In modern context, Riggsian terms have not altogether disappeared, but have emerged in different forms with newer meanings. Discuss.

Riggs’s Ecological Model: A Recap

Riggs’s model, outlined in his seminal work *Administration in Developing Countries* (1964), posited that administrative systems are shaped by their ecological context – the interplay of physical, biological, and socio-cultural factors. He identified three ideal types:

• Fusa: Characterized by a lack of differentiation between public and private spheres, personalized administration, and a strong emphasis on kinship and patronage.
• Prismatic: A transitional stage where modern and traditional elements coexist, leading to ambiguity, ‘formality’ without substance, and ‘buck-passing’.
• Forma: A highly differentiated, legalistic, and impersonal administrative system, typical of developed nations.

The ‘prismatic society’ was central to Riggs’s argument, as it represented the common experience of many developing countries grappling with modernization and the challenges of building effective administrative capacity.

Critiques of the Riggsian Model

Riggs’s theory wasn’t without its detractors. Key criticisms included:

• Determinism: Critics argued that the model was overly deterministic, suggesting that developing countries were inevitably destined to follow a linear path towards ‘forma’.
• Generalization: The model was accused of overgeneralizing the experiences of diverse developing countries, ignoring specific historical, cultural, and political contexts.
• Lack of Agency: The model downplayed the role of agency and political will in shaping administrative systems.
• Eurocentric Bias: The ‘forma’ model was implicitly presented as the ideal, reflecting a Eurocentric bias.

Despite these criticisms, Riggs’s work stimulated important debates about the relationship between administration and development.

Contemporary Manifestations of Riggsian Concepts

While the original Riggsian typology may not be directly observable, its core concepts have resurfaced in modified forms in modern administrative realities:

• ‘Fusa’ in Patronage Networks: The blending of public and private interests, characteristic of ‘fusa’, persists in many developing countries through patronage networks, corruption, and ‘crony capitalism’. For example, in India, the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and business interests often leads to preferential treatment and rent-seeking behavior.
• ‘Prismatic’ in Incrementalism & Bureaucratic Politics: The ‘prismatic’ tendency towards ambiguity and ‘formality’ without substance is evident in the prevalence of incrementalism in policy-making. Policies are often implemented in a piecemeal fashion, leading to unintended consequences and a lack of coherence. Furthermore, ‘turf battles’ between different government departments, a manifestation of prismatic fragmentation, hinder effective coordination.
• Hybrid Governance Structures: The coexistence of formal and informal institutions, a hallmark of the ‘prismatic’ society, is reflected in the rise of hybrid governance structures. These structures combine state-led initiatives with the involvement of non-state actors, such as NGOs and community-based organizations. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in India, for instance, relies on both government machinery and local self-help groups for implementation.
• Persistence of Traditional Authority: In many parts of the world, traditional forms of authority continue to influence administrative processes. For example, in some African countries, traditional chiefs play a significant role in land administration and dispute resolution.
• Digital Divide & Uneven Modernization: The uneven pace of modernization, highlighted by Riggs, is mirrored in the digital divide. While some sectors of the economy have embraced digital technologies, others remain largely untouched, creating a ‘prismatic’ landscape of technological advancement.

The Role of New Public Management (NPM) and Good Governance

The introduction of New Public Management (NPM) reforms in many developing countries, aimed at increasing efficiency and accountability, has often interacted with existing Riggsian patterns. While NPM sought to promote ‘forma’-like characteristics (performance measurement, market-based principles), its implementation has often been hampered by the persistence of ‘prismatic’ tendencies, such as corruption and bureaucratic inertia. Similarly, good governance initiatives, emphasizing transparency and participation, have faced challenges in contexts where patronage networks and informal power structures are deeply entrenched.