Development and Comparative Administration

Prerequisites

• Meaning, Nature and Scope — Dahl’s 1947 warning that principles from one country may not work in another started the comparative movement
• New Public Administration — the equity and change goals that development administration shares
• Economic Planning — the Five-Year Plans that made Indian administration an instrument of development

The Hook: Same Rules, Different Results

Why it matters: Mains asks for the features of development administration, the difference between development administration and administrative development, or Riggs’ prismatic–sala model. These ideas also strengthen answers on district administration, aspirational districts and Bastar’s development.

Part A: Comparative Public Administration (तुलनात्मक लोक प्रशासन)

Meaning

Comparative public administration is the study of administrative systems across countries and cultures, in order to find out what is common, what differs and why, and so to build general theories of administration that are not limited to one country (usually the United States).

Why it arose

1. Dahl (1947): a science of administration needs comparative study, because social settings differ.
2. Decolonisation after the Second World War created many new nations with new administrative systems.
3. American technical and foreign aid programmes sent administrators and scholars abroad; Western models often failed in non-Western settings.
4. The rise of comparative politics and of the systems and behavioural approaches.

The Comparative Administration Group (CAG)

Fred W. Riggs is widely called the father of comparative public administration.

Riggs’ three trends (1962)

Riggs identified three shifts in the comparative study of administration:

Ferrel Heady’s four approaches

In Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective (1966), Ferrel Heady grouped comparative studies into four approaches:

1. Modified traditional — traditional institutional comparisons, made more systematic.
2. Development-oriented — focus on how administration can promote development goals.
3. General system model-building — grand models of whole societies, such as Riggs’ fused–prismatic–diffracted model.
4. Middle-range theory — models of a part of the system; Max Weber’s ideal-type bureaucracy is the classic example.

The ecological approach

The idea that administration must be studied in its environment (ecology) was put forward by John M. Gaus in Reflections on Public Administration (1947) and developed most fully by Riggs in The Ecology of Public Administration (1961). Riggs looked especially at how the economic, social, communication, symbolic and political environment shapes administration.

Riggs’ models: from Agraria–Industria to Fused–Prismatic–Diffracted

• Agraria and Industria (1957): two ideal types — a traditional agricultural society and a modern industrial society. Real societies lie between the two, which led Riggs to his three-part prismatic model.
• Fused–Prismatic–Diffracted (The Ecology of Public Administration, 1961; Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society, 1964): based on the analogy of light passing through a prism.

graph LR
    F["FUSED society
(traditional)
one structure does
many functions
Admin unit: Chamber"] --> P["PRISMATIC society
(developing)
new structures exist,
old ones persist
Admin unit: SALA"]
    P --> D["DIFFRACTED society
(developed)
each function has its
own specialised structure
Admin unit: Bureau / Office"]

Features of a prismatic society

1. Heterogeneity: traditional and modern, rural and urban, old and new elites exist side by side.
2. Formalism: a gap between what is formally prescribed (laws, rules, organisation charts) and what actually happens.
3. Overlapping: new formal structures exist, but decisions are still shaped by old, non-administrative criteria such as family, caste and religion.

Related features of the sala (the prismatic administrative unit) and its setting:

• Nepotism and favouritism in recruitment, mixing ascription (who you are) with attainment (what you achieve).
• Clects: groups that use modern organisational methods for narrow, communal or traditional goals.
• Poly-normativism: traditional and modern norms both claim loyalty, producing confusion and inconsistency.
• Bazaar-canteen model: prices and services vary with the status and connections of the buyer, not a single market rule.
• Bureaucratic dominance: administrators hold more power than weak political institutions can control.

Evaluation of comparative administration

Contributions: moved the discipline beyond its American base; introduced the ecological approach; produced theory for developing countries; laid the base for development administration.

Criticisms:

1. Too abstract — grand models (especially Riggs’) are hard to test.
2. Western bias — the “diffracted” Western model is treated as the goal.
3. Static — describes types better than it explains change.
4. Lost momentum after Ford Foundation funding ended in the early 1970s.

