Basic Premises of Comparative

Public Administration
Introduction
At the outset, it may be useful to identify the several types of
study which have been used public administration. In the study
of public administration at least three approaches may be
singled out:
1. Institutipnal Description Studies—Studies of this
character involve a intensive examination of the
structures and functions of the administrative
apparatus. Such investigation will yield detailed
information about the institutions under study.
2. Analytical Study—Enquiring along these lines,
using gross quantitative data has become more
common in recent years. As a result of this, there
is growing literature on administrative process
and administrative behaviour.
3. Case Studies—This is usually applied to
committees or in the study of administrative
leadership. This book, it should be made explicit,
will be concerned particularly with the
comparative study of public administration.
Comparative public administration is totally
different
Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 2
from the traditional 'academic science of public
administration. It does add new and important
dimensions to the study of public administration.1

The practising administrator can get immediate aid

from comparative study in many facets of his work. The
most fundamental factor limiting the usefülness of
comparative study is the fact that administrative
experience of different institutions at cross-national,
regional and local levels are based upon judgement of
values and cultural bias. However, emphasis on
comparative approach in public administration was
paralleled by an emphasis on ecological aspects of
administration. This emphasis led, in turn, to a broader
universal methodological enquiry. It has produced a vast
literature rich in explanatory insights. Although the field
of comparative administration has been largely devoted to
description of foreign system (Western countries) recent
trends indicate more, attention to methodological
questions, especially as the field has been widened to
include non-western systems. There are also a number of
articles and governmental reports stressing the importance
of comparative study which has grown due to various
politico-administrative reasons.
Comparative public administration is undergoing
different period of reflection, scholars are wondering what
the configuration of the discipline really is, and which
direction holds the most promise for the future. The
perpose of this volume is to subject the comparative field
to rigorous self-examination, with major emphasis on
methodological approaches and to provide brief
comparative studies of major administrative institutions
and practices. Most of the comparative administrative
studies focussed particularly on the relations between
bureaucracy and democracy. This has also been a central
theme of western administrative theory. The purpose of
Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 3
comparative debate over bureaucracy is to identify the
proper role of administration in modern democracies. The
democracybureaucracy nexus has been the central theme
in many of the comparative studies and it is because of
these studies a 'new identity' has been attached to the
public administration
discipline. 2 The emergence of comparative administration as an
integral part of the study and research in administration did
provide a new élan to the totality of the discipline.
Paul H. Appleby once remarked that comparing and
contrasting the administrative set-up in different contexts
would help to devote commonality of public
administration. Academic institutions in the USA, the UK
and international agencies like the UNESCO, WHO, ILO,
etc., have developed significant world programmes in
public administration thus enriching the disciple
professionally and academically. However, the study of
comparative administration in university classes and in
publications throughout the world was very much
restricted to the institutional studies and legalistic theory.
More extensive research has to be made to compare
different dimensions of administration at different levels.
But such comparative study informations and inference
should not be blindly copied. 3 Transplanting an alien
administrative institution would be successful only if it is
modified to suit the historical and social background of the
country in which it is to be adopted. It should be noted that
even under British colonial rule, Indian administration was
not the exact blueprint copy of the British administration.4
Indeed, it is interesting to find out through comparative
analysis as to which important factors help in the
promotion of administrative effectiveness. It can also
improve our knowledge of the administrative practices and
other countries and to adopt these practices which can fit in
with our own nation and its systems.
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 4
Besides our own interest in developing comparative
research attitudes, there has been a pressure exerted by
external forces to move in the direction of comparative study.
One such important pressure is the globalisation of economy.
Today, no nation can boost its economy in self-isolation. 5 The
interdependency for the sake of economic development made
us rely on comparative study. It is only through comparative
research that we will be able to allow new institutions into
the changed international economic scenario. Further,
economy and efficiency are the watchwords for development
administration. Exchange of administrative ideas, institution,
techniques of training, rules and procedures are something
much needed to work within the context of International
Economic Order. While there are some common factors and
elements which may franscend the political, economic and
social context of administration, there are certain important
factors which are shaped by international economic
situations. 6 World economy has played a crucial role in
bringing nations together. Increased awareness of
administration across the nations can be possible only
through comparison.
