understanding organizations and environments: a comparative perspective

Understanding Organizations and Environments: A Comparative PerspectiveAuthor(s): Jorge I. Tapia-VidelaSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 36, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1976), pp. 631-636Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975055 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:33:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975055?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


COMPARATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION COMPARATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 22-24.

23. For a cogent analysis of some key problems, see D.

Campbell, "Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-Cultural Evolution," in H. Barringer, G. Blank-

Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 22-24.

23. For a cogent analysis of some key problems, see D.

Campbell, "Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-Cultural Evolution," in H. Barringer, G. Blank-

stein, and R. Mack (eds.), Social Change in Develop- ing Areas (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1965).

24. T. Ohta, "Mutational Pressure as the Main Cause of Molecular Evolution and Polymorphism," Nature, Vol. 252 (November 1974), pp. 351-354.

stein, and R. Mack (eds.), Social Change in Develop- ing Areas (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1965).

24. T. Ohta, "Mutational Pressure as the Main Cause of Molecular Evolution and Polymorphism," Nature, Vol. 252 (November 1974), pp. 351-354.

UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS:

A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Jorge I. Tapia-Videla, Wayne State University

UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS:

A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Jorge I. Tapia-Videla, Wayne State University

The relationships between organizations and environments have been receiving increasing attention among those interested in the study of organizations for more than a decade now. The areas of comparative politics, comparative public administration, and organization theory, for example, have dealt with the problem from a variety of perspectives and orientations. Comparative political studies, for the most part, have emphasized a macro-level of analysis. In the area of organization theory, on the other hand, a basic focus has been on a micro-level of analysis. While not ignoring the potential influence of the larger or contextual environment, the emphasis is placed on the analysis of the immediate, operational, or task environment - considered crucial for the understanding of organizational processes related to "... planning, operations, and tactics; coalition behavior; and decision making."'

The theoretical progress made in the area of organizational theory has, however, not had much influence on the body of literature in comparative administration.2 Little has been accomplished in bridging the gap between comparative administration and organizational theory. Quite to the contrary, the dominant trend has been to look to comparative politics for theoretical constructs to apply to comparative administration. As a result, the field has been unable to avoid many of the shortcomings common to the field of comparative politics.

For example, one legacy that comparative politics has given to comparative administration is an implicit value orientation which is generally derived from a commitment to pluralistic democ-

This article is a condensed version of a paper of the same title, as explained in the introductory note of the symposium editor.

The relationships between organizations and environments have been receiving increasing attention among those interested in the study of organizations for more than a decade now. The areas of comparative politics, comparative public administration, and organization theory, for example, have dealt with the problem from a variety of perspectives and orientations. Comparative political studies, for the most part, have emphasized a macro-level of analysis. In the area of organization theory, on the other hand, a basic focus has been on a micro-level of analysis. While not ignoring the potential influence of the larger or contextual environment, the emphasis is placed on the analysis of the immediate, operational, or task environment - considered crucial for the understanding of organizational processes related to "... planning, operations, and tactics; coalition behavior; and decision making."'

The theoretical progress made in the area of organizational theory has, however, not had much influence on the body of literature in comparative administration.2 Little has been accomplished in bridging the gap between comparative administration and organizational theory. Quite to the contrary, the dominant trend has been to look to comparative politics for theoretical constructs to apply to comparative administration. As a result, the field has been unable to avoid many of the shortcomings common to the field of comparative politics.

For example, one legacy that comparative politics has given to comparative administration is an implicit value orientation which is generally derived from a commitment to pluralistic democ-

This article is a condensed version of a paper of the same title, as explained in the introductory note of the symposium editor.

racy.3 This ideological predisposition has had an influence in the manner in which ideas drawn from organization theory are applied in the comparative study of administration.