Part B: Development Administration (विकास प्रशासन)

Origin of the term

The term “development administration” is commonly credited to the Indian scholar U.L. Goswami, in his article “The Structure of Development Administration in India” (1955). It was developed by American scholars of the comparative movement: George Gant (often called the father of development administration), Edward Weidner and Fred Riggs.

Definitions

Features

1. Change-oriented — aims at planned socio-economic change, not maintaining the status quo.
2. Goal- and result-oriented — measured by achievement of targets (literacy, nutrition, income), not by following procedure alone.
3. Citizen participation — people are partners, not passive recipients.
4. Client orientation — focus on the needs of the poor and weaker sections.
5. Innovation and flexibility — new methods, decentralised decision-making, willingness to experiment.
6. Ecological perspective — sensitive to the social, cultural and geographical setting (for example, tribal areas).
7. Time dimension — programmes are time-bound and urgent.
8. Commitment — administrators need commitment to development goals, not just neutrality.
9. Co-ordination and integration — many departments must work together on one target (health, education, roads, livelihoods).

Traditional administration vs development administration

Development administration vs administrative development

Riggs described the two as a “chicken and egg” relationship: development needs a capable administration, and a capable administration grows only as society develops. They must advance together.

Development administration in India

The District Collector became the pivot of development administration: besides revenue and law and order, the Collector co-ordinates almost every development scheme in the district.

Criticisms in the Indian context: top-down planning, bureaucratic dominance, weak people’s participation, corruption and leakages, departmental silos and Riggsian formalism. The response has been decentralisation (PRIs), social audit, Direct Benefit Transfer, RTI and right-to-services laws, and the shift from “development administration” to development governance with citizens and civil society as partners.

Memory Tricks

Don’t Confuse

Common Mistakes

Practice

All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.

Level 1: Foundation

1. In Riggs’ model, the administrative sub-system of a prismatic society is called the ________.
2. Who is usually credited with coining the term “development administration”, and in which year?
3. Name the three features of a prismatic society.

Level 2: Prelims-style MCQs

Q1. Consider the following statements:

1. The Comparative Administration Group was set up in 1960 under the American Society for Public Administration.
2. Fred W. Riggs was the first chairperson of the Comparative Administration Group.
3. The Comparative Administration Group was funded mainly by the United Nations.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 and 2 only
• (b) 2 only
• (c) 1 and 3 only
• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Q2. Match List I (Society in Riggs’ model) with List II (Administrative sub-model):

• (a) A-1, B-3, C-2
• (b) A-3, B-2, C-1
• (c) A-2, B-1, C-3
• (d) A-2, B-3, C-1

Q3. In Riggs’ prismatic model, “formalism” refers to:

• (a) Strict adherence to written rules by officials
• (b) The gap between formally prescribed norms and actual behaviour
• (c) The use of formal written examinations for recruitment
• (d) Specialisation of structures by function

Q4. Which one of the following best describes “administrative development” as distinct from “development administration”?

• (a) Administration of rural development programmes
• (b) Implementing poverty-alleviation schemes in aspirational districts
• (c) Planning for industrial growth
• (d) Improving the capacity, structure and skills of the administrative system itself

Q5. The description of development administration as an “action-oriented, goal-oriented administrative system” is associated with:

• (a) Ferrel Heady
• (b) Edward Weidner
• (c) John Gaus
• (d) Robert Dahl

Level 3: Mains Answer Writing

Q1. (60 words) Distinguish between development administration and administrative development.

Q2. (150–200 words) Explain Riggs’ prismatic–sala model. How far does it help in understanding administration in a developing state like Chhattisgarh?

Quick Revision Table

Key Takeaways

What’s Next

• Public Administration — Quick Revision — the whole chapter on one page
• Panchayati Raj and Local Government in Chhattisgarh — decentralisation in practice
• Welfare Programmes — the schemes development administration delivers
• Western Thinkers — Max Weber and the theory of bureaucracy
• Back to Meaning, Nature and Scope