polscie.weebly.compolscie.weebly.com/.../5/0/...theories_rumki_basu_sterlin… · web viewthere...
TRANSCRIPT
i
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
ii
To My parents for their continuing support and guidance
iii
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
(Revised and Enlarged Edition)
RUMKI BASU
STERLING PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED
iv
STERLING PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED
L-10, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016
Tel : 6191023,6191784/85; Fax: 91-11-6190028
E-mail: [email protected]
Website :www.sterlingpublishers.com
Public Administration: Concepts and Theories
© 1994, Rumki Basu
ISBN 81 207 16809
Third Revised And Enlarged Edition 1994
Reprint 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999,2000
All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.
PRINTED IN INDIA
Published by Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.. New Delhi-110 016. Laserset at Vikas Compographics, New Delln-l10029. Printed at Elegant Printers, New Delhi-110064.
v
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
The overwhelming response to this book from my students, colleagues and friends over the years has encouraged me to continue improving on its earlier editions by revising and updating them. I should like
to thank all of them, specially those who have been sending me valuable suggestions and criticisms ever since the book was published in 1986.
Significant changes have been made in this new edition. The existing material in almost all chapters has been rearranged. Two separate chapters, one on "Administrative Behaviour" and the other on "Development Administration", have been added. The first three chapters have been re-done and revised and new topics like "Relations with Other Subjects" incorporated. New subtopics like "Authority and Responsibility", "Supervision", and "Chief Executive" have been added to chapters 7 and 8. The additional topics covered in "Personnel Administration" (the chapter has been bifurcated into two) are "Position Classification", "Remuneration and Service Conditions", "Conduct and Discipline" and "Employer-employee Relations". Chapters 11 and 14 carry minor changes and additions. Chapter 15 has been rearranged completely and the discussion on the Russian administrative system omitted completely. The chapter on Public Policy has been expanded to a certain extent.
These revisions and changes, I hope, will meet the requirements of my student-readers from different universities all over India with diverse course structures.
Before 1 conclude, 1 would specially like to acknowledge my gratitude to Mr. Panchanan Chatterjee of Birati College, Calcutta, for his active interest, encouragement and helpful suggestions for improving the quality of the third edition. I thank him for all the notes and comments he sent to me from time to time. I am also grateful to Mr. Asok Mukhopadhyay, Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta, for his invaluable comments, constructive opinions and critical evaluation of the book as a whole. Last but not least, 1 would like to record once again, my heartfelt thanks to all my friends, students, colleagues and readers whose warmth and appreciation over the years gave me just the right kind of sustenance for survival as a writer.
Rumki Basu
vi
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
The present reformulation of the undergraduate course in Public Administration by the University of Delhi has inspired me to write this book. The syllabi of Public Administration in most Indian universities stress the formal institutions of government, and structure of administration, making the subject too legalistic and descriptive. Administrative and institutional behaviour and processes have been either
completely ignored or under-emphasised in the teaching of the subject. It is small wonder, therefore, that teachers often find it difficult to create or sustain the interest of students in this paper, which compared to other papers in Political Science appears rather dry and boring. Besides, the syllabi in most universities failed to incorporate the latest worldwide developments in the theory and practice of the growing discipline of public administration. The entire study of public administration was restricted to the teaching of the administrative institutions of India and the Western world, mainly the UK and the USA.
Therefore, a revision of existing courses to bring them in tune with continuing developments in the discipline and also to shift the old perspective of teaching Public Administration seemed imperative. Delhi University's effort at pioneering this course reformulation in the existing circumstances was a bold attempt, and is to be welcomed, as a step in the right direction. The new course in the University incorporates all the new developments in the discipline and supplements the study of Western administrative systems with that of others. The Indian administrative system has now to be studied from a Third World perspective. Study of the administrative systems of the Soviet Union and China have also been included, with special attention to their specific characteristics which distinguish them from Western models of administration. The new course is a blend of the old and the new, study of the structure of administration as well as its processes and behavioural aspects.
The book has been written to cater to the academic requirements of undergraduate students, to give them not merely a preliminary understanding of the subject, but to enable them to cultivate a deeper interest in the vast and growing literature on
vii
Public Administration. I would consider my effort worthwhile and rewarding if I can make my student-readers, for whom the book is primarily intended, realise that Public Administration is not just a storehouse of dry facts but is an all pervasive affair, a continuous ongoing process of action and interaction between each one of us and the environment in which we live. Public Administration not only ensures the daily life of the individual and the community to run smoothly, it is much more, in developing societies, like ours; it is an essential instrument of social change, economic progress and human welfare. I have given ample examples from the Indian situation in every chapter of the book to enhance the students' comprehension and understanding.
While my debts, both general and specific, are many in a venture of this sort, 1 accept the sole responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation that might have inadvertently, crept into the first
edition of this book. I would welcome suggestions from every quarter, specially from students and colleagues, for improving the book in subsequent editions.
My thanks are due to Prof. R.B. Jain, Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty and Dr. (Mrs.) Noorjahan Bava of the Department of Political Science (University of Delhi), for their lectures on selected aspects of the new course to those who were teaching the paper, and I am also indebted to Prof. M.P. Singh and Prof. (Mrs.) Susheela Kaushik of the Political Science Department, Delhi University, for their help and active encouragement which was a great source of inspiration for getting this book published.
I have benefited a lot from discussions with colleagues teaching this paper at Janki Devi College and also teachers of Public Administration elsewhere. It would be impossible to record my thanks to all of them individually. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. S.K. Ghai, Managing Director, Sterling Publishers, who has been primarily responsible for getting this book published in the shortest possible time.
I am also grateful to the Library staff of the Indian Institute of Public Administration for their help and assistance.
In the end, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Dr. Sankar Basu, for, with his constant support, endurance and encouragement, this book was finally written.
Rumki Basu
viii
CONTENTS
Preface to the Third Edition v
Preface to the First Edition vi
1. Nature and Scope of Public Administration 1
Meaning and Definition; Public and Private Administration; An Art or Science; Evolution Growth; New Public Administration; Current Concerns; Scope
2. Approaches and Relations with Other Subjects 34
Approaches—Past and Present; Historical, Legal, Institutional, Behavioural, Systems, Structural-Functional, Ecological, Public Policy, Political Economy, Marxian Traditions, Relations with History, Law, Economics, Political Science, and Sociology
3. Importance and Challenges is Societies 54
Role in the Modern State; Attaining Democratic and Socialistic Goals; Challenges in Developed Societies; Importance of Public Administration in a Developing Society
4. Administration, Polity and Society 76
Interaction with Historical and Political legacies; Administration and Social Structure; Impact of Political System; Administration and Economic Structure; And Integrated Perspective
5.Theories of Organisation 105
Scientific Management; Classical Theory; Human Relations Theory; Bureaucratic Theory
6. Administrative Behaviour 133
Decision making with special reference to the contribution of Herbert Simon; Theories of Leadership; Motivation and Morale (Maslow, McGregor, Argyris, Herzbera and Likert)
7. Principles of Organisation 165 Hierarchy; Unity of Command: Span of Control; Authority; Responsibility; Supervision: Integration
ix
versus Disintegration; Coordination Delegation; Centralisation and Decentralisation; Issues in Field-Headquarters Relationship
8. Structure of Organisations 207
Types of Chief Executive; Types of functions of the Chief Executive; Line, Staff and Auxiliary Agencies; Departments, Boards and Commissions, Public Enterprises, Staff Agencies in India, UK, USA
9. Personnel Administration—I 241
The Concept of a Career Civil Service; Position Classification; Recruitment; Training; Promotion; Performance Appraisal; Remuneration and Service Conditions; Conduct and Discipline; Employer-Employee Relations
10. Personnel Administration—II: Some Issues 296
The concept of Civil Service Neutrality; Generalist-Specialist Relationship; Administrative Vigilance and Discipline: The Indian Response; Integrity in Administration
11. Financial Administration 312
Significance and Importance; Concept of Budget, Features of a Performance Budget, Budgetary Process; Instruments of financial Control; Importance of Audit; Audit and Administration
12. Administrative Law, Regulation and Reforms 333 Delegated Legislation; Administrative Tribunals; Administrative Reforms
13. Development Administration 354
Problems of Developing countries; Concepts and features of Development Administration and its critique; Weberian Model of Bureaucracy and Development Administration; The Riggsian Model and Development Administration
14. Comparative Public Administration—1 380
Meaning, Nature and Scope; The British Administrative System; Some features of the Administrative System of the United States; The Indian Administrative System, Administrative Organisation in India
x
15. Comparative Public Administration—II 403
Comparison between the Weberian Model and the Socialist Model of Organisation and Management; Lenin's contribution to the Socialist theory of Organisation and Management; The concept of Democratic Centralism; The Chinese Administrative system-Features and Trends; Comparison between the Chinese and the Western administrative models; Current administrative reforms in China
16. Public Policy 429
Significance and Importance in Public Administration', Factors determining policy formulation; Conceptual Approaches to Policy Making; The Official Policy Makers; Need for Policy Evaluation
17. Administration and People 464
The concept of People's Participation in Administration; Problems of people's participation in developing countries; Means of citizen participation; Public Accountability and Control-Legislative; Executive and Judicial Control over Administration
Bibliography 484
Index 487
1
1 NATURE AND SCOPE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Public administration as an academic discipline is barely a hundred years old whereas public administration as an activity can be traced to the earliest periods of human history when man started living in organised societies. Governmental administration of the earlier times (ancient and medieval) however differed considerably in its structure and goals from state administration in the modern era. Administration of the state in the ancient and medieval periods in both the East and the West was authoritarian, patriarchal and elitist in character. Maintenance of law and order, collection of revenue, etc., were its compulsory functions whereas welfare activities were purely incidental or optionally undertaken. Administrators were small in number, selected entirely at the discretion of the monarch and their official status was no better than the personal servants of the king. It was only with the rise of modern welfare states and the multiplication of state functions in the nineteenth century that the old patriarchal, hereditary state officialdom was replaced by a public bureaucracy, recruited on the basis of public laws, performing largely within a legal framework, tasks which were becoming more and more public oriented. The present era is that of the administrative state. All mass movements since the eighteenth century have contributed to the increasing volume, variety and scope of public administration. The industrial and commercial revolutions brought government into industry and commerce. Nationalism, imperialism and internationalism widened the scope of state functions while increasing population, urbanisation, public communications, and mobility diversified governmental activities. The evolution of democratic, totalitarian and socialist ideas transformed the concept of government. People not only expect uniform national services today, but also expect public administration to reconcile competing class demands and conflicting interests in society. Public administration is indispensably present in all states, be they
2
capitalist, socialist or developing in nature. Modern public administration has usurped more and more functions within its scope. Besides law and order, revenue collection and security functions, it operationalises a vast array of public laws, provides public services like post and telegraphs and transport facilities in cities and towns, and is the main instrument of socio-economic transformation in developing societies. In socialist states public administration touches on all aspects of citizens' lives from education to recreation. The scope and importance of public administration increases with increasing societal complexity, specialisation and differentiation. In the present age there is hardly any aspect of a citizen's life which does not involve public administration or increased public regulation over private concerns. Facing a revolution of rising expectations of the people, public administration is being increasingly loaded with additional work and responsibilities either in the name of promoting efficiency, egalitarianism, or rapid socio-economic development. The relative decline of other societal institutions like the extended family, religion etc., in the present age which took care of the individual's material and spiritual needs earlier, has largely led to this over-dependence on the state.
Gerald Caiden has listed the following crucial roles as assumed by public administration in contemporary society:1
a) preservation of the polity
b) maintenance of stability and order
c) institutionalisation of socio-economic change.
d) management of large scale commercial services.
e) ensuring growth and economic development.
f) protection of the weaker sections of society.
g) formation of public opinion.
h) influencing public policies and political trends.
There seems to be an inevitable growing trend in the activities of public administration in the foreseeable future. Men have always needed public administration and will continue to do. This has resulted in public administration becoming a key power constituent in modernised (both capitalist and socialist) and modernising states in its own right.
Meaning and Definition
Public administration is the management of affairs of the government at all levels national, state and local. It is a branch of
3
the wider field of administration. The term administration has been variously defined by different writers. In the words of Marx2: "Administration is determined action taken in pursuit of a conscious purpose. It is the systematic ordering of affairs and the calculated use of resources aimed at making those things happen which one wants to happen." According to J.M. Pfiffner, "Administration is the organisation and direction of human and material resources to achieve desired ends."3 Therefore, the two essentials of administration are : (i) cooperative effort, and (ii) pursuit of common objectives.
Public administration is any kind of administration in the public interest which, in other words, has simply come to mean governmental administration. Administration of private enterprises is known as private administration.
There are many views regarding the scope and range of activities to be included in public administration. Some thinkers take a broader view and include all governmental activities having for their purpose, the fulfilment of public policy, while others take a narrow view and consider only those activities concerned with the executive branch of government as part of public administration.
The definitions given by important thinkers reveal the emphasis they lay on different aspects of public administration. There are some who equate the sphere of activity of public administration with the implementation of law and public policy. L.D. White observes:4 "Public administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy." Similarly, according to Woodrow Wilson, public administration is detailed and systematic application of law. In the
words of Dimock, "Public Administration is the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy as declared by the competent authorities... Public administration is law in action. It is the executive side of government."5 There are writers like Simon who define the scope of public administration in such a way as to make it coincide with the activities of the executive or administrative branch only. Thinkers like Pfiffner lay more emphasis on the coordinating role of administration. In his opinion administration consists of "getting the work of government done by coordinating the efforts of the people so that they can work together to accomplish their set tasks."6 F.A.
4
Nigro's definition is a more comprehensive one, which also includes besides the above-mentioned aspects, the relationship between public administration and the political and social systems as well. Nigro has defined public administration in the following words:7
Public administration
a) is cooperative group effort in a public setting;
b) covers all three branches—executive, legislative and judicial—and their interrelationships;
c) has an important role in the formulation of public policy and is thus a part of the political process;
d) is more important than, and also different in significant ways from private administration;
e) as a field of study and practice has been much influenced in recent years by the human relations approach;
f) is closely associated with numerous private groups and individuals in providing services to the community.
Public administration is the non-political bureaucratic machinery of the government for implementing its laws and policies in action, e.g., the collection of revenues, maintenance of law and order, running the railways and postal services, maintaining an army, running schools and hospitals. These are all acts of public administration. Public administration operates within a political context. It is a means by which the policy decisions made by the political decision makers are carried out. "Public administration is decision-making, planning the work to be done, formulating objectives and goals, working with the legislative and citizen organisations to gain public support and funds for government programmes, establishing and revising organisations, directing and supervising employees, providing leadership, communicating and receiving communications, determining work methods and procedures, appraising performance, exercising controls, and other functions performed by government executives and supervisors. It is the action part of government, the means by which the purposes and goals of government are realised."8
To summarise, these definititions identify public administration with:
1. the formulation and implementation of public policies;
2. the executive branch of government;
5
3. organisational structures and machinery of administration;
4. administrative processes;
5. bureaucracy and its activities;
6. coordination of group activity or social relationship; and
7. interaction between organisations and their environment.
Public and Private Administration
There are two different views on the relationship between public and private administration. One group of thinkers, like Urwick, Follett and Fayol, are of the view that administration is an indivisible entity, and its basic principles are applicable equally to all organisations whether public or private. This view is obviously based on certain clearly observable similarities in the practice of public and private administration.
In the first place, it is extremely difficult to clearly demarcate the spheres of the two types of administrative activity. Though the activities performed by government agencies are defined as public administration, there are many private agencies which also perform tasks which are strictly public service or welfare oriented. Conversely, there are many tasks performed by the government bureaucracy which may be of a private nature.
Secondly, methods and work procedures may be common to both public and private administration. Accounting, statistics, office management and procedures and stock taking are problems of administrative management common to both public and private administration.
With the continuous expansion of the public sector in industrial enterprises and the steady growth of public corporations, government has been drawing heavily upon the business knowledge and expertise of private administration to run these enterprises. In fact, in many countries, including India, there is a growing interaction between the public and private sectors. In India candidates from private establishments have often been recruited to senior administrative positions in the government. Ever since private enterprises have been developing in to huge administrative giants, with widening network of offices all over the country, private administration has become as impersonal as public administration. Also with the popularisation of the concept of democratic welfare state, the principles of democratic control, public accountability and
6
popular checks on administrative behaviour are increasing in all private organisations
However important the similarities may be, it cannot be denied that there still remain fundamental differences between the two. The major points of difference are in the spheres of "uniformity and impartiality, responsibility, accountability and serviceability". The four main principles which differentiate public from private administration are:
1. uniformity;
2. external financial control;
3. ministerial responsibility; and
4. marginal return.
The popular idea of public administration is that it is bureaucratic, characterised by red tapism, inefficiency and inertia, whereas private administration is efficient and businesslike. The following are the differences between the two types of administration.
1. Political Direction or Ministerial Responsibility: Unlike private administration, public administration is subjected to political direction in most policy matters. It is the minister who lays down broad policy outlines, under which the bureaucrat has to implement the policy. Operational autonomy is, however, granted to a great extent to public administrators, who are not responsible for their actions to the legislature. It is the minister who represents his department in the legislature, and is held responsible for all acts of omission and commission of his administrative juniors to parliament.
2. Profit Motive or Marginal Return: Public administration is service oriented and profit making is not its goal. A businessman will never undertake a venture which is not likely to yield any profit to him. In public administration, there is no correlation between income and expenditure, since most government departments are spending departments and even in the so called revenue-producing departments, the primary motive is always public service. Public utility services of the Government of India often run at a loss, yet the government is duty-bound to spend on them.
3. Social Necessity: Public administration caters to social needs and public utilities. For example, it maintains railways to
7
facilitate movement of goods and passengers; the post and telegraph network facilitates communication; hospitals and dispensaries are meant to provide medical aid and public health services to the people. The scope of private administration is narrower. It is mostly concerned with providing marketable consumer goods to the public, catering to the economic needs of citizens. Besides, the nature of some of the government services is so wide, comprehensive and expensive that no private administration can undertake them, e.g., maintaining a vast network of police, army, railways or post and telegraph.
4. Public Responsibility: The public administrators are trained and duty-bound to respect the wishes of the public and cater to their needs. In the words of Appleby, "Government administration differs from all other administrative work by virtue of its public nature, the way in which it is subject to public scrutiny and outcry." Private administration has no such obligation, its main objective is to secure its own ends.
5. Uniformity of Treatment: Public administration should be consistent in procedure and uniform in its public dealings. This principle is more applicable to public administration than the other, because the former is mostly regulated by common and uniform laws and regulations. Public administration is subject to the principle of external financial control. Government revenues are controlled by the people's representatives through the legislature. In private administration finances are not controlled by any outside agency.
6. Conformity to Laws and Regulations: The public administrators cannot do anything contrary to, or in excess of legal power. It has to function within the legal framework, it can never break the law. If it does so, its actions can be declared invalid or, ultra-vires by the courts. Private administration has no such responsibility
In a private enterprise management has to be efficient if it is to prosper. It needs to understand the techniques of business and the characteristics of the market to maintain a high level of efficiency in terms of output. This involves not only a mastery of
8
certain technical aids to management but also a deep understanding of human factors in obtaining the maximum cooperation of the employees in achieving the firm's objectives. In public organisations there is tendency for the professional heads to concentrate upon their personal relations with and
responsibilities towards their political chiefs, leaving the managerial processes, as far as possible, to be embodied in internal rules and regulations so that the departments work more or less automatically through the agency of lower officials who themselves are often neither properly equipped nor sufficiently aware of the needs of management. The result too often is that public management conforms to routine and is largely taken for granted.
Notwithstanding differences, it must be admitted that there are many similarities between the two types of administration. Both require more or less the same administrative skills to deal with problems of organisation, finance and personnel. Administration of government corporations and other revenue-producing departments like the railways and postal services is usually carried on business lines. Both types of organisation try to maintain good and friendly relations with the public. They find their most difficult management problems in promoting harmonious relations between headquarters and field, in reconciling operational autonomy and overall control and in keeping delays and red-tape at a minimum. The city manager plan of municipal government is an adaptation from business administration. In actual administration there is often a greater difference between small and large organisations than between public and private ones. As a matter of fact, governmental administration should be compared to the corporate form of business administration and not to the non-corporate of individual form of private organisation.
Therefore many would agree with the conclusions of Fayol and Urwick who have said, "We are no longer confronted with several administrative sciences, but with one which can be applied equally well to public and private affairs." Public and private administration function in different environments. But despite that, differences between the two have narrowed down considerably. Prof. Waldo has said:
The generalisations which distinguish public administration from private administration, like special care for equality of
9
treatment, legal authorisation and responsibility for action, public justification or justifiability of decisions, financial probity and meticulousness, and so forth are of very limited applicability. In fact, public and private administrations are the two species of the same genus. But they have special values and techniques of their own, which give to each their distinctive character.
An Art or a Science
Public administration lends itself to two meanings. Firstly it stands for the activity of administering governmental affairs. Secondly, it is also an academic discipline. The first is definitely an art. But is public administration, as a subject of study of governmental affairs, a science?
Administration, both public and private, mostly consists of a series of acts or is concerned with the doing of deeds; thus it is undoubtedly an art. In the Art of Administration, Ordway Tead writes: "Administration is the comprehensive effort to direct, guide and integrate associated human strivings which are focussed toward some specific ends or aims. Administration is, in short, a fine art, because it summons an imposing body of special talents on behalf of a collaborative creation which is integral to the conduct of civilised living today." Quite obviously public administration is the art of government; in reality, it is government in action.
Woodrow Wilson, the pioneer of public administration as a subject of study, called it the 'Science of Public Administration' as early as 1887. Writing in 1926, W.F. Willoughby asserted that in administration there are certain fundamental principles of general application analogous to those characterising any science. In 1937, a collection of papers on the subject made its appearance under the significant title of Papers on the Science of Administration edited by Luther Gulick and L. Urwick.
Existence of a body of principles in a discipline entitles it to claim the title and status of science. If public administration can prove that it has developed a set of principles, it obviously qualifies to be rated as science. Does public administration have a set of such principles?
10
The essential characteristics of science are absence of normative (or, ethical) value, predictability of behaviour, and finally, universal application. All these three features are as yet imperfectly present in public administration.
Public administration cannot be called a science until the following three conditions are fulfilled. First, the place of normative values in public administration should be clearly identified and made clear. Second, greater understanding should be gained of human nature in the field of public administration. And third, the principles of administration, could be derived from a body of cross cultural studies, thereby making them relatively free from cultural bias.
The last hundred years have however seen a remarkable development of the science of public administration. The transformation of the laissez faire state into the modern welfare state has enlarged its sphere, added to the functions of government and aroused interest in the problem of efficiency in government, which had remained for long an art proceeding by way of trial and error. Industrial engineers like Taylor pioneered the scientific method with its emphasis on experimentation, observation, collection of data, classification and analysis, and the formulation of laws and principles. The subsequent progress of the scientific method added substantially to such facets of administration as organisation, planning, personnel administration and budgetary control. The last few decades have seen a veritable mushrooming of writers on administration and management, like Metcalfe, Fayol, Emerson, Follett, Mooney, Drucker and others. Gradually the contributions of these sources have been unified into the science and art of public administration. Public administration is today a multidimensional study. It is both an art as well as a science.
Evolution and Growth
Public administration as an activity is as old as civilisation but as an academic discipline is it not even a hundred years old. This, however, does not mean by implication that thinkers in earlier ages had never said anything significant about public administration. Functioning of the governmental machinery has attracted the attention of scholars and administrators since the earliest periods of history. Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the maxims and teachings of Confucius in the realm of Oriental thought contain many profound observations about the organisation and working of government. In the history of western political thought, Aristotle's Politics and Machiavelli's The Prince are important contributions to administrative thought and practice.
11
Scattered thoughts, however, do not constitute a discipline though it is interesting to note that even without systematic teaching and study of the subject, great cities, public works and monuments have been built, vast empires administered, huge armies organised, taxes collected, effective law and order maintained and law enforced throughout history. Therefore public administration as an activity preceded long before systematic study of the subject began in the eighteenth century. Official academic status to the discipline did not come until World War I when professional chairs in public administration were established and subject textbooks published.
"Only when governments could be differentiated from other societal institutions and their activities developed to the point where professional administrators were indispensable for their effective performance, could modern public administration emerge. The term public administration began to creep into European languages during the seventeenth century to distinguish between the absolute
monarch's administration of public affairs and his management of his private household. The contemporary discipline arose out of the bureaucratisation of the nation-state when the church was separated from the state and government was superimposed on all other social institutions within a definite territory."9
Modern public administration was first taught as a part of the training course of public officials-on-probation in Prussia. The subject was largely compiled and taught in a descriptive manner by professors of cameral sciences, which then included all knowledge considered necessary for the governance of an absolutist state. The cameralist approach continued to influence European studies in public administration well into the twentieth century, until it was replaced by the administrative law and legal studies approach. Ideologically cameralism gave way to bureaucracy. Civil service recruits had to study administrative law and gradually all over Europe public service training schools started offering courses on administrative law.
In English-speaking countries with emphasis on generalist administrators circumstances were unfavourable for the emergence of a discipline of public administration. Special preparatory courses were not required for training the new recruits in a majority of services except the highly technical ones.
12
The scope of government administration was traditionally lower than in Europe and administration was considered more of an experimental art rather than a subject to be taught theoretically.
With the expansion of governmental functions, the need for training practitioners in the art of public administration was felt. The study of public administration began in the United States, which led to its acceptance as a full-fledged discipline. Hence the evolution of the subject will be traced here largely in the context of the United States.
With expanding governmental functions public administration as an activity became highly diversified, complex and specialised. There was a growing need for better management of public affairs through scientific investigations into governmental functioning and specialised training of public servants in the USA. An essay by Woodrow Wilson in 1887 symbolised the beginning of what was later to be an autonomous academic field of inquiry.
Many factors have contributed towards the growth of the study of public administration in the USA as a separate academic discipline in the present century.
Firstly, the development of modern sciences and technology made an impact on the life of the people and the functioning of the government. From the later half of the 19th century industrialisation gave birth to large scale organisations with complex problems of coordination and cooperation. Rapid technological development created large scale social dislocations which made state intervention imperative and desirable. Hence scholars came to pay increasing time and attention to the problems of organisation and management.
Secondly, the Scientific Management movement founded by F.W.Taylor which began in the USA towards the end of the 19th century, gave great impetus to the study of public administration. Taylor's ideas had a revolutionary impact not only in the US but throughout the world. His main thesis was that all work processes are separable into units; the efficacy of each unit can be tested and improved; the techniques can be extended upwards in every organisation, making industries and governments, even societies, more efficient and rational.
A third factor which significantly helped in the growth of the subject of public administration was the gradual evolution of the
13
concept of welfare state. The philosophy of state functions everywhere has now decisively shifted from the traditional notion of laissez faire to that of social welfare The welfare movement has tremendously enlarged the scope of governmental functions, and administration, since public administration has become the chief instrument of social welfare.
Lastly, the movement for governmental reform gathered momentum in the USA from the early years of the present century when intellectual efforts were systematically made for the steady development and growth of an autonomous and specialised field of knowledge based on the structure and functioning of public administration. The quality of public services was poor and left much to be desired. The 'spoils system' of recruitment had led to considerable corruption and nepotism in appointments. Public finances were disorganised, and frequent scandals concerning public officials had caused great damage to their image. All this culminated in an insistent demand for administrative reform in the US. It was
against this background of the reform movement that the emerging discipline of public administration in the USA took shape.
The evolution of public administration as an academic discipline falls into a number of critical stages. The first stage which begins with the publication of Woodrow Wilson's The Study of Administration in 1887 can be called the era of politics-administration dichotomy. Wilson is considered the founder of the academic discipline of public administration. Making a distinction between politics and administration, he argued that administration is concerned with implementation of political policy decisions. Another notable event of the period was the publication of Goodnow's Politics and Administration in 1900, which endorsed the Wilsonian theme further by conceptually distinguishing the two functions. According to him, "Politics has to do with policies or expressions of the state will," whereas "Administration has to do with the execution of these policies."10 Apart from this, the institutional location of these two functions were differentiated. The location of politics was identified with the legislature and higher levels of the government where major policy decisions were taken. The location of administration was identified with the executive branch of the government and the bureaucracy.
14
He also believed that political control was too strong in the US, it subverted the popular will to partisan interests and undermined efficient administration. Direct democracy should be strengthened and non-partisan administrative functions should be depoliticised. He equated party politics with corruption and inefficiency and hoped to improve the quality of the bureaucracy by replacing the spoils system with neutral bureaucracies.
In the early years of the present century, the impact of the reform movement in the US government permeated American universities, thus popularising the study of public administration. As a result of the Taft Commission Report in the USA the Federal Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921, creating the Bureau of the Budget and institutionalising public administration in a big way. State governments in the US began to appoint commissions to study bureaucratic structure and organisation, legislative-executive relationship, budgetary problems and proposals for better personnel administration.
The interaction between the government and the universities increased. In a report published in 1914, the American Political Science Association declared that one of the objectives of teaching political science was to prepare specialists for governmental positions. Thus the study of public administration gained increasing recognition in American universities. In 1926, Leonard D. White wrote Introduction to the Study of Public Administration which was recognised as the first textbook on the subject. This book,
while advocating a politics-administration dichotomy, stressed the human side of administration, dealing comprehensively with administration in government.
The second stage of evolution is marked by the tendency to reinforce the idea of politics-administration dichotomy and to evolve a value-free 'science of management. The central belief of this period was that there are certain 'principles' of administration which was the task of scholars to discover and advocate. W.F. Willoughby's Principles of Public Administration (1927) first ushered in this new theme. Other important works of this period stressing this approach were Principles of Organisation by Mooney and Reiley, Creative Experience by Mary Parker Follett, Fayol's Industrial and General Management and Papers on the Science of Public Administration by Gulick and Urwick. The main reason for this upsurge of interest in administration, at least in the USA
15
was that following the catastrophic years of the Great Depression in the thirties, the functions of the government had so rapidly multiplied that there were not enough skilled government personnel to fill in the welfare departments newly created under the New Deal. Therefore, schools of public administration were established to quickly train as many men and women as possible, in the techniques of administration.
The main difference between the protagonists of the politics-administration dichotomy of the first and second stages in the evolution of the discipline is that, while the early thinkers like Wilson and Charles Beard emphasised the legal and constitutional aspects, the new school of scientific management protagonists in the second period, emphasised a purely scientific approach to the study of public administration. So, while the earlier emphasis on the dichotomy of politics and administration was retained in the second stage of evolution, the techniques of study shifted from legal to scientific forms (e.g., work flow studies, time and motion studies, organisational charts, etc.) Empirical studies were undertaken to find a scientifically accurate method of organising human relationships in large scale organisations 'the one best way' to achieve a desirable level of organisational efficiency and economy. With the help of scientific management methods, the leaders of public administration tried to discover certain principles of public administration which could be of universal applicability.
Luther and Gulick coined the word POSDCORB11 to promote some of these principles of administration. POSDCORB stands for Planning, Organising, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and Budgeting. These maxims of administration were said to be of universal applicability in all organisations.
The main thrust of public administration studies in the first two stages has been summarised by Sayre12 as follows:
1. The politics administration dichotomy was assumed both as a self-evident truth and as a desirable goal; administration was perceived as a self-contained world of its own; with its own separate values, rules and methods.
2. Organisation theory was stated in scientific management terms; that is, it was seen largely as a problem in organisation technology—the necessities of hierarchy, the uses of staff agencies, a limited span of control, subdivision
16
of work by such scientific principles as purpose, process, place or clientele.
3. The executive budget was emphasised as an instrument of rationality, of coordination, planning and control.
4. Personnel management was stressed as an additional element of rationality (jobs were to be described "scientifically", employees were to be selected, paid, advanced by "scientific" methods).
5. A "neutral" or 'impartial" career service was required to ensure competence, expertise, rationality.
6. A body of administrative law was needed to prescribe standards of due process in administrative conduct.
The third stage began with a reaction against this mechanical approach. The so-called 'principles' of administration were challenged and dubbed as 'naturalistic fallacies' and 'proverbs'. Meanwhile scientific management in industry was also undergoing a broadening and humanising process in response to insistent social needs and forces. The most notable contribution, in this connection, came from the famous Hawthorne experiments in the late 1920's carried out by a group of scholars at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company. The experiments which focussed upon work groups,
shook the foundations of scientific management school by clearly demonstrating the powerful influence of social and psychological factors on the worker's output. This approach to organisational analysis drew attention to the effect of informal organisation in the formal set-up, the phenomena of leadership and influence, and impact of conflict and cooperation among groups in the organisational environment. By pointing out the limitations of the 'machine' concept of organisational thought, it revealed the vital importance of human relations in organisations.
Further doubts about the validity of the 'principles' approach were raised by the onset of the Depression, when the divergence between theory and practice, ideal and reality became increasingly apparent. Textbook maxims seemed inapplicable for the most pressing issues of the day and disillusionment with the 'scientific' principles approach in the American context became evident soon after the New Deal came into being. The first to realise the impact of the New Deal on the discipline and practice of pubic administration in the US was Gulick. To him, the
17
government had to become the "super-holding company" of the American economy. It would be required to assume greater responsibilities and functions, specialise, professionalise, and plan a new way of doing things. Politics and administration could not be separated, administration could not be taken out of politics, and politics could not be taken out of administration. World War II again demonstrated more than any other event that general administrative principles derived from scientific or business analysis, had limited applicability in public administration whose size, functions, growth rate and composition depended on the socio-political system reflecting political ideology, constitutional arrangements and public expectations. Chester Barnard published the Functions of the Executive in 1953 and Organisation and Management a decade later, in which he stressed the psychological and behavioural factors in organisational analysis. In 1954, Peter Drucker wrote the Practice of Management in which he emphasised long range planning and human relations in industry and government.
The fourth stage was ushered in by two significant publications in the forties—Simon's Administrative Behaviour and Robert Dahl's essay entitled The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems. Simon's approach widened the scope of the subject by relating it to psychology, sociology, economics and political science. He rejected both the classical "principles" of administration and the "politics-administration dichotomy" in administrative thought and practice. Simon's13 was one of the first books in the behavioural field, wherein he argued that all of administration revolves around rationality and decision-making. In the development of the discipline, Simon identified two mutually supportive streams of thought. One was engaged in the development of a pure science of administration which required a solid base in social psychology. Another stream was concerned with the normative aspects of administration and prescription for public policy. The second approach would require a broad
understanding of political science, economics and sociology as well. Simon favoured the co-existence of both the approaches, empirical and normative, for the growth and development of the discipline of public administration.
Dahl's14 essay identified three important problems in the evolution of the science of public administration:
18
i) The impossibility of excluding normative consideration from the problems of public administration. Values inevitably permeate administration while science is value-free.
ii) The second problem arises from the inescapable fact that the study of administration must include a study of human behaviour, which is open to all possible variables and uncertainties making it impossible to subject it to the rigours of scientific enquiry.
iii) The tendency to enunciate universal principles based on a few examples drawn from limited national and historical settings.
Thus the principles of public administration were attacked. They were not scientific, but normative, not universal, but culture bound. They were not grounded in evidence but based on mispSaced corporate analogies and autocratic assumptions.
The fifth stage is concerned with the nature of post-war developments and the transformations taking place in both the theory and practice of public administration. The older approaches have not been totally abandoned but modified considerably in the light of new developments.
Administration came to be viewed increasingly as a unit in the process of continuous interaction between the people inside and outside the organisation at any given period of time, e.g., some theorists developed the notion that the state of an organisation at a given moment is an equilibrium between, say, the demands of the clients for certain services of the employees or officers for income, security, status and satisfaction in work, and of the leaders, controllers, or citizens, or shareholders, for the achievement of the goals nominally set down for the organisation, such as profits, tax revenue or land
regulation. The significance of this view is that these last organisational goals are not, as in the traditional approach, regarded the ultimate justification for its operations, they are considered in combination with other equally legitimate aims of all the groups concerned, and even with another goal, the survival and expansion of the organisation itself.
Secondly, separate studies of public and private business administration tended to merge into a single science of organisation, whose theories and concepts were to be equally applicable to both private and public administration.
19
Organisation theory experienced a remarkable growth in the post-war era. Its findings concerning organisational dynamics, small-group behaviour, communications, leadership patterns, decision-making, open systems and human relations, etc., are highly relevant to public administration. New insights in administration also came from management sciences and cybernetics theories.
Thirdly, the increasing use of the systems and behavioural approaches encouraged the comparative study of administrative systems, in diverse social settings and environments. New perspectives were badly needed and the impetus for study of comparative public administration and development administration (a relatively unknown field before the Second World War), came from "great power competition, international humanitarianism, and appeals for help from newly independent states". In the transference of western administrative know-how to the developing countries, western administrative concepts were found to be inadequate and culture-bound. The result was a questioning of the traditional framework of public administration and its universal applicability. It was to fill in these gaps that F.W. Riggs15 pioneered a new administrative vocabulary to describe different societal typologies, administrative cultures and systems.
Fourthly, with the ushering in of the computer age, attempts were made to understand the decision-making, and problem-solving processes of the human mind with the help of computers and other mechanical aids. In his book, The New Science of Management, Simon tries to assess some of the effects of this new science. According to him, machines will be able to replace human labour in various spheres of work in the years to come though not in the most economical manner. With increasing scientific and technical knowledge at his disposal man will come to possess more political power of control over his fellow human beings.
The final stage of the evolution of public administration coincides with a general concern in the social sciences for public policy analysis. The emphasis can be generally noted as a post-World War II phenomenon, led by important scholars from public administration and political science. This approach was built upon two basic themes:
a) the interpenetration of politics and administration at many levels; and
b) the programmatic character of all administration.
20
This interdisciplinary policy process and planning approach has become the most useful and relevant guide to practical administrators in developing and developed societies. Awareness of its significance has been matched by establishment of centres of policy research. The adoption of the policy approach has revealed that public administration which faced the trauma of crisis of identity since the mid-1940s is an interdisciplinary and applied field, that it is an integrating discipline—the meeting ground for all branches of knowledge, for educators, researchers, administrators, political leaders and the public. Commensurate with this development, the scope and substance of public administration as distinct from its private counterpart revolves round formulation, implementation and evaluation of public policy. It seeks to promote public interest through political leaders, public bureaucracy, people and political parties, through 'political participation' and 'public accountability.'
As James Fesler comments, public administration is policy execution and policy formulation, public administration is bureaucracy and public administration is public. It is other things as well, but these provide sufficient orientation and offer enough paradoxes to introduce the subject.
New Public Administration
These themes directed attention in public administration towards political or policy-making processes and specific public programmes. Like many other disciplines in social sciences, public administration was also shaken and influenced by the social turbulence and crisis-ridden period of the sixties. Since 1968, the evolving discipline of public administration has come to be enriched by the emergence of what has come to be known as the 'New Public Administration'. The major landmarks in the growth and emergence of New Public Administration are:
i) The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service, 1967, in USA.
ii) The Philadelphia Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration, 1967, in USA.
iii) The Minnowbrook Conference, 1968, in USA.
iv) Publication of Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective, edited by Frank Marini, 1971.
v) Publication of Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence, edited by Dwight Waldo, 1971.
21
In 1966, John C. Honey of the Syracuse University undertook an evaluative study of public administration as an academic discipline in the US universities. The Honey Report, submitted in 196716 identified four problems confronting the discipline which needed immediate action.
1) Inadeqate funds at disposal of the discipline (for students, faculty and research).
2) Uncertainty and confusion over the status of the discipline (Is it a discipline, a science, or a profession?).
3) Institutional shortcoming (inadequacy of public administration departments).
4) Lack of communication between public administration scholars and the practising administrators.
Believing that there have been some rapid developments in the field and that a new appraisal might be required the American Academy of Political and Social Science organised a conference in Philadelphia in
December 1967, to discuss the topic: 'The Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Scope, Objectives, and Methods'.
Varied views were expressed by the participants. Public administration was viewed as an academic discipline, as a field exercise, and as a profession. Some defined public administration as administration in the 'public interest' while others made it coterminous with 'governmental administration'. There was thus no agreed definition of public administration but there emerged a broad consensus on the following points:17
1) Definition of the subject is as difficult as delineation of its scope.
2) The policy-administration dichotomy is erroneous.
3) American public administration as a subject of study should deal restrictively with US public administration.
4) Bureaucracy should be studied structurally as well as functionally.
5) The training of administrators in public administration and business administration should not be combined since they are similar only in unimportant aspects.
6) Public administration as a profession should remain separate from the profession and discipline of political science.
22
7) Normative administrative theory as well as descriptive-analytic theory in public administration is in a state of confusion.
8) A hierarchical view of organisational authority needs to be changed; administrators must view workers as "coordinates" rather than "subordinates".
9) Policy and political considerations are replacing management concerns as the major focus of public administration.
10) Future administrators should be trained in professional schools; public administration courses should emphasise not only administrative organisation and procedures but also an interdisciplinary approach.
11) Public administration has not been able to deal with societal problems.
12) While parts of public administration are capable of using scientific methods, others—which are the most important parts of the discipline—are not amicable to scientific treatment.
The genesis of the Minnowbrook Conference lay in two factors. First, the 1960s was a turbulent period besieged by numerous societal problems, but public administration showed no signs of being aware of them, much less being serious to solve them. This was well highlighted by Waldo's article on 'Public Administration in a Time of Revolutions', published in Public Administration Review in 1968. Secondly, there was a need to hear young scholars and practitioners of the discipline as public administration was facing a kind of generation gap. The Minnowbrook Conference was the youth conference on public administration and it was this academic get-together which gave rise to what has come to be known as New Public Administration. The literature on new public administration lays emphasis on four major themes: relevance, values, equity and change.
Relevance
Public administration has traditionally been interested in efficiency and economy. The new public administration movement pointed out that the discipline had little to say about contemporary problems and issues and was therefore becoming irrelevant.
23
Management-oriented public administration studies was found inadequate, and the demand was to deal explicitly with the political environment and implications of administrative action.
a) Which questions ought to be studied and how to study them?
b) Who defines our questions and priorities for us?
c) To what extent are we aware of the social and moral implications of public administrative action?
d) What are the uses of public administration as a social and political science?
e) Does public administration presently yield knowledge useful to certain institutions in society (usually the dominant ones) and not to others?
The new movement demanded radical syllabi change to facilitate meaningful studies oriented toward the realities of modern day public life.
Values
The new public administration movement made clear its basic normative concern in administrative studies. It rejected the value neutral position taken by behavioural political science and management-oriented public administration. Value-neutrality in public administration was declared an impossibility and the discipline championed the cause of the disadvantaged sections in society. The champions of the new movement advocate openness about the values being served through administrative action.
The new public administrator should be less 'generic' and more 'public', less 'descriptive' and more 'prescriptive', less 'institution-oriented' and more 'client-impact oriented', less neutral' and more 'normative', the movement stated.
Social Equity
The protagonists of new public administration clearly state that the distributive functions and impact of governmental institutions should be public administration's basic concern.
The purpose of public action should be the reduction of economic and social disparities and the enhancement of life opportunities for all social groups inside the organisation, they state.
Writers like Frederickson take a bold action-oriented stance inviting public administrators to work for the removal of the wrongs of society and openly side with the socially deprived groups.
24
Change
To serve the cause of social equity is to actively work for social change. This is the motto of new public administration. The attack is on the status quo and against the powerful interests entrenched in permanent institutions. The Minnowbrook participants explored ways of institutionalising change and remedying the bureaucratic tendencies of big organisations.
The movement that started at Minnowbrook has been criticised as anti-theoretic, anti-positivist and anti-bureaucratic. Its positive value lies in bringing public administration closer to political science. In fact, the movement has been successful in integrating public administration with the basic concerns of political theory. The client-oriented, normative and socially conscious public administration, as advocated by the new movement, is of direct relevance to the 'third world' countries where public administration is in dire need of basic, qualitative transformation.
New public administration therefore displays an intense concern for relevant societal problems.18 It stresses ethics and values, innovation and social equality. It lays great emphasis on human relations, a creative approach to administration and social change. The study of formal organisation, its structure and processes is of secondary importance to the new theorists. The most important need of the times is to be alive to the contemporary social and political issues and problems with a view to finding ways and means for their solution. And to have organisational changes to suit the changing times. Therefore, to achieve its objectives, the new public administration should have the following characteristics:
i) Increasing orientation towards changing reality.
ii) Influence policies which can improve the quality of working life, as well as have competence to implement such policies,
iii) More oriented towards measuring the impact of laws on citizens rather than resting content with their mechanical application,
iv) More normative and less neutral.
Administrative Responsiveness
The social, political, economic and technological environment is changing rapidly. Administrative organisations should.
25
therefore, develop clear criteria by which the effectiveness and relevance of their decisions and actions can be judged in the changing context. They should also set up an appropriate device and procedure to effect suitable changes regularly within themselves so as to be responsive to the environment. In other words, organisational and operational flexibility or adaptability to meet environmental changes should be in-built in the administrative system and in each of its departments and agencies.
Rationality
In public administration there is a good deal of emphasis on rationality as the main criterion for administrative decisions and actions. But this rationality really refers to the rationality of the administrator and not to rationality as people would interpret it. The administrator needs to consult the citizens not only about what is proposed to be done but also about what ought to be done and by whom.
Management-Worker Relations
It is true that the human relations approach within an administrative organisation enhances both morale and productivity (efficiency) among the employees but these are not to be an end in themselves. The main objective should be the satisfaction of the citizens with the performance and attitudes of the
administrative employees whose morale and productivity would have risen due to the human relations approach adopted within the organisation.
Structures
There is a need to adopt a dynamic approach to organisational structure, an appropriate decentralisation structure. Appropriate decentralisation of authority and modification of hierarchies of control and subordination, for instance, need continuous review so that the structure becomes relevant to the changing needs of the environment. In other words, there should be alternative structures to be chosen from the above inventory of organisational structure based upon POSDCORB or other principles stressed by the advocates of the traditional approach to public administration. Small decentralised and flexible hierarchies, for instance, can prove suitable for administrative organisations concerned with programmes of immediate concern to the people or some sections of them.
26
Many of these issues brought to the fore by the advocates of New Public Administration were not new. These have been raised by other scholars from time to time. But they have been raised by the proponents of New Public Administration most forcefully and with a strong commitment to social change. Their emphasis on citizen's participation in decision-making, on normative values of social equity, and a human relations approach oriented largely to the service of the people brings out the need for a reorientation of the theory and practice of public administration.
Dwight Waldo has pointed out that New Public Administration projects three perspectives clearly — client (citizen) oriented bureaucracy, representative bureaucracy and people's participation. These public perspectives, if woven into public administration appropriately, would tend to democratise it even more than before.
Recent trends in the study and practice of public administration in several countries, both developed (e.g., France, Sweden and Britain) and developing (e.g., India, Pakistan) also indicate similar revision and additions. The intensity and extent of the impact of the trends, however, vary from one country to another, depending upon their historical heritage, national resources, character of political system, cultural and demographic patterns and role of the state in national development. The impact is very weak in some countries and very strong in others due to their differing national profiles. On the whole, these trends indicate:
a) a growing emphasis on social equity in public policies and administrative actions;
b) devising of institutional arrangements to facilitate increased public participation in administrative processes (i.e., decision-making, operations, etc.) at local and grassroots levels;
c) strengthening of political direction of administration as well as of administrative accountability to the political authorities within the government;
d) adoption of innovative types of organisations as well as of modern management practices, and techniques and technologies to raise administrative capability (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness) to deal with highly diverse, complex and numerous governmental tasks; and
27
e) growth of unionism among public personnel (government employees) of various grades and making of organized arrangements for government employees' consultations and negotiations as well as for arbitration of disputes.
