Ecology and Administration:

Revisiting the Prismatic Model

of Fred Riggs
Souradeep Sen
Administration and its environment influence each other to a great
extent. The understanding of the dynamics of this process is
imperative. This, in simple terms, is the very kernel of the ecological
approach to public administration. The ecological approach to the
study of administration was initiated by John Gaus and Robert Dahl
in 1947. It was then followed by Roscoe Martin in 1952 and was
greatly popularised by Fred W. Riggs since 1962. Riggs emerged as
its greatest exponent in the domains of Comparative Public
Administration and Development Administration. In the 1920s,
Gaus drew upon the works of sociologists concerned with the
interdependence of human life and its environment. The sociologists,
in turn were inspired by the natural sciences which sought to explain
how plants and animals adapt to their environments. According to
Gaus, such an approach,
“builds... from the ground up; from the elements of a place
–soils, climate, location, for example –to the people who live
there –their numbers and ages and knowledge, and the ways
of physical and social technology by which from the place
and in relationship with one another, they get their living.”1
According to Ferrel Heady, Gaus was primarily concerned with
identifying key ecological factors for an understanding of
contemporary American public administration and explored a host of
factors on which social understanding depends heavily: people,
region, physical & social technologies, aspirations and ideas,
catastrophe and personality.2 This in sum, is the starting point of the
ecological approach to public administration and this understanding

147
has undergone various modifications and alterations to suit it to
changing circumstances. If Gaus was applying the ecological
approach to understand public administration in early twentieth
century America, Riggs and his followers, applied a modified version
of it to gauge the levels of development and administration in the so-
called ‘developing’ political systems during the second half of that
century.
The present paper would first endeavour to account for the roots of
the ecological approach to administration within the tradition of
public administration itself; followed by an explanation of what it
actually stands for, and the significance of that approach in
developing the science of administration, especially with reference
to the concept of bureaucracy. This would be followed by an analysis
of Fred Riggs’ treatment of the ecology of administration, and his
contributions to the development of an ecological model of public
administration. Finally, the focus would be on the recent criticisms
levied against the Riggsian model, as certain scholars believe that if
we are not ready to abjure Riggs, we can at least strive to make his
theories more scientific and technically suitable to the twenty-first
century clime.

The Advent of Ecological Understanding in Public

Administration
The ecological approach to public administration was greatly
popularised by the Comparative Administration Movement and the
theory of development administration, which it engendered. The
period 1948-1970 provides the perfect temporal reference point for
comparative public administration (CPA). It was during this period
that public administration faced a crisis of identity, owing to the
rejection of the two defining pillars of early administrative theory,
viz. the politics-administration dichotomy and the principles
approach.3 Evidently, the discipline was in search of an alternative

148
and this was provided by administrative sciences. The 1950s was a
period of multi-focal conceptualizations and the emphasis of
administrative writings resonated the prominent foci that were
evolved in the 1940s, viz. behavioural, comparative, systemic,
decisional, ecological and Weberian. There was a re-assertion of the
relationship between political science and public administration and
Fred W. Riggs opened up new vistas for cross-cultural administrative
research during this period. The 1960s also saw the popularization of
development administration by Weidner and Riggs, albeit the fact
that George Grant actually coined the term in the mid-1950s.
Comparison has long since been acknowledged as the “very essence
of scientific method”4 in political science in general and public
administration in particular. This scientific spur had gone into the
making of CPA during the middle of the 20th century and a sustained
effort to undertake comparative analysis in public administration has
occurred since the end of the Second World War. The timing and
vigour of this movement resulted from a combination of factors: the
rather obvious need for this extension of range in public
administration as a discipline; the large number of scholars and
practitioners of administration to experience with administration
abroad during wartime, post-war occupation and subsequent
technical assistance assignments; the stimulation of the largely
contemporary ‘revisionist’ movement in comparative politics; and
the remarkable expansion of opportunities during the 1950s and
1960s for those interested in devoting themselves to research on
problems of comparative public administration.5
The most tangible product of these early endeavours was an output of
published writings on CPA which soon reached voluminous
proportions and led, despite the short span of time, to several
attempts to review and analyse the literature produced by early
1960s. F. Heady has divided this literature into: 1) modified
traditional, 2) development-oriented, 3) general system model-
building and 4) middle-range theory formulation.6 Fred W. Riggs was

