Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Development Administration, as a field of study, emerged in the post-World War II era with the aim of utilizing public administration principles to accelerate socio-economic progress in developing nations. Edward Weidner, in his 1968 work, proposed a model focusing on ‘administrative capability’ as the key to development, while Fred Riggs, with his ‘Prismatic-Salaam Model’ (1964), attempted to characterize the administrative systems of developing countries. However, both theories faced significant criticism for their oversimplification of complex realities and their limited explanatory power. This answer will critically examine the drawbacks and weaknesses inherent in their theoretical analyses, demonstrating why neither fully captured the process of development administration.
Edward Weidner’s Theory and its Weaknesses
Weidner’s theory centered on the idea that development hinges on building ‘administrative capability’ – a combination of skills, knowledge, and attitudes within the public sector. He identified six key ingredients: specialization, professionalization, merit system, decentralization, goal-oriented performance, and citizen participation. However, his approach suffered from several limitations:
- Oversimplification of Context: Weidner largely ignored the socio-political context of developing nations. He assumed a linear path to development, neglecting the influence of factors like colonial legacies, power structures, and cultural norms.
- Western Bias: His model was heavily influenced by Western administrative practices and implicitly suggested that developing countries should emulate them. This ignored the unique challenges and opportunities faced by these nations.
- Lack of Empirical Rigor: Weidner’s theory was largely based on anecdotal evidence and lacked robust empirical testing. His ‘ingredients’ were difficult to measure and operationalize.
- Ignoring Political Realities: The theory downplayed the role of political factors, such as corruption, patronage, and elite capture, which often hinder administrative capability.
For example, applying Weidner’s model to India’s post-independence administrative reforms reveals its limitations. While efforts were made to professionalize the civil service, the persistence of political interference and corruption significantly undermined administrative capability.
Fred Riggs’s Prismatic-Salaam Model and its Shortcomings
Fred Riggs’s ‘Prismatic-Salaam Model’ offered a more nuanced, albeit complex, understanding of developing country administrations. He characterized them as ‘prismatic’ – a blend of traditional, modern, and fused elements. The ‘Salaam’ represented the informal, personalized networks that often dominate administrative processes. Despite its attempt at capturing complexity, the model also faced criticism:
- Functionalist Bias: Riggs’s model was rooted in functionalism, assuming that administrative systems naturally evolve towards greater efficiency and effectiveness. This overlooked the possibility of systemic dysfunction and stagnation.
- Static and Descriptive: The model was largely descriptive, focusing on characterizing existing administrative systems rather than offering prescriptive solutions for development. It lacked a dynamic understanding of change.
- Cultural Essentialism: Riggs’s portrayal of ‘traditional’ elements often relied on generalizations and stereotypes about developing country cultures. This risked reinforcing orientalist biases.
- Difficulty in Application: The model’s complexity made it difficult to apply in practical policy-making. The abstract concepts of ‘fusions’ and ‘Salaam’ were hard to translate into concrete interventions.
Consider the case of Nigeria. Riggs’s model could describe the prevalence of patronage networks (Salaam) and the co-existence of formal bureaucratic structures with informal traditional authorities. However, it failed to explain the underlying causes of corruption and the persistent challenges to good governance.
Comparative Analysis of Weaknesses
Both Weidner and Riggs shared some common weaknesses. Both theories were largely based on a limited range of case studies and lacked broad cross-national validity. They also tended to treat ‘development’ as a monolithic process, ignoring the diversity of experiences and contexts. However, their shortcomings differed in emphasis. Weidner’s theory was criticized for its simplicity and Western bias, while Riggs’s model was faulted for its complexity and lack of prescriptive power.
| Feature | Edward Weidner | Fred Riggs |
|---|---|---|
| Core Concept | Administrative Capability | Prismatic-Salaam Model |
| Primary Weakness | Oversimplification & Western Bias | Complexity & Lack of Prescriptiveness |
| Methodological Approach | Descriptive, Anecdotal | Functionalist, Descriptive |
| Contextual Sensitivity | Low | Moderate, but prone to generalization |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Edward Weidner and Fred Riggs made valuable contributions to the early discourse on Development Administration, their theoretical analyses were ultimately inadequate in fully describing the complex process of development. Weidner’s focus on administrative capability was too simplistic and lacked contextual sensitivity, while Riggs’s prismatic model, though more nuanced, remained largely descriptive and difficult to apply. Subsequent scholars have moved beyond these early models, adopting more holistic and context-specific approaches that recognize the interplay of political, economic, social, and cultural factors in shaping development outcomes. The need for adaptive, locally-rooted administrative reforms remains paramount in achieving sustainable development.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.