COMPARATIVE PUBLIC

Structure
,

5.0 5 I 5.2 5.3 5.4

Objectives 1ntrod;uction What to Compare? Levels of Analysis The Range of Comparative Studies
5.4.1 54.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 Inter-institutional Analysis Intra-national Analysis Cross-national Analysis Cross-cultural Analysis Cross-temporal Analysis

5.5

Nature of Comparative Administrative Studies

5.5.1 Nonnat~ve to E~npirical 5.5.2 Ideographic to Nomothetic 5.5.3 Non-ecological to Ecological

5.6 Scope of Comparative Public Administration 5.7 Significance of Comparative Public Administration '5.8 Conceptual Approaches in Comparative Public Administration
5.8.11 Bureaucratic Approach 5.8.2 Behavioural Approach 5.8.3 General Systems Approach 5.8.4 Ecological Approach 5.8.5 Structural Functional Approach 5.8.6 Development Approach

5.9 5.10 5.1 1. 5-19

Let Us Sum Up Key Words Some Useful Books Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

5.0 OBJECTIVES
After you have read this unit you should be able to: 9 explain the significanceof Comparative Public Administration * explain the nature and range of comparative studies: and describe the conceptual approaches in Comparative Public Administration.
I

521 INTRODUCTION
Dear student, comparisons of administfative'systems has had a long traditibn. But a focus on this aspect of administrative studies is about forty years old. Only ttfter the Second World War and with the emergence of new nations in Asia and Africa, a vigorous interest in compar*ve studies of Public Administration has evolved. Comparative Public Administration, in simple terms, refers to a comparative study of government administrative systems functioning in differentcountries o E the world. The nature of Comparative Administration has vast ramifications and ranges from the narrowest of studies to the broadest of analysis. To understand the meaning of Comparative Public Administration, it would be desirable to look at the types of comparative public . administration studies undertaken by scholars in the field. In this unit we shall examine the ' meaning, scope, and nature of Comparative Public Administration. We shall also discuss its conceptual approaches.

The Nature of Public

Administration

5.2 WHAT TO COMPARE?

In comparative (public) administrative studies, the unit of analysis is an administrative system. Therefore, the focus is either on the .whole of an adtllinistrative system or on its various parts. Briefly, the subject matter of comparison would be one or dl of the following phenomena: i) Environment of the administrative system. ii) The whole administrative system. iii) The formal structure of the administrative system with a focus on the pattern of hierarchy, division of wgrk, specialisation, authority-responsibility network, decentralisation, delegation, control mechanisms, procedures, etc. iv) The informal organisational patterns existing in an administrative set-up, including the nature of human groups, the relationships among individuals, motivational system, the status of morale, patterns of infomial communicatiori and the nature of leadership. The roles of the individuals. V) vi) The interaction between the persoinality of individuals and the organisational system. vii) The policy and decisional systems of the organisation that link its various parts. viii) The communicational system, which also involves the feedback mechariism. ix) The performance of an administrative system. You would notice from the foregoing discussion that an administrative system is noj-a simple entity. There are intricacies of its functioning which will be highlighted in any comparative analysis.
-

5.3 LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Comparative administrative studips can be conducted at three analytical levels: macro, middle-range and micro. Macro studies focus on the comparisons of whole administrative systems in their proper ecologicai contexts. For instance, a macro study would involve a comparison of the administrative systems of India and Great Britain. it will conlprise detailed analysis of all important aspects and parts of the administrative systen~s of the two nations. It will be comprehensive in its scope. Though the studies of macro level are rare, they are not impossible to be taken up. Generally, the relatisnsl~ip between an administrative system and its external environmentme highlighted in the macro level studies. The middle-range studies are on ckrtain important parts of an administrathe system that are sufficiently large in size and scope of functioning. For insthce, a comparison of the"structure of higher bureaucracy of two or more nations., s comparison of agricultural administration in two or more countries or a comparison of' local government in different,countries will form part of middle-range studies.
I

Micro studies relate to comparisons of an individual organisation with its counterparts in other setting's. A micro study might relate to an analysis of a small part of an administrative systein, such as the recrukment or training system in two pr more administrative organisations:Micro studies are m0.m feasible to be undertaken and a,large number of such studies have been conducted by scholars.of PublicA~ninisaation. In th; contemporary Con~parative Public Administration, all the three types of studies mexist.
'

Another relevant question that arises is what is the range of comparative administrative studies? What type of sttidies arepnerally included in this realm? In fact, the scope of Comparative Public Adminjstration~atudies is so'wide that a variety or analysis farm part of this branch of knowledge.