149
particularly interested in the general system approach. Drawing
essentially upon concepts of structural-functional analysis
developed by Parsons, Levy and Sutton, Riggs formulated and re-
formulated a cluster of ‘ideal-types’ of societies, designed to
contribute to a better understanding of actual societies, particularly
those undergoing rapid social, economic, political and administrative
change. This work culminated in the publication of Administration in
Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society by Riggs,
which is the most notable single contribution in CPA.7 Riggs
identified three trends which continued into this period of expansion
in his 1962 essay, Trends in the Comparative Study of Public
Administration. Firstly, there was a shift from normative to empirical
approaches. Secondly, there was a movement from what Riggs called
‘ideographic’ toward ‘nomothetic’ approaches; essentially this
distinguished between studies concentrating on unique cases and
those seeking generalizations. Model-building, particularly of the
general system type, showed this nomothetic inclination. Thirdly,
there was a shift from a predominantly non-ecological to an
ecological basis for comparative studies. Riggs not only encouraged
these trends but also went on record that his personal preference
would be “to consider as ‘truly’ comparative only those studies that
are empirical, nomothetic, and ecological.”8
During 1960s, development administration became a term almost
synonymous with comparative administration. There was a desire to
assist developing countries to meet their overwhelming problems.
From a scholarly point of view, strong arguments were made in
favour of the benefits to comparative studies of a developmental
focus. Since the beginning of the comparative administration
movement, development administration had been a subject of
perennial controversy, and has presented issues that seem to be
intractable to resolution. The most important controversy had been
regarding defining it. Grant was against setting any rigid definition of
the sub-discipline, as he thought development to be a relative term

150
with the implication that no country was fully developed at any point
of time. In tune with the same logic, development administration was
simply “the administration of policies, programs, and projects to
serve development purposes.”9 Grant’s exhortations were almost
unanimously agreed upon and later scholars followed his theses in
suggesting that the label development administration could best be
applied to designing, implementing and evaluating policies and
programmes leading to socio-economic change.10 In the 1970s, Riggs
widened this understanding in his introduction to Frontiers of
Development Administration. He found two foci of attention –the
‘administration of development’ and the ‘development of
administration’. In the first sense, development administration
referred “to the administration of development programs, to the
methods used by large scale organizations...to implement policies
and plans designed to meet their developmental objectives.”11 The
second meaning involved the strengthening of administrative
capabilities, both as means to enhance the prospects for success in
carrying out current development programs, and as a by-product of
prior programs, such as in education.12
Ramesh K. Arora identified that the construct of bureaucracy drawn
from the work of Weber is the single most dominant conceptual
framework in the study of comparative administration and
development administration.13 The ecological approach is very basic
to development administration, as we gather from the works of
Riggs. Every administrative system –big or small, public or private,
national or regional- has an environment, which is both internal and
external to that system. For efficiency of an administrative system, it
must recognize environmental variables, which are essentially socio-
economic and politico-cultural in nature. The administrative system
affects and is in turn affected by these variables. If ecological
considerations were helpful in understanding one’s own
administrative system, they would undoubtedly be even more
important in a comparative study, which was recognized by Riggs

