of administrativeaction or, probably more
precisely,theways in whichand the levels at whichthis is possible. This
statementwas made witheasy optimism,forit had been a long time since
I had taken a close look at the problems, and I presumed that my
colleagues had advanced along the road fartherthan has proved to be the
case.
I now findmyselffaced withwhatseems to me a welterof interrela-
ted problems that I can hardly state,muchless clarifyand resolve. If I
fail in statingthemso that theystrikeyou as clear and importantI do not,
nevertheless,retreatfrommyopeningstatementthattheexpansionof our
enterprise,yours as well as mine, beyond the national and even the
Western to the world-widestage, presents not only new and pressing
practicalproblemsbut poses old theoreticalproblems anew and urgently.
But- perhapsagain withtoo muchoptimism - I hope I can indicate how
our two enterprises, yours of Business Administrationand mine of Public
Administration, each casts a light upon the other,and perhaps can find
some meetinggroundand partialsolutionto theirrespectiveand common
problemsin theconceptand activityof development.
Two years ago, in reviewingseveral books devoted to organization
theoryor theoryof organization,I observedthatwhiletheold Encyclopedia
of theSocial Scienceshad no entryunder either of these headings it was
"wholly predictable"thatthe new encyclopediathenbeingplannedwould
devote space to thissubject.39So it will,I have since learned, and indeed
it was obvious thatit must,forthissubjecthas becomea fashionableone,
as evidenced by the many symposia and "readers" recentlyoff the
presses. For this popularityI conclude fromobvious evidencethat the
schools of Business Administration are largelyresponsible,not onlyin the
sense thattheyprovidethe marketincentiveforthe publishers,but in the
sense thatthe interestsof studentsof business are served in the research
undertakenand reported. The researchand writingis done, actually,by
persons with a variety of disciplinarybases ; and located in a varietyof
homes- and perhapsmostof the writersare notindepartments
institutional
or schools of Business Administration.But businessprovidesorientation,
themes,support.
" In "Organization : An Elephantine

Theory Problem,"21 PublicAdministration
Review(Autumn 1961)210-25.

COMPARATIVE
Now I have not read all the books in the recent spate, but speaking
of those that I have, I observewhatappears to be a curiousgap between
two typesof empiricalbases and two meaningsassignedto "organization",
as well as a certain presumptuousnessor wishfulthinking. Regarding
empirical bases thereis, on the one hand, a heavyconcentrationon the
Americanfactory,and, on the other,a scatteringof pieces concerninga
varietyof institutionsand settings-government agencies, labor unions,
Indian villages,and so forth. Regardingthe connotations of "organiza-
tion," predominatelyit refersto a structurethat is bureaucratic,or to
the personal, informal,or "disfunctional" aspects thereof; but it may
mean the associationof people in any regularand persistentpatternwhat-
soever- families,castes, etc. Regardingthe presumptuousness or wishful
thinking,my point is that, though there is a presumptionthat the
"principles" of organizationand administration thatare the object of the
researchare universal,thisis presumednot proved, assumed not demons-
trated.In fact,some of the languagesuggeststhatof PublicAdministration
a generationago, before"comparativeness."40
I am far from being an expert on the literatureof Business
Administration, but I have made an effortto assess its interestsand
accomplishmentsin consciouscomparativestudies. Subject to correction,
the followingare my impressions. Generally speaking, those teaching
Business Administrationand those doing research on businessorganiza-
tions have not been and are not now interestedin conscious, careful
comparativestudy. There are, of course,exceptions:I recall,forexample,
a carefulstudyof authoritypatternsin steelproductionin the Ruhr. And
at the presenttime some of mycolleaguesat the Universityof California
are involvedin an extensivefieldstudy of culturalpatternsas they affect
the role of themanager; eleven countries(Westernor Western-influenced)
are beingstudied,by means of questionnaireand interviewtechniques.41
CertainlyI do not perceiveany literatureor "movement"comparableto
that in Public Administrationin which there is an attempt to define
"what" is beingcomparedand "how" to compare. On theotherhand,as
mylanguagehas suggested,in those cases in which there is comparison
in the business area, there is the appearance of a methodologicalconfi-
dence,and at least a fairlyclose fitbetweenthe hypothesesand the data ;
40 "Although thedominantemphasis is oncommercial and industrial
organizations,
the readerwillappreciate thattheprinciples
discussedapplytoanytypeoforga-
nization,including
governmental,philanthropic, educational,
military, voluntary
or political."AlbertH. Rubenstein and Chadwick eds.,Some
J.Haberstroh,
Theories (Homewood: 1960),Preface.
ofOrganization
41I refertoMasonHaire,EdwinGhiselliand L. W. Porter,Management in the
IndustrialWorld:AnInternational (New York: 1959),by Frederick
Analysis
H. HarbisonandCharles A. Myers,is ofcoursea comparative and a good
study,
one. ReinhardBendix*Workand Authority in Industry
(NewYork: 1956),is
comparison in historical
depthand culturalbreadth - butthereis a question
whetheritcanbe identified
withBusinessAdministration.

202 THEINDIANJOURNAL
OF POLITICALSCIENCB
whereas in Comparative Public Administrationthe gap between the

"models" and full and accurate data is broad indeed- though well
recognized and lamented. On the evidence available to me I conclude
that though studentsof business organizationand administrationhave
highly developed research tools- there is probably more careful
"behavioral" researchon Americanbusinessesthan on Americangovern-
ments- thesetools have not been muchemployedin comparativeresearch.
(Whethertheseparticulartools are the properones for comparativestudy
I leave herea moot question.)
On the face of things,this seems queer. It is difficult
to compare
the overseasinvolvementof Americanbusinessand government up to this
point, but this is not necessary. It is enough to know that American
businesshas for a long time been deeply involved in foreignoperations.
The "know-how" that the successfulones have developed is formidable
indeed- oil companies operatingin the Middle East, for example; they
sometimescan and do instructour diplomatic representatives on how to
"do business" abroad. But the know-how remains largelyprivate and
uncodified,a combinationof knowledgeof the particular,lore,and skill
developedfromexperience. It is not public,scientificknowledge. (Some-
timesno doubt it is not "knowledge,"but misinformation.)
Perhaps 1 puzzle over that which should occasion no puzzlement.