- .

5.4 THE R4NGE OF COMPARATIVE'STUDIES ,

Let us now briefly outline the types of comparative adminish-ativesadies. Broadly there, are five types of studies. They are:

5.4.1 Inter-imstltatiomnal Analysis

It involves a comparison of two or more administrative systems. For instance, a comparison of the structure and working of the Home Ministry of the Government of India with the Defence Ministry will be a case of inter-institutional analysis. Such comparisons z could involve the whole of an administrative organisation or its various parts.

Comparative Public Administratian

' :

5.4.2 Intrpnational Analysis

'.When an analysis in a comparative perspective is taken up among various administrative systems functioning within a country, it would be an intra-national analysis.' Comparison of district administration in Bihar and Punjab would be an example of such an analysis.

5.4.3 Cioss-national Analysis

When two or more administrative systems (or their parts) are compared in the settings of different nations, this would be cross-national analysis. For example, comparing the recruitment of higher civil service of China, Thailand and Tanzania will form an examflle of a cross-national analysis. '

5.4.4 Cross-cultural Analysis

A cross-national analysis of administrative system involves countries forming part or different "cultures", this would be called a cross-cultural analysis. For instancf, comparing the admisiistrativesystem of the USSR (a socialist state) with the U.S.(a capitalist system) could be termed a cross-cultural analysis. Even a comparison between a developed country (e.g. France) with a developing country (e.g. Algeria) or between a developing democratic country (e.4. Philippines) and a developing Communist regime (e.g. Vietnam) will be covered in a cross-cult&al comparison. Thus-the word "cultural" in the category "crossculiural" has a broad connotation and involves an aggregation of distinctive political, economic and socio-cultural traits of a particular system and its environment.

Such a comparison involves diff2rent time-frames for analysis. For instance, a cornparisoa between the administrative system prevailing during Ashoka's reign and during Akbar's regime would be a cross-temporal analysis. Likewise, comparisons,between the administrative systems of ancient Rome and modem Italy, or between the administrative practices prevailing during thd period of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi would fall under the rubric of cross-temporal analysis. ,
A cross-temporal analysis may be inter-institutional, intra-national, cross-nationai or crosscultural. For instance, a comparison of the administrative control mechanisms prevailing during the times of Julius Caesar, Alexander, Harsha, Attaturk and Nasser will be crossnational as well as cross-cultural. Exactness in cross-temporal studies is not possible because of differences in the nature of historical sources available for various periods. But some broad conclusions on the basis of existing sources can be reached throu h sucll studies. Nimrod Raphaeli has defined Comparative Public Administration a stu y of Public Administration on a comparative basis. The Comparative Administration Group referred to Comparative Public Administration as the theory of Public Administration which belongs to diverse cultures in the'na!ional settings and the body of factual data by which it can be expanded and tested. Robert Jockson has defined it as the phase of study which is -coneemcd. with making rigorous'cross-cultural cornparhons of the structures and processes involved in the activity of aPministering public affairs.

ti

--

d e c k Your Progress I\ NO& : i) Use the space below for your answgrs.

ii)'~heck yours answers with those given at the end of the unit.
1) What are the units of analysis in Comparhtive Public Administration'?

'IIre Nature (IT f'ubi~c Adri~itristrrtion

............................................................................... ........................................................
2) What is.cross cultural analysis'?

.................................................. ..................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................... ...................................................

.......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................
3) Explain cross temporal analysis.

.......................................................................................................................................
0,

li

5.5 NATURE OF COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

STUDIES
Some scholars believe that conlparison is an inherent part of any social analysis and whenever we examine any social problem or issue, we cannot do so without employing the comparative approach. Famous social scientist, Durkheim, subscribed to this approach. Further, Eisenstad believes that there is no distinction between comparative research and general social research, for the methods of the two are similar. On the other hand, there are other scholars who believe that comparative inquiry has special focus and techniques. Before the Second World War, there were; several studies on comparative politics and administration but such studies were primarily descriptive and normative. Fred Riggs, the toremost scholar of Comparative Administration had observed that there were three trends which were noticeable in the comparative study of Public Administration. These were : .I) "normative" to "empirical", 2) "ideographic" to '$ornothetic" and 3) "non-ecological" to "ecological". We shall~now-briefly refer to thcse trends.