The problem can be seen in the manner in which the following question has been answered: how does one analyze the societal forces and processes shaping the nature, role and characteristics of public organizations? Because of the micro- level emphasis of most organization theoretic studies, this body of literature does not give much guidance in this matter. Unfortunately, what guidelines are available generally could reinforce the analytic shortcomings from which comparative administration already suffers. The brief but sophisticated discussion on the issue developed by the late James D. Thompson illustrates the prevalent orientation. He argues that "... the kind of interdependence existing in the society determines the nature of the polity which is required, and therefore the responsibilities of public administration '4 Polities, it is assumed, can be replaced and/or altered in substantive ways on the basis of their performance. From an analytical perspective, the view is that the society - with its specific kind of interdependence - will shape the polity and, by extension, the required organizational structures. In other words, the polity reflects the society - not vice versa. From this perspective, the state by definition becomes a dispensable issue - a concep- tion open to serious question.5

It is contended here that the contemporary emergence of the "corporate-technocratic" state

Jorge I. Tapia-Videla is associate professor in the Depart- ment of Political Science, Wayne State University. He has published a number of works in both English and Spanish on comparative administration. His present research is on the bureaucratic power phenomeon in Latin America.

racy.3 This ideological predisposition has had an influence in the manner in which ideas drawn from organization theory are applied in the comparative study of administration.

The problem can be seen in the manner in which the following question has been answered: how does one analyze the societal forces and processes shaping the nature, role and characteristics of public organizations? Because of the micro- level emphasis of most organization theoretic studies, this body of literature does not give much guidance in this matter. Unfortunately, what guidelines are available generally could reinforce the analytic shortcomings from which comparative administration already suffers. The brief but sophisticated discussion on the issue developed by the late James D. Thompson illustrates the prevalent orientation. He argues that "... the kind of interdependence existing in the society determines the nature of the polity which is required, and therefore the responsibilities of public administration '4 Polities, it is assumed, can be replaced and/or altered in substantive ways on the basis of their performance. From an analytical perspective, the view is that the society - with its specific kind of interdependence - will shape the polity and, by extension, the required organizational structures. In other words, the polity reflects the society - not vice versa. From this perspective, the state by definition becomes a dispensable issue - a concep- tion open to serious question.5

It is contended here that the contemporary emergence of the "corporate-technocratic" state

Jorge I. Tapia-Videla is associate professor in the Depart- ment of Political Science, Wayne State University. He has published a number of works in both English and Spanish on comparative administration. His present research is on the bureaucratic power phenomeon in Latin America.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1976 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1976

631 631



PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

provides a means through which dramatic transformations, affecting the workings of public bureaucracies and the larger societal frameworks within which they operate, may be affected. This process can be seen most sharply in the context of the Third World, but is not necessarily limited to it alone. It is our contention that unless closer attention is paid in the future to the nature of the linkages between the state and civil society our understanding of the workings of public bureaucracies will be seriously handicapped. The examination of this phenomenon in the developed world is obviously of importance, but it is beyond the scope of this article. The primary focus here is upon the operation and implications of this process and its relevance for the study of comparative public administration in a specific third world context: that of Latin America.

State, Civil Society, and Latin American Public Bureaucracies: A General Overview

In a historical perspective the analysis of the politico-administrative role played by the Latin American public bureaucracies reflects both academic and more immediate political questions raised by the process of development. In the post-war period, and under the influence of international assistance programs, Latin American authorities came to share the basic assumption of the prevalent developmental schemes, namely, that socioeconomic development depended to a large extent upon an adequate administrative apparatus. Hence, there was the need to focus upon the ideal goal of the establishment of a modern public administrative apparatus that would become the natural and most dynamic pole of processes of modernization.6

This developmental ideology had interesting implications for the ways in which Latin American public bureaucracies were envisioned and affected in their operations. A brief examination of some of the assumptions underlying this approach is useful to the understanding of the Latin American bureaucratic phenomena.