151
and his contemporaries.14 R. K. Arora emphasized that cross-cultural
administrative analysis,
“...should focus upon the interaction between an
administrative system and its external environment, and also
study the dynamics of socio-administrative change in the
context of such interaction.”15
According to Arora, it is more worth-while to analyse socio-
environmental impacts on the administrative system, rather than the
reciprocal treatment of bureaucracy’s influence on the environment.
Arora urged for a more balanced interactional analysis.16
Development administration asserts that a systematic effort must be
made to relate public administration to its environment, insofar as the
science of ecology is concerned with the mutual relations between
organisms and their environment. The analogy is at the most
suggestive, as social institutions are not living organisms; but, the
point is that political and administrative institutions, such as
bureaucracies can be better be understood, if the surrounding
conditions, influences and forces that modify and affect them can be
identified and ranked (as per their relative importance), and if the
reciprocal impact of these institutions on their environment could
also be explored.17 According to Heady, the environment of
bureaucracy may be visualised as,
“...a series of concentric circles, with bureaucracy at its center.
The smallest circle generally has the most decisive influence,
and the larger circles represent a descending order of
importance as far as the bureaucracy is concerned. We may
view the largest circle as representing all of society or the
general social system. The next circle represents the
economic system or the economic aspects of the social
system. The inner circle is the political system; it encloses the
administrative subsystem and the bureaucracy as one of its
elements.”18

152
If the administrative subsystem or bureaucracy lies at the core of
every modern society, it is nevertheless, an integral part of the
environment as a whole and cannot exist independent of it. The
environment of administration, comprising the general social
system, subsumes the economic and political systems, in the same
way as the bureaucracy is subsumed by the political. So, any analysis
of administration cannot be complete without referring to its larger,
environmental setup. This, briefly, is the basic understanding of the
relationship between administration and its environment forwarded
by CPA and development administration. Against this backdrop we
can now proceed to analyse Riggs’ understanding of ecology, and his
contributions to the ecological approach to administration.

Riggs’ Ecology of Public Administration

In his The Ecology of Public Administration (1961), Riggs explored
from a comparative perspective, the interaction between public
administration and the environment in which it develops. In spite of
following the tradition of Gaus, Dahl and Martin, Riggs proffered a
very unique and optimistic understanding of the ecology of
administration, aimed at empowering the ‘developing’, postcolonial
nations to administer their respective societies. It was understood in
the 1960s, that the market-driven assumptions and business-like
models forwarded by New Public Management (NPM) were hardly
compatible with the ground realities of the Third World countries.
The alternative state-centric model of public management, provided
by development administration, albeit coming under challenge by
NPM could establish its theoretical superiority and contextual
relevance, largely due to the efforts of Riggs. Riggs not only devoted
his entire life’s work to exploring how the administrative systems in
developing societies are conditioned by their political, cultural and
economic contexts, but also showed why the Western models are
relatively irrelevant and dysfunctional in such ‘developing’
contexts.19

153
During the 1960s and 1970s, development administration was being
popularised –as an applied part of CPA- largely due to the
Comparative Administration Group’s penchant for understanding
administrative problems in developing countries; also because it was
the agenda set by the Ford Foundation –the CAG’s funding agency-
to improve administration for economic prosperity in these
countries. Riggs, was the chairman of the CAG during this time and
emphasized that the study of Third World administration (or
development administration) became the central concern for and
synonymous with CPA. Throughout the following decades, a huge
volume of literature was produced to articulate, identify and
prescribe development administration oriented remedies for the
Third World’s social ills. As most of the literature tended to be
normative and Universalist in orientation, largely culled up within a
non-ecological framework, Riggs was the first scholar to reject it,
highlighting their potentially inappropriate and dysfunctional
repercussions. Instead, Riggs devoted much of his work to
configuring an ecological approach in order to explain the actual
features of administration in developing countries conditioned by
their own societal contexts; and to articulating nomothetic models of
such administration in a new lexis created especially to explain the
unique administrative scenarios in these countries.20
It is interesting to decipher Riggs’ understanding of ecology,
especially as he is at times almost impossible to understand and often
creates new words to suit his purpose. Almost all his written works
suffer from the same handicap, as some authors point out that Riggs’
models could not be properly implemented as probably most
practitioners of administration could not understand what he actually
meant!21 Nevertheless, an attempt can be made to succinctly explain
what Riggs means by ecology. For Riggs, the ‘environment’ of
anything differs qualitatively from whatever is ‘environed’; and the
relation between any environment and its environed system may be
discussed by using the word ‘ecology’. This word can also be applied

