Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Comparative Public Administration (CPA), emerging prominently in the mid-20th century, aimed to apply scientific methods to study administrative systems across nations, seeking universal principles of efficient governance. Inspired by the success of behavioralism in political science, scholars like Fred Riggs attempted to develop models applicable globally. However, this initial enthusiasm waned as CPA faced increasing criticism for its inherent biases. The field’s failure to move beyond its elitist character – focusing on formal structures and neglecting socio-political realities – and its strong West-centric orientation, assuming Western models as the benchmark, ultimately contributed to its decline as a dominant paradigm in public administration scholarship.
The Rise and Initial Promise of CPA
Following World War II, there was a surge in interest in understanding different administrative systems. CPA, initially, promised a scientific and value-free approach to studying bureaucracy. Early scholars focused on identifying universal principles of organization, such as hierarchy, specialization, and centralization. The Ford Foundation played a significant role in funding research and training programs in CPA, particularly in developing countries. This period saw the application of Western administrative theories, like those of Max Weber and Henri Fayol, to diverse contexts.
Critiques of Elitism in CPA
One of the earliest and most persistent criticisms of CPA was its elitist character. The focus remained largely on the formal structures of government, neglecting the informal processes, power dynamics, and socio-cultural contexts that significantly influence administrative behavior.
- Neglect of Political Context: CPA often treated administration as a separate sphere, ignoring the crucial interplay between politics and administration.
- Top-Down Approach: The emphasis was on studying the ‘higher’ bureaucracy, overlooking the role of lower-level officials and citizens in the administrative process.
- Ignoring Indigenous Knowledge: Traditional administrative practices and local knowledge systems were often dismissed as ‘primitive’ or ‘unscientific’.
The Problem of West-Centric Orientation
The most damaging critique of CPA was its strong West-centric orientation. The field largely assumed that Western administrative models were superior and universally applicable. This led to several problems:
- Inappropriate Transfer of Models: Applying Western models to non-Western contexts without considering the unique socio-political and economic realities often resulted in failure. For example, attempts to implement merit-based recruitment systems in societies with strong patronage networks often proved ineffective.
- Ethnocentric Bias: Western values and norms were implicitly considered the standard against which other administrative systems were judged. This led to a biased understanding of administrative practices in developing countries.
- Ignoring the Role of Colonialism: CPA largely ignored the historical legacy of colonialism and its impact on administrative structures in post-colonial states.
The Rise of Alternative Perspectives
The criticisms of CPA led to the emergence of alternative perspectives in public administration. Scholars from the developing world, like Ferrel Heady and Riggs himself (in his later work), began to challenge the assumptions of CPA.
- Developmental Administration: This approach focused on using administration as a tool for socio-economic development, recognizing the unique challenges faced by developing countries.
- Ecological Approach: Riggs’s ecological approach attempted to develop a more context-sensitive framework for studying administration, recognizing the influence of the environment on administrative systems.
- New Public Administration (NPA): NPA, emerging in the late 1960s, emphasized values like equity, social justice, and responsiveness to citizens, challenging the value-neutrality of traditional CPA.
Decline and Legacy
By the 1970s, CPA had largely lost its dominance as a paradigm in public administration. The rise of alternative perspectives, coupled with the growing awareness of its inherent biases, led to its decline. However, CPA’s legacy remains significant. It laid the foundation for comparative research in public administration and highlighted the importance of understanding the context in which administrative systems operate. The critiques of CPA also paved the way for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to the study of public administration.
Conclusion
The decline of Comparative Public Administration stemmed from its inability to shed its foundational biases – its elitist focus and its unquestioning acceptance of Western models as universal. While initially promising a scientific approach to understanding governance, its failure to account for socio-political realities and historical contexts rendered it increasingly irrelevant. The emergence of alternative perspectives, rooted in the experiences of developing countries, ultimately superseded CPA, leading to a more contextualized and value-conscious field of public administration. The lessons learned from CPA’s shortcomings continue to inform contemporary scholarship and practice.
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.