A major assumption made by many analysts was that by perfecting the public bureaucracy, the task of establishing socioeconomic change and political democracy was to be made easier. By the early 1930s Latin American countries were launched into a process of industrialization that fostered the growth and importance of the public bureaucracy. At the time, however, no one was

contending that the bureaucracy - and by extension, the state - had the sole responsibility for development. From the mid-1950s on, however, the tone became different; the public bureaucracy was seen as the most critical sector within the framework of "dual" or "transitional" societies in desperate need of institutional sources of innova- tion and change. However, the potential danger of bureaucracies becoming the major political actor and presenting long-run obstacles to the development of social and political institutions perceived as essential to the development of "democratic" forms and processes was not foreseen. However, a dilemma presented itself as time passed: how it would be possible to stimulate the growth of powerful bureaucracies (thought to be essential for the process of modernization), yet keep them accountable and responsible politically? The dilemma was never solved in a satisfactory way, either at the theoretical or the practical plane.

To some extent the inability to cope with this question had to do with a second set of working assumptions. It was often assumed that traditional aspects of Latin American societies impaired the effectiveness of technical formulas that had proven to be functional for the process of change and development in the industrial countries of the West. With few exceptions, criticisms from this perspective failed to raise the most fundamental question, namely, to what extent the prevalent conceptions of development were adequate to understand the nature of underdevelopment characteristic to the area. The structural implications of dependent development were ignored.7 For all practical purposes, by definition it was considered that Latin American development would go through similar stages of growth as were experienced by the western industrialized societies. This view, which has assumed a more sophisticated form lately, often evaluated the complexities of the bureaucracies of the area in rather simple- minded terms. Patronage practices, corruption, inefficient expansion of the public sector, and other manifestations of this sort were considered as "pathological" in nature. The normative over- tones of the analysis ignored some of the "abnor- mal" features which play an important role in the operational processes of the so-called modem societies.8

For descriptive purposes, however, it is sufficient to discuss some of the major structural and behavioral characteristics of the Latin American bureaucracies and their social implications. To

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1976

632



COMPARATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

begin with, attention should be placed on the functions that Latin American bureaucracies have been performing through the years. A major function has been its use as an important channel for upward social mobility and a source of patronage for the political groups in power. In this way, the bureaucracy becomes functional to the equilibrium of the system by relieving social and political pressures. Patronage became a necessary and accepted method of providing relations, friends, supporters, and dependents with a liveli- hood. Its resiliance, in fact, has eroded all efforts to introduce radical transformations in the way in which public personnel management was con- ducted. All civil service reforms have fallen short of the original goals envisioned by their advocates.

The situation becomes clearer when considera- tion is given to a second bureaucratic function: namely, its role as a vital prop for current regimes. The extensive use of the public apparatus for immediate political purposes (electoral or otherwise) has reinforced the patrimonial character of the relationship between the state and major socio-political groups in the society. In turn, this has reinforced a historical cycle: that is, groups in positions of political control use the public bureaucracy for patronage in order to maintain and/or secure political support from usually un- stable political clienteles, thereby undermining efforts to rationalize the managerial infrastructure and processes.

A third traditional function of national bureaucracies has been to provide a major source of employment. The growth experienced by the public sector can be partially explained by the complex set of new socioeconomic responsibilities entrusted to the state after the 1930s and to the populistic-oriented policies stimulated since that time. This explanation, however, is only partially adequate, for it fails to recognize complex socioeconomic realities. Latin American societies are characterized by the presence of social and economic rigidities with significant political implications. The weakness of the private sector in coping with the demands for employment from growing numbers of graduates from an educational system has tended to cause the formerly elite character of education to be diluted and to devalue the significance of education. This, in turn, has forced the state to open employment opportunities in the public sector. Political patronage is then trans- formed into a social and economic function and/or mechanism: in short, in countries facing economic

stagnation, the public bureaucracy supplies jobs to those demanding employment otherwise non- existent.9

Another set of functions performed by the Latin American bureaucracies has been the articu- lation and representation of interests. Whether we are speaking of populist-oriented regimes or highly authoritarian ones, bureaucracies tend to play both political functions. In fact, in many cases the bureaucracy tends to become the natural and most vocal representative of specific corporate groups at the political level. The close interrelationship between the bureaucracy and the clientele group becomes a characteristic feature of the system that reinforces its corporatist tendencies: namely, to treat different social and economic groups on the basis of their hierarchic and/or legal status. This situation has important implications related to the final set of functions ascribed to national bureaucracies: the provision of certain goods and services to the community.