5.5.1 Normative to Empirical

Traditional studies of Public Administration were very much influenced by the classical approach. These studies emphasised upon 'good administration' which was based on following cettain ideal principles. Efficiency and economy were considered to be the primary goals of all administrative systems and there were certain principles of formal organisation which helped-in the achievement of these goals, nlerefbre, a few models of administration, primarily of the western democratic world, were considered to be useful for all other administrative systems. As a number of developing countries emerged on the systems in various p m of the world, it scene and with the success of the comn~unist became clear that a limited culture-bound normative approach to the study of Public ldministration was not adequate. The behaviourd approach highlighted the value of studying the facts and reality ir,a significant manner and therefore the comparative studieh of Public Administration after the Second World War started assigning grater importance to the study of administrative "reality" existing in diffe~ent. countries and cultures. These patterns and behaviom of studies were more interested in finding out facts about smcadministrative systems rather than in describing as to what was good for each s y s t e m .

In &is context, it may be mentioned that two important trends have influenced the character of some administrative studies in the past two decades or so. First, the cowept'of 'T)evelopment Administration" which focuses on the goal-orientation of administrative

system is basically a nonnative concept .Thougl~r l con\iders reality as the basis of such goal4rientation, the emergence of Development Admtn~stration as a focus inquiry since the early sixties, Comparative Public Administration (encompassing the field of Comparative Development Administration) has evolved a synthesis between the normative and the elements of balysis. The second movement that bas influenced the nature of Comparative administrative ~tudies is phe Flew Public Administration which stressed the idealistic.goal lo be achieved h! an system and thus tried to bridge the gap between the "is" and "should" aspects of Public Administration. In the late sixties, the New Public ~dministrationmarked the "post-behavioural" trend and its impact on most administrative analysis has been profand. .
Z

Compnrntive Public
Administration

9.5.2 Ideographic to Nsmsthetic

The words "ideographic" and "nomothetic" have been used by Riggs in specific contexts. An ideographic approach concentrates on unique cases, e.g. a historical event, study of single agency, single country or even a single cultural area. Nomothetic approach, on the other hand seeks to develop generalisations and theories which are based on analysis of regularities of behaviour of .administrative systems. Thus earlier studies of Comparative Public Administration which were ideographic in character focused on the study of individual nations or institutions and their approach was primarily descriptive. No serious attempt was made to compare various nations and systems. Generally, within a volume on comparative governmental administraiion, there were separate chagters on different nations, without any attempt to Imk at the similarities or differences among such nations in terms of their administrative systems. These studies, therefore, were 'comparative' only in name and did not help in the process of theory-building or in developing generalisations concerning the functioning of administrative system in different settings. Nomothatic studies analyse various administrative systems in comparative context in a manner that will help in the generation of hypothesis and theories. The qbjective of such studis is to look at the similarities and differences of various administrative systems existing in different nations and cultures and then draw certain generalisations relating to administrrltive systems fuqctioning at various levels and in different settings. It may be noted that the ernphas~s on nornothetic compai-ativestudies is more noticeable in the United States of America than in Europe or Asia. Presently, a large number of comparative administrative studies are ideographic in character. Bven these studies, it must Ik admitted, contribu'le to knowledge in Comparative Public Administration. Analysis or theory-building has to be based on facts and description. And therefore, in the present state of comparative administrative studies, a co-existence of ideographic and nomothetic studies may have to be accepted.

5.5.3 Noa-ecological to Ecological

The traditiqpal studies of Comparative Public Administration were mainlv non-ecological, These studies mentioned about the environmgnt of administrative system only in a casual manner, There was no serious attempt to examine the relationship between the administrative system and its environment, Thus, it had become very difficult to identify the sources of differences among various administrative systems. Howeyer, studies undertaken after the Second World W a r have been specifically looking at similarities and differences among environmental settings prevailing-in different natioirs and cultures and have been attempting to examine the impact of environment on the administrative system an the onk hand ar .d the influence of the administrative system on the environment, on the other. Tne well-kno*!n ecological approach relates to the study of interrelationship between the system and its environment. This approach, popularised by Fred Riggs, has been regarded as an important development in the study of Public Administratiad.
"

