Comparative Public Administration: Comments on Current Characteristics

Abstract

r HE PURPOSE OF THIS ESSAY is to assess what I regard as the major characteristics currently found in the study of comparative public administration. About 10 years ago, in a pioneer volume on comparative public administration, William J. Siffin described it as a field abounding in confusion and novelty.' There appear to be three major reasons why interest in comparative public administration burgeoned after World War II, and the reasons illuminate why confusion and novelty would abound. First, there was dissatisfaction with reliance upon American experience as the sole basis of an administrative science. Books titled Introduction to the Study of Public Administration are really, it was noted, books about American public administration. The universality claimed in the title was not warranted. Second, American foreign policy after World War II became increasingly involved with the administrative structures of other countries. Gradually, Americans learned that administrative principles that worked here did not necessarily work in other countries. This became particularly evident when Americans were involved in technical assistance projects for the newly emerging countries of Africa and Asia. Third, there was a post-World War II intellectual revolution in comparative government studies. A functional approach emerged to replace the institutional approach. American political scientists and political sociologists became considerably more concerned with the function of law-making than with legislative institutions. These three developments all pointed in the direction of new ideas and ex) The author assesses the chief aspects of contemporary comparative public administration. Academic analysis, the quest for quantifiable data, creative juxtaposition of theory and data, topical country-by-country description, and a focus on problems of administrative action are discussed as prevailing visions of comparative administration. Physics' principle of complementarity is suggested as a useful metaphor for the study of comparative administration, and is related to the study of comparative administration as history and as science. The necessity for philosophic discussion as well as scientific discussion is stressed.