Chapter 2
Different Perspectives of Public Administration and Management
2.1 Review of different perspectives of public administration
Since the contexts of countries across the world are so diverse at different points of time that
most scholars have often found it to be futile to be able to provide a common framework to
compare and contrast public administration across countries. Accordingly, it may seem futile to
make any attempt to provide any framework that can even crudely reflect district administration
across countries. However, this has not deterred scholars of public administration to make
comparative studies of public administration across countries and district administration within
countries (see, for example, Farazmand, 2019; Jreisat, 2019; Raadschelders, 2011). The two
broad frameworks of administrative systems used in the literature includes (a) Sayre-Kauffman
model based on behavior (patterns) of bureaucrats and (b) F.W. Rigg model based on structural-
functional analysis that is based on the F.X. Sutton’s model of Agrarian and Industrial societies.
The behavior based models would be determined by cultural and value system of the
bureaucrats; a function of the overall socio-cultural context of the society or a nation.
Historically, cultures have evolved within countries and across the world and there have been a
large number of cultures across the world that lead to arguments that administrative models
based on cultures may not be relevant across different cultures. The organic model of
administration of Thompson (1969) versus the monocratic organization model was considered
an American liberal society based model and hence not so suitable for developing countries in
Asia and Africa. However, it may also be argued that in any learning society, morality and
thought processes do constantly evolve with time and tend to learn from each other.
Riggs structure-function model in a country would suggest that district administration within a
country would vary depending on whether the district is agrarian based or industrial production
based society. Since regions or districts in countries across the world may be classified into rural
and urban, this framework reduces the possible variations of public administration in a country.
For instance, the two cases of district administration in India covered in this book represent a
rural district and urban district. While the Riggs structure-function model does well with the
reality; it is more static and cannot capture the dynamic nature of the public systems and districts
in particular. For instance, how would the framework be used to guide a district (or region) that
is in transition from rural to industrial mode of production or vice versa that might arise in
future; post global 2020 COVID19 pandemic?
Ecological Approach has been another prominent approach through which Public
Administration has been explained and compared across countries. John M Gaus (1947) first
emphasized the need to employ the concept of ecology in the study of public administration. His
idea was to incorporate the necessary interdependence of public bureaucracy and its
environment. The various factors of environment included people, place, physical technology,
social technology, wishes and ideas, catastrophe, and personalities. Dahl (1947) agreed to this
perspective by stating that public administration cannot escape the effects of national psychology
and the political, social, and cultural environment in which it operates. Riggs (1961) refined this
framework through his ideal types; viz., refracted, fused and prismatic model of public
administration. Among the large number of ecological factors that were subsequently studied, the
political factor had evolved to be a highly influential factor in public administration (Arora and
Ferreros, 1984; Moynihan and Pandey, 2005).
Contingency Approach: Various models and frameworks were developed to compare public
administration in different countries and at different points of time. However, when these models
did not fit well with the realities either within a country across time or across countries.
Researchers then agreed on the idea of Herbert Simon that a general theory was not possible;
Dahl (1947) and Simon (1947) argued that a general theory of public administration was not
possible. However, scholars in public administration pursued towards this and have offered the
Contingency Approach to Public Administration as a promise for the 1980s (Halachmi, 1989).
“It all Depends” has been the basic premise of Contingency Approach in Public Administration.
This approach has been concerned with the functional relationships among different variables of
the internal and external environment that includes variables that we saw as factors under
ecological approach.
It is also important to observe that public administration has gradually been shaped by the studies
in management of organizations, especially the industrial organizations. A case in point is;
Weber’s study of hierarchy and specialization as a response to enhancing the efficiency of
industrial organizations has been largely applied to public systems and their administration. The
Contingency Approach that evolved as part of Organizational Design studies for industrial
organization similarly has been adopted by scholars in Public Administration. Factory level
efficiency driven scientific management by Taylor has had a great influence on public
administration in the United States and has found following in other countries around the world
(Waldo, 2006).
The authors of this book have been Professors in Management and have spent most of our
academic life in strategic management and finance at a firm or at an organizational level.
However, both of us together have spent full time over three years in India’s apex public
administrative training institute i.e., the nodal training institute for the top bureaucrats of India,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and other nearby countries. Since the deep immersion to the
issues of public administration in the Academy and then jointly spending about ten years
working and researching with the bureaucrats and the issues of district administration, it has
given a sense that scholarship in public administration have inappropriately relied on the theories
of management of industrial and commercial organizations. The purpose and values of Public
Systems Administration have been different from those of For-Profit Industrial Organizations
and therefore the approach and model should also be different.
Accordingly, in this book, we propose a model of public administration with some trepidation;
that seems to be an eclectic model that not only takes into account the various structural-
functional aspects including context based ecological factors but also the behavioral aspects,
typically determined by the core values. However, the proposed framework (a) redefines
phenomenological external context from a historical perspective that have been impacting
countries across the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1982) and (b) takes into account constitutional values
in place of individual or cultural values for the purpose of analyzing, understanding and
transiting in Public Administration.