154
to discuss the interrelation between authoritative decision-making
systems and their environments. Terms such as ‘decision-making
ecology’ or ‘politico-administrative ecology’ could precisely convey
such an interrelation. In analysing the administrative system from an
ecological point of view, Riggs followed the ‘structural-functional’
approach, which envisages that in every society certain fundamental
functions must be carried out by various structures, with the
application of certain specified methods. For Riggs, such functional
requisites also apply to an administrative sub-system in which
various structures carry out an array of functions in a specified
manner. Riggs’ ecological approach is predicated on the very
characteristics of ecology and takes into consideration the influence
of recent developments in social science methodology, experience
from technological aid to foreign developing countries, and the
influence of social systems theory.22
For Riggs, ecology and interdependence are two parameters of
administrative performance in the Third World. And while analysing
ecology, it is imperative to distinguish between environmental
administration and the ecology of administration. In one of his
articles, Riggs clearly explains his idea of the ecology of
administration:
“By the “ecology of administration” we may refer to ways in
which the environment conditions the politico-administrative
process. Let me say immediately that to “condition” is not to
“determine”. The environment of anything sets parameters for
whatever it environs, and parameters must be viewed as both
constraints that limit what can be done and concurrently, as
resources that may be used by decision makers. When making
choices it is important to know what cannot be done as it is to
see the alternative course of action that are, indeed, feasible.
Not to recognize the constraints imposed by one’s
environment is to risk attempting the impossible and, hence,
to court frustration and defeat.”23

155
According to Riggs, although the environment is at a given moment a
constant, but in the long run, it becomes a variable, insofar as
decision-makers are aware of this fact and take into cognizance not
only the existing environmental condition, but also the factor of
environmental change. Inversely, the question of how environmental
transformations (which are occurring by themselves) may be
modified should also be answered. Riggs opines that considerations
about the impact of a changing environment on politico-
administrative systems invariably lead to considerations about how
decision-makers can affect their environment, leading to
‘environmental administration’.24 As the complexities and urgencies
of environmental issues increase, the need for decision-making
systems (capable of administering and formulating policies) become
apparent. Herein, the bureaucracy comes into focus and it is
invariably thought that public bureaucracies obstruct the proper
execution of environmental policies, not only in the industrialized
countries, but also in the Third World. For Riggs, this problem could
be addressed, without resorting to any form of nihilism, and without
increasing the size of bureaucracy or tinkering with the governmental
machinery. Riggs is against any form of administrative ‘nihilism’,
opining that if we look at the environment simply as a set of
constraints, we may soon resort to pessimism. We will only see how
the lack of resources hampers the capacity of governments to
implement their present policies. Riggs ominously points out that,
“As the burden placed on government increase and as
bureaucracies expand, all too often the quality of
administration declines while corruption, time-serving,
nepotism, underemployment, and various bureau-pathologies
increase.”25
Instead of dwelling on administrative nihilism, Riggs asserts that our
outlook will become more positive if we look at the resource side of
our environmental parameters. The focus would then be on choices
available to policy-makers and leaders in developing countries