Social and technological advancement is another reason
for the development of interest in comparative public
administration. Even some of the Third World nations have
developed systematic data and informations that are
essential for comparison. The urge to develop evaluative
criteria or a frame of reference with which to identify and
classify administrative systems and the behavioural
patterns in different adminisfrative set-up was made to
search for alternative research methodology in public
administration. Criteria has been identified, and it is with
this mind, that an outline of a classification of
administrative systems has been made. The focus on the
term 'bureaucracy' as it represents a central factor in public
administration, a dependent variable mostly in the
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 5
interaction of societal, economic, politics, religions, racial,
military and other factors peculiar to countries, regions and
areas.7
There has been a radical change in administrative
fashion after the Second World War in most of the post-
colonial governments. These nations in order to keep pace
with developed nations desperately in need of comparison
thereby inculcated new features in their administrative set-
up. It is in this way newly developed countries sought to
legitimise the bureaucracy. The dysfunctionalities observed
in actual working of administration made our research
scholars to hunt for different 'models' in comparative study.
8
The basic assumption in Third World is that the under
development is primarily due to lack of 'new
administration'. Therefore, a special type of administration
'Development Administration' has become the focal point
of comparative public administration. In these
countries, public administration is conditioned by the social and
economic circumstances of the society to which it relates. Thus,
the coverage and the frontiers of comparative administration are
much wider and encompass even Development Administration.
9
As such, development administration and comparative
administration seem to have something common in both their
genesis as well as in their subsequent orientation, but it has to be
realised that the focus of development administration, though
deep, is in a way limited.
The quest for comparative administration study resulted in
the interdisciplinary approach of the discipline. Many theories,
concepts and models were borrowed from related disciplines.
Riggs even went to the extent of borrowing terms and
terminology from biological discipline. 10 Critics point out that
he over-reacted in borrowing technical terms from the most
unrelated subjects. However, such a trend led to new conceptual
framework and various studies of operational situations were
made. Here the comparative administrative scholars sometimes
speak a language strange to the ear of practising administrators.
But, today the practising administrators, as well as academic
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 6
specialists in public administration, have found comparative
research of first importance to their work. Il
The new task for public administration in developing
countries is to overcome the nature of ethnocentric
administrative practice and culture. A more balanced study
of our own system of administration can be possible only
when we look at administration in other countries. Thus, a
balanced treatment of public administration is necessarily
studied from a comparative framework. In the world
system, it is necessary to develop theories for the study of
public administration that are truly universal in nature or
scope. 12 It will be based on a comprehensive ecological
understanding of the place of public administration in all
governments, historical as well as contempoary.
Systematic improvement of theoretical knowledge in the
discipline should answer the changing properties and
problems faced by governments. What is being emphasised
here is the shift from descriptive information case studies
to nomothetic studies of administration. In nomothetic
studies there will be traditional way of explanatory but
supported by empirical knowledge of the institutions and
dynamics of the society under study. Ethnocentric
explanation of public administration phenomenon can thus
be effectively checked if not altogether controlled. 13
Though there has been great interest in comparative
research in public administration, it cannot be claimed as a
panacea of administrative problems. There are practical
limitations to comparative methodology. As a creative
process, it can be used only in certain situations. Firstly, the
units selected for comparison must have the same
conceptual framework. Secondly, the levels of comparison
must be the same. Thirdly, there should be an agreed
definition on the things to be compared, and fourthly, the
definition of the focus of inquiry makes analysis more
meaningful and useful, leading to generalisation. This
method can be applied at two levels. 14
Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 7
1. Micro level, and
2. Macro level,
Apart from these levels of analysis, the researcher must also
select the choice level. The choice level depends on:
1. The objective of the comparison;
2. Resources of the researcher;
3. The nature of study, and
4. The choice of identifying comparative variables.
(Comparative method is a means of establishing
empirical relationship between variables.)
5. Selecting the general framework.
Comparative study of public administration necessarily
associates itself with the other mainstream of social
sciences whereby conventional systematic comparison can
be made. The mainstream includes economics, political
science, sociology and psychology. Interestingly, it is
because of comparative approach of public administration,
that the American oriented study of the discipline is
checked. No longer will public administration theories be
based on the exceptional American experience.15
Initially, the Comparative Administrative Group
(CAG) has focussed development administration as the
Third World problem. But, today it also includes
understanding of a country's public administration in its
global context. In 1987, Ferrel Heady demonstrated how
comparative analysis imported foreign models and
practices which have contributed in the shaping of the
American political and administrative institution. It was
estimated between 1980 and 1990 that nearly 253
comparative public administration articles appeared in
20 different journals across the world. 16 Comparative
methods have also been adopted in many articles
published in some of the Indian journals. The Indian
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 8
Journal of Public Administration has published a volume
on comparative public administration in 1985.