The external CONTEXT that have impacted countries across the world have been (a) Efficiency
perspective that primarily emerged from profit seeking objective of emperors and rulers,
corporations like East India Company, colonial governments, dictatorial states and scientific
management as applied in capitalist economies such as the United States of America. (b)
Effectiveness perspective that emanated in countries where the states took the responsibility for
the welfare of its citizens in general and when states were required to resolves large scale
economic and social crisis. For instance the crises of the Great Depression in 1920s in the USA,
devastation of economies after the First World War and the Second World War in Europe,
disruptions arising out of decades of colonial rule in Asian, African and South American
countries, regional wars and destruction, and current Covid-19 global pandemic. The third
perspective arise out of the long term negative impacts of over exploitation of resources and
people across different countries around the world and the fourth is conceived from a better
understanding of principles that sustain natural systems for billions of years. Accordingly, the
third perspective includes (c) Anthropocentric perspective of sustainability; typical of the
UNO’s Sustainable Development Goals; and the fourth perspective includes (d) All Interacting
Systems perspective for overall ecological harmony and peace..
While using the above four perspectives, we do distinguish that the space, time, context,
objective function and value base in which bureaucrats in public administration function are
different from that of managers or executives of for profit industrial organizations. For instance,
while the objective of an executive of a corporation is to maximize its monetary value for the
shareholders of the corporation; the objective of a District Magistrate (DM) is to ensure
wellbeing of all stakeholders; the people and citizens of the whole district. While the executive
of a corporation can hire and fire people at his/her discretion, the bureaucrats have little room to
choose he/she can work with. While a corporate executive can be driven by the corporate values,
a bureaucrat is to follow the constitutional values of the nation. Using the above four different
perspectives, we discuss the four different frameworks of public administration in general and
India in particular. These four frameworks are distinguished on the basis of four criteria viz.,
space, time, context, objective function and value base.
The structural aspect of the framework considers the three pillars of governance as in most
democracies across the world, namely, Legislature (elected representatives), Executive
(Government) and Judiciary. The Constitutional Values of countries that are typically
universal in nature have been taken as a key reference point for public administrators in the
proposed framework. This removes the dilemma of bureaucrats on which individual values or
cultural values to refer to; in the context of public system administration.
While constitutional values as a point reference for all bureaucrats may seem to provide a
common framework for public administration across countries, it may not be very useful or again
become highly contextual if the constitutional values were different for different countries. In
such a situation we may again have to fall back on the ‘contingency approach’ or specific ‘value
based behavioral model’ of public administration.
In the above context, we reviewed the constitutional values of a sample of fifteen countries from
different parts of the world (see, section 1.4 for more on rationale). Interestingly the
constitutional values seem to show remarkable similarity across these diverse countries. The key
features of the constitutions of these countries include sovereignty, democracy, rule of law and
division of power among legislature, executive and Judiciary. The constitutional values in all
these countries are based on principles that promote social welfare, fraternity and solidarity
ensuring individual freedom, dignity, liberty, equality, justice and human rights. Table 2.1
provides the key features of constitutions of the sample countries.
Nation State Constitutional Principles & Values
1 Australia Freedom to Religion, Right to vote, Liberty, Equality, Rule of Law
2 Brazil social and individual rights, liberty, security, well-being,
development, equality and justice as supreme values of a fraternal,
pluralist and unprejudiced society, founded on social harmony
3 Canada Freedom, Liberty, Equality, Rule of Law
4 Finland Human dignity and human rights, representative democracy
(European Convention of Human Rights)
5 France Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
6 Germany Human dignity, democracy, republicanism, social responsibility and
federalism
7 Italy Freedom, dignity of the person, solidarity, equality, democracy
8 Japan Freedom, Liberty, civil and political rights, human rights
9 Nigeria Freedom, liberty, and dignity of individual
10 People’s Republic Socialist society, people’s democratic dictatorship, socialist
of China institutions, socialist market economy, socialist democracy, socialist
legal system, socialist country
11 Republic of India Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity with dignity of the individual
12 Russian Federation human rights and freedoms, civil peace and accord, principles of
equality and self-determination of peoples, secure the well-being
and prosperity of Russia, proceeding from a sense of responsibility
for our Fatherland before the present and future generations, and
conscious that we are part of the world community
13 South Africa Freedom, Equality, Justice, Dignity of individual, human rights
14 Sweden Human rights and political freedom, European Convention of
Human Rights
15 USA Justice, Tranquility, Liberty and General Welfare
Table 2.1: Key Constitutional Principles and Values of a sample Nation States
It is a pleasant surprise that the constitutional values of different countries around the world
show a convergence to the universal principles and values. Keeping in view the above common
principles of governance and administration as in the Constitutions of different countries and
with specific reference to India, we present the framework for analysis of District Administration
in the overall context of Public Administration in general and India in particular. The proposed
framework of public administration is given below in Figure 2.1.
