critique of development administration
DESCRIPTION
Development administrationTRANSCRIPT
-
IDPMDISCUSSIONPAPERSERIES
PaperNo.72
WhatHasHappenedtoDevelopmentAdministration?
SomeCriticalReflections
FarhadHossainUniversityofManchester
June2007
ISBN: 9781904143963
Furtherdetails:Publishedby:
InstituteforDevelopmentPolicyandManagementUniversityofManchesterExternalAffairsOfficeHaroldHankinsBuilding,PrecinctCentre,OxfordRoad,ManchesterM139QH,UKTel:+44(0)1612752814Email:[email protected]:http://idpm.man.ac.uk
-
WHATHASHAPPENEDTODEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION?
SOMECRITICALREFLECTIONS
FarhadHossain
ABSTRACT
This article provides a critical analysis of the evolving role of the concept of development
administration in the discipline of public administration. Since its inception in the 1950s,
development administration has helped scholars in public administration to advance theoretical
and empirical understanding of their discipline in industrialized, transitional and developing
countries. Research on development administration weakenedduring the 1980s in manyOECD
countries, consequently causing it to lose its momentum in the field but since the turn of the
centuryithasshownsignsofrevivalintheadministrativesciencediscourselargelyinresponseto
emergingchallengesandopportunitiescreatedbyglobalization.Theconceptisgainingincreasing
utility inemergingresearchareassuchassocialcapital,economicglobalization,governanceand
administrativedecentralization,developmentNGOs,ICTandegovernance.
INTRODUCTION
This article argues thatdespite itspracticalapplicability to and theoretical relevance in
international development management, the concept of development administration has been
weakening inthedisciplineofpublicadministrationsincetheearly1980s.Theaimofthearticle
is to advance academic understanding of development administration and its applicability to
-
3
contemporary international development management. In doing so, the article presents a
theoretical overview of development administration, and highlights the theoretical gap that
emerged in the 1980s between public administration and development administration.
Managementproblemsininternationaldevelopmentinitiativesarealsodiscussed.Withthematic
analyses of economic globalization, social capital, good governance, administrative
decentralization, sustainability of development NGOs and the challenges of egovernance, the
article identifies four emerging researchagendas for contemporarydevelopmentmanagement.
The article suggests that academic study of the above issues related to development
administration and international development has vital importance for the current academic
discourseinpublicadministration.
THEORETICALBACKGROUND
Sincethe1950s,thestudyofdevelopmentadministrationhasbeenviewedaspartofthestudy
of public administration (Siffin 1991, 7), though research on development administration has
diminished since the 1980s. Siffin seems escapist aboutdevelopment administration, as in his
view, it focusesonmattersoutside theboundariesofconventionalpublicadministration (Siffin
1991,1112).Hecommentson theproblemofdevelopmentadministration,arguingthat there
really isntmuchofaproblem,inasmuchas there isntmuchofa field (1991,8).Development
administration isa termthat impliesaquestion:howcanthe ideasandmechanismsof public
administrationbeusedasinstrumentsofsocialandeconomicdevelopment?Riggssimilarlyasks:
howdoesthestudyofdevelopmentadministrationdifferfromthestudyofpublicadministration
in general, or even from the study of comparative administration? No clear answer to this
question can be given (1977, 3). The comparative view of public administration and
developmentadministrationcanbeunderstood furtherfromthefollowingtable(Hussain1994,
1314):
-
4
Table1
PUBLICADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION
PublicAdministrationlooksafterthepublic
policyatlargeincludinglawandorderand
otherserviceslikehealth,housing,sanitation,
etc.
DevelopmentAdministrationisabranchof
PublicAdministration.
Itsstructureiscentralizedwithtopbottom
hierarchy.Bureaucracyisitsmodusoperandi
andrulesaremostlyrigidandnonflexible.
Itactivelyrevolvesroundtargetsandwidensup
tovillages(lowestlevelofhabitations).
Peoplesparticipationisnotbindingand
imperative.
Itsimplementationneedstechnicalandtrained
personnelratherthantraditionalbureaucracy.It
callsforflexiblerulesandregulations.
Thisiscontinuousandneverending. Itisoccasionalandactivityendswhenthe
targetisachieved.
The above comparative view highlights the scope of public administration and
developmentadministration.However,theclaimthatdevelopmentadministrationisoccasional
isarguableandcannotbetheoreticallyjustifiedbecauseitisconstantlyevolving.
Jreisat(1991,1920)ismoreoptimisticabouttheconceptthanSiffin.Heclaimsthatthe
field of comparative and development administration constitutes a rich heritage of scholarly
-
5
contributions that include studies of numerous countries, cultures, organizations, and groups.
Katz has, rather, identified the borders between development administration and public
administration (1977, 120121). In his opinion, development administration differs from
traditionalpublicadministrationinitsobjectives,scope,andcomplexity.Hearguesthat
development administration is innovative, since it is concerned with the societal
changes involved in achieving developmental objectives. In its quest for change,
government becomes concerned with a wide scope of activities. No longer is it
limited to themaintenance of lawandorder, theprovisionof some limitedpublic
services, and the collection of taxes rather, it is specifically involved in the
mobilization of resources and their application to a great variety of development
activitiesonamassivescale(Katz1977,120).
