Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Comparative Public Administration (CPA) emerged as a distinct field of study in the mid-20th century, fueled by post-World War II development efforts and a desire to apply the principles of public administration across different nations. Initially, it aimed to identify universal principles of administration, often drawing heavily from the American and British experiences. However, this early enthusiasm was soon met with criticism. The field’s failure to adequately address the unique socio-political contexts of developing nations, coupled with its inherent elitist and West-centric orientation, 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 and improving public administration globally. Scholars like Dwight Waldo and Fred Riggs were instrumental in establishing CPA as a field. The initial approach focused on identifying ‘universal’ principles of administration, believing that efficient governance could be achieved by adopting best practices from developed nations, particularly the US and UK. This was largely influenced by modernization theory, which posited that all societies would eventually follow a similar path of development.
Critiques of Elitism in CPA
The early CPA was criticized for its inherent elitism. It largely focused on formal governmental structures and processes, neglecting the role of informal institutions, social networks, and power dynamics. This top-down approach often ignored the realities of governance in many developing countries, where traditional authorities and local customs played a significant role. Furthermore, the focus on ‘efficiency’ and ‘rationality’ often overlooked the importance of social equity and participation.
The Problem of West-Centric Orientation
The most significant critique of CPA was its strong Western-centric orientation. The field largely assumed that Western models of public administration were universally applicable. This led to the inappropriate application of concepts like ‘separation of powers’ and ‘rule of law’ in contexts where these concepts had different meanings or were not feasible. For example, attempting to replicate the US bureaucratic system in a country with a weak institutional base and a history of corruption often proved ineffective.
Emergence of Alternative Perspectives
Scholars from the developing world began to challenge the assumptions of CPA in the 1960s and 1970s. Ferrel Heady, in his work, highlighted the ecological approach, emphasizing the importance of understanding the unique environmental context of each nation. David Apter criticized the tendency to impose Western values and norms on non-Western societies. These scholars argued for a more context-sensitive and culturally relevant approach to public administration. The rise of development administration, which focused specifically on the challenges of development in the Third World, further signaled a shift away from the universalist claims of CPA.
The Impact of Post-Development Theory
The emergence of post-development theory in the 1980s and 1990s further undermined the foundations of CPA. Post-development scholars argued that the very concept of ‘development’ was a Western construct that perpetuated dependency and inequality. They criticized the top-down, technocratic approach of CPA and advocated for more participatory and locally driven approaches to governance.
Contemporary Relevance and Transformation
While CPA as a dominant paradigm has declined, its legacy continues to influence the field of public administration. Contemporary approaches, such as New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Service (NPS), have attempted to address some of the criticisms leveled against CPA. However, even these approaches have been criticized for their potential to exacerbate inequalities and undermine democratic values. The field has moved towards more nuanced and context-specific analyses, recognizing the importance of cultural sensitivity and local knowledge.
Conclusion
The decline of Comparative Public Administration stemmed from its inability to move beyond its initial elitist and West-centric biases. The field’s failure to acknowledge the unique socio-political contexts of developing nations and its reliance on universalist principles ultimately rendered it irrelevant and ineffective. While CPA’s influence has waned, its critiques have paved the way for more nuanced and context-sensitive approaches to public administration, emphasizing the importance of local knowledge, participation, and social equity. The field continues to evolve, grappling with the challenges of globalization and the need for more inclusive and sustainable governance models.
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.