From one perspectiveit would seemsurprising-almosta contradictionin
terms- if Americanbusiness(and AmericanBusiness
Administration)had
developed an interestin comparative business administration. If it is
assumed that the particular technicalprocesses involved have their own
imperatives,that in managementthereis a One Best Way (or at least that
Americánmanagementtechnologyin generalsuppliesthe best ways), that
the object of a business enterpriseis the comparativelylimitedone of
profitableoperationmeasuredin financialterms,that the overseas enter-
prise shall be staffedby Americansor by foreigners trained(if possible) to
act like Americans,thenone mightexpect at very most some interestin
what "social science" has to say of value about How to Win Friendsand
InfluencePeople When OperatingAbroad.
However- if my reading of the contemporaryworld is reasonably
correct,thereis cause forAmericanbusinessto become interestedin some
of the problems that presentlyengage the attention of students of
ComparativePublic Administration. I perceivean increasing"politiciza-
tion" of whathave been areas of business and the market,resultingfrom
the operationsof thetwin- oftenSiamese twin- forcesof nationalismand
"socialism(perhaps also from the twin forces of industrializationand
urbanization,but here the lines of interrelationship
are not so clear). If
American business is to continue to operate abroad it must inevitably
become more deeply engaged with government,that of the country
concernedcertainly,that of the UnitedStates perhaps; its objectiveswill

COMPARATIVE
inevitablybe broadenedand its operatingstylemoreand more "engaged"

with the local social milieu. I am not suggesting,you understand,thatit
mustlearn how to become morecleverat "manipulation,"but ratherthat
in manyareas it can only surviveand continueto serveits properbusiness
ends by a flexibility
and adaptabilitythatwould have been inconceivablea
generationago, and is now only dimlyimagined.42
But perhapsmycrystalball is clouded. So let me presentas directly
and succinctlyas I can therelationship-and lack of relationship-between
the orientingconceptsand objectivesof the scientificand theoreticalstudy
of,organization and managementassociated more or less with Business
Administration and ComparativePublic Administration. What I thinkI
discern and what interestsme very much is symbolizedby, if it does not
actuallyiurn upon the question that I posed earlier: Why has Adminis-
trative Behavior and Simon's work generallybeen more influentialand
prestigiousin BusinessAdministration than in Public Administration?
The answerto thisquestionis not a simpleone. Withregardto the

leaders in the study of Comparative Public Administration, certainlythe
answeris not thatSimon and his work is "behavioral" whereas theyand
their workare not. The predominatemood of the movementis strongly
etc.). Yet there
behavioral (i.e., scientific,theoretical,interdisciplinary,
has been no dispositionto relyon Simon,whose workis probablythe most
notable of any in "their" fieldin the past two decades. Apparentlythey
have not foundthephilosophicbase, the theoreticalformulations,suitable
to their purposes. Why? More generally,why is thereso little"inter-
action" betweenthose interestedin "theory of organization" and those
interestedin ComparativePublic Administration?
Let me propose an answer which,I am aware, will be over-simple

but may containthe essentialpoints. At bottom,the assumptionand the
aim of BusinessAdministration (as of the old Public Administration)has
, whereas
been uniformity the assumptionand to some extentthe aim of
ComparativePublic Administration is diversity.
As to BusinessAdministration, by assumptionof uniformity I mean

thàt,while there is a record of increasingsophistication about the organi-
zational environment,an increasingrecognitionof its heterogeneity and
importance, it has been assumed that, afterall, the importantvariables
42Presthus,commenting,presumably,onAmerican businesspersonnelintheMiddle
Eastwhere time,says: "It is mostrevealing
hespentconsiderable to observea
groupofskilledtechniciansand businessmen, who mayhave livedin a given
foreign
countrya decadeormorebutareunableto define the existingproblems
andrequirementsofsocialchangesimplybecausetheyhavenot had the training
whichwouldpermita sociologicalor psychological of the
conceptualization
issue." "TheSociologyofEconomic Development," citedabove,196. -

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
arc withinthe organization.48 Certainly there has been little explicit

recognitionin theliteratureof Business Administration44 of the existence
and possible significanceof cultural differences; what there is has been
introducedgraduallyand peripherally.45By goal of uniformity I referto
the root a
biases givenby commitment to efficiency,
lawfulness,rationality.
The initial goal is a One Best Way or "principle." While, in Simon's
terms, maximizingbecomes satisficing, the search forthe best ways of
"satisficing"continues. Withregardto Comparative Public Administra-
tion,it is not onlyconcernedby definitionwith diversity,there is at this
pointa widespread"value commitment"to diversity - i.e., thereis some-
thingof a conscious attemptnot to presume the Americanor Western
"ways of doing things"are "better."
The respectiveconcernsof Business Administrationand Compara-
tivePublic Administrationlead to perspectivesthat are verydifferent if
aot in factquite opposite.48 Reflectingon the natureof theoryof organi-
zation,Simon in 1952 wroteas follows:
Organization theory has been largely culture-boundthrough

failureto attackthis problem [of the relevanceof the mores of
society]. The theory of bureaucracy as developed by Max
Weber and his followersrepresentsthefurthestprogressin dealing
withit. The historicaldata appealed to by the Weberians need
43Putin otherterms,whilethereis a largeliterature viewing organizations as