It may be noted that most of the ~omparative studies of Public ~dministration after the Second World War have been referring to the environment of the administrative sygtems, but the @ n emphasis is still on analysing the impact of the environment on Public Administratior). The analysis relating to the influences of the administrative system on the 'environment is still inadequate. Nevertheless, a change in emphasis is noticeable and the ecological onentation is gaining stronger footing in the contemporary comparative - adrnidsLsp'ti.ve anajysis.
>
. ?
I -

he Nature of Pubik Administration

At this stage it may be painted out that when Riggs presented the above three trends in 1962; he was conscious of the fact that thsre is bound to be a co-existence of older as well as the newer emphasis in the comparative studies. Accordingly, today there are normative as well as empirical, ideographic as well as nomythetic and non-ecologicd aq,wdl a!. ecological approaches co-existing in the literatile on Comparative Administratiem ' Check Your Progress 2 Note : i) Use the space below for your ahswers.
'ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of kbe unit.

1) Distinguish betweep normative and empirical studies:

2) How edologiral studies are'different from non-ecological studies?

........................................................................................................................ ...+..,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... ......................................................... i............... ;-.:.:.b.;:..,.::i.A, ..,..-,: :

r . . :

5.6 SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC

.ADMINISTRATION

' The scope of Public Administration has increased enormously during the twentieth century. '

The importance of Public Admiqistration has grown substantially with the success of the ~ussiah Revblution, increased role of state during and after the Second World War, measures of welfare adopted in most of the countries and growth of large number of ~f human 'developing countries. Taday, Public Administration influences almost all aspe~gi life. Even in a capitalistic country like'the USA, the role of govemment has expanded in an effective manner. The net result of this increased role of state or govemment has&eltn that large number of specialised branches of Public Administration have come up'on the scene. I Some of these branches aie economic administration, social administration, educational administration, health administration, transport administration, space administration, etc. Besides, there are areas such a s state administration, urban administration, rural administration, financial administration and personnel administration which have *become istegrd p&s 6f the vocabulary of govemment. Therefore, when we comp'are administrative systems existing in various nations or cultures, we can compare either the ' whole of the administhive systems or some important parts of such systqms. Today, we find a number of studies on comparative educational administration, comparative health administration, compaktive economic administration, comparadve social adqhinistration and other related areas. Further, there are a very large number of,publicationa on comparative urban administration and comparative rural administration. It be~omes\ckar that t h e s m p of Comparative Public Administration is as vast as that of its mother discipline, v k Public Administration. Anything that & ' a ~ t l v ecan ' be compared.

Whi* di~ussing the scope of Cotnparative Public ~dministratian, not only the specia,laed branches ,of administration have' to be taken into W W ~ Further . it also needs to'be , '
i
1

stressed once again that comparative studies can be conducted at macro, middle-range and micro levels. These studies can be inter-institutional, cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-temporal. Here an interesting question arises: what do we include under the rubric of "nature" of Comparative Administration and what do we put under the heading of "scope" of comparative Administration? The best advice that can be given to students of Public. Administration is that to attempt a neat distinction between the 'nature' and 'scope' of comparative Public Administration may no! be a very useful effort. These two aspects are overlapping and have common stress on the types, levels, and range of comparative studies. Now a brief reference to the'signiticance of Comparative Public Administration is in order.

Comparative Public Adminislration

5.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The importance of the study of Comparative Public Administration is we'll accepted today. There are two factors that make comparative studies significant. The first factor relates to the academic study of Public Administration. It is believed that through Comparative Public Administration hypotheses, generaliaations, models and theories can be constructed which can collectively help in the scientific study of Public Administration. The.old orthodoxy of principles of administration is not considered valid anymore and therefore now it is believkd that generalisations relating to administrative structures and behaviour emerging nations and cultures can help in formulating out of comparative studies in diff~rent theoretical constructs which can provide a scientific basis to the study of Public Mministratian. It may be mentioned that way back in 1947, a very eminent political scientist, Robert Dalh had observed that a science of Public Administration cannot be conceived of without adopting a comparative approach. , The sludy ol' C'umparat~ve Public Administration also contrihatcs to P greater understanding of the ~ndividual characteristics of administrative.systems functidning in different nations and cultures. Besides, comparative studies also help in explaining factors, responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural similarities as well as differences in the administrative systems.