156
within the limits imposed by their respective systems. It is unrealistic
to think only of constraints when our environment provides myriad
opportunities to all the countries of the world. By contrast, if we think
of the alternatives that are viable and the choices that can be made,
then a more helpful perspective appears. Riggs, further opines that,
“The key question becomes how to make the best possible use
of available resources and subsequently to evaluate... to
appreciate the benefits of appropriate choices –i.e., the
decisions that do need improve one’s condition in life and
one’s administrative capabilities. This is the central import of
an ecological approach to administrative development: the
selection among feasible alternatives of those best calculated
to serve one’s purposes.”26
Equipped with such an understanding of the ecology of
administration, Riggs goes on to explain the possible occurrence of
ecological relationships between public administration and other
factors, with the help of certain models. For Riggs, ecological public
administration can not only provide a solid basis of research, but can
explain and predict public administrative behaviour as well. It is not
only a tool for uncovering systemic ailments, but can also address
and correct them.27
Following Waldo’s assertion that structural-functional analysis
might provide some guidance in the construction of “a model of what
an administrative system is like as a general type”28, Riggs –in 1956-
came out with his bipolar analytical framework known as the
agraria-industria model, which highlighted the contextual
distinction of public administration between the traditional agrarian
societies and modern industrial countries. While the agraria is
characterised by self-contained, agriculture-based economic
systems, family-based organizations, divine authority source and
communalistic values; the industria has independent market
economy, achievement-oriented organization, secular authority,
individualistic values, etc. given such variations, the administrative

157
system of agraria is marked by politics-administration fusion, lack
of specialization and ritualistic orientation. But in industria, it is
based on politics-administration division, specialization, impersonal
human relations and functional action. Riggs, while emphasizing the
importance of contextual determinants of agraria-industria, he also
developed –in 1957- an intermediate model called transitia,
representing transforming societies, possessing the characteristics of
both agraria and industria.29
However, as these ideal-types were inadequate to explain the real
nature of society and administration in the postcolonial, developing
nations, Riggs was in search of a more technically sound model. He
came up with a new analytical construct –known as the fused-
prismatic-diffracted model- to explain such transitional states. While
conducting field-work in Thailand and Philippines during the late
1950s, Riggs articulated the ‘prismatic’ model of society based on the
metaphor of a prism (whereby fused white light passing through a
prism, becomes diffracted into separate colours). Here, the fused
light signifies the fused (single) structure of traditional society
performing all necessary functions. The diffracted colours represent
the specialized or differentiated structures of modern society, created
especially to carry out separate functions; and the condition within
the prism –or the transition between fused & diffracted stages-
represents the condition in developing countries, which Riggs marks
as ‘prismatic societies’.30 In explaining the nature of administration
in such ‘prismatic’ societies, Riggs extensively uses the ecological
approach to explore their non-administrative realms of society,
politics, economy and culture.31
Following the ecological approach, Riggs conclude that prismatic
societies are characterized by: a) formalism or the gap between
theory and practice; b) functional overlaps, where similar functions
are performed by different institutions.32 These features are reflected
in the prevalence of: distrust among communities or
polycommunalism; the bazaar-canteen model of economy (caused

158
by the influence of social status, bargaining capacity and official
position on economic behaviour); and polynormatism in decision-
making process (representing the use of both rational & non-rational
criteria).33 These ecological factors, for Riggs, play a crucial role in
shaping the nature of development administration, which he proffers
as the sala model administration characterised by the coexistence of
universal official norms and respect for traditions, reflected in the
influence of family and community on official decisions, prevalence
of both ascriptive and achievement criteria leading to the
‘attainment’ norms in public offices.34 Although Riggs refined this
prismatic model to make the understanding of development
administration more rigorous (based on an appreciation of the unique
ecological and contextual forces of the Third World), his fused-
prismatic-diffracted model soon came under severe criticisms from
different quarters of administrative experts.

Indictments against Riggs’ Model and Further Discussion

Some major detractors of Riggs, such as La Palombara and others
indict his ideas as too deductive and theoretical, far removed from
empiricism; too static about the influence of external social forces,
too indifferent towards social change and too over-simplified and
based on few case studies.35 It is indeed true, that like any theoretical
work, Riggs’ models also have limitations which could be summed
up in the following points. First, some followers of Riggs believe that
the prismatic model could replace empirical studies in administration
–which has little or no value-considerations attached to it. But, it
must be understood that when scholars attach more emphasis on a
model of administration rather than on the basis of broader empirical
research, the results could be disastrous for any social research.
Second, Riggs’ theory of prismatic society is indeed too broad and
abstract. Some scholars have tended to denounce such middle-range
theories, opting instead for thorough empirical investigations. Third,
critics argue that while the prismatic model is deductive in nature,