"adaptive" socialsystemssetinlarger socialsystems, intowhichactorscarrythe
variedvaluesofthelargersystem, the predominate viewhas beenof organiza-
tionsas "co-operative" systems, largely self-contained. Sometimes, ofcourse,
the two viewsare embraced in a singlework. Butevenwhencultural diversity
within theenviromenthasbeenan important element intheschema,thesediver-
sitieshavebeengenerally ''subcultural" or "intra-cultural" differenceswithinthe
American environment.
44It shouldbe understood thatI am usingthisexpression as indicated above to
include thosewritingshaving businessas theirfocusand orientation, whatever
theacademic labelordepartment ofthewriter.
40I do notrecallanyexplicitreference toculture inAdministrative Behavior: It turns
toward Economics,nottoward Sociology orAnthropology. In MarchandSimon's
Organizations thepossible significanceofthecultural factor is recognized25 times
(by mycount),explicitly or implicitly. Thereis no direct confrontationofthe
issue,so to speak,but thereis the recognition thatevidencebearing onthe
generalization,orthegeneralization, maybe culture-related. E.g., "Second,the
greater thecultural
centrality*of the organization, the greaterthe similarity
ofitsnorms to thoseprofessed byothergroups in thesaméculture."78. Which
seemsa safe-enough generalization.
48I amindebted tothestudents inmyseminar formuchof whatvalue thisanalysis
mayhave. At thispointI acknowledge a specialindebtedness toPhilippe G.
Schmitter, whowrites ofthematter I amnowdiscussing : "Becausethe compa-
rativestudy of public administration and organization theorydepartfrom
different viewpointson the matterofadministrative behaviorand operateat
different thetwohavenotmet,butonlycoexist
levelsofanalysis, competitively."

COMPÀRAIIVE 20$
supplementationby analysisof contemporarysocieties, advanced

and primitive. A comparison of intra-culturaluniformity and
variationin organizationpatterns with inter-cultural
uniformity
and variationwould provide the evidence we need to determine
to what extent the cooperative patterns in organizationsare
independentof the moresof cooperationof the society."47
This would seem to be a fairenoughrecognitionof thepossiblesigni-
ficanceof theculturalfactor,a clear warningof "relativity." But atten-
tion is directedto the last sentenceand particularlyto the word indepen-
dent. I read this as a presumption,at least a hope, that comparative
study,if pursued,will findor permita universal-rational core of organiza-
tional behavior.
Be that as it may, I directattentionagain to RobertDahl's seminal
essay of 1947, and to his assertion: "There should be no reason for
supposing,then,thata principleof publicadministration has equal validity
in everynation-state,or that successfulpublicadministration practicesin
social, economic
one countrywill necessarilyprove successfulin a different
and political environment." Obviously, administrativebehavior here is
viewed as inextricablyenmeshed in the social-cultural context. To this
outlook is lateradded, as we have seen,the formaltermsand concepts of
the Anthropologists' and Sociologists'"culture" and "structural-function-
alism," and the result would seem to be the denial that administrative
behaviorcan be treatedas a universalindependentvariable.
Of Strategies,Dilemmas and Puzzles
I turn now to review some of the problems that confrontthe

enterpriseof ComparativePublic Administration. Though all of these
problemsmay be properlydesignatedas methodological,I hesitateto use
the termbecause it oftensuggestsa questionof techniqueto achieve and
end already clear and agreed upon. For some of these questions,
certainly,the essentialpointis thattheyare not questionsof techniquein a
narrowsense but raise questions about what kind of knowledgewe seek
and forwhat purpose. As I said in beginning,some of these questions
are likelyto seem old ones, raisingas they do questions as to the nature
of the whole enterpriseof Social Science. But at least the world-wide
settingposes themurgentlyand, perhaps,moreclearly.
A clusterof questionsconcernsmodels- whetherto use them,which
are mostappropriateand productive,and for what purposes. Intimately
related, are qùestions of research strategyand tactics, of the level of
approach (macro or micro); of the geographical,cultural or functional
47"Comments on the Theoryof Organizations,"46 AmericanPoliticalScience
1935-6.It is interesting
Review(December1952) 1130-9, that,thoughSimon
didnotchoosethisroadhimself, marked
heclearly itsimportance.

M THE INbÍANÍOURNALOF řOLTTICAt
SCIENCË
range ; of ecological depth, and so forth. Indeed, the question which

model ? raises by implicationall of the key methodological-philosophical
questions.
As I view it, thequestionof whether to use a model in researchcan
be answeredsummarily : We have no choice. In the often quoted words
of Karl Deutsch,"We are usingmodels,willinglyor not, wheneverwe are
tryingto thinksystematically about anythingat all."48 One can, of course,
raise the question whetherthereis not a fascinationwithmodel-building
as such among the studentsof Comparative Public Administration - a
formof a pseudo-scientific "play" that postpones the seriousbusinessof
research. But in general I should argue that our errorin Social Science
has been the opposite: data gathering,description and prescription,
withoutenoughconsciousreflection on conceptualframework.
Let me say furtherthat I do not thinkthat our problemis that of
choosing or constructing"the" proper model. To be sure, models are
betteror worse, more useful and less useful. But models are betteror
worse,more or less useful for different purposes. Deutsch's "systematic
thought" can take place in Fred Riggs*study as he contemplatesthe
world, or in the officeof a technical assistance officerin Ghana as he
the
contemplates day's assignment. Models servepedagogicaland "action"
purposes as well as researchneeds.
The centralproblem of model-selection(or model-construction) in
the study of Comparative Public Administration is to selecta model that
is "large" enoughto embraceall the phenomenathatshould be embraced
withoutbeing, by virtueof its large dimensions,too coarse texturedand
clumsyto grasp and manipulateadministration.Or so it seemed to me in
myown earlyattemptto come to gripswiththe subject-matter.Technical
and normativeconsiderationscombine to push one towardbreadth: By
definition,one needs a model that will enable him to compare different
countries,and thenprobablydifferent (and ultimatelyall) cultures. And
why riskthe sins of enthnocentrism? Why presumethat "our" ways are
better? For thatmatter,whypresumethatour organizationand adminis-
tration are somehow "normal." Doesn't even a primitivetribe- and
much more an ancient, non-Westerncivilization - have organizationand
administration:systematic,goal-oriented,cooperation? It is this path
that led me to the door of Parsons and Levy, Malinowskiand Benedict.
In structural-functionalism, pattern-variableanalysis,in the anthropolo-
48 "On CommunicationsModelsintheSocialSciences," 16PublicOpinion

Quarterly
356. Deutschdefines
(Fall 1952)356-380, a modelas "a structure
ofsymbols
andoperating ruleswhich
is supposedto matcha set of relevantpointsin an
existing structure
orprocess."357. In thisessayI use"model"interchangeably
with"schema"and "theory"meaningin all cases a conceptual frameworkto
organize andmanipulate
data. I am awareof distinctionssometimes made in
theuseoftheseterms,butthesedistinctions
do notseemuseful ornecessary
here.

