Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Fred Riggs, a prominent scholar of comparative public administration, is renowned for his attempt to develop a theory specifically applicable to the administrative realities of developing nations. His initial contribution, the ‘prismatic-salaam’ model (1964), aimed to move beyond the traditional Western-centric models of public administration. However, Riggs didn’t consider this model as final. He continuously refined and revised his theory over the decades, responding to criticisms and incorporating new insights. This constant evolution reflects his commitment to creating a more accurate and relevant understanding of public administration in the context of ‘fusion’ and ‘fracture’ prevalent in developing countries. This answer will explore the reasons behind these continuous changes, examining the trajectory of his thought and its implications.
The Initial Prismatic-Salaam Model (1964)
Riggs’ initial model, presented in his seminal work ‘Administration in Developing Countries’, proposed a ‘prismatic society’ as the defining characteristic of developing nations. This society was characterized by a fusion of traditional and modern elements, resulting in a distorted or ‘prismatic’ reflection of Western administrative ideals. The ‘salaam’ (courtyard) represented the informal, personalized, and often corrupt aspects of administration, coexisting with the formal, bureaucratic structures. This model was a significant departure from the universalistic assumptions of earlier theories.
Critiques and the First Phase of Revision (Late 1960s - 1970s)
The prismatic-salaam model faced several criticisms. Some scholars argued that it was overly deterministic and painted a pessimistic picture of developing countries, reinforcing stereotypes. Others questioned the applicability of the ‘salaam’ concept, arguing it was too focused on corruption and ignored the positive aspects of informal networks. Responding to these critiques, Riggs began to emphasize the dynamic nature of prismatic societies. He acknowledged that the fusion-fracture process wasn’t unidirectional and that modernizing forces could also lead to fragmentation and instability.
The Shift Towards ‘Fused-Fractured’ Societies (1980s)
In the 1980s, Riggs introduced the concept of ‘fused-fractured’ societies. This represented a significant shift in his thinking. He argued that prismatic societies were not static but constantly undergoing processes of fusion and fracture. ‘Fusion’ referred to the blending of traditional and modern elements, while ‘fracture’ represented the emergence of new cleavages and conflicts. This model acknowledged the increasing complexity and heterogeneity of developing nations. He moved away from a purely structural analysis to incorporate agency and political dynamics.
The Introduction of ‘Grey Areas’ and ‘Polycentricity’ (1990s)
Further revisions in the 1990s saw Riggs emphasizing the importance of ‘grey areas’ in administration. He argued that formal rules and procedures were often circumvented or modified in practice, creating a zone of ambiguity where informal norms and personal relationships played a crucial role. He also introduced the concept of ‘polycentricity’, recognizing that power and authority were often dispersed rather than centralized. This reflected a growing awareness of the limitations of top-down approaches to development and governance.
The Focus on ‘Governance’ and Institutional Capacity (2000s)
In his later work, Riggs increasingly focused on the concept of ‘governance’ and the importance of building institutional capacity in developing countries. He recognized that effective administration required not only formal structures but also strong norms, values, and accountability mechanisms. He advocated for a more holistic approach to development that addressed both economic and political dimensions. He also acknowledged the role of globalization and the increasing interconnectedness of nations.
Reasons for Continuous Change
- Empirical Evidence: Riggs’ revisions were driven by ongoing research and observation of administrative realities in developing countries.
- Theoretical Critiques: He actively engaged with criticisms of his model and incorporated feedback from other scholars.
- Changing Context: The socio-political landscape of developing nations was constantly evolving, requiring a more flexible and nuanced theoretical framework.
- Personal Intellectual Growth: Riggs’ own understanding of public administration deepened over time, leading to refinements in his thinking.
| Phase | Key Concept | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| 1964 | Prismatic-Salaam | Fusion of traditional and modern, informal networks |
| 1980s | Fused-Fractured | Dynamic interplay of fusion and fracture, increasing complexity |
| 1990s | Grey Areas & Polycentricity | Informal practices, dispersed power |
| 2000s | Governance & Capacity Building | Holistic development, institutional strengthening |
Conclusion
Fred Riggs’ continuous revision of his theory demonstrates a commendable intellectual honesty and a commitment to developing a relevant and accurate understanding of public administration in developing countries. While his models weren’t without limitations, they provided a valuable framework for analyzing the unique challenges faced by these nations. His evolution from a structuralist perspective to a more nuanced approach that incorporated agency, political dynamics, and the importance of governance reflects a significant contribution to the field of comparative public administration. His work remains relevant today, particularly in the context of ongoing debates about development, governance, and institutional reform.
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.