Constitutional
Values
Public Administration
Legislature Judiciary
Executive
(Government)
Figure 1: Eclectic Context & Constitutional Value Framework for Public Administration
The above framework includes (a) external global context and internal respective country
context, (b) interactions of bureaucrats or officials of public administration with the Executive
branch or the government in power, the Legislature and Judiciary branches of the country, and
(c) pivotal position of constitutional values in decision making by the officials of public
administration and all three branches of any democratic government.
In the highly interconnected world, major global changes impact the public administration in
individual countries in similar ways. For instance, the Great Depression in the USA in the 1930s,
the two World Wars, and the computer and information technology revolution in USA, and the
current global COVID 19 pandemic have impacted public administration in different countries
across the globe.
In contrast, the internal domestic local context including socio-economic-political-environment
factors impacts the government in power and they directly impact public administration in a
given country. The bureaucrats also need to be sensitive and answerable to the legislative and the
judiciary branches of the government; and all these together impacts the public administration in
any given country.
Constitutional features, principles and values have been the basis of formation of any nation and
this dimension is the prime point of reference for all branches of government in a country. The
career bureaucrats and officials of public administration are constitutionally protected such that
they can guard the constitutional provisions, principles and values from any potential misuse by
individuals from any of the three branches of the government in respective countries.
While there could be a common framework for public administration in democratic countries
across the world, the performance (output, outcome and impact) of public administration largely
depends on how the bureaucrats and public officials interact with the three branches of the
government to maintain the check and balance of power among the three branches and how the
constitutional principles and values are guarded by the bureaucrats from any potential misuse by
anyone from three branches of the government. Needless to say, the actors in the three branches
of the government have an equal moral and ethical responsibility to protect the intent and spirit
of the nation’s constitutional principles and values; the basis on which the citizens of a country
have agreed to form a nation.
Although the core of public administration for different nation states has evolved over time, they
seem to converge to the framework as in Figure 2.1. Historically, different countries have been
exposed to different paradigms of global and local context that have impacted the functioning of
public administration in respective nation states. Accordingly, as shown in Figure 2.2, the
District Administration that is a sub set of public administration in a country may be understood
from four different perspectives viz. efficiency, effectiveness, anthropocentric and all-interacting
systems science.
Efficiency
Public Administration
Effectiveness
Anthropocentric
All Interacting
Systems
Science
District Administration
Figure 2.2: Four Perspectives of Administering a District
A case in point would be the response to a ‘commonly agreed global initiative’ or a ‘global chaos
or disaster’ from the district administrations of various nations given their own constraints (say,
resources or political or environmental). Based on figure 2.2, we say that– analysis of their
responses to such global events should reveal the specific country’s public administrative priority
for any specific perspectives given the similarity of the crisis across countries. In the following
sections, we elaborate further on the general understanding of these perspectives and apply the
qualitative insights through the rest of the book.
2.2 Efficiency Perspective
Efficiency is measured as a ratio of output to input. Technically, efficiency is the ratio of useful
work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended. In other words, it is a
measure of how productively a work or a job has been carried out. Speed, fastness, quickness,
doing things right, hard-working, least wastage, and high returns, are generally associated with
the idea of efficiency. In the industrial settings, this is the most scientific and most widely used
means to measure performance. Its simplicity and accuracy has led to its far and wide application
in all fields including pure sciences, social sciences, management and in different aspects of
human engagements. As precision of measurement in all fields including social sciences have
increased, efficiency as a means of measurement has also entered all spheres of human
engagements including economic-social-political-environmental assessment (Stiglitz et al., 2009
and Nayak, 2017).
Formal structures and systems of District Administration in India have existed for over 250
years, beginning with the colonial rule. In the early stages of India i.e., as a colony of Britain, the
primary task of district administration was to enrich the colonial power, Great Britain. Whether it
were extraction of natural resources viz. metal, minerals, cotton, tea, spices or in collection of
taxes from India for the British empire, district administration primarily operated on the
efficiency principle. Achieving material targets seem to have been a key efficiency criterion for
the Government and Public Administration officials or District Administration in India.
Interestingly, the idea of efficiency primarily came from the principle of scientific management
developed in shop-floors by Frederick Taylor. This idea of performance measurement in
factories, that are relatively closed systems of operation gradually found way into government
and public administration. The efficiency focused management methods of Taylor have been
highly popular and influential. Taylor Society was formed in 1911 to share and popularize
Taylor’s efficiency principle of factory management. Operations research as a field of factory
management was adopted widely in Europe during the First World War 1914–18. The success of
operations management during the War gave a large boost to the efficiency principle of factory
management in Europe.