Because of these trends in administrative systems the scope of the study of public administration has increased considerably. It is no longer confined to the description and analysis of administrative phenomena, policies, organisations and processes. It is also becoming increasingly normative as it now deals with questions of social equity orientation, democratic orientation, ethical behaviour and citizen's participation within continuously expanding administrative systems. Besides, it is also beginning to be increasingly comparative as it now examines and conceptualises administrative policies and organisations and operations comprising several aspects — political, social, economic, demographic, physical and technological.
In short, New Public Administration, both in practice and theory, tends to be comprehensive in scope, descriptive-cum-normative in character and comparative, besides being multi-disciplinary in content.
Public Choice School
Almost coinciding with this new trend was the rise of the public choice school. Led by Vincent Ostrom and others this school argued a case for replacement of bureaucratic administration by democratic administration. The bureaucrats, in their view, prefer self-interest to public interest. Ostrom's democratic administration paradigm earned popular acceptance because of its forceful emphasis on democratising administration. Ostrom argued against single-centred administrative power, hierarchical administration and separation of politics from administration. He urged the need for diverse democratic decision-making structures, popular participation in administration and dispersed administrative authority based upon structures overlapping jurisdiction and fragmented organisation. Public choice theorists suggest that a variety of institutional arrangements will be required to provide different goods and services. They view the citizen as the ultimate source of administrative power because he is a rational consumer of public goods and services. The institutional rules and arrangements associated with the bureaucratic model of administration interfere with the poorer
28
citizens in order to express their preferences by limiting public choice. It is suggested that there is a need for dividing administrative power and offering it to the citizens in several terms in order to cater to the preferences of the public and to avoid the institutional weakness created by a dominant bureaucratic form. Writers like Downs, Tullock and Niskanen have exploded the myth of a neutral and 'rational' bureaucracy. They have developed the theory of administrative egoism suggesting that the real life of a bureaucracy is characterised by self-aggrandisement, resource manipulation and interest generally antithetical to public interest. Essentially, a critique of the bureaucratic model of administration, the public choice school locates public administration within the domain of politics and looks for an appropriate theory of political organisation to suit the needs of the citizens of the modern age.
Current Concerns
The foregoing discussion amply proves that public administration has come a long way since 1887. It has established its credentials as an autonomous field of enquiry, with an ever expanding literature and concerns which have greatly influenced its evolution as an academic discipline. Scholars of public administration have sought to borrow a lot from other disciplines, making it truly inter-disciplinary in nature. Organisational dynamics also draws heavily on the management sciences. Public administration has faced both empirical and normative thrusts from time to time. It has also incorporated much new developments from the field of policy sciences.
Though public administration is not even a hundred years old, it has been marked by a growing output of literature mostly originating in the USA where the federal systems of government, a relatively open
social system, and rapid technical change provide fertile spawning beds for reform movements and experimentation.
The multiplication of international organisations has brought a new dimension to the study of public administration, that of international administration. Some United Nations agencies have provided extensive training and research facilities and assisted international efforts in establishing institutes of public administration throughout the world. The technical assistance programmes of the UN have taken experts to needy countries
29
and brought students to developed countries. This has gone a long way in breaching barriers between the East and West, the rich and the poor countries.
Another universal feature of post war public administration is its increasing scope and wider horizons. In communist countries it covers every aspect of a citizen's life. Elsewhere governments have increased the range of their services to include running of industries, providing uniform social services, accelerating economic growth, and environmental control. Now the discipline has to take into account all the changes in the profession and activity of public administration in modern states, i.e., link theory with practice. Against this growing Leviathan administrative theory must take into account issues like repressions on individual liberty, means of citizen redress against bureaucratic abuse of power, etc. In short, the study of public administration must be relevant to all the current transformation taking place in the profession due to changes in political ideology and science and technology.
New approaches like the structural-functional, behavioural and ecological approaches to the discipline have all sought to shift the emphasis of the study of public administration from descriptive, historical, legal, structural and managerial approaches to the study of administrative processes, behaviour and environment.
The study of comparative public and development administration, a field virtually unknown before the war has broken through cultural barriers in the study of public administration. The impetus came from great power competition, international humanitarianism, and appeals for help from backward countries and newly independent states after the Second World War. The export of Western administrative knowledge to developing countries proved more difficult. Western concepts and techniques often proved dysfunctional in the administrative environment of the new states. New approaches were
needed and F.W. Riggs pioneered a new administrative vocabulary to describe different societal typologies, administrative cultures and administrative systems answering this need.
Despite all these developments in public administration no new synthesis has occurred, an adequate science of administration is as elusive as ever and a comprehensive theory
30
is still lacking. Public administration is yet to prove its credentials as a true science. Partial theories abound, though a lot of older concepts have been discarded. The politics-administration dichotomy and the 'principles of administration' approach has been totally discarded. The 'staff-line' dichotomy has also been challenged in recent years. Currently under debate is the 'generalist-specialist-controversy' and the efficacy of the Weberian model in modernising societies, and in times of social turbulence in other societies as well.
Another more disturbing trend is the failure to bridge the gap between academicians and practitioners of public administration. Reciprocity is often lacking and both seem to be implying that they can very well do without each other. Administrators question the relevance of high flown theories and models which have little bearing on the art they have to practise under rapidly changing social conditions. Theoreticians find little in common with a vocational approach to the subject which would then narrow down its scope, and general interest considerably. However, linking theory with practice should be one of the basic requirements for a proper understanding of the subject. According to Parker19, "the significance of the concept of public administration is not academic or scientific, but vocational. It gives practising administrators a sense of community, and some common ground on which to exchange ideas and seek greater professional skills and maturity. It gives educators a focus ground on which to organise programmes for the professional preparation of practical administrators."
However, it must be pointed out that there is a close relationship between administrative theories and concepts on the one hand, and the cultural and technological changes of the society in which they develop, on the other. In the field of public administration, for example, the early period of politics and administration dichotomy was a logical reaction to the nepotism and corruption in the then prevailing administrative culture of the US which led to much deterioration in the standard and efficacy of public services. Later emphasis on human relations coincided with the rise of trade unions and the manpower shortages of the 40's. With the advent of the scientific and technological revolution in the West, the social and technological changes in the atomic and computer ages reflected in the rigid
31
efforts at mathematical exactness and demands of later behaviouralism, and systems analysis in the contemporaneous literature of public administration. Recently the concern for social equity, comparative study of administrative systems and emphasis on the developmental goals of Third World administration coincides with a renewed acceptance of values and normative theory as basic features of the new public administration. In brief, the entire evolution and changing character of technology and the social and economic problems associated therewith are reflected in the administrative concerns of different societies.
Scope
Public administration is concerned with the activities of all the three branches of government, but the widely accepted view is that public administration is connected with the activities of the executive branch only. In the words of Marx:
At its fullest range, public administration embraces every area and activity under the jurisdiction of public policy.... By established usage, however the term 'Public Administration' has come to signify primarily the organisation, personnel, practices and procedures, essential to effective performance of the civilian functions entrusted to the executive branch of government.20
Also, it has much to do with the activities of the executive branch of the government at all levels—national, state and local. Pfiffner writes that public administration is concerned with 'the what' and 'the how' of government.21 The 'what' is the subject matter, technical knowledge of a field which enables an administrator to perform his tasks. The 'how' is the technique of management. The major divisions of the subject matter fall naturally into four groupings:
1. What a government does—determination of objectives, internal administrative policies and plans and the range of governmental business.
2. How a government organises its staff, and finances its work, that is the structure of government organisation.
3. How administrators secure cooperation and team-work study of such problems as administrative responsibility, leadership, direction, coordination, delegation, headquarters-field relationships, supervision and public relations.
32
4 How administration is held accountable? This means study of internal controls, and control of administrative activities by the legislature and the courts.
By common consensus, the essential components of administration are: (1) planning, (2) organising, (3) staffing, (4) initiating, (5) delegating, (6) directing (7) overseeing, (8) coordinating, and (9) evaluating. The various activities forming part of the scope of public administration are indicated by POSDCORB, a word coined by Luther Gulick.
Generally, public administrative activities fall into the following main categories: (1) protective and regulatory activities, e.g., maintaining police, fire, health protection agencies, national defence, education, conservation of natural resources (protective); regulation of particular business or activities through such agencies as the Tariff Commission, the Coffee Board, the Finance Commission, etc. (regulatory): (2) promotional activities and/or assistance to particular economic and social groups, e.g., farmers, factory workers, businessmen, women and children in industry, the aged, the unemployed; (3) entrepreneurial activities, where a government owns and operates enterprises serving the public, e.g., post offices, irrigation canals, public corporations or a municipal water or electric-power department.
Public administration in any developed government is a complex affair. It can be examined in terms of the people of which it is composed—departments, agencies, branches and units; of its legal procedures—constitution, statutes, executive orders; of its procedures—filing systems, correspondence, conferences, memoranda, reports; and of its techniques—management improvement, personnel classification, accounting controls. All these go to make up public administration; but these do not comprise all the activities of public administration. Administrators are also deeply concerned with legislative and public relations, with programme objective and pressure groups, with public support and social ends.
Finally, administration is concerned with organisational relationships and the problem of integration, which may be related to: the citizen, the structure of government, society and the economy, the human
factor in administration, techniques and values, stages of national development, levels of operation, and to the ingredients that constitute the synthesis of public administration itself.
33
Notes and References
1. Gerald Caiden, The Dynamics of Public Administration, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971, p. 25.
2. P.M. Marx (ed.), Elements of Public Administration, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 1964, p. 4.
3. Pfiffner and Presthus, Public Administration, The Ronald Press Co., New York, 1960, p. 3.
4. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, Macmillan Co., New York, 1955, p. 1.
5. Marshall, E. Dimock, "The Study of Administration", American Political Science Review, Feb., 1937, pp. 31-32.
6. J.M. Pfiffner, Public Administration, 1960, p. 6.
7. Felix A. Nigro, Modern Public Administration, Harper and Row, New York, 1965, p. 25.
8. John J. Corson and Joseph P. Harris, Public Administration in Modern Society, McGraw Hill, 1963, p. 12.
9. Gerald E. Caiden, The Dynamics of Public Administration: Guidelines to Current Transformation in Theory and Practice, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971, p. 31.
10. Frank J. Goodnow, Politics and Administration, New York, Macmillan, 1914, p. 22.
11. Gulick and Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Public Administration, Institute of Public Administration, New York, 1937.
12. W.S. Sayre "Premises of Public Administration - Past and Emerging", Public Administration Review, 18(1958), pp. 102-103.
13. H.A. Simon, Administrative Behaviour, Growell, Collie: and Macmillan, New York, 1947.
14. R.A. Dahl, "The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems", Public Administration Review (1947), pp. 1-11.
15. F.W. Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1961.
16. The Honey Report and various commentaries on it have been published, in Public Administration Review, Vol. XXVII, No.4, November, 1967.
17. James C. Charlesworth (ed.), Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Scope, Objectives and Methods, Philadelphia, The American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1968, p. IX.
18. Robert T. Golembiewski, Public Administration as a Developing Discipline, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1947, pp. 8-24.
19. R.S. Parker, "The End of Public Administration", Public Administration (Sydney), 34, June, 1965, p. 99.
20. F.M. Marx, Elements of Public Administration, p. 5.
21. Pfiffner and Presthus, Public Administration, p. 3.
34
2 APPROACHES AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER SUBJECTS
Approaches: Past and Present
Since 1887 there have been different approaches to the study of public administration when this subject as a separate academic discipline was born. The traditional approaches concentrated on the formal legal and institutional aspects of organisations. The methods employed in the study were mainly historical and descriptive. The major concerns of the older literature on administration were the structure of personnel and financial administration, the administrative machinery, bureaucracy and functions of public administrators. The new approaches which mainly appeared after World War II came as a reaction to the older approaches.
Historical Approach
The historical approach is essentially based on the belief that knowledge of history is absolutely essential for an indepth study of any subject. For a proper understanding of the subject the study of public administration of the past in particular periods is necessary to link up with the present administrative systems. For example, for proper understanding of the background and growth of administration in India, a historical perspective is essential. To understand the evolution of the administrative system in India, the characteristics of British Indian Administration and also the pre-British period have to be studied. White's two volumes, The Federalists (1948)and The Jeffersonians (1951), are important studies of the federal administration of the USA during the early years of the Republic. Biographical and autobiographical studies are also closely related to the historical approach. In Europe and America reminiscences of ex-administrators reveal many important facts of administrative processes. Several volumes in the Rules of India series and specialised studies dealing with tenures of particular governor generals during the British era, are important to the study of Indian administration of these periods.
35
Legal Approach
Exponents of this approach would like to study public administration as part of law and concentrate on the formal legal structure and organisation of public bodies. Its chief concern has been with power—its structure and functions. It stresses the formal organisation of officies, offical duties, limitations of power and discretionary authority of administrators. Its main sources are constitutions, codes of law, office
manuals of rules and regulations and judicial decisions. Many countries of Europe, like Germany, Belgium and France, have particularly applied the legal approach to the study of public administration. In these countries there are two principal divisions of law—constitutional and administrative. Whereas constitutional law deals with the three main organisations of the government, their interrelation and the distribution of power among them, administrative law is mainly concerned with the structure and functions of public bodies, departments and authorities. The legal approach is valuable for the understanding of the legal framework within which the administrative system has to operate, but by neglecting the informal forces operating in the organisation (the sociological and psychological variables), it remains to a great extent an incomplete approach to the study of public administration.
Institutional Approach
This approach tried to establish linkages between the study of public administration and the institutions of government. It approached the study of administration through the study of the structure and functioning of separate institutions and organisations of the state—such as the executive, the legislature, the departments, government corporations, boards and commissions. Scholars of this school defined the task of administration as non-political or technical which lay merely in the field of policy implementation. They were mainly advocates of the politics-administration dichotomy and their efforts were channelised towards discovering 'principles' of public administration. However, the majority of scholars of this approach like L.D. White and Luther Gulick were content merely with description of institutional structures without any attempt at theory building. This is essentially descriptive though attempts have been made by some thinkers to combine normative elements with the descriptive. Some of these have not only described the
36
institutions but also suggested ideas for reform, where necessary. The traditionalists believed that the major problems of administration are related to the legal formal structure of organisations and their solution can also be found in modifying or changing this structure.
This approach considered the study of organisations, their principles, goals and structure as primary to the study of administration. History and law were the two main sources of the older studies. The exponents of these schools gave serious attention to the problem of delegation, coordination, span of control and bureaucratic structure. Initially writers on public administration were most concerned with ways and methods to improve administrative efficiency and economy. This gave rise to many theories. Pffifner & Presthus, Waldo, Gulick & Urwick, Taylor, Fayol, Mooney, etc. were primarily concerned with finding ways and means of improving organisational work, methods and processes, in order to raise their output and efficiency.
The main limitations of these approaches were a total neglect of environmental and informal factors on administration. By neglecting other variables like sociological and psychological forces on administrative situations and problems, these approaches remained to a great extent incomplete, one-sided and lacking in analytical content.
According to Dwight Waldo, 1940 was the year of divide between old and new approaches to public administration. Some of the new trends that came to be noticed were :
a) A rejection of politics—administration dichotomy.
b) The idea of universally valid principles of administration were found to be largely invalid in diverse administrative environments.
c) The goals of administrative efficiency and economy were supplemented with new goals like social and economic progress.
d) With the advent of ex-colonial states on the administrative scene emphasis came to be laid more on comparative and ecological approaches to the study of administration.
e) Efforts were being made to study the problems of administration scientifically by adopting the latest techniques in management methods, and other mathematical tools of analysis.
37
Among the older approaches the scientific management approach, the classical approach and the human relations approach may also be included. These three approaches have been discussed in the next chapter. Among the current new approaches we shall include the behavioural, systems, structural-functional and the ecological approaches to the study of public administration.
Behavioural Approach
Modern behaviouralism which developed in the late 30's and 40's of this century is mainly concerned with the scientific study of human behaviour in diverse social environments. It started as a protest against traditional, historical, normative and largely descriptive approaches in the social sciences. In public administration behaviouralism as a distinct line of study started in the 1930's with the Human Relations Movement and was later developed by Chester Barnard,1 Herbert Simon,2 and others. Simon observed that "administrative behaviour" is a part of the behavioural sciences and the study of public administration should involve the study of individual and collective human behaviour in administrative situations. It brings to bear upon administrative problems an interdisciplinary approach which includes sociology, social psychology and cultural anthropology. The behavioural approach in administrative studies has the following salient features:
1. Its literature is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, with the studies on motivation being an exception.
2. Increased attention is paid to the individual based on more realistic research concerning motivation, decision-making processes and the nature of authority.
3. Stress is laid on informal relationships and communication patterns among members of an organisation.
4. It emphasises opera Honal definition of terms and empirical study based on rigorous methods, such as field study, laboratory experiments or use of other statistical methods.
5. It is chiefly though not exclusively concerned with quantification, and formal theory construction.
6. It is interdisciplinary in character, and makes considerable use of propositions drawn from other social sciences.
In short, the behaviouralists sought to adopt an integrated and interdisciplinary approach, for according to them all human
38
actions are motivated by social, economic, political, or psychological environment from which they come. This approach aims at substituting empirical and realistic judgements for the purely value oriented. It also emphasises a scientific approach to the study of administrative problems and their solution.
The behavioural approach in public administration has given an additional impetus to scientific research and systematic theory construction. The scholars in the field of public administration have made "cross-structural, cross-cultural" studies of administrative behaviour. This has helped in the development of knowledge of public administration in the comparative context. In the field of comparative public administration Robert Presthus and Michael Crozier3 have conducted empirical studies of bureaucratic behaviour in different social and cultural perspectives. In India also a number of scholars have used behavioural techniques in research, like Pai Panandikar, Kuldeep Mathur, Ramashray Roy, Shanti Kolhari, C.P. Bhambhri, etc.4 Contemporary research in administrative behaviour has been classified by Herbert Simon as follows:
i) The study of bureaucracy (Robert Merton, Peter Blau and others using and extending upon the Weberian Model);
ii) Human relations pertaining to motivation and increasing job satisfaction (Chris Argyris, Warren Bennis and others);
iii) Motivation studies using the Barnard-Simon Equilibrium Model; and
iv) Decision making studies emphasising primarily cognitive processes and the rational components of administrative behaviour.5
The behavioural approach has been criticised for being of limited utility in the analysis of all types of administrative phenomena. It is contended that the study of man as a social animal, though in itself praiseworthy, cannot be considered a part of the administrative sciences unless the resulting knowledge is particularly applicable to the 'administrative man'. Moreover, the behavioural sciences, it is maintained, appear to be largely valid and applicable to small social groups, whereas the study of public administration deals with larger communities. Secondly, the total exclusion of values from a study of
administrative problems and phenomena will make the study of public administration rather sterile and irrelevant to the vital issues of
39
the modern age. Human values, needless to say, are not directly quantifiable or observable to the degree that physical phenomena are, or can be.
The behavioural approach, therefore, appears to be of limited relevance in dealing with all types of administrative problems and their solution, since the complexity and variability of human nature, motivations and behaviour preclude the attainment of precision that is so characteristic of the physical sciences. Value-oriented or normative problems and issues of organisation cannot really be explained or interpreted in terms of the behavioural approach.
Systems Approach
One of the most significant landmarks in the evolution of organisation theory is the development of general systems concept for organisational analysis. The origin of general systems is traced to the thinking of the biologist Von Bertalanffy, in the twenties. But it was only due to the quest of a number of post-World War II scholars for a body of concepts lending unity to studies, undertaken in various disciplines, that the concept of 'system' was developed. In short, general systems theory orginated in a movement aimed at the unification of science and scientific analysis. The term 'system' has been defined as a complex whole, a set of connected things or parts. According to this approach in organisational analysis, an organisation can be considered a social system to be studied in its totality. In other words, a system is a collection of interrelated parts which receives inputs, acts upon them in an organised or planned manner and thereby produces certain outputs.
There is a growing trend to place all types of organisations within the broad framework of general systems theory. A system is seen as an assembly of interdependent parts (sub-systems) who interact among themselves. Interdependence implies that a change in one part influences other parts, ultimately affecting the entire system. Individuals are viewed as the basic unit of organisational systems.
All human organisations are open sub-systems engaged in transactions within the larger social system, that is, society. All sub-systems receive inputs in the form of human and material resources from the larger system, while giving out outputs in the form of products, services or rewards to its members as well as to the larger system.
40
Other features of organisational sub-systems are: they are adaptive; they affect the larger system as well as are affected by it; they are dynamic in the sense that they undergo continuous change as a result of interaction with other sub-systems within the larger social system.
The chief contributour to systems analysis in organisational theory is Herbert Simon. Simon views the organisation as a total system, a composite of all the sub-systems which serve to produce the desired output. His basic assumption is that the elements of organisational structure and function emanate from the characteristics of human problem-solving processes and rational choice.6 Therefore, the organisation is viewed as a system comprising individuals making choices and behaving on the basis of their reactions to their needs and environment.
The chief value of the systems approach lies in the systematic search for significant interactions while evaluating policies or actions of any organisation. What systems analysts are set to achieve is to predict the system's movements by interpreting the relationships between its parts.
The systems approach is particularly relevant to the study of large public organisations operating in larger social, political and economic environments.
C. West Churchman7 draws attention to five basic considerations in relation to the systems approach to management:
1. The total objectives of the system and the measures of system's performance.
2. The system's environment acting as a constraint.
3. The system's resources that are put to use in performance.
4. The system's components and its goals and activities.
5. The management of the system (the regulating and decision-making aspect).
The organisation has been conceived by many administrative thinkers as a socio-technical system comprising both the social and technical variables. It is not merely an assembly of buildings, money, machines and processes. The system consists in the organisation of people around various technologies, whose motivation, behaviour and relationships determine both the quality and quantity of its inputs and outputs.
As Miller and Rice put it: "Any enterprise may be seen as an open system which has characteristics in common with a
41
biological organism. An open system exists, and can exist, only by exchanging materials with its environment. It imports materials, transforms them by means of conversion processes, consumes the products of conversion for internal maintenance, and exports the rest. Directly or indirectly, it exchanges its outputs for further intake, including more resources to maintain itself. These import-conversion-export processes are the work the enterprise has to do if it is to live."8
The systems approach to organisational analysis is now widely used. This approach can take into account more variables and interrelationships while looking at an organisational problem in the framework of a larger system. Another important dimension is the interaction between a system and its environment. The underlying assumption of the systems approach is that there is a continuous mutual interaction between the system and its environment. This conceptualisation was to eventually become the precursor of the 'ecological' approach to organisational study.
Structural Functional Approach
The structural functional approach as an analytical tool in the social sciences developed from the work of the anthropologist Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown in the early years of the present century. The important followers of this approach are Gabriel Almond, David Apter, Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton and Fred Riggs. The two concepts basic to the approach are structure and function. All social structures exist to perform certain functions. While functions concern the consequences of patterns of action, structures refer to the patterns of actions and the resultant institutions of the systems themselves.
The structural functional framework provides an important mechanism for the analysis of different social processes. In structural functionalism social structure is viewed as 'any pattern of behaviour which has become a standard feature of a social system.' There may be 'concrete' structures (e.g., government departments and bureaus) or 'analytic' (e.g., structure of authority or power). All social structures perform some 'functions'. In structural functional terms, a 'function' involves 'a pattern of interdependence' between two or more structures, a relationship between variables. It refers to "any consequences of a structure in so far as they affect other structures or the total system of which they are a part."9
42
The structural functional categories presuppose a systems framework. The experts can locate the structures they want to analyse and their functions, e.g., to analyse the working of bureaucracy in any society it is first defined and identified in structural functional terms. Structurally bureaucracy is viewed as an administrative system possessing features such as hierarchy, specialisation, system of rules, and role specificity. The set of behavioural characteristics identified with bureaucracy are rationality, impersonality, rule orientation and neutrality. However, it may be clarified at the outset that there is no clear and direct relationship between structures and functions. All similar structures do not necessarily perform similar functions. A social structure may perform multiple functions and similarly one function may be performed by more than one structure. Structural-functionalists have helped to clarify the general misconception that similar structures in diverse environments perform similar functions or that absence of certain structures implies that particular functions are not being performed in particular social systems.
Notwithstanding the fact that structure and functions are not uniform in all societies various scholars of this approach have laid down what they consider certain necessary structural and functional prerequisites for the emergence of a society. Though various scholars have laid down different "prerequisites," these requisite functions have been greatly helpful in the comparative analysis of different social systems.
According to Riggs, there are five functional requisites of any society. These are economic, social, communicational, symbolic and political.10 He has applied these functional requisites to the study of the administrative sub-system. Later he developed his Agraria-Transitia-Industria Model for the comparative study of administrative systems as a part of the wider social system.
Since then various other thinkers have adopted this approach in comparative public administration. This approach has helped to prove the vital points of difference between the administrative culture and processes of the developing and developed societies.
Certain structures of developing societies, which though apparently dysfunctional from the western point of view, may prove to be functional in their own social or political milieu. In developed societies, structures and functions may be relatively
43
differentiated and autonomous in operation, unlike developing ones where functions may be differentiated, but the structures which perform these functions are rarely seperate or distinct.
Ecological Approach
Various scholars and administrators have often referred to the need to relate public administration to the environment in which it functions. 'Ecology' refers to "the mutual relations, collectively, between organism and their environment". The ecological perspective in the study of public administration was introduced primarily through the writings of John Gaus, who first elaborated this approach in his Reflections of Public Administration in 1945. Gaus advocated the concept of relating government functions to the environment which included such factors as people, situation, scientific technology, social technology, wishes and ideas, catastrophe and personality. These factors, he concluded, must be included in the 'ecological' study of public administration."
The ecological approach assumes that administrative behaviour is peculiarly moulded by the values of the administrative culture in which it functions, the administrative culture in turn being an outgrowth of the interaction of values and traits of the administrative system with the social system as a whole.
The ecological approach is further based on the idea that an administrative system may not act as an independent variable in all circumstances. It acts and reacts under the influence of various sub-systems surrounding it. There is a great degree of interdependence between all social organisations and their ecological settings—which include among others topography, population, level of physical and social technology and the interrelationships and interactions between people and organisations. Organisations, structures, procedures and goals are largely created and changed as a result of the interaction between an organisation and its environment. Thus, if an organisation is to survive it must
adapt itself to the changing needs and conditions of its external environment which is continuously changing. In a highly industrialised and developed society like the USA the system of government and administration must not only cater to public needs and demands, but also to the compulsions of the American economy. The level of production and consumption of material goods is the highest
44
in the USA compared to any other country in the world. Therefore, the administrative framework most favoured in that country is a free market system through which Americans are able to make free choices in production and consumption. A capitalistic economy with a democratic system of minimum state intervention and controls is what the Americans have found suitable and that has existed in the country with only minor variations from time to time.
In developing countries the two main goals of administration are nation-building and socio-economic progress. Administration in these countries functions in an environment of scarcity and multiple pressures and controls.
Most of these ex-colonial developing countries inherited an authoritarian and unresponsive administrative culture, from their colonial days, which they carried into their systems even after the post-independence adoption of rationalist western models of administration. It has often been found that mere imposition of western administrative systems on the developing societies did not lead to their functioning in the same manner as they did in the West. The Weberian model of bureaucracy, for example, has been found to be dysfunctional for development in the Third World societies.
Fred W. Riggs is one of the foremost exponents of the ecological approach in public administration. On the basis of certain functional prerequisites of a social system, Riggs attempted a variety of models and typologies such as the "Agraria-transitia-industria" and fused-prismatic-diffracted societies.12 His quest for an ecological perspective in cross-cultural studies led him mainly to the field of development administration. His ecological models emphasise an open system perspective that attempts to describe and analyse the interaction between the administrative sub-system and the wider social system.
Robert Dahl's advocacy of an ecological approach was based on what he stated were three problematic issues:
i) Administrative generalisations based on the experience of one nation-state cannot be universally applied to administrative systems in all kinds of diverse environmental settings,
ii) Before formulating theories and concepts of administration, it is necessary to empirically test their validity in all types of social settings to see what is universal.
45
This implies that pubic administration must be truly interdisciplinary and ecological in character, not only to widen its horizon but to make its study more scientific and relevant to all types of societies.
The great merit of this approach lies in the value and relevance of studying people in relation to their environment, taking into consideration their peculiar characteristics and problems. Public cooperation is a vital input for the successful operation of any administrative system. Unless the administration caters to particular public needs, wishes, activities and problems it cannot ask for public cooperation to the extent desired. In the third world countries, public administration is ridden with corruption, inertia and inefficiency. To improve its functioning one has to suggest solutions and reforms keeping in mind the peculiar history, customs, traditions and culture of the people coupled with their present needs and aspirations. Every popular, efficient and democratic administration must be ecological in character and approach.
Public Policy Approach
The general concern of the social sciences for social engineering has resulted in the laying of emphasis on public policy. The study of public administration has also been influenced by the public policy perspective. The abandonment of the politics-administration dichotomy made the public policy approach agreeable to administrative analysis.
Evidence from the practical world of administration has brought out the criteria of a close nexus between politics and administration. As governments seek to formulate and implement more and more welfare programmes, policy studies in public administration will gather momentum. At this stage, the study of public administration has no doubt been gaining in social relevance, but its boundaries as a descriptive study are not as clearly distinguishable now as they used to be in the olden days of politics administration dichotomy. The discipline, to many public administration analysts, has gained in vigour, but it has suffered a crisis of identity with its diversification and strength.
46
Political Economy Approach
Another development in the study of public administration is brought about by the adoption of the political economy approach to the analysis of administrative problems. This is associated with the moving of political science closer to economics in the interest of greater theoretical coherence and better policy guidance. Economists like Anthony Downs and Gordon Tullock have adopted the interdiciplinary approach by experimenting with the application of economic methods and models to political problems. Thus public administration as a branch of political science and on its own has moved closer to economics.
The liberal democratic tradition in the evolution of public administration as described above shows that starting with an assertion of independent identity it has moved towards the assimilation of ideas, methods and techniques of different social science disciplines. Thus the scope of the discipline seems to be broadening while the question of its identity yet remains to be solved completely.
Marxian Traditions
The October Revolution of 1917 had generated debate among the Marxists on the role of bureaucracy in Russia. But the Marxist interest in the bureaucracy, organisation and management became pronounced only in the decade following World War II, and developed in a number of directions.
We have go back to Marx to understand the classical Marxist view of bureaucracy. Although Marx has not paid much attention to the concept of bureaucracy, his views on bureaucracy and its relation to the power structure of society found in his major works provide an important clue to the understanding of the later developments in the Marxist thought on bureaucracy. In the wider context of class struggle Marx regards bureaucracy as an instrument of the dominant ruling class, promoting its particular interests. Its existence and development thus have a transient and parasitic character. Marx envisaged that with the abolition of the classes, the State and its bureaucracy would 'wither away'. The 'withering away' of the bureaucracy would mean its gradual absorption into the society as a whole. Thus instead of having an oppressive structure, Marx visualised that in a Communist society, the functions of the bureacuracy would be taken over by the members of the society themselves. The administrative tasks,
47
by shedding their exploitative character, would come to mean administration of things and not of people.
The October Revolution in Russia and the establishment of socialist governments in many countries of the world in subsequent years led to experimentation with Marxian ideas. There has been in the socialist world a proliferation of bureaucracy and a growing tendency to apply Western management techniques. Lenin, like Marx, considered bureaucracy a transitional phenomenon. In contrast, the critics of the socialist system have put forward theories regarding the bureaucracy as a "New Class", i.e., a newly emerged class in socialist countries ruling in the name of the proletariat.
It is indisputable that Marxian studies of bureaucracy, its organisation and management have added a new dimension to the study of public administration and helped to develop it. The attempts of Stewart Clegg and David Dunkerly, Nicos Mouzelis, Braverman, and many others to build a radical organisation theory have led to some significant advances in the study of public organisation. Indeed, the Marxian traditions have placed the study of public administration in the wider perspective of social transformation.
Relations with History, Law, Economics, Political Science and Sociology
It is a well known fact that all social sciences are interrelated. Public administration, too, has close links not only with other social sciences like history, law, economics, political science and sociology but with pure sciences and technology as well. Therefore for an indepth study of public administration an interdisciplinary perspective may often be required.
Public Administration and History
History provides much of the required data for the study of public administration. The study of the administrative system of any country would remain incomplete without a proper historical background. The origin and growth of the various administrative institutions can be studied only with the help of history.
The historical approach is essentially based on the belief that knowledge of history is absolutely essential for an indepth study of any subject. For a proper understanding of the subject, the study of public administration of the past in particular periods, is
48
necessary to link it up with the present administrative systems. For example, for a proper understanding of the background and growth of administration in India, a historical perspective is essential. To understand the evolution of the administrative system in India, the characteristics of British Indian Administration and also the pre-British period have to be studied. White's two volumes, The Federalists (1948) and The Jeffersonians (1951), are important studies of the federal administration of the USA during the early years of the Republic. Biographical and autobiographical studies are also closely related to the historical approach. In Europe and America, reminiscences of ex-administrators reveal many important facts of administrative processes. Several volumes in the Rulers of India series and specialised studies dealing with tenures of particular governor generals during the British era, are important to the study of Indian administration of these periods.
Public Administration and Law
Exponents of the legal approach to the study of public administration would like to study public administration as part of law and concentrate on the formal legal structure and organisation of public bodies. Its chief concern has been with power—its structure and functions. Its stress is on the formal organisation of offices, official duties, limitations of power and discretionary authority of administrators. Its main sources are constitutions, codes of law, office manuals of rules and regulations and judicial decisions. Many countries of Europe like Germany, Belgium and France, have particularly applied the legal approach to the study of public administration. In these countries there are two principal divisions of law—constitutional and administrative. Whereas constitutional law deals with the three main organisations of the government, their interrelation and the distribution of power among them, administrative law is mainly concerned with the structure and functions of public bodies, departments and authorities. The legal approach is valuable for the understanding of the legal framework within which the administrative system has to operate, but by neglecting the informal forces operating in the organisation (the sociological and psychological variables), it remains to a great extent an incomplete approach to the study of public administration.
49
The study of administrative, constitutional and various other kinds of law is important for the public employees because systematic and detailed execution of public law is the responsibility of public administration. Moreover, enforcement of law is closely related to the judicial branch and other processes of adjudication, such as the laws governing the various tribunals.
Public Administration and Economics
The economic environment of a country deeply influences the nature, organisation and activities of public administration and vice versa. With almost similar levels of national character and work habits two nations may differ in their levels of production, e.g., the nation which has better institutional capacity to make the best use of limited resources will naturally produce more. Generally there is a correlation between the economic environment and administrative organisation of a country. We will now attempt to study this relation.
The economic system is one of the subsystems of society concerned with the production of goods and services and to meet the material needs and wants of the citizens. The economic system includes the entire productive process—factors and instruments of production, land, labour, capital and entrepreneurs, as well as the clients and consumers of goods, and services. The economic system is vitally connected with the administrative system in more than one way. Administration executes and implements policy, and the economic factor is one of the prime determinants of public policy.13
Marxist social thinkers view the entire political process as an outcome of the economic process; the economic system is the subsystem on which the entire superstructure of politics and administration is built. Liberal social scientists, though admitting substantial link between the economic and other subsystems of society, emphasise the autonomy of the political and economic structures in society, especially in industrial societies.
Economic systems can be of various patterns—feudal, capitalist, socialist and mixed economy type depending on the nature and level of socio-economic development and economic infrastructure existing in these societies. Different economic systems may co-exist with different types of government— monarchical, democratic and autocratic. But the only common element in any kind of economic or political system is the
50
existence of a public administrative structure which is indispensable to the proper functioning of both the economic and political systems. Economic activities are not exclusively carried out by economic structures of society, other structures—social, political or administrative—also perform economic functions. In the policy of laissez faire the intervention of the state in economic matters is minimum; administrative functions are mainly regulatory and negative in nature. With the advent of modern welfare states the economic intervention of the state has increased tremendously—specially in developing countries where the state not only provides basic utilities and a wide range of services, but undertakes the major responsibility of economic welfare and development. The entire administrative machinery of the state is geared to the tasks of nation-building and socio-economic progress. The
administration in a developing country is over-burdened with what may be called economic aspects of administration, that is, tasks related to administration of developmental programmes. Administration is expected to be the key instrument of socio-economic change and well-being of the citizens. The major component of development or modernisation is economic progress and the entire success of administration depends on how well it is able to perform these tasks.
Public Administration and Political Science
Politics and administration are the two sides of a single coin. Pfiffner states that in some instances politics and administration are so intermingled that a clear distinction is difficult. However some writers have developed a dichotomy between policy and administration. They believe that policy-making and its execution are the separate fields of politicians and administrators. There are many people who advocate the taking of administration out of politics, and the concept of civil service neutrality is an outcome of that.
Political science studies the phenomena of 'state' and 'government'. But recently, political science (or politics) has been described as the science of power. According to Raymond Aron, politics is the study of authority relations between individuals and groups, and the hierarchy of power which establishes itself within all numerous and complex communities. Public administration deals with the execution of public policy and enforcement of laws.
51
There are two other notable aspects of the relationship between public administration and political science. Firstly, political science is still a normative science, notwithstanding the stress by new approaches, like behaviouralism, on value free analysis. It therefore lays down the goals to be achieved by the government of a country. This is generally done in accordance with the professed ideology of the political leaders. In this way, they also define the framework for administrative practice. For example, these ideals may be democratic government, welfare state, a planned economy, etc.
Secondly, political science contributes greatly to the training of administrators. D. Waldo believes that political science is uniquely capable of contributing a scientific understanding of public administration and that it contributes more than any other discipline to the training of professional administrators.
Public Administration and Sociology
In sociology we study: (i) society, (ii) human interactions, in society, and (iii) social groups. Society and social relationships are always in the process of change. Government and administration exist for society. While the former determines goals to be achieved, the latter helps in achieving them. In the process of administering laws, public administration becomes one of the most important instruments of social change.
Public administration is deeply influenced by the social structure, values, traditions, culture and aspirations of a nation. Administrators area product of their socio-cultural milieu. Their attitude to life and work is moulded by current social attitudes which in turn moulds their administrative behaviour and work. Consciously or unconsciously every administrator's decisions will carry the stamp of the environment he lives in, its social philosophy, cultural biases and peculiarities. Most of the administrative problems of developing countries are rooted in their cultural milieu. When these countries try to adopt successful administrative processes or institutions of the West they very often have to encounter cultural hurdles. The public may adopt an attitude of suspicion or apathy and refuse to cooperate with the administrators in implementing new or modem programmes. Every new innovative programme, even though welfare-oriented, may be simply resisted because they are alien to the people. US society is market-oriented, intensely competitive and
52
individualistic. In such a society survival demands that every individual put in one's best. People are efficiency conscious since their environment requires it. In India a fatalistic attitude to life breeds a lackadaisical attitude to work in most people. Other peculiarities of administration in traditional societies which are a product of their distinct socio-cultural experience and environment are: civil service as a profession has higher social status compared to private employment; most educated young men prefer government service as a career; however, recruitment is often not entirely on merit since various kinds of pressure are brought upon the recruiting authorities due to acute problems of unemployment; government jobs have permanent tenure, job security, however, leading often to lethargy, red tape and inertia in work; there is a lot of difference in age, official seniority and social rank in various levels of administration and interaction remains few and far between; governmental administration increases by leaps and bounds since public employment becomes a channel to relieve unemployment; nepotism and corruption are rampant; attitude to work is rarely professional and there is usually a lack of skilled personnel for higher level posts.
Notes and References
1. Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, May ] 938.
2. Herbert Simon, Administrative Behaviour, Macmillan, New York, 1987.
3. Robert Presthus, "Behaviour and Bureaucracy in Many Cultures", Public Administration Review, XIX (1959), pp. 25-35; Michael Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.
4. Pai Panandikar has made an empirical analysis of values and behaviour of India's developmental administrators; Roy and Kothari have made an empirical study of the relationship between the politicians and administrators of a UP district; Kuldeep Mathur has studied the background, approaches and values of Sub-divisional Development Officers of UP and Rajasthan; and C.P. Bhambhri has studied the behavioural patterns of IAS officers.
5. Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration: An Ecological Perspective, Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979, p. 16.
53
6. Herbert Simon and James March, Organisations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1959, p. 169.
7. C. West Churchman, The Systems Approach, Dell, New York, 1968.
8. E.J. Miller and A.K. Rice, Systems of Organisation, Tavistock Publication, London, 1976, p. 3.
9. Ramesh K. Arora, op. cit., p. 106.
10. F.W. Riggs, "Trends in the Comparative Study of Administration", in IRAS 28 (1962).
11. J.M. Gaus, Reflections of Public Administration, University of Alabama Press, 1947.
12. Fred W. Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964.
13. Ryan C. Amacher, R.D. Tellison and T.D. Wellet (eds.), The Economic Approach to Public Policy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1976.
54
3 IMPORTANCE AND CHALLENGES IN SOCIETIES
Role in the Modern State
The importance of public administration has been steadily increasing with the gradual expansion of state activity in modern times. Public administration is now an all-encompassing factor of the daily life of the individual as well as the community, which has seen the emergence of what has now been labelled the "Administrative State". The functions of public administration have shown a universal trend of expansion everywhere, whether in capitalist socialist or the developing countries of the Third World. The early liberal notion of a laissez-faire state which was to be responsible only for the maintenance of law and order (i.e., philosophy of minimum state intervention in the daily life of the individual and community) has become totally outmoded and irrelevant today. The modern state has undertaken the new role of accelerator of economic and social change as well as the major responsibility for providing modern amenities of life, education, health, improved means of transport and wider opportunities for employment to its citizens.
The major factors which have led to the great expansion of state functions are, firstly, the rise of industrialisation and the resulting growth of urbanisation; secondly, change in the political philosophy of the state (from individualism to social welfarism); thirdly, the two World Wars and the resulting international situation which has also tended to largely increase the functions of the state. The fourth important factor is the vast increase in the population of most of the countries which has immensely complicated the problem of providing food, shelter and other necessities of life to their citizens. This has led to the adoption of planning on the part of many states to solve the ever growing problems of administration. These factors taken together led to the emergence of what is called the Great Society, which in turn contributed to the establishment of 'Big Government' in almost every advancing country. Big Government, in the words of F.M.
55
Marx, requires a large apparatus to carry on its many functions. Public administration, therefore, seeks to achieve new and positive objectives. The fundamental principles of the welfare state have greatly
transformed the work of public administration, with the result that the older regulatory functions have become much less prominent and the newly created departments for rendering various social services as well as for pursuing development and research have assumed greater importance.
Gladden lays down three general characteristics of an efficient system of public administration:
1) It must be capable of meeting the functional aims for which it has been brought into being.
2) It must be able to meet the long term changes postulated both by the alterations in the social environment and by the general development of administrative technique.
3) It must, while conforming to a centralised plan, be capable of meeting the various special demands of the separate departmental units.1
Apart from efficiency and integrity the administrator needs to have a human approach to all problems and programmes that he has to solve and implement. This implies that he must have the spirit of service to the community which is absolutely essential in democracies. Also (1) he should possess a broad outlook on public affairs; (2) his only aim should be to help the public rather than get bogged down with a rigid and mechanical implementation of rules and regulations; (3) he should have the capacity to judge upon relevant advice and take the decisions promptly; and (4) when a decision has been taken, the administrator should inspire and motivate his staff at all ranks to execute it effectively. Every successful administration should be result-oriented, speedy and prompt in meeting the demands of the public. What is needed is not a 'procedure-oriented' bureaucracy, but a 'performance oriented' one.
Today public administration relates to the whole of society and the political economy. Thus assuming its overwhelming importance, the question may now be asked: What is the criteria of successful administration? What is the ideal administrator supposed to do to achieve success in his job? The answer depends on the norms we lay down for judging the success or measuring the worth of any administrative system. The norms of an
56
administrative system are both old and new. Traditional norms— efficiency, economy, good management and public interest—are well established measures of judging the success of any administrative system. To these old ones can be added: socio-economic progress, equality and justice. Inequality among men and nations has been one of the most critical social, economic and political characteristics of our time. Widespread inequalities provide the breeding ground for social fermentation, dissent and alienation. A public administration which accelerates these problems or does nothing to ameliorate them will be unpopular and shortsighted in approach. A vigorous goal-oriented and dynamic administration catering to required social change corresponds to the present climate. Fundamental to this concept of administration is the premise that administration must be value oriented and not value neutral, since value neutrality is neither probable nor desirable in existing class divided societies.
In most democratic countries the government represents the people's choice and administration becomes an instrument for the welfare and service of the people. The twin pillars of democracy are liberty and equality, hence the measure of successful administration is to be judged by the extent to which the administration has served these goals.
The public administrators in all countries should accept their role as servants of the public devoted to the realisation of public interests and general well-being. Richard L. Chapman and Frederic N. Cleveland state that:2
i) The future administrator will be more of a moral leader, mediator and coordinator than mere issuer of orders;
ii) he will learn to be a tactician and politician as he will be subject to vastly increased political pressures; and
iii) he may be also called upon to act as agent of change.
The future administrator has to know as much of management, economics and sociology as history, law and politics. The increased complexity of social change and administrative arrangements will make the tasks of the administration more difficult and challenging. He will have to be innovative, adaptable, knowledgeable and perceptive in his assessment of men and situations in order to achieve success in his operations.
57
To be effective in the eighties public organisations will need to be increasingly more responsive. The key to responsiveness is organisational adaptability to change. The processes of social, economic and political change will continue to accelerate, making it vitally important that organisations adapt. Organisation leaders must learn to anticipate social, economic and political change and to capitalise on it. There will be conditions under which the patterns of change will require organisational growth. But there will be equally as many and perhaps more situations in which these change processes will require organisational decline, cutback and devolution. The good administrator in the eighties and beyond will be effective at scanning the political, economic and social horizons and leading the processes of adaptation to growth or decline. Change is more likely to be the result of imaginative policies and difficult economic, political and social choices than the application of technological solutions.
The effective public administrator will continue to be the "rational calculator" of different ways of implementing public policies. He will have to learn to satisfy conflicting public demands and understand the continual need of increasing public services with fixed resources. Administrative success will come to be measured by concrete success in implementation. This will require the administrator to be fully involved in the processes of choice making and planning. Good administrators will be planners, and blend the processes of planning and administration. The Fulton Committee for civil service reform set up in UK recommended increasing professionalisation of the civil services to meet the changing needs of the times. Administrators have to keep abreast of the rapid changes in knowledge and technology and know how to implement them in the changing socio-economic environment of our times. With the increasing diversification of tasks of the civil services, there is no room for the 'amateur' in administration now. What is needed is a 'specialist' or a 'professional' civil servant who has acquired the requisite professional training and is truly dedicated and 'committed' to the goals and objectives of his service.
Public administration in the current decades will have to face a host of challenges, continuous loads and pressures that will put its adaptability and performance capacity to a severe test. If man is to survive in the face of nuclear threats, overpopulation,
58
environmental pollution, rapid technological change coupled with increasing societal turbulence, public administration will have to learn to decentralise, democratise and humanise itself, says Gerald Caiden. Public administration in any case has to face continuous dilemmas pulling it in opposite directions. Administration in modern society has become an all pervasive affair through political direction,
economic management, social engineering and increased bureaucratisation. On the other hand, in modern administrative states this has resulted in an opposite backlash in the growing demand for decentralisation, democratisation, and increased public participation in administration. Frustrated underprivileged groups in every society display considerable loss of confidence in public institutions, and create constant tensions in society by refusing to assimilate. Both industrial and developing societies face social tensions and upheavals in some form or the other.
In fact the current worldwide rise in social violence and turbulence may be one of the first symptoms of the incapacity of organisational societies to cope with social change and rising population expectations induced by technological change. In every modern state, it is the adaptive capacity of the administrative culture which plays a key role in maintaining social harmony and order in societies. Unless the administrative system is geared to keep pace with cultural transformation, social discontent, alienation1 and violence may ultimately lead to the breakdown of the social fabric.3
Public administration, as Orion White points out, has to be revamped to cope with the organisational demands of the technological imperative, and to cope with the necessities of the social imperatives.