Despite these analyses and arguments, it is obvious that the context and scope of
development administration remains central to public administration. The concept of
development administration emerged in the post World War II era of nationbuilding and
administrativereformsinpostcolonialstatesinthedevelopingworld.Theconceptoftenrefersto
the two fields of public administration and development, which can be combined under the
headingofdevelopmentadministrationoradministrativeaspectsofdevelopment(Riggs1978,
1,italicsadded).Sinceitsinception,theconceptofdevelopmentadministrationhasmainlybeen
employed in studying administration and development in developing countries. Development
administrationismostoftentreatedasafacetofcomparativepublicadministration.Inhismost
widely used book, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Ferrel Heady (1966)
discussespublicbureaucracyas itexistswithindifferenttypesofpoliticalsystems.Hesketches
fivegeneralfeaturesofpublicadministrationindevelopingcountries,andcarefullyexaminesthe
interplayofbureaucracyandpolitics(Siffin1991,8).
-
6
As explained by Riggs (1977, 3 see also Handerson 1971, 234), the Comparative
AdministrationGroup (CAG)of theAmericanSociety for PublicAdministration (ASPA)playeda
significant role in the emergence of the concept of development administration in the 1960s.
Administrative problems in developing countries at the time were significant concern of CAG,
ASPA. Thus, under the auspices of comparative studies of national public administration,
development administration became more prominent as an independent concept in public
administrationstudiesindevelopingcountries.Onesignificantchangeinthe1967versionofthe
USAgency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)administrativedoctrine, asembodied in the
agencymanual, is theemphasis on developmentadministration,curiouslywithoutonce using
thatpopulartermatall(Abueva1969,554). Despiteitsgrowthasanindependentareainpublic
administration since the 1950s, development administration, as an academic discipline, began
losingitsmomentuminthe1980sinindustrializedcountriesanditwouldnotexperiencearevival
untiltheturnofthecentury(seeforexample,Hossain2001,37Collins2000,3).
PUBLICADMINISTRATIONINTHE1980s:EXPLORINGTHEGAPBETWEENRICHAND
POORCOUNTRIES
Throughout the 1980s, theoretical concerns of public administration in the USA and other
developed countries started to differ from the concerns of the poorer countries in the South.
During the 1970s, administrative reform in developing countries was an influential catchword
(Siffin 1991, 9) which was usually understood as a subject matter of development
administration.However,Hussain(1994,11)arguesthatdevelopingthecapacityofbureaucracy
didnot helpmuch. Training imparted to bureaucracy didnot correspond to the needs of the
developingcountriesbecausetrainingtechniquesandcontentsremainedWesternorAmerican.A
reflection of Hussains view also could be found in the recent American literature on public
administration. For example, after several decades of scholarly contribution to the field of
-
7
comparative anddevelopment administration, Professor FredW. Riggs inhis recent (2001, 1)
writing concluded that American public administration is truly exceptional and has limited
relevance to the solution of administrative problems in other countries. Nevertheless, it is so
widely imitated and viewed as a model that anyone studying Public Administration needs to
understandwhytheAmericansystemisexceptionalandwhyitspracticesaresooftenirrelevant
inothercountries.Suchanunderstandingrequires acomparativeanalysis of different regimes
basedon the sameconstitutionalprinciples, that is the separationofexecutive, legislative and
judicial powers and the identification of the peculiarly American structure of a hybrid
bureaucracy.
In the 1980s privatization was labeled as the subject matter of public administration
(Siffin 1991, 9) which covers a limited sphereof the organizational landscape indeveloping
countries, as compared to the developed world. The bestknown academic forums of public
administration like theMinnowbrookI (in1968)andII (in1988)concentrated their theoretical
focus on US administration and suggested reforms in that system. The 1968 theoretical
discussionwasmainlyon
ethics, social equality, human relations, reconciling public administration and
democracy, andconcern for the stateof the field.However, several 1988 themes
were not as prominent in 1968, notably leadership, constitutional and legal
perspectives, technology, policy, and economic perspectives (Frederickson 1989,
100).
Thus, the discussion in both of the Minnowbrook forums naturally was far from the
central concerns of public administration in developing countries. Over the decades, the
operationallandscapeoforganizationshadbecomecomplexinternationallyduetothewidening
gapbetweentheeconomiesofrichandpoorcountries.Asaresult,developmentadministration
was left behindonthe journeyofpublic administration sometime in the1980s although the
-
8
subject matter of development administration is not a separate discipline from public
administration.
However,likeCollins(2000,3),manyscholarsinpublicadministrationfeelthattheturn
of the century is an appropriate time to reflect on the impact of public administration on
development and, in turn, the impact of facets of development onadministration. The issues
confrontingthoseinthefieldareserious,andincludethefailureofexistingsystemstocopewith
growing gaps between rich and poor within and between countries, with environmental
degradation, frequent conflict between andwithin states, andgrowing distrust of government
generally.
MANAGEMENTPROBLEMSININTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT
Paul(1986, 1)hasarguedthatadministrationormanagementhasalwaysbeen identifiedasa
neglected factor indevelopmentprojectactivities.Even in recent years, inpractice, theoriesof
development administration have been infrequently applied in planning and implementing
developmentprojectsandprogramsindevelopingandtransitionalcountries.TheWorldBankhas
foundthatsome51percentofitsruraldevelopmentareaprojectsduringtheperiodof1965to
1985failedtoachievetheBanksminimumacceptablerateofreturnof10percent(Turnerand
Hulme1997, 140).Therefore, there is ageneral concern thatmost of the faileddevelopment
programscouldnotreachtheirdevelopmentalgoalsonlybecausestakeholdersfocusedtoolittle
attention on the administration of development programs. Certain scholars (e.g. Turner and
Hulme1997,141144)alsoclaimthatthechallengesofdevelopment,particularlyinruralareas,
arenot wellstructuredproblemsasprojectplanningmethodologiesassume,butarerather ill
structuredorsimplyamess.Orthodoxprojectplanningmethodologiesdemand largeamounts
ofreliabledata.Inmostdevelopingcountries,suchdataarenotavailableandsoplannershave
to make assumptions. Another feature of project management in developing countries is
-
9
uncertaintyand instability. Separationofplanning frommanagement causes serious problems.
Belatedly,inthe1980s,projectplannersbegantorecognizeproblemsrelatedtoimplementation.
The lack of beneficiary participation also causes serious problems. All of these factors make
developmentprojects vulnerable to the longpolitical processes ofwhichaid agencies, political
parties, local lites, politicians, bureaucrats, andother interestgroups are a part. As a result,
critics (for example,Quibria1994)haveargued that theextent of rural povertyhas notbeen
reducedormayhaveworsenedovertheyears.
It isagainstthisbackgroundthatWerlin(2003,329342)arguesthat the inadequacyof
governanceratherthanresourcesistheprimaryreasonforthegapbetweenpoorcountriesand
rich countries. Werlin is also sympathetic and convinced of the need to pursue a research
agenda where scholars find away out of the confusion associatedwith our inability to know
whethergovernanceishelpedorhurtby thedichotomiesofcentralizationanddecentralization.
Such dichotomies can also be found, for example, between bureaucratization and
debureaucratization regulationandderegulationmorecontrolor lesscontrolprivatizationand
public management downsizing and rightsizing strict guidelines and flexible guidelines and
moreexpertise andgreater public input.Heattributes this to the limitations ofOrganizational
Theory(rationalafinelyorderedsystemofsuperordinationandsubordinationinwhichhigher
officessupervise lowerones),CulturalTheory(semifeudalisticand traditionboundgovernance
theories and its failure to incorporate politics), and StructuralFunctional Theory (success of
political systems in maintaining political support has failed).Hepropounded what he calls the
PoliticalElasticityTheory,whichattemptsnotonlytoreduceconfusion inpublicadministration,
butalsotolinkcomparativeadministrationtocomparativepoliticsanddevelopmentstudies.
Theoretically, the study of development from the administrative science perspective
diminished since the1980sbecausepublicadministration indevelopeddemocracies, that is, in
the richer parts of the world, has dealt with some other aspects relevant to their everyday
business. Therefore, advancing scientific studies on development administration has vital
importance for fostering better understanding both academically in higher educational
-
10
institutions,andpracticallyinthefield,wheredevelopmentprogramsarecarriedout.Inorderto
addresstheseissues,academicunderstandingofexistingtheoriesmustbeadvanced,whichwill
improve conceptual understanding of development administration so that the challenges of
present day development assistance programs and international development can be better
tackled.
MANAGINGINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENTINTHE21STCENTURY:SOME
EMERGINGRESEARCHAGENDAS
TheU.S.AgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)spendsbillionsofdollarseveryyearona
widevarietyofdevelopmentcooperationinitiativesinmorethanonehundredcountriesaround
theglobe(USAID2006a).Theorganizationhasninedifferentareasofdevelopmentcooperation,
oneofwhich ispromotingdemocracyandgoodgovernancein23differentcountriesinAfrica,
17inAsia/NearEast,21inEuropeandEurasia,and15differentcountriesinLatinAmericaand
Caribbean (USAID2006b).Similarly, theCanadian InternationalDevelopmentAgency (CIDA) is
currently engaged in promoting governance and development in their 25 partner countries
aroundtheworld(CIDA2006).
Across theAtlantic, UnitedKingdoms official developmentassistancealonewill rise to
almost 6.5 billion ($11.20) by 2007/08 (DfID 2006). Similarly, other European Union (EU)
member states also spend billions of dollars every year in their development cooperation
initiativesacrosstheglobe.TheOECDmemberstatescollectiveefforts totackleglobalpoverty
and attain the United Nations Millennium Development Goals have gained momentum. The
scope of these activities does not include the developmental initiatives of other private
stakeholders, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational agencies. In
practice,developmentmanagementhasnever featuredprominently inthefieldofdevelopment
aid.Therefore,theimportanceofacademicdiscoursesindevelopmentadministrationisgrowing.