The area for comparative research is wide enough to
accommodate the problems of developed and
underdeveloped countries. The major areas of research
are bureaucracy, public policies, behaviour of employees,
motivation, finance, developmental aspects of
administration, administrative set-up, etc. The validity of
comparative study in these broad fields of public
administration depends much on empirical support. In
this context, a note on Indian statistical data is needed. 17
Despite the massive size of public bureaucracy,
widespread illiteracy and rural nature of population,
Indian demographic and socioadministrative statistics
have been found remarkable. Dåta required for
comparative studies which includes India are obtained
from
1. Decennial census enumerations,
2. National sample survey,
3. The sample registration system,
4. Central and state government reports,
5. Reports of constitutional and parliamentary bodies,
6. Statistical gathering by individual government offices,
7. Sample survey by private research organisations such as
operation research group (Kolkata),
8. World Bank reports,
9. UN agencies reports, and
10. Individual fieldwork.
The availability of rich data from different countries
and the relevance of comparative study will certainly pay
dividends in public administrative knowledge. Thus, the
comparative perspective has become so inevitable and
prominent that understanding of one's own national
Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 9
system of administration will be enhanced by placing it in
a cross-cultural setting.18
Meaning of Comparative Public Administration
Comparative public administration is a sub-field of broad
public administration discipline. It is true that such an
established subfield exists in political science entitled,
"Comparative politics" or "Comparative governments."
Although the subject is not construed as consisting of
theories, but there is ample evidence of current interest in
Comparative Public Administration in the form of
bibliographies, conferences, new courses and a wide
range of scholarly articles, and books. Even the American
Political Science Review recognised this subject by
inaugurating, as on March 1963, a bibliographical section
entitled Comparative Public Administration. New interest
was shown by the American Society of Public
Administration, when the comparative public
administration group was established. 19
It is evident and self-explanatory that the future of the
discipline of public administration is hinged with the
everexpanding directions of comparative studies. Cross-
cultural studies would eventually place the discipline on a
firm footing and supply sufficient material for providing
satisfactory explanation {o administrative problems,
establishing it on the solid bed-rock of scientism. In
comparative public administration, cross-cultural analysis
is essential. 20 Robert A. Dahl days, "The comparative
public administration specialist is first and foremost a
scholar who is in pursuit of greater knowledge and
understanding." Further, R.A. Dahl once remarked that in
order to establish science of public administration, it has
necessarily to be comparative. 21 Similarly, there are other
social scientists such as Edwin Stene, Herbert Simon and
Dwight VAIaldo who believed that in order to make
public administration a scientific discipline, it has to
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 10
make its explanations comparatively rational. Rationality
and scientific
investigations make any subject capable of providing
satisfactory solutions to the problems of public administration
in different cultures.22
In the past World War period, the scholars who studied
the administrative systems of different countries,
"concentrated on central administrative machinery,
decentralisation pattern, control over the executive branch
of government, civil, service structures, public finances,
financial administration and the functions of
administrative officers.23 Arora is of the view that
traditional public administration literature is primarily
descriptive rather than analytical, explanatory and
problemoriented. Essentially, it is "non-comparative" in
character for despite the study of governments of several
countries, crosstemporal analysis and explanations were
rare. It also lacked techniques and concepts to undertake
such studies, especially of the non-western areas.24 It is
accepted that control, communication, planning,
organisation, co-ordination, and even efficiency and
economy have major relevance to the study of comparative
public administration.
Or the first time, in 1952, a sincere effort was made in the
USA when a conference was organised on comparative
administration in Princeton University. It was during this
conference that a sub-committee under the Committee on Public
Administration, entitled Comparative Public Administration
was established, to develop a criteria of relevance and a design
for field studies in foreign countries. Even the American
Political Science Review had recognised the comparative public
administration movement by inaugurating in March 1963 a
bibliography section entitled Comparative Public
Administration.26
In the comparative public administration movement,
{he most commendable work has been done by the
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 11
Comparative Administration Group (with Professor Fred
W. Riggs as its Chairman) of the American Society for
Public Administration. The CAG has already brought out a
number of research books. The development of the
comparative public administration movement has to be
viewed in the light of severe criticism by three stalwarts of
political science who unintentionally have done more
damage to the discipline of public administration than
anybody else. It was the case of an infant discipline (public
administration) being subjected to surgical trimming by
competent medical practitioners. In 1947, Robert A. Dahl
bemoaned the absence of a universal public administration.