The conventional image of the public administrator has been adverse. Bureaucracy has been viewed as synonymous with red tape, rigidity, conservatism, ineptitude in dealing with change and crisis, and conformist patterns of behaviour. Bureaucrats, in general, have a tendency to suppress grievances, cover up mistakes, and ridicule complaints. The new breed of administrators are expected to be more innovative, aware of new administrative techniques and more responsive to public demands. By recognising emerging problems, minimising delay and formality, they have to learn to act promptly and with
59
precision. Administration must be capable of quick improvisation and willingness to assume new responsibilities.
To cope with current societal problems the modern bureaucrat will have to acquire multiple roles, such as:4
a) Crusading reformer, intent on transforming some aspect of community life according to preconceived notions of the ideal society.
b) Proactive policy formulator, ready with possible strategies to meet the unknown.
c) Social change agent, ready to accept new ideals and to push others into accepting them also.
d) Crisis manager, slow to burn but quick to act, and brilliant at immediate improvisation.
e) Dynamic programme manager, able to shape new courses and adapt on-going arrangements.
f) Humanitarian employer, treating staff with respect and meting out even-handed justice.
g) Political campaigner, responsive to public needs and champion of public causes.
h) Competent administrator, ensuring effective performance with minimum political embarrassment,
i) Interest broker choosing among competing interests and reconciling all parties to the outcome.
j) Public relations expert, adept at building up support and showing his area to advantage,
k) Speedy decision maker, prepared to assume responsibility and clear instructions.
1) Constructive thinker, not easily lead astray by others who would want to make up his mind for him.
m) Optimistic leader, not easily discouraged in adversity, but able to command attention and stimulate subordinates.
Obviously, to expect every bureaucrat to be so versatile is to be unrealistic perhaps, and expect the unattainable. However, the attempt should be to approximate as closely as possible the ideal in practice. The ideal best serves as a pointer to which education, training and recruitment systems for bureaucrats should aim. In practice every administrator will perform as best as he can given the socio-economic, cultural, environmental and operational constraints at any given period of time.
60
Variables for successful administration are identified as follows:5
a) Recognise new solutions rather than modify old ones.
b) Reformulate problems in new terms to elicit new responses and initiatives.
c) Turn crisis to advantage; use deviation and conflict in problem-solving to generate self-transformation with minimum alienation.
d) Deal with uncertainty and fluidity and absorb change, instability and interdependence.
e) Tolerate deviation, conflict, and confrontation without overreading or losing sense of proportion.
f) Mobilise resources to meet problems and engage in interdisciplinary problem-solving.
g) Encourage error-correction, initiative and creativity, and learn from mistakes.
h) Learn from experience and uncertainty.
i) Remain human and humane under stress.
It is within this framework of universal norms that the administrator of today should try to operate in future in the environment of any administrative system at any given period of time.
The importance of public administration in the modern age is universally recognised, but there is no general agreement on the ends it is supposed to serve in all societies. In the context of the developing countries of the Third World, a new perspective of administration known as 'development administration' has been evolved catering to the changing needs and socio-cultural context of administration in these states. The twin goals of development administration are nation-building and progress. It involves the establishment of an administrative machinery to plan the mobilisation of all available resources to raise the standard of living of the people. The rapid transformation of developing societies towards progress and development in all spheres of life needs extensive governmental intervention. Public administration must become more change oriented, dynamic and involved. In short, there is need for debureaucratisation of attitudes of the public personnel in these countries. With the great advancement of science and invention of new managerial techniques the problem of administration has become so complex
61
that despite the adoption of right policies, wrong administrative steps may lead to societal breakdown or considerable chaos and disruption. Therefore, in the words of Fayol, the pursuit of greater knowledge of public administration becomes the essential element in modern times. While Paul Pigors contends that the main purpose of administration is to preserve the status quo in society, Brooks Adams regards administration as a chief agent of social change. There is no limit to the service which the state is called upon to perform. The increase in the variety, number and complexity of functions that have to be performed by the modern state, often results in an 'administrative lag' in many countries, specially those of the Third World. A serious imbalance often develops between aspirations and performance which may constitute a major obstacle to national development. The task of every successful administration should be to continually try to bridge the gap between aspirations and performance and develop the administrative capacity to implement its programmes of economic and social progress. Therefore, in conclusion, to quote Charles Beard:
The future of civilised government and even, I think, of civilisation itself, rests upon our ability to develop a service and philosophy and a practice of administration competent to discharge the public functions of civilised society.
Attaining Democratic and Socialistic Goals
The two ends of the public administration in most welfare states of modern times are the widespread democratisation of administration and the achievement of progressive social equity. Every philosophy of administration has to take into consideration the political, social and cultural milieu in which it functions. For the citizens of a great part of the Western world headed by the USA and England the political environment is democratic. In India both democracy and socialism have been adopted as the twin objectives of the Constitution and state policy.
There is a general school of thinking that administration being a universal prerequisite of all states, its methods and techniques of functioning are also the same everywhere. Experience has, however, contradicted this tenor of argument. The spirit and temper of public administration is deeply influenced by the type of government which operates it. In autocratic governments administration tends to become
62
despotic. Similarly, the first requirement of a democratic government is a democratic administration. A democratic government by itself is no guarantee to democratic administration. It often happens that the political system is democratic, but administration due to its past political and administrative culture may not be truly democratic in the spirit of its functioning. India is a classic example of the above statement. After independence a democratic system of government was adopted but there is the repeated complaint that the administration still retains its historical and colonial authoritarian legacies in character and style of functioning. Experience has also shown that even where administrative posts were elective (e.g., in the USSR) administration was no less bureaucratic. Whether an administration is more democratic or bureaucratic in nature can be measured from its behaviour pattern towards the citizens and with its own members. In his famous book Democratic Administration, Ordway Tead discusses the essential features of a democratic public administration in the following manner:
In the first place in a democratic administration people must be guaranteed the maximum opportunities for participation in the making and implementation of public policies. One way of guaranteeing this is through a vigorous system of decentralisation of authority by local self-government institutions such as village panchayats and municipalities. Other ways of soliciting people's participation are by attaching
advisory committees and boards, comprising representatives of enlightened citizens and interested groups of persons, with the administrative departments at managerial levels, and second, by seeking the affected citizens' participation in the actual implementation of the administration's programmes, as is done in the community development administration in India. The Government of India has been making very liberal use of the advisory and consultative bodies at all (central, state and district) levels of administration. The association of such bodies enables the administrators to appreciate the people's viewpoint and is also a good means of seeking the willing cooperation of all affected parties in policy implementation.
Political direction and accountability is one of the chief features of a democratic administration. According to this concept, the civil servants should work according to the will of
63
the political executive, that is, the ministers who are representatives of the people, who are in turn responsible to the Parliament for their actions. Further, in most democratic governments, the actions of administration are subject to judicial review. In a written constitution like India's the civil servants are bound to act within the framework of laws and the constitution. In the constitution, there are built-in judicial safeguards against the use of arbitrary authority of administration. The need for judicial control has become all the more imperative because of the tremendous growth of administrative law and adjudication which have greatly expanded the powers of the bureaucracy.
Democratic administration should be open in more senses than one. The policies of the government must be open to public criticism. The government should have enough respect for public opinion and public liberties, such as the freedom of the press, and the right of association and demonstration. The administration should be responsive to popular criticism and opinion and should make every effort to express the public will. An efficient system of public relations must be developed at all levels of administration for the quick and effective redressal of citizens' grievances. It must also be open in the sense of maintaining and representing as wide a section of the population as possible and must not operate in the interest of the ruler or of any particular group or class. If administration is to function democratically social barriers of caste, class, regionalism, provincialism or lingualism must not be allowed to create obstacles in the path of its free and fair functioning. It must be recruited from a wide social strata. Democratic administration is in reality a cooperative enterprise in which the governmental agencies, professional and other citizen groups cooperatively endeavour for the attainment of public welfare. In developed democratic countries, people's participation in administration is very well organised; voluntary associations play an important role and public administration is truly a cooperative enterprise. However, in developing countries of the Third World, where civic consciousness is quite undeveloped and voluntary associations are still in a formative stage, the main burden of administrative
work falls on the bureaucracy, which in most countries still tends to be authoritarian and paternalistic in its attitude and manner of working.
64
Democratic administration also means a particular style of functioning in the internal matters of the organisation. In democratic administration the stress is not only on the importance of relations between the civil servants and citizens but also on the relations of the civil servants inter se. Public administration, like the functioning of any large organisation may acquire a callous impersonality in relation to its own members, where an individual employee becomes a mere cog in a huge machine. It is the duty of every employee in public organisations, whether he is in a high or a low position, to treat a fellow employee as an equal partner in a joint enterprise. The managerial heads in government organisations should have the dynamic force of leadership to motivate the employees more by their power of persuasion than in any imposed manner. All matters of dispute between the management and the employees should be sorted out by mutual consultation and negotiations which do not in any way hurt the self-esteem and sentiments of the employees. In the UK and other democratic countries of the West there are regular joint representative committees and negotiating machinery in each department and agency of the government. In India they are called Staff Councils.
Finally, since it has now been universally recognised that the twin pillars of democracy are liberty and equality, the purpose of democratic administration should be to serve both these ends. In order to achieve these twin objectives in countries like India, it became imperative to adopt the goal of a social welfare state dedicated to achieving social equity through planning and democratic socialism. The basic objective of socialism is to achieve rapid improvement in the living standards of people through as much equitable distribution of goods and services as possible. Socialism is a necessary concomitant of political democracy. Liberty also means freedom from want and equality of opportunity in every sphere for its true realisation. In India, economic planning became a necessity to achieve socialistic goals. The impact of the socialistic policies of the government can be felt in three ways: (i) the assumption by the state of developmental and social welfare functions, (ii) the expansion in the scope and range of administrative operations both old and new, and (iii) the felt need for greater association of the people with, and their participation in, the administrative process, to facilitate speedy and effective implementation of the plans.
65
Critics often point out the difficulties in trying to achieve socialism through democratic methods. They tend to maintain that the very concept of planning is antithetic to democracy, since in a planned society, many liberties may have to be curbed and freedoms of citizens restricted in the greater interest of public
welfare. It is true that some rights of a few may have to be curbed to enable the underprivileged many to enjoy the fruits of liberty and to ensure a more equalitarian distribution of goods and services. Socialism and planning involve a certain measure of centralisation and increase in the sphere of state powers. However, every effort should be made to make the administration more socialistically controlled and accountable to the public through greater degree of decentralisation at all levels.
Another widely held notion is that too much emphasis on people's participation in politics and socialisation of means of production leads to inefficiency and bureaucratisation. No doubt, there is an element of truth in this assertion but this may only happen in the early stages of democratisation and socialisation of administration. Democracy and socialism will have to grow roots in a country to be able to work harmoniously together in the long run.
Challenges in Developed Societies
The term 'developed' societies here will be used to mean all those developed countries of Western Europe and the USA where industrialisation has produced an identifiable change in economic structure and growth followed later by political and administrative modernisation. 'Development' and 'modernisation' both imply in a broad sense societal transformations involving a complex of economic, social and political changes. "An individual country may simultaneously exhibit some traits that appear to be developed and others that appear to be less developed. Some features of public administration may likewise appear developed, while others in the same country—indeed in the same capital city—may resemble the administrative features of a less developed country. There are differences in public administration at each pole of the development continuum that do not reflect the stage of development as much as they reflect peculiar historical experiences or cultural traits."6 Riggs has defined development as "a process of increasing autonomy (discretion) of social systems,
66
and made possible, by rising level of 'diffraction'. While discretion is the ability to choose among alternatives, 'diffraction' refers to the degree of differentiation and integration in a social system."7
Social scientists tend to disagree among themselves about the characteristics of development. Economists equate it with the capacity to produce a high level of material output or resources in relation to size of population—translated in concrete terms such as industrial and agricultural produce, raw material, national and per capita income. Others focus on the forms of social and economic organisation of developed countries like a relative measure of:
1. justice and equality;
2. Utilisation of modern technology;
3. Criteria of rewards based on achievement rather than ascription; and
4. Political and administrative modernisation.
However, the concept of political modernisation is itself tricky, subject as it is to multiple connotations. Eisenstadt and Diamant equate political development with the ability of a political system to grow or adjust to new demands upon it. Gabriel Almond, using "change" as the synonym for "development" defines political change as the "acquisition of a new capability, in the sense of a specialised role, structure and differentiated orientation which together give the political system the possibility of responding efficiently, and more or less autonomously, to a new range of problems."8 However, La Palombara has objected to the use of the concept for three reasons. Firstly, he says it leads to the erroneous implication that a "modern" political system is one that exists in industrial societies with a high level of material development. Secondly, the concept is value-laden, using Western standards of modernity. Thirdly, he thinks that such a term suggests "a deterministic unilinear theory of political evolution" which is not what it should be.9
Some of the important features of the administrative systems of the developed societies, which despite individual differences, can be distinguished as a group from other developing countries, are as follows:
1. Governmental organisation is highly differentiated and functionally specific and the allocation or roles are based
67
more on achievement criteria than on ascriptive ones. The bureaucracy is marked by a high degree of internal specialisation. Recruitment of personnel is generally based on merit.
2. Laws and political decisions are largely rational. Traditional elites have lost real power, if any, to affect public policy making.
3. Government and administration have become all pervasive, affecting all major spheres of the life of citizens.
4. There is high correlation between political power and legitimacy since popular interest and involvement in public affairs is widespread.
Incumbents of political or governmental office are widely viewed as legitimate holders of those positions and transfer of power and positions tend to occur in accordance with prescribed rules and procedures.
Some of the characteristics have been reflected in the nature of the public administration of these developed societies:10
1. Public bureaucracies are large, and organisationally complex with diverse functions, divided as they are in numerous units and sub-units. These units require personnel both of a generalist and technical character, and together they represent the full range of occupational specialisations that are found in those societies. Structurally and functionally the bureaucracies tend to resemble the Weberian type.
2. The bureaucracy exhibits to a marked degree professionalism both in the sense of identification with the public service as a profession and in the sense of belonging to a narrower field of professional or technical specialisation within the service, such as law, engineering or social work. This professional outlook is the result of various factors, such as educational background, career orientation and standards of competence applied in recruitment to the public service as against private sector.
3. Due to the relative stability of political systems, in these societies, the bureaucracy is more fully developed, its role in the political process is fairly clear and it is generally accepted in practice as an autonomous institution. In functional terms, the bureaucracy is primarily involved in
68
rule application, performing secondary functions of rule-making and interest aggregation to a limited extent.
4. The bureaucracy in a modernised polity will be subject to effective policy control by other functionally specific political institutions.
The tasks of public administration in developed societies do not differ in theory from other societies where the primary task of public administration is to implement public laws and policies. However, as empirical studies have proved that numerous linkages exist between the features of an administrative system and their environment, the role and challenges of public administration in developed societies have to be viewed in their particular socio-economic and cultural context. The history of public administration as an activity and as a discipline is inextricably linked with the administrative evolution of industrial societies. The development of modern sciences and technology in industrial societies has led to a tremendous impact on the life of the people and the activities of the government. Industrialisation has created huge organisations. These in turn have created complex problems of social cooperation and administrative coordination, which if not met in time, may cause the ruin of society. Unless the structure and functions of social organisations and management practices keep pace with the increased powers that science and technology have placed in the hands of man, these inventions may bring the doom of man.
The great extension of the basic communication network in these societies has greatly widened the effective scope of administrative activity, while simultaneously increasing the responsibilities of public administration and causing it to reach out for new means of fulfilling its new duties and growing role. The public services in developed societies do not differ in theory, organisation or technique from the administration in developing societies but in practice differences inevitably crop up due to the difference in environment. Most of the developed societies are democratic welfare states, where the public administration has a challenging role to play in order to fulfil its democratic and welfare tasks, it has to be both responsive and responsible to the public. The citizens of advanced developed societies are used to effective and efficient public services. Bureaucracies have to perform both routine and welfare tasks as efficiently and economically as possible, within a specific time framework.
69
The citizens of these societies have increasingly come to view public administrators as an impartial and expert body of professionals intellectually equipped to cope with their administrative needs. In fact, the entire discipline of public administration has evolved and grown with the changing public administrative culture of the industrial societies. As stated earlier, there was, and still is, a close relationship between
the various theoretical concepts and approaches of public administration as a subject and the actual social and technical problems of industrial societies.
Commenting on the special administrative problems of developed societies Ira Sharkansky writes:
A problem that appears widely in more developed countries is a lack of coherence in relations between numerous service and regulatory agencies. The problem is often pronounced at local levels, where authorities design and implement their own programmes, as well as implement programmes designed and funded in part by national authorities. "Who controls what?" is a topic of some concern when many units share policy design, funding and implementation. A typical result is control by bureaucratic elites who operate within their specialised domains. There is occasional dominance by politicians who take an interest in a particular matter, but there is also a lack of general integration of programmes by elected officials."
Most of the developed societies, especially in Europe, are typical examples of the 'Administrative State'. The bureaucracy in these states mainly performs three types of functions:
1. Regulatory and preventive functions, enforcing laws, collecting revenue, and protecting the state against external aggression.
2. Service functions, making provisions for education, health, culture and recreation, social insurance, unemployment relief, housing, transportation, and communication.
3. Entrepreneurial functions—operating industrial enterprises, loaning funds, etc. In industrial countries with planned economies, the public administration acts as the chief agent of planned economic development and social change. To maintain the existing level or even to increase the economic growth and development of their societies
70
the public bureaucracies are being continuously asked to live up to the role and meet the challenges posed before them.
Importance of Public Administration in a Developing Society
One of the most significant and far-reaching political realities of the post-World War II era has been the gradual ebbing out of the era of colonialism and the emergence on the world scene of the newly independent states of the Third World nations of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. There is a wide range of differences in the location, resources, history, culture, political systems and developmental patterns of these countries, yet they can all be termed "developing". Most of these new self-governing states are caught up in the process of transition, facing acute problems of social unpheavals, economic depression and administrative chaos. In terms of societal models, they are moving from the traditional towards the modern type, from what Fred Riggs once called, "Agraria" towards "Industria".
Despite differences in the political and developmental patterns of these countries, there is a widely shared consensus among the majority of the people and their leaders regarding the goals of development towards which efforts should be directed. The majority of scholars on comparative administration agree that the two major elements of the developmental objectives are nation-building and socio-economic progress. Esman describes nation building as "the deliberate fashioning of an integrated political community within the fixed geographic boundaries in which the nation-state is the dominant political institution."12
In most of the developing states the geographical boundaries are arbitrarily carved by colonial rulers at the time of independence with scant regard for ethnic groupings, cultural ties or the feelings of minorities opposed to integration. This has resulted in periodic outbursts of communal frenzy, inter-group clashes, riots and secessionist tendencies in the majority of these states.
The related objective of social and economic progress has been defined by Esman as "the sustained and widely diffused improvement in material and social welfare."13
Though the goals of development are more or less similar, the patterns chosen by different countries to achieve them have been diverse and experimental in nature. However, there is a strong
71
trend towards concentration of power in the hands of the executive at the centre based on the notion that such widespread goals make centralisation inevitable. Some of the major features of the socio-political systems of these countries appear to be as follows:
1. A relatively widespread consensus on developmental goals. Some of the common goals are introducing changes in almost all the sectors of the economy including social overheads, infrastructural facilities, and productive enterprises like industry and agriculture; social services such as health, education and water supply; infrastructure like roads and communication facilities, electricity and market centres, and productive activities in industry and agriculture are sought to be developed within particular time spans;
2. A great degree of reliance on the state and bureaucracy for achieving developmental goals. Many developing countries have evolved structures that have a socialist orientation;
3. Social disorganisation, economic backwardness and political inability; and
4. A wide gap between the modernising and the traditional elites, who very often differ in social background, orientation towards change, and in their respective linkages to the mass of the population. The modernising elites tend to be from the urban areas; they are well educated westernised young men and women committed to economic, social and political change and modernisation. The traditional elites tend to be rural, oriented to local customs and to the native religion, and opposed to change as a threat to these values.
The following five points are indicative of general administrative patterns currently found in developing countries of the Third World:14
1. The basic pattern of public administration is imitative rather than indigenous. All countries, including those that are not ex-colonies, have consciously tried to introduce some version of the bureaucratic model in administration. Usually, it is patterned after a particular national administrative model, perhaps with incidental features
72
borrowed from some other system. Ex-colonies will almost certainly resemble the parent administratively.
2. The bureaucracies are deficient in the requisite skills necessary for developmental programmes. The problem is not a general shortage of employable manpower, actually the typical developing country is generally overpopulated with an abundance of labour in relation to other resources. The shortage is in trained administrators, with management capacity, developmental skills, and technical proficiency.
3. Another tendency is for these bureaucracies to emphasise non-productive orientations. Much bureaucratic activity is channelled towards the realisation of non-developmental goals. Riggs refers to this as a preference among bureaucrats for personal expediency as against principled public interests. The value attached to status based on ascription rather than achievement explains much of this behaviour. Non-merit considerations may greatly influence promotions, assignments, dismissals, and other personnel practices. Corruption is also widespread. Another problematic popular practice is that of using the public service as a substitute for a social security programme or to relieve the problem of unemployment. There is always a surplus of employees in the public services.
4. The widespread discrepancy between form and reality is another distinguishing characteristic. Riggs has called this "formalism". It reflects an urge to make things seem more as they presumably ought to be rather than what they really are. The gap between expectation and reality can be partially filled by enacting laws that cannot be enforced, adopting personnel regulations that are quietly by-passed, announcing a programme for delegation of administrative authority while keeping tight control over decision-making at the centre, or reporting as having met production targets, which in fact remain only partially fulfilled.
5. The bureaucracy in a developing country is apt to have a generous measure of operational autonomy, which can be accounted for by the coincidence of several operating
73
forces in a newly independent nation. Colonialism was essentially rule by an unresponsive authoritarian bureaucracy Croups' Capable of competing for political influence or of imposing close controls over the bureaucracy are few, so that, often it is able to move into a dominating position. The political role of bureaucracy varies from country to country and is intimately related to variations in political system types among the developing countries.
The immensity of the developmental problems and the urgency of their solution has in fact thrust upon the state the principal burden of accomplishing developmental goals. Despite severe handicaps like shortage of capital, skilled manpower, and lack of a developmental" infrastructure, the Third World governments are confronted with rising expectations of the people they have to administer. In the early euphoria of nationalism, the people expect the government to work miracles. Besides demanding basic utilities like adequate electricity and water supply, drainage, roads and power, the government has also to cater to welfare demands like establishment of schools, hospitals, housing, and industrial enterprises. The state is expected to bring rapid socio-economic development in almost all sectors within the shortest "possible timespan, an accomplishment that was gradually achieved in developed countries of the West through private and local initiative over generations.
Further, on the debit side," the new governments are often handicapped by lack of public cooperation and participation. Public apathy may take the form of hostility to public officials, an attitude that develops from long periods of subjection to oppressive regimes. At the same time, they have to deal with social dislocations such as mass rural-urban migration, severe unemployment, riots and communal clashes, besides pressing demands for social reorganisation such as land reforms, and other radical measures to promote social equity.
The importance of administration is almost universally recognised by commentators of the problems of development. The private sector may be induced to fall in line with general public policy, but the major burden of development work would naturally fall on the public sector. Hence, a high degree of public
74
administrative efficiency is vital and necessary for the successful implementation of development plans and efforts at nation building; a fact which has now been universally acknowledged and reflected in the emergence of a new approach to administration in the developing countries known as 'development administration'.
As stated earlier, public administration becomes the main agency of socio-economic change—a change requiring not only the formulation and implementation of long term plans of industrial and agricultural development but also requiring the establishment and formation of modern institutions, organisations and skills necessary for sustaining a technological civilisation which would evolve in the wake of industrialisation. The challenging role of developmental administration demands three different functions:
1. Institution-building for sustaining and promoting an industrial revolution for carrying on industrial and other public utility services for the people, and for the regulation and equitable distribution of essential commodities;
2. Manpower planning and development which requires the cultivation of technical, professional and managerial skills for running new industries and public bodies. This would involve establishing institutes of technology and science;
3. Human development which would involve changing the very attitudes and temperaments of people so that they may adjust to the needs and conditions of technological change. The task of public administration is to link formal reforms with the felt needs and aspirations of the people.
However, the wider role devolved upon public administration often creates a problem of imbalance between the political wing and the administrative wing of the government. This is a situation unique to the development process of the Third World and contrary to the one faced by the Western societies during the course of their development. In Western societies, the developmental process has originated from the economic sector. Economic development had given birth to a large middle class, extension of franchise, growth of political parties and trade unions, which in turn had led to the specialisation of administrative organisation and functions. As a result administrative development was the effect, rather than the cause
75
of economic or political development. But due to the peculiarities of the developmental processes of the Third World societies of the twentieth century, political and socio-economic development was preceded by administrative development in these societies. The relative predominance of bureaucracy over other public institutions in these societies is a natural by-product of this imbalance of development between the bureaucratic and other non-governmental institutions.
Notes and References
1. E.N. Gladden, The Civil Service, Staples, London, 1956, pp. 123-124.
2. Richard L. Champman and Frederic N. Cleaveland, "The Changing Character of the Public Service, and the Administrator of the 1980's in Public Administration", in Readings in Institutions, Processes, Behaviour, edited by Robert T. Golemberwski, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976, pp. 135-150.
3. Gerald E. Gaiden, Dynamics of Public Administration, pp. 290-91, Reinhart, New York, 1971.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., p. 297.
6. Ira Sharkarsky, Public Administration, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1970, p. 29.
7. Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, p. 143.
8. Gabriel Almond, "A Developmental Approach to Political Systems", in World Politics, XVII, No. 2, January 1965, pp. 183-214.
9. La Palombara (ed), Bureaucracy and Political Development, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1963, pp. 35-39.
10. Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966, pp. 38-39.
11. Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration, p. 33.
12. Milton J. Esman, "The Politics of Development Administration", in Montgomery and Siffin, Approaches to Development Politics, Administration and Change, McGraw Hill, New York, 1966, p. 59.
13. ibid., p. 60.
14. Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1966, pp. 69-72.
76
4 ADMINISTRATION, POLITY AND SOCIETY
Public administration as a human activity has a social and a political context. It operationalises policies and laws framed by the political executive for the citizens and members of a particular state. Neither law making nor law enforcement can exist outside a particular socio-economic and political framework. Both are influenced by each other. The total environment (social, economic, political) influences the formulation and enforcement of laws. Any public administrative system is the product of the peculiar social, cultural, economic and political milieu of which it is a part. Therefore adequate approach to the study of public administration should include the study of the environment in which public administration is embedded. Prof. John Gaus ' and F.W. Riggs2 have in this context stressed on the following points:
1) There is often a tendency specially among the developing countries to imitate or transplant institutions, or organisational structures which have been found to be working successfully in the West in their own countries. Before doing so it would be wiser on their part to examine the peculiar nature of the environment in which these institutions have flourished and to see whether similar environmental conditions can be created at home.
2) To analyse the structure and functions of the administrative system of any country, it is necessary to undertake the study in a socio-political perspective. Heady says in this context, "The point is that bureaucracies, as well as other political and administrative institutions, can be better understood if the surrounding conditions, influences and forces that shape or modify them are identified and ranked to the extent possible in order of relative importance."3
3) The role of the environment has special significance in the study of comparative public administration. Every administrative system has its own peculiar characteristics.
77
A study of the environment of different systems will reveal which institution would best flourish in a particular environment. This knowledge is particularly relevant for new states who wish to learn from the administrative experience of older states. No institution can really flourish well on alien soil. New states are therefore advised to evolve institutions more suited to their own environment.
In the following pages we shall study the influence and impact of the total environment on the administrative processes and vice versa.
Interaction with Historical and Political Legacies
The interaction between the administration and its past heritage in administrative and political fields can be explained by citing examples from the Indian situation. At the time of independence we had constitutionally adopted the goal of a democratic social welfare state. In this framework the public bureaucracy was to play a pivotal role as the chief agent of change and modernisation.
The government started on an ambitious model of planned development through democratic means relying on the traditional bureaucracy, which the nation had inherited from the British colonial period, to implement new schemes and programmes. Though the post-independence rulers viewed the old bureaucracy with suspicion, they retained the old structure of administration with piecemeal changes, wherever necessary. The Indian Civil Service of British days was a well-knit, homogeneous, all-India service, generalist and non-technical in nature and comprising a small administrative elite, highly qualified, selected on merit, and trained in the traditional virtues of integrity, functional efficiency and neutrality in civil service. The colonial administration in India was authoritarian, paternalistic, preventive and coercive in nature and was fundamentally non-developmental. The main task of the administrators was the maintenance of law and order and collection of revenues. The bureaucrats being a specially privileged class in colonial society, gradually became by position and training conservative, rigid and the greatest supporters of British imperialism. They were given a large measure of operational autonomy without any institutionalised system of accountability to the people.
78
After independence the national scenario underwent tremendous change to incorporate the democratic socialistic ethos envisioned in the Constitution. Democracy brought in the Parliament, ministers, elections and political parties coupled with the concept of public accountability of civil servants. The nature of bureaucratic tasks also completely changed in variety, multiplicity and orientation. The emphasis shifted from preventive functions to service and development oriented.
In the context of the political, social and economic changes after independence the suitability of the inherited model of bureaucracy in the present time is often questioned. The change from the pre-independence to the post-independence era is not only a change from 'limited government' to Big Government; but also from 'autocracy' to 'democracy'.
The bureaucracy has now to function in an environment where it works under the direction of a political head who is responsible for the department under his charge to the legislature. The political head has to act under many constraints like the policy guidelines from the legislature, and various pressures from political parties and other pressure groups.
Some of these important implications of democracy for the functioning of bureaucracy in our country have been discussed at length by C.P. Bhambri in his study of the Indian bureaucracy.4
Unlike the British period, the bureaucracy now is guided and controlled by the people's representatives. The political element lays down the public policies, defines the tasks of bureaucracy, and supervises their implementation. The meaning of supremacy of the political element in public policy formulation is that whatever may be the source of the origin of policy, its ultimate responsibility is on the political chief to defend and account for the policy in legislature. The challenge for the bureaucracy in India is to accept the supremacy of political leadership and to give it full cooperation. Indian bureaucrats who were given a large measure of functional autonomy during the British rule had developed a certain authoritarian style of functioning which they found difficult to give up after independence. Bureaucrats have repeatedly complained of political interference in administration in independent India. The elected representatives think they know what is best for the people, whereas bureaucrats who are working in the field feel that with their intimate knowledge of
79
people and administration they have a right to interpret laws as they think fit. The politicians accuse the bureaucrats of being rigid and of blocking the implementation of progressive socialistic laws. The bureaucrats resent the latter's role in increasing politicisation of administration and their power in matters of civil service appointments, transfers, promotions, etc., which has only led to increasing servility and compliance on the part of the civil servants to please their masters.
Another controversial feature of the politico-administrative relationship is the neutrality of the civil service. One of the distinguishing features of the traditional concept of bureaucracy is its neutrality. In Western societies the civil service retained its neutrality and anonymity in a liberal democracy with a competitive party system. A value-free neutral bureaucracy was possible in a society where consensus existed on values, but in transitional class-divided societies like ours where there is no consensus on values, it is neither desirable nor possible for the bureaucracy to function impartially, neutrally or in a value-free manner. There are all sorts of political parties, with wide ranging differences in opinion on political issues. It is scarcely surprising for civil servants to have political views and perferences of their own which may lead to unavoidable political bias, at times, in their attitudes.
Can impartial, passive and detached civil servants have the requisite emotional involvement with developmental programmes which is a necessary prerequisite of their success? Other qualities needed of a modern administrator are farsightedness, flexibility, dynamism and result orientedness. The old structure could perform well in a stagnant society. The civil service has to undergo radical, structural, procedural and attitudinal changes if it has to serve as an effective instrument of change and progress in a developing society. The civil service has to cultivate much wider social awareness and responsiveness to popular needs and aspirations. The administrative culture and ethos in our country has not kept pace with popular expectations after independence. The organisational structure and socio-economic background of the bureaucracy remains much the same as it was during the British days, except that the strength and functions of public administrators have increased greatly.
Another implication of a democratic political system is that the bureaucracy should shed its exclusiveness, reserve, and
80
authoritarian style of functioning in general and come closer to the people. The people should on their part give up their anti-bureaucracy stance and show more inclination to participate at all levels of administrative and political activities, if they desire to get the fullest benefit of democratic government and administration. The relationship between the citizen and the administrator should be based on mutual goodwill and trust.
In a democratic administration the bureaucrats, who are accountable to the people, are expected to have high standards of conduct, integrity and morality coupled with merit and efficiency. In India public enquiries revealed widespread corruption in the public services. Civil servants allege that corruption is an unfortunate by-product of political interference and increasing politicisation of the services. The issue of corruption has assumed gigantic proportions and is a great slur on our administrative system.
It is often said that this is a general reflection of the falling standards of integrity and conduct of our civil service as compared to the British period. However, this cannot be entirely true, says Bhambhri. The integrity and ethical standards of the British Indian Civil Service were not necessarily higher in every respect. Corruption was prevalent even in the British era, the instruments of public control over administration in our democratic system have only helped to expose corruption much more than was possible during the British rule.
Conclusion
Like so many other developing countries, India is a state and society in transition from a semi-feudal, semi-capitalist, to an industrial and modernised society; in Riggsian terms we are moving from the 'agraria' towards the 'industria'. The public administration, too, like other social and political structures, is passing through a phase, when old norms and values of the bureaucracy are going through a process of renovation, readaptation and redefinition to suit new socio-economic changes and conditions of our time.
Administration and Social Structure
Public administration is deeply influenced by the social structure, values, traditions, culture and aspirations of a nation. Administrators are a product of their socio-cultural milieu. Their attitude to life and work is moulded by current social attitudes
81
which in turn moulds their administrative behaviour and work. Consciously or unconsciously every administrator's decisions will carry the stamp of the environment he lives in its social philosophy, cultural biases and peculiarities. Most of the administrative problems of developing countries are rooted in their cultural milieu. When these countries try to adopt successful administrative processes or institutions of the West they very often have to encounter cultural hurdles. The public may adopt an attitude of suspicion or apathy and refuse to cooperate with the administrators in implementing new or modern programmes. Every new innovative programme, even though welfare oriented, may be simply resisted because they are alien to the people. US society is market oriented, intensely competitive and individualistic. In such a society survival demands that every individual put in one's best. People are efficiency conscious since their environment requires it. In India a fatalistic attitude to life breeds a lackadaisical attitude to work in most people. Other peculiarities of administration in traditional societies which are a product of their distinct socio-cultural experience and environment are: civil service as a profession has higher social status compared to private employment; most educated young
men prefer government service as a career; however, recruitment is often not entirely on merit since various kinds of pressure are brought upon the recruiting authorities due to acute problems of unemployment; government jobs have permanent tenure, job security, however, leading often to lethargy, red tape and inertia in work; there is a lot of difference in age, official seniority and social rank in various levels of administration and interaction remains few and far between; governmental administration increases by leaps and bounds since public employment becomes a channel to relieve unemployment; nepotism and corruption are rampant; attitude to work is rarely professional and there is usually a lack of skilled personnel for higher level posts.
Interaction with Traditional Structures and Culture
Culture has been defined as the entire sum total of beliefs and social behaviour. Modes of social action and behaviour are human activity with respect to food, clothing, shelter, marriage, child rearing, entertainment, creative expression and so forth.
The culture of a country finds expression through the medium of language and art, philosophy and religion, education
82
and science, films and newspapers, radio and televison, social habits and customs, political institutions and economic organisations. Every society's culture is a storehouse of symbolic structures which function as institutionalised systems of meaning by which a human being assesses the historical situation and adapts himself to it.
An administrative system is concerned with the implementation of public policy and execution of laws. It renders various services to the people and in modern times is no longer a mere law-and-order enforcing agency but an indispensable arm of the government for attending to the welfare needs and aspirations of its citizens. Commenting on the relationship between culture and administration, Waldo writes,5 "Administration is a part of the cultural complex; and it not only is acted upon, it acts. Indeed, by definition, a system of rational cooperative action, it inaugurates and controls much change. Administration may be thought of as the major invention and device by which civilised men in complex societies try to control their culture."
Developing countries all over the Third World are facing common problems of poverty, overpopulation, ignorance, disease and underdevelopment. Most of them are ex-colonies and after independence have
adopted nation-building and socio-economic progress as their primary goals. With these objectives in mind they have adopted numerous welfare programmes and have entrusted the major responsibility for their implementation to public bureaucracies. Most of these countries have inherited an undemocratic administrative culture (authoritarian, unresponsive and elitist) which is a legacy of their colonial past. Modernisation and development require a dynamic, goal-oriented public administration which can initiate and implement progressive programmes. Another important prerequisite of social change is active public participation and cooperation in the development process. Unfortunately the public bureaucracies in these countries are most often neither structurally nor behaviourally equipped to carry out developmental tasks. They are further hampered by public inertia and resistance to change. This is mostly due to psychological hurdles like fear, poverty and ignorance of the poeple, conditioned by national or regional customs and traditions.
83
For the purpose of the study culture will be conceived of in two ways. First, as a concept of power, potentially affecting social change and modernisation in traditional societies, and secondly, that part of culture which bears relevance to management of politics. To some, culture represents the hallowed, the unchanging, and the unchangeable elements of the past divorced from the realm of administration. This is a shortsighted view. To a social thinker, culture is a dynamic variable and an enormously potent and influential instrument which the state or administration can use to adapt to its changing environment. Administration bears the unmistakable stamp of the cultural milieu of a particular period and yet, if given proper direction and leadership, can act as an instrument of social change. The various developmental policies and programmes of the government have a cultural dimension. Administration has an important role to play as it is the core of the system of various relationships that extend to the citizen, to the state and to the society at large.
The problem of forging culture and administration into instruments of social change is complex. The first requirement is determination of the meaning, scope or relevance of these factors in the context of nation-building. At the same time, it would be necessary to identify the forces operating in the name of culture against social change and progress. The task of planners would be to evolve an appropriate technology of change and modernisation relevant to the country's needs making full use of the existing local institutions, knowledge and traditions. In the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, modernisation in the Third World context had come to mean Europeanisation of the upper classes and the adoption of Western management and economic growth models to achieve socio-economic progress. Modernisation in the contemporary world has come to acquire different meanings. Firstly, it does not necessarily mean the worldwide diffusion of a Westernised culture, or wholesale adoption of Western norms and cultural standards in societies. Each developing nation is seeking now to achieve economic progress and development not merely by imitation of Western models of culture and growth
but by evolving its own pattern of modernity. In other words, the sources of development should not be entirely exogenous but endogenous as well. There is an
84
increasing tendency to evaluate the socio-cultural functionality of imposed structural innovations in Third World countries. In the evaluation of successful public administration, the older concepts of efficiency and performance are not the sole criteria now; the first concern is the satisfaction of citizens. Development is not merely economic growth, but growth with justice and social equity. To talk of endogenous development is to seek development without cultural alienation, without destroying or distorting the cultural personality of the people. It is to affirm the principle that each society must remain itself drawing its strength from the forms of thought and action that are peculiar to it and gearing its development efforts to goals consistent with its native value-system, needs and available resources. In short, the work of development must be based on what the people of a nation do, want, think, and believe. Their active and strongly motivated participation is thus a precondition for ensuring the originality of forms, styles and channels of development. The administrator's role is to muster, organise and make rational use of resources, once the political authorities have laid down the main guidelines and objectives of development and to adapt and incorporate plans and programmes to the socio-cultural environment.
That part of culture which bears relevance to politics or management of polity is commonly known as political culture. In any operative political system it is a force which gives meaning as well as direction to the polity. This could be perceived in the traditions of the society, the spirit of its public institutions, the passions and collective behaviour of its citizenry and the style of operation of its leaders.
The political element in a polity largely defines the goal of administrative action based on the constitution and laws, and it is the administration which has to carry out the tasks towards achieving these goals. Administration keeps the fabric of society intact. It is the art of management, the tool of the state to achieve its goal. The art of administration is the direction, coordination and control of many persons to achieve some collective purpose. The major differences in the political and cultural patterns of modern and traditional societies have been analysed by different scholars. Ferner describes the major difference between traditional and modern political culture thus:
It deploys people by kinship into communities isolated from each other and from a centre; without an urban-rural division
85
of labour, it develops new needs requiring economic interdependence; lacking the bonds of interdependence, people's horizons are limited by locale and their decisions involve only other known people in known situations.....Modern society is participant in that it functions by consensus-individuals making personal decisions on public issues must concur with other individuals they do not know, to make possible a stable common governance.6
J.S. Coleman in an impressive summary of a wide variety of developing political cultures also identifies participation as an essential aspect of modern society. He calls attention to the "wide gap which exists between the traditional mass and the essentially modern sub-society of the westernised elite." They are, in fact, the main focus of political activity. He indicates that governing elites (includes the administrators) in many emerging nations are "engaged in the development and strengthening of system wide secondary structures that not only impinge directly upon the individual but also penetrate the primary socialising structures. They are seeking to create by an act of will, an integrated process of political socialization in which at all levels there is an inculcation of positive sentiments of respect, loyalty and pride in the new politics.... Their efforts are being met with strong resistance, especially from particularistic forces—forces which modernization itself ironically tends, in many situations, to strengthen."7
Traditional structures and culture are often ignored in the various efforts made to reform administration in developing countries. The characteristics of Western bureaucracy are generally considered the ideal typical type to be imitated in Third World countries.
Besides, development is the responsibility of the state alone and the people are considered an ignorant and passive mass to be directed by administration. The local culture and traditional structures are all sought to be replaced by Western structures and values imposed by the state administration. However, Western style bureaucracies often tend to become irrelevant in the vastly different environments of developing societies. A coldly formal and neutral bureaucracy concerned with proper procedures and file work will find it impossible to deal with people who are illiterate, superstitious, and ignorant of the forms and methods of
86
the functioning of secular institutions. What is required in these countries is oral communication and effective dialogue coupled with informal relationship, to get public cooperation and support, to break the vicious circle of fear and ignorance against change and innovation.
The public administrators should make use of the existing traditional forms of cooperation to encourage greater participation by the people. The real goal should be to make the administration endogenous in terms of attitudes and behaviour that is its acculturation. With the reponsibility that has devolved upon it to execute socio-economic programmes, there is a need for making the administration culturally sensitive.
Culturally sanctioned values and symbols have acted as important catalysts of change in human history. History is witness to the fact that whenever the economic task has become a cultural challenge, economic development has received a fillip. For example, the Puritans in England, the Samurains in Japan and the Bolsheviks in Russia. They came, not as economic or industrial pioneers but as the torch bearers of "new all round transformation of the nation's destiny".8 Similar was the message that Gandhi gave to our nation. He used our culture as an instrument of modernisation and social change.
Indian culture is a composite one, of unity and synthesis, of reconciliation and growth, of harmony and assimilation, a fusion of old traditions and new values. While viewing culture as power, we have to take note of the fact that the forces of progress and regress have simultaneously worked in our culture. Historically out culture has sustained a highly individualistic ethos and a stratified society. It was considered natural and proper for man to be born unequal and enjoy unequal rights and privileges. These inequalities were given some sort of legitimacy by means of a system based on the theories of dharma and karma. Men were born as Brahmins or Shudras according to the law of karma and in society it was their dharma to act in accordance with the situation of life to which they were born. The law of Manu more or less formalised these inequalities. The forces of rationalism and change invigorated our society with the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, but these failed for a variety of reasons. In certain periods of history, there developed institutions of caste and untouchability. The caste system broke up the unity of Indian
87
life and impeded the growth of an open society. It continues to be a powerful force still.
Viewed against this backdrop a trend which is clearly discernible in the Indian situation is the hiatus between the political culture of various elite groups and mass political culture. After independence, India became one of the few nations in which power was deliberately and successfully decentralised. The result has been that at the local levels less educated and more traditional individuals have acquired political power who have brought with them their attitudes towards power and government, which the
educated urban elite, mostly at the national level, find less acceptable. There, thus, have emerged two political cultures in our country operating at different levels of the Indian polity. The elite political culture is personified by India's planners, national political leaders and members of senior administrative services. The mass culture is rural oriented and is more rooted in tradition.
A look at the administrative history of India reveals that barring certain periods, there was no unity in administration. India's political disunity has been largely conditioned by the inadequacy of her scientific and technological strength vis a vis her geographical and cultural unity. While geography and culture demanded unification of the country, the prevalent state of control over the forces of nature rendered this difficult to achieve and almost impossible to maintain. The vastness of the country and the absence of modern methods of communication worked against political unification.
In India, the modernisation process has created problems of its own. The traditions of family and village have undergone change, leading to the break-up of joint family system. Within the same village and in the same town, different consumption patterns and purchasing capacities have come up. Unemployment, regional disparities, the growth of rural urban hiatus have created social divisions and inequality. This has led to some dissent from modernisation. However, the need is to accelerate the modernisation process to alleviate people's poverty which can be achieved only through science and technology and spread of education. In other words, people are to be motivated to break "the culture of poverty" and adopt a rational scientific cultural ethic which would hasten progress and development. In this the administration has a vital role to play.
88
The most crucial impact of social change has been in the growth of administrative functions in India. Increasingly, a new administrative ethos is being seen in India which reflects the popular will and is motivating to develop organisational competence and inputs to tackle the new challenges. In this context, administration is continually interacting with the political, economic and socio-cultural value system of our society. It is both a modifying influence upon these systems and is itself getting modified by them in turn. Unfortunately, the declining moral standards in public life have adversely affected quality of administration at every level. It is in this context that the new public administration has to devise built-in safeguards against forces leading to maladjustment and confusion, corruption and lethargy.
Eradication of poverty as well as an overall progress can only be achieved through science and technology and by a clear understanding of how natural forces work and how these could be harnessed for human betterment. Science has created the capacity to liberate large masses of humanity from
misery, poverty, squalor and disease. The increasing use of science and technology in the affairs of our economy and society at large is dependent upon the type of values which we cherish and propagate. Administration could provide the patent catalytic force to the forces of change by forging culture and administration into instruments of social change.
Conclusion
In the foregoing discussion certain aspects clearly stand out: first, there are forces operating in the name of culture against change and progress. Second, a prerequisite for rapid socio-economic progress is the expeditious propagation of a scientific temper and respect for rationality. Besides, a third important aspect is to initiate certain institutional changes like electoral reforms and decentralisation to usher in a new political culture which will be able to hold the people together and will move them, and the administration, to work for improving the present state of the nation, ensuring total commitment for secular institutions in all matters relating to our social, cultural, political and economic life. Our political leaders and administrators should understand the logic of development processes and fulfil the rising expectations of the people by moulding and recreating cultural symbols, where necessary, to hasten the development process.
89
Where tradition does not conflict with development administration, initial public resistance to change can generally be overcome by visible signs of success. There is seldom continued resistance, on priciple, to innovation, be it administrative or technological. Once an innovation or administrative programme is shown to be useful, religious teachings often encourage cooperation. Hindu scriptures, for example, speak of nishkama-karma (action without the desire for its fruits), a code taken by Gandhi and most other Hindu leaders to inculcate a new work ethics. Secondly, in the four stages of life in the Hindu religion, artha can be interpreted as keen participation in social activities to improve material and ideal living standard among fellowmen. In India, the persuasive power of the religious or charismatic leaders, considered the traditional authority figures, can also be utilised in mobilising popular support.
Knowledge of the culture of a region can be of positive benefit to the development administrator. A familiarity with tradition can help him to refine his method of introducing an innovation and getting support for it. Traditional pattern of thought and action can often be turned from impediments into assets. Generally, the methods rather than the targets of administration determine whether cultural processes will retard or facilitate development efforts. The targets are so broad and general that they can be made acceptable no matter what the cultural milieu. But an agency or administrator's methods may either clash or fall in line with traditional norms and values.