-
11
Scholarly research should try to bridge the theoretical gap between development
administrationandpublicadministrationwhichdevelopedduringthe1980sand1990sinboth
developing and industrialized countries. Theoretically, research on development administration
shouldbecarriedoutbytakingabroaderperspective,with the intentionofmaking conceptual
contributions to administrative science. Due to its strong roots in development studies,
developmentadministration itself isamultidisciplinaryareaofstudy.That iswhytheresearch
agenda should be thematically indepth and designed to cover the central issues of the
contemporary international development discourse (see also Collins 2000, 314). The multi
disciplinary orientation of development studies should in no way be lost in the study of
developmentadministration.However,theaimshouldbetomaketheoreticalcontributionsinthe
area of administrative science, and practical contributions in the area of development
management. For example, scholarlyworkonthe followingemerging thematic issueshasvital
importance in the contemporary development administration and international development
discourse:
1.)Theharmonyandtensionbetweeneconomicglobalizationandsocialcapital
2.)Challengeswithgoodgovernance:administrativedecentralizationand localdevelopment in
developingcountries
3.)Alternativedevelopmentstrategies:exploringthecomparativeadvantageofNGOled
developmentinitiatives
4.)DigitaldividesandapplicabilityofICTledegovernanceindevelopingcountries
Careful selection of theoretical approaches in addressing these research topics are of vital
importanceincarryingoutanystudyontheabovetopics.Eachoftheabovetopicsisverylarge
inscopeandrequiresathoroughunderstandingoftheseissuesandthemesreflectedineachof
thetopics.Thethematicdiscussionoftheabovetopicsisfurtherdiscussedbelow.
-
12
Theharmonyandtensionbetweeneconomicglobalizationandsocialcapital
Economicglobalizationhasmostlybeenstudiedbyscholars indevelopmenteconomics,history,
sociology and anthropology. Despite the economic advances achieved (World Bank 2000) in
manypartsof thedevelopingworld,Korten(1996,127)argues thatglobalizationhasrendered
many of the political roles of government obsolete. Companies with globalized operations
routinely and effortlessly sidestep governmental restrictions on the basis of old assumptions
aboutnationaleconomiesandforeignpolicy.
Renato Ruggerio, exDirector of the World Trade Organization stated: We are
creatingasingleglobaleconomy(quotedbyHarawira1999).Embeddedwithinthis
newsingleglobaleconomyisasetof liberalEuropeanepistemologieswhichdefine
human beings as economic units and the free market as a rationally operating
frameworkwithinwhichperfectcompetitionexists.This frameworkhas its roots in
the mercantilism of the earliest forms of imperialism, and is ideologically flawed.
Economicliberalismandfreetradearethelinchpins[sic]oftheneweconomicorder
designed to carry humankind on a wave of economic triumph into the new
millennium.(Harawira1999)
Therecentprotestsagainsteconomicglobalizationinmanypartsoftheworldmakeusrethink
itsdynamicsanddrawbacks.However, the studyofeconomicglobalization is largely lacking in
thepublicadministrationliterature.
Social capital refers to stocks of cultural elements such as social trust, norms, and
valuesthatpeoplecandrawupontosolvecommonproblemsformutualbenefits(Li2001,130).
ProfessorPutnamoftheJ.F.KennedySchoolofGovernmentatHarvardarguesthatanalogous
to notions of physical capital and human capitaltools and training that enhance individual
productivitysocialcapitalreferstofeaturesofsocialorganizationsuchasnetworks,norms,and
-
13
social trust that facilitate coordinationandcooperation formutualbenefit (Putnam1995,67).
Studies on social capital have been produced by several scholars in administrative science
(Putnam 2000 and 1995, Harisalo and Miettinen 1997). Putnams study reveals a competing
scenariobetween social capital andmodernization in theUSandexaminesAmericasdeclining
socialcapitaloverthelastthreedecadesorso.
Economicglobalizationandmodernization help eachother to survive andat the same
timeaffectsocialcapital.Developmentaidpromotesmodernizationinthedevelopingworld.The
missionofmostdevelopmentprojectsistomodernizetraditionalsocietiessuchsocietiesarealso
referred to as prismatic societies by Riggs (1978). Dor Bahadur Bista (1994) has empirically
presented the consequences ofmodernizationanddevelopmentaid,and his studyon fatalism
anddevelopmentbearscommentingonatsomelengthinthisregard.
AwellplannedresearchagendathataddressesthefindingspresentedbyKorten(1996)
on economic globalization and Putnam (2000) on social capital could contribute an indepth
theoreticalcontributiontothestudyofinternationaldevelopmentbyimprovingunderstandingof
theinterlinkagesbetweenthesetwoinfluentialareasinsocialscience.