The other critics of public administration were Simon,
Waldo and Stene. 27 The student of public administration
has to come up to the expectations and look to the deficient
areas of public administration, as pointed out by the senior
teachers in order to make the discipline convincingly
relevant, scientific and useful to humanity at large.28

In order to enrich the discipline of comparative public

administration, and make it more scientific, it has to be
critical, analytical, cross-cultural and not merely
descriptive. The younger administrative thinkers need to
realise the desirability of comparative adminisfrative
studies to be critical, analytical and based upon sound
judgements supported by "true" data collected from
different countries of the world. The most significant
development in public administration currently engaging
the attention and energies of a large number of students
both young and mature is the focussing of attention on
comparative public administration and the related problems
of development administration.29
Why the young student's "attention" is attracted towards
comparative public administration? This is because of their
"personal interest or experience," "world-wide
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 12
developments" in administration by developing countries
and also because one is addressed to "wide spectrum of
interests" from concrete policy questions to the abstractions
of pure social sciences.30
In the comparative public administration movement the
essentials to be precisely defined are the following:
1. Concepts to be used in understanding of
administrative phenomena.
2. Comparable variables to be identified by the scholars
to be used to differential one category of
administrative system from another, and
3. New reliable techniques for investigation and
inquiry.
For the most part it is the younger students in public
administration who are active in the comparative
movement and certainly, it is they who are chiefly
interested in the theoretical scientific question. For the
most part, and in a general sense, these younger students
are behaviourally-oriefited with the central problems of
social sciences.31 They are not essentially attracted by the
formulations and interests of Simon, but find their
inspiration in models, and techniques in other parts of
the contemporary social sciences, most notably in the
companion movement in political science, comparative
politics, and in sociology.32
It is an established fact that the cross-cultural
dimension of public administration has a promise and a
future in the development of a science of public
administration. Comparative administration is the only
hope for the growth and development of public
administration in the near future. Exposure to foreign, often
non-western, governmental systems, and cultures has
stimulated a sense of "comparativeness" in general and in
particular raised questions either about the appropriateness
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 13
or the sheer possibility of transferring familiar
administrative devices or applying what had been presumed
to be good or scientific principles of administration.33
It is now clear that those students of comparative
politics and comparative public administration who were
engaged in the study of political institutional processes and
socio-economic environments were actually studying
public adminisfration from the point of view of
comparison. This comparativeness from the cultural point
of view or ecological points of view forms part of this sub-
discipline. 34 While delivering a most fascinating series of
lectures at the Indian Institute of Public Administration in
1969, Professor Fred W. Riggs had chosen the subject,
"The ecology of public administration." He had selected the
United States, Thailand and the Philippines—three
countries—for the purposes of comparing the ecological
objects of these three different administrative systems.
What appeared to be a 'concern" as well as difficulty of
professor in 1980, was expressed by him in these words.
"How can one associate different countries? Some of my
colleagues would surely say that they are not 'comparable,'
each is distinctive and unique to such an extent that it can
only be studied or approached as something apart, yet think
that we can find common elements in these three countries or
at least common variables in terms of which they can be
compared".
Comparative public administration deals with
administrative organisations or systems pertaining to
different cultures and settings whose similar or dissimilar
features or characteristics are studied and compared in order
to find out "causes" or "reasons" for efficient or effective
performance or behaviour of administrators, civil servants
or bureaucrats.36 In the third world countries, single variable
dominated studies as possible. This single variable is
"development." Development itself is a sub-approach of the
ecological school. Development may be economic or social
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 14
but it forms part of the ecological approach. The ecological
perspective is, thus, the main concern of comparative
adminsitration scholars. 37 The economic, social and
political aspects explain the way administrative systems
operate. The scholars wrote right about comparative public
administration agrees on the broad context or concern of
comparative public administration.
In the Princeton University, the public administration
clearing house hosted a conference on comparative
administration in the year 1952. The conclusions of the
conference are summarised below:
1. Distinction should be drawn between policy values in
government programmes and academic values in
understanding administration,38
2. Focussed research would be more rewarding than
reclassifying existing data, and
3. Criteria of relevance are indispensable.
Later, a sub-committee of the Committee on Public
Administration of the American Political Science
Association was formed to develop a frame of reference of
the "criteria of relevance" which would guide researches in
public
administration in future." Wallace Sayre and Herbert Kaufmann
had prepared a summary frame of reference for Princeton
University. This frame of reference included questions relating
to the following.
