Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Comparative Public Administration (CPA) emerged as a distinct field of study in the post-World War II era, fueled by the need to understand and assist developing nations. Initially, it aimed to apply the principles and practices of public administration, largely derived from the American and Western European experiences, to diverse contexts. However, the field began with a significant limitation: it lacked a unique, self-generated paradigm. Instead, it initially operated as an applied science, borrowing theoretical frameworks from other disciplines like political science, sociology, and economics, rather than establishing its own core set of assumptions and methodologies. This initial dependence on external paradigms shaped its early trajectory and continues to be a point of debate among scholars.
Early CPA and the Absence of a Defining Paradigm
The initial phase of CPA, roughly from the 1940s to the 1960s, was characterized by a strong faith in the applicability of universal administrative principles. Scholars like Dwight Waldo, in his seminal work "The Administrative State" (1948), highlighted the need for comparative analysis but didn’t propose a novel paradigm. The focus was on identifying ‘best practices’ and transferring them to developing countries. This approach was largely based on the assumption that efficient administration was a key to economic development, mirroring the modernization theory prevalent at the time. However, this approach was criticized for its ethnocentric bias and its failure to account for the unique socio-political contexts of different nations.
Influences and Borrowings from Other Disciplines
CPA heavily relied on theoretical frameworks borrowed from other disciplines:
- Structural-Functionalism: Borrowed from sociology, this perspective viewed administrative systems as organic entities with interdependent parts, each contributing to the overall stability of the system.
- Development Theories: Modernization theory, Rostow’s stages of economic growth (1960), and dependency theory significantly influenced CPA’s understanding of administrative challenges in developing countries.
- Political Science: Concepts like political development, regime types, and bureaucratic politics were integrated into CPA analyses.
These borrowings, while enriching the field, meant that CPA lacked a distinct theoretical foundation. It was more of an area of application than a discipline with its own core principles. Fred Riggs’s ‘Prismatic-Salaam Model’ (1964) was an attempt to create a unique framework, but it was more descriptive than prescriptive and faced criticism for its generalizations.
The Quest for a Paradigm: Attempts and Limitations
The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a growing dissatisfaction with the earlier approaches and a search for a more nuanced understanding of public administration. This led to the emergence of:
- New Public Management (NPM): Inspired by the private sector, NPM emphasized market-oriented principles like competition, customer focus, and performance measurement. While influential, NPM was not a paradigm *developed* within CPA; it was an adaptation of management theories from the business world.
- Post-NPM Approaches: These approaches, emerging in the late 1990s and early 2000s, focused on collaborative governance, network administration, and citizen engagement. Again, these were largely responses to the limitations of NPM rather than a wholly original paradigm.
The rise of globalization and the increasing interconnectedness of nations further complicated the search for a unified paradigm. The focus shifted towards understanding the impact of global forces on public administration and the need for adaptive governance structures.
The Ongoing Debate
Whether CPA has *developed* a paradigm remains a subject of debate. Some argue that the field’s strength lies in its eclecticism and its ability to draw upon diverse theoretical perspectives. Others contend that the lack of a unifying paradigm hinders its intellectual progress and limits its ability to offer coherent policy recommendations. The field continues to evolve, grappling with challenges like corruption, accountability, and the role of technology in public service.
Conclusion
The assertion that Comparative Public Administration started with no paradigm of its own and developed none holds considerable truth. While the field has benefited from borrowing and adapting theories from other disciplines, it has struggled to establish a uniquely its own foundational framework. The emergence of NPM and post-NPM approaches represents shifts in focus rather than the creation of a distinct paradigm. The future of CPA likely lies in embracing complexity, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and developing context-specific solutions rather than seeking a single, universal paradigm.
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.