Challenges with good governance: administrative decentralization and local
developmentindevelopingcountries
Governanceisawordthatissoubiquitousandsodebasedthat,likeHumptyDumptyinAlicein
Wonderland,we canuse it tomean almost anythingwe like (McCourt 2006). By referring to
Kaufmann,McCourtprovidesthedefinitionofgovernanceasthesettraditionsandformaland
informal institutions that determine how authority is exercised in a particular country for the
commongood.He rightly identifiedanumberofelementsofgovernance,includingdemocracy
and political governance, economic governance, corporate governance and socioeconomic
governancewherehehighlightsthearenasofdemocraticandpoliticalgovernanceincivilsociety,
politicalsociety,government,bureaucracy,economicsocietyandthe judicialsystem.Kaufmann
-
14
etal(2005,5)constructedmeasuresofsixdimensionsofgovernanceindicatorsandtheseare:
a.)Voiceandaccountabilitymeasuringpolitical,civilandhumanrightsb.)Political Instability
and violence measuring the likelihood of violent threats to, or changes in, government,
including terrorism c.) Government effectiveness measuring the competence of the
bureaucracy and thequality of public servicedelivery d.) Regulatoryburden measuring the
incidence of marketunfriendly policies e.) Rule of law measuring the quality of contract
enforcement,thepolice,andthecourts,aswellasthelikelihoodofcrimeandviolenceandf.)
Controlof corruption measuring theexerciseofpublicpower forprivategain, includingboth
pettyandgrandcorruptionandstatecapture.
However, the notion of good governance had already been introduced to the
internationaldevelopmentcooperationagendainthelate1980s,followingdiscussionsinmainly
World Bank circles on the outcomes of structural adjustment policies. It developed into a
somewhat confusing and controversial term (Kruiter 1996). Theoretically, the scope of
governanceiswideandcoverslargerissuessuchasadministrativereform,nationaldevelopment
policies, democratization, decentralization, corruption, partnerships between thepublic, private
and the third sector, and other areas of public affairs (Turner andHulme 1997). Among the
above, research on administrative decentralization has a tradition and direct relevance to the
studyofcomparativeanddevelopmentadministration.Includingadministrativedecentralization,
theotherissuesofgovernancementionedabovehaveagrowingimportanceinthecontemporary
international development discourse and cover the central aspects of development
administration.
Amajorobstacletotheeffectiveperformanceofpublicbureaucraciesinmostdeveloping
countries is the excessive concentration of decisionmaking and authority within the central
government.Decentralizationwithin thestate involvesa transfer ofauthority toperformsome
service to the public from an individual or an agency in central government to some other
individual oragency closer to the public to be served. However, inpractice, the challenges to
good governance through decentralizationare numerous. In most developing countries, there
-
15
hasbeenatendencyofindependentgovernmentstofavourthedelegationofpowerwithinpublic
services rather than through locally electedauthorities. Furthermore, the capacity of local and
regional authorities has remained generally weak. There has been significant rhetoric about
participationand localautonomy,but centralgovernmentshavejealouslyguarded theirpower.
(Turner andHulme,1997)Similar findings havealso been reported byother researchers (see
Khan and Zafarullah, 1991 Siddiqui, 1992Seppl, 2000) in their work on central and local
governance.Ingeneral,governancehasthusremainedfarfrombeingreferredtoasgood.
Itistruethatacademic researchinpublicadministrationandinternationaldevelopment
covers thecentral issues cuttingacross traditional subfields of international relations, political
science and public administration. However, research on good governance and administrative
decentralization ismorecentral topublicadministration thananyother fields insocialsciences.
Therefore,thereisscopeforscholarsinadministrativesciencetomakecontributionsintheareas
ofgoodgovernanceandthesearchforlocalcapacitybuildingindevelopingcountries.
Alternativedevelopmentstrategies:exploringthecomparativeadvantageofNGOled
developmentinitiatives
The role of NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in managing development initiatives in
developing countries has been central to the contemporary development aid discourse.
Developmentprojects runby NGOsareassumed tobe flexible, innovative,participatory, cost
effective, and directed at the poor. Several social, economic, political and cultural arguments
existtojustifytheadvantagesofNGOs(Hulme1994Tvedt1995and1998bVartolaetal2000
Hossain2001).Marketfailureandgovernmentfailureareconsideredbymanytobetheleading
reasonsforthegrowthofNGOs(AnheierandSeibel1990,1).Scholarsarguethatthisgrowthis
areflectionofdissatisfactionwithboththestateandthemarket.Ontheotherhand,theuseof
NGOshasbeenconsistentwithboththeNewRightaidpoliciesofgovernmentsintheUSAand
UK and the alternative aid policies of the donor community in the Nordic countries and the
-
16
Netherlands.(Hulme1994,251and265)TherestructuringpoliciesoftheWorldBankandother
influentialdonor institutions (e.g., inOECDcountries) led toaplanned reductionof theroleof
thestateindevelopingcountriesandincreasedspacefordevelopmentNGOs(Tvedt1998a,62).