The Latin American experience tends to support the notion that while the bureaucracy provides the ruling groups with patronage and support for the regime and the middle-groups with employment, the national community receives in turn only a minimum level of essential services, as compared with its size and cost. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that socioeconomic distinctions made a considerable difference in terms of accessability and quality of services being offered and received. Socio-cultural differentials tend to widen the gap between bureaucracies and the large groups of lower strata composition.

As to the larger question of the efficiency of the public bureaucracies in Latin America during the period described, there is the need to introduce some qualifications. In the first place, it is unquestionable that in certain functional areas Latin American public agencies will show levels of efficiency comparable to their so-called modem counterparts in the West. On the whole, however, one should consider that the notion of efficiency is basically a goal (value) oriented problem. Eco- nomic inefficiency may in the long run become irrelevant when the political efficiency (effectiveness or efficacy) is considered to be the relevant criteria for final assessment.

It is argued that the tensions described above, however, are being resolved with the emergence of the new corporate state. The new state, by imposing a new set of assumptions for the func- tioning of the public sector and society eliminates


633



PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

some of those problems in the road to attain the "bureaucratization of society" - a problem to be described in the following section.

State, Society and the "Corporate-Technocratic" Phenomenon

The failure of the previous "populist" period in Latin America to cope with the organization of society for developmental purposes has led to the emergence of the new corporate-technocratic state. The first striking feature of the new state is its degree of inclusiveness. Its emergence has applied a dramatic and profound transformation of traditional political structures, institutions, and the processes and mechanisms for interest articula- tion and representation. The corporatist nature of the new institutional arrangements implies the establishment of new and different structures of power and influence, representing a set of class interests which reject the populist policies of the past. Those who control the new state advocate the careful control of access for limited number of vertically stratified groups of interests which are organically interdependent. The new state imposes a new socio-political alliance recognized as legiti- mate, representation for the interests of foreign capital, and of the upper sectors of the working class, the state (military and civilian bureaucrats), and the bourgeoise linked to the international economic systems. This general process of realign- ment implies changes in the functions of the public bureaucracies and the types of services provided to the community.'

The relationship between the new state and the civil society is characterized by the extension of power of the former over the major societal forces. In order to insure this preponderance, the state redefines the basic social alliance supporting its operations on the basis of a consensus on a dependent neo-capitalist model of development. The developmernt of this model requires a state that is basically authoritarian, whose major focus for legitimization derives from its ability to facilitate this new social alliance and the notion that political, social, and economic problems should (and can) be handled by technical considera- tions. 1

The technocratic argument, an important ideological prop of the new state, points out the need to cope with the larger questions of development, conflict, and change from a technical and/or scientific perspective. In this context, the techno-

cratic argument becomes the very source of legitimation for political control and domination in the name of expertise and science. Once this claim is accepted it follows that technocracy requires as a question of definition, the death of politics. The corporate-technocratic state demands political and social demobilization; in fact, the ideal situation points in the direction of "depolitization of the polity." To a large extent the corporatist tradition, when blended with the technocratic ideology, tends to produce a vision in which the state becomes an organic whole with the society. The new regimes, representing by their own assertion the general interests of the nation, through the careful scientific and technical assessment of the available alternatives become the only political actors to arrive at the adequate solution. It is contended that the dominant group alone is able to organize and foster balanced economic development. Strong ties between the military and civilian bureaucracies - especially the upper technocratic levels - provide the basis for the com- mand of the necessary scientific and technological know-how required by the nature and characteristics of the problems presented by underdevelopment.