The administrator must strive to distinguish cultural hurdles, conditioned by peculiarities in regional traditions from what has been called universal psychological hurdles, e.g., fear, general poverty, insecurity and ignorance. Changes which are truly incompatible with tradition must be distinguished from those that are merely thought to be so. Problems arising from cultural as distinguished from universal hurdles can often be overcome by reference to tradition. "Only by such cultural improvisations can the administrator's method be designed to minimise friction between modernisation and tradition."'
Impact of Political System
The main function of a political system is the formulation and implementation of public policy through the mobilisation of
90
national resources and their allocation for the attainment of societal goals. The capability of a political system refers to the capacity of both the policy and government to meet increasingly heavy demands and challenges, the loads they are able to bear, and their outputs in terms of policies, decisions and their implementation.
With the expansion of the functions of government and its increasing role in social and economic development, the administrative system has assumed much importance. The administrator plays a dual role primarily performing the "output" function of executing policies and programmes; he also performs important "input" functions which relate not only to policy making but also to determining public orientation towards the government, the expectations that the public has from the government and the demands that are channelled into the political process. The administrative system thus performs a significant role, in the capability function of the political system, both in the "input" and "output" aspects, and links the polity to society.
In the words of Peter Self:
The political process deals with the input of demands and the administrative process with the output of services. The former process moves upwards, embracing the claims off i successively broader constituencies, while the latter process moves downwards, disaggregating laws and general policies j into specific operations. Both processes can be said to have become more 'pluralistic', in the sense that influences and decisions have become more diffused and that (in most western democracies) more contacts occur between the two processes.10
The influence and impact of the political system on the administrative system is great due to the close relation between policies and administration in all societies. There is a continuing academic debate in the discipline of public administration regarding the relationship between the two. The history of public administration began with an essay written on the issue by Woodrow Wilson in 1887 when he made a clear distinction between "politics" (where government makes choices over public policy) and "administration" (which serves the people by implementing and executing government decisions and laws without participating in active politics).
91
There were and still are a group of scholars in public administration, who would "take administration" out of politics and would want the public servants to remain politically neutral and out of partisan politics. But the fact is that the activities of policy making and policy execution are not entirely separate. All government and administrative work is to a certain extent political. Much legislation originates in the executive departments and the administrators play an important role in policy formulation by their expert advice, suggestion and supply the required information to the ministers concerned. According to Paul Appleby all administration and policy making within the government are political, but only a small part of either has identifiable partisan character. He has elaborated the relationship between politics and administration thus: society has certain needs and demands and government is the only institution in society to meet these demands and needs. Government today has both preventive functions, like maintenance of law and order and collection of revenue, as well as welfare oriented functions, like providing for education, transport and sanitation. Politics is the means by which society faces up to the issues and decides how to resolve them. Politics involves a choice among alternative values, philosophies and goals.
Societal needs and pressures, when accepted, may eventually become law. Law takes many forms, including enacted constitutions, statutory enactment, and administrative and judicial decisions. Administration is the application of policy formulated by law in a constantly unfolding process, making the laws of legislatures and the courts increasingly specific by means of policy application to particular cases.11
Irrespective of the nature of political system, at the higher levels politics and administration are inseparable from each other. Herbert Simon designated the entire process, as one of 'decision making', regardless of its policy or administrative nature. Political thinkers like Peter Self have accepted the concept of administrative politics, thereby meaning that administration is a branch of politics.
The executive in most countries comprised two major elements—the political and the permanent, with interlocking functions at the higher levels. In the socialist countries, administration is highly politicised and suffused with political
92
content and control at every level. The hierarchies of the political and administrative systems interlock at every level.
In democratic systems, the legislature through law lays down the government policy, that is, it clearly states the framework within which the administration has to execute or implement laws in particular circumstances. In cabinet systems, as in Britain and India, political control is further exercised by making members of the council of ministers (who are members of the majority party in Parliament) the heads of administrative departments. In the American system, the fact that the chief executive as well as the legislatures are popularly elected, implies a common source of authority, power and purpose.
Legislatures make laws, but administrators determine what the law is, in terms of execution. Administrators offer considerable suggestions and guidelines to framers of policy, who only lay down a very broad framework of policy which is made functionally more specific by the administrators. Moreover, the scope of government functions today is so vast that legislatures, out of sheer necessity, delegate more and more responsibility for the content of policy proposals to administrative agencies. This was the main reason for the origin of the concept of delegated legislation.
Situation in Developing Countries
A significant feature of the political systems of developing countries is the increasingly central role that their governments and bureaucracy have come to play in the programme of development. The very concept of government is undergoing a fundamental change in these countries. Not only has its role changed from governance by coercion, to that of administration of public welfare but its activities are also assuming a new range and depth. Whether democratic or authoritarian, the governments of developing countries are playing a key role in stimulating, programming and implementing development activity. Therefore, the growth of the state capacity to give a purposeful direction to socio-economic change is a crucial dimension of the capability function of the political systems of the developing states.
It is clear that the capacity of developing countries to deal effectively with the problems of nation-building and modernisation depends upon the development of coherent and
93
viable political systems and effectiveness of bureaucratic role. To fulfil these tasks the political system must evolve a participant "civic culture", ensure sustained economic growth and promote national unity and consensus. Such a transformation or development makes it necessary to secure the acceptance of, and commitment to, the new purposes, goals and techniques by, at least, the major sectors of society. This underlines the importance of social mobilisation for building a sustained support to the efforts at nation building and socio-economic and technological development.
While the administrative structure is essential for formulating and carrying out operating programmes, they suffer from many deficiencies in their framework in the developing countries. Often the administrative agencies align with political leaders leading to factional politics and rivalry between the departments. They also show a tendency towards acquiring independent power positions to increase their group interests. Their energies are more often spent in perpetuating their self-interest than in the pursuit of development goals. Bureaucracy in developing countries is often short on enterprise, initiative and adaptability, slow to act, and arrogant and callous in dealing with the public.
Political leaders and administrators, as stated earlier, perform the important functions of maintaining societal stability, and goal-attainment. Performing different but complementary roles and manning structures which involve the development processes of society, they constitute two fundamental instruments of social and political change. The relation and interaction between these two sectors, politics and administration, therefore, have an important bearing on development processes and tasks. Their relationship and interactions operate both at the macro level affecting the stability and dynamism of the regimes and at the micro level influencing the implementation of individual programmes.
Administration influences, and is influenced by the policy. Some of the elements in this interaction in India need to be briefly noted here. Firstly, the administration is getting increasingly politicised. The political leaders and elected representatives of the people tend to control the administration excessively, interfere with its implementation process and bring unjust
94
pressures and demands on it. This has both healthy and adverse effects on the administration, it restrains administrative excesses and corruption and makes the administrators responsible to the elected representatives of the people and responsive to their problems. But excessive political control
on and interference with the administration makes the latter frustrated and powerless, and thereby reduces its independence and effectiveness. This also frequently leads to the involvement of administrators in partisan politics such as elections. Secondly, the administration shows a tendency towards grabbing power at levels where the political leadership is weak. In such cases, the administration becomes a power centre and resists the growth of democratic supervision over its activities.
In other words, both the political leaders and administrators seek to exchange their power. This gives rise to tensions and conflicts in their interaction and does not permit them to collaborate in nation-building and development activities. Given the differences in culture and professional background of the politicians and administrators, conflicts and tensions between them are likey to continue.
Finally, and as emphasised earlier, the performance capacity of the administrative system depends to a great extent on the development of cohesive and stable political institutions and processes, the emergence of dynamic and change-oriented political leadership, and a cooperative relationship between politicians and administrators. No administrative development can take place unless there is effective "organisation and institutionalisation" of political organisations and procedures such as the party system, legislatures, cabinets and democratic norms and procedures. Administration is also conditioned by the quality and capability of the political leadership. Both the politicians and administrators have to work together for fulfilling the common goals of nation building and development.
Administration and Economic Structure
The economic environment of a country deeply influences the nature, organisation and activities of public administration and vice versa. With almost similar levels of national character and work habits two nations may differ in their levels of production, e.g., the nation which has better institutional capacity to make the best use of limited resources will naturally produce more.
95
Generally there is a correlation between the economic environment and administrative organisation of a country. We will now attempt to study this relation.
1. The Role of Administration in Economic Development
Finance is the life-blood of administration. For the efficient conduct of administration adequate resources and adequately remunerated officials are both equally important. Most of the problems of administration are in reality a problem of fund raising. There is an important correlation between inefficient administration and low standard of economic development. In all developing countries there is a shortage of adequate skilled manpower. This shortage can only be remedied by adequate training facilities which again require adequate funds. Incompetent officials on the other hand bring down the level of socio-economic development. In fact the entire problem of administrative corruption is also related to the level of remuneration of civil servants but is more rampant in developing ones where salary levels are often abysmally low. Some new approaches to public administration have stressed on the contribution of public administration to economic processes.18 The administrative structure is organised in a manner meant to facilitate economic development and is modified accordingly from time to time. In developing countries a perennial debate is on regarding the suitability of old colonial administrative structures to the new socio-economic goals of the state. Very often these structures are dysfunctional to these new goals. The question in these states is whether administrative development precedes economic development or vice versa.
2. Influence of Economic Behaviour on Administration
Every state uses administrative measures to encourage economic activity. Prof. Riggs has linked USA's advance in the economic field to its price-making market system. In this system goods or services are sold to the highest bidder. Profit making is the main drive behind economicy activity. Open competition and utility-based economic activity have led to commercialisation of the economic sphere which has affected the life of the Americans in the following manner:
a) Services of the bureaucracy are also for sale like any other commodity which is sold or bought in the market. Their salary is commensurate with their services.
96
b) Recruitment of services is on merit and work potential. The recruiting authority as the buyer and the employee as the seller has full freedom of choice and is guided by entirely commercial motives. Normally the employer can choose the best among a wide range.
c) The civil servant is normally on contract service which can be terminated or renewed.
d) The price-making market system has other effects on financial administration. Performance budgeting is a product of the economic system of USA. The rate of tax is fixed on the basis of individual income tax and property. e) Marketisation has affected other elements of public administration like delegation, communication, public relations, management, etc. Some thinkers have included administration as a component of economic management. According to them the principles of economic administration can be applied successfully to public administration as well.
3. The Regulation of Economic Activity by Public Administration
Every state public administration regulates economic activity to a greater or lesser degree. The state administration enforces market contracts, checks the proper use of weights and measures, grants licences, etc.
The entire concept of development administration is economy-centred. The main goal of developing countries is rapid socio-economic progress. Different states have adopted different economic strategies towards that goal. Socio-economic planning is a common factor in these states which want to achieve maximum gains in minimum time with limited resources. To enforce the goals of these social welfare states public administration becomes the major instrument of socio-economic change. Development administration needs a qualitative change in the work-methods and attitudes of administrators.
Interaction between Administrative and Economic Systems
The economic system is one of the subsystems of society concerned with the production of goods and services, and to meet the material needs and wants of the citizens. The economic system includes the entire productive process—factors and instruments of production, land, labour, capital and
97
entrepreneurs, as well as the clients and consumers of goods, and services. The economic system is vitally connected with the administrative system in more than one way. Administration executes and implements policy, and the economic factor is one of the prime determinants of public policy.12
Marxist social thinkers view the entire political process as an outcome of the economic process; the economic system is the subsystem on which the entire superstructure of politics and administration is built. Liberal social scientists, though admitting substantial link between the economic and other
subsystems of society, emphasise the autonomy of the political and economic structures in society, especially in industrial societies.
Economic systems can be of various patterns—feudal, capitalist, socialist and mixed economy type depending on the nature and level of socio-economic development and economic infrastructure existing in these societies. Different economic systems may co-exist with different types of government— monarchical, democratic and autocratic. But the only common element in any kind of economic or political system is the existence of a public administrative structure which is indispensable to the proper functioning of both the economic and political systems. Economic activities are not exclusively carried out by economic structures of society, other structures—social, political or administrative—also perform economic functions. In the policy of laissez faire the intervention of the state in economic matters is minimum; administrative functions are mainly regulatory and negative in nature. With the advent of modern welfare states the economic intervention of the state has increased tremendously—specially in developing countries where the state not only provides basic utilities and a wide range of services, but undertakes the major responsibility of economic welfare and development. The entire administrative machinery of the state is geared to the tasks of nation-building and socio-economic progress. The administration in developing country is over-burdened with what may be called economic aspects of administration, that is, tasks related to administration of developmental programmes. Administration is expected to be the key instrument of socio-economic change and well-being of the citizens. The major component of development or modernisation is economic progress and the entire success of
98
administration depends on how well it is able to perform these tasks. Administrative failure to deliver the goods may bring discontent, alienation and turbulence which may have catastrophic consequences for the stability of any state. However, in sharply class-divided societies, administrators generally belong to the privileged classes. Their vested interests may often block the implementation of progressive laws.
In industrial as well as developing societies, how socio-economic conditions affect the policy making process has been discussed elsewhere in the book. Every policy is decided after a rational assessment of its economic costs and likely impact and political outcome.13 The political outcome is often influenced by the economic impact of different policies, some explicitly economic in nature and some not so. Economy is one factor which helps to regulate what is possible or desirable among alternative policies. Policy makers and administrators in developing countries face a different economic setting, that is, different demands for programmes as well as different resources to pay for them, than do policy makers in developed countries. It is not only the differences in economic environment that distinguish these various policy makers and the policies they produce but their economic environments often explain many of the differences among them.
When writers on political economy describe the various economic forces that shape public policy, they often refer to the level of economic development. This is a wide concept that summarises a set of economic components plus certain social variables that reflect economic conditions. Developing states not only suffer from shortage of capital but also from other handicaps that both reveal and reinforce this shortage. The entire concept of economic development would include (a) the quantity and quality of natural resources, such as land, fuel and other mineral resources; (b) the human physical and financial resources, weighed in terms of skills of the population, industrial, transportation and power-generating facilities, and financial assets; (c) the level of agricultural and industrial development; (d) the capacity of such financial institutions as the tax system and banks to generate the funds needed for investment; (e) the character of foreign trade; a developed economy exports mainly processed and manufactured goods whereas an underdeveloped
99
economy exports mainly raw materials; and (f) the nature of the distribution of economic rewards. Highly developed economies have a relatively even distribution of incomes and opportunities among the various regional and social divisions of the population.
The various components of economic development are the concerns of policy makers and the administrators. They are an important part of the environment of policy making and implementation, influencing the demands and resources received by the policy makers and administrators. They are also the targets of the policy makers as they seek to improve the economy by the short or the long term measures.
The degree of economic development in a state affects public policy by shaping the quality and quantity of the resources available to officials. The more developed an economy, the more easily its governments should be able to collect the revenues to pay for the activities it undertakes. Studies of different nations reveal that governments of richer nations spend more on education, health benefits, housing, pensions and welfare benefits to the poor. Yet even in the wealthiest states limited funds continually restrict the selection of policy.
Well developed economies also make available more of the highly trained professional and technical personnel needed to staff administrative agencies. This supply of trained personnel results partly from earlier investments in schools and universities, as well as from cultural factors that make the pursuit of education and an administrative career attractive for the talented job seekers. A problem faced by
developing countries is a lack of skilled native personnel needed to staff their administrations. The level of economic development also shades the demands made on the administration. Citizens with better education and higher occupational skills tend to demand facilities for higher education, investments in research and development, and creation of more recreational facilities in the state. However, the primary concerns of the citizens of developing societies are jobs, housing and public health facilities.
The urbanisation and industrialisation in a well developed economy also generate demands on administrations, for example, programmes of sewage disposal, housing and drinking water facilities, slum clearance.
100
The influence and impact of the economic system on the administrative system, though universal, varies in different societies. In industrial societies the bureaucracies are more efficient and have less of welfare functions than in economically backward societies where the administration has multifarious functions to perform in the economic sphere. The steady increase in the size and functions of bureaucracies is, however, a universal phenomenon.
An Integrated Perspective
The systems framework provides a clue to the need for an integrated perspective on public administration. Ira Sharkansky21 has elaborated the systems framework in her approach to public administration. Her analysis runs thus:
An administrative system is the combination of the administrative unit and all of the elements and processes that interact with the unit, that is, (1) the environment within which the administrative unit operates and which influences and is influenced by the unit, and (2) the inputs to the (3) outputs from the unit that are connected with each other by the (4) conversion process, and by (5) feedback mechanisms.
The environment includes the numerous social, economic and political conditions that present problems to the administrators and that subsequently assist or confound their efforts to resolve these problems. The environment comprises the clients who are to benefit from a policy; a market that is influenced by the adoption of a policy; interest groups, members of the public, and other units of government that express political support for or opposition to a policy. While some of these elements facilitate policy making and the solution to social problems, others make the problems difficult for the administrators.
Policy inputs are the resources sent from the environment to the conversion process of the administrative system. These include demands for policy, human and natural resources, support or opposition towards the actions of administrators. People demand public goods and services for their own use, for example, recreation facilities, education, transportation, and health services. They also demand the regulation of other people's behaviour, for example, by the policy commissions that limit the actions of business and labour, and the
101
military. A 'demand' may take the form of a routine request for service, such as filing an application with a welfare office or state university; it may simply be a statement that an agency should introduce a new service; or it could be a public confrontation with law-enforcing agencies. Resources include personnel, skills, materials, technology, and money. Support or opposition or apathy shows itself in the degree of willingness of a population to pay taxes, to accept government employment, and to accept the government's regulation of behaviour. It is also evident by their patience in the face of adversity and by their sentiments towards administrative personnel.
It is not only the inputs that influence the actions of administrators, features of the conversion process itself affect their actions. Because they originate within the conversion process, they are called 'with inputs', which include chains of command and other formal structures found within administrative agencies, the procedures used by officials to make their decisions, the administrators' personal experiences and predispositions; and the ways the administrative superiors control their subordinates. Besides, there may be conflicts between the formal rules of the organisation and the personal values of administrators; clashes among administrators that increase the problems in making agency outputs; and decision-makers' use of routine procedures to simplify complex and numerous inputs.
'Outputs' that administrators provide to their environment include services, tangible goods, and behavioural regulations, statements, and activities. Administrators also provide direct benefits—information, technical advice, and concrete proposals necessary for policy formulation to officials in other government units. Legislators and politicians make their living by promising and delivering services to voters. Most of these services are implemented by administrative agencies. The administrators' failure to provide desired services may offend both the citizens and the elected members of the legislative branch. Such failures are 'negative outputs'.
'Policy', then, represents efforts of administrators and other officials to make choices in public affairs. Performance represents the work that is actually delivered. Policies can aim at services by defining expenditures, salary levels, number of employees and
102
the rules that govern treatment of clients. Performance may reflect the influence of policies, but it also reflects the influence of various factors that complicate the implementation of policy. It is often difficult to judge administrators' performance partly because a policy may have several goals spelled out in the legislation or the statements of administators. For each policy, there may be different ways of measuring performance, by the frequency with which services are actually made available; by the evaluation of services by clients or professional experts; or by changes in the levels of consumer satisfaction as a result of a programme.
'Feedback' represents the influence of earlier outputs upon the demands, resources, support, or opposition (inputs) that an administrative system receives. Existing tax legislation influences the flow of economic resources into administrative agencies. Public services and regulatory policies affect citizens directly and thus shape the demands they make. Past efforts to promote economic development may affect social and economic conditions in ways that influence both the resources provided by existing taxes and the demands and supports coming from the population. Feedback mechanisms are evident in the continuity of interactions among administrators and the many sources of their inputs and the recipients of their outputs. Citizens and legislators are seldom satisfied once and for all times. Some always demand more. They may demand improvement of existing services, expansion of the magnitude of services to provide for increased population, and expansion of the scope of a programme to provide for certain needs left unmet by present activities. Client groups and legislators are always making some effort to get administrators to change their policies or their decisions in particular cases. The chart of the administrative system illustrates these points.
It represents influence that outputs have upon the environment in a way that shapes subsequent inputs.
Environment includes (1) clients, (2) costs of goods and services, and (3) members of the public and other government officials who support or oppose agencies, administrators or programmes.
The administrator plays a twofold role. Firstly, he assists the process of policy making; and secondly, once the policy has been
103 The Administrative System15 Inputs from Environment include Conversion Process Outputs to Environment include
I. demands, 2. resources, and 3. support or opposition from citizens and officials of other branches of government with inputs include (1) structures, (2) decision, procedure (4) control procedures expressions of policy plus performance or goods and segments of government
Feed back
determined, he has the responsibility for its implementation. Primarily performing the "output" function of executing policies and programmes, the administrator also performs important "input" functions. His "input" functions relate not only to policy making but also to determining public orientation towards the government, the expectations that the public has from the government and the demands that are channelled into the political process. The administrative system thus performs a significant role in the capability function of the political system both in its "input" and "output" aspects and links the polity to society.
The systems framework helps to provide an integrated perspective on administration by showing the linkages between the administration and its environment. It attempts to establish the relevance of public administration to politics, economics, and to other features of its environment that interest us as political scientists or as citizens.
Notes and References
1. John Gaus, The Ecology of Government: Reflections on Public Administration, University of Alabama Press, 1947, pp. 1-19.
2. F.W. Kiggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, 1961, p. 2.
104
3. Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, 1966, p. 24.
4. C.P. Bhambhri, Bureaucracy and Politics in India, Delhi, Vikas, 1961, p. 61.
5. Dwight Waldo, The Study of Public Administration, Random House, New York, 1955, p.ll.
6. Daniel Ferner, The Passing of the Transitional Society, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1958, p. 50.
7. Paul Meadows, "Motivation for Change and Development Administration" in Irving Swerdlow (ed.), Development Administration: Concepts and Problems, Syracuse University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 98-99.
8. For a detailed analysis see B.P. Singh, "Political Culture and Public Administration in the National value System: The Indian Scenario", Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol XXVII, No. 4,1981, pp. 1043-1054.
9. Aghenanda Bharati, "Cultural Hurdles in Development Administration", in Irving Swerdlow (ed.), Development Administration: Concepts and Problems, 1963, pp. 68-82.
10. Peter Self, Administrative Theories and Politics, S. Chand and Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1984, p. 5.
11. M.E. Dimock, Public Administration, pp. 101-103.
12. Ryan C.Amachar, R.D.Tellison and T.D.Wellet (eds.), The Economic Approach to Public Policy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1976.
13. Aaron Wildavsky, "The Political Economy of Efficiency, Cost Benefit Analyses, and Program Budgeting", in Public Administration Review, Vol. XXVI, No. 4,1966, pp. 292-310.
14. Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1978, p. 7.
15. ibid., p. 200.
105
5 THEORIES OF ORGANISATION
It has often been said that one of the main reasons why public administration is denied the status and autonomy of a separate academic discipline in many universites is the fact that it has yet to develop a systematic body of theory. There are theories in public administration but no general theories of public administration have emerged as yet. Therefore the theories which are going to be discussed below deal with things bigger and smaller than public administration, but not with public administration itself. On the one hand, they deal with all organised collective endeavour, organisational behaviour, decision making in organisations, or, on the other hand, they deal with unique practices, administrative processes, specific institutions or particular administrative case studies. In the academic discipline of the public administration, the theories are mainly descriptive and analytical and supposedly objective in the sense that they describe public administration as it really is. Although public administration touches on the life of all citizens in a modern state, the theorists rarely attempt to explain what should compose its interests and ends, or how public administration might maximize those interests and ends for the welfare of the community as a whole. The reasons for the lack of credible theories of public administration are not difficult to find. Historically, the study of public administration has been a part of something else — political science, law, government, history — and even today it is denied the status of a separate academic discipline in many institutions of higher learning. So if there is no such subject as public administration, there can be no public administration theory. Secondly, there was something distinct to theorise about only with the rise of the modern administrative state and its growing paraphernalia of public agencies, public laws and public services. Thirdly, public administration is a practical man's field that has not attracted philosophers. It is only with the development of the academic disciplines of social science that systematic thought and research have been applied to the practical recommendations, generalisations and assumptions of practical administrators or men of action to give it the shape of theory.
106
Scientific Management
The first systematic theory of organisation was formulated in the early years of the present century by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915). An engineer by profession, he is regarded as the father of scientific management. He was the first to advocate the adoption of scientific methods in the field of industrial work processes and management, to promote industrial efficiency and economy. During the later half of the nineteenth century, when the Industrial Revolution had reached a stage of maturity, the rapid expansion of business and industry were giving rise to new problems of industrial planning and management. The working conditions in the factories were chaotic. The work methods, tools and procedures were neither standardised nor planned for efficiency. Choice of methods of work was mainly
left to the workers themselves resulting in considerable ad hoc planning and inefficiency. There was need to increase productivity which required in the long run a more rational and integrated approach to managerial problems. Rapid industrialisation had given rise to a new managerial class who were being called upon to face new problems not encountered earlier. It was mainly to fulfil this need and find ways to raise industrial productivity that Taylor came out with his ideas on scientific management, a term coined by Louis D.Brandies first, and subsequently used by Taylor in his widely known book, Principles and Methods of Scientific Management. Taylor's main thesis is that management rests upon clearly formulated laws and principles with universal applicability in all organisations which entitles it to the status of a true science.
Taylor had several objectives. He was responding to the challenges of the Industrial Revolution which necessitated optimum utilisation of all available resources—human and material — in the fiercely competitive world of business and industry. The need to raise production and promote efficiency with economy in industry urgently required new techniques of management. Taylor's principles of management were "scientific" to the extent that they were based on first-hand experimentation in, and observation of, work procedures and conditions in industrial enterprises.
The major goals of scientific management were to raise industrial output by systematic application of the methods of
107
science, to managerial problems and work procedures, in industrial establishments. Taylor in his book made certain fundamental assumptions. They were: (a) industrial processes can be made open for scientific observation and experimentation. The work procedures of labour can be reduced to basic motions to ascertain the longest, shortest and average time needed for each motion, (b) The standard time prescribed for each operation can be produced at a designated standard of efficiency and economy, (c) The workers can be trained by the management in the best methods for achieving the industrial objectives.
The major principles of scientific management are as follows:
Standardization of Work Methods
Taylor's first principle related to the development of a scientific method for each task which would replace ad hocism and selection of work procedures. This could be achieved, he said, by scientifically
investigating the working conditions and the total quantum of work to be undertaken in any enterprise in a given period; and then fixing daily task assignments so that the workers may work in a planned way. The goal of good management should be either higher productivity or lower unit cost. To achieve this goal, the management must pay high wages. If the output of the worker achieves an optimum level under desirable conditions, the worker should be rewarded, but conversely, if he fails in increasing his output, penalty should be imposed on him. It is only through enforced standardisation of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assumed. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and of enforcing this cooperation rests with the management alone....1
Scientific Selection and Training of Workers
Taylor's second principle related to the selection, placement and training of workers in a scientific manner. Standardisation of working conditions will be crucially served by selecting and placing workers on jobs for which they are best suited by their physical and intellectual abilities. Moreover, it is the duty of the management to train workers for their tasks and provide them all facilities for development of their personalities.
Equal Division of Work between Management and Workers
Taylor's third principle was an open advocacy of an equal division of work and responsibility between management and
108
workers. Taylor had noted in his observations the unhealthy trend of the managers to place increasing burden on the workers, while assuming for themselves only minimum responsibilities. In this context Taylor advised that half of the workers' work should be taken over by the management. The management had to undertake the functions for which it was best suited, i.e., planning, organising, controlling and determining the methods of work.
Mutual Collaboration of the Workers and Management
The last Taylorian principle was that there should be active cooperation and cordial relations between management and workers. There should be mutual faith and trust. Efficiency and productivity can be best promoted by creating a healthy and congenial environment in the organisation which is the joint responsibility of both workers and the management.
By maximising the productive efficiency of each worker, scientific management would also maximise the earnings of workers and employers. Hence, all conflicts between capital and labour would be resolved by the findings of science.2
The combination of these four principles constituted the base of scientific management. Viewed in the context of its own times, scientific management was a revolutionary concept. It brought a drastic change in the whole approach to industrial management. Through it, wastage of human and material resources was greatly minimised, effecting a better and efficient utilisation of labour and material. It helped in the standardisation of work procedures and improvement of working conditions in factories. Labour was greatly benefited by higher wages, better placements and training, limiting of working hours and the general improvement in working facilities. The scientific management movement provided effective guidelines to the management to develop an effective organisation. Taylor was the first management thinker to introduce and stress these five postulates of management— research, standards, planning, control, and mutual collaboration between labour and management. These five principles form the crux of every successful management.3
Commenting on the importance of scientific management for public administration Ira Skarkansky writes:
Some agencies applied its principles to mail-sorting and other such repetitious tasks. Thus., the time-motion study entered
109
the portfolio of the public manager. In more subtle ways, the widespread adoption of 'human engineering' in private industry spread to the public sector and influenced the ways in which organisations were designed and managers trained. The principle of hierarchical management and the consequent design of government departments into neat pyramids with precise chains-of-command drew on the precepts of scientific management. Even in dealing with middle and upper level government administrators, there was acceptance of Taylor's view of an organisation's member as a pliable instrument who would, given appropriate material inducement, perform the assigned tasks. The employee was not seen as a variable personality having needs, preferences, attitudes, and commitments, all of which must be considered by the organisation's leaders. Those who designed government departments and trained their managers were concerned with 'span of control' (i.e., how many subordinates a manager could supervise) and with other principles of the 'one best way' for
management; each subordinate would have a single superior; there would be no division or responsibility. These principles were far too simple to be actually supportive of precise recommendations. To the credit of their creators, however, it must be said that the special studies undertaken to investigate departments did recognise that subtle forces (many of them 'political') operate in and around public bureaucracies.4
In the early years of the 20th century, scientific management had a snowballing impact on administrative thought and practice in the United States. It permeated not only industrial enterprises and business establishments, but also government organisations. In 1910, the scientific management movement manifested itself in the establishment of the Commission of Economy and Efficiency under President Taft. The recommendations of this commission further popularised the scientific management movement. Later, President Woodrow Wilson, who was an advocate of administrative efficiency through the democratic credo and civil service reform, tried to harmonise efficiency with democratic principles of government. Taylor's advocacy of the one best way to do each work—productive or managerial—was equally implemented in industrial and governmental business and
110
management. Thus the scientific technology of Taylorism, besides the democratic principle, comprised the twin elements of American public administration.
The popularity and impact of the scientific management movement can be further gauged from the fact that it gained considerable significance in industrial management in the Soviet Union. Lenin had exhorted Russian industrial managers, as early as 1920, to apply the principles of scientific management for increasing production. Throughout the 1930s and 1940's great efforts were made to increase the productivity and efficiency in Soviet industries through the application of the principles of scientific management.
The scientific management movement aroused much criticism and apprehensions in various quarters. It has been alleged that the movement was mainly concerned with organisational efficiency viewed in purely mechanistic terms. Labour's opposition to Taylorism led to an investigation by Prof. Robert Hoxie on behalf of the United States Commission of Industrial Relations. The major criticism of Hoxie was that the basic ideals of scientific management and trade unionism were incompatible. Scientific management concerned itself mainly with production, efficiency and managerial problems, without touching on the psychological and emotional problems of workers—the routine and monotony of their work, uncertainty of employment, etc.
Sam Lewisohn and Oliver Sheldon, both management thinkers, also criticised certain aspects of Taylor's work. Sheldon stressed the human aspects of managerial problems, whereas Lewisohn emphasised the maintenance of good human relations in an organisation. The worker, according to Lewisohn, wanted justice, status and opportunity above everything else, and hence simply a rise in wages would not automatically lead to added efficiency.
The above factors will also have to be taken into account to keep labour happy and motivated towards the organisational goals. Miss M.P. Follett, a contemporary of Taylor and a well known administrative thinker, also stressed the need to bridge the gap between the mechanistic approach of Taylor and the approach emphasising human relations in organisations.
The general allegation that Taylor had neglected the human factor in management led to a series of psychological and
111
sociological studies with special reference to this factor. The Hawthorne experiment (1927-32) and post-World War II researches in group dynamics and human relations in industry helped in establishing to a great extent that psychological and emotional factors were no less important than economic in explaining workers behaviour and determining organisational output and efficiency.
However, the significance and importance of the theory of scientific management cannot be underestimated by the above criticisms. Its true worth can be measured by the growth of a science of management through the application of scientific methods. It would be important to remember that Taylor's work of the human relations aspect of organisations was underemphasised but certainly not entirely neglected. As stated earlier, he recognised the importance of mutual collaboration of workers and management as one of the essential principles for raising industrial efficiency. Besides, improvement of the working conditions of labour was his chief concern. One of the main by-products of Taylorism was that workers came to be paid and trained better, besides working in more congenial conditions than before. Nevertheless, it was gradually realised that a mechanical application of Taylor's principles and methods in industry and government without taking into account other relevant factors would not necessarily result in higher efficiency or productivity. However, the essence of his theory that the speed, cost and quality of goods and services were dependent variables, and that they could be maximised by the adjustment of independent variables such as division of labour, method of
supervision, financial incentives, flow of materials and, lastly, physical methods and condition are still true to a great extent.
Classical Theory
The classical theory of organisation is also known as the structural theory and its foremost proponents have been Henri Fayol, Luther Gulick, L.F. Urwick, J.D. Mooney, A.C. Reiley, M.P. Follett and R. Shelton.
The most important concern of the classical theory is the formulation of certain universal principles of organisation. It deals primarily with formal organisational structure. The theory assumes that there are certain fundamental principles on the basis of which an organisation can be established to achieve a
112
specific objective. The watchwords of this approach are efficiency and economy, as it conceives that these principles, if fully adopted, can lead to maximum organisational efficiency and economy. The structuralists were chiefly concerned with discovering the true basis on which work can be divided in an organisation and devising proper methods of bringing about effective organisational coordination.
Henri Fayol (1841-1925) observed that management was an undertaking common to all human activities. He enunciated certain basic concepts and principles of management and viewed management as a teachable theory dealing with planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling work processes. Fayol's theory of management is often considered the first complete one. Fayol was primarily concerned with the job of the chief executive and pinned his faith in the principle of unity of command. Fayol divided all activities in an organisation under six groups; technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and administrative. In his book, General and Industrial Administration, he propounded fourteen principles of organisation, listed below:
1. Division of work
2. Authority
3. Discipline
4. Unity of command
5. Unity of direction
6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest
7. Remuneration of personnel
8. Centralisation
9. Scalar chain
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Stability of tenure of personnel
13. Initiative
14. Esprit de corps
Mooney and Reiley's Onward Industry is a pioneering work on the development of organisational theory and is considered the first coherent approach to find organisation universals. Mooney argued that all organisation structures are based on a system of superior-subordinate relationships arranged in a hierarchical order. This, he termed as "Scalar principles".
113
According to this principle in every organisation there is a grading of duties in varying degrees of authority and corresponding responsibility. The scalar chain constitutes the universal process of coordination, through which the supreme coordinating authority becomes effective throughout the entire structure. The scalar process has its own principle, process and effect. These they term as leadership, delegation and functional definition.5
Other notable thinkers of the classical school are Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick. Gulick defines major managerial techniques by the word POSDCORB. Each letter of the word stands for a different technique such as planning, organising, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting.
The book entitled Papers on the Science of Administration edited by them in 1937 is considered to be an important landmark in the development of a science of administration.
Deriving inspiration mainly from the works of F.W. Taylor and Henri Fayol, the two authors have developed the classical theory of organisation which is also known as the 'Administrative Management' theory. They believed that a science of administration based on principles could be developed. They pointed out to the fact that even an engineer, at one time was considered to be a craftsman who developed his skills at the bench only. It was only, through empirical observations, analyses and systematised findings committed to recording and documentation over a considerable period that a science of engineering became possible. In the same way if the experiences of administrators are processed it could be possible to develop a science of administration. Administration hitherto remained an art and there is no reason why it cannot be developed into a science.
Urwick defined organisation as determining activities that are necessary for a purpose (or plan) and arranging them in groups which may be assigned to individuals.6 Thus while the identification of the tasks and their grouping is given top priority the individuals to whom the functions are entrusted come later.
Having stressed on the importance of the structure of organisations Gulick and Urwick devoted their attention to the discovery of principles based on which the structure may be designed. Gulick enumerates ten principles of organisations.7 The principles are:
114
1. Division of work or specialisation;
2. Bases of departmental organisations;
3. Coordination through hierarchy;
4. Deliberate coordination;
5. Coordination through committees;
6. Decentralisation;
7. Unity of command;
8. Staff and line;
9. Delegation; and
10. Span of control.
Among the ten principles of administration listed out Gulick says that division of work and integration are the bootstraps by which mankind lifts itself in the process of civilisation.8 Urwick also identified eight principles of organisation, viz., (1) the 'principle of objectives'—organisation should be an expression of a purpose; (2) the 'principle of correspondence',—authority and responsibility must be co-equal; (3) the 'principle of responsibility',—responsibility of superiors for work of subordinates is absolute; (4) 'the
scalar principle', (5) the 'principle of the span of control', a superior cannot supervise directly, the work of more than five or six subordinates whose works interlock; (6) the 'principle of specialisation',—limiting one's work to a single function; (7) the 'principle of coordination'; and (8) the 'principle of definition'—a clear prescription of every duty.9
It would also be appropriate here to make a brief mention of the contribution made by Mary Parker Follet, a contemporary management theorist. She contributed substantially to the development of management thought, which differed from that of other writers of her period. Organisation was to her a social system and management a social process. Psychological and sociological aspects of management were given prominence in her writings. According to her conflicts in organisation are inevitable. Conflict (i.e., differences of opinions and of interests) is neither good nor bad; but it provides opportunities for good or bad results. She advised managers to use conflict in a constructive manner. She suggested three ways of resolving or dealing with organisational conflict. These are: (1) Domination which means victory by one side over the other. (2) Compromise, i.e., each side should surrender some part of what it wants in
115
order to reach a settlement. (3) Integration, in which a new solution is found which satisfies the real needs of both the sides and neither side sacrifices anything.
The classical thinkers perceive organisation as a formal structure of plan created in accordance with certain accepted principles. In the words of L.D. White:
It is a formal declared pattern of relationships established in government by law and by top management, it is based on the nature and volume of work to be done and is dictated by the requirements of efficiency in the sense of securing the most effective use of men and materials and by the need for responsibility.10
The classical theory is marked by four features— impersonality, specialisation, efficiency and hierarchy.
An important contribution of the classical theorists in general is their attempt to find certain universal principles of organisation. It instilled a sense of purpose and increased coordination of administrative
operations and by specification of roles, brought more predictability and stability in organisational behaviour.
However, the classical theorists are criticised on the grounds that each "principle" has been proved to be neither empirically valid in organisational functioning nor universally applicable which has led Herbert Simon to dub them as "proverbs".
Simon says that "it is a fatal defect of the current principles of administration that, like proverbs, they occur in pairs. For almost every principle one can find an equally plausible and acceptable contradictory principle. Although the two principles of the pair will lead to exactly opposite organisational recommendations, there is nothing in the theory to indicate which is the proper one to apply."11 For instance, one of the 'proverbs' say that administrative efficiency is increased by specialisation. But it is not made clear whether area specialisation is good or functional specialisation is better. The principle of specialisation does not help in choosing between the two alternatives.
Another contradictory situation relates to the principle of span of control. One principle asserts that administrative efficiency is increased by keeping the levels of organisation to the minimum. This is supposed to help the simplification of procedures. But when levels are thus reduced, the span of control
116
increases resulting in the violation of another important principle.
The classical administrative theory is also criticised for its neglect of the human element in organisation. In the writings of classical thinkers, there are certain trends which considered humans as insignificant in administrative processes. In the first place, there is a tendency to treat the human being as a passive instrument incapable of personal contribution to organisational success based on individual merit. It is this critical failure of the classical theory that gave rise to the human relations movement and behavioural studies.
The classical theorists are also accused of a pro-management bias with over-emphasis on the formal structure rather than the informal aspects of organisational dynamics. Stress is laid not on human beings (role occupants) as such, but on the role as it relates to other roles in the broader context of organisational goals. It is atmoistic and voluntaristic in the sense that it fails to view individuals from an
integrated perspective, i.e., it ignores the 'social' aspect of man and the influence of the social environment on his work. The classical theory treats organisation as a closed system, completely unconnected with, or uninfluenced by the external environment. Its obsession with the normative aspect of the functioning of organisations leads to its neglect of the study of actual and informal behavioural patterns in the formal organisational structure.
Human Relations Theory
The essence of the human relations theory lies in its primary emphasis on human beings, psychological motivations and informal group behaviour, in contradistinction to the structuralists' exclusive concern for principles of organisation.
This theory or approach focusses on management as a web of interpersonal relationships. It lays greater stress on the behaviour of role occupants in an organisation than on the formal structure of the organisation. The advocates of this school argue that since management and administration involve group effort and collective endeavours of people, the study of management must be centred on the individual as a socio-psychological being and are more concerned with his motivations. They view human relations as the heart of the task of management; others equate management with leadership. The underlying emphasis of all
117
these views is that the solution of the problems of management can be found in the realm of social psychology.
The greatest single influence of the human relations theory came from the Hawthorne experiments which were carried out in the USA by Elton Mayo and his colleagues of the Harvard Business School in the late twenties and early thirties of this century. The findings were first published in Management and the Worker (F.J. Roethlisberger and William J.Dickson) in 1939. The Hawthorne studies carried out at the Western Electric Company at Hawthorne in the USA is a historic landmark in organisational theory, since it helped to develop the Human Relations School of Organisation. The immediate objective of the study was to measure the effect of improved lighting on workers' output, and the psychological and social problems of industrial workers.
Some of the startling findings of the Hawthorne experiments are discussed below. In the first experiment workers operating under a piece-rate system were observed to see whether higher wages
motivated them to work more. The researchers were considerably surprised to find that the workers worked to a point they felt would ensure them of an adequate income, and then refused to work more, thus giving a lie to a well known Taylorian principle. The main reason for this unexpected behaviour was the underlying fear that overproduction may lead to retrenchment, a situation which any of them might have to face. The researchers discovered that the workers were a well-knit social group who were governed by their own code of work ethics informally agreed to by all members.
In another experiment, some female workers were isolated from the rest and placed under observation. Their level of productivity under diverse working conditions were carefully measured. But under all physical changes in their work environment (like less or more room lighting, rest pauses in work etc.), the production by these girls showed a continually upward rise. This proved that there was no positive correlation between the working conditions and productivity, invalidating another Taylorian dictum which greatly puzzled researchers. However, the reason for the behaviour of the female workers seemed hardly surprising on further analysis. The girls were conscious of the fact that they had been selected for a special experiment. Hence, it was little wonder that they tried to give their best performance.
118
The Hawthorne experiments proved that men are not atomistic or voluntaristic creatures, but are motivated by a variety of factors (not purely economic) in work, and are influenced by their social environment. These studies proved that organisations are social systems comprising thinking and acting individuals. If further disclosed the tendency of workers to form small informal social groups with their own code of ethics and conduct in matters of work, behaviour, beliefs and goals which may be often different from the goals of management and the stated objectives of the organisation.
The human relations theory of organisation rejects formal institutionalisation. It considers the informal, day-to-day functioning of the structure more revealing than the mechanistic study of structure and principles of organisation. It assumes that the study of organisational behaviour is a very complex process which has to take into account, both the economic and non-economic variables. For a realistic analysis of workers' behaviour, all the factors motivating them have to be studied. White remarks:
It is the set of work relationships that grow out of the mutual interactions of persons working together over a long period of time. The informal organisation is more subtle, reflecting such matters as social and economic status, race or language differences, educational levels, and personal likes and dislikes. The formal organisation tends to be relational and impersonal, than informal, emotional and personal. The two usually overlap, may nearly coincide, or may be far apart.12
Some important thinkers of the humanistic school are Robert K.Merton, F.J. Roethlisberger, Alex Bavelas, Keith Davis, A.H. Maslow, D. Cartwright, Leonard Sayles and Chris Argyris. Humanists lay greater emphasis on the study of major psychological processes such as perception, learning and motivation which reveal a worker's personality more than other mechanical factors.
Roethlisberger in his book Management and Morale argues that organisation is essentially a conglomeration of small working groups. Inter- and intra-personal relations within and between groups are determined by various social and psychological factors. Every worker is both a social and an economic being. Therefore any technical change in the work environment of a
119
worker affects not only his economic but his total social status as well, and his reaction to it may vary accordingly.
According to Merton if the bureaucracy is to be functional it must attain a high degree of behavioural predictability or a high degree of conformity with prescribed patterns of action. Our understanding of the social structure has been considerably increased by empirical studies like Merton's which focussed on the interactions of bureaucracy and personality. Chris Argyris contends that the 'classical' school places the workers in a situation which affords him little opportunity for psychological gratification or job satisfaction, such is the dullness and repetitive nature of an average worker's work.
Other notable contributions to the Human Relations School are Keith Davis's Human Relations at Work, Alex Bavelas's Leadership: Man and Function, A.H. Maslow's A Theory of Human Motivation, Leonard Sayles's The Change Process in Organisation.
It is important to note that the early theories of Mayo, Roethlisberger and Dickson were criticised for underestimating the scope of worker-management conflict or even labour unrest. They were termed anti-union and their theories were allegedly misused by managers to exploit the working class. As a consequence, the later human relation theorists such as Argyris and Bennis have stressed the significance of "fusion" approach, where the individual worker in an organisation is considered as important as the organisation itself. Organisational goals were deemed as important as goals of individual workers. Every effort should be made to see that the organisational work fulfils the worker's
talent and creative potential and leaves him satisfied with his job. It is the goal of every management to strike a balance between the workers" needs and those of the organisation.
Comparison between Classical and Human Relations Theory
Although the Human Relationists and the Classical Theorists are generally considered antithetical in their approach to organisational dynamics, it is interesting to note that there is a significant similarity in the views of both regarding the objectives of an organisation. In both theories, the goals remain the same, viz., economy, efficiency, and the use of scientific methods in management. The former's conceptualisation was based on the recognition of the motivation of a "social man" who was emotional while the latter's focus was on the needs of an
120
"economic man" who was rational and logical. The classicists focussed on the motivations of workers, while human relationists examined the needs and aspirations of workers as well as managers. The former's prescription of organisational change lay in the realm of formal structure while the latter recognised that it is the informal group in an organisation which primarily determines the nature of change. Despite these differences both have played a major role in developing administrative thought and practice. The classical theory played a notable role in rationalising and stimulating the quality and quantity of production. By formulating certain concepts in administration it evolved a base for subsequent research in organisational theory. The human relation theorists started where the former left off; their emphasis on the variables of leadership, morale, motivation, informal groups and the external as well as the internal environment of organisation in relation to the personality of workers paved the way for a new orientation in administrative studies, based on the empirical and behavioural approach. Further, their stress on the concept of organisation as a system of interrelated parts and functioning in a dynamic environment acted as a precursor to the systemic-ecological approaches to the field of scientific-administrative studies.
Difference between Formal and Informal Organisation
As stated earlier, the classical school emphasises the formal structure and principles of an organisation, rather than the informal group behviour in any organisation stressed by the human relationists. The human relations theory goes beyond the formal institutionalisation of an organisation to concern itself with the human motivations and the informal behind-the-scenes group functioning of the structure. It believes that a worker is a 'social' being, who does not act or react in a vacuum moved by only mechanical or economic considerations. There are a variety of influences motivating his behaviour and to understand him, it is necessary to understand his environment and these influences. The formal organisation, its structure and principles, is generally documented in charts and handbooks of the
organisation. The informal organisation is customary in nature; it refers to the whole pattern of actual work behaviour and interpersonal relations that affect decisions within the organisation but may be formally absent or inconsistent with the formal plan or structure. In the words of L.D. White:
121
The informal organisation is more reflecting of such matters as social and economic status, race or language differences, educational levels, and personal likes and dislikes. The formal organisation tends to be relational and impersonal; the informal, emotional and personal. The two usually overlap, may nearly coincide, or may be far apart.13
Formal organisation is the planned structure; it corresponds to a formal design. By contrast, informal organisation is a natural growth which may or may not coincide with the formal model of organisation. Central to the distinction between formal and informal organisation is the difference between authority and influence. Authority is the legitimate exercise of power over others whereas influence is the informal capacity over others to get things done.