Comparative pübüc administration ¿O?
gists' concept of cultureI hoped to finda universallanguageof organiza-

tion and administration.
Followingthispath 1 gained in insightand understanding - 1 felt-

but I feltalso that I had lost in clarityand precision.Part of thisfeelingis
attributableto a phenomenonnoted earlier: the gap between "large"
models and the empiricaldata. But thereis anotherfactor,namely,that
the conceptsand categoriesof thesemodes of thinkingare different from
thoseof thestudyof organizationand administration,shaped as theyare
by ideas of rationalityand efficiency, fromwhichthe studentof modern
administrationtakes his leave. Using the expanded scale one could
in some sense compare Texaco's oil production and distributionwith
Dobuan yam culture; but was he comparingadministration ? Riggs has
struggledmightily to retain world-wide breadth whileyetadding precision.
But I shall not tryhereto evaluate his results.
Let me, rather,note a related problem(or a differentaspect of the
sameproblem).Thisis theproblemof relatingtheuniversaland theunique
in one system. The idea of "universais" runs throughadministrative
studyfromthe assertionsof the FoundingFathersto řhemost sophisticat-
ed ofour contemporaries.But to compareimpliesnot onlyan identification
of the universais but criteria of differentiation.Perhaps structural-
functionalismhelps identifythe universais, while culture accounts for
differences and not necessarilycomple-
? But are thesenot two different,
mentary,ways of viewingthings? In any event,I submitthereis in our
literaturesome tension "between inherent uniqueness and enforced
comparability."
The choice of models is of course ultimatelyrelatedto the choice of
a researchstrategy, to the mosteffective employmentof limitedresources.
Here I have in mind primarilythe questionof the relativeutilityof low-
level and narrow-rangetheorizingand data collection as against high-
level and broad-rangetheorizingand data collection, in institutional,
culturaland geographicalterms. Much of our study,it has been charged,
is culture-bound,takinginto view too littleof theadministrativeuniverse;
but the opposite charge is made against contemporaryComparative
Public Administration-losing the utilityof operationallymanageable
researchbecause of the grandeurand vaguenessof its categories. Do we
start at the "bottom" or at the "top" ? Can we, perhaps, avoid the
dilemmaby strikingat the "middle" ?
Some have argued that we really have no choice : that science
proceeds slowly and grows froma central core of whatcan be observed
and tested,introducinginto the model no more variables than can be
"handled" ; that we only deceive ourselvesand invitepseudo-science if
we think there is any alternativeto the slow hard work of proceeding
cautiouslyfromwhere we are ; that "where we are" is reallyonlyat the

208 OF POLITICALSCIENCE
THE INDIÁNJOURNAL
beginningsof an administrative sciencein one cultureand that it will be

a long time indeed beforewe can know much about the mattersin which
ComparativePublic Administrationis interested. The alternativeview
is thatscientifictheorydoes not necessarilygrow in the mannerof a coral
island, slowly and around the circumference, but ratherthatspectacular
advances are oftenmade by imaginativenew approaches (indeed, even by
"accidents"); and one does not achieve macro theoryby the gradual
expansion of (or working out from) micro theory, but rather that
these are separate and simultaneous though- hopefully-ultimately
relatedapproaches.
Of course, one can argue that the strategicway forwardin general
and especially for the study of Comparative Public Administrationis
neitherto start at the bottom with, say, the Small Group and work
upward,nor to startwithCultureor Societyand to work downward,but
to move in the area of "theory of the middle range." Indeed, the
argumentsadvanced by Merton on behalf of choosingfor attentiona
range of variables importantyetmanageableare verycompellingin this
case. This is, I tak^ it, the appeal and the advantage of the bureaucratic
model : It is set in a large frameworkthat spans historyand cultures
and relates bureaucracyto importantsocietal variables, yet it focuses
attention upon the chief structuraland functional characteristicsof
bureaucracy.
No reviewof the statusand problemsof the studyof Comparative
Administrationshould avoid notice of the schema presentedby JamesD.
Thompsonand his associatesin theintroductorychapter of Comparative
Sudies in Administration
. This is "middle range" theory,and has various
interestingaspects.
This essay, thoughintroducingComparativeStudiesinAdministration ,
is titled,simplyand significantly, "On the Study Administration " Its
essentialqualityis givenby a blendof theold and thenew. It startsfrom
the "orthodox" belief thatbeneaththesuperficialvarietyof administrative
phenomenathereis a substructure of regularity,and that "administrative
science" can and will revealits lawfulregularityand "ultimatelyfacilitate
thepredictionof administrative eventsin unknownbutconceivablecircum-
stances."49 The authors note the variety of schools and departments
teaching administration,the historic dispute whetheradministrationof
Op.cit.,3. "Administrative
scienceis establishing an identityand is gaining
momentum. We firmly believethatthere is in themakinga rigorous science
of
whichcanaccount
administration, forevents inparticular timesand placesand
forthe ethicalor normative contentofthoseevents withoutitself
incorporating
theparticular
conditions
andvaluesofthoseevents.The necessary theorymust
takesuchfactorsintoaccountas variables.Thesevariables mustbebroadenough
toincludetheconditions
andethicsfoundinall fields ofadministrationandin all
cultural
contexts."4.