Within the general context of the relationships between the new state and the civil society the public bureaucracy is affected in substantive ways. The different regimes are attempting to control a planned integration of the relevant groups of society to a "national plan" that sets out strict rules of the game for the processes of bargaining to a large extent controlled by the state. This, in practice, set the general tone of the activities to be pursued legitimately by the different groups under the general oversight of the state. For this purpose the state expands its scope of control through the extensive use of regulatory and redistributive policies (in which upper status entrepreneurial groups are favored), and national planning. In this specific area it is clear that the institutionalized mechanisms established for planning purposes provide the state with powerful organizational con- trols over the bourgeoisie. In practice the entrepreneurial function in these societies appears to be carried out by the state technocratic elites.

In order to carry out the set of basic functions described above, the state relies on organizational arrangements stressing the critical role of expertise, depersonalized leadership, and the development of a new bureaucratic ethos: one stressing the corporate ideology that aims at achieving a


634



COMPARATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

balanced interdependence between competing policy and issue areas.

The policy-making process in the context of the new state still shows on the surface some traditional features. Since the dominant groups have been unable to suppress conflict around specific interests, the emergence of intra-group and intra- organizational conflicts is only natural. Far from taking place in a rigid and homogeneous organizational setting, the political process takes place in various, segmented policy systems under the control of competing public agencies trying to expand their base of necessary resources - financial, economic, human, and political. In this general process of in-fighting the state apparatus is affected by elements in the civil society trying to advance their own set of interests. This way, even in the most authoritarian expressions of political domination in the new type of state, there is room for uncertainty - the very heart of organizational politics and expansion.

Conclusion

This article argues for the need to distinguish between two basic, different levels of analysis: the macro and micro levels. At the macro level of analysis, as it has been demonstrated by the collapse of most of the models of development inspired by pluralist assumptions, political analysis has much to gain by being directed to the relationships between the state and the civil society. The particular type of modal linkage between the two will determine to a large degree the nature, organization, and behavioral characteristics to be found at the state, social, and administrative levels. North American political science and public administration has ignored the state as an analytical question. Under the heavy influence of the pluralist ideology, political and administrative theorists have taken for granted and/or ignored some major problems related with questions of political domination - i.e., ideological manipulation and control.

In order to illustrate this argument Latin America has been used as a general case study. In both the previous populist period and in today's corporate technocratic world, the importance of the state-civil society relationship has been crucial. In the populist era, the expansion of the public sector was to some extent only remotely con- nected to questions of effective administration- public bureaucracies were expected to serve other

functions considered more essential from the perspective of those controlling the state apparatus. The eclipse of the populist approaches, to a large extent precipitated by the failure of the dominant groups to legitimize their control over the state and society, has led to the emergence of the corporate-technocratic state. Now, the major concern of the newly dominant groups resolves around the notion of economic and administrative efficiency. In order to advance their political aims, they have developed an ideology based on technocracy: one stressing the value of science and technical knowledge as the cornerstones for regime legitimation.

Knowledge, as defined by the regime, becomes the basis for the rationale of a scheme of political and social domination that accentuates the traditional corporatist features of the Latin American countries. Social demobilization and the general process of depolitization of the system rest on the organizationally sophisticated repressive apparatus of the state. Public bureaucracy is overhauled for the purposes of making it "rational and efficient," that is, functional for the purposes of ensuring a smooth transition and integrating the dependent society in to the new type of international context - one characterized by transnational capitalist features implying a new international division of labor.

From this perspective, most of the analytical approaches to political and administrative analysis are generally inadequate to cope with the ongoing process of societal conflict, change and development. There is no doubt that a micro-level approach to the study of public bureaucracy in the third world which draws upon the area of organization theory provides much promise for the future of comparative administration. This strat- egy seems especially appropriate to the analysis of those issues and problems related to the specific relationships between particular public organizations and their immediate or relevant environments. However, such studies should be carried out with a full awareness of the issues raised by the larger environment within which the specific organization exists.