All organisations have both a formal design without and informal patterns of influence within, which may not coincide for various reasons; like the difference between the relative strength and capacity of those exercising authority and influence or the various elements in the organisational environemnt which make it relatively easier or more difficult in exercising so. Procedural coordination—the specification of the lines of authority and the spheres of activity and authority of each organisation member— creates a formal organisation, a set of abstract, more or less permanent relations that govern the behaviour of each participant. Relationships based on influence result from the interplay of a combination of factors. Some are unique to the particular scene; but others are recurringly characteristic of many agencies and situations.
Informal groupings and interpersonal relations and personal associations result in parallel sources of influence in the formal organisation. There are always certain members who by their proximity to strategic post-holders in the organisation manage to exercise a lot of influence. Like the men behind the throne, all departmental heads have their 'caucus'. Factions of all sorts are fairly common in public organisations, each faction having some membership and influence. Employee welfare unions, specially among lower grade staff, may often determine unofficial standards of conduct and discipline which the senior officials by mere authority may find difficult to change.
However, it must be stated that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive but rather supplement each other. There can
122
be no informal organisation without a formal one, from where the former can operate. Informal organisation is a self-evident fact and a functional necessity, which no formal structure can completely choose to ignore. However, the formal structure is the basis on which an organisation can start to operate and subsequently provides it with the stability and precision required for smooth production processes. Every organisation has to operate within a normative framework of structure, objectives, principles and goals. But since the organisation comprises men and not machines only, an informal interpersonal style of functioning (the human touch) will inevitably emerge which will be flexible and changeable in nature. The formal organisation theory gives only a partial and incomplete picture of organisational dynamics. The complete picture of an organisation emerges only when the formal theory is supplemented with the informal. Undue emphasis on one will lead to a distorted view of organisational reality and undermining of the advantages of both.
The human relations approach filled in the gaps of the classical approach, and corrected its one-sidedness but in the process could not avoid the pitfalls of becoming an equally one sided theory on its own. Therefore, neither of the two is a complete theory. With their opposing emphasis they very well supplement and correct each other. For a student of public administration the best course would be to read the two theories in conjunction with each other to get as near a picture of the total organisational reality as is possible by the present stage of knowledge of organisational dynamics.
Bureaucratic Theory
Max Weber's bureaucratic model continues to be the dominant paradigm in public administration. The term bureaucracy' as Morstein Marx points out, was first used in the French form 'bureaucratic' by a French minister of commerce in the eighteenth century to refer to the government in operation.
Classical writings on bureaucracy can be traced to several sources. The major contributions have come from Marx, Max Weber and Robert Michels. In his earlier writings Marx made an attempt to conceptualise the role of the bureaucracy in the corpus of state organisation. While trying to develop a critique of the political economy of capitalism in 19th century Europe, Marx has
123
been a sensitive and keen observer of contemporary European public administrative organisations. His writings on 'administration' are scattered over numerous books, monographs, letters, and editorial comments. It was never his purpose to build up a theory of public administration as such.
However, before Max Weber it was Karl Marx, who did attempt an explanation of bureaucracy in a scientific manner as he did of every term that he used. Marx examined it, not as Weber tried to do as an ideal type which can exist only in abstraction, but as a set of relationships that arise in a specific socio-economic context.
He says, "Bureaucracy considers itself the ultimate finite purpose of the state." Since bureaucracy converts its 'formal' purposes into its content, it everywhere comes into conflict with 'real' purposes. It is therefore compelled to pass off what is formal for the content, and the content for what is formal. The purposes of the state are changed into the purposes of bureaus and vice versa. Bureaucracy is a circle that no one can leave. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of information.
The universal spirit of bureaucracy is the secret, the mystery sustained within bureaucracy itself by hierarchy and maintained on the outside as a closed corporation. The open spirit and sentiment of patriotism hence appear to bureaucracy as a betrayal of this mystery. So authority is the principle of its knowledge, and the desiccation of authority is its sentiment. But within bureaucracy spiritualism becomes a crass materialism, the materialism of passive obedience of faith in authority of the mechanisms of fixed formal activity, fixed principles, views and traditions. For the individual bureaucrats, the state's purposes become his private purpose of hunting for higher position and making a career for himself.14 To quote Marx again:
The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst lower levels credit the top with understanding of the general and so all are mutually deceived.
In terms of competence, the bureaucrat cannot be a rational actor. The hierarchy of structure means a hierarchy of knowledge. Comprehensive knowledge is not possible in a
124
situation where knowledge is deliberately split up. Reality is conceived in dual terms—one practical and one bureaucratic. The real beings are treated according to bureaucratic perceptions and the image of the world of bureaucracy forms of them. "Bureaucracy reserves to itself the rationality condensed in the social world, sets up a monopoly over it, and the consequence is that rationality is changed into its opposite." Thus Marx's view is in sharp contrast to the Weberian conception of bureaucracy as rationalisation of organisation.
The bureaucracy is the imaginary state alongside the real state — the spiritualism of the state. In the case of the individual bureaucrat, the state objective turns into his private objective, into a chasing after high posts, the making of a career.
The abolition of the bureaucracy is only possible by the general interest actually—and not, as with Hegel merely in thought, in abstraction—becoming the particular interest, which in turn is only possible as a result of the particular actually becoming the general interest.15
Public administration as a discipline has not cared much for Marx's views on bureaucracy. It has generally been held that bureaucracy is subsumed in Marx's theorisation of the capitalist state. Recent Marxist scholarship however admits the concept of 'relative autonomy' of the opening up thereby of a fresh line of thought on the analysis of bureaucracy as a fairly autonomous social category.16
Michels concentrated his analysis on the internal politics of large organisations and to the phenomenon of elite domination in organisations. Basing his observations on the internal structure of the German Socialist Party (which was supposed to be organised along democratic principles), he discovered that the system was oligarchic. He concluded that all big organisations tended to develop a bureaucratic structure which ruled out the possibility of internal democracy.
Bureaucracy as an organisational model was first developed systematically by Max Weber, an eminent German sociologist, in the nineteenth century. According to him, every organisation can be defined as a structure of activities (means) directed towards the achievement of certain objectives (ends). To maximise efficiency and productivity every organisation develops a system of specialisation (division of tasks) and a set of systematic rules
125
and procedures. Weber stressed that the bureaucratic form is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense, formally, the most rational known means of carrying out control over human beings in any organisation. It is superior to every other form in precision, stability, discipline and reliability.17
Weber tried to identify the various factors and the conditions that have contributed to the growth of bureaucracy in modern times. The development of modern large scale organisations and corporations has led to the development and considerable spread of bureaucracy in organisations. Whatever may be the evils of bureaucracy, it is simply indispensable for the running of complex administrative structures. Secondly, an important factor responsible for the superiority of bureaucratic organisations is the role of expanding technical knowledge, and the development of modern technology. Whether the economic system is capitalistic or socialistic, a considerable degree of bureaucratic specialisation is required to attain a high level of organisational efficiency. Thirdly, Weber repeatedly stressed the fact that the capitalist system has undeniably played a major role in the development of modern bureaucracy. The proper functioning of capitalist system necessitates a stable state and a well organised administration. Besides, capitalism is considered the most rational economic basis for bureaucratic administration itself.18
The bureaucratic form of organisation, according to Weber, is distinguished by the following structural and behavioural characteristics:
Division of Labour
(This involves a specified sphere of competence which has been marked off as part of a systematic division of labour in the organisation. Each office holder is the incumbent of an office as long as he holds it, but he cannot personally own the office or the means of production and administration. His job placement is based on his qualifications and/or special training.
Hierarchy
Hierarchy is the second fundamental characteristic which is the feature of any bureaucratic form of organisation. There is a clear separation between superior and subordinate offices, i.e., each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. Remuneration is fixed in accordance with the nature of the job and the grade of responsibility. Promotion and career advancement are on the basis of seniority and merit.
126
Rules
Thirdly, bureaucracy operates in accordance with a consistent system of abstract rules laid down regarding the performance of official jobs. The role of rules has been stressed by Weber so that personal favouritism, arbitrariness or nepotism may not hinder the working of an organisation. Every act of personal direction of officials must be justified by impersonal ends.
The set of behavioural characteristics can be described as follows:
Rationality
Weber's ideas on efficiency and rationality are closely related to his ideal typical model of bureaucracy. He observed that bureaucracy is the most rational known means of achieving imperative control over human beings. It is capable of attaining a high degree of efficiency since the means used to achieve goals are rationally and objectively chosen towards the desired ends. An added factor of efficiency is that personal whims of the leaders and traditional pressures are no longer effective in such a system; it is run according to rules and there is a clearer demarcation between personal and official affairs. Rationality is also reflected by the relatively easier means of calculability of results in the organisation.
Impersonality
The bureaucratic form has no place for personal whims, fancies or irrational sentiments. Official activity is conducted in a businesslike manner with a high degree of operational impersonality.
Rule Orientation
Rationality and impersonality are mainly achieved through formulation of rules and procedures which clearly define official spheres of authority and conduct, which the employees are to rigidly maintain in discharging their duties.
Neutrality
Bureaucracy is supposed to be apolitical and neutral in its orientation and support to the political regime it serves. It is also value-neutral committed only to the work it is meant to perform. In Weberian
formulation, bureaucracy is not to be confused with the civil services. It refers to the sociological concept of rationalisation of collective activities. The bureaucratic form,
127
according to Weber, is the most efficient organisational form for large scale, complex administration that has been developed in the modern world so far. Bureaucracy compares to other forms of organisations as does the machine with non-mechanical modes of production. As Weber wrote: "The development of the modern form of the organisation of corporate groups in all fields is nothing less than identical with the development and continual spread of bureaucratic administration. This is true of church and state, of armies, political parties, economic enterprises, organisations to promote all kinds of causes, private associations, clubs, and many others. Its development is, other things being equal, always, from a formal, technical point of view, the most rational type. For the needs of mass administration today, it is completely indispensable. The choice is only that between bureaucracy and dilettantism in the field of administration."19
In Weber's view, despite the fact that "the modern state is undergoing bureaucratisation", whether the power of bureaucracy as such has been increasing cannot be decided a priori. As he argued, "the drawing in of economic interest groups or other non-official experts, or the drawing in of non-expert lay representatives, the establishment of local, inter-local, or central parliamentary or other representative bodies, or of occupational associations—these seem to run directly against the bureaucractic tendency."
There are hints in these remarks of possible debureaucratisation in a polity that would be able to develop countervailing institutions and associational groups.
Criticism
The bureaucratic theory of organisation is criticised along several lines.
Weber's ideal has evoked much criticism of his statement that a bureaucratic type of organisation is, at least from a technical angle, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency. Behavioural theorists such as Herbert Simon and Chester Barnard have emphasised the point that administrative efficiency would be reduced by following Weber's structural approach and that efficiency in an organisation could be increased through informal organisations and better human relations.20 Gouldner, who has tested Weber's ideal-type empirically, found that the Weberian model had internal contradictions which are reflected
128
in the tensions between the claims of expertise and the claims of obedience based on discipline.21 To enable a bureaucrat to function successfully, it is necessary to give him maximum operational freedom. Weber has also been criticised for not paying adequate attention in his theory to human behaviour, relations, morale and motivational factors. His theory has been called a 'machine-theory' and a closed system model over emphasising the formal rational aspects of bureaucracy while ignoring the whole range of socio-cultural environment and behavioural characteristics of large formal organisations.
According to Laski, bureaucracy is characterised by a passion for routine in administration, the sacrifice of flexibility to rule, delay in the making of decisions and a refusal to embark upon experiments. In his New Despotism, Lord Hewart argued that citizen rights and liberties are now in jeopardy because the typical bureaucrat has lately come to exercise a lot of discretionary power which is strictly against the principles of democratic administration. It has grown and developed under the cloak of ministerial responsibility. Max Weber has himself stated that "bureaucracy is the means of carrying 'community action' over into rationally ordered 'societal action'. Therefore, as an instrument for 'socialising' relations of power, bureaucracy has been and is a power instrument of the first order..."
R.K. Merton has argued that bureaucracy as an organisational form is characterised by rigidity, overemphasis on rules and regulations rather than on goals and objectives, and marked by lack of public relations and class consciousness on the part of bureaucrats.
Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph have argued that the Weberian model is not necessarily the most rational and effective organisational structure in terms of efficiency. They state:
Formal rationality (and technology) can contribute to organisational efficiency, but can also contribute to organisational ineffectiveness by building up the sources of alienation and resistance, and fuelling the struggle of power against authority. The persistence or retention of patrimonial elements in bureaucratic administration can mitigate if not eliminate the struggle just as the presence of bureaucratic features in patrimonial administration can (and did) enhance its efficiency and effectiveness.22
129
Besides identifying the role of bureaucracy in a democratic government, Weber also analysed the possible ill-effects a bureaucratic system could have on the functioning of a democratic order. He noted that permanent officials may be inclined often to misuse their authority. Bureaucrarisation which tends to concentrate power in the hands of an administrative elite militates against the principles of democracy. But on the other hand, he also realised that without a rationally selected administrative class, democracy will be plagued by the evils of a spoils system (nepotism and patronage), which in the long run, leads to public waste, corruption, red-tapism and inefficiency.
The Weberian model, the critics point out, can best function in a stable environment with routine and repetitive tasks. Its capacity for adaptation to change is rather limited. The model is dysfunctional in terms of development and also in terms of jobs involving innovation and creativity. In the developing countries where rapid change is required to bring about socio-economic transformation, the traditional structure of bureaucracy is ill-equipped to meet the tasks it is called upon to perform. Its limitations in performing developmental tasks have often been pointed out. The bureaucratic model is too rigid and inflexible to suit dynamic change oriented situations. As Trist comments:
The nineteenth century cannot be repeated in developing countries in the last third of the twentieth. A fallacy is to suppose that large-scale organisations in these countries must, initially at least, be regimentally constructed in the bureaucratic mode that is beginning to decline in the advanced countries. Evidence is mounting that the pre-industrial traditions of many developing countries enable transbureaucratic styles to be learnt more quickly than in some advanced countries where a great deal of unlearning must first take place.23
Other writers on bureaucracy, like Presthus, have also pointed that the Weberian model is a product of an alien culture which is fairly inadequate for imposition in the developing societies. A study of the interaction between the administrative culture and the social environment in India makes it clear that the bureaucratic behaviour is more a product of past historic-colonial legacy than of a rationally ordered developed society as said in the Weberian model. Much of the bureaucratic behaviour tends
130
to be dysfunctional, marked in terms of developmental goals by rigidity, red tapism and formalism rather than goal orientedness.
Social scientists like Warren Bennis have also predicted that the bureaucratic form is outmoded and is likely to disappear in the new developing societies. According to him, every age evolves its own typical organisational form which becomes extinct with time and bureaucracy; having outlived its utility in the present age it will be replaced by a more adaptable and appropriate form of organisation suited to contemporary needs.
The concept of bureaucracy has been criticised as being "the product of a specific historical, social and political milieu". To overcome the shortcomings of the bureaucratic model, Riggs introduced his ecological model of public administration. He observes that Weber's ideal type construct of bureaucracy assumes a relatively autonomous administrative system and thus is not particularly relevant to the study of developing societies. In developing countries, the administrative structures do not enjoy sufficient autonomy from other social structures whereas in developed societies they are comparatively more autonomous. Further, in developing countries the administrative structures become multifunctional and are likely to perform a variety of "extra-administrative functions" besides the strictly "administrative". In the fluid environments of transitional developing societies it is difficult to study the administrative subsystems on the basis of ideal type constructs of Weber. Riggs thus points out the need for developing new conceptual constructs to study such societies which have a mixture of the primitive and the modern.
David Beetham in his seminal work on Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics24 draws attention to three aspects of Weber's theory of bureaucracy. First was his familiar conception of bureaucracy as a technically efficient instrument of administration. Here, Weber's main emphasis is on the purely technical, instrumental nature of bureaucracy. The second aspect of his theory refers to bureaucracy's inherent tendency to exceed its instrumental function, and to become a separate power group within society capable of usurping the societal goal-setting function which properly belongs to the politician. The third aspect of Weber's theory involved a conception of bureaucracy as reflecting the class structure of society. It was unable to free itself from the outlook of the social classes from which it was recruited and to which it was allied.
131
Recently, a very incisive comment on the Weberian model has been made by Claus Offe.25 All that a rule-bound bureaucracy has to do is to blindly and mechanically apply the legal norms to specific situations. This kind of bureaucratic rationality Offe calls "the unadulterated realisation of norms" or, in brief, organisational rationality. There is a second type of rationality which he calls systemic rationality. It refers to the bureaucratic fulfilment of the functional requirements of their societal environment. As Offe observes, "Under conditions of developed, welfare-state capitalism, the rationality of bureaucratic action does not guarantee, but rather perhaps conflicts with, the functional rationality of the political
system." He, however, points out, under exceptional circumstances, when societal conditions permit the highest degree of unrestricted application of rules, the two criteria of rationality may be congruent.
Conclusion
The bureaucratic theory of organisation has served a useful purpose in history by helping to develop professionalism in administration by incorporating rationalist ethics and standards of conduct and business. It helped to evolve a modernist administrative culture from the earlier feudal remnants of a corrupt, authoritiarian and unresponsive administrative ethos based on the spoils and patronage system. It, therefore, was a progressive and useful model of organisation at one time. Much of the criticisms of the bureaucratic model generally emanate from Weber's ideal type construct. It is necessary to understand that Weber wanted to construct an "ideal type" or a "pure" model of bureaucracy which obviously cannot be approximated to reality. Weber was not a champion of the bureaucratic order, in fact, he was more than sufficiently aware of the evils of "bureaucratisation". He had merely started that compared to the then prevailing administrative forms, bureaucracy was more capable of operating with greater efficiency and rationality.
Notes and References
1. F. W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Row, New York, 1947, p. 140.
2. Rcinhard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1956, pp. 274-5.
3. Shum Shun Nisa AH, Eminent Administrative Thinkers, Associated, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 17-26.
132
4. Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration, Policy Making in Government Agencies, 1978, p. 199.
5. James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, The Principles of Organisation, Harper and Row, New York, 1967, pp. 14-24.
6. L. Urwick, The Elements of Administration, London, Sir Isaac & Sons Ltd., 1947, p. 36.
7. Luther Gulick, "Notes on the Theory of Organisation", in Luther Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration, 1937, p. 122.
8. ibid., p. 4.
9. Quoted in Daniel A. Wren, The Evolution of Management Thought, New York, The Ronald Press, 1972, pp. 357-58.
10. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, Macmillan, New York, 1958, pp. 26-27.
11. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behaviour: New York, The Free Press, 1966, p. 20.
12. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, p. 27.
13. ibid.
14. Marx, "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State", in L.Easton and K.Cuddat, Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, New York, Doubleday, 1967, p.185.
15. Marx, Critique of Political Economy, pp.46-48.
16. See in this connection, O.P. Dwivedi, William Graf and J. Nef, "Marxist Contributions to the Theory of Administrative State", in Indian Journal of Political Science, January-March, 1985.
17. Max Weber, "The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organisation: An Ideal Type Construction", in R.K.Merton; et. al. (ed), Reader in Bureaucracy, The Free Press, New York, 1952, p. 24.
18. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, The Free Press, New York, 1964, p. 337.
19. ibid.
20. Peter M.Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society, Random House, New York, 1962, p. 36.
21. Ferrel Heady and Stokes (eds.), Papers on Comparative Public Administration, University of Michigan Press, 1962, p. 72.
22. Lloyd I. Rudolph, and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, "Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial Administration: A Revisionist Interpretation of Weber on Bureaucracy", in World Politics, January 1979.
23. Mohit Bhattacharya, Bureaucracy and Development Administration, Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979, p. 7.
24. David Beetham, Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1974, Chapter 3.
25. Claus Offe, Disorganised Capitalism; Contemporary Transformation of Work and Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 300-316.
133
6 ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOUR
No organisation can be run without taking decisions; and if it is to be run on sound lines working decisions have to be made on time. Decision-making is therefore the essence of all management, public or private. Administrative behaviours, though highly important, is however a complicated affair. Too
many problems to solve, too little time, fear of repercussions and not knowing what to do are some of the difficulties of an adminsitrator. He may just not know what to decide, that is, be just unable to see his way through various alternatives. In any organisation the executive has a three-stage decision making problem — (i) to which of his many problems should he direct his attentions? (ii) how much time, effort and expense should he invest in resolving uncertainty about that problem? and (iii) what solution to the problem should he use?1
Decisions in an organisation are made by persons; they are a cooperative venture. One person seldom decides questions which are subject to public scrutiny. In the words of Seckler-Hudson, "Decision making in government is a plural activity. One individual may pronounce the decision, but many contribute to the process of reaching the decision. It is a part of the political system."2 In the last analysis, however, the manager or the chief executive of the organisation should make the final decision. No administrator worth his name can afford to shirk this responsibility; he must decide or quit. While taking decisions the administrator would do well to acquaint himself with the necessary precedents bearing on the question and attempt to anticipate future conditions and events, and the effect of his decision on them.
Bases of Decision Making
There seems to be no unanimity regarding the factors which aid decision making. Perhaps there are no such fixed bases. A decision often depends on the criterion or basis believed to be important in a particular situation. The means of arriving at a decision may be rational, deliberate, emotional, impulsive or habitual. Intuition, facts, experience and authority are among the
134
most common bases used in arriving at a decision. Seckler-Hudson enumerates seven factors which must be considered in decision making: legal limitations, budget, mores, facts, history, internal programme and subordinates.3 One thing that must be insisted upon in decision making is that it should be based not on subjective but on objective considerations. A frequent complaint against administration that one comes across in our country is that decisions are taken on grounds other than merit, that is to say, considerations of caste, religion, politics, etc., tend to gain the upper hand. In other words, decisions are biased.
Problems of Decision Making
From the above discussion, it should be clear that decision making is a highly complex process. An attempt is made now to focus attention on, four of the difficult problems involved into.
Involvement in Routine
A study of decision making in public or business organisations reveals that it tends to be to dominated by day-to-day routine problems, with the result that long-term decisions are either avoided or postponed. A person with responsibility for both routine activities and long-term planning is likely to find the routine taking the greater past of his time.
Which Problem to Solve?
Almost every adult has to face such a question frequently in personal or official life. So long as the problems are few and simple, the administrator can solve all of them. But as the number of problems increases and as the problems become more complicated, his task becomes more difficult, one of the difficult problems that may confront him is the determination of priorities in preparing plans for the country. There are competing demands and conflicting pressures, too many demands chasing too few resources. Should there be, for example, more schools or more hospitals, introduction of free and compulsory education or development of higher education, more roads or additional rail links, more steel plants or fertiliser plants?
Bias
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in decision making process lies in the element of bias figuring in it. This element is so important as to need a little detailed treatment.
135
First administrative action often involves discretion and therefore the likelihood of bias. Secondly, insufficient awareness on the part of the public servant of what is public interest, or what is required of him, may lead to bias. Thirdly, strict adherence to rules may also lead to create a bias for red tape. This is often called the administrator's bias. Fourthy, as indicated earlier, bias may be a working legacy of the part. Fifthly, bias may be from the influence of the environment, i.e., from forces external to the individual as a person. Many such forces are by the individual through education and training, while others accrue through absorption from the environment. Sixthly, bias may be the result of fear, on the part of the public servant, of the consequences of his actions. This may drive the administrator to reckon the reaction of his boss as an important factor on his decision making, which means fettered judgement. Seventhly, 'caste consciousness' in the bureaucracy is also a cause of bias. However, this is evident largely in cases of recruitment and promotion and does not affect the public at large. In brief, bias in administration may be the result of personal preferences, and of the influence on the administrator of
caste, class community, religion, language, profession, region, value, attitudes, ideology, pressure groups, etc.
Decision Making and Herbert Simon
Decision making is a subject that has only recently come to the forefront in administrative thinking and administrative theory.
There are mainly three important components of decision making — what exactly does a man do when he makes a decision? He is faced with a problem, or, for that matter, recognises a problem. In the second step, he has a number of alternatives. He himself seeks them out or they are presented to him and he looks at the alternatives. And the third step is the choosing of one alternative out of the whole lot — that one alternative, which, according to him, will give the best results. It was left to Herbert Simon to take a large bit of economic theory and add to it a philosophical back to lay the foundation of a modern theory of decision making.
Herbert Simon, an American social scientist, was greatly influenced by the writings of Barnard, as many of his ideas are found in Simon's early works, Administrative Behaviour (1947) and Public Administration (1951). In the field of administrative studies, Simon has been a pioneering behavioural scientist.
136
Simon's contribution has been particularly significant in the field of decision making. A reference may be made to Simon's theory of rational decision making. He equates 'administration' with 'decision making' and lays emphasis on how decisions are made. He proposed a new concept of administration based on theories and methodologies of logical positivism with their focus on decision making.
Simon's Models
One of the first critics to challenge the redefinition of public administration as the study of public policy was Herbert Simon, who warned that it would range as wide as governmental problems and would eventually swallow political science and possibly other social sciences as well. Eventually it would become applied social science.4 He preferred to see scholars concentrate less on public policy and more on the behaviour of those who made decisions in the public arena and the processes by which they defined public policy. Administrative theory "should be concerned with the processes of decision as well as with the process of action." A general theory of administration would "include principles of
organisation that will insure correct decision making just as it must include principles that will insure effective action". Decision making was the heart of administration; it pervaded the entire administrative process as much as the art of getting things done.
In Administrative Behaviour, Simon noted that decisions were made at every level within an organisation. They contained varying degrees of factual (administrative, pertaining to means) and value (policy, pertaining to objectives) judgements. Differentiation was difficult because most value judgements also involved factual questions. Further, sanctions were needed to ensure that experts deciding factual questions followed democratically formulated value judgements. He proposed that, ideally, the factual and ethical elements should be separated as far as possible and allocated between politicians and administrators according to their relative importance and the degree to which the ethical issues were controversial. In so far as decisions led to the selection of final (organisational) goals, they were "value judgement", and where they implemented such goals, they were "factual judgements". Where representatives made factual judgements (semi-scientific, quasi-judicial, quasi-
137
business), they should be supplied with information and advice. Where administrators made value judgements (social policy, politics), they should be responsive to community values and answerable for their decisions. In practice, representatives often requested administrators to make decisions with a high policy content for them; administrators, in deciding questions with a high political content, followed their own values. In short, fact and value could not be separated institutionally, and individuals could not separate completely factual and value components in a decision.
Simon's point of departure was his emphasis on correct decisions, as well as right ways of doing things; the one could not be divorced from the other. Efficient decision making was not the ruthless pursuit of mechanical efficiency in means, but that choice of alternatives that produced the best results for the given application of resources. It was a relationship between the ends desired and the means used to achieve the desired ends. The ideal was unattainable perfect rationality, by which all objectives would be defined and arranged according to priority, all possible alternative strategies would be listed together with their consequences, and comparative evaluation taken of the strategies and their consequences, so that the maximum results would be forthcoming for the resources employed. In practice, however, complete information was unobtainable, man was not an exclusively rational being and both the objectives and the consequences in public policy were not susceptible to quantitative measurement or even approximate evaluations. In addition to objective rationality, there was also subjective, personal rationality. Empirical studies would reveal how people actually made decisions and what most influenced them, but Simon believed that his preliminary research had revealed the possibility of
measuring and evaluating efficient decision making and the need to define, quantify and measure administrative choice.
In collaboration with D.W. Smithburg and V.A. Thompson, Simon produced the first behaviouralist textbook in public administration, designed to show how American public administration worked "through a realistic, behavioural description of the processes of administration."5 It concentrated more on the informal side of public administration, introducing
138
and applying concepts in sociology and psychology to public administration. Although it was not specifically designed around a decision-making approach, it repeated much of the argument of Administrative Behaviour and went much further in challenging the notion that the ideal in public administration was rationality in pursuit of mechanical efficiency. But as more empirical evidence about how decisions were actually made began to accumulate, Simon dropped the notion of optimal rational choice altogether and opted for bounded rationality and a satisficing model of decision making—that is, people accept what is good enough or satisfying to them and do not search for all possible alternatives. Their expectations limit their search, and they adopt the most satisfying perceived alternative. In Models of Man (New York: Wiley, 1957), he predicted mathematical models of programme feasibility within bounded rationality, once time limits, value systems and factually available alternatives were known.
These seminal ideas were further developed by Simon in a series of lectures given in 1960 and published in The New Science of Management Decision (New York: Harper and Row, 1960). The decision making process was again broken into intelligence (searching the environment for conditions calling for decision); design (inventing, developing, and analysing possible courses of action); and choice (selecting a course of action), execution being indistinguishable from making more detailed policy. The skills of each were learnable and trainable, providing that a distinction was made between personal and organisational decision making. Decisions occurred along a continuum between programmed decisions that were repetitive and routine, and for which a definite routine had been worked out so that they were not treated anew everytime, and non-programmed decisions that were novel, unstructured, and consequential, for which there was "no cut and dried method for handling the problem because it has not arisen before, or because its precise nature and structure are elusive or complex, or because it is so important that it deserves a custom-tailored treatment."6
By 1960, Simon had identified three major models of decision-making, namely, (a) non-programmed decision making based on instinct, judgement, intuition, and other extra-rational factors, (b) pure-rationality optimal decision making, and
139
(c) satisficing decision making. In the 1960s, Simon added the maze model of decision making: problem solvers follow different sets of paths, some of which lead to a payoff solution, others merely to additional sets of paths.
Criticism
Simon's critics mainly contend that although the decision-making process is an important variable in the organisational situation, it alone is not enough to explain the totality of the organisational picture. To them decision making is a process involving emotional as well as rational dimensions.
Simon's study of decision making incorporates and makes use of the logical positivists' distinction between fact and value. This approach has been attacked: (a) as reviving in a new guise the discredited politics-administration dichotomy; (b) as harmful in its effects on decision makers; and (c) as irrelevant to Simon's main thesis.7
Simon's concept of efficiency also is subject to frequent criticism. Some criticise the term equating it with economy. Others object to the use of the term on the grounds that it leads to a mechanical concept of administration, and to an inconsistent relationship between means and ends. Efficiency is not, and cannot be, the only goal of administration, because there is a whole range of other major categories of organisational purposes, such as, satisfaction of various interests, the production of goods and services, mobilising resources, conforming with certain organised codes, using the most rational techniques, etc. Any one of these objectives, roughly or in combination, may under certain circumstances be more important than efficiency in an organisation.
Simon's concept of rationality is also criticised. For example, Argyris feels that Simon, by insisting on rationality, has not recognised the role of intuition, tradition and faith in decision making. It uses satisficing to rationalise incompetence.6
In spite of all the above imperfections, however, Simon's contribution has been rated as a major breakthrough in the evolution of administrative theory.
Leadership
The first and the most important task of management is to provide leadership, that is, to direct, control, and coordinate the
140
activities of groups of people with a view to achieving the desired goals of the organisation. In the words of Seckler-Hudson, "The overwhelming significance of the problems of leadership has mounted with the revolutionary growth of such factors of size, complexity, specialisation, technical developments and social demands."9 Despite the overwhelming significance of leadership there is no unanimity about its contents.
Leadership in large organisations may be defined as influencing and energising of people to work together in a common effort to achieve the purposes of the enterprise. According to Barnard, "Leadership refers to the quality of the behaviour of individuals, whereby they guide people of their activities in organised effort."10 In his opinion, leadership "depends upon three things—(1) the individual, (2) the followers, and (3) the conditions."11 Very often we think of leadership as being chiefly constituting qualities of a personal nature. Though this aspect is important it alone is not enough. Much will depend on the quality and character of the followers. We should think not only of what the leader does to the group, but also of what the group does to the leader. The third variable is the conditions in the background of which the leadership operates. According to Millet, "The essential circumstances of leadership are political and institutional. By the political conditions of administrative leadership, we mean the need to be responsive to external political direction and control.... By the institutional conditions of leadership, we mean the need to be responsive to the requirements of internal operation of keeping an administrative agency in actual running order."12
Koontz and O'Donnell speak of three different approaches to leadership—traitist, situationist and elementalist.13 The traitist "adopted an inductive procedure, observing those recognised as leaders and enumerating the traits each possessed. Qualities held in common were assumed to be essential, and enumeration was offered as a standard for measuring leadership potential."14 Tead, Barnard and Schell are prominent advocates of this approach. The difficulty with this theory, however, is that there is no evidence of common traits of leadership. The situationist approach is concerned more with evolving a method for identifying leaders: "Their starting-point is to assume that certain elements, such as, speech, intelligence, stability, and persistence,
141
are essential in leaders. The next step is to place a candidate in a group and observe how he acts under trial situations that are constructed as realistically as possible."15 The proponents of the elementalist approach "are concerned with refining the concepts of leadership traits, correlating these with leadership success, and, thus, developing a value of each."16 Still others try to learn about the leader by studying his followers.
According to Barnard, a leader performs four main functions—(1) the determination of objectives; (ii) the manipulation of means; (iii) the control of the instrumentality of action; and (iv) the situation of coordinated action.17
Almost every writer on management has his own list. Thus, Barnard's list includes four qualities—(i) Vitality and Endurance; (ii) Decisiveness; (iii) Persuasiveness and (iv) Responsibility and Intellectual Capacity, in that order of importance.18
According to Terry, these qualities are energy, emotional stability, knowledge of human relations, personal motivation, communicative skill, teaching ability, social skill and technical competence.19 According to Appleby, a good administrator has willingness to assume responsibilities; demonstrates continuing personal growth; is disposed towards action; is a good listener who asks pointed questions; works well with all sorts of people; seeks ablest obtainable subordinates; uses institutional resources—does not try to do it all and know it all himself; cares for power only as it contributes to effectiveness, chiefly as a reserve asset, has self-confidence, and so is ready to admit his limitations and errors; is hospitable to bad news as well as good; respects subordinates as much as superiors; constantly seeks to improve institutional performance; and in democratic governments he respects political processes and responsibilities.20
Training of Leadership
Now that management has come to be regarded as a 'science' and a profession, the need for training managers has been universally recognised. It is true that traditionally, managers and executive leaders have been 'born' rather than 'made'. But the complex and technical nature of modern administration has made a more systematic and better planned training programme necessary. Barnard talks of the needs of the executives and suggests methods to develop these requirements.
142
1) Need for Broad Interests and Wide Imagination am Understanding: This can be inculcated by a system 01 general education supplemented by a self-education on the part of the executives. Barnard suggests even giving them sabbatical leave from official work to brush up their knowledge from time to time.
2) Superior Intellectual Capacities: A highly cultivated and trained mind is essential to understand the modern world of complex technologies and intricate techniques. This aspect is perhaps most amenable to formal education and training.
3) Understanding Human Relations: According to Barnard, there are three aspects to this problem: (i) Appreciation of non-rational behaviour of human beings, (ii) An awareness of the nature of the general social system, and (iii) an understanding of formal organisations as organic and evolving systems. Organisations can seldom be built up in accordance with some preconceived concepts for the simple reason that organisations consist of human beings, who are susceptible to all kinds of behaviour. All these three points are amenable to formal training in institutions.
4) Importance of Persuasion in Human Affairs: The essence of administrative leadership, it has been rightly said, is not command but persuasion, particularly in a democratic society. This means knowing the art of winning friends and influencing people. The question that now remains to be solved is how to educate and train executives. Barnard draws a distinction between knowledge and skill in this connection, and regards the latter as more important. It must be admitted that many attributes of leadership are not susceptible to formal training. They may either be discovered or grow out of experience.
In brief, proper method of selection, formal education and training and informal as well as formal experience will all be needed to create the requisite qualities of leadership in modern society.
Motivation and Morale
Motivation to work has been receiving increasing attention from those who study organisations as well as from those who manage them. The traditional simplistic prescriptive guidelines
143
concerning the 'economic man' are no longer considered adequate in understanding human behaviour. There are several factors that account for the growing importance of motivation, viz., the growing
complexity of behavioural requirements in modern organisations, the ever tightening constraints placed on organisations or by unions and governmental agencies, increasing competition, lobbying, the changing nature of technology and the corporate objectives of organisations, and the increasing emphasis on human resources and their management. It is in this context that the conceptual contributions of Maslow, McGregor, Argyris Herzhera and Likert gain significance in the literature of public administration.
It has been observed that the performance of employees in an organisation either as individuals or as members of a group is usually less as compared to their capabilities in terms of skills, abilities and capacities, Finer, for example, states that demonstrated performance generally never exceeds more than fifty per cent of the individual's ability to perform. Most individuals tend to balance their efforts around an assessment of relative costs (time and energy) and benefits. The basic question then arises why employees in organisation often feel alienated from the organisational goals. Why do most of the employees not mobilise their potential skills and capabilities into kinetic skills and capabilities to achieve optimisation of performance? Why do the employees of one organisation work more efficiently than those of another? Why do some of the employees become indolent and inefficient resulting in decreased efficiency and lower morale? Which are the factors and conditions that impel individuals to achieve excellence?
These and other similar questions can be analysed if we understand the meaning, scope and utility of motivation in improving administrative efficiency. It is quite obvious that the mere possession of knowledge, skill and ability will not ensure best results as performance depends upon motivation as well. It is only when the employees are properly motivated that they will use their skill, knowledge and ability to ensure best results. The most important task of the personnel department must be to give abundant and constant evidence of its belief that personnel in an organisation are the key to development. Motivation is of the utmost importance as it constitutes the base for the management
144
functions of planning and organising. The personnel of a department must devote considerable time and effort to planning for and achieving a high level of motivation and morale.
The concept of movitation is used by the psychologists and sociologists as a means of answering two basic questions concerning human behaviour: Why is man impelled to act? Or, what determines the directions of his actions? Like many other concept in psychology, motivation is a variable, which is a characteristic of an organism, not directly observable, and, therefore, only to be inferred from the behaviour of the organism.
According to Morgan, motivation is a general term referring to behaviour determining by needs and directed towards goals.
Motivation is a tendency which keeps a person attentively and purposefully engaged in achieving his formulated goals.
Theories of Motivation
There are many theories which provide an insight into human behaviour and the factors which can help in changing it to promote organisational efficiency. Let us discuss some of them.
Monistic or Economic Theory of Motivation
This theory is based upon the notion that people feel highly motivated when rewarded with more money. F.W. Taylor, the father of scientific management, believed that people would work harder if paid more money. Even today, financial incentives can add a great deal to the efficiency of personnel. In order to encourage employees, different incentive plans have been designed, e.g., Taylor's Differential Piece Rate Plan, Gantt Bonus Plan, Kalsey Plan, Emerson Efficiency Plan, Rowen Plan. In these schemes minimum daily or weekly rates of pay are guaranteed while personnel effort and efficiency are linked with rewards. But due to the pressure of the unions, these incentive plans are becoming unpopular. However, group incentive plans are becoming popular, e.g., bonus schemes, profit sharing, etc. We cannot say that financial incentives are all important but we can definitely say that in today's world they count for a lot.
However, the assumption that financial rewards are the only source of motivation is an over-simplification. To quote Barnard (Functions of the Executive) "...material rewards are ineffective beyond the subsistence level except to a very limited proportion of men; that most men neither work harder for material things,
145
nor can be induced thereby to devote more than a fraction of their possible contribution to organised efforts. The opportunity for distinction, prestige, personal power, and the attainment of a dominating position are much more important than material rewards in the development of all sorts of
organisations including commerical organisations." However executives in organisations must lay sufficient sphere on the material welfare of the employees so that they can contribute their best.
Expectancy Theory of Motivation
This theory is based upon the idea that employees have certain built-in expectations from the jobs they are performing. They are motivated if they find their expectations satisfied. Victor Vroom in his book Work and Motivation has indicated that.
Valence X Expectancy = Motivation.
Where valence is the strength of an individual's preference for a particular outcome, it can be negative or positive. Expectancy refers to the probability that the desired outcome will really be brought about by his action. The organisation can be benefited by the ideas in this theory if the expectations of the employees are integrated with the organisational goals through approaches like Management by Objectives and Organisational Development. Management must try to fulfil the individual expectations of its staff members.
In spite of its apparent comlexity, this model provides a very useful tool for understanding, predicting and influencing behaviour and attitudes in organisations.
Equity Theory of Motivation
According to this theory, an employee relates his own input/ output ratio to that of some other person or persons with whom he compares himself. Most of the employees become slow and sluggish when they see that their fellow workers have no interest in their work. In most organisations, a few staff members surround the top management and develop cliques. These individuals get undue favours, both financial and non-financial, without merit, skill or hard work. Such an atmosphere lowers the motivation of real workers to perform their work efficiently.
Conclusion
The success or failure of an organisation depends to a great extent upon the administrative capability of its leadership and the
146
morale and motivation of its employers. Administrative capability is an important means of converting of processing programme inputs into outputs, such as goods and services. What makes the leadership variable so crucial in the implementation process is its dynamic, not passive quality, i.e., its capability to act and react upon these critical inputs. It is this administrative and transferring quality of leadership that could significantly determine the administrative capability of an organisation.
The greatest efficiency and productivity in an organisation will flow from the efforts of those who find satisfaction in their work and conditions of service, who feel encouraged to move ahead and to meet new challenges, who perceive their working environment as one in which high standards of performance are maintained and rewarded. Motivation can do miracles as a motivated worker can achieve more than an expert with no motivation. Managers must, therefore, devote considerable rime and effort to planning for and achieving a high level of motivation and morale. In such a situation, we would achieve goal congruence, i.e., identity between the individual goals and the organisational goals. We will now discuss some administration thinkers who have made significant contributions to the problems of administrative behaviour, personnel, motivation and morale in organisation.
Abraham Maslow
Analysing human behaviour through human needs and motives is a new paradigm in social-psychology. Among the many contributors to the motivation theory, Maslow's contribution in the form of his need hierarchy is the most significant. It provides the framework to study and analyse human motivation. As Maslow himself has said, "Motivation theory is not synonymous with behaviour theory. The motivations are only one class of determinants of behaviour. While behaviour is almost always motivated, it is also almost always biologically, culturally and situationally determined as well."21 Maslow's contribution to motivation theory lies in his analysis of human motivation by taking human needs as the basis of human behaviour.
Maslow arranged human needs in a hierarchy. The lowest needs in the hierarchy are the physiological and security needs, and the higher order need is the self-actualisation need. In
147
between there are social and self-esteem needs which may be called middle order needs. The fulfilment of a lower order need is a precondition for a higher order need to surface itself. The meaning and
implication of each of the five needs in the hierarchy, viz., physiological, security, social, esteem and self-actualisation are discussed below:22
Physiological needs may be synonymous with the biological needs of the human beings like hunger, thirst, sex, etc. Unless these needs are satisfied there is no room for other needs. Once a physiological need is satisfied, the human organism looks for other social needs.
Human beings also search for security and safety from natural calamities, dangers and deprivations. For a person whose physiological needs are satisfied, his next goal is security. For him everything looks less important than safety. The need for safety can be better observed in infants and children. In civilised society the safety and security of citizens is taken care of, to the most extent, by the government. In such societies safety need is no longer a motivator. We can see the expression of safety needs in people's preferences for a job with tenure and protection like government service, the desire for a savings bank account, insurance, etc.
Man is a social being. Once his physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, he seeks affection, love and belongingness from other human beings and the society around him. A person with social needs severely feels the absence of his friends, family, wife and children. He craves for belongingness with his people.
Self-esteem needs can be broadly divided into two groups, viz., achievement needs and recognition needs. The former are expressed in the form of desire to be self-confident, desire to possess strength and assertiveness and desire to be free from depending on others. Recognition needs are expressed in the form of aspiring respect from others, recognition in society, attracting attention and the desire to attain fame. Satisfaction of esteem needs makes a person confident, adequate and useful.
Self-actualisation is considered to be the highest need in the hierarchy of needs and as such it is directed towards searching for the meaning and purpose of life. Even if all other needs are satisfied, a human being feels restless and tries to achieve excellence in chosen fields. The desire for self-fulfilment.
148
actualisation and living a meaningful life is reflected in this need. The specific form this need takes varies from person to person. For example, one person may have a desire to become an ideal parent, another may have a desire to excel in his profession.
In case of needs other than self-actualisation, it is possible to predict behaviour and as such the accuracy of the prediction will be higher when one goes lower and lower on the hierarchy. In the case of a self-actualised person, the lower order needs are gratified and his behaviour is only influenced by the self-actualisation need. One might be able to predict what such people do, but such a prediction is not possible on the basis of motivation theory alone.
Maslow, after discussing in detail the basic needs of humans and their hierarchical order, discusses a few characteristics of these basic needs.23 Firstly, the hierarchy is not as rigid as it is implied theoretically which means there is no fixity in the hierarchy of needs. There is scope for deviations. For example, some people have a stronger preference for self-esteem than for a social need. This is a deviation from the hierarchy of needs. Again a person may sacrifice a lower order need for a certain period of time to satisfy his higher order need and vice-versa.
Secondly, the hierarchy of needs is not watertight compartments. Satisfaction is a relative term. Emergence of a particular need after satisfaction of a lower order need is not sudden, but a gradual phenomenon.
Thirdly, in an average person, need areas are more often unconscious than conscious.
Fourthly, the basic human needs and desires are the same irrespective of the societies and cultures they live in.
Fifthly, human behaviour is multi-motivated and as such it is not influenced by a single variable like a need. All behaviours cannot be determined by the basic needs.
Finally, a satisfied need is not a motivator.
Maslow's theory of need hierarchy was criticised mainly on the grounds of sophistication and validity of his research data and the order of hierarchy of needs. Some criticise that the needs from a lower order to a higher order do not necessarily operate in the same order all the time. His concept of self-actualisation is criticised as vague, imprecise and too general. Thus the criticisms against Maslow's theory mostly rests on its lack of sophistication
149
and validity of his research data; dispute over the hierarchy of needs arranged by him, and too general and imprecise nature of the term 'self-actualisation'.
Despite criticisms, Maslow's theories lead to further researches in the area of motivation. Maslow's theory is useful, as Dunham points out, to assess the need levels of employees and to identify suitable types of rewards and opportunities to improve organisational effectiveness.24
Douglas McGregor
Douglas McGregor's famous book The Human Side of the Enterprise published in I960, has been hailed as one of the most original books on industrial management in the past two decades.
The main argument of this book (which is more popularly known for its two important suppositions called theory X and theory Y) has been that "the theoretical assumptions which the management holds about controlling its human resources determine the whole character of the enterprise." Being an organisation theorist, McGregor stuck to the conviction that some of the most important problems of management lie outside the realm of improving the selection of managers with technical potential. The higher executive, despite talent and capacities often contribute very little to industry, especially because they have the wrong ideas about the utilisation of talent and about the creation of an organisational environment conducive to human growth. To McGregor, the key question in the world of top management should be:25 "What are your assumptions (implicit as well as explicit) about the most effective way to manage people?" From the answer to this basic question flows the other techno-human objectives of management.
His empirical researches in organisational conflicts and maladjustments in human relations led him to believe that control in human affairs can be viewed as an integration of human behaviour either through coercive compulsion or through motivational self-control. He developed these two assumptions into various hypotheses and quite scientifically tested their validity to propound his theories of managerial
control popularly known as theory X and theory Y. What McGregor calls his theory X is the traditional view of direction and control,26 which has been based on some of the assumptions, implicit in much current managerial theory and practice. According to McGregor these fairly familiar traditional assumptions of theory X are:27
150
i) The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it, if he can.
ii) Hence most people must be controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to work towards the achievement of organisational objectives,
iii) The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all.