1. Organisation of the administrative system;
2. Organisation confrol and organisation ability to secure
compliance; and
3. Criteria of adequate perform.nce of the administrative
system as a guide to practitioners.
According to Fred W. Riggs, there are three trends
prevalent in comparative study of public administration
during the last 55 years. The first is a movement from the
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 15
normative to the empirical approach. This reflects the
emphasis of the "how to" writings recommending changes
in administrative structure and functioning and laying an
emphasis on description and analysis of actual
administrative situations.40 The empirical writings are not
yet truly comparative. The empirical writings express both
the "ideographic" and "nomothetic" approaches and it is
the movement from the first to the second of these which
constitutes another, i.e., "non-ecological" to "ecological"
approaches. All these shifts or trends are seen in F.W.
Riggs theory.41
The nomothetic approach is genetic and law-seeking,
although it is not necessarily concerned with any
inviolablepatterns. The third trend, also less distinct than
the first, is from the non-ecological approach which
discribes administrative institutions as separate entities
existing apart from their cultural settings, whereas the
ecological approach is concerned with the full patterning of
relationship, and inter-relations in the total social system. 42
According to Riggs, the non-administrative fa•ctors need to
be related to the administrative, and in his view the only
studies which are truly comparative are those which are
empirical, nomothetic and ecological. Keith Henderson
admits that "Fred W. Riggs stands at the forefront of the
comparative public administration movement."43
All Rigg's works are ecologically-oriented and his
theory building is mostly confined to the ecological
perspective. We can say that the Riggsian Theory of
Comparative Public Administration is mostly the "ecology
of administration approach. "
Ferrel Heady has given the following four approaches to
the study of Comparative Public Administration:
1. Modified traditional approach,
2. Equilibrium or input-out-put approach,
3. Bureaucratic orientation approach, and
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 16
4. Ecological approach.
Keith Henderson accepts only three approaches in
Comparative Public Administration:
1. The bureaucratic system,
2. The input-out-put system, and
3. The component system.
Bureaucratic system approach is an attempt to study
bureaucratic organisations of different countries. It is a
wellknown fact that Prof. W. A. Robson had earlier
contributed to the study of civil services of France and
Great Britain Professor Herman Finer had also attempted a
comparative analysis of bureaucratic organisations of
several (seven) European bureaucratic organisations and
their behaviour. Murroe Burger in his book, Bureaucracy
and Society in Modern Egypt, tried to test Weber's ideal-
type model of bureaucracy. Burger later tried to explore the
structural functional theory of bureaucracy as applied to the
developing countries.45
Robert K. Merton and Professor Robert V. Presthus had
tried to test the value theory of bureaucratic behaviour in
western and non-western countries. Robert K. Merton
developed a middle-range theory for the study of
bureaucratic organisations which explains a manageable set
of relations rather than the broad-gauge special theories at
one extreme, and non-comparable individual cases on the
other." Similarly, Alfred Diamant's "The Bureaucratic
Model: Max Weber Rejected, Re-discovered, Reformed" in
Ferrel Heady and Cybill Stoke's book is an effort to explore
the value of Weberian theory in research of modern
democratic organisations. It will be of much use to suggest
to the students of bureaucratic
organisation as an approach to comparative public
administration they need to read Joseph La Palombara. They
should also read Leonard Binder to have a clear picture of
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 17
bureaucracy in different cultural settings. Leonard Binder
47

revealed three major types of political processes of

development which must necessarily proceed before the
development of bureaucratic organisations as noted by La
Palombara. Some students of Professor Talcott Parsons,
namely Philip Selznick and Reinhart Bendix had pursued the
organisational theory of "Structure-Functionalism" while
studying bureaucracies. Amitai Etzioni also studied
organisations from a similar perspective, followed by the
study of bureaucratic organisations by Blau and Scott who had
shown considerable interest in the organisation theory of
bureaucracy.48
The input-output approach is an outcome of the
systems approach. Through the conversion process, the
inputs are transformed into outputs and a balance sheet is
prepared with the expectation that outputs will always
amount to more than the inputs. It is also sometimes
called the "input-conversion output system approach." it
is described as less organic than the famous structural
functional bureaucratic model.49 In this input-output
system approach there is no reference to the relationship
between the parts and the whole, i.e., the component
parts are not "explained" to be inter-related functionally,
although they are, i.e., the parts are always organically
interrelated as elements of the whole. In the case of the
input-output approach, there is more emphasis on the
input-output equation, upon boundary exchanges
between system and environment.50 Fred W. Riggs
industria and agraria also postulates an inputoutput
scheme although the does not emphatically state this in
his model.
