Comparative Public

Administration
What is Comparative Public Administration?
•  It is defined as the comparative study of administrative systems of
different countries. It has been broadened and deepened by the
interest of scholars in the administration of Third World countries,
especially after World War II. 

• It is the study of political systems, not as isolated cases, but through

generalizations and comparisons

• It is a sub-field of broad public administration discipline.

 Why do we compare?
• According to Robert A. Dahl in his essay, “the Science of Public
Administration”, ‘no science of public administration is possible unless there is
a body of comparative studies from which it may be possible to discover
principles and generalities that transcend national boundaries and peculiar
historical experiences’.

• “As long as the study of public administration is not comparative, claims for a
‘science of public administration’ sound rather hollow. Conceivably, there
might be a science of American public administration and a science of British
public administration and a science of French public administration; but can
there be a ‘science of public administration’ in the sense of a body of
generalized principles independent of their peculiar national setting?”
 Why do we compare?
What do we include in the comparison?
• According to Fred W. Riggs, the word ‘comparison’ signifies at least three
things:
1. Foreign
2. Methodology
3. Generalized or global framework for thinking about problems

The main objective of the study of comparative public administration is to

analyze propositions about administration of different nations and to build
a theory in public administration.
Why do we compare?
• According to William J. Siffin in his book in 1956 entitled “Toward the
Comparative Study of Public Administration”, ‘But the essential
contribution of efforts to move toward the comparative study of
public administration has been to help blast away some forms of
provinciality which, by setting bounds and defining approaches have
unduly circumscribed the subject.’

• According to Ferrel Heady, “The laboratories for administrative

experimentation provided by the emergence of many new nations
should in the future offer numerous instances of innovations in
administration worthy of attention in the more established
countries”.
Why do we compare?
• According to Woodrow Wilson in his essay in 1884, in order to know
our own country’s administrative weaknesses and virtues we need to
compare with others.

• Other social scientists such as Edwin Stene, Herbert Simon and

Dwight Waldo believed that in order to make public administration a
scientific discipline, it has to make its explanations comparatively
rational. Rationality and scientific investigations make any subject
capable of providing satisfactory solutions to the problems of public
administration in different cultures.
Evolution of Comparative Public Administration
• After the Second World War, there was the emergence of independent
states in the process called decolonization.

• It was also the time imperialism was no longer acceptable and the colonies
have achieved their independence from their colonizers after they
demanded for the principle of self-determination supported by the United
States.

• USA took the lead here in administrative studies and also in providing
financial as well as technical help to the developing nations in order to
increase their market share and also to curb communism that was a product
of the Soviet Union.
Evolution of Comparative Public Administration

• The USA was the hub of these studies since the Western countries
lacked the institutional and administrative capacities to implement
their development plans post world war 2.

• The government, United Nations and various private institutions as

well as corporates sponsored varied technical assistance programmes
that enabled the public administrators, lecturers of public
administration and professionals to study the same in depth as well as
travel abroad and gather hands on experience and build a universal
comparative theory of Public Administration.
 Evolution of Comparative Public Administration

• Notable in these efforts were that of the American Society For Public
Administration(ASPA) & American Political Science Association(APSA).

• The Comparative Administration Group (CAG) was the first organization

formally formed to formulate a universal comparative theory of public
administration in 1960, funded by the Ford foundation to study methods
for improving public administration in developing countries under the
chairmanship of Fred W. Riggs.
 Evolution of Comparative Public Administration

• The CAG did not only provide administrative techniques but this group
became a forum of intellectuals to understand why the developing
countries differ so much in practice of administration and are not able to
sustain the classical theory principles of administration in their systems
even though Classical theorists of administration like Fayol & Weber
preached that their principles and models of administration were
universal in their element and can be applied anywhere with greatest
success.
 Evolution of Comparative Public Administration
• CAG gave the idea of scientific studies and emphasized on empirical and ecological
(social, cultural and historical factors) study of various administrative systems.

• Even though the CAG had to shut shop in the early 70's since various administrators
and academicians realized that due to the highly complex setting which the group
had provided for comparative Public Administration studies was resulting in failures
in providing really empirical assessment of administration factors in a society.

• They stated that it provided a very good direction but the techniques were not
being specified to execute the idea. And so the studies was transferred back to the
Department of Comparative Studies.
 Fred W. Riggs
• Fred W. Riggs, a brilliant social theorist, is regarded as the Father/Godfather
of CPA movement.

• Riggs, a citizen of the USA, was born at Kuling in China in 1917.

• Riggs has been a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii,

Honolulu.