These assumptions which embody the mediocrity of the masses, imply a paternal attitude, and McGregor, by arranging this set of assumptions into a theory, has tried to offer an explanation about the interplay of behavioural factors which materially influence managerial strategy.
The assumptions behind the theory treat man not only as an insecure being, responding to the language of fear, but as a disliker or shirker of all work under all circumstances. His conclusion is that "so long as the assumption of theory X continues to influence managerial strategy, we will fail to discover, let alone utilise the potentialities of the average human being."28
McGregor emphasies upon the need for 'selective adaptation' in managerial strategy, because his studies prove that changes in the population at large, in educational levels, attitudes and values, motivation, degree of dependence and the nature of urbanisation have created both the opportunities and the need for other forms of selective adaptation. He has arranged his whole new set of assumptions about motivation and morale in a theory, which he prefers to call theory Y, perhaps to dramatise the contrast with the major assumptions of theory X. The assumptions of theory Y are:29
i) The time and energy spent on physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
ii) Mass exercise, self-direction and self-control in the services of the objectives to which he is committed,
iii) Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement.
iv) The average human being learns under proper circumstances not only to accept but to look for responsibility.
v) The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of creativity and imagination in the solution of organisational
151
problems is widely, not sparsely, distributed in the population,
(vi) Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partly utilised.
The theory implies that if the employees are lazy, indifferent, unwilling to take responsibility, uncreative, uncooperative, the cause lies in management's method of organisation and control. The central principle implicit in the assumptions of theory Y is that integration of behaviours is the key process in management, because it results in the creation of conditions conducive for the members to achieve their own personal goals best by directing their efforts towards the success of the enterprise. The concept of integration and self-control demands that the needs of the individual and that of the organisation should be recognised.
Douglas McGregor calls his theory Y an open call for organisational innovation.30 He does not deny the adequacy of authority under certain circumstances but he does deny its appropriateness for all purposes and under all circumstances. His thesis is that genuine innovation in managerial theory and practice requires the acceptance of a new set of assumptions about the nature of the human resources the management seeks to control.
Managerial steps in the right direction would be as follows:
Decentralisation and Delegation
These are ways of freeing people from too close organisational, control giving them a degree of freedom to direct their own activities, to assume responsibilities and to satisfy their various needs.
Job Enlargement
This concept which is quite consistent with Theory Y, encourages the acceptance of responsibility at the bottom of the organisation, it provides opportunities for satisfying social and egoistic needs. In fact, the recognition of work at the factory level, offers one of the more challenging opportunities for innovation consistent with Theory Y.
Participation and Consultative Management
Under proper conditions participation and consultative management provides encouragement to people to direct their
152
creative energies toward organisational objectives, gives them some voice in decisions that affect them, provides significant opportunities for the satisfaction of social and egoistic needs.
Performance Appraisal
Even a cursory examination of conventional programmes of performance appraisal within the ranks of management will reveal how completely consistent they are with Theory X. In fact most such programmes tend to treat the individual as though he were a product under inspection on the assembly line.
The central principle or organisation which derives from theory X is that of direction and control through the exercise of authority—what has been called 'the scalar principle'. The central principle which derives from Theory Y is that of integration; the creation of such conditions that the members of the
organisation can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward the success of the enterprise. The principle of integration demands that both the organisation's and the individual's needs be recognised.
Conclusion
Discussing team work and tension in the management of differences McGregor discusses three strategies, namely: (i) divide and rule, (ii) the suppression of differences, and (iii) working through of differences. The first two strategies based on the assumptions of theory X have rendered managerial teams as perpetual liabilities. The professional manager should not only guard himself against mutual antagonism, secrecy and playing politics, but should steer through the differences so that the interplay between members may yield to innovation, commitment to decisions and strengthening of relationships within the organisation.31
Chris Argyris
Chris Argyris is highly critical of the approaches of both industrial psychologists and organisational sociologists. While many psychologists tended to give secondary importance to the place and the environment, the organisational sociologists have ignored much of the research on personality, interpersonal relationships and group dynamics. The latter, while studying organisations as wholes, seem to ignore the parts of the organisation. Individual behaviour, small group behaviour and
153
intergroup behaviour represent, according to Argyris, important parts that help to create the whole.32 Argyris states his own view of organisational reality in these lines:
I would prefer a view of reality where the sociological and psychological level variables interact and reinforce each other. The pure psychological approach tends to lead to views of man that ignore the constraints that culture and social structures make and thus results in ignoring the deep psychological issues involved in making a continual choice to give up aspects of one's individuality and autonomy in order to maintain one's uniqueness and freedom.33
Argyris's approach and prescriptions for organisational change proceed from his dissatisfaction of the prevailing forms of organisation and managerial controls.34 He suggests a new strategy for organisation development in four core areas. Firstly, the organisation should provide an environment for the
development of the individual towards personal or psychological maturity. Secondly, a programme for organisation change should aim at improving the "interpersonal competence" of the employees. Thirdly, changes must be introduced to transform the traditional hierarchical form of organisation. Fourthly, techniques for programmed learning aimed at individual change should be introduced.
Argyris focusses upon the individual's relationship to the organisation. He has dealt extensively with the conflict between the individual's psychological needs and the demands of the organisation. Argyris insists that if the potential for "self-actualisation", present in each individual, is properly explored it can benefit the individual employee as well as the organisation. Unfortunately, current management approaches hinder individual growth, inhibit his psychological fulfilment and prevent the organisation from cultivating the benefits that accrue from the employee's personal development.
Argyris suggests that there are some basic inconsistencies between the development of healthy personality and the requirements of the formal organisation. The application of the principles of formal organisation create situations in which: (1) the employees are provided minimal control over their work-areas; (2) they are expected to be passive, dependent and subordinate; (3) they are expected to have a short-sighted
154
perspective; and (4) they are forced to perfect the use of a few superficial abilities. All these characteristics are incongruent to the needs of adult human beings, Argyris insists.
If the formal organisation is defined by the use of such organisation principles as task specialisation, unity of direction, chain of command, and span of control, and if these principles are used accordingly, the employees would work in situations in which they tend to be dependent, subordinate and passive toward the managers. As a result, the formal organisation structure creates in a healthy individual feelings of frustration, and conflict.
The emphasis on managerial controls make the employees feel dependent on their superiors and fearful of the supervisors in charge of the various types of controls. For example, employees and superiors tend to view controls as instruments of coercion. Similarly, performance appraisal techniques are viewed as unfair since they continually stress on failures without showing why such failure may have resulted.35 In brief, the managerial controls focus on the financial costs the organisation incurs if the workers do not work at an optimum level and do not concern themselves with the "human' costs.
So far, organisations have emphasised upon improving the competence involving intellectual or mechanical skills. Organisations are presumed to be able to function better, the more interpersonally competent their members are. Interpersonal competence refers to the ability to deal effectively with other human beings.
In attempting to define the concept of 'interpersonal competence', Argyris has specified several specific kinds of behaviour that he regards as concrete evidence of interpersonally competent behaviour. These four types of behaviour are listed below:
1. Owning up to, or accepting responsibility for one's ideas and feelings.
2. Being open to ideas and feelings of others and those from within one's self.
3. Experimenting with new ideas and feelings.
4. Helping others to own up to, be open to, and to experiment with their ideas and feelings.36
155
According to Argyris, the organisations of the future will be a combination of both the old and new forms of organisations. The old pyramidal forms will be more effective for the routine, non-innovative activity that requires little, if any, internal commitment by the employees. However, as the decisions become less routine, more innovative, and as they require more commitment, the newer forms such as the matrix organisation will be more effective.
A 'matrix' organisation is expected to eliminate superior subordinate relationships and substitute for them individual self-discipline. Each individual would have the freedom to terminate as well as to create new activity.
One important requirement is their awareness of the actual leadership styles to be consistent with the administrative situation. The leader has to help the employees to understand the internal environment, stretch their aspirations realistically and help them face interpersonal reality. He must also learn to manage intergroup conflict about constructive aspects. In brief, it means that executive training in the matrix organisation would focus on system effectiveness.
The matrix structure enables, jobs to be enlarged. Job 'enlargement' facilitates not merely the inclusion of more operations of the same low level, but to expand the use of the individual's intellectual and interpersonal abilities. Under this, each employee can have more control within his sphere of activities, and greater participation in decisions about them.37
Criticisms of Argyris's theories fall into three broad categories. The first set of criticisms concern Argyris's view of man in relation to the organisation; his characterisation of the concept of self-actualisation seems too idealistic and is without any precise operational indicators. To Simon self-actualisation is synonymous with anarchy.38 Simon also takes objection to the view that the end of organisations should be self-actualisation; it would be more realistic for organisations to plan for reducing the working hours and enhancing leisure to enable employees to seek self-actualisation. Secondly, Argyris's dislike of authority is considered to be an exaggerated fear. The view that "structure is devil" is influenced by Argyris's obsession with the need for power.39
Thirdly, there is little empirical support in favour of the statement that people in organisations are singularly opposed to
156
authority. On the contrary, there is considerable support to the view that many employees seem to accept authority and organisation goals because such acceptance coincides with their needs and interests.
Argyris has been able to sharpen the various facets of the human relations and participative schools of thought on organisations.
Influenced by the writings of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor and Chris Argyris, Frederick Herzberg became interested in analysing the relationship between meaningful experience at work and individual
mental growth. He believed that all individuals have two sets of needs: (i) to avoid pain; and (ii) to grow psychologically. The Motivation-Hygiene theory grew out of the studies he conducted on about two hundred accountants and engineers in and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His study revolved basically around two issues: identification of the events which resulted in marked improvement in an individual's job satisfaction; and conversely, the events that led to marked decline in his job satisfaction.
Herzberg's Theory
Herzberg's two-factor theory identifies five strong determinants of job satisfaction and five of job dissatisfaction which are a totally different set of factors.
He labelled the factors associated with mental growth and the task content of a job as 'satisfiers'. Factors associated with pain avoidance and the 'context/surround' of a job were labelled dissatisfiers.
The factors identified as satisfiers, which perform the role of motivators in jobs, are as follows:
Achievement: The personal satisfaction of solving problems independently, completing a task, and seeing the results of one's effort.
Recognition: Positive acknowledgement of the task completed or other personal achievements, rather than a generalised "human relations" expression of rewards.
Work itself: The task content of a job and relative interest, variety, challenge, and freedom from boredom.
Responsibility: Being entrusted with full responsibility and accountability for certain tasks, or the performance of others, and having control over deciding how and when tasks are to be done.
157
Advancement and Growth: Advancement to a higher order of tasks to perform. The sense of the possibility for growth and advancement as well as the actual satisfaction from new learning and thus being able to do new things.
The potential dissatisfiers, or "hygiene factors" (using an analogy to the medical use of the term, meaning preventive and environmental) are: salary, company policy and administration, supervision, working conditions, and interpersonal relations.
Key Principles: The three key principles at the heart of the motivation-hygiene theory are:
The factors involved in producing job satisfaction are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. Growth occurs with achievement, and achievement requires a task to perform. Hygiene factors are unrelated to tasks.
The opposite of satisfaction on the job is not dissatisfaction; it is not merely a job satisfaction. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are discrete feelings. They are not opposite ends of the same cotinuum. Herzberg described them as "uni-polar traits."
The motivators have a much long-lasting effect on sustaining satisfaction than the hygiene factor have on preventing dissatisfaction. The motivators in a work experience tend to be more self-sustaining and are not dependent upon constant supervisory attention. Hygiene needs, however, are related to things for which our appetites are never satisfied completely. Applications of hygiene improvement must be constantly reapplied, since the need for them always recurs, usually with increased intensity. Hygiene must always be replenished. Most of the methods used in work-related organisations to "purchase" motivated behaviour over the years have appeared to be ineffective, since the traditional motivation problems still exist. This is the inevitable result because only the things that surround the work itself were being improved, and these things have no lasting effect on the motivation of workers. For an organisation, it is easy to motivate its employees through fear of hygiene deprivation than to motivate them in terms of achievement and actualising the goals. Such a policy would be injurious to the long-term interests of the organisation.
158
Therefore, it is desirable to focus emphasis on motivating the people. For this, Herzberg suggests job enrichment and vertical overlooking as the important means.
The term 'Job Enrichment' designates a technique used by company managers to maximise in individual workers the internal motivation to work, which is the true source of job satisfaction.
The job-enrichment concept designates a production and profit-oriented way of managing, as well as a means of making work experience meaningful for people. It is based upon the premise that people are not motivated by what is externally done to them by management with rewards, privileges or punishment, nor by the environment or context in which they perform their work. People develop lasting motivation only through their experience with the content of their jobs — the work itself.
In attempting to enrich an employee's job Herzberg contends that management often merely succeeds in reducing the man's personal contribution, rather than giving him an opportunity for growth in his existing job. He calls this "horizontal job loading", as opposed to "vertical loading", which provides motivator factors. Horizontal loading, in his view, is what has mostly been wrong in earlier programmes centred on job enlargement.
In spite of the wide-ranging application and the popularity of the two-factor theory, there appears a severe criticism of Herzberg's propositions. Like Taylor's scientific management theory, Herzberg's theory was also criticised for adopting an industrial engineering approach, though from the opposite way than that of Taylor. His ideas are applicable more to management than to supervisors and much less to the shop floor. It was argued that wages can be both a satisfier and a dissatisfier, particularly a dissatisfier to low paid employees. At the same time higher pay provides recognition and enhances self-esteem. Therefore, it is a satisfier. The other elements of criticism are:
i) A given factor can cause job satisfaction for one and job dissatisfaction for others and vice versa;
ii) A given factor can cause both job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in the same people; and
iii) Intrinsic job factors are more important to both satisfying and dissatisfying job events.
159
The main criticism of the motivation-hygiene concept is that initially it interpreted job and company employment factors to be totally distinct and separate set of entities. Today it is recognised that these factors at times can be both "motivators" and "hygienic" in nature. Money especially seems to be a motivator in many work situations, especially those in which the employee is earning a relatively small total annual income. Motivators and hygienic factors also may vary on jobs at different organisational levels. In addition, factors that are normally environmental may become "satisfiers" (or vice versa) with certain work populations and under.
In spite of the criticism of the two-factor theory, it is unquestionable that Herzberg's contribution to work motivation is substantial. He focused attention on the significance of job content in motivation which was a neglected factor earlier. The concept of job enrichment is certainly one of his better known contributions.
Rensis Likert
Rensis Likert, through his wide-ranging research was concerned with finding the forces accelerating the pressure for high performance in business organisations. Some of the forces listed by him are:4° growing competition from the industrially developed countries for world markets; resistance to pressure and close supervision and rising trend towards giving the individual more freedom and initiative; significant increase in the educational level of labour force, and consequent changes in employee attitudes and expectations of participative styles in organisations. Likert believes that the body of knowledge of social sciences can pave the way to frame a generalised theory of organisation and management. He propounds three distinctive concepts pertaining to supervision, management systems, and dynamics of interpersonal relationships.
Likert classifies supervisors into two categories: (1) job-centred and (2) employee-centred. The primary concern of the first category of supervisors is to ensure performance of assigned tasks and maintenance of prescribed stands. Some characteristics of such supervisors are:41
1) They exert heavy pressure to get work done;
2) They have little confidence in the subordinates;
3) They exercise close and detailed supervision;
160
4) They allow little freedom to subordinates; and
5) They are punitive and critical when mistakes occur.
On the other hand the supervisors in the second category are primarily concerned with the human aspects of their subordinates and effective team-building for high task performance. Characteristics of supervisors in this category include the following:
1) They exert little pressure on subordinates;
2) They earn and get the confidence and trust of their subordinates;
3) They increase the achievement motivation of subordinates and encourage them to accept high performance goals through group decision processes;
4) They exercise general rather than detailed supervision, and allow subordinates to schedule their own pace of work; and
5) They help subordinates when mistakes and problems occur.
Based on his assessment of managers of high performance categories Likert postulates his principle of 'supportive relationships' as an organising concept.
He conceives an 'interaction-influence system' to maximise skills, resources and motivation of individuals at different levels of the organisation.
According to Likert, an organisation operating on an interaction-influence system will reveal some of the following characteristics:
1. Each member will find his personal values, needs and goals refected in those of the work groups and organisation as a whole.
2. Every member of the organisation would be identified with the objectives of organisation and the goals of his work group and see the accomplishment of them as the best way to meet his own needs and personal goals.
3. Pressures for high performance goals, efficient methods, and skill development come from the members themselves. The anxieties associated with hierarchical pressures in traditional organisations will be conspicuous by their absence.
4. Authentic and sensitive communication processes within and between work groups would ensure spontaneous and
161
accurate information flows to providing rational basis for individual and group decisions and actions at all points in the organisation.
5. Every member of the organisation will be able to exert his influence on decisions and actions of the organisation. The amount of influence exerted by any individual will be proportionate to the significance of his ideas and contribution and not necessarily related to his position in the formal organisation.
6. Cooperation motivation, communication and decision processes will enable each member in any part of the organisation to exert his influence, contribute his ideas, skills, resources and improve the total capacity of the organisation for problem solving and goal fulfilment.
The Linking Pin Model of organisation structure conceived by Likert is expected to remove the hurdles, found in traditional hierarchical structures and facilitate the growth of interaction-influence system. The salient feature of his model is that each individual in the organisation has twin roles in two overlapping groups. He is a member of a higher level group and leader of a lower level group. Group functions and processes become far more important than individual roles in this model. They grow upwards from the organisational base in sharp contrast to top-down management of classical organisation.
By far the most important contribution of Likert lies in his conceptualisation of different systems of management along a continuum. He identifies four distinct points along the continuum for purpose of illustration of the characteristics of each of the management systems. He labels these points as (1) exploitative-authoritative, (2) benevolent-authoritative, (3) consultative, and (4) participative42 However, he does not see them as isolated categories but as blending into one another with many intermediate patterns along the continuum.
Likert rightly points out that the component parts of management system should be internally consistent with the overall pattern and philosophy of the organisation. Thus, an authoritarian-exploitative management system displays a steep hierarchical structure, centralised decision making, top-down communication, tight supervision, man-to-man rather than group-to-group relations, performance under pressure, and low
162
degree of employee motivation. On the other hand, the participative management system displays overlapping structures, cross-functional linkages, group decision processes, open and authentic three-way communication (up, down and lateral), adaptive supervision, individual and work groups with a high degree of achievement.
The intermediate forms of management systems 2 and 3 will reveal transitory characteristics of progression from management system 1 to 4 over a period. In system 2 management orientation is still authoritative, but becomes less exploitative and more benevolent towards the members of the organisation. In system 3, exercise of authority is more broad-based with delegation of power to middle levels and consultation of affected interests at lower levels. To the extent motivation, communication and involvement of subordinates replace reliance on exercise of formal authority; consultative management systems will be well-set to move forward to the management system 4.
Having described the salient features of his four systems of management deduced from empirical research, Likert takes a somewhat equivocal position in stating that the operational characteristics of one system cannot be grafted abruptly to another. Each form of organisation to function at its best requires individuals and skills of interaction on the part of leaders and follows to suit the particular system. And again each system tends to produce and perpetuate people to function effectively within the system. In each system communication and motivation processes will be tailor-made to fit their unique decision-making style. Any attempt to switch processes of one system abruptly to the other is bound to impair the total systems' effectiveness. Likert therefore pleads for a gradual change from system 1 to system 4.
Likert's opinion is that system 4 model provides a useful framework to guide all types of organisational development efforts. He feels that uncoordinated and piecemeal efforts such as team building, job enrichment, sensitivity training, participative decision making and management by objectives will not pay high dividends unless they are intergrated into an over all strategy of changing the management system. He claims that his system 4 model possesses the desired characteristics.
However the linking pin model of Likert is often accused of doing nothing more than drawing triangles around the
163
traditional hierarchical structures. It is also criticised as slowing down the process of decision making.
Can organisation systems and management practices be isolated from the cultural constraints and social values? For example, if social organisation is hierarchical and its orientation is authoritarian, will it not also permeate organisation structures and management processes? So long as power dominates modern organisations, participative management remains in the realm of Utopia, say his critics.
However, the sytem 4 concept of management developed by Rensis Likert does hold out prospects of development of advanced forms of human organisation.
Notes and References
1. J.S. March, Business Decision making, Pittsburg Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Reprint No. 47,1959.
2. Seckler Hudson, Organisation and Management: Theory and Practice, The American University Press, Washington, 1957, p. 29.
3. ibid., p. 30
4. H.A. Simon, "A Comment on the Science of Public Administration", in Public Administration Review, 8 (1948) pp.200-203.
5. H.D. Simon, D.W. Smithburg, V.A. Thompson Public Administration, New York, Knopf, 1950, p. 6.
6. H.A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision, New York, Harper and Row, 1960, p. 6.
7. V. Subramaniam, "Fact and Value in Decision-Making", in Public Administration Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 4, December 1963, p. 232.
8. Chris Argyris, "Some Limits of Rational Man Organisation Theory", in Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, May-June 1973, p. 255.
9. Seckler Hudson, op. cit., p. 239.
10. C.I. Barnard, op. cit., p. 83.
11. ibid., p. 84.
12. Millet, op. cit., pp. 37-38.
13. H. Koontz & O'Donnel, Principles of Management, New York McGraw Hill, 1955, Chapter 5.
14. ibid., p. 64.
15. ibid., p. 66.
16. ibid., p. 67.
17. C.I. Barnard, op. cit., p. 85.
18. ibid., p. 93.
164
19. Terry, op. cit., pp. 384-86.
20. Paul H. Appleby, Policy and Administration, p. 84.
21. H. Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, p. 106.
22. A.H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation" in S.G. Hunerager and L.L. Heckmann, Human Relations in Management, Bombay, Taraporewala & Co., 1972, p. 334.
23. See Prasad, et. al, pp. 167-170.
24. ibid.
25. Randall B. Dunham, Organisational Behaviour, Homewood 111, Richard D. IIwin, 1984,1984, p. 108.
26. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of the Enterprise, New York, McGraw Hill, 1960, Preface vii.
27. ibid.
28. See Bakke E. Wright, Bonds of Organisation, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1950, and Charles Walker, Towards the Automatic Factory, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957.
29. McGregor, op. cit., pp. 33-34.
30. ibid., p. 43.
31. ibid., pp. 47-48.
32. See Argyris, The Applicability of Organisational Sociology, Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 70-83.
33. ibid., p. 72.
34. Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organisation, New York, Wiley, 1964, pp. 3-19.
35. See Argyris, Personality and Organisation, New York, Harper/ 1957, pp" 150-57.
36. See Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method, Mass., Addison Wesley, 1970, p. 40.
37. See Ravindra Prasad et. al, Administrative Thinkers, Sterling, New Delhi, 1989, Chapter 14.
38. H.A. Simon, "Organisational Man: Rational or Self-actualising", in Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 4,1973, p. 352.
39. ibid., p. 348.
40. R.Likert, New Patterns of Management, McGraw Hill, Koga Kusha Ltd., 1961, p. 103.
41. ibid., see pp. 181-183.
42. See Prasad, et. al, op. cit., pp. 223-230.
165
7 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANISATION
It is a debatable point in organisational theory whether there exist some universally valid principles of organisation. Many writers, like Herbert Simon, tend to dismiss them as just "myths" and "proverbs" on the ground that for almost every principle, one can find an equally plausible and acceptable contradictory principle leading to exactly opposite organisational recommendations. It is true that the principles of public administration cannot claim the exactness of the principles of physical sciences. They are at best generalisations based on observation of administrative situations. The principles need to be applied flexibly and in the words of White "suggest only working rules of conduct which wide experience seems to have validated."
Hierarchy (or Scalar Principle)
Organisation is essentially the division of functions among people. The distribution of functions and responsibilities can be both horizontal and vertical. When additional levels are added in an organisational structure, it is called vertical expansion. But when more functions or more positions are added without increasing the number of levels it is called horizontal growth. Vertical distribution creates levels like top management, middle management, supervision and the level of specific performance. Due to the difference in the nature of responsibility of various levels, salary scales, and the qualities of
the employees manning various levels, superior-subordinate relationship does emerge in the organisation. Hierarchy consists in the universal application of the superior-subordinate relationship through a number of levels of responsibility reaching from the top to the bottom of the structure. Mooney and Reiley call it the "scalar process". Fayol held the view that an employee should not approach directly his superior's superior. The principle of scalar chain should be violated only with the permission of the superior, when it is in the interest of the organisation. Fayol's emphasis on the principle of hierarchy is in agreement with the ideas of other management thinkers of the classical school as well as those of Max Weber.1
166
The basic features of a hierarchical organisation may be stated as:
1) A person has only one immediate superior from whom he receives orders and instructions as to how the work is to be performed.
2) No intermediate level (of authority) is skipped over in the dealings of the people at the top with those at the lower level or vice versa. This is known as functioning through proper channel.
3) A job-incumbent who is given responsibility for getting a work done is also endowed with authority commensurate with his responsibility.
4) The entire administrative organisation is divided into successive units and sub-units.
5) It is structured in a pyramidal form.
6) Authority, command and control in the organisation descends from the top downwards step by step.
The need for the scalar system is realised for two reasons, viz.,
i) The division of work into its most economic parts with a view to pursuing the ideal of task specialisation so essential to managerial philosophy; and
ii) The patterns of integrating the voluminous behaviours and actions of the specialisations into one combined effort.
In actual practice, short-cuts are found to avoid delay without violating the essential principle of hierarchy. There are two ways of doing it. Henri Fayol suggests that a bridge can be thrown across the formal lines of authority of the hierarchy so that subordinate officers in one department may contact their opposite members in other departments directly. Before short-circuiting the procedure, they should obtain the permission of other superiors to do so.
Secondly, one or more intermediate levels may be jumped to establish direct contact between officers and quicken the pace of work. This is known as 'level jumping'. A few years back, the Government of India started what is known as the 'file-jumping experiment' to skip over the intermediate levels in the hierarchy and make the files reach directly to the decision-making authority.
Hence, with proper confidence and loyalty between superiors and subordinates at each level, the delay of the
167
hierarchical organisation can be very much reduced,, if not altogether eliminated. Both the short-cuts discussed above play a significant part in reducing delay.
The principle of hierarchy has come in for a lot of criticism. It has been blamed for creating superior-subordinate relationships in the hierarchy. Procedure through proper channels, red-tapism and delay in disposal of cases are other criticisms levelled against it. However, hierarchy plays a useful role in an organisation. The many and varied functions of hierarchy have been graphically described by Appleby as "Within the executive branch, general functions of hierarchical structure include the following: fixing responsibilities; providing leadership with areas of discretion at successive levels; providing means of exerting influence and exercising fellowship; making any particular organisation and the general executive government manageable; making it acceptable; determining levels at which decisions of various kinds may be made; providing for ready movement of decision making from one level to another
under agitation; bringing to bear relevant, competing and complementary interests, functions and viewpoints. More specifically, it is the means by which resources are apportioned, personnel selected and assigned, operations activated, reviewed and modified.2
Due to the defects inherent in the hierarchical organisation, certain thinkers have preferred the fan-wise organisation. Under this system of organisation, the authority passes downward not in a single chain of command but at each successive stage, it is split up into multiple parts which are based on specialisation.
Unity of Command
The principle, briefly stated, means that an employee should receive orders from one superior only. The concept of unity of command requires that every member of an organisation should report to only one leader,
Fayol's principle of unity of command was in contrast to Taylor's principle of functional authority. Fayol held that each employee in an organisation should have only one direct superior from whom he should receive orders and directions about the work to be done by him. Such an arrangement would help avoid conflicting lines of authority. Along with unity of command, unity of direction was also among Fayol's most important principles. Unity of direction, according to Chris Argyris, takes
168
place where we have specialised single authority. The principle indicates that organisational and administrative efficiency increases if each unit has a single activity that is well-planned and directed by the leader.
F.W. Taylor preferred the principle of dual supervision. He maintained that better supervision is ensured if functional direction and supervision of each individual is conducted by eight persons four of whom are supervisors, whom he called as (i) the gang boss, (ii) the speed boss, (iii) the inspectors, (iv) the repair clerks. The rest four were to be (v) the order of work and route clerk, (vi) the instruction card clerk, (vii) the time and cost clerk, and (viii) the shop disciplinarian. John D. Millet also advocates double supervision. He says that the concept of unity of command needs to be reconciled with a recognition that supervision of any activity may be dual—technical and also administrative. The two types of supervision may be exercised by different individuals. The one type may be concerned with professional
competence in the performance of a job, while the other is chiefly interested in the efficient utilisation of the resources—men and materials—available for the job.
Therefore the above principle of unity of command like many others, has been challenged. In the words of Seckler-Hudson, "...the old concept of 'one single boss for each person' is seldom found, in fact, in complex governmental situations. Many interrelationships exist outside the straight line of command which require working with, and reporting to, many persons for purposes of orderly and effective performance... the administrator in government has many bosses and he can neglect none of them. From one he may receive policy orders; from another, personnel; from a third, budget; from a fourth, supplies and equipments."3
Supporters of the principle, however, have argued in its favour by pointing out that the technical experts in public administration do not really exercise independent authority and control. They work only in a 'staff capacity, i.e., as advisers, or agents of the executive (line) chief. It is also argued that a violation of the principle does not actually occur where an employee receives orders from more than one superior in respect of different matters or aspects of matters under his charge. The. principle is violated only when an employee receives orders from more than one superior in one and the same matter.
169
Span of Control
Span of control is simply the number of subordinate or the units of work that an administrator can personally direct. In the words of Dimock, "The span of control is the number and range of direct, habitual communication contacts between the chief executive of an enterprise and his principal fellow-officers."4 This concept is related to the principle of "span of attention" described by V. A. Gracunas.5 There is no unanimity as to the exact number, but there does exist a general agreement that the shorter the span, the greater will be the contact, and consequently, more effective control. The exact length of span will depend on many variable factors like the personality of the supervisor, the diversification of the functions of the organisation, the age of the organisation, the traditions and environment of the organisation, and the caliber of the subordinates.
Another noteworthy phenomenon is the ever-growing number of specialists, professionals and technicians in public service. The specialists are experts in their fields and are conscious of it. Secondly, they mostly act as advisers and staff units, and as such are near the top. Thirdly, these specialists dislike vertical relationships in the organisation. The established pattern of organisation itself is, therefore, undergoing a change, and the familiar concept of superior-subordinate hierarchical relationship is under
challenge. Each specialist compels recognition as an individual in his own right. For example, in a university or research organisation there are a number of specialists, who are recognised authorities in their respective fields. In such organisations decision-making process gets decentralised and numerous decision-making centres crop up. The task of the chief executive in such an organisation, thus, becomes more of coordination than of supervision and control.
Neither administrative theory nor practice can lay down a definite number constituting the span of control. There are, however, certain points of agreement about this problem. These are: (1) A span of control does exist at each level of supervision, and it can be exceeded only at the risk of breakdown. (2) It is recognised that the span of control varies with four factors. function, personality, time and space. One can supervise more subordinates with a homogeneous function. Also, more of easy and routine work can be supervised than difficult and
170
responsible work. The personality and competence of the supervisor and the supervised also influence the span of control. As regards the time factor, supervision can be more rapid and span of control greater in an old established organisation than in a newer one. Finally, supervision is easier and quicker when the subordinates to be supervised are under the same roof as the supervisor, than if they were at a distance from him.
V.A. Graicunas gave a mathematical formula to explain the complexity of span of control if more subordinates are added to the executive. Every executive always measures the burden of his responsibility to control the subordinates in terms of a single relationship between himself and his subordinates. Graicunas feels that in any group the relations between executive and his subordinates cannot just be calculated on the basis of single relationships alone. According to him, there also exist cross relationships which increase in mathematical proportion. The direct single relationship always increases in the same proportion as the number of subordinates. In such a case each addition to the group would only create a single direct relationship. But according to Graicunas, there also exists direct group and cross-relationships which increase much more rapidly than the increase in the number of subordinates. This is mainly because the addition of each individual results in many cross and direct group relationships as there are persons already in the group. Therefore, the number of relationships increases in exponential proportion. Based upon his studies, Graicunas develops a formula to calculate the number of relationships to enable the executives to examine the complexity of span of control.
According to this formula in an organisation harms the subordinates there would be three direct single relationships, cross-relationships and nine direct group relationships. But if one more member is added
there would not be any change in the direct single relationships which would be four, but the cross-relationships would increase to 12 and the direct group relationships to 28. This explains that the addition of each member to the group under the control of the executive would increase the number of direct group relationships to such an extent that direct control would become difficult, in some cases even impossible. Graicunas added that for four subordinates it would be quite easy to grasp and remember every combination of
171
groups. But from five on, it would not be possible to remember them because the relationships would become more of a confusion.
Whether the principle enunciated by Graicunas is valid or not, whether the formulae has empirical validity or not, the problem that any increase in the number of subordinates would lead to complexity in the relationships between the individual and the groups has aptly been brought out by him.
In this connection, L. Urwick, quoting V.A. Graicunas, points out that if a superior adds a sixth to his five subordinates, the additional assistance he can obtain is only 23 per cent but the increase in the supervision may amount to 100 per cent. The reason is that what has to be supervised is not only the individual subordinates, but also the numerous permutations and combinations of their mutual relationships. So, span of control universally exists and it cannot be exceeded without the danger of a breakdown.
The whole idea of span of control has come under revision in recent years. The increasing use of automation in administration, the information revolution and the growing role of the specialists are chiefly responsible for such a change. Automation and mechanical processes have resulted in a simplification and expediting of communications. Thus, the problems of delay in paper work has been considerably solved by the conquest of time and distance. Moreover, mechanisation has been made use of in tabulating, accounting, purchasing, sorting and computation work. Automation has improved inventory, record keeping, billing and pay role book-keeping activities. We are in the age of the computers and other electronic devices which supply plenty of information and accurate data to the administrators at a very fast rate which would have otherwise required the operations of a large number of persons. Thus, the length of span of control has considerably increased and it has become possible for the boss to control more subordinates.
Authority
Weber defined power as "the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance." 'Impersonal control' or authority on the other hand, is the probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons. Thus, power
172
is the more comprehensive term, and extends to all combinations of situations in which a person might exercise his will in a given circumstance. Exercise of authority would also imply that a person successfully issues orders to a group of subordinates who obey because of their belief in the legitimacy of the other.
Chester Barnard has defined authority as the nature of an order in an organisation by virtue of which it is accepted, by a 'member' of the organisation, as governing his action. Two important points flow out of this definition:
1) Barnard makes authority an inherent part of the organisation system, and not something conferred from above.
2) It focuses on the point of compliance as being essential in an authority relationship.
Further, Barnard held that authority was exercised through communication and communication is accepted as authoritative if it fulfils the following four essential conditions: (i) intelligibility, (ii) consistency with the purpose of the organisation, (iii) compatibility with the personal interests of those to whom the order is addressed, and (iv) feasibility.6
Bases of Authority
Authority lies not in any single source, including its prestige or status in the hierarchy. It lies rather in the capacity, understanding, judgement and imagination shown by the person who exercises it.
Authority also focuses on the sources of influence within administrative organisation. The issues most relevant to relationships in organisations are formal power, wealth, expertise, respect, affection. Formal power reflects the provisions of constitutions, statutes, or regulations that permit a person to exercise certain controls over others. In every administrative organisation, certain officers have the formal power to appoint new members to the organisation, authorise the expenditure of funds for various purposes, and approve the provision of services to clients. An administrator's possession of formal power may provide influence over the behaviour of other people in the organisation.
Respect and affection can also be added to the bases of formal power like wealth, and expertise in providing the foundation of a person's authority. Especially in small or closely knit
173
organisations, personal attachments may grow around other kinds of relationships. Individuals may win respect simply because of their age or their seniority in an agency while others may benefit from their proven expertise in handling a certain kind of problem.
Types of Authority
Weber classified authority on the basis of its claim to egitimacy, since on this would depend largely the type of obedience, the kind of administrative staff suitable to it, and the ways of exercising authority. His three types of legitimate authority are based on his three bases of legitimacy. They are:
1) Rational grounds resting on a belief in the legality of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue command (legal authority).
2) Traditional grounds resting on an established belief in the sanctity of established traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority).
3) Charismatic grounds resting on devotion to the specific and exceptional, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority).7
In a traditional system the administrative staff may be of two patterns—patrimonial or feudal. In the first pattern, the officials are personal servants of the ruler and they owe traditional loyalty to the ruler. In the second, they have greater autonomy with their own sources of income, but they also owe a traditional relationship of loyalty towards the leader (ruler). Administrative services in the traditional authority system are usually based on nepotism and as a result selections and appointments are not based on expertise or proven merit.
Charismatic authority is primarily based on the personal qualities of the leader. In such a system there is no separate administrative cadre, but only a group of followers who hold posts on the basis of their charismatic qualities. Thus, there are no legal rules to govern the administrative class. Followers obey the orders of their leader primarily because they perceive in him super-human qualities. Consequently, organisations rooted in this authority system suffer from instability, because the problem of succession always arises when a leader dies or is removed.
174
In a legal-rational authority system, the bureaucracy forms the core of the administrative system. Obedience under it is owed to the legally established impersonal order. Such an authority system is the dominant institution in modern states. This system is called 'rational' because in it the means are clearly designed to achieve certain specific ends. It is 'legal', because authority is exercised by means of a system of rules and procedures.
Essential Elements of Authority
According to Weber, the components of authority are:
1) An individual or a body of individuals who rule constitute the authority.
2) The rulers wish to influence the conduct of the subjects; the expression of their will is command.
3) Evidence of the influence exercised by the rules can be seen in terms of the objective degree of command.
4) Direct or indirect evidence of that influence can be seen in the subjective acceptance with which the ruled obey the command.
5) The location of authority in a department may be an individual or a body of individuals. For the direction, control and superintendence of the activities of the department the head of the department (whether single or plural) is responsible. In this connection an important question arises: should the authority be vested in one person or a plural body? If administrative authority within a department is vested in a plural body, it is called a 'board' or 'commission'. If the authority is vested in a single individual, it is called a bureau system.
6) Authority is accompanied by responsibility.8
Responsibility
The word 'responsibility' is variously defined, but in the field of administration it refers to the area of subordination. It has both a negative and a positive connotation. In the negative sense, it carries the idea of accountability, or answerability. In the positive sense, it Refers to a sense of accomplishment. Used as a political term, 'responsibility7 has a negative meaning; it emphasises the fact of subordination to a legislature or president. In public administration it has a positive meaning pointing toward the grant of power made to the administrator by his superior and to
175
the parallel fact that the execution of a programme has been placed in his hands.
Responsibility should be freely allocated; administrative decisions should never be made at a level higher than necessary. An executive cannot, of course, divest himself of his responsibility for the realisation of an administrative programme, but he can delegate functions to subordinates and hold them responsible to him for the proper discharge of those functions. But many executives do not readily see that they can and should also delegate the function of decision-making. The responsibility for making pertinent decisions should be delegated along with the function. Although democratic and cumulative responsibility is a worthy object, it should nevertheless be regarded by the executive as a desirable ideal rather than as a working principle. The following ten corollaries of the principle of responsibility deserve careful consideration:
1. Definite and clear-cut responsibilities should be assigned to each executive;
2. Responsibility should always be coupled with corresponding authority;
3. No change should be made in the scope of responsibilities of a position without a definite understanding of its effect on the part of all persons concerned;
4. No executive or employee occupying a single position in the organisation should be subject to definite orders from more than one source;
5. Orders should never be given to subordinates over the head of a responsible executive;
6. Criticism of subordinates should, whenever possible, be made privately, and in no case should a subordinate be criticised in the presence of executives or employees of an equal or lower rank.
7. No dispute or difference between executives and employees or employers as to authority or responsibilities should be considered too trivial for prompt and careful arbitration.
8. Promotion, wage-change, and disciplinary action should always be approved by the executive immediately superior to the one directly responsible.
9. No executive or employee should ever be required or
176
expected to be at the same time an assistant to, and critic of the authority; and
10. An executive whose work is subject to regular inspection should, wherever practical, be given the assistance and facilities necessary to enable him to maintain an independent check of the quality of his work.
Supervision
Every organisation, public or private, provides for supervision as one of its most important tasks. Moreover supervision is inherent in the hierarchical nature of organisations, each level of which supervises the one below it and is in turn, supervised by the one above it.
Supervision is more than inspection and investigation; the latter are merely parts of the process of supervision. Supervision, in brief, has many ingredients. It is "selecting the right person for each job; arousing in each person an interest in his work and teaching him how to do it; measuring and rating performance to be sure that teaching has been fully effective, administering correction where this is found necessary and transferring to more suitable work or dismissing those for whom this proves ineffective; commending whenever praise is merited and rewarding for good work; and, finally, fitting each person harmoniously into the working group—all done fairly, patiently and tactfully so that each person is caused to do his work skilfully, accurately, intelligently, enthusiastically and completely.9 Millett distinguishes between "substantive supervision" and "technical supervision". The first is concerned with the actual work done by an agency while the second deals with the methods by which the work is done.
All persons in authority, who control the work of others, are supervisors irrespective of their high or low status in the hierarchy. Supervisors generally perform both the "responsibility" and the "work" jobs, though their main function is the former type of job. Supervisors are of two kinds—line and functional. The line supervisor refers to the control exercised by the persons in line of command. For example, In the police department of a state in India, the Inspector-General supervises the District Superintendents of Police who in turn control the Inspectors and so on till we come to the Head Constable who is the first line supervisor. Functional supervision on the other
177
hand, is exercised by subject matter specialist like the auditors, the accountants, the Q & M specialists, statisticians, etc. While line supervision is of direct and commanding type, the functional supervision is staff function, and influences rather than commands.
Millett suggests six methods or techniques of supervision: (i) prior approval of individual projects; (ii) the promulgation of service standard; (iii) budgetary limitation upon the magnitude of operations; (iv) approval of key-subordinate personnel; (v) a reporting system on work progress; and (vi) inspection of results. Let us, briefly, examine each one of these techniques.
Prior Approval
This is a common way of exercising control by the superior over the subordinate units. The top authorities lay down organisational objectives in broad terms, leaving the details of the individual projects to be finalised later. In India, the prior approval of the departmental heads is not enough; in addition, the Finance Ministry/Department has also to give its approval. This arrangement not only ensures detailed control but also provides the much-needed flexibility to change the general plans through making changes in the projects.
Service Standard
The second technique of supervision is for the top management to lay down targets or standards for the operating units to achieve. This, in addition to furnishing guide-points audit their performance. Service standards thus, set up norms of administrative output.
Work Budget
Budget, is much more than statistics; it is a plan of work and is a powerful instrument of control over administration. The operating units, thus, work within the budgetary allotments and are not free to spend money as and when they like.
Approval of Personnel
No agency of government is completely free to recruit its staff. The superior staff is invariably appointed by the chief executive. Even in the case of the subordinate personnel, the top management usually insists on its prior approval for all posts except the insignificant ones. In fact, this work is often entrusted to the central personnel department of the agency concerned.
178
Reports
It is a standard practice in administration that the operating units should submit an account of their activities to the central office. Such reports may be periodic—weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or annual. Report may also be special or ad hoc, that is, be concerned with certain special matter. The term may be used in a broad sense to cover the entire field of communication.
Inspection
Inspection of some kind or the other has been an integral part of public administration for as many centuries as government has emerged as an organised unit. In general, the purposes of inspection are: (i) to see that the existing rules, regulations and procedures are observed; (ii) a sort of performance audit; (iii) instructing and guiding the persons working in the organisation; and (iv) improvement of efficiency.
Inspections are carried out in many ways. In the first place, the head of an agency himself is responsible for the inspection of offices and establishments under him. In other words, each superior is expected to inspect the work of his subordinates. This may be called a built-in system of inspection. Secondly, the administrative agency of the next higher echelon has also a duty to inspect the working of offices under it. The third system of inspection is to set up an external, separate and independent agency, with the government, charged solely with inspection work.
To the above list of techniques may be added a few more, namely, work plans, written procedures or manuals, written and oral instructions, staff meetings and administrative follow-up.
Supervision now needs specified knowledge and skill in using it. In addition, a supervisor should have certain qualities. Pfiffner10 lists eight such qualities, namely, command of job content, that is, expert knowledge of the work to be done; personal qualifications, like integrity; teaching ability, that is, the ability to communicate his ideas to the workers and make them understand the management's point of view; general outlook, that is, the supervisor should love his job and be absorbed in it and inspire those under him; courage and fortitude, that is, the ability to take decisions and assume responsibility; ethical and moral considerations, that is, freedom from vices having social
179
disapprobation; administrative technology, that is, the ability to Manage; and curiosity and intellectual ability, that is, intellectual alertness and receptivity to new ideas.
According to Halsey, there must be an adequate and reasonably well-balanced development of the following six qualities in a supervisor:11
1. Thoroughness. A supervisor should collect all the information relevant to the issue and take care of every necessary detail.
2. Fairness. It includes a sense of justice, consideration and truthfulness towards workers.
3. Initiative. It is a combination of the three qualities of courage, self-confidence and decisiveness.
4. Tact. It is the ability to win the loyalty and support of others by saying and doing those things which give them a feeling that they are playing an important part in whatever is being done.
5. Enthusiasm. It is an intense and eager interest in and devotion to a cause, a pursuit, or an ideal. It includes interest, knowledge and achievement.
6. Emotional Control. It means not the elimination of emotions but rather to control and channel them in the right direction.
Studies by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan have suggested the following conclusions:
1. There is a relationship between the closeness of supervision and the level of output by the workers, the latter being an inverse ratio to the former.
2. A supervisor treats his subordinates in the way in which he is treated by his superiors.
3. Wherever the supervisors are "employee-centred", the output of the employees is more than where supervisors are "production-centred".
4. Supervisors of highly productive groups spend more time on and devote more attention to supervisory duties and less time and attention to direct production work than supervisors of groups with low output. In other words, a successful manager devotes more attention to "responsibility" job than to "work" job.
5. Participative management tends to greater production, Supervisors, who encourage group participation in
180
common tasks, and adopt a helpful, rather than a primitive attitude towards the delinquent worker, belong to high production category.
6. Successful supervisors usually train their personnel for job advancement even at the risk of losing their services.12
Integration versus Disintegration
An administrative system is called integrated in which all the executive authority is conferred by law or constitution on one single person who thereupon becomes the chief executive. The opposite of it is a disintegrated system where executive authority is distributed by statute or constitution among a number of coeval bodies or agencies or persons. Closely allied to this concept is the idea of area administration versus functional administration. In the former system, there obtains at any given level of administration an authority superior to all others with the power to coordinate their activities and resolve contradictions and conflicts. A good example of area administration was the district in the olden days with the collector at the apex of the departmental officials at that level. District today has ceased to perform that role and the area administration has given place to functional administration in which all departmental authorities at the district level have coeval status and run along parallel lines resulting in a disintegrated and uncoordinated administrative system.
India offers a good example of an integrated administrative system. All the executive authority of the union government is vested by law in the president. Each department of government is under the
charge of a secretary or additional/special secretary, and each ministry has at its head a minister. Above the ministers stands the cabinet of which the head is the prime minister. In practice, however, the system is not so well integrated. The Constitution itself has provided for authorities or agencies which are independent of executive control, for example, Union Public Service Commission, Comptroller and Auditor-General and Election Commission. In addition, there exist a number of autonomous commissions and boards, public enterprises and corporations which fall outside the regular administrative organisation.
The United States of America, on the other hand, offers a good example of a disintegrated administrative system. This
181
country has, with a federal form of governmental set up a strong deep-rooted tradition of local self-government, basing its government on the twin principle of separation of Powers and Checks and Balances, having a system of directly elected officers, combined with a host of uncoordinated departments, commissions, bureaus, boards and other agencies. The lack of unity is visible even at the national administrative headquarters. It is true that the Constitution has attempted to bring about administrative unity by vesting the entire executive authority in the president, but it has done very little to help the president evolve a unified administrative structure.