Notes

1. Ray Jurkovic, "A Core Typology of Organizational Environments," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 (September 1974), p. 380.

2. See, inter alia, Abdo Baaklini, "Comparative Public


635



PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

Administration: The Persistence of an Ideology," Journal of Comparative Administration, Vol. 5, No. 1 (May 1973), pp. 109-124, and Warren F. Ilchman, "Comparative Public Administration and 'Conven- tional Wisdom'," Sage Professional Papers in Com- parative Politics (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publica- tions, 1971).

3. See Mark Kesselman, "Order or Movement? The Literature of Political Development on Ideology," World Politics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (October 1973), passim.

4. James D. Thompson, "Social Interdependence, the Polity and Public Administration," Administration and Society, Vol. 6, No. 1 (May 1974), p. 3.

5. See Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1969).

6. See, inter alia, Roberto de Oliveira Campos, Planeja- mento do desenvolvimento economico de paises subdesenvolvidos (Rio de Janeiro: EBAP, 1954), and Mario W. Wieira da Cunha, "Resistencieas da buroc- racia as mundancas sociais no setor publico a no setor privado," in Centro Latino-Americano de Pesquisas en Ciencias Sociais, Ressistencias a mudanca: Fatores que impidem ou difficultam o desenvolvimento (Rio de Janeiro: Grafica Editora Livro S.A., 1960).

7. See, among others, Orlando Caputo and Roberto

Administration: The Persistence of an Ideology," Journal of Comparative Administration, Vol. 5, No. 1 (May 1973), pp. 109-124, and Warren F. Ilchman, "Comparative Public Administration and 'Conven- tional Wisdom'," Sage Professional Papers in Com- parative Politics (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publica- tions, 1971).

3. See Mark Kesselman, "Order or Movement? The Literature of Political Development on Ideology," World Politics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (October 1973), passim.

4. James D. Thompson, "Social Interdependence, the Polity and Public Administration," Administration and Society, Vol. 6, No. 1 (May 1974), p. 3.

5. See Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1969).

6. See, inter alia, Roberto de Oliveira Campos, Planeja- mento do desenvolvimento economico de paises subdesenvolvidos (Rio de Janeiro: EBAP, 1954), and Mario W. Wieira da Cunha, "Resistencieas da buroc- racia as mundancas sociais no setor publico a no setor privado," in Centro Latino-Americano de Pesquisas en Ciencias Sociais, Ressistencias a mudanca: Fatores que impidem ou difficultam o desenvolvimento (Rio de Janeiro: Grafica Editora Livro S.A., 1960).

7. See, among others, Orlando Caputo and Roberto

Pizarro, Imperialismo, dependencia y relaciones eco- nomicas intemacionales (Santiago: CESO, 1969), and Fernando H. Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, 1969).

8. See, inter alia, Stanislaw Andreski, Parasitism and Subversion: The Case of Latin America (London: Weindenfeld and Nicholson, 1966), and Jack W. Hopkins, The Government Executive of Modem Peru (Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida Press, 1967).

90 See Andreski, p. 91 and passim, and Helio Jaguaribe, Political Development: A General Theory and a Latin American Case Study (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 409-410.

10. Philippe C. Schmitter, "Paths to Political Develop- ment in Latin America," in D.A. Chalmers (ed.), Changing Latin America: New Interpretations of Its Politics and Society (New York: The Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, 1972), p. 104.

11. Jorge Graciarena, "The Social Sciences, Intellectual Criticism and the Technocratic State: An Approach to the Latin American Case," paper presented at the Seminar on the Social Bases for a Technocratic Society, New York, Center for Inter-American Rela- tions, 1975, p. 2.