COMPARATIVE 20£
various functionsis essentiallydifferent

òr "basicallythesamephenomena,"
and introducethe "comparativeapproach" as "the mostpromisingway of
settlingthe issue."50 While it mightbe arguedthatthereis nothingnew in
the idea that thereis lawfulregularity in organizationand administration
and thatthisis discoveredbycomparison- Mooneydoes much/'comparing,"
you recall-this essay bringsthe argumentup to date, so to speak, stating
the case in the language of contemporary behavioralscience. The intra-
culturaldimensionis introducedas a naturalnextstep in the development
of administrativescience, not withfanfareand as a radical departure; as
an extradimensionbut not one requiringnew elaborateor esotericmetho-
dologies.51 Whetherthisis sophisticationor its lack timewill tell.
The schemais as follows. The problem is to defineadministration
so thatempiricalreferents permittingscientifictheory-building are identi-
-
fied. Collectivities organizations-"exhibitingadministration"are distin-
guishedfromthose that do not, and these "administeredorganizations"
are found to have fourcharacteristics : They ť exhibitsustainedcollective
action," "are integral parts of a larger system," "have specialized,
delimited goals," and "are dependentupon interchangewith the larger
system."52 These "organizational requirements"of administeredorgani-
zations "provide the basis for hypothesizingthe followingfunctionsof
administration," namely,"Structuringof the organizationas an adminis-
trativefunction,""Definition of purpose as an administrative function,"
and "Managementof the organization-environment exchange systemas a
functionof administration."53
These three functions"are appropriate subjects for comparison.
and thus is amenable to
Each of theseis subjectto variationor difference
comparative research and conceptualization. If organizationsdifferin
structure,we mustseek to understandwhy this occurs and how it affects
in purposes,we must
the contextsof administration.If organizationsdiffer
examine the effectsof purposes in other aspects of administration.If
organizations operate in differentenvironments,we must learn how
environments impingeon and shape organizations,administrative functions
and administrativeprocesses."54
60Ibid.,9.
51In fact,someofmystudents reported thatThompson wereínteres*
andassociates
tedonlyinintra-culturalcomparison.Thepointis thatall comparison,intra-and
function
inter-cultural, orfieldas againstfunction andso forth,
orfield, are placed
on oneplane.
52Ibid.,5-6. Considerable emphasisis placedupon"process"and on defining
administrationin termsofwhatitdoesrather thanwhatitis. As socialscience,
thisis both"correct" andfashionable, andI agree. However-I haveneverseen
and cannotimaginea definition otherthaninterms
of administration ofwhatit
does; foraction,process,is thecentral ideaoftheword. A definition
maybegin
"Administration bywhatitdoes.
is..." buttheis is defined
« Ibid.,7.
m IbidK9.

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
These, I believe, are the essentials,but it should be added that the

authorsenvisagethe developmentof a large amountof variedand sophisti-
cated theoryclusteredaround each and all of these functions,and that
they hope for and expect interchangewith and borrowingfrom a wide
range of disciplinesor sciences.
The essay by Thompson and associates serves as an appropriate
bridgeto anothermethodologicalpuzzle, thatof the role of "values" in or
theirrelationshipto the studyof ComparativePublic Administration.The
problems presented are, to be sure, but other varieties of the hardy
perennialsof Social Science, and I risk a boring superficiality
in giving
some attentionto tnem. However,theyare centrallyinvolvedin the study,
not to mentionthepractice,of comparativeadministration. For mypart,
I am repelledby the intellectualrigidityand moral smugnessof both ends
of the fact-value spectrum,yet am unable to findor create a wholly
satisfactory"middle" position. Surely- I tell myself-there must be
betteranswers.
Thompsonand associatespresentin sophisticated,clear and straight-
forwardmannerthe "orthodox" positionof behavioralism,whichis but a
more carefulstatementof what has been the positionof "administrative
science" from its beginnings:"We firmlybelieve that there is in the
makinga rigorousscience of administration, whichcan accountforevents
in particulartimesand places and forthe ethical or normativecontentof
those events without itself incorporatingthe particularconditionsand
values of those events." In a more extendedor refinedversionof this
position, thereis customarilya distinctionmade betweentheoreticaland
practical,or pure and applied, science,whichin generalis conceivedas the
distinctionbetweenthe studentor researcherand the practitioner.
Certainly I find this a useful and from certain perspectives
"correct" formulation. Also, however,forcertainpurposesthisformula-
tion seemsto me to lack utilityor relevance,to be "incorrect." This may
only reveal that I am confused. But let me indicatebrieflyand bluntly
what,in relationto the subjectof comparativeadministration(in business
as well as government),I have in mind.
First, I affirmthat in importantways fact and value cannot be

separated,even in the area of "pure" science,as long at least as thescience
is social 55 To be sure,theycan be separatedin logical analysis. But this
does not dispose of the matter,forthereare at least two otherproblems.
One concernstherole of values in theselectionof areas and problems for
research. I thinkthatthereis rathergeneralunderstanding and agreement
on thismatterby now : that,tryas we mightto erase preconceptionsand
preferencesfrom the mind, these inevitablyshape research choices,and
65Somehavearguedthattheycannotbe disentangled
eveninthe realmof physical
butmyaffirmation
science, doesnotextend tothisarea.

COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC- 211
that,since this is true,the best we can do is to be self-awareand self'

critical.The otherproblemconcernsthe shapingof researchproblems,the
conductof research,and the interpretation of the researchfindings. Here
thereis less understanding and agreement. But myown conclusionis that
values inevitablyinfiltrateand suffuse,color if theydo not distort,the
"purest" of our social science. There is theleast of thisprobablywhen
the social scienceis the mostrigorous,especiallywhenit is cast in mathe-
matical form; but in such cases thereis also less social science. That is,
the rigoris achievedat thecost of relevance in termsof theoryimportant
for social science,even definingsocial sciencein behavioralterms.
The workof HerbertSimon is an importantexhibitin thisconnec-
tion. This because he is an importantfigurein the terrainwe share,and
because here, clearly,is a mind of extraordinarypower thathas been
applied both to the separationof factand value categoriesand to research
putativelyfollowinghis own methodologicalimperatives. My own assess-
ment is thatmuchof thecoherenceand forcethatAdministrative Behavior
possessesdepends upon his definition of efficiencyas a factual ratherthan
a valuationalmatter.I shouldarguethat, while one can speak meaningfully
of whetheralternativedecisions are more or less efficient forgiven ends
under specifiedconditions,and that this may bé regardedas a "factual"
matter,thisby no means disposes of thematter. Otherrelevantquestions
concern why efficiencyis "valued" as a means or ratioand whetherit
makes senseto speak of a scienceof efficient meansforany endswhatsoever.
When these mattersare explored it is clear- to me- thatthe "hardness"
of the scheme is achievedat the cost of narrowingits relevance to a
certainarea of theconcernsand values of our own culture.54 1 conclude,in
short,thatone can meaningfully pursuea scienceof efficient meansif these
means are properlyrelated to certainends. These "certainends" in this
case are the customaryends of administrative-bureaucratic action in our
own culture. Since theyhave been so deeplyimbeddedin our culture,and
because a studentof administration has been almostby definitioncommit-
ed to themand the administrative-bureaucratic means theyimply,we have
littleappreciated the "objective" qualities of our scientific-professional
posture(i.e., its subjectivequalities as viewed from outside,objectively).
I referback hereto the earlierdiscussionof Simon and his different

reception by and impact upon Business Administrationand Public
Administration. If myanalysisis correct,thenI thinkit indicatesone of
the impoitantclues to this puzzle : Business Administration,by virtueof
its greatercommitment to efficiency and its narrowerrangeof- whatshall
I call it?- value-concern,found Simon more meaningfuland acceptable
56Rather bytherouteof behaviorally

I reachthisconclusion
paradoxically, respect-
ofKnowledge.Incidentally,
ableSociology I shouldnotliketo be interpreted
a*
Social
"against Science."

212 THE INDIANJOUŘNAL
Ot POLITICAL
SCIÊNCÊ
than did Public Administration,

which just at thismomentin its history
was breakingdown the barrierbetween "politics" and "administration,"
admittingand emphasizingthe relevanceof administrative
meansto social,
economicand politicalends.57
To me a more acceptable methodologicalresponseto the fact-value
problem (though one with some other difficulties) is thatexemplifiedin
Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblpm's Politics, Economics and Welfare .
The approach there offeredwas signaled earlier by Dahl's statement,
quoted above, that"to refuseto recognizethatthe studyofpublicadminis-
trationmustbe founded on some clarificationof ends is to perpetuate
thegobbledygookof sciencein the area of moral purposes." The utility
and validityof separatinga discussionof means fromends and of limiting
"scientific"treatmentto the formeris accepted; but onlyif the latterare
made explicit,so that the relationshipbetween the two is visible for
appraisal. Inquiry and its results,that is to say, followthe pattern: If
A is desired,thenB is a possible (and more or less efficient)
means,taking
intoaccountas best one can a complexof relatedfactorsand the intricate
interplaybetweenwhat is valued and the means of achievement.
"Development"as a Focus
In conclusionI wish to argue thata concentrationon the theme of
developmentmay help to bringinto usefulassociationvariousclustersof
ideas and typesof activitythat are now more or less separate and help
clarifysome methodologicalproblems; more specifically, thatyourdisci-
pline and mine have somethingto gain by this both separatelyand by
way of mutualunderstanding and reinforcement.
This essay is alreadyunconscionablylengthy,and I begin by setting
forthsome "global" propositionsthat I shall not heredefend.58 These
propositionshave been argued, at least suggested,in the foregoing;but
I shall not pretendthat the case I have made for them is clear and
indisputable.
1. The enterpriseof Comparative Public Administrationwould
benefitfroma "loweringof its sights," a narrowingof its perspective,a
67My"criticism" ofSimonheredoesnot run to the vast rangeof his writing,

someof which I cannotevenunderstand andwhich itwouldbe presumptuous of
meeventopraise. Myargument is that,whateverthesizeofhis "contribution,"
hewas wrongand misledotherson somecentralmethodological
nevertheless
issues. As to whether hefollowedhisownmethodological and on
prescriptions
thesubjectofwhether andhow"values"entered oraffected
hiswork-exploration
canat leastbeginwiththeessaybyStoring, citedabove,and ShermanKrupp's
PatterninOrganization : A Critical
Analysis Examination and New
(Philadelphia
York: 1953),Ch. 6.
68Orqualify'which painsmemore,as I realize
thatqualification
is necessaryto do
justicetotruth.