However, thesustainabilityofNGOleddevelopmentinitiativesisquestionedin thesocial
scienceliterature.Adevelopmentprogramisconsideredsustainablewhenitisabletodeliveran
appropriatelevelofbenefitsforanextendedperiodoftimeaftermajorfinancial,managerial,and
technical assistance from an external donor is terminated (OECD 1989, 7). Among others, a
recentstudy(Hossain2001,11)arguesthatdespitethesaidcomparativeadvantagesofNGOs,
their developmentprojects remainunsustainable inmanydeveloping countries. Research also
suggests that the comparative advantage that NGOs are generally assumed to have in the
literatureonNGOsindevelopmenthasbeenfalsified(Tvedt1997,1).Despitethesearguments,
NGOshaverapidlygrownintheOECDanddevelopingcountriessincethe1970s.Duetoalackof
reliable data, the number of development NGOs, their total aid volume, and the number of
beneficiaries cannotbe stated precisely (Tvedt 1998b,10). It is also difficult to estimate their
numberandvolumeofaidtheyprovidebecausethedistinctionbetweenthe traditionalwelfare
organizationsand themoderndevelopment NGOsconnected to international aid system is not
clear.However, it isestimatedthatabout4,000developmentNGOsinOECDmembercountries,
dispersingbillionsofdollarsayear,areworkingwithapproximately10,000to20,000Southern
NGOs (based in developing countries), assisting between 100 and 250 million people (Tvedt
1998b,1).
Therefore,indepthandthematicempiricalstudiesonthetopicareneededtoexaminethe
sustainability and the comparative advantage of NGOs in developing countries. Such studies
would enrich the literature on development administration and bring valuable insight to the
actors involved in international development in carrying out development assistance to
developingcountries.
-
17
DigitaldividesandapplicabilityofICTledegovernanceindevelopingcountries
Onceproperlymanaged,InformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)andegovernance
canaddtremendousdynamism in reformingpublicadministrationandcanchangethemodeof
interactionbetween the stateand its citizens.However,concerns regardingdigital divides and
the challengesof egovernance in thedeveloping states ofAfrica, Asiaand LatinAmericaare
growing. If the factors contributing to digital divides are not carefully identified and properly
solved, there is a growing risk that in the coming years, digital resources might become the
preserve of the haves, while ignoring the plight of the havenots as they seek access to
resources indeveloping countries.Technologycanexcludepeople, butgovernance shouldnot.
As amatter of fact, themoral foundationof goodgovernance is democracy and the inclusive
natureofthestate.Theperformanceofgovernanceshouldbemeasurednotbytheselectionof
technologies the stateuses,butby theparticipation that the statepromotes in its operations.
Thisisindeedamatterforthedynamicinterplaybetweenethicsandeconomics.
Compared with the possibilities, the present challenges in promoting egovernance in
developingcountriesaremany.Therelativelylowrateofliteracy,computerliteracyandlackof
proficiencyinEnglish indevelopingcountriesaremajorchallengesthategovernanceisfacing.
Purchasing power is almost always connected to the socioeconomic status of individuals: if
peoplewithanaverageincomecanevenbuyacomputer,howwouldtheybeartheoperational
costs related to computerandInternet services?Eventhoughsomeonehasall of therequired
skills, the necessaryeconomicbasis anda computer, it still depends on theavailability of the
basic infrastructural support to gain access to the computer and the Internet. This support
includes electricity, availability of Internet services, and even in some cases, telephones. The
purchasingpowerofthepoorshouldnotbedifficulttoguess.Itcanalsobehardforagrowing
numberofthepoorinthepresentworldtojustifytheuseofacomputerintheireverydaylives
aseventhebasicservices(i.e.housing,healthcare,education)arenotsecured.
-
18
However,egovernancecanbringthecentralgovernmentclosertopeoplebybypassing
unnecessary bureaucratic interference by local authorities or oligarchic regimes. At the same
time,localgovernanceoperationscanbemademoretransparentbyinitiatingegovernance.The
developmentalchallengesof thepresentworldand thedivisionbetween the richandthepoor
alsobringaboutanethicalperspectiveonthesubject.Anindepthandempiricalexploration is
required to explain the current status, challenges, and the possibilities of peoplecentered
grassrootsbasedegovernanceindevelopingcountries.Whatevertheobstaclestoegovernance
mightbe, the local, nationaland transnationalstakeholders indevelopmentmanagementmust
constantlypromote,andensure citizenparticipation inegovernancebymakinguseof various
meaningfulchannels.Inordertomakeegovernancesustainable,peoplelivingatthegrassroots
level of thedevelopingworld shouldbegiven the right to share their concernswith the local,
nationalandinternationalgovernmentalagencies.
Research on social capital, economic globalization, governance and administrative
decentralization,developmentNGOs, ICTandegovernancecanbringvaluable insightandcan
make significant theoretical contributions to the administrative challenges of international
development.Academicunderstandingoftheseimportanttopicscanbeadvancedbytheexisting
theories ofadministrative scienceandat the same time, these theories can furtherbe tested,
widened and strengthened by applying them to the emerging contexts of development
management.