Of the two systems, the integrated one has marked advantages which have been ably summarised by W.F. Willoughby as follows:
It correlates the several operating services of the government into one highly integrated and unified piece of administrative mechanism; it insures the establishment of an effective system of overhead administration and control; it makes definite the line of administrative authority and responsibility; it lays the basis for, if it does not automatically affect the elimination of duplication in organisation, plant, equipment, personnel, and activities; it makes possible effective cooperative relations between services engaged in the same general field of activity that can be obtained in no other way; it furnishes the means by which overlapping and conflicts of jurisdictions may be avoided or readily adjusted: it facilitaties greatly the standardisation of all administrative process and procedures. It permits the centralisation of such general business operations as purchasing, the custody and issue of supplies, the recruitment and handling of personnel, the keeping of accounts, the maintenance of libraries, laboratories, blueprint-rooms, etc, and finally, it furnishes the absolutely essential foundation for a properly organised and administered system.13
Coordination
Every organisation carries on its objectives with the help of various persons engaged in fulfilling the different tasks of the organisation. The diversity of tasks in the organisation necessitates division of work in accordance with the principles of division of labour. A government organisation in every country is
182
divided into a number of departments, services and agencies, which are further subdivided into administrative units to facilitate work. In order to see that these various units, agencies and departments work in harmony with each other coordination becomes necessary. In the words of White, "Coordination is the adjustment of the functions of the parts to each other, and of the movement and operation of parts in tune so that each can make its maximum contribution to the product of the whole." "Coordination", says Mooney, "is the orderly arrangement of group effort, to provide unity of action in the pursuit of a common purpose."
Coordination is needed for three main reasons: 1) To prevent overlapping, conflict and constant interdepartmental friction. Inter-departmental disputes arise when two or more departments claim exclusive jurisdiction over a given matter or when a dispute occurs over matters in which a number of departments have legitmate interest but give contradictory decisions over it. Adoption of the uni-functional system of classification for government departments has also led to frequent frictions. Under this system, to build a house, the planning department will clear the site, the commerce department will supply material, the labour department will provide labour, while the housing department will construct the building. In such an arrangement the occurrence of interdepartmental disputes is scarcely surprising; 2) TO enable the employees to take a broad overview of administration instead of a narrow departmental one, and
3) To see that the right people and right resources are available in the right quantity in the right circumstances at the right time.
Coordination is a necessary precondition of all successful management, specially in government administration due to multiplication of the tasks of government organisations and its many agencies.
Coordination has both negative and positive connotations. Negatively, coordination means the removal of conflicts and overlapping in administration; positively it means the fostering of a spirit of cooperation and camaraderie among the workers of an organisation. Newman defines coordination thus:
183
The orderly synchronisation of efforts to provide the proper amount, timing and directing of execution resulting in harmonious and unified actions to a stated objective.14 According to Terry
Coordination is the adjustment of the parts of each other and of the movement and operation of parts in time so that each can make its maximum contribution to the product of the whole.15
To quote Mooney again
Coordination is the first principle of organisation and includes within itself all other principles which are subordinate to it and through which it operates.
Therefore, coordination entails the smooth and harmonious working of all parts of an organisation as a whole, without conflict and overlapping to reach the desired goal in the minimum time with the maximum economy and efficiency.
Coordination can be of two types: (a) internal or functional which is concerned with the coordination of the activities of individuals working in an organisation; and (b) external or structural which is concerned with coordinating the activities of various units of an organisation. Both types of coordination are effected horizontally and perpendicularly. Horizontally, coordination establishes interrelation between one worker and another, between one branch and another, between one section and another, between one division and/or one department and another. Perpendicularly, coordination is established between one employee and his officer, between officer and his next superior and so on and between one section and a branch, between a branch and a division and so on. In the words of Appleby:
Hierarchy functions both perpendicularly and horizontally. The horizontal relationship is between units and agencies, commonly regarded as coordination, in an effort to distinguish between coordination effected between units responsible to a single executive is coordination at the level of units,
administration at the level of the executive to whom they are responsible, whereas he in turn participates in coordination with other agencies at his level. According to Graves, essential factors in coordination are:
(i) familiarity with the work of other agencies, (ii) informal
184
acquaintance, (iii) physical proximity, (iv) a specific objective, (v) the desirability of a limited number of participants. Elbourne lays down six essential elements in the mechanism of coordination in a large organisation: (1) coordinating personnel, (2) committees and conferences, (3) instructions, (4) reports and returns, (5) training, and (6) policy. Cooperation is the consequence of coordination.
Coordination is an administrative activity in which every employee is sometimes or the other involved, directly or indirectly. It is, basically, a function of a general nature though it may be fulfilled by an amateur or a technician while performing a generalist role. Coordination may be on vertical or horizontal lines. In public organisations authority is always commensurate with responsibility. A rational balance between authority and responsibility will help to preserve the functional equilibrium of an employee in the organisation. Coordination involves exercise of powers or authority by higher staff over the lower, and the proper discharge of responsibility by the lower staff. Coordination builds linkages across various levels of organisation thereby affecting functional equilibrium in the organisation as a whole. Dimock states:
Once the goals of the programme have been set, its plans and policies determined, money provided, organisation tailored to the need, personnel assigned, directions given, delegations determined and supervision provided for, then coordination is the means of bringing all of these factors together in an interlocking relationship, and control is the technique whereby all are checked and kept on the track toward the goals that were set in the first place. Coordination is the active means by which a blend is secured, control is the analytical method by which the blend is regularly tested and evaluated. Thus coordination and control close the circle in the administrative process.
MacFarland suggests four ways of achieving effective coordination. These are:
1. Clarifying authority and responsibility. This will reduce overlapping and duplication of work.
2. Checking and observation. It is also a control procedure whereby the executive can compare between actual
185
activity and desired activity. Records and reports help the executive to detect the spots where interrelations of the units are lacking.
3. Facilitating effective communication. Effective communication processes help in clarifying authority and observing the coordination which exists. The effective coordinating decives here are the use of committees and group decision-making techniques.
4. Coordination through leadership. Top administration must assert its leadership role and without this nothing of coordinative value will occur.16
The degree of effectiveness of coordination can be judged by the following criteria:
1) It is timely and extends in a balanced fashion to all parts of the organisation, and operates horizontally as well as vertically. Mary Parker Follett suggests: (a) It must be a continuous process; and (b) it must be direct between the persons immediately concerned; 2) It must start at the outset of the activity.
Difficulties in Coordination
There may be many hindrances to interdepartmental coordination. According to Gulick, some of these difficulties arise from (i) the uncertainty of the future regarding human behaviour as an individual and as a group (ii) the lack of knowledge, experience, conflicting ideas and objectives, (iii) the lack of administrative skill and technique, (iv) the vast number of variables involved and the incomplete human knowledge, particularly, about men and life, and (v) the lack of orderly methods regarding developing, considering, perfecting and adopting new ideas and programmes.17
Seckler Hudson has added four more factors, namely, "size and complexity, personalities and political factors, the lack of leaders with wisdom and knowledge pertaining to public administration and the accelerated expansion of public administration of international dimensions."18 In short, the hindrances to coordinaton are the rapid proliferation of government departments and agencies, lack of delegation by the superior authority, and ambiguity in defining the span of control.
186
Means of Coordination
Coordination has to be effected at the level of policy programmes as well as at the individual levels. There are both formal and informal means of achieving coordination. They are as follows: 1) Planning: To achieve success at efforts in coordination, effective planning of policies, programmes and employee tasks is essential beginning from the smallest to the biggest unit level. In large organisations a well chalked out plan decided beforehand will reveal the areas of overlapping, friction and duplication. In India, the Planning Commission acts as the chief coordinating agency. 2) Sound Principles of Organisation: An organisation established on sound principles of structure and function is an effective check against the evils that stem from a lack of coordination. An organisation characterised by clear lines of authority, adequate powers, well understood allocation of function, absence of overlapping and duplication of effort and proper delegation of work in itself reduces the necessities or co-ordination."
The Cabinet and Cabinet Secretariat
The task of coordination within the department is usually the function of the departmental head but matters of interdepartmental coordination are generally referred to the cabinet. The cabinet secretariat in India which functions directly under the prime minister, has been coordinating the activities of the various ministries. It is entrusted with the task of general coordination of important administrative measures of the Government of India, which affect more than one ministry or when administrative disputes arise between the state and the central government. It is also responsible for coordination of all economic and statistical works of the Government of India.
Inter-departmental Committees
Inter-departmental conflicts are resolved by inter-departmental committees which may be composed of officials drawn from the top or middle levels of the departments concerned.
Regional Councils
Often regional councils representing different field organisations working in a particular region are instituted to coordinate the activities of these field organisations. These councils may serve a
187
useful purpose by way of exchange of information and interpretation or policy and programmes, for coordinating the operations of services working in the same sphere. The zonal councils in India serve the above purpose.
Staff Agency
Staff officers and agencies may render all possible help to the line department by way of information and advice to help them in coordination and control of its activities. In India, staff agencies like the Civil Service Commissions, the O and M Division, and the Central Purchasing Agency are useful agencies of coordination.
Other Channels of Coordination
In India there are numerous organisational devices to bring about coordination. The union government and the prime minister's office are, above all, coordinating agencies. At the district level the collector is, above all, a coordinator.
Coordination at the inter-organisational levels can be achieved through such devices like the inter-departmental committees, meetings and conferences among the officials of different departments and by the appointment of centralised staff, auxiliary and financial agencies. Examples of these centralised agencies in India are the joint committees of the interrelated departments appointed from time to time, the Public Works Department, the Estate Office, the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal, the Union Public Service Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and the Ministry of Finance and its various departments.
Coordination at the national level or at inter-state levels in India is achieved through the Planning Commission, the National Development Council, conferences and meetings, and Zonal Councils. The cabinet secretariat, the cabinet headed by the prime minister and various cabinet committees effect major coordination between the centre and the states. The conferences of governors, chief ministers and ministers of different departments also help in coordination.
Besides, certain other boards and institutions like the University Grants Commission, the inter-university boards, the Indian Historical Records Commission, are also agencies which facilitate coordination. Lastly, the Finance Ministry in the Government of India which acts as a great coordinator. The
188
annual budget itself is an essay in coordinating the resources, expenditures and programmes of the government and it is the task of this department to coordinate the claims and demands of the different ministries to evolve a national budget.
In addition to the formal means mentioned above, informal channels of communication like personal contacts, debates and discussions between officials often help in reaching agreements and smoothening conflicts which are invaluable for administrative coordination.
Delegation
Delegation means the entrusting of one's occupational authority to another, usually a subordinate, to facilitate work in the organisation. The person to whom authority is delegated is normally a lower ranking employee who is accountable for the use of the delegated powers to the person who delegates them. Delegation of authority is a common feature in all types of large organisations. According to Mooney, delegation is the devolution of authority by a superior person to his agent or subordinate, subject to his supervision and control. This implies that legally the delegated powers still rest with the principal, to be exercised in practice by the subordinate or agent. Terry, however, disagrees with Mooney's interpretation of delegation. To him, "Delegation means conferring authority from one executive or organisation unit to another."20 Thus delegation does not necessarily imply devolution from a higher to a lower authority. It can be vice versa or between units equal in status.
Delegation does not mean the final transfer of power and responsibility to the delegated authority. The person who delegates authority still retains the final power of supervision and control besides the powers to revoke his delegation any time he desires. Delegation of authority means more than simply assigning duties to others in more or less detail. The essence of delegation is to confer discretion upon others, to use their judgement in meeting specific problems within the framework of their duties. Thus de jure authority still belongs to the principal, but its de facto exercise is permitted to the person or agent to whom authority is delegated. In organisational terms, therefore, delegation is merely a device for division of authority.
An administrative thinker, M.P. Follett states that the concept of delegation is a mere myth of organisational theory. She argues
189
that delegation assumes that the chief or organisational head has the exclusive right to all authority, and that delegation is a functional necessity. Miss Follett, however, says that authority belongs to the job, and he who does it must have it whether his superior wants it or not. This means that authority goes with the job and does not necessarily has to be delegated. Delegation of authority is not discretionary, but compulsory for the functioning of the organisation. Without denying this, however, it is possible to maintain that there is a distinction between delegation which is subject to supervision, and legally final transfer of authority, when it rests in the possessor in his own right (like decentralised authority). This distinction can be further elaborated in the words of S.S. Khera who has distinguished between delegation and decentralisation in the following manner:
I may define delegation as something limited to and by what is delegated. I distinguish it from decentralisation, taking decentralisation as something that includes what is delegated plus other things which are not delegated, but are mainly the consequences of the process of law. For instance, there is a decentralisation of function, responsibility and authority under our Constitution. There is also a decentralisation of function and authority and of resources, under statute law, under various laws passed by Parliament from time to time. When speaking of delegation, I do not refer to these at all, more particularly because such decentralised function, authority and responsibility do not yield as a necessary corollary that accountability which forms an essential feature of delegation as such.
Need for Delegation
Delegation is a functional imperative for all types of organisations. In fact, it is inevitable for any group functioning which necessitates division of work and authority. Delegation is one of the main ways of division of authority. The extent of delegation of authority, however, is inversely related to the size and diversity of work in the organisation. According to White, "Circumstances of magnitude and volume, however, require some delegation of authority, and the settlement of much business at the point where it arises." The major advantages of delegation are the following:
190
1. Without delegating powers, where necessary, it would be physically impossible for the head to carry on the entire tasks of the organisation himself. The chief executive or superior officers have to devote
their time and energy to the most important executive and managerial tasks. Much of the routine tasks are performed by the lower staff who pass on the most important business to the chief executive. Delegation takes much of the weight of routine and unimportant work off the shoulders of the chief executive. Effective leadership is made possible only through the process of delegation.
In the words of Mooney and Reiley
"The real leader... finds easy to delegate authority and is quick to do so whenever he perceives its necessity but he remains very conscious of the fact that there is one thing he cannot delegate, namely, his own authority and the responsibility which it includes."21
2. The avoidance of delay in administrative bottlenecks and convenience of citizens require decisions at various field offices rather than in a single headquarters establishment.
3. In some cases proper adjustment of policy and programme to local conditions requires discretionary field decisions.
4. One of the duties of a manager is to train and educate his subordinates in the art of sharing responsibility and making decisions which is possible only through delegation. Delegation of authority therefore has much educative value. The subordinates develop greater loyalty and a sense of identification with the organisation if they are made co-partners in the exercise of authority. This is a great morale booster to employees and provides sufficient incentive to work hard. Proper delegation of authority minimises delay, makes the organisation more efficient, economical and operational.
Forms of Delegation
According to the degree of authority delegated, delegation may be (a) full or partial, (b) conditional or unconditional, (c) formal or informal, and (d) direct or intermediate.
a) Delegation is full when complete authority is conferred on the agent, for example, when a diplomatic representative is sent abroad with "full powers" to negotiate. It is "partial"
191
when he is required to get advice and guidance on crucial points from the head office at home.
b) Delegation is conditional when the action of a subordinate is subject to confirmation and control by the principal, it is unconditional when the subordinate is free to act without reservations.
c) Delegation is formal when embodied in written rules and laws, it is informal when based on customs and conventions.
d) Delegation is direct when no third person intervenes between the two parties to delegation; it is intermediate when it is made through a third person. Mooney gives two instances of such delegation. They are: the election of the US President by the people through an electoral college and the election of the Pope by the congregation through the Council of Cardinals.22
Hindrance to Delegation
Hindrances to delegation are of two types: (a) organisational, and (b) personal.
Organisational hindrances are:
i) Lack of well established organisational methods and procedures.
ii) Lack of means of coordination and communication.
iii) Size and location of an organisation—a widely spread out organisational network necessitates delegation.
iv) Lack of properly defined duties and sphere of authority.
Pfiffner gives the following human causes of failure to delegate:
1) Persons who rise to position of hierarchical leadership have more than normal egotism.
2) They are afraid that others will not make the proper decisions or carry them out in the desired manner.
3) They fear that disloyal or subversive power centres will develop among strong subordinates.
4) Strong, vigorous, and highly motivated persons become impatient with the slower pace and indecisiveness of subordinates.
5) In public administration, political considerations often make delegation difficult.
192
6) The cultural heritage of man has been one of authoritarian patriarchal leadership, thus, the practice of delegation is partly dependent on cultural change.
7) The act of delegation requires an emotional maturity which apprently is rare, even among successful persons.
8) The symbols of leadership (those personal qualities and traits which attract the attention of others) are inconsistent with the philosophy of delegation. Those striving to succeed must make themselves prominent.
9) Persons who desire to delegate do not know how.
10) They do not know how, for at least two reasons:
a) the science of organisation and management is immature; and
b) their work experience has not taught them to delegate because most organisations fail to practise delegation.23
Due to the overwhelming need and importance of delegation in modern day organisations, the above-mentioned hindrances have to be removed and proper procedures and methods of work established to facilitate the processes of delegation. Every organisation, big and small, should have clearly defined procedures, responsibility and hierarchically divided spheres of delegated authority to avoid confusion and duplication of work.
Proper means of coordination and communication between various levels of staff should also be established to facilitate the processes of delegation in organisations.
As far as personal factors are concerned, not only training of the subordinates but also of the senior administrators should be made compulsory. The subordinates should be trained in the art of proper use of discretionary authority and the higher levels of administrative hierarchy in the habit of delegation.
Essentials of Delegation
1. Delegation should be regarded as a whole at every point (including function, authority, power and responsibility).
2. Delegation must be sufficiently backed by resources; it must carry the weight and power of decision and resources.
3. Recognition of the fact that decisions cannot be made without the risk of error.
4. There should be mutual trust among the two parties involved.
193
5. Delegation must be clear and equivocal.
6. A corollary of delegation is accountability.
General Principles of Delegation
1. Delegation should be written and specific.
2. Authority and responsibility for each position in the organisational hierarchy should be clearly spelled out and delegation should be made to an ex-officio authority, not to an individual.
3. Only that much of authority should be delegated as is within the competence of subordinates to exercise safely.
4. Delegation should be properly planned and systematically exercised.
5. A systematic reporting system should be established with those to whom the authority has been delegated.
Herman and Zelda Roodman suggest three methods of delegation. These are:
1. Assignment Review: The subordinate is asked to write a precise summary of the task allocated, before he actually starts the course of action to be followed.
2. Indirect Participation: The superior periodically questions the subordinates concerning the progress of the task to determine the problem areas.
3. Written Reports: Writing reports requires a special ability on the part of subordinates to inform the management concerning the results of their research in investigation of the problem.24
Limits of Delegation
1. The extent to which authority may be delegated is restricted by constitution, laws and political institutions.
2. The ability and competence of staff at the lower level.
3. The extent to which special programme requirements necessitate centralisation.
4. The nature of work and the size and extent of an organisation.
5. Degree and system of internal communication in the organisation.
6. The degree of coordination which is required throughout the organisation.
There are also other limits to delegation. However, the following powers are not usually delegated.
194
1. General financial supervision and the power to sanction expenditure above a specific amount.
2. Appointment and rule making power in the organisation.
3. Power to sanction new policies and plans and departures from established policy or precedents.
The degree to which delegation is possible varies from case to case depending upon the nature of the case, the circumstances and the responsibilities involved. Retention of the above powers in the hands of the head is necessary for effective control of an organisation.
An effective system of delegation is one in which:
1. The managers as well as the employees of an organisation understand the value and advantages of delegation.
2. The abilities and talents of employees at all levels are used in the right degree.
3. Achievement standards for jobs to be performed for delegated authority are clearly laid down.
4. An adequate system of employee education and training exists.
5. There is close cooperation between the manager and the subordinate, the former helping the latter where required.
6. The worker is permitted maximum freedom to reach his goals without interference but within the specific period.
On the recommendation of the O and M Division, the central government has already taken to "delegation" in administration as a matter of policy. The Finance Ministry's control over expenditure has been considerably reduced by the delegation of financial powers to various ministries and departments. The Administrative Reforms Commission has in its final report on 'Delegation of Financial and Administrative Powers' recommended that based on trust, the delegation of powers should be to the 'maximum possible' and not 'minimum necessary' and may be subjected to periodic review to keep in tune with the changing needs of administrative practice.
Centralisation and Decentralisation
One of the major problems of modern administration is to reconcile the compulsions of national integration, unified planning and the need for a strong and effective defence that pull in the direction of centralisation, with the growing demand for regional autonomy and political commitment to take democracy
195
to the grassroots, which pull in the opposite direction. Other factors which strengthen the case for centralisation and vastness of the geographical area of many states, huge population and the increasing scope of state activity, which often necessitates a great degree of centralisation and concentration of powers in the hands of the central government. Centralisation stands for concentration of authority at, or near the top of the administrative hierarchy, decentralisation, on the other hand, means devolution of powers from above, implying dispersal of power among a "number of subordinate officials or administrative units. Decentralisation may have different implications to different sets of people.
To an economist it means dispersal of industries; to advocates of local authority it implies initiative, responsibility and discretion to local bodies, and to an administrator it means delegation of authority to regional and local officers.25
Decentralisation should be distinguished from delegation. Decentralisation means the transfer of administrative authority from the centre to local agencies, who function autonomously in the field. Delegation, on the contrary, implies devolution of authority by a person to his agent or subordinate subject to his right of supervision and control. In brief, delegation is distribution of power of functions and not authority and responsibility, which is delegated only in decentralisation.
Types
Decentralised agencies can be of various types depending upon their legal status, responsibilities, authority and accountability. Decentralisation may be political or administrative. Political decentralisation implies the setting up of new levels of government. The creation of autonomous states within the Indian Union and of Panchayati Raj institutions within the states are examples of political decentralisation. Administrative decentralisation may be vertical and territorial, or horizontal and functional. The former implies the higher agency or authority establishing area administrations and entrusting them with autonomous power and functions. Government departments, both at the centre
and states, have their own administrative areas known as circles, zones and districts vested with decision-making authority within prescribed limits. Territorial decentralisation thus involves the problem of relationship
196
between the headquarters and numerous field agencies. Functional decentralisation signifies the central authority ceding specified decision-making functions to technical or professional bodies or experts. Universities, All India Medical Council, Bar Association, University Grants Commission, Central Social Welfare Board are examples of functional decentralisation.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralisation
Decentralisation has many advantages from the viewpoint of providing service to the local people and developing progressive and responsible attitudes at all levels of the organisational hierarchy. Since decentralisation is the opposite of centralisation, the vices of the latter may be regarded as the virtues of the former. The two main defects of centralisation are:
i) remoteness of control resulting from loss of contact with local centres; and
ii) top heavy management or overload of work at the centre.
Besides, other advantages of decentralisation are:
1) It helps in the extension of popular control over a large number of functions which may be delegated to the authorities at field offices or at the lower levels.
2) It facilitates the adjustment of national policies to the distinctive features of socio-cultural and economic conditions and characteristics.
3) Dispersal of authority and devolution of real powers to local units encourage speedy disposal of cases, reduce delays and short circuit red tapism.
4) Decentralisation brings administration closer to the people, thereby encouraging popular participation in administration since public cooperation is solicited at all levels.
To the above points, we may add the following by Charlesworth:26
i) It facilitates experiment, without committing the whole enterprise to an untried course of action,
ii) It encourages competition and comparative standards of evaluation among several competing field units.
iii) It helps develop initiative, responsibility and resourcefulness among both the local people and subordinate administrators working in field offices.
197
Decentralisation is, however, not free from operational defects and difficulties. The positive arguments in favour of centralisation may be stated thus: (1) Adoption of a planned economy has become a compulsion in most states developed or developing. Integration has obvious advantages for planning. A countrywide plan prepared by the centre to be implemented in different states requires coordination and integration between the centre and the states. (2) Centralisation reduces conflicts and overlapping jurisdictions.
Operational difficulties in the way of decentralisation are: (i) the influence of local pressure groups upon decentralised units, (ii) the difficulty of coordinating decentralised functions, (iii) the problem of delimiting geographical jurisdictions and (iv) decentralisation, particularly in the present day world, has important limitations since policy in regard to defence, foreign affairs, communications and planning has to be formulated, integrated, coordinated and executed by a strong national government in all states.
Centralisation and decentralisation are not axiomatic principles of administration which can be universally applied to all types of administration; they have a contextual relevance. According to James W. Fesler, there are four factors which are relevant in opting for centralised or decentralised system. These are responsibility, administration, function, and external factors.27
Since authority and responsibility go hand in hand in public administration and as long as the central authority is held ultimately responsible for any action, it is often unwilling and reluctant to delegate discretionary authority to field offices. Among the administrative factors, mentioned by Fesler, are "age of the agency, stability of its policies and methods, competence of its field personnel, pressure for speed and economy, and administrative sophistication." The main functional factors may be the variety of functions an agency performs, the technical nature of functions, and the need for nationwide uniformity. It is common experience that while certain types of functions like defence, planning, communications, etc., pull in the direction of centralisation, operating decisions can be easily decentralised at the appropriate lowest units. Among the external factors may be included the demand for popular participation in programmes
198
and the pressure of political parties for operationalising the concept of grassroots democracy and 'planning from below' in many states.
Decentralisation for Development
One of the oft-recurring debates in the developing countries centres around the degree of control that central governments can and should have over development planning and administration. The centralisation versus decentralisation debate has been more insistent in the wake of new shifts in the development strategy of Third World countries. Since the early fifties, the general trend was towards centralised planning and development efforts to achieve socio-economic goals. Central planning was introduced in most developing countries in the 1950's as a means of optimum utilisation of scarce national resources to achieve rapid growth. Under tight central control capital intensive industrialisation policies, that were aimed at maximising gains in national income, were advocated by economic development theorists during the 50's and the 60's. The benefits of such centralised planning and industrialisation, it was felt, would "trickle down" and spread throughout the length and breadth of the developed societies, alleviating poverty and pushing the countries into a stage of self-sustaining economic growth. Central planning and administration were considered necessary to guide and control the economy and to unify and integrate the newly independent countries, emerging from long periods of colonial rule. Moreover, central control was implicit in the requirements of the international assistance agencies which were providing large amounts of capital during the 1950's and 1960's to these
countries. These agencies gave aid on the understanding that borrowers would undertake comprehensive and long term plans for the investment of external capital.
However, by the end of the 1960's there was widespread disillusionment with centralised models of growth in developing countries. Sluggish economic growth coupled with widespread income and regional disparities were rampant in these societies. Many development planners and administrators, therefore, started questioning the very rationale behind these concepts of development.
Governments of developing countries started giving much more attention to providing for the basic needs of the poor and
199
underprivileged, to see that economic growth was coupled with relative social equity. During the seventies many governments in Asia, Latin America and Africa began experimenting not only with new approaches to economic and social development, but also with new political and administrative arrangements for implementing development programmes and projects. The increasing interest in decentralisation arose from three converging factors discussed earlier.
First, it emerged from disillusionment with the results of highly centralised planning and control of development activities during the 1950's and 1960's. Second, it arose from the implicit requirements in the growth, with equity policies of the 1970's for new ways of managing social development programmes. Finally, it evolved from the growing realisation among policy analysts during the early 1980's that as societies become more complex and government activities expand, it would be increasingly difficult to plan and administer all development activities effectively and efficiently from the centre.28
Advocates of decentralisation have offered a long list of reasons for transferring more responsibility for development planning and administration to local governments, voluntary organisations, and regional authorities. Rondinelli has identified the variety of arguments that have been made in favour of decentralisation.29
1. Decentralisation can be a means of overcoming the severe limitations of centrally controlled national planning by delegating greater authority for development planning, and management, to field officials,
who are closer to the local people and their problems. It will allow them to tailor development plans and programmes to the needs of heterogeneous regions and groups.
2. Decentralisation can cut through the enormous amount of red tape and rigid rules and regulations characteristic of centralised planning and administration.
3. It will lead to closer citizen-administration contacts leading to greater public participation in administration.
4. Decentralisation could also allow better political and administrative penetration of national policies into remote areas, where central government plans are often unknown or ignored or undermined by local elite.
200
5. Greater representation for various religious, ethnic, political or tribal groups in development decision making could lead to greater equity in the allocation of government resources and investments.
6. It would lead to the development of greater administrative capacity among local governments and private institutions in the regions and provinces.
7. Decentralisation can lead to more flexible, innovative, and creative administration. Regional, provincial or district administrative units may have greater opportunities to test innovations and to experiment with new policies and programmes in selected areas without having to justify them for the whole country. If the experiments fail, their impacts are limited to small jurisdictions, if they succeed, they can be repeated in other areas also.
8. By reducing diseconomies of scale inherent in the over concentration of decision making in the national capital, decentralisation can increase the number of public goods and services and the efficiency with which they are delivered at lower cost.
9. Decentralisation allows local leaders to locate services and facilities more effectively within their communities to integrate isolated or backward areas into regional economies, and to monitor and evaluate the implementation of development projects more effectively than can be done by central planning agencies.
10. It can increase political stability and national unity by giving groups in different sections of the country the ability to participate more directly in development decision making, thereby increasing their "stake in maintaining the political system."
Issues in Field-Headquarters Relationship
The term 'headquarters' refers to the centrally located chief directing and supervising office of government establishments in contrast to regional or field offices spread out in different areas of the country. In the Indian administrative system, 'headquarters' means the secretariat, and the term 'field' refers to attached and subordinate offices. Though much of the important business of the government is carried out in the headquarters, about seventy-five per cent of the administrative work in all countries is actually
201
carried out in the numerous field offices under the various departments of the national and state governments at the regional, state, divisional, district and lower levels. For, it is in the field that taxes are collected, laws are enforced and welfare services of the government are rendered to the people.
The vastness of the size and area of some modern states, the tremendous expansion of the welfare functions of government, improvement in the field of transportation and communication leading to greater headquarters-field contact, and the general trend towards democratic and decentralised administration have all led to the tremendous importance and expansion of field establishments in every administration of the world.
There are two major issues involved in the headquarters-field relationship: (i) territorial-functional dichotomy, and (ii) communications and control.
Territorial-functional Dichotomy
The organisational pattern of field offices from the angle of supervision, direction and control can be of two types—territorial or functional. Willoughby has called them unitary or multiple. In the territorial unitary type, the central headquarters establishes regional territorial offices which are entrusted with supervisory and discretionary administrative functions over the whole area. The officer in charge of the regional office is the head of the administrative hierarchy of the same office and heads of all other specialised units at that level are his subordinates. He is the main medium of communication between the headquarters and the field office and owes responsibility to the central office alone for all acts committed by the officials working under him. In the multiple or functional form, the different divisions or branches of the headquarters office have their corresponding field establishments at different regional levels and maintain direct contact with them. There is no coordinating or integrating officer or agency at the area level, each service or agency is considered autonomous in its own sphere, the line of authority running directly from it to its headquarters counterpart. The main difference between the two systems is that while in the unitary system the head of the station is "the general manager of the station in the fullest acceptance of the term", in the multiple-system, "the station is looked upon as an assembly of units which are only loosely held together for matters of general
202
administration by the authority of the head of the station."30
In the unitary system there is unity of command and it establishes supremacy of generalists over specialists in administration. Its main advantages are:
1. It is truly a decentralised system which tends to give maximum powers to the field rather than concentrate authority at the top.
2. It allows much flexibility in management of regional problems and affairs to the area head who can make any modification and procedural change suiting his area needs without affecting the entire agency work.
3. It ensures sufficient independence and autonomy to each division of the field office from its central counterpart allowing initiative and responsibility to develop among field administrators.
4. It is very useful for departments whose functions are varied in nature and scope.
A good example of the territorial unitary type of field organisation is the prefectural system in France. As head of the department (the largest unit of local administration) and also as a central government agent, the prefect has a dual role to play in administrative affairs.
The various services in the field of a department (province) are under the prefect and the various departments of the central government deal with them through that officer. In India, the collector of the district also exercises almost similar functions as that of a prefect in France.
In the functional or multiple system, each functional unit is directly connected with its central counterpart, the station chief being responsible only for the minimum establishment duties of the station. It is a system of "dual command", as under it area functional experts or technical personnel take orders from both the station officer and the functional counterparts at the central office (headquarters). The main advantages of this system is that technical operations in field offices come under the direct control and direction of the central experts.
The pattern of central control over field offices has been described by Luther Gulick who discovers three patterns of field organisation, namely: (i) All fingers, (ii) Short arms, long fingers, and (iii) Long arms, short fingers. Under the first pattern the
203
headquarters office deals directly with the field stations without the intervention of any regional subdivisions anywhere. In the second type, there are geographical divisions, but they are located in the headquarters office itself and not in the field, for example, in the External Affairs Ministry in India. It has no less than hundred sections, administrative, territorial and technical. These are grouped into a dozen divisions such as the American Division, Western Division, Southern Division, Protocol Division and External Publicity Division. Under the third pattern, there are geographical divisions and subdivisions, located in the field away from the headquarters, for example, divisional and district offices in the states in India.
The pattern of headquarters-field relationship are of principally two types. The first relates to a single governmental programme with headquarters office in the capital, and a substructure in the field which may include regional, state and local offices at one or more of these levels or all of them in combination. In the second type of arrangement a number of different governments at different levels coordinately
occupy themselves with a particular type of programme, as the case of public health for example. In the first arrangement, relationships are vertical and occur within the same federal agency. In the second, they are both vertical and lateral because they occur in a line from the central to related agencies of different governments at different levels (federal, state and local) and also between federal field units and agencies of other governments at the same level.
Field establishments are to be found both in centralised and decentralised administrative units. Under a centralised system the field offices are merely executing agencies; and their internal organisation as well as working are wholly controlled by the central organisation. Under a decentralised system, the field office work under a general grant of authority, and in most matters their decision are final, except in cases for which there is provision for an appeal or review by the central office.
Communication and Control
Establishment of a system of good and effective headquarters-field relationship depends to a great extent on smooth and effective channels of communication between them. Very often the non-fulfilment of tasks and functions entrusted to field
205
agencies is due to lack of understanding and effective communication between the central and the field office. The communication often takes a one-way form, that is, from top to bottom in the form of directives, orders and circulars.
Notings on files and office manuals are also other channels of communication. In India there is very little feedback from below (field offices to headquarters), a situation which needs to be remedied. If proper performance of duties by the field officials is to be ensured a more adequate system of communication from top to bottom and vice versa is to be encouraged.
Another issue of field-headquarters relationship which is of importance is the need for an effective system of control over the field establishments. There are three main methods of headquarters control over field establishments.
1. Advance Review: Prior referring of matters to headquarters for decision. Thus the central office gets full control over all major decisions regarding budget, matters, and managerial problems by the system of advance reviews.
2. Accounts and Reporting: One of the usual methods of exercising control over subordinate offices is for the headquarters to insist on receiving information from the field agencies in the form of returns, reports and statistics relating to the progress of field operations.
3. Audit and Inspection: This is a very important method of examining compliance with rules and regulations in financial dealings to check unauthorised or any kind of excess or illegal expenditure.
Periodic inspection by headquarters staff is meant to ensure that the existing office rules, regulations and procedures are observed. Besides ensuring compliance with instructions, it examines the legality of all administrative transactions in field offices.
Measures to Strengthen Field-Headquarters Relationship
For the smooth and effective functioning of field establishments and the removal of all major irritants in headquarters-field relationships, the following prerequisites are required:
1. The powers, authority and responsibility of field officers should be clearly delimited, and contingency powers clearly defined, coupled with considerable autonomy given in local matters to field offices.
206
2. Communication between headquarter and field offices should be two-way, from top to bottom and vice versa.
3. There should be an adequate system of training for field personnel to make them more prepared for their tasks in the field.
4. Periodic transfers from field to headquarters and vice versa are imperative to inculcate a balanced outlook on local requirements and national policies.
5. Formal inspections, submissions of periodic reviews and reports should be supplemented by informal visits of headquarters staff to build up rapport and camaraderie between the headquarters and field.
Notes and References
1. Shum Shun Nisa Ali, Eminent Administrative Thinkers, Associated, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 33-34.
2. P.H. Appleby, Policy and Administration, pp. 72-73.
3. Seckler Hudson, op. cit., p. 51.
4. Dimock and Dimock, Public Administration, Rinehart & Co. Inc., New York, 1959, p. 110.
5. See Gulick & Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York, 1937, pp. 184-85.
6. Shum Shun Nisa Ali, op. cit., 1981, p. 70.
7. Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, Associated, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 53-54.
8. See Parmatma Sharan, Public Administration: Concepts and Theories, Meenakshi, Meerut, p. 161.
9. G.D. Halsey, Supervising People, New York, Harper & Bros., 1953, p. 6.
10. J.M. Pfiffner, Supervision of Personnel, New York, Prentice Hall, 1958.
11. G.D. Halsey, Supervising People, New York, Harper and Bros., 1953, pp. 11-23.
12. See A. Avasthi & S. Maheshwari, Public Administration, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Agra, 1984, pp. 261-62.
13. Willoughby, W.F., op. cit., p. 85.
14. W.H. Newman, Administrative Action, Prentice Hall Inc., New York, 1953, p. 403.
15. G.R. Terry, Principles of Management, Richart D. Irwin Inc., Illinois, 1956, pp. 33-34.
16. Ordway Tead, The Art of Administration, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1951, p. 192.
206
17. Gulick and Urwick, Papers on the Science of Public Administration, Columbia University Press, 1937, p. 40.
18. Seckler Hudson, Organisation and Management: Theory and Practice, The American University Press, Washington, 1957, p. 53.
19. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, p. 214.
20. James D. Mooney, The Principles of Organisation, Harper and Row, New York, 1947, p. 17.
21. James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, Onward Industry, Harper and Row, New York, 1931, pp. 38-39.
22. James D. Mooney, The Principles of Organisation, pp. 22-23.
23. Pfiffner and Presthus, Public Administration, p. 216.
24. Herman and Zelda Roodman, Management by Communication, Methuen Publications, Canada, 1973, p. 104.
25. Parmatma Sharan, Modern Public Administration, Meenakshi Prakashan, Meerut, 1981, p. 437.
26. J.C. Charlesworth, Governmental Administration, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1951, p. 207.
27. F.M. Marx, Elements of Public Administration, pp. 251-258.
28. Dennis A. Rondinelli and G. Shabbir Cheema, Decentralisation and Development Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1983, p. 10.
29. ibid., pp. 14-16.
30. W.F. Willoughby, Principles of Public Administration, p. 139.
207
8 STRUCTURE OF ORGANISATIONS
Types of Chief Executive
The chief executive is at the head of the administrative system of a country. There are, broadly speaking, two types of chief executive: (i) the parliamentary, and (ii) the presidential.
An analysis of the cabinet and presidential types of chief executive reveals many points of difference. In countries having the parliamentary system of government, the real chief executive is the cabinet, which is a plural body. The prime minister, who is the head of the cabinet, is only a first among equals and regards other members as his colleagues. Unlike this, the chief executive in a presidential system of government is a single individual, the president. The US president has ten secretaries in-charge of the ten administrative departments; the latter are, however, his subordinates, not colleagues, and are removable by him. The second difference concerns the executive-legislative relationship. In a parliamentary government, the members of the cabinet are also members of parliament; in fact, they provide legislative and fiscal leadership to it, initiating and piloting legislation and the budget. The cabinet is accountable to parliament, which has the ultimate power of removing it from office. There is, thus, a close, continuous and intimate executive-legislative relationship. In the presidential system, on the other hand, the president is neither a member of parliament nor accountable to, and removable by it, thanks to the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. This position has made the presidency and the Congress two separate co-equal entities, independent of each other; and has even induced in the Congress a feeling of distrust towards the chief executive.
Mention may also be made of the Swiss executive which belongs to neither of the two types discussed above, though embodying features of both. This is the collegiate type of chief executive. The Swiss executive is a plural body of seven members of equal status, thus implying absence of any one like a prime minister. These members have seats in the legislature to which they are accountable, but they have no right to vote. The Swiss
208
executive is elected for a fixed period during which it cannot be ousted from office. Nor can it dissolve the legislature. The collegiate type, thus, retains the principal merits of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems.
Types of Functions of the Chief Executive
The chief executive has, broadly speaking, two types of functions to perform - political and administrative. The former function includes obtaining and retaining legislative support for his policies and programmes, providing leadership to the nation, etc. These are important functions which he can afford to neglect only at the risk of his losing office. His administrative functions are summed up by Gulick in the word 'POSDCORB'.
The numerous administrative duties of the chief executive may now briefly be described. In the first place, he formulates the administrative policy. While enacting laws the legislature only lays down general principles, leaving to the chief executive to provide necessary details to make the laws fit for application.
Secondly, the chief executive authorises the structure of the organisation through which the administration functions. New activities necessitate the creation of new departments and agencies. Generally speaking, the internal structure of the departments is determined by him.
Thirdly, the chief executive wields power in personnel administration. He appoints and dismisses public officials. He derives this power from the constitutional system of the land, and, thus, the scope of this power is not the same in all countries. However, even in countries where the merit system of recruitment normally prevails, key appointments are made by him at his discretion. In India, for instance, governors, ambassadors, judges of the Supreme and High Courts, etc., are appointed by him at his discretion. Though the Public Service Commission selects personnel for numerous posts in the government, technically speaking, it is he who appoints them, and may even remove them from service, subject to certain constitutional arrangements.
Fourthly, the chief executive issues directives, proclamations, orders, etc., to make the administrative activities conform to the statutory provision. Indeed, the tone of administration is largely set by the quality of the directives, orders, etc., issued by the chief executive.
209
Fifthly, he has budgetary responsibilities. The chief executive prepares and sumbits the annual budget to the legislature, and, after the latter's approval, executes and implements it. The Indian Financial Codes, for example, enjoin upon the chief executive the responsibilities for the preparation of budget estimates. In the presidential government, on the other hand, the formal budgetary authority is vested in the Congress. In actual practice, however, it is the president, who through the Bureau of the Budget, submits budgetary proposals to the legislature and has quite an effective veto power over the budget.
Sixthly, coordination is among the most important functions of the chief executive. In an administration, conflicts and differences are not unusual occurrences. Also, more than one department might be engaged in some single activity, leading thus to duplication and overlapping. It is among his major
functions to see that the numerous activities currently undertaken by several departments in pursuance of a particular policy lead up to the realisation of the desired objective.
The role of the chief executive is made up of all these functions. Obviously, no single individual can singly perform such a formidable conglomeration of functions. He has perforce to rely upon his subodinates among whom these functions are to be distributed. It is to be remembered, however, that though he delegates his powers to his subordinates, he never abdicates them.
Line, Staff and Auxiliary Agencies
Governmental work is done through an intricate and elaborate organisation which is tied down in a single chain of command. The central hierarchy of this organisation is called 'line' and those which fall on the margin are known as 'staff and 'auxiliary' agencies.
The term 'line' is drawn from the military organisation wherein line refers to command. The hierarchy which commands the military forces in the battlefield is known as line. Those agencies which help the commanders are known as 'staff and 'auxiliary'.
The distinction between the two kinds of services is essentially based on the type of work performed by the different branches or units of a department or agency. Most of the functions performed by the several divisions or units of an agency are regulatory or operational meant for the achievement
210
of the departmental goals or purposes. All services of this nature are called line services. Besides, in any department or agency there are certain housekeeping, institutional or managerial activities without the performance of which the substantive function of the department cannot be achieved. These are known as staff.
In the departments of education, health and police, those divisions or units which perform the activities leading to the achievement of their purposes are line services. In the same departments or in the administrative branch as a whole there are certain services which help in planning the operations and give advice regarding the organisation of personnel and finance and others. These organisations are known as staff services. In other words, line services are those which come in close contact with the
people and the staff services are concerned with the routine activities of the government which are of little direct benefit to the people.
It is now realised that authority is more a matter of influence than of command and that both line and staff work are involved at most levels of operation. Further, as the number of staff officials multiplies along with the varieties of staff functions, some of the work shades off into the type of activity traditionally reserved for line officials. Hence staff work becomes in some degree a combination of both direct and indirect activity, including advice as well as direction to line officials.
Auxiliary agencies have been called by Willoughby as "institutional" or housekeeping services. Gaus names them as "auxiliary technical staff services". L.D. White prefers to use the term "auxiliary services".
Auxiliary agencies serve the line departments but do not serve the public. They perform functions common to all the departments. A line agency to perform the primary duties for which it exists must provide itself with and maintain an office; establish and operate a system for the recruitment of its personnel; perform the work entailed in contracting purchasing, storing, and issue of supplies and it must contain a system for keeping of accounts. These functions have now been organised under separate agencies called auxiliary agencies. The Government of India has four main auxiliary departments:
1. The Law Ministry
2. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
211
3. The Department of Parliamentary Affairs
4, The Central Public Works Department
Differences Between Staff and Auxiliary Services
Willoughby1 draws a distinction between staff and auxiliary services:
1. The auxiliary services are operating services. Whether they are recruiting boards, purchasing agencies, or stationery stores, they perform some operation. But staff services are only thinking, observing, planning and advising agencies.
2. Auxiliary agencies are not concerned with major substantive policies, while the staff is concerned with the formulation of major policies and even with matters of reorganising.
The two services are, however, similar in one respect. Both facilitate the work of the main operating agencies, namely, the line departments. They do not have a locus standi of their own.
Pfiffner and others do not distinguish between staff and auxiliary services. They define staff in such a way as to include auxiliary functions also. According to Pfiffner, staff are of three main kinds: general, technical and auxiliary. By 'general staff he means the staff which helps the chief or other senior executives in his administrative work generally by advice, collection of information, research and sifting important issues from the unimportant. The technical staff consists of the technical officers such as engineers, doctors and financial experts. They advise the head in the technical matters of the departments. Under the third category, Pfiffner puts the auxiliary staff which comprises unit or officers who perform certain duties and functions common to the various administrative departments but which are incidental and /or of housekeeping nature. They are stationery, supply and disposals, recruitment of personnel, and audit and accounts. As Pfiffner uses the term staff in a broad sense, he includes under this category, staff as well as auxiliary functions. He gives the following list of staff functions:
1. Advising.
2. Coordinating.
3. Fact finding and research.
4. Planning.
5. Contacting other organisations and individuals to know what is going on.
6. Assisting the line working but without infringing its authority.
212
7. Sometimes, exercising specially delegated authority from
the line commander, within clearly defined units.2 Staff, line, and housekeeping agencies are essential for the effective organisation of government. Staff agencies engage in planning, research, and advice but do not carry on operational or managerial activities. Line agencies perform these basic or substantive functions and are able to accomplish their work more efficiently because they have the benefit of staff studies and housekeeping aids. Housekeeping agencies provide common services to all other agencies, for example, central purchasing, preparation and distribution of standard forms, printing, legal, financial, custodial, and other kinds of general assistance.
Line agencies can be of three kinds:
1. Departments,
2. Public Corporations, and
3. Boards and Commissions.
1. The department is the largest and most prevalent form of administrative organisation. It is directly under the chief executive and is clearly held in a single chain of command. Thus, we find a lot of departments in a government, e.g., the Department of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Education, and Health.
2. The public corporation is a new organisational device imported into public administration from private business administration. In private business, there are limited liability companies comprising a large number of shareholders, a board of directors representing the general body of shareholders and a general manager or managing director looking after the day-to-day administration of the company. Similarly, to carry on the business and industrial activities of the government, a company-like organisation has been devised. It is called corporation and it functions, more or less, like the body of shareholders. It appoints a board of directors which is responsible for laying down the policies for the corporation. There is also a general manager who is responsible for the internal administration of the corporation. The corporation is a body corporate and holds property and cash in its own name. It can sue and be sued in a court of law. It enjoys the autonomy and flexibility of private enterprise coupled with accountability to the public (like government departments).
213
3. Boards and commissions have some features of the departmental form of organisation and some others of the corporation form. At the top, they have a corporate structure, but internally they have a departmental structure.