159
there is little empirical evidence to support it. Moreover, Riggs often
ignores certain variables in some cases, only to overemphasize them
in others. Fourth, the Riggsian model profoundly ignores the ultimate
goal of public administration, in its attempt to build a value-free
science. Riggs’ theory is predicated on a great many logical
speculations and assumptions. Although the analytical pattern of the
prismatic model is grounded on the structural functional approach,
Riggs gives undue emphasis to societal factors. This prevents
alternative explanations of phenomena including the psychological
and cognitive aspects of a prismatic administrative system. In the
name of ecology, Riggs overemphasizes the organic and unified
nature of social systems. Fifth, like all constructional theorists, Riggs
too had fallen prey to causal inferential errors. Riggs admits that his
model is suitable only for examining the occurrences of social
transformation; but, in real society, the independent variables and
dependent variables are complex and causality is very difficult to
establish. Sixth, Riggs uses too many novel terminologies and
jargons, which make his theories unduly difficult to understand. He
often takes refuge under non-existent words to explain his concepts;
words which has no application whatsoever to other models.
Seventh, from the structural perspective, the model is awkwardly
divided into three sections, which makes it cumbersome and reflects
its formal limitations. It must be recognized that causes of social
transformation are latent, unstable and indefinite; hardly conforming
to the logic prescribed by Riggs. Knowing this, if one insists on using
the prismatic model for analytical purposes, the results might not be
relevant to facts. Last, some scholars feel that Riggs’ model presents
a very pessimistic understanding of transitional societies. They
surmise that Riggs might have been sceptical about the success of
modernization projects in developing regions. They justify such
indictments by proving that Riggs views the transitional, non-
Western societies from the epistemological perspective of the West.36
Thus, Riggs, in spite of his ecological approach, was not free from
ethnocentrism, which was characteristic of the non-ecological

160
scholars. It is not only inappropriate to apply Western standards to
non-Western societies, but it is highly retrograde and dangerous.
In spite of such shortcomings –which might have been uninformed,
based on a misunderstanding of Riggs’s model37 Riggs is
indispensable for the study of public administration, and especially
development administration, as his prismatic model still holds
certain strengths, which could not be diminished despite huge
onslaughts against it. As mentioned earlier, public administration in
developing countries has gone through serious reforms based on the
market-driven principles of NPM, which were largely ideographic,
reductionist and non-ecological. The drawbacks of such models were
unravelled by Riggs, who hankered for ecological or contextual
diversity. The nomothetic approach of Riggs can provide valuable
lessons in comparing, critically understanding and systematically
generalizing public sector management and reforms. Moreover, the
contemporary market-driven and Universalist reform models which
are being thrust upon developing countries in the name of ‘structural
adjustments’ are extremely detrimental for the economies of such
weaker countries and the message inherent in Riggs’ ecological
approach could be taken into account in this respect. Moreover, the
practice of imitating the pro-market models of the developed
countries by developing countries was something Riggs was always
staunchly opposed to. He emphasized the importance of building the
nationally or domestically suitable models of administration in
developing countries based on their own contexts and ecological
needs. Finally, unlike advanced industrial nations where major
societal aspects enjoy a relative autonomy to each other, such
domains are deeply interconnected in developing societies, which
requires a multi-dimensional approach and inter-disciplinary
approach to understand the embedded relationship between politics
and society. Following Riggs in this respect would be highly
profitable.38