The second important function of Comparative Public ~dministrdtion relates to its relevance to the empirical world. Throu~h a study of ~ o m ~ a r a t iPublic v i Administration, administrators, policy makers and academicians can examine causes for the success or failure of particular administrative structures and patterns in different ewironmental settings. It is interesting to find out through comparative analysis as to which important f environmental factors help in the promotion of adn~inistrative effectiveness and which t administrative structures function appropriately and successfully in what type of i environmental settings, Lastly, an administrator or policy maker can, through comparative studies o l I'ublic Administration, have greater insight into the prtwss and slratcpics of ' administrative reforms. He can look at the structures of administrative reforms adopted by , various nations and examine those strategies and methods which can be helpful in his own '.country. In other words, through ('omparative Puhlic Administralion, we learn about the Finistrative practices followed in various nations and then we can endeavour to adopi those practices which can fit in our own nations and systems. The importance of Comparative Public Administration lies in its academic utility in terms 6fscientific and systematic study of Public Administration and in iqproying the knowledge about other administrative systems so that 'appropriate administrative reforms and changes can be brought about in different nations. .
'1
' 9 Check Your Progress 3 , \Nde: i) U'se the space below for your answers.

'

ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the unit.

1) What is the scope of Comparative Public ~dministration?

The Nature of Public Administration

2) How comparative studies are relevant for administrative reforms?

CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES IN COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

1c

I
a

There are a number of approaches, models and theories presently characterising the subject-area of Compa~ive Public Administration. Particularly after Second World War, a number of approaches have emerged in comparative administrative analys&. Much of this effort is based on an adaptation of the developments in comparative ant~opology, comparative sociology and comparative politics. We will now study different approaches in a nut-shell.

5.8.1 Bureaucratic Approach

-an.fie~most influential of the approaches is Max Weber's ideal-type buryucrati model. This role-specificity, recruitment by of hierarchy,"specialisation, by seniority-cum-merit, career development, &thing, discipline, personal and official means, etc. The emphasis in the rnode1.i~ on
%

'

'I$e,re h e beea,a number of studies conducted in a comparative context employing the bureaucfqtic mod4 of Weber. Notable scholars in this area include Michael Crozier (on Lairdton the Soviet Union) and Monoe Berger (on Egypt). The Fiance), %Roy methodological limifation of an ideal-type model and specific context of a legal-rational I authority system'$ses constraints in the application of Wdber's model to the eompr!tive , study of bureaucracies. Nvertheless, for an analysis of the bure,aucracies, of the deweloped countries, the model is still considered eminently useful. Dwight Waldo views Weber's ' burwucratic model a's a "paradigm" of Public Administration. . .
a

Particularly after Second World War, a number of apprdaches have emerged in- , comparative administrative analysis. Much of this effort is, based on an adaptation of the developments in comparative anthropology, comparative sociology .and comparative , politics.

5.8.2 Behavioural Approach

The behavioural approach emphasises '"acts", rigorous scientific methods of data collection and analysis, quantification, experimentation, testing, verification and an interdisciplinary orientation. It focuses on the analysis of human behaviour in., admin'istrative settings.
,

5.8.3 General Systems Approach

Further, the general systems approach views an administrative system as a subsystenl of the society. It looks at various parts of an administrative system (formal organisation. informal organisation, roles, individuals) and examines the interlinkages among variou~ parts. Besides, the approach analyses the dynamic interactions between the administrative system and its external environment.

Comparative Public
Administration
\

5.8.4 Eeologieal ~pproaelh

One of the most pop* approaches in Comparative Public Administration is the ecological approach which has been stressed considerably by Fred Riggs. This approach examines the interactions between an administrative system and its external environment. Thus the impact of the political system, economic system, social system and the cultural system, on the structure and behaviour of the administrative syste& as well as the influence of the administrative system on these environmental structures is highlighted in the ecological approach.

5.8.5 Structural-Functional Approach

A related approach, drawn mainly from Anthropalogy and Srxiology, is the structuralfuncti~nal approach. A structure, according to this approach, is a pattern of behaviour that has become a standard feature of a social system. Further, a function denotes the impact of a structure on another structure and the interrelationships among various structures.