comparative hjbuc administration 213
dosing of the gap between its models and fieldresearch; whereas the
enterpriseof Business Administrationwould benefitfromthe"raisingof:
its sights,"the broadeningof its perspective,which would come froma
conscious and carefulfacing of theproblemsof comparability. In terms
of the above discussion, the formeris at present too obsessed with
"diversity"; the lattertoo fixedon the historicthemeof "uniformity."
2. A science of administrativemeans is a meaningfuland fruitful
enterpriseonly if the ends it is to serve are posited, consciously or
unconsciously.Historically,scholarshipin both our disciplinesobscuredor
denied this fact. Presently,because of its more limited objectives and
perspectives,yoursobscuresor denies it morethanmine. The obscuringor
denyingis understandable ; butbeingnowunderstood,is no longerjustifiable.
The main keysto the understanding of whathappened are the interpreta-
tion givento scienceas a "value-free"inquiry,and the special "neutrality"
presumedfor efficiency.In fact : to confineattentionto organizationis
alreadyto limitattentionto goals to be achievedby and throughorganiza-
tion; and to further concentrateon administrationor administered organiza-
tionis to introduceby reference, even if unconsciously,the goals of people
in societies at a high level of complexityand culture. In fact,our
"science" has been directedtowards achieving the goals of modern,
industrialWesternsociety,dependingon the physicaland socialtechnology
thereofforits means.
3. Our level of achievementin administrativescience is actually
high, in termsof the values of Westernurban-industrialsociety. It is
impossible to measure "height," obviously; but I rest the case on the
fact that we do have an administrative accomplishment withouthistorical
rival,evidencedby the factthat presentsociety exists. The organization
and administration involvedare not "instinctive"or "normal," and only
a purist definitionof science would prevent one from attributingour
accomplishmentto scientificachievementon the social as well as the
physicalside. At thesame time, our scientificachievementis hampered
by our systematicobscuringof thefactthatour administrative meansare
relatedto values of a general type,even if not necessarilyto particular
goals. Morally, such behavior on our part is a curiousformof prudery;
psychologically, it is repression.
4. While thereis a case forseekinguniversal,"principled" answers
to the central problems of Social Science methodologyjust as thereis a
case forattackingdirectlysuch grandconceptsas justice and beauty,there
is probably no more case for the formerthan the latter- though those
addictedto theformertendto decrythe latter. In particular,with regard
to the recurringfundamentalquestion of the relationof factand value, it
is sensible and fruitful to solve thisproblemin particularcases by asking:
What is the subject matter? What are the objectives? What is the
presentlevel of knowledgeand accomplishment ?- and 80 forth-

OF POLITICALSCIENCE
So muchprefaced-dogmatically asserted,ifyou like- I proceed to

.
the case forfocusingon development
A reasonablefirststepwould be to definedevelopmentas used in the
presentconnection. However, I find this impossible; and my approach
ratheris to tryto make a virtueof mydifficulty.I argue that one of the
reasonsforfocusingon developmentis that,thoughthereis a largelitera-
ture and much activity concerned with development, there is much
confusionand controversyover what it means and what it impliesin terms
of goals and means to goals. But: the issues that are involved are
importantones to our respective and mutual professional-scientific
endeavors; and importantin world politics if we concede only that
Americantechnicalassistanceand overseas businesshas some role on that
stage. It is highlydesirablethattheissues and problemsinvolvedin trying
to define development be posed as sharplyand urgentlyas possible, to
achieve as muchclarityof ends and effectivenessof means as we can.
The essenceof myargumentforfocusingon developmentis that,in
the above terms,it ''lowers" Comparative Public Administrationand
"raises" Business Administration. It gives both enterprisesa program-
matic goal or value orientationwhich is an essential elementin solving
theirrespectivemethodologicalproblems. It enables both of themto offer
the considerableamountof scienceand technologythey do have to offer,
for the objectivesfor which it is efficient
(or at least sufficient),
but to do
it with sophistication,that is, with knowledge of the interrelationsof
ends, means and ecologywherewe have such knowledgeand withaware-
ness of ignorancewhere we do not. At the same time,it will bringthese
two enterprisesinto closer interrelation,so that complementarityand
reinforcement may result.
The case goes beyondour two enterprises, and relatesto the problem
of definition.Many partsand aspects of Social Science are now concerned
with developmentin an expanding, self-consciousway. Development
economics now has an extensiveliterature. "Communitydevelopment"
may not be a respectablepart of Sociology or Social Psychology,but
certainlyit is a perspectiveand an activemovementwith a now-consider-
able literature. There is a growinginterestin developmentpolitics,and
development administrationis becoming a focus of interest among
studentsof ComparativePublic Administration.59 I also note thatdevelop-
ment education is becoming a focus of interestamong the Educationists.
There is an obvious need forthesevarious enterprisesto be knowledgeable
59I am especially
indebtedto EdwardW. Weidner's Administration
"Development :
A NewFocusforResearch,inHeadyand Stokes,97-115.Ifmyargument has
any appeal,thentheWeidner essayis Recommended Reading.Seealso : Edgar
L. Shor,"Comparative Administration : StaticStudyVersus
Dynamic Reform,"
22 PublicAdministrationReview(September,1962), 1958-64, the concluding
sections
ofwhich is."Needed: A Modeloftl>çProcessofChange."

COMPARATIVE
about each other,both intellectually

and "in the field"; and for them to
be as sharp and clear as possible on what they mean, respectivelyand
collectively,bydevelopment. Therewill be muchconfusion,wastedeffort,
and conflictat best. But withmucheffortwe mighthope to avoid chaos.
Withluck,we mighteven advance a bit in Social Science and strengthen
nationaland foreignpolicies in ways we would agree are desirable.
There are, some think,serious difficultiesand strategicrisks in the
course I advocate. Centrally,it may be thought,by abandoninga commit-
mentto value-neutrality we open thewayto ethnocentrism,tocultuial, ethical
and ideologicalbias : to easy optimismabout an evolutionaryforceor trend
or to an obnoxious doctrinairismabout "advance" from"traditional" to
"modern" society,as the latteris picturedand suggested,say, in thepages
of BetterHomes and Gardens. Or to give this appearance; or to be so
accused. But as againstthesedangers,real or imagined(I thinkboth) aré
posed the greaterones I have at least suggested.
Some of thedangerssuggestedare imaginary,as some acquaintance
withtheattemptsto clarifythe conceptof developmentindicates. Indeed,
one of themeritsof focusingupon developmentas a processin relation to
certaintypesofgoals is thatit avoids an excessiveethnocentrismas our own
countryis very"underdeveloped"in some parts and ways, and "develop-
ment" is at the centerof our national problems.60 That is, all countries
are placed on one plane, even if at different points along some scale or
scales. Likewise,a defenseis developed againstthe chargeof cultural(or
other) imperialism: if you wish- but only if you wish- certaintypesof
development,hereis the scienceand technology,and hereis how it relates
to yourgoals. Our own moral positionis clarified:we knowthata civili-
zation with running water, airplanes, and aseptic surgeryhas also
disadvantagesand risks,and our questionis, "Do you, on balance, prefer
the combinationto yourpresentsituation?"
To focusconsciouslyon the themeof developmentin the study and
practice of administrationwould mean of course a considerableshiftin
activitiesand in waysof viewingthings. But,first,I do not propose that
everyone stop what he is doing and start doing somethingelse; much
would remainunaffected, in the shortrunat least,thoughsome shiftin the
allocation ofour professionalresources mightbe indicated. The area of
Operations Research and other highlyrefinedtechniquesfor achieving
rationalityare not immediatelyconcerned,as I viewit. They are highly
wheretheyare "relevant,"but theyare relevantonly ina relatively
efficient
60 "Development is...never ; itis relative,