161
Thus, Riggs’ model, like any other in social sciences bears both
strengths and weaknesses. And as one author has very astutely
pointed out, that to take away Riggs from public administration
would make the discipline barren and uninteresting, in the same way
that to take Weber away from sociology would make it unbearable.
Thus, we can at the most indict the theories of such greats and not
make an attempt to abjure them to the dustbin of intellectual rubbish!
In the same way, this work would end by suggesting ways in which
the present generation of administrative scholars could build upon
Riggs’ model and make it suitable to the myriad needs of the
developing countries in this era. First, in using the ecological model
of Riggs, due emphasis must be given not only to the assertion that
the environment can determine administrative behaviour, but also
acknowledge the influence individuals have on the environment.
Second, although the ecological approach attempts to explain the
transformation process within the functioning of a particular
environment, it unfortunately ignores the ultimate concern of public
administration, viz. the evaluation of policies and the realization of
administrative goals. Thus, rather than pointing out behavioural
limitations, the ecological approach should instead emphasize
strengths in problem-solving. Finally, ecological models are largely
predicated on intuitive and a priori assumptions which make them
inefficient and cumbersome, especially in the dearth of empirical
knowledge. Thus, an ecological model of administration could
employ statistical analyses and other quantitative research
methodologies to study interrelated ecological factors that are deeply
rooted in empirical experience.39

Notes:
1. John M. Gaus, Reflections on Public Administration, Alabama, University of
Alabama Press, 1947, pp. 8-9
2. Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New York,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2001, p. 86

162
3. Pardeep Sahni and Etakula Vayunandan, Administrative Theory, New Delhi, PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2010, p. 86
4. Marleen Brans, “Comparative Public Administration: From General Theory to
General Framework”, B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (ed.), Handbook of Public
Administration, London, Sage Publications, 2003, p. 424.
5. F. Heady, op. cit., pp. 13-14
6. ibid. p. 14
7. ibid. p. 16
8. ibid.
9. George Grant, Development Administration: Concepts, Goals, Methods,
Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979, pp. 19-21
10. F. Heady, op. cit., p. 39
11. Fred W. Riggs, Frontiers of Development Administration, Durham, Duke
University Press, 1971, p. 6.
12. ibid. p. 7
13. Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, New Delhi, Associated
Publishing House, 1972, pp. 5-29, 37
14. [Internet Access] Fred W. Riggs, “The Ecology and Context of Public
Administration: A Comparative Perspective”, Public Administration Review¸
March-April 1980, pp. 107-115, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://
hum.ttu.ee/failid/VAH/riggs-ecology-of-PA.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ved=
0 C B 8 Q F j A B a h U K E w i Wr t n y _ 9 T H A h U LV 4 4 K H b u H Aw w & s i g 2 = d -
taToDMPLU8MNN1rLg-uA&q=fred+w+riggs+the+ecology+of+public
+administration&usg=AFQjCNHyjhBuHKq9CvDDa4VMyYGpdV5Kxg;
Accessed on 20 August, 2015
15. R. K. Arora, op. cit., p. 168
16. ibid. p. 175
17. F. Heady, op. cit., p. 86
18. ibid. p. 87
19. [Internet Access] M. Shamsul Haque, “Rethinking development administration
and remembering Fred W. Riggs”, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 76 (4) 767-773, p. 767, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://
profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/polhaque/RAS394320.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ved=0CBsQFj
AAahUKEwjagZmrgdXHAhVNHo4KHbOVDnQ&sig2=uaHXJ2X65I9u631d
WVMkhw&q=fred+w+riggs+shamsul+haque&usg=AFQjCNFT9-
MOnmCDVW__La5dWO6gnKDxXA; Accessed on 20 August, 2015
20. [Internet Access] ibid. p. 769