• Riggs was the chairman of Comparative Administration Group (CAG) of the

American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) since its inception in 1960
until 1970.
 Fred W. Riggs
• Being an adroit academic entrepreneur, Riggs successfully persuaded the Ford
Foundation to commit substantial funds over several years of time to support
the newly born CAG. The activities of CAG under his leadership have
stimulated interest in CPA with special reference to development
administration problems.

• Riggs major effort was devoted to the understanding of non-western

countries.
Three Different Processes of
Comparative Public
Administration
Fred W. Riggs (1962)
1. Normative to Empirical
• Before the rise of CPA, public administration was a very norm
conscious. There is a kind of set of formula and public administration
in any country that has to adapt to that kind of formula for making
public administration efficient.

• But after the world war, public administration focused on empirical

reality. On the basis of that reality, public administration would be set
up. So it was more focused on context rather than the norm.
2. I d iogr ap hic to No mo the tic

• Idiographic means an understanding of a specific situation and

identifies the unique characteristics of a particular administration.

• Instead of finding the uniqueness of a particular administration now,

the focus is more on generalization. So that we can understand reality
from a very abstract point of view.
3. Non-Ecology to Ecology

• Instead of only focusing on administration, it needs to be understood

with the reference of social, political, and cultural context.

• Unless or until you know the ecology (Social, economic and cultural
environment), it is very difficult to understand the nature of the
administration. 
Approaches to the study of
Comparative Public
Administration
 1. Ideal or Bureaucratic Approach
• Bureaucratic specifications are studied for reaching conclusions and developing
understanding.

• Under this approach structures of organizations are analyzed in terms of their

horizontal differentiation, vertical differentiation, span of control, etc.

• Procedures and rules are analyzed and the framework of functioning is determined.

• The limitations of this approach is that though it has been considered simple but it
does not explain the structures and their functions in society and gives a very
general observation.
 2. Structural-Functional Approach

• This approach analyses society in terms of its various structures and their
functions for reaching an understanding regarding their positioning and
functioning. Structures here can refer to government (political
arrangement) and abstract like values systems in society.  Function is seen
as the discharge of duties by these structures in the society.
3. Ecological Approach
• It states that structures and their functions exist in an interdependent
manner.

• So if a study is to be undertaken of a particular structure and its

function then its effects on other systems and their functions of
society are also to be analyzed.

• Limitations is that this approach is highly complex and difficult to

apply.
ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS
IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES:
1. USA
• Federal republican form of government – The President is both the
head of state and head of government.

• There is a separate constitution as well as citizenship for every state

and they are all bound together in a federation, thus all working as a
whole with their autonomy intact. 

• There are three level of governments - national or federal, state and

local(counties, towns, cities). 
1. USA
• The separation of powers among the three branches of government
(executive, legislative, and judiciary).

• The Congress is comprise of the Senate (Upper House) and the House of
Representatives (Lower House).

• There is no specificity in the constitution regarding the administrative

system but it does state that the President can from time to time as and
when necessary get advise from the principal officers of the various
departments regarding his duty as the chief executive of those
departments. 
1. USA
• There are thirteen departments in the administration that come under the
direct control of the president. 

• The President however does not possess the authority to change/reorder

his cabinet as that power lies with the Congress.

• Civil services in USA are also done on merit through competitive exams and
also at times there are some political appointees too who are chosen by the
president for their extraordinary achievement in a particular field suitable
to the job. Some departments are headed by individuals whereas some are
headed by Boards and Commissions.
 2. UK
• It is a constitutional and hereditary monarchy. In practice, it is a
Parliamentary democracy. 

• The head of the government is called the Prime Minister who is in-charge of
the actual day-to-day activities and duties of the government while the head
of state is called the Monarch who performs ceremonial functions.

•  Legislature is supreme and is bicameral namely House of Lords(upper house)

and House of Commons(lower house). 

• Civil servants are recruited through merit via open competitive exams.
3. FRANCE
• Semi-presidential form of government - It is a mixture of Republican as
well as Parliamentary form of govt.

• President is the Chief executive and enjoys tremendous powers in the

legislature as well as Parliament. Here the President is directly elected by
the people.

• The Prime Minister is then chosen and appointed as per the President's
wish from the Parliament. The Prime Minister has to enjoy the
confidence of both the President and the Parliament in order to sustain
his position.
 3. FRANCE
• Executive is separated from legislature and thus the President is not able to
influence the parliament much but still indirectly the PM has to go by him to
enjoy his confidence because most of the times, the parliament and the
president are from the same party.

• Civil services are of two types:

• External recruitment - is done through open competitive exams for
graduates under 27 years of age
• Internal recruitment - is for people from the lower echelons of service having
at least five years of service and not more than 36 years old. They are then
chosen and trained at the Ecole Nationale Administration for two years.
 4. JAPAN
• The Constitution of Japan rests on three principles - a) sovereignty of
people , b) guarantee of Fundamental Rights, c) renunciation of war.