Differences between Line and Staff Agencies
The line agency is concerned with the primary functions of the organisation for which it came into existence, and for which it continues to exist. On the other hand, a staff agency is concerned with the functions of planning, organisation, coordination and advice. The need for a staff agency is felt in two principal areas of administration:
1) Management problems like that of organisation, personnel and coordination: and
2) The substantive problems of policy formation and planning.
The main functions of the staff agency have been summarised by Dr. L.D. White in these words:3
i) To ensure that the chief executive (and other top officials) is adequately and correctly informed,
ii) To assist him in foreseeing problems and planning future programmes.
iii) To ensure that matters for his decision reach his desk promptly, in a condition to be settled intelligently and without delay and to protect him against hasty and ill-considered judgements.
iv) To exclude every matter that can be settled elsewhere in the system.
v) To protect his time.
vi) To secure means of ensuring compliance by subordinates with established policy and executive directions.
While theoretically there is a clear distinction between the line function and the staff function, in actual practice it may be that the two functions may vest in one and the same person or body of persons. More particularly in a small organisation the two functions are indistinct and also vest in the same person. In relation to his superiors, a person may be a staff official while in relation to his subordinates, he is a line officer. Similar is the case with technical organisations like the health, education, and the public works departments. In relation to the secretaries and the
214
ministers the head of these departments are merely staff officers. But within their own departments and directorates, they are line officers. Secondly, in terms of organisation units the distinction between line and staff is relative rather than absolute. Complete separation of functions among distinct units of an organisation is impossible in practice. Therefore, when a unit agency is called line or staff it only means that its functions belong predominantly to this class.
Departments
A department is the basic unit of an organisation in which the administrative Branch as a whole is under the chief executive. Authority to organise departments may be vested in the Constitution, the parliament, or the executive. In the USA the Congress regulates the details of public administrative organisations, the president is not free to reorganise the executive branch of the government as he
likes. These restrictions, however, do not bind the British executive. The Ministers of Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, conferred on the British executive the power to organise and reorganise departments. In India, the creation and abolition of ministries and departments is an executive function, whereas in the Soviet Union this can be done only after an amendment of the Constitution.
Advantages of Departments
The departmental system leads to a rational classification of governmental operations. A modern government has to perform multiple, diverse, and complicated functions. One cannot have a conception of the scope of governmental work and the agencies performing it in the absence of an integration of related activities, falling within the same general field. Specialisation and integration of related functions are indispensable for simplification and rationalisation of governmental tasks and procedures. Secondly, grouping of services operating in the same general field helps in the formulation and implementation of a proper task programme. The chief executive can evolve a proper work programme only when he has to deal with a few chief subordinates, each of whom is made in charge of services falling in the same broad functional area. Similarly, the legislature too, can give proper consideration only if connected operations are arranged together. Thirdly, it helps the chief executive in exercising more effective control over administration, his
215
attention now being restricted to a few departments. Fourthly, under the departmental system, conflicts of jurisdiction, overlapping of functions, and duplication of organisation, plant and activities may be avoided. In several services, whose operations fall in the same field, and grouped in a department, they avail of the services of the single agency, which can now be better equipped. Fifthly, the grouping of related services departmentally brings about economy and efficiency in the performance of what are called institutional or housekeeping activities. The general character of the latter is the same for all services. Hence, performance by central agencies, of the housekeeping activities, results in economy and efficiency, and promotes standardisation and uniformity of administrative processes.
A study of organisations reveals four different bases of departmental organisation: (i) function (ii) purpose, (iii) clientele, and (iv) area. According to Luther Gulick the four P's —purpose, process, person, and place—are the bases of organisation.4
(i) Purpose: Purpose means the major objective to be aimed at or major services to be performed. Functional division of work is very common, and is regarded by many as the only efficient method.
Ministries of defence, education, transport and communications and railways in the Government of India have been formed on this basis.
(ii) Process: Process is identified with a technique, profession, of a somewhat specialised type, though it is to be admitted that it is not quite easy to differentiate between process and function. The Ministry of Law in India manifests this principle. Generally, process or profession is considered the basis of staff organisation rather than of line oranisation.
(iii) Clientele: The principle of clientele, too, has been adopted as the basis of organisation. The Department of Rehabilitation at the centre and the Department of Tribal Welfare in some states in India have been formed on this principle. Similarly, the Office of Indian Affairs, and Veterans' Administration in the USA, are the examples of clientele being the basis of organisation. There is a possible justification for creating client-based organisations. Some groups in the community have distinctive problems, so special as to be differently dealt with. Hence separate
216
departments are created for them. A clientele organisation generally caters to all or most of the needs of the group served.
(iv) Area or Territory: Area, that is, the place where a job is done, may be the basis of organisation. Underlying this principle is the belief that a region may have problems peculiar to itself, lending it a distinctive character, and thereby favouring a separate handling or treatment. The now defunct North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in India, and the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland in Britain indicate the adoption of this basis or organisation. Also, at one level or another, most departments have their operating units organised on the area or territorial basis. The Ministry of Railways thus has nine territorial zones— Eastern, North-Eastern, North-East Frontier, South-Eastern, South-Central, Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern. Zonal Councils too in India have been organised on this principle.
Bases of Departmental Organisation
The work of the government is distributed among departments according to four possible bases, namely, function, process, clientele and area. These bases are not alternative bases of organisation. All the four bases or principles are pressed into service while dividing the work of government into departments. No single base, however, can be made the sole criterion of dividing the work. This can be
illustrated by showing how the four bases have been employed for departmentalisation in the Government of India.
Ministries
1. Function: (i) Health and Family Welfare
(ii) Education and Culture
(iii) Labour
(iv) Shipping and Transport
(v) Defence
2. Process: (i) Law
(ii) Works and Housing
(iii) Steel and Mines
3. Clientele: (i) Department of Rehabilitation
(ii) Ministry of Agriculture
4. Area: (i) External Affairs
(ii) Indian Missions Abroad
(iii) Regional Offices of the Director of Supply and Disposal
217
A strict adherence to the process principle would see members of different professions all grouped into separate departments on the sole basis of their profession. Certain activities cut across horizontally the functional departments, as the latter need them as part of their housekeeping activities. The execution of any given task would require cooperation of a large number of process departments. The clientele principle, discussed above, also has rigid limitations. Any wholesale application of this principle results in what the Haldane Committee called 'Lilliputian administration'. Again, the use of the territorial principle of organisation ought to be confined to regions having problems so special or distinct that they (problems) need separate handling. To carry this to its logical conclusion could be to recreate problems of coordination. Finally, the functional principle too may lead to overlapping at times.
The different bases of organisation are not mutually exclusive; these, in fact, should supplement one another, where necessary, for the sake of convenience and efficient execution of administrative tasks.
Types of Departments
Departments may differ in their size, structure, nature of work and internal relationship. From the point of view of size, a department may be large or small. For example, in the union government the Ministries of Railways, Transport, Posts and Telegraphs, are very large, but the Ministries of education, Health, and Agriculture and the Department of Atomic Energy are small, for the simple reason that all of them except the last also have their counterparts in the states. Considering structure, a department may be unifunctional or multifunctional (federal). Unifunctional departments, that is, those created for the achievement of one major purpose such as education, defence, health, agriculture and labour are unitary in their structure performing homogeneous functions. But a federal or holding type department is multifunctional or federating, that is, several minor departments are combined into one large department. These departments function as subdepartments performing different functions. At present the Home Ministry in India is an amalgamation of a number of subdivisions and the Cabinet Secretariat has five departments under it.
According to their nature of work, many departments have operating duties, while a few perform only coordinating and
218
supervisory duties. Examples of the former are the Departments of Posts and Telegraphs, Railways, Defence, Police and Public Works, and the examples of the latter are local self-government departments in the states, Ministries of Education, Health and Agriculture in the union, again, from the point of view of internal relationships, the work of a department may be mostly concentrated at the headquarters, so it need not have field agencies. But the work of many departments is generally carried on in the regional and local offices besides the head offices.
The leadership of the department involves two important organisational issues—first, whether the head should be a single individual or a plural body, such as a board or commission; and, second, whether the chief qualification for headship should be administrative (managerial competence) or technical knowledge of the subject matter concerning the activities of the department.
So far as the second question is concerned, in the United States the heads of departments are generally persons having special knowledge of the subject. In Britain and India there are two kinds of heads—political and permanent. The minister is the political head and he is ordinarily a layman, not even necessarily possessing administrative competence. Under the minister there is the permanent head, that is, the secretary of a department. He is usually a man who possesses some knowledge of the subject matter and much administrative competence. As a political leader the department head is an indispensable link with the administration. He is expected to provide a certain political point of view to departmental operations. He also acts as an advisor to the prime minister both on specific duties which arise within the field of his assignment and also on broadly related fields. Finally, the department head must also serve as a connecting link between the permanent officials and the legislature as well as the chief executive. His task is one of ensuring proper consideration of both the political and departmental viewpoints in the preparation of departmental policies and programmes for the consideration of the chief executive. A department may be divided into branches, divisions, bureaus, sections and various other units of organisation.
According to Willoughby a standard scheme of departmental organisation would include: (1) Office of chief clerk; (2) Division of mail and files; (3) Division of personnel; (4) Division of
219
supplies; (5) Division of accounts; (6) Division of printing and publications; (7) Office of the Superintendent of the building.
United Kingdom
The ministerial department is the key point of the British administrative system. Directly or indirectly all parts of the administrative machine, however autonomous in form, are under a minister who is responsible to parliament for a department staffed by permanent civil servants. This applied equally to government departments, specially headed by ministers, to departments which have no ministerial head (but for all of which some minister is responsible, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is for the Boards of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise) and to semi-autonomous bodies like public corporations for which a minister will have ultimate responsibility even if it is not formally so wide ranging as his government department. It is through the agency of government departments that government policy is formulated and implemented.
Since the first use of the term in 1915 the most common formal designations for a department and its political head have been ministry and minister respectively. The major British departments are Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Cabinet Office, Management and Personnel Office, Defence, Education and Science, Energy, Environment, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Industry, Trade, Transport, Treasury and Health and Social Security.
Departments differ in size, type, complexity of their functions and in regional nature. Mostly they are headed by a minister responsible to parliament, except a few like the Exchequer and Audit Department headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an officer of parliament. Some ministers perform administrative functions of a number of departments, e.g., treasury ministers work for both the treasury and other departments.
There is no satisfactory classification of departments. Firstly, the various departments and other organisations may be classified into revenue and spending departments, and a variety of quasi-government organisations. Others group them into the treasury and other departments which are further classified into defence, foreign and imperial affairs, and economic and social services. A third classification is: financial departments, public order, social services, external departments and the treasury as the central department.
220
Usually, each department has a parliamentary secretary, but at times, some departments have more than one parliamentary secretary. The civil service head of an office is usually known as the permanent secretary. He is the principal civil service adviser to his minister. In a big department the permanent secretary has under him one or two deputy secretaries. Below the deputy secretary in the hierarchy are under secretaries, each in charge of a number of divisions of the department. A division headed by an assistant secretary may consist of three or four sections, each headed by a principal, who in turn may have two or three senior executive officers under him. The senior executive officer has under him a number of higher and junior executive officers.
United States of America
The administrative organisation of the executive branch of the federal government has administrative departments headed by secretaries. There are eleven departments, namely, Departments of State, Treasury, Defence, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labour, Transportation, Health, Education and Welfare, and lastly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The departments are functionally organised and are immediately below the chief executive, that is, the president. In the USA the Congress regulates the details of departmental organisation; and the president is not free to reorganise the executive branch of the government, unlike the parliamentary systems in UK and India, where this power is vested constitutionally in the chief executive.
Administrative departments and agencies differ in size. Moreover, some departments are headed by individuals while others have boards. In other words, there is no uniformity in the organisation of the various departments and agencies.
Administrative services may be grouped under two major heads: Central coordinating and service agencies, e.g., Bureau of the Budget and the US Civil Service Commission and operating agencies, which may be further classified into executive departments, i.e., state, treasury, defence, justice, interior, agriculture, commerce, labour, health, education and welfare, and post office. Then there are separate administrative agencies, like the Atomic Energy Commission, Farm Credit Administration, etc., regulatory commissions, like the Federal Power Commission, Inter-State Commerce Commission, etc., and miscellaneous board and agencies like the National Gallery of Art, Indian Claims Commission, etc.
221
The American administrative system has been criticised on the ground that it is a huge and highly complicated mechanism. It is pointed out how utterly impossible it is for any president to keep his eye on so variegated and unintegrated a set-up. Another criticism is that many agencies perform closely
related activities without anyone having been assigned final responsibility. Besides, the creation of the dozen independent regulatory commissions have resulted in disintegration.
Boards and Commissions
A board or commission is defined as a group of people elected or appointed to discharge collectively some public function. A commission is also referred to as certificate of office or a body of men to whom some public function has been entrusted".5
A board or commission is generally held desirable for the following:
1) These services which are of a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative character, e.g., public utility corporations which perform two principal functions, viz., (a) quasi-legislative formulation of rules and regulations for determining the rates and conditions of services, (b) quasi-judicial decisions of judgments on issues affecting public and private rights arising under such rules and regulations.
2) Those services whose duties call for the exercise of wide discretionary powers of general control, for example, a Public Service Commission.
3) Organisation in which different interests are to be represented, e.g., commodity promotion board or conciliation board for the settlement of labour disputes.
4) Such institutions where attempts are made to eliminate or reduce to a minimum the factor of party politics in the conduct of its operations.6
Merits
i) It gives an opportunity to the administration to secure the advice and services of the best lay competence in the community at almost no cost.
ii) It also tends to promote intelligent citizen cooperation and develop a sense of civil responsibility by enabling wider citizen participation in government.
iii) Boards have grown up in welfare and educational activities in response to demands that these activities be freed from the political interference of the general government.
222
iv) Commissions give an opportunity for representing different phases of opinion in the community.
Demerits
i) Theoretically, the board administration violates the distinction between government and politics, because through it politics is injected into the administration.
ii) It has been found that the personnel on boards or commissions have been, in many cases, rather mediocre, because while making appointments, authorities are concerned with either repaying political debts or in securing safe individuals.
iii) If anything goes wrong, it is impossible to fix responsibility. Action is slowed down, and proper decisions are delayed or vitiated by compromise.
iv) As compared to a bureau; a board or commission type of organisation is more expensive.
A board is a body of members who are required to act collectively. A commission is also a body of members, but it acts in two capacities. First, the members act collectively like those of a board; and secondly, each member also acts individually as head of a distinct branch of organisation. The common examples are those of a municipal board, and commission type organisation of a local body as in the USA. According to Graves the term 'commission' is to be used when the body is charged with important regulatory duties relating to public utility enterprises. Where the duties are primarily administrative or where, if regulatory in character, they relate to matters other than public utilities, the 'board' is in general use.
Composition of Boards and Commissions
They may be composed of (i) members serving full time and
entitled to compensation like other similar government servants; i) private members receiving no compensation as they are required to give only a small part of their time; (iii) ex-officio members, holding other offices. When duties are numerous part- time members should not be appointed. There are usually three to nine members. All the members may be appointed simultaneously for a fixed term normally of three to five years or, one-half, or one-third retiring, and new ones being appointed in their places every alternate year or so.
223
India
Since Independence many boards and commission have been established in India. These can be classified into three broad categories on the basis of their origin.
(a) Constitutional Commissions: Our Constitution makes a mention of some of the commissions that have to be appointed. Such commissions are: The Finance Commission, the Backward Classes Commission, and the Official Language Commission. Because of the constitutional sanctity attached to these commissions, they enjoy the greatest autonomy. They are appointed by the president of India and do not come under the purview of any executive authority. The members of these commissions are appointed by the president but they cannot be removed from office except by a special procedure. Their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and cannot be reduced during the term of their office.
(b) Statutory Commissions/Boards: The statutory commission/ boards are set up by the Acts of parliament. Examples of such bodies are: The University Grants Commission, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Railway Board, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, and Flood Control Board. The statutory boards or commissions function under the general administrative control of one or the other ministries of the Government of India but enjoy autonomy in their own administrative work. The departmental procedures are not applied by them in the conduct of their work except when they voluntarily opt for them. Such boards and commissions exist in the state governments also.
(c) Boards/Commissions set up by Executive Orders: There are boards and commissions which are set up by an order of the executive, that is, the central or state governments. Examples of such bodies are: Handicrafts Board, the Handloom Board, the Central Social Welfare Board, the Central Water and Power
Commission. Such boards and commissions enjoy much less autonomy than the constitutional and statutory boards and commissions. They are generally attached to the concerned minister who has the power to regulate their conduct of business and even abolish them altogether.
United Kingdom
Boards and commissions have become an increasingly important features of the central administrative system as the government
224
has extended its direct intervention in the economic activity and as social provision has expanded. Some of the examples are the Monopolies Commission Agricultural Marketing Boards, the British Standards Institution, Council for Industrial Design, Commission for Racial Equality, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manpower Services Commission.
United States of America
In the USA the board and commission type of organisation is widely used. This is partly due to the looseness of the American administrative system, and partly due to a desire to escape the pervasive influence of party politics in administration.
Some of the important boards are : Civil Aeronautics Board, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Home Loan Bank Board, National Mediation Board, National Transportation Safety Board.
Independent Regulatory Commissions
The independent regulatory commissions are peculiar to the constitutional set-up of the United States of America. They are a progeny of the separation of powers and the deep distrust of the Congress in the powers of the American presidency. The need for such commissions was felt on account of the growing industrialisation and urbanisation of the country during the nineteenth century when the government felt it imperative to regulate private economic activities. The first independent regulatory commission, set up by the federal government, was the Inter-State Commerce Commission in 1887. At present there are eleven such commissions in the federal government of the USA which are as under:
1. The Inter-State Commerce Commission.
2. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3. The Federal Trade Commission.
4. The Federal Communications Commission.
5. The Federal Power Commission.
6. The Securities and Exchange Commission.
7. The National Labor Relations Board.
8. The United States Maritime Board.
9. The Civil Aeronautics Board.
10. US Tariff Commission.
11. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
225
The main functions of these commissions can be summarised. First, they set standards, rules and regulations to govern the behaviour of a particular industry, and secondly, they enforce these standards, rules and regulations and prosecute the defaulters. They, therefore, enjoy both the powers to make administrative legislation and to adjudicate administrative disputes. They regulate the economic
activities by different procedures: (a) make rules, that is elaborate and define the general norms laid down in the present Acts; (b) administrative methods such as licensing, inspection, publicity; and (c) case-by-case decision method which is used on complaints against the violation of the law or the norms laid down.
The commission can hear cases and award decisions either on a regular petition having been made by a private party or on their own initiative. The power to take initiative is the main distinguishing feature which differentiates the commissions from the ordinary courts. The ordinary courts cannot start judicial proceedings at their own initiative. As soon as a commission takes the initiative on its own or on a petition from a private party, it issues notices to the party or parties concerned. The next step is the hearing of the case. The commission is not bound by the formal rules of evidence and whatever relevant evidence can assist it in fact-finding is accepted. Nor is it essential that the petition must be heard by the person who is to ultimately decide the case. The usual procedure is that the case is heard by over a dozen examiners and on the basis of relevant evidence, a decision is recommended to the head of the commission. Generally, the head of the commission simply endorses the decision of the examiners. Judicial review of, and appeals against these decisions, again rest with the commission which sits as an administrative tribunal in respect of these decisions.
Main Features
1 The functions of independent regulatory commissions are of a* mixed nature—administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi judicial. They frame rules and regulations, execute these rules and hear appeals against their own decisions. It is on account of the mixed nature of their functions that they have been called "the fourth branch of the government" for they do not fit into any of the three traditional branches of the government—legislative, executive and judicial.
226
2. These commissions are staffed by experts and are relatively small.
3. They are collegial in character and consist of a group of men who discuss and decide by a majority vote.
4. They are relatively independent of the Chief Executive, i.e., the president. They are neither responsible to him nor have to report to him. They are set up under a statute passed by the Congress laying down their constitution and functions. It is because of these reasons that these commissions have
been described as "headless" for they owe no subordination to the president or any other executive authority. In fact, they are outside the framework of the departmental organisation under the president and have been rightly called "islands of autonomy" within the American administrative set-up. The federal administration of the USA stands "disintegrated" because of the presence of these commissions.
It may, however, be mentioned that the independence of these regulatory commissions is relative and not absolute. First, they are controlled by the Civil Service Commission in personnel administration. Secondly, their budgets are subject to the review of the Office of Management and Budget which is a staff agency of the American president. Thirdly, their actions are subject to judicial review and can be declared void. Finally, they are subject to the control of the Congress. They receive their annual appropriations from the Congress, which has the power to order an investigation into their working and operations. The Congress can also amend their constitutions, and even abolish them, although the last step has never been taken. As a matter of fact the control of the Congress is only of a general character and these commissions are regarded as "the arms of the Congress". On the whole, these commissions are largely autonomous.
The regulatory work of the administration is usually done by the various government departments, corporations and local bodies, in most countries. Even in the USA most of the regulatory work is done by the departments, local bodies and such other agencies. In India, one is well familiar with the rules and regulations regarding construction of buildings and zoning, framed by the municipal bodies. What distinguishes these bodies from the independent regulatory commissions is the status of the latter in being outside the purview of the chief executive.
227
Merits
The merits were clearly brought out by the Hoover Commission Task Force on regulatory commission which observed:7
The number of members and their security of tenure are intended to assure freedom from partisan control or favouritism. The group is able to resist outside influence more effectively than an individual and each member is free from a threat of removal as a source of pressure. Moreover, since the activities of the commission may be more subject to public scrutiny than would be a single bureau in a large department, there is greater opportunity for exposure of pressures or improper actions. Finally, while provisions for hearings and similar safeguards against arbitrary actions are not peculiar to commissions, they may be more effective when combined with group action.
Demerits
1. It is said that the regulatory commissions owe no responsibility to any constituted authority. They function outside the administrative set-up of the president and have been rightly called "headless". The president has no power to dismiss any of the members with the result that they can easily stand in the way of effective and integrated administration of the chief executive.
2. The commissions combine in themselves the functions of the legislator, prosecutor, and the judge, thereby jeopardising the rights and liberties of the people. The commissions formulate very important policies in business and industrial fields and with these combined functions can easily act arbitrarily.
3. As these commissions are outside the purview of the president, they have served as a great "disintegrating" force in the federal administration of the USA. They can obstruct effective coordination of the national policy by non-cooperating with other departments of the federal government. Besides, there usually arise conflicts of jurisdiction between these commissions and other executive departments because some of the regulatory functions are common to both these bodies. This can result in "a decentralised and chaotic administration".
It is clear that there is no unanimity of opinions about the utility of these commissions. It appears that the Americans have
228
accepted their existence as a matter of fact. Under the circumstances, what is needed is that Congressional as well as judicial control over them should be strengthened. James W. Fesler has made the following recommendations for the proper functioning of these commissions:
First the quality of men and women appointed to the commissions is more important than the details of organisations. Second, judicial work should be carried on in an impartial manner, free from the bias, characteristic of the prosecution function. Third, co-ordination of policy formulation and administrative management among government agencies is essential, especially during periods when government plays a positive role in the economy. The chief executive appears to be the only responsible and effective focus for such co-ordination. And fourth, independent commissions should be subject to the
same control by the legislative and judicial branches that applies to all other regulatory and service agencies of government.8
Public Enterprises
With the steady increase in state functions corresponding to the change in the philosophy of state activity (from laissez faire to social welfare), it is generally an accepted notion in modern states, especially the developing, that ownership of most of the natural resources and capital heavy industries should increasingly rest in the state. In developing countries, state intervention in economic and industrial enterprises has become almost compulsory for various reasons. The major reasons for state intervention in economic activity are: to build up an industrial infrastructure and raise productivity; increase employment and general standard of living by accelerating national growth and development; to render needed services and cater to public utilities like power, transportation and communication which are capital heavy investments and strictly unprofitable under private enterprise; to provide sources of credit to finance agricultural and industrial production and trade; and to reduce dependence on foreign capital and aid in the long run. Most developing countries suffer from acute lack of capital, entrepreneurial skills and regional imbalances. The two main aims of all developing societies are to raise levels of productivity and strive towards creation of an equalitarian and
229
just social order. The immensity of the socio-economic problems of these countries makes state intervention inevitable and, in fact, desirable. The state becomes a vital partner in industrial development and promotion of industrial enterprises, both as a matter of national policy and to ensure public control over certain sectors of the economy.
In India, the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 has laid down the basic principles that will govern the state's approach towards industrial development. The approach derives its base from the Directive Principles of State Policy9 contained in the Constitution and from the adoption by parliament in December 1954 of the socialist pattern of society as the objective of our social and economic goals and laws. The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 stated that the need for rapid planned development required that all industries of basic and strategic importance, or in the nature of public utility services, should be in the public sector.
Management
The main forms of management that public enterprises can take are:
1. Government Departments
2. Government Companies
3. Public Corporations
The main features of these forms are discussed below.
Departmental Management: Under the departmental pattern, public enterprises are owned and managed as government departments staffed by career personnel headed by a minister, e.g., Railways, and Posts and Telegraphs in India. The enterprise is financed by annual appropriations from the treasury, and is subject to the budget, accounting and audit controls applicable to other government departments. The permanent staff comprises civil servants recruited under terms and conditions similar to those of other civil servants.
According to A.D. Gorwala the departmental system of management has generally been adopted in the following cases: i) where the need for security or strategic importance makes it difficult for them to be operated by other forms of management, e.g., defence industry.
ii) in administration of national services or monopolies, for instance, postal, telegraph and telephone services and railways.
230
iii) for such industrial concerns as involve a great degree of governmental discretion as in state trading in foodstuffs.
The main advantages of this system is that it assures maximum government control in vital public services. Secondly, it helps in bringing about greater coordination by establishing a clear relationship between a public enterprise and government departments.
But this form of management suffers from obvious disadvantages. The bureaucratic form of administration is likely to lead to inevitable inefficiency, red tape and delay. The danger is that the administration may be subjected to excessive fiscal and personnel restrictions and interference leading to inadequate departmental autonomy in vital matters such as capital expansion, finance, technical improvement, purchasing and personnel administration.
Government Companies: The joint stock company form of management has been increasingly used by most governments in respect of manufacturing industries. This type is also known as mixed ownership company. The company form amounts to running purely commercial and industrial enterprises, chiefly through civil servants. Its capital is contributed by the government and the management is headed by the board of directors appointed by government either from amongst its own officials or from outside. This form includes various joint enterprises, shared between the state and private interests, which may represent individual private interests or the subscription of the public at large.
Its main features are:
1) The whole of the capital stock or 51 per cent or over is owned by the government.
2) It is a body corporate, created under a general law.
3) It can sue and be sued, enter into contract and acquire property in its own name.
4) The majority of the directors are appointed by the government.
5) It is created by an executive order of the government, and its Articles of Association are drawn up by the government within the parameters of the Companies Act.
The company form of public enterprise is chiefly made use of by the government in industries where it has to rely on foreign
231
(financial and technical) aid and assistance. It is also employed to accommodate the Indian industrialists when a business or industry has been nationalised.
However, the company form has been severely criticised for a number of reasons. The Auditor General of India has called it "a fraud on the Company's Act and on the Constitution."
Its main disadvantage are:
1) It evades the constitutional responsibility which a state controlled enterprise has, in a democratic society, to the government and to parliament;
2) The use of the company form and of the law regulating commercial company form usually becomes a mere fiction because all or most of the functions normally vested in the shareholders and in the management are reserved for the government by the statute setting up the company. India has made great use of these companies for the management of its enterprises, such as Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Hindustan Machine Tools, Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Hindustan Cable Ltd.
Public Corporations: The government corporation is a relatively new concept of administrative organisation and has been described by Dimock as "a publicy owned enterprise that has been chartered under federal, state or local law for a particular business of financial purpose."
Although occasionally employed in earlier periods, it is essentially to twentieth-century creation to meet certain emergencies as a result of the Great War and the Great Economic Depression. It is a sort of compromise between the policy of laissez faire and strict bureaucratic control in public administration and is generally adopted in the revenue producing enterprises which have assumed more or less public importance. In the words of Ernest Davies:
The public corporation is a corporate body created by public authority, with defined power and functions and financially independent. It is administered by a board appointed by public authority, to which it is answerable. Its capital structure and financial operations are similar to those of the public company.
The emergence of the public corporation is a phenomenon of great importance to modern administrative organisation. Public
232
corporations were meant to combine democratic control over major policy with commercial freedom in organisation and management. Some of the important characteristics of government corporations are as follows :
1) It is a separate legal entity and is distinct from the government which created it. It has a corporate character or franchise, which confers powers upon it. It can do only what the charter authorises.
2) It is a corporation in the sense that it has the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise, has freedom of administration and finance, of accounting and purchasing and has power to recruit its own personnel and to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
3) It is a legal person entering into contracts, acquiring and owning property in its own name.
4) It is incorporated under a special statute of the parliament which lays down the public purpose, its power, and duties and immunities.
5) Though the primary objective of corporations is not profit but public service, it is run on business lines and not in accordance with bureaucratic procedures and practices.
6) It holds funds in its own name which are sanctioned by parliament periodically and which accrue to it through its own earnings. It enjoys complete autonomy in the management of the funds.
7) It has to operate within the broad outline of government policy. The day-to-day administration is the exclusive responsibility of the managing directors of the corporation.
8) The personnel of public corporations are recruited independently in the pattern of business executives under terms and conditions determined by the corporation itself.
Therefore, Prof. Robson concludes that the corporation of the modern age is a constitutional and administrative innovation.
It reveals a tendency to enlarge the unit of administration of industrial or public unity functions or the conduct of certain social services of an economic character from the ordinary activities of the government; to separate the finances of these boards from the national budget; to eliminate the profit-making incentive and to substitute the public service motive.10
The major advantage of this type of organisation is that it has the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise combined with
233
minimum public regulation of its major policies. In the famous words of Franklin D. Roosevelt the public corporation "is clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise." However, there are also major operational problems in this type of organisation. Difficulties arise in reconciling autonomy of the corporation with public accountability. The theory of corporate autonomy demands the largest measure of operational freedom which, however, may be abused by an administrative elite in the organisation. On the other hand too much government interference defeats the very purpose for which they are established. Reconciling 'Democracy' with 'Efficiency' is the crux of the problem of public corporations.
Public Corporations in UK
There are over fifty public corporations in the UK, inclusive of the nineteen nationalised industries. The major public corporations are the British Broadcasting Corporation, Civil Aviation Authority,
Commonwealth Development Corporation, Housing Corporation, National Film Finance Corporation, National Ports Council and National Research Development Corporation.
The general pattern of the relationship between boards of nationalised industries and public corporation and the parliament in UK, can be summarised as follows:
1) The minister appoints and has the power to dismiss the chairman and members of each board. He has the power to give general directions on how the industry shall be run but does not interfere in everyday management. Boards are normally required to provide the minister with any information, statistics or financial accounts which he may require.
2) As far as financial matters are concerned, the usual statutory requirement is for the board to conduct its business so that its accounts are in balance taking one year with another. Some of the corporations are self-supporting and realise considerable annual profits; others receive exchequer grants to enable them to discharge their responsibilities effectively. Financial targets are set in agreement with the minister.
3) The government has to answer in parliament for its policy concerning the nationalised industries. Opportunities for parliamentary discussion are afforded by debates, especially the debates on the annual reports and accounts for each industry, and parliamentary questions. The minister is only responsible for answering questions concerned with general policy and not with
234
matters of day to-day administration. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries plays the most important role in highlighting problems affecting the developments of public corporations.
Public Corporations in USA
In the USA public corporation were created for three purposes: (i) During the Depression to facilitate the extension of credit to financially needy banking, insurance, transportation, manufacturing and other private companies; (ii) to carry on enterprises of a business or commercial nature; and (iii) to deal with emergency problems that arose in certain industries which necessitated government intervention. In 1948 President Truman indicated in his budget message the following four criteria for the creation of public corporations:
1. When a government programme is essentially of a commercial nature involving business type public transactions.
2. When it is a revenue-producing (or profit-making) venture requiring greater flexibility and autonomy than normal business enterprises.
Public control over government corporations in the USA takes many forms. Due to the presidential form of government Congressional control over these corporations is more limited than in countries like India. Public corporations had enjoyed in the early period of their growth a great deal of autonomy in financial matters as they were independent of the financial control of the Congress. However, over the years, various statutes like the First Deficiency Act 1936, the Ramspeck Act 1940, and the Corporation Control Act 1945 have considerably limited the unbridled autonomy these corporations enjoyed earlier. By the First Deficiency Act, Congress necessitated compulsory review of administrative expenses even though the Congress was not authorised to sanction these expenses. By the Ramspeck Act the president was given discretionary power to subject federal corporations to civil service laws. The Corporation Control Act provided for the assimilation of the budget and audit system of public corporation (except the Tennessee Valley Authority) with those of government departments.
As a result of the enactments, public corporations in the USA (except Tennessee Valley Authority and Port of New York Authority) are now completely under the budgetary and
235
administrative control of the Executive and also under the detailed review of the Congress. The major public corporations in the USA are Commodity Credit Corporation, Export Import Bank of Washington, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Nation Mortgage Association, Federal Prison Industries, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Panama Canal Corporation, Postal Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, and ' rt of New York Authority.
Staff Agencies in India, UK, USA
India
Staff agencies in India include the Cabinet Secretariat the Prime Minister's Office (known as Prime Minister's Secretariat till June 1977), the Cabinet Committees, the Planning Commission, the Budget and
Economic Affairs Department in the Finance Ministry, Administrative Vigilance Division in the Home Affairs Ministry, and the Staff Inspection Unit (S.I.U) in the Finance Ministry.
Cabinet Secretariat: The Cabinet Secretariat performs staff functions, serving the cabinet as well as the standing committees of the cabinet. It performs the necessary secretariat work pertaining to the meetings of the cabinet and its committees. Its functions include preparation of agenda for the meetings of the cabinet, keeping record of discussions in the cabinet and the decisions taken, circulation of memoranda on issues awaiting the cabinet's approval, circulation of the decisions to each ministry, preparation and submission of monthly summaries on a large number of specified subjects to the cabinet.
The Cabinet Secretariat functions under the direct charge of the prime minister and is headed by a functionary called the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary is the senior most civil servant and is the principal adviser to the prime minister.
Prime Minister's Office: The Prime Minister's Office assists the prime minister in his public activities in that capacity and in his functions as the head of government within the general framework of established government procedure. Generally, the status of the officers of the Prime Minister's Secretariat can be taken to be the same as status of officers of the corresponding rank in the ministries of the Government.
236
Cabinet Committees: The cabinet carries on much of its work through its committees which generally have the authority to give binding decisions on matters assigned to them. Any decision of a committee may, however, be reviewed by the cabinet. The decisions arrived at by the committees are reported to the cabinet for information. Ordinarily, no matter comes before the cabinet unless it has been considered by the concerned committee of the cabinet.
These committees facilitate effective coordination and quick decisions in addition to relieving the cabinet of considerable amount of preliminary work, leaving it free to concentrate upon more important matters. They are of two types—the standing and the ad hoc committees. An ad hoc committee may be appointed by the cabinet or the prime minister for investigating and reporting to the cabinet on specific matters and if so authorised, to give even binding decisions on such matters. The membership of the
Cabinet Committee varies from three to eight. Their chairmanship is shared between the prime minister and the home minister.
Planning Commission: Established by a government resolution in March 1950, the Planning Commission, with the prime minister as the chairman, soon emerged as a powerful and effective staff agency in India. The functions of the Commission are as follows:
1) Make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of the country, including technical personnel, and investigate the possibilities of augmenting such of these resources as are found to be deficient in relation to the nation's requirements.
2) 'Formulate a plan for the most effective and balanced utilisation of the country's resources.
3) Determine priorities as between projects and programmes accepted in the plan.
4) Indicate the factors that retard economic development, and determine conditions which should be established for the success of the plan.
5) Determine the nature of the machinery for successful implementation of the plan.
6) From time to time appraise with the progress of the plan and recommend the necessary adjustments of policies and measures.
237
7) Make recommendations after considering the economic conditions, policies, measures and development programmes, or after examining problems referred to it for advice by the central or state government or for facilitating the discharge of duties assigned to it.
The Planning Commission at present consists of the chairman, the deputy chairman and six members. The prime minister is its chairman. The deputy chairman is the full time functional head of the Commission. Of the six members three are ministers in the central government—the finance minister, the home minister and the defence minister, the remaining three are full time members. Each member looks after one or more subjects and directs the study of problems in his field, but all the members function as a body. All cases involving policy are considered by the Commission as a whole. The formulation of plans, adjustments in the plans, matters involving departure from the plan policies, important cases involving disagreement with a central ministry or a state government and difference of opinion between two members are some of them.
Other staff agencies in India are the Budget and Economic Affairs Department in the Ministry of Finance, Vigilance Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Staff Inspection Unit in the Ministry of Finance. The Department of Economic Affairs, primarily concerned with the formulation of the financial policy of the central government, looks after a diversified group of subjects, like banking, currency, capital issues, public debt, foreign exchange, balance of payments, consolidation and preparation of central budgets, review of state budgets and technical assistance programmes. The Administrative Vigilance Division provides a centralised drive, direction and coordination regarding the battle against corruption in the public services. Each ministry and department has a vigilance officer, and the director, Administrative Vigilance Division, acts as the chief guide and co-ordinator of the combined operations. The Vigilance Office is responsible for:
a) examining all aspects of the work with a view to locate points where opportunity for corruption is likely to arise for organising regular and surprise inspections and devising other ways and means for minimising the scope for corruption; and
238
b) initiating prompt action and pursuing it with speed and vigour when there appear to be reasonable grounds for suspicion of corruption or malpractices against individual officers.
The Staff Inspection Unit, constituted in April 1964, replaced the Special Reorganisation Unit which had been in existence since 1953. The Staff Inspection Unit is located in the Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance), and it is charged with (i) securing economy in staff consistent with administrative efficiency, and (ii) evolving performance standards and work norms. The function of the Staff Inspection Unit is to keep the staff position in ministries/offices under the central government under constant review in accordance with predetermined programmes of work measurement studies. It also undertakes
ad hoc reviews, on special requests of ministries/offices not included in the programme as well as of public sector undertakings.
Britain
The Treasury in the UK has been described as the executive agency through which the authority of the Chancellor of Exchequer is imposed on the operation of the departments of state.
The British Treasury as the Department of the Prime Minister has three important aspects. First, it performs some important general service functions. Secondly, the permanent secretary to the Treasury is the principal adviser to the prime minister, who has an overall concern with the entire business of the state. When a vacancy arises in the high posts of any department, he submits advice for the consideration of the prime minister and of the minister of the department concerned with regard to that appointment. Thirdly, the Treasury is related to the Cabinet Secretariat, which is especially attached to the prime minister. In addition to these aspects, the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury plays an important part in effecting economies of time, effort and materials through the introduction of improved methods and procedures.
Another important staff agency in Britain is the Cabinet Secretariat, which was established during the First World War in 1916. This office serves both the cabinet and the cabinet committees. Its main functions are: preparation of the agenda for
239
meetings of the cabinet and its committees; circulation of memoranda, other papers and reports on the implementation of decisions; keeping the non-cabinet ministers informed of the results of cabinet discussions affecting their departments; and keeping all important record of discussions held and decisions made at cabinet meetings.
United States of America
The executive office of the president is made up of the White House Office, the Office of Budget and Management, the National Security Council, the Office of Defence Mobilisation, the Council of Economic Advisers, and some other agencies, like the General Accounting Office and the Office of Economic Stabilisation.
White House Office: The White House Office covers the entire range of presidential functions. Consisting of personnel assistants, appointed by the president, this office performs all those functions that assist him in the everyday running of his office. The office analyses the problems confronting him and assists him in taking decisions. It transmits his decisions and orders to the departments, thus becoming an essential link between the latter and the president. Also, it is this office which, as the representative of the president, deals with the party men, members of the Congress, and private groups.
Office of Budget and Management: The Office of Budget and Management, known until recently as the Bureau of Budget, created by the Budget Accounting Act of 1921, has become an arm of the overhead management. Its primary duty is to assist the president in the preparation and execution of the annual budget. Besides, it subjects all the executive orders, proposals for legislation, originating from the executive branch, and bills coming from the Congress to review and analysis. It suggests the schemes for better organisation and management of agencies and departments of the executive branch. It also coordinates the federal statistical activities. The Office of Budget and Management works through offices for budget review, legislative reference, management and organisation, and statistical standards.
National Security Council: Set up by the National Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council advises the president on
240
the integration on military, foreign and domestic policies pertaining to national security; assesses and appraises the objectives, commitments and risks of the United States in relation to the country's military power, and considers policies on matters of common interest to the departments and agencies of the governments. The Council only studies and advises, the president takes the decision.
The Office of the Defence Mobilisation, dealing with national security, engages in mobilisation planning and executes the plans in times of emergency.
The Council of Economic Advisers, established in 1946, assists the president in preparing his annual economic report which is presented to the Congress, and submits to him information on economic matters.
Notes and References
1. W.F. Willoughby, Principles of Public Administration, p. 95.
2. Pfiffner and Presthus, Public Administration, pp. 183-185.
3. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, p. 195.
4. Luther Gulick, Notes on the Theory of Organisation, p. 15.
5. H.J. Pandya, "Boards and Commissions in India", in Ramesh K. Arora (ed.), The Indian Administrative System, Associated Publishing House, 1978, p. 124.
6. W.F. Willoughby, Principles of Public Administration, pp. 121-122.
7. The Task Force Report on Regulatory Commissions, p. 20.
8. James W. Fesler, "Independent Regulatory Establishments" in F.M. Marx (ed.), Elements of Public Administration, p. 235.
9. Art. 39 of the Indian Constitution:
i) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so evenly distributed as to subserve the common good; and
ii) that the operation of the economic system should not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
10. A.R. Tyagi, Public Administration, Atma Ram and Sons, Delhi, 1975, pp. 209-210.
241
9 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION—I
Personnel administration is the art and science of planning, organising, directing, controlling and motivating human resources to secure organisational and social objectives as well as employee's satisfaction. Under a good personnel system, the employees in an organisation would direct action towards a common goal in a cooperative and coordinated fashion.
Personnel administration is systematised, specialised knowledge about techniques which can help organisations in administering their personnel for optimum performance. Until and unless we understand all the implications of such an administration, we may not be able to reap the potential benefits of the personnel engaged in an organisation. A large number of training institutes have sprung up in all countries at all levels to impart training in the art of personnel administration. Most organisations have personnel departments to administer and manage their personnel efficiently. Thus, personnel administration is a definite art which can be learnt and practised to produce predesigned output.
Efficient public personnel administration can generate development, dynamism and modernisation and ultimately lead to nation building through lubricating and optimising the capacity and capability of personnel within the machinery of government.
Personnel administration departments should design and establish an organisational structure and an effective working relationship among all the members of an organisation by division of organisational tasks into jobs, defining clearly the responsibility and authority for each job and its relation with other jobs/personnel in the organisation. Personnel administration must create a congenial environment or the personnel so that they may feel a sense of involvement, commitment and loyalty to the organisation. Such an atmosphere would automatically discard the frictional situations leading to personal jealousies and rivalries, prejudices and idiosyncrasies, personality conflicts, cliques and factions, favouritism and nepotism.
242
The scope of public personnel administration is becoming diversified as the number of personnel is increasing in magnitude and complexity in all governmental organisations.
To sum up, personnel administration implies proper planning for work, selection, placement, and training of employees so selected, and distribution and assignment of work among them. It includes the supervision, conduct and discipline, motivation, communication and welfare, grievance settlement, and terms of employment of personnel in organisations. It also deals with all other auxiliary functions starting from recruitment and ending with retirement. Personnel administration functions are comprehensive and cover the entire work career of the employees vis-a-vis the organisation. This function is universal and is useful for all organisations whether in the public or in the private sector.
The Concept of a Career Civil Service
Herman Finer defines the civil service as a "professional body of officials, permanent, paid and skilled." According to E.N. Gladden, "A civil servant may be defined as a servant of the Crown (not being the holder of a political or judicial office), who is employed in a civil capacity and whose remuneration is wholly paid out of monies provided by Parliament."1 This excludes members of the armed forces and judicial services. The civil service constitutes the permanent executive in the modern state. With the increasing variety in the functions of the civil service, the new category of employees (both technical and generalist in character) working under the public sector are being gradually added to the category of civil servants everywhere. Finer has classified the British Civil Service into three broad types— administrative, technical and manipulative. The administrative officers help in policy formulation and execution. The officers in the technical category like doctors, engineers, economists and scientists help in performing tasks of a technical and specialised nature, where special knowledge and training is required. The third category of officials merely implement and execute tasks and decisions handed down to them by members of the civil service belonging to the first two categories. The major requirement of the civil service is that it shall be "impartially selected, administratively competent, politically neutral and imbued with the spirit of service to the community."2
243
Though traces of some sort of a rudimentary civil service were to be found in ancient China, Egypt and India, the concept of civil service as a career is of comparatively recent origin. England had no permanent civil service until the middle of the nineteenth century and the USA until the end of that century. The prevalence of the "patronage system" in England and "spoils system" in the USA delayed the development of a public career system based on merit for a long time.
Dr. White has stated that Richelieu in France, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I in England, and the Great Elector in Prussia are among the chief architects who reconstructed the concept of the state, office, civil life,
and of permanent officials out of the debris of the feudal system.3 Dr. Finer eleaborates the principles of its origin thus:
The growth of some of the cardinal and least questioned principles of modern civilisation brought about the establishment and growth of a professional civil service, and the realisation of principles would have been impossible without such a service. Some of those principles were the principles of specialisation and division of labour, the democratic ideas of 'career open to talents', etc.4
Civil services are the chief instrument for implementation of the will of the state as expressed through public policy. They are indispensable to the functioning of the modern state. With the change in the philosophy of the state from laissez faire to social welfare the modern state has taken upon itself multifarious tasks which are performed by the civil service.
The basic task of the civil servants is to transform politics into action. The higher echelons of the civil service also assist their political superiors in policy-formulation by expert advice, assistance and information, where needed. With the diversification of the nature of civil service personnel civil servants of the technical category engaged in various productive and public sector organisations are rendering useful social and economic services to the people.
The new tasks of the civil servants are therefore, comprehensive and include planning, control and guidance of the entire economic as well as social activities.... The manner in which work is done and its efficiency now directly impinge on the lives of individual citizens. The welfare of the
244
people will, to an increasing extent, depend on the imagination and sympathy and the efficiency with which work is understood and done by the civil servants.5
Due to increasing significance and importance of the civil service in modern society and the assumption of responsibility by the state for the performance of various social and economic functions, it has become all the more necessary to recruit persons, and competence for the civil service has become a fundamental imperative. Professionalisation of the civil service became absolutely necessary to attract the best available talent to government jobs and to enable them to make a rewarding career of it. The
concept of career civil service was defined by the Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel appointed in 1933 by the US Social Science Research Council thus:
By this we mean that steps shall be taken to make public employment a worthwhile life work, with entrance to the service open and attractive to young men and women of capacity and character, and with opportunity of advancement through service and growth to posts of distinction and honour.6
According to the Commission, the main characteristics of a career civil service are:
i) high prestige and status attached to government service;
ii) appropriate recruitment procedures;
iii) broad avenues for promotion and transfer of personnel;
iv) clear pay scales; and
v) an adequate retirement and pension system.
Willoughby defines career civil service as:
A system that offers equal opportunities to all citizens to enter the government service, equal pay to all employees doing work requiring the same degree of intelligence and capacity, equal opportunities for advancement, equally favourable conditions and equal participation in retirement allowances and makes equal demands upon the employees.7
It is a system aimed at recruiting young men and women of talent and ambition, with capacity for learning and growth, training them