163
21. Vayunandan and Sahni, op. cit., p. 246
22. [Internet Access] Wen-shien Peng, “A Critique of Fred W. Riggs’ Ecology of Public
Administration”, International Public Management Review, Vol. 9 Issue 1, 2008,
p. 218, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://journals.sfu.ca/ipmr/index.php/
ipmr/article/download/51/51&rct=j&sa=U&ved=0CCQQFjACahUKEwiWrtny_
9THAhULV44KHbuHAww&sig2=X4AQ_YAyWyRj4h2RPn22uA&q=fred+w+
riggs+the+ecology+of+public+administration&usg=AFQjCNFOw_CZZv6vDX
4CJQlgBu3IwnNQTw; Accessed on 20 August, 2015
23. [Internet Access] Fred W. Riggs, op. cit., p. 108
24. [Internet Access] ibid.
25. [internet Access] ibid. p. 111
26. [Internet Access] ibid.
27. [Internet Access] Wen-shein Peng, op. cit., p. 218
28. Sahni & Vayunandan, op. cit., p. 65
29. Fred W. Riggs, “Agraria and Industria: toward a Typology of Comparative
Administration”, William J. Siffin (ed.), Toward the Comparative Study of Public
Administration, Bloomington, USA, 1957
30. Fred W. Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic
Society, Boston, Hughton Mifflin Co., 1964
31. ibid.
32. ibid.
33. ibid.
34. ibid.
35. La Palombara Joseph (ed.), Bureaucracy & Political development, Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1963
36. [Internet Access] Wen-shein Peng, op. cit., pp. 219-222
37. [Internet Access] ibid. p. 222
38. [Internet Access] M. S. Haque, op. cit., pp. 771-772
39. [Internet Access] Wen-shein Peng, op. cit., pp. 222-223

References:
1. Arora, Ramesh K., Comparative Public Administration, New Delhi, Associated
Publishing House, 1972
2. Gaus, John M., Reflections on Public Administration, Alabama, University of
Alabama Press, 1947

164
3. Grant, George, Development Administration: Concepts, Goals, Methods,
Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979
4. [Internet Access] Haque, M. Shamsul, “Rethinking development administration
and remembering Fred W. Riggs”, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 76 (4) 767-773, pp. 767-773, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://
profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/polhaque/RAS394320.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ved=0CBsQFj
AAahUKEwjagZmrgdXHAhVNHo4KHbOVDnQ&sig2=uaHXJ2X65I9u631d
WVMkhw&q=fred+w+riggs+shamsul+haque&usg=AFQjCNFT9-
MOnmCDVW__La5dWO6gnKDxXA; Accessed on 20 August, 2015
5. Heady, Ferrel, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New York,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2001
6. Joseph, La Palombara (ed.), Bureaucracy & Political development, Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1963
7. [Internet Access] Peng, Wen-shein, “A Critique of Fred W. Riggs’ Ecology of
Public Administration”, International Public Management Review, Vol. 9 Issue 1,
2008, pp. 213-226, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://journals.sfu.ca/ipmr/
index.php/ipmr/article/download/51/51&rct=j&sa=U&ved=0CCQQFjACahUK
EwiWrtny_9THAhULV44KHbuHAww&sig2=X4AQ_YAyWyRj4h2RPn22uA
&q=fred+w+riggs+the+ecology+of+public+administration&usg=AFQjCNFOw
_CZZv6vDX4CJQlgBu3IwnNQTw; Accessed on 20 August, 2015
8. Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon (ed.), Handbook of Public Administration, London,
Sage Publications, 2003.
9. Riggs, Fred W., Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic
Society, Boston, Hughton Mifflin Co., 1964
10. Riggs, Fred W., Frontiers of Development Administration, Durham, Duke
University Press, 1971
11. [Internet Access] Riggs, Fred W., “The Ecology and Context of Public
Administration: A Comparative Perspective”, Public Administration Review¸
March-April 1980, pp. 107-115, http://www.google.co.in/url?url=http://
hum.ttu.ee/failid/VAH/riggs-ecology-of-PA.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ved=
0 C B 8 Q F j A B a h U K E w i Wr t n y _ 9 T H A h U LV 4 4 K H b u H Aw w & s i g 2 = d -
taToDMPLU8MNN1rLg-uA&q=fred+w+riggs+the+ecology+of+public+
administration&usg=AFQjCNHyjhBuHKq9CvDDa4VMyYGpdV5Kxg;
Accessed on 20 August, 2015
12. Sahni, Pardeep and Vayunandan, Etakula, Administrative Theory, New Delhi, PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2010
13. Siffin, William J. (ed.), Toward the Comparative Study of Public Administration,
Bloomington, USA, 1957

165