• The Emperor performs the role similar to British Monarch.

• The Japanese people elect their representatives to the Japanese

Parliament called Diet which is bicameral that is, House of Councillors
and the House Of Representatives.
 4. JAPAN
• The Prime Minister is elected by the parliament. Usually, the head of the party that
has most seats in the parliament is likely to be the Prime minister.

• Local government possess autonomy in its matters. People posses the right to
choose their public officials as well as remove them.

Civil services are of two types here :

• a) Special government service - includes members of cabinet approved by the Diet
like positions of high officials in Imperial Court, Judges, Ambassadors and Ministers,
Diet employees, common labourers and employees of state corporations.
• b) Regular government service- includes personnel of National government,
administrative as well as clerical except the Special govt. services ones.
 Difference between Democracy and Republic
• In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This
system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the
Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as "Majority over Man".

• In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written

Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The
purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to
protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual.
 The relationship between Ecology and
Administration
• The ecological approach to Public Administration was first propagated
popularly by Fred W. Riggs who studied administrative systems in different
countries( emphasis on developing countries) and why there was a vast
amount of disconnect among them while applying the Americanized
theories of Public Administration and how they coped up.

• He found that the main reason for this uniqueness of administrative

systems in the world is the environment that they are set in.
 The relationship between Ecology and
Administration
• Each country had a different environment setting and that played a major role in
the shaping of the administrative system because without the help and approval
of its people an administrative system cannot survive and thus it acts according
to its environment and in turn it also influences the society with its work and
procedures.

• Riggs had found out the weakness of Weber’s ideal system of bureaucracy
through his observation of the experiences of developing countries to adopt
what Weber has considered to be a universal standard of administration,
bureaucracy. It actually didn’t work in other countries due to differences in
environment set-up.
 The relationship between Ecology and
Administration
• Internally it affects when we take note that in actuality the administrator is
a man of society and thus when he is taking an administrative decision, he
will definitely be influenced by his values, societal and cultural attitude to
quite an extent and that needs to be taken into account.

• Externally also the ecology/environment affects the administrative

organization by means of social values and rules, culture of the society,
dependence on other important subsystems prevalent in the society,
where the administration and politics have to be in context of the people's
wishes and demands and if they go against it will face a possibility of
overthrow and revolt anytime.
 Riggs’ ideal model of
Comparative Administration
 Riggs’ ideal models of Comparative Administration
• Riggs constructed certain ideal models for the study of developing societies
and their administrative systems on a comparative basis.

• A model refers to any “structure of symbols and operating rules which we

think has a counterpart in the real world”.
• According to Riggs, “if the model is well chosen, it helps us to understand the
phenomenon to which it is applied; if poorly chosen, it leads to misunderstanding.

• The models developed by Riggs represent different societies according to

different social structures.
Riggs’ ideal models of Comparative
Administration
• This model was fully developed in 1957. It reflects the features of two
societies namely Agrarian and Industrial societies.
 AGRARIA-TRANSITIA-INDUSTRIA
MODEL
• Riggs prepared “agria-transitia-industria” typology in 1957. It is an important
theoretical construct in CPA.

• Societies operating under an agricultural economy are termed “agria”. Agria

represents a pure traditional society, an example of which was Imperial
China.

• Societies operating under an industrial economy and dominated by

industrial institutions are called “industria”. Industria represents a pure
modern industrial society, an example of which is the contemporary USA.
 AGRARIA-TRANSITIA-INDUSTRIA
MODEL
• Thus, Riggs distinguished between two types of societies – societies
dominated by agricultural institutions and societies dominated by industrial
institutions.
• “Agria” and “industria” are pure or ideal models, which do not exist in
practice.
• “Transitia” represents a transitional stage between “agria” and “industria”
and possesses the characteristics of the both. Thus, transitia symbolizes a
transitional society moving from the stage of “agrarian” to that of
“industria”.
• Here, Riggs depicted development as a unidirectional movement from the
traditional agricultural societies to the modern industrial societies.
 AGRARIA-TRANSITIA-INDUSTRIA
MODEL
• Thus, the characteristics of an agricultural society are quite opposite to
those of an industrial society.

Limitations of “Agria-Transitia-Industria” typology:

The models give very little emphasis to the analysis of the administrative system per
se. The major stress is on the environment of the administrative system.
The system does not provide sufficient mechanisms to analyse mixed societies, since
modern societies always have some agrarian features.
It is too general and abstract to bear any resemblance to real societies in existence.
The typology assumes a unidirectional movement from the agrarian to the industria.
THE END
Reporters:
Abad, Mikael
Elguira, Prim Rose
Flores, Ray
Javier, Julie
Mendoza, Romeo
Paulino, Glenda
Zamuraga, Chris