Thesocioeconomicdevelopmentofdevelopingcountriesdirectlydependsonhowthese
countriesaregoverned.Therefore,byignoringthepresentdayschallengesofgoodgovernance
andadministrativedecentralization,nodevelopmentinitiative isguaranteedasustainable future
indevelopingcountries.Since the1970s, theperformanceofdevelopmentNGOsasalternative
developmentorganizationshasbeengenerallyappreciatedby theaiddonorsdespite the fact
thatmostoftheirdevelopmentinitiativesareheavilydependentonforeignaidandtheprojects
arenotsustainable.SustainabilityofNGOleddevelopmentprojectscanbeensuredbyimproving
the managerial capacity of the NGOs. It is also true that egovernance can add tremendous
-
19
dynamism in reformingpublic administrationand can change themodeof interactionbetween
thestateanditscitizens.However, ifthefactorscontributingtodigitaldividesarenotcarefully
identifiedandproperlysolved,thereisagrowingriskthatinthecomingyears,digitalresources
might become the preserve of the haves, while ignoring the plight of the havenots in
developing countries. The above topics are central to the contemporary international
developmentdiscourseandneedtoberesearchedfromanadministrativeperspective.
CONCLUSION
Theoretically, it ischallenging tosolveall theproblemsdevelopmentadministration facestoday
asa subfield ofpublic administration.Everyday,bilateral,multilateral andother international
donorsareconfrontedwithnewchallenges in theirdevelopmentefforts.Nevertheless,over the
decades, development aid has beenplaying an important role in the development process of
leastdevelopedcountries.Generalizing thedrawbacksofdevelopmentaidandeffortscouldbe
misleading. Generalizing the merits of development aid could also be misleading. Certainly,
performanceofdevelopmentaidandeffortscanbeimprovedbystrengtheningthemanagement
capacityofthedevelopmentstakeholdersintheOECDanddevelopingcountries.
Therefore,academicstudyon theabove issues related to developmentadministration
andinternationaldevelopmenthasvitalimportanceforthecurrentacademicdiscourseinpublic
administration.Inadditiontotheacademiccommunity,themainusergroupsoftheinformation
producedbyacademic researchon these topicsare the stakeholders (forexample,authorities,
political decisionmakers) involved in international development both in the South and in the
North.Theoretically,identifyingthedynamicsanddrawbacksofdevelopmentadministrationand,
practically,searching forbetterways tocarry out international developmenteffectively, largely
dependson the future interest andability of academics and practitioners to study the subject
properly.Inthiscontext,theleadingforumsofpublicadministrationliketheAmericanSocietyfor
-
20
PublicAdministration(ASPA),NationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairsandAdministration
(NASPAA), International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA),
InternationalInstituteofAdministrativeSciences(IIAS),EuropeanGroupofPublicAdministration
(EGPA)andothernationalandinternationalacademicinstitutionsandforumsinthedisciplinecan
playanimportantrole.
-
21
REFERENCES
Abueva, Jos V. 1969. Administrative Doctrines Diffused in Emerging States: The Filipino
Response.InPoliticalandAdministrativeDevelopment,editedbyRalphBraibanti,536587.
Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Anheier,HelmutK.andSeibel,Wolfgang.Eds.,1990.TheThirdSector.ComparativeStudiesof
NonprofitOrganizations.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.
Bista, Dor Bahadur. 1994. Fatalism and Development. Nepal's Struggle for Modernization.
Calcutta:OrientLongman.
CIDA. 2006. Canadian International Development Agency. Available at http://www.acdi
cida.gc.ca/indexe.htmAccessedMarch10,2006.
Collins, Paul. 2000. The Last Fifty Years and the Next Fifty Years: A Century of Public
Administration and Development. In Applying Public Administration in Development
Guidepoststothefuture,editedbyPaulCollins.314Chichester:JohnWileyandSonsLtd.
DfID. 2006. Department for International Development [U.K.]. Available at
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/AccessedMarch10,2006.
Frederickson,H.George.1989.MinnowbrookII:ChangingEpochsofPublicAdministration.Public
AdministrationReview.49(2):95100.
Handerson, Keith M. 1971. New Comparative Public Administration? In Toward a New Public
Administration The Minnowbrook Perspective, edited by FrankMarini. 234250. New
York:ChandlerPublishingCompany.
Harawira,Makere.1999.Economicglobalisation,indigenouspeoples,andtheroleofindigenous
women. Paper presented at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, May 1999, The
Hague, Netherlands.Availableat http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/Mak.htmAccessedon
February21,2006.
-
22
Harisalo,Risto andMiettinen, Ensio. 1997.TrustCapital. TheThirdForceof Entrepreneurship.
Tampere:UniversityofTampere
Heady,Farrel.1966.PublicAdministration,AComparativePerspective.NewYork:MarcelDekker
Hossain, Farhad. 2001. Administration of Development Initiatives by NonGovernmental
Organizations. A Study of Their Sustainability in Bangladesh and Nepal. Tampere:
UniversityofTampere.