complete moreorlessofit beingpossible.
Development is a stateofmind,
a tendency, thana fixed
a direction.Rather goal
itis a rateof changein a particular direction."Weidner,loc. cit 99. This
skatesquicklyoverthinicecovering deepandtreacherous waters.My proposal
raisesthe severestproblems in definition ButI repeat:
andvalueclarification.
theseproblems aresmallwhenplacedbesidethecostspfignoring them.

OF POLITICALSCIENCB
narrow range of administrationin highlydeveloped socio-administrative

complexes. The focuson developmentwould, hopefully,help in making
rational decisions on the type and level of rationalitythat is possible in
differingsituations. If the study of ComparativePublic Administration
has done nothing else, it has fully demonstrated the relati-
vity of administrativemeans to administrativeends.61 Posing in one
systemof thoughtcustomaryadministrative ideas and techniques,different
types of cultures, differentlevels of culture, differentobjectives, and
borrowingconcepts from Sociology and Anthropology-all this is to
introduce"relativity." Its introductiondoes not "invalidate" what has
precededany more thanrelativityinvalidatesclassical physics,but it does
indicatelimitationand open new worlds.
Second, to focus on developmentdoes not mean that all other
"models" are invalidated and should be abandoned. Of course, they
continueto servewhateverpurposes they now serve. It does mean that
their purposes and theireffectiveness
be re-evaluatedfromtime to time,
and thattheirrelationshipto developmentalgoals be a matterof conscious
thoughtratherthan of accident. Especial attentionis neededto thecharge
that equilibriummodels (of whateverdiscipline or type) are "static" and
(or) "conservative" in their consequences for research and action.4*
More generally,the question is posed : Do we need more "dynamic"
and fewer"static" models?
The proposal to focus attention on developmenthas risks. One
possibilityis thatI am confusingfashionabilitywith feasability,desirabi-
lity,potentiality.Am I ?
#lTherecentliterature is interesting
On the subjectof "corruption": briberyof
officialsis now viewedas "functional"ratherthan"disfunctional" incertain
contexts.
82Thisis a general,
andnowrather old,question.Butitis beingaskedsharplyin
the recentliterature.The articleby Shor,citedabove,pointsout that our
administrativenorms "fit"ourculture.Iť is now a frequently
don'tnecessarily
expressed opinionthatdevelopment- Involves
by definition- and
disequilibrium
implies models.
disequilibrium


Indian Political Science Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Political Science Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Political Science Association

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION : PROLOGUE, PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

My object in this paper is to review and analyze the comparative

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

mentof Public Administration, forthe developmentof ComparativePublic

By Public AdministrationI referto the discipline- or perhaps one

The beliefsabout governmentand public administrationthat'werè

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

methodology1),a science focuscd upon one end, efficiency.Thjs sciençe

1 Thefounders werenqtveryclearon thispoint. Thus,W. F. Willougjhby, the

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

Management had become an internationalmovementand organizationby

Perhaps,in considerationof thelater discussion,I should be explicit

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

A Studyof Decision-MakingProcessesin Administrative Organization,s and

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

The Rise of ComparativePublic Adjninistration

7 And"Ifthere is evertobe a sciencçofpublicadministration

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

As historyhad it, War and Occupationwerethe beginningand not

In light of these facts perhaps we should be surprised,not ;thata

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

special conferenceshave concerned themselveswith the subject.' The

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

Administrationto other "fields", especially the various social sciences,

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

join morecloselywithrelated fields of studythatare deemed ''behavioral

In general,theimpactof behavioralism on the Public Administration

11See myPoliticalSciencein the UnitedStatesof America : A TrendReport

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

been immediateand great on the studyof Public Administration. How

12The mosteffective criticalattackto daté is, I think,HerbertJ.Storing,The

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

overwhelming numbersthesestudentsrefusedto believeit, to be persuaded

ComparativePolitics as a focus of inquiryand as an accepted term

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

For decades therehas been a fieldof Political Science designatedby

13OntheComparative Politics movement sec:"ResearchinComparative a

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

theHuniverse of Politica)*Science, Politics,-thatis; is used ip; its-jclassic

15TheIntroduction intheAlmond andColemanvolumecitedabove,3-58. Alfred

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

In a recentessay on "Trends in the Comparative Study of Public

The second is a shift from idiographic towards nomothetic

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

Anotherdevelopmentshould be noted,one thatis not "traditional"

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

or antagonistic. But of differingperspectivesand expectation, and of

Turningto the self-consciousmovement,I trynow to characterize

To advance to methodologicalconcernsand conceptualfoci: There

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

different and broader concept of ecology is also frequentlyset forth as

27As Economics is muchconcerned withthesematters thiswouldseemto question

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

Amongstudentsof ComparativePublic Administration proper,the

29RobertV. Presthus is a conspicuousexception.See "The Social Bases of

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM

modelsas his thinkinghas developed.31 I can only outline some of the

31Thevolume ofRiggs*writings,bothpublished andunpublished, is so greatthat,

This content downloaded from 185.31.194.106 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:36:25 PM