Fred Riggs has successfully applied the ecological and structural-functional approaches in his analysis of societies and their administrative systems. His typology of "agrariatransitia-industria" systems, developed in 1957, was superseded by the typology oS "fusedprismatic diffracted" societies that was constructed in 1959. For the,past thirty years or so, Rigg's model of prismatic society and its administrative system known as "sala" has ruled [he contemporary model-building scene in Comparative Public Administration. Despite criticisms and certain inherent methodological limitations, the prismatic-sala model has fascinated the students and practitioners of Public Administration in "developing" countries. A prismatic society, according to Riggs, is characterised by a growing degree of structural differentiation but not matched by an equal degree of integration (coordination). This integration lag is reflected in almost all aspects of the functioning of a prismatic society.
A prismatic society and its 'sala' are characterised by 'heterogeneity', formalism and overlapping. Further,. overlapping has five dimensions: poly-communalism, polynormativism, bazaar-canteen model, authority versus control and nepotism. These features relate to the social, cultural, economic, political andladministrative systems of the prismatic society. The details of these characteristics are found in all important books on Public Administration.

5.8.6 ~ e v e l o ~ m e Approach nt
A very well-known conceptual approach in Comparative Public Administration is of 'Development Administration' which has been elaborately dealt with in a separate unit. adm~nrstrative system, e.g. This approach focuses on certain characteristics of a dynam~c goal-orientation, change-orientation, progressiveness, innovativeness, participation and responsiveness.

Besides, the abovei there are a number of other lessiknown approaches to comparative administrative analysis. These include "information-energy' model of John Dorsey and decision-making model of 'Martin Landau. Nevertheless, other models have not been able to match the comprehensiveness and acceptability of Weber's bureaucragic model, Rigg's prismatic model and of course, the construct of Development Administration.

It gppears that the experimentation phase in model-building in Comparative Public Administration is not vlgorous anymore. However, the enthusiasm for understanding the varieties of administrative patterns is alive in the scholarship of Public Administration. That is why, one can hope formewer dimensions of Comparative Public Administration emerging on the scene'in the'times to come

check Your ~rogr;iB"s 4 Note : i) Use the space below for your answer. , ii) Cheok your answer with those given at the end of the unit,'
'S

47

,
\ The Nature of Puhlk
AdmlnMraUon
,

1 ) Explain the bureaucratic.approach.

..........................................................................-.......................................-...............

5.9
I

LET US SUM UP:

comparative appr&ch has became an integral part of the Social ~ c i & inquiry. No i exercise of systematic Social Science researchcah be complete without a comparative focus. In this unit, we have examined the meaning and nature of Comparative Public Administragon and its scope and significance. We have also examined the different approaches to the study of Comparative Public Administration.
4 .

5.1Q KEY WORDS

Bazaar-Canteen :The "economic scene" in a prismatic society.' 2 , Diffracted : A social system where all structures are very specific. Formal : The official norm, the theory, what ought to be done, as expfessed in Constitutions, laws, rules and regulaiions. Functionally diffuse : A structure that performs a large number of functions. Fused : A social system.where all structures are highly diffuse. Heterogeniety : The simultaneous,presehce, side by side, of quite different kinds of systems, practices and iiew pbints. , Overlapping : The extent to which what is described as "administrative" behaviour is actually determined by non-administrative criteria, i.e. by'political, W i d , religious or I other factors. Poly-rommunal: A society that is composed sf several communities. Poly-functional : A structurj!is poly-functional whose functions are more diffuse than , those of an association, but more specific than those of a traditional family. Poly-normative : Refers to the characteristic myth sy&m of the "prismatic" society. Prismatic : The mid-area on the continuum between the "fused" and the "diffracted" models. , W a : The prismatic bureau. Structure : A pattern of behaviour which has become a standard-featweof a social system.
%

5.11 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

4

,r .

*. ..
I

Arora, Ramesh K., 1985: Comparative Public A&nistrotion;.Associated publishing" House: New Delhi. . Raphaeli, Nimrod, 1.%7. ~ e a d i n g in s Corhparative Public Administration; Allyn iurd Baconi: Boston.

--

Riggs, Eied, 1964. Administration in Developirrg Cowrtries: The theory o fPrisMc Swiery; Houghton Mifflii: Boston. Varqa, S.P.and Sharma S.K,,1983. Conipantiw Abministratian; IIPA : New Delhi..

.
'

5.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES

chick your Progress 1 I ) See Section 5.2 2) See Sub-section 5.4.4 3) See sub-Section 5.45

Comparative Public Administration

Check Your Progress 2

1) See Sub-section 5.5.1 2) See sub-bection 5.5.3

Check Your Progress 3 1) See Section 5.6 2)SeeSection5.7 ~h&k Your Progress 4 1 X See Sub-section 5.8.1

>

.
--."

,
I

. a

. $1