Pizarro, Imperialismo, dependencia y relaciones eco- nomicas intemacionales (Santiago: CESO, 1969), and Fernando H. Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en America Latina (Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, 1969).

8. See, inter alia, Stanislaw Andreski, Parasitism and Subversion: The Case of Latin America (London: Weindenfeld and Nicholson, 1966), and Jack W. Hopkins, The Government Executive of Modem Peru (Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida Press, 1967).

90 See Andreski, p. 91 and passim, and Helio Jaguaribe, Political Development: A General Theory and a Latin American Case Study (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 409-410.

10. Philippe C. Schmitter, "Paths to Political Develop- ment in Latin America," in D.A. Chalmers (ed.), Changing Latin America: New Interpretations of Its Politics and Society (New York: The Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, 1972), p. 104.

11. Jorge Graciarena, "The Social Sciences, Intellectual Criticism and the Technocratic State: An Approach to the Latin American Case," paper presented at the Seminar on the Social Bases for a Technocratic Society, New York, Center for Inter-American Rela- tions, 1975, p. 2.

EMPIRICAL THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION:

PROLOGUES AND PROMISE

J. Fred Springer, California State University, Sacramento

EMPIRICAL THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION:

PROLOGUES AND PROMISE

J. Fred Springer, California State University, Sacramento

In response to the continuing problems of developing nations there is increasing recognition that study of their politics must turn to a greater emphasis on policy formulation and implementa- tion. Identifying the role of public administration in development, and designing programs of administrative improvement, seem indispensable tasks for human well-being in the developing nations. Yet development administration as an academic enterprise appears ill-prepared to meet this chal- lenge. Riggs aptly summarizes a major source of malaise in the field in noting that "one can scarcely point to a paradigm, to an established and widely accepted framework, for the study of development administration."1 Development administration is starved for theories which will guide the pooling of empirical knowledge, orient new research, and recommend administrative policy. Need and opportunity beckon; performance falls short.

In response to the continuing problems of developing nations there is increasing recognition that study of their politics must turn to a greater emphasis on policy formulation and implementa- tion. Identifying the role of public administration in development, and designing programs of administrative improvement, seem indispensable tasks for human well-being in the developing nations. Yet development administration as an academic enterprise appears ill-prepared to meet this chal- lenge. Riggs aptly summarizes a major source of malaise in the field in noting that "one can scarcely point to a paradigm, to an established and widely accepted framework, for the study of development administration."1 Development administration is starved for theories which will guide the pooling of empirical knowledge, orient new research, and recommend administrative policy. Need and opportunity beckon; performance falls short.

The Empirical Terrain

Elsewhere,2 I have argued that if theory and observation are to be most productively linked in development administration, we must carefully specify the empirical terrain to which our theories apply. The empirical study of public bureaucracies must recognize their hierarchical complexity; the analysis of complex organizations may proceed at many levels. Simon3 has specified structural properties of hierarchical systems which are important for understanding administrative organizations. First, levels of organization can typically be represented as a set of "Chinese boxes" of a particular kind.

J. Fred Springer is a lecturer in the Department of Public Administration, California State University, Sacramento. He has published articles on comparative and development administration, and is coauthor of a forthcoming study of the administration of agricultural development in Asia.

The Empirical Terrain

Elsewhere,2 I have argued that if theory and observation are to be most productively linked in development administration, we must carefully specify the empirical terrain to which our theories apply. The empirical study of public bureaucracies must recognize their hierarchical complexity; the analysis of complex organizations may proceed at many levels. Simon3 has specified structural properties of hierarchical systems which are important for understanding administrative organizations. First, levels of organization can typically be represented as a set of "Chinese boxes" of a particular kind.

J. Fred Springer is a lecturer in the Department of Public Administration, California State University, Sacramento. He has published articles on comparative and development administration, and is coauthor of a forthcoming study of the administration of agricultural development in Asia.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1976 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1976

636 636



understanding organizations and environments: a comparative perspective

Documents