The "Input Conversion Output" approach is more an
outcome of David Easton's model. In Comparative Public
Administration, David Easton has contributed more than
any other scholar. In comparative politics, the Eastonian
model, has also been improved by Almond and Coleman
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 18
of politics of developing areas fame. Easton mostly
borrowed concepts and basic materials from the master
sociologist—Talcott Parsons.51 Almond had identified
four basic inputs of a political system which are
transformed through the conversion process into three
outputs. Dorsey says that in comparative public
administration research focus may be upon trangential
factors e.g., stresses and strains, affecting the conversion
processes. Ira Sharkansky had used the input-conversion
output approach to the study of public administration. 52
The framework of her book regards environment as the
inputs, and laws, policies, orders as the outputs, the
concession processes as the feedback.
Professor Henderson's The Component Approach
calls a "catch-all" for historical and other materials not
classifiable as a bureaucratic system or input system.
James Fesler had applied Component Approach in
Comparative Field Administration.53 There is an
emphasis on power, and communication linkages between
the centre and fields which are suggestive of integration
into a model. This approach takes into consideration the
main points of Dorsey and Almond. 54 Similarly, Fritz
Morstein Marx had studied the external varieties of
control and responsibility. In studying administrative
systems of different countries, a comparative scheme can
be employed which includes the study of structure,
purpose, process and environment the comparative
administrative systems appraoch. 55
Professor Gerald Caiden explains the comparative
scheme as given below:
Although each administrative system is unique,
administrative system can be compared according to their
(a) processes, (b) purposes, (c) structures and
environmental interaction, transcultural administrative
processes, that is, how different cultures get things done—
can be examined at many different levels, from individuals
Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 19
to international arrangements, and according to race, sex
and other ascriptive criteria.56
It is widely believed that Comparative Administrative
Systems are studied on the model of comparative
governments. The comparative public administration
approach had more or less closely followed the
comparative political analysis. Comparative analysis had
not to be descriptive of formal institutions. To be formally
descriptive of organisations, rules
 Basic Premises of Comparative Public Administration 20

and regulations are not comparative but unreal, narrow, egocentric, subjective and static. 57
Comparative public administration has recently progressed fast, but it has not yet provided
the "thoroughness or breadth of coverage" that is available from international comparisons.
A cross-national comparison informs us about the global range of differences in some ad
ministrative forms and processes. A system framework may appear to a scholar-researcher to be
more useful in cross-national comparisons. The systems orderly of environment inputs, ou tputs,
and feedback can highlight the features of administrative systems that arc related to each other.
From the standpoint of evolving a scientific and useful body of administrative knowledge, value is
derived from careful comparative study. 58
Despite exhortations from scholars, students of public administration have not been
exclusively and extensively involved in studying comparatively numerous administrative
systems. As a result of this lack of research activity, comparative public administration has
not evolved an adequate body of knowledge which could form part of a "theory of public
administration" so direly needed. Scholars from different cultures should devote time
earnestly in comparative studies of administrative systems. Despite all scholarly efforts to
strengthen development administration abroad and also emphasising the ecological
perspective, it is yet not clear what are the objects to be compared under comparative public
administration59. But it is clear that "comparisons" could be made by assessing structure,
processes, values, regulations, codes, patterns of behaviour and votes of all those that
consist in an administrative system in the cross-cultural context. It is now a highly accepted
proposition that there should be a multidimensional approach to the study of non-western
public administration systems.
The American Political Science Association had appointed four-member team consisting of
Sayre, Kaufmann, Sharp (as Chairman) and Riggs. Sayre-Kaufmann draft was re-worked into a
conceptual scheme to be applied to three similar cultures on a general ecological approach
advocated by Riggs. As funds could not e made available to pursue the research design Administra
tion

this hampered investigation in the comparative public administration movement. Professor

Caiden believes that "ideographic studies have tried to meet Dahl's 1947 criticism by
hypothesising at narrow- and middle-range theory level, although much ideography has
followed traditional lines. These studies have borrowed extensively from other social
sciences and theory, have incorporated, both consciously, and unconsciously the theoretical
models and conceptions of comparative politics. 61
Let us, emphatically conclude that the Comparative Public Administration movement
crystallised the point of identifying two major concerns:
1. Search for a conceptual framework (nomethetic approach), and
2. Correlation between variables.