Hulme, David. 1994. Social Development Research and the Third Sector. NGOs as Users and
Subjects of Social Inquiry. In Rethinking Social Development. Theory, Research and
Practice,editedby DavidBooth.251275.Essex:Longman.
Hussain,Motahar.1994.DevelopmentAdministrationinBangladesh.Dhaka:HasanPublishers.
Jreisat, Jamil E. 1991. The Organizational Perspective in Comparative and Development
Administration. In Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration,
editedbyAliFarazmand.1523.NewYork:MarcelDekker,Inc.
Katz,SaulM.1977.ExploringASystemsApproachtoDevelopmentAdministration.InFrontiersof
DevelopmentAdministration,editedbyFredW.Riggs.109138.Durham:DukeUniversity
Press.
Kaufmann,D.,A.KraayandM.Mastruzzi.2005.Governancematters IV:Governance indicators
for 19962004, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Available at
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/govmatters4.htmlAccessedonMarch31,
2006.
Korten,DavidC.1996.WhenCorporationsRuletheWorld.London:EarthscanPublicationsLtd.
Kruiter, Anje 1996. Good Governance for Africa: Whose Governance? Maastricht: ECDPM.
Downloaded on February 21, 2006 from:
http://www.oneworld.org/ecdpm/pubs/govahk.htm#int
Li,Ning.2001.SocialCapitalandInternationalR&DCollaboration.AdministrativeStudies.20(2):
130143
-
23
McCourt,W.2006.Thehumanfactoringovernance:ManagingpublicemployeesinAfricaand
Asia.London:PalgraveMacmillan
OECD. 1989. Sustainability in Development Programmes: A Compendium of Evaluation
Experience.SelectedIssuesinAidEvaluation1.Paris:OECD
Paul,Samuel.1986.StrategicManagementofDevelopmentProgrammes.Geneva:International
LabourOffice(ILO)
Putnam,Robert.1995.BowlingAlone:America'sDecliningSocialCapital.JournalofDemocracy.
6(1):6578. Available at
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.html Accessed on
November5,2002.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The collapseand revival of American community. New
York:Simon&Schuster.
Quibria,M.G.Ed.,1994.RuralPovertyinDevelopingAsia.Volume1.Manila:AsianDevelopment
Bank.
Riggs,FredW.1977.Introduction.InFrontiersofDevelopmentAdministration,editedbyFredW.
Riggs.337.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Riggs,FredW.1977B.TheContextofDevelopmentAdministration.InFrontiersofDevelopment
Administration,editedbyFredW.Riggs.72108.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Riggs, FredW.1978.AppliedPrismatics ADevelopmentPerspective.Kathmandu:Center for
EconomicDevelopmentandAdministration,TribhuvanUniversity.
Riggs, Fred W. 2001. Public Administration in America: The exceptionalism of a hybrid
bureaucracy. Available at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/ampa.htm and at
http://webdata.soc.hawaii.edu/fredr/welcome.htm#paAccessedonJune18,2002.
Seppl,Pekka.2000.TowardsLocalPartnerships.TheSocialInterfacesofAidinRuralTanzania.
Helsinki:MinistryforForeignAffairsofFinland.
-
24
Siffin,WilliamJ.1991.TheProblemofDevelopmentAdministration.InHandbookofComparative
andDevelopmentPublicAdministration,editedbyAliFarazmand.513.NewYork:Marcel
Dekker,Inc.
Turner,MarkandHulme,David.1997.Governance,Administration&Developmment.Makingthe
statework.London:MacmillanPressLtd.
Tvedt,Terje.1995.NongovernmentalOrganizationsasChannelinDevelopmentAssistance.The
NorwegianSystem.Oslo:RoyalMinistryofForeignAffairs.
Tvedt, Terje. 1998A. NGOs Role at The End of History: Norwegian Policy and the New
Paradigm.InNGOsUnderChallenge:DynamicsandDrawbacksinDevelopment,editedby
Farhad Hossain and Susanna Myllyl. 6083. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
Finland.
Tvedt,Terje.1998B.AngelsofMercyorDevelopmentDiplomats?NGOsandForeignAid.Oxford:
JamesCurreyLtd.andTrenton:AfricaWorldPress,Inc.
USAID. 2006a. U.S. Agency for International Development. Available at http://www.usaid.gov/
AccessedonMarch10,2006.
USAID. 2006b. Democracy and Governance, U.S. Agency for International Development.
Available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/ Accessed on
March10,2006.
Vartola, Juhaetal.Eds.,2000.DevelopmentNGOsFacing the21st Century. Perspectives from
SouthAsia.Kathmandu:InstituteforHumanDevelopment
Werlin,HerbertH.2003.PoorNations,RichNations:ATheoryofGovernance.
PublicAdministrationReview,63(3):329342
WorldBank.2000.GlobalEconomicProspectsandtheDevelopingCountries2000.Washington
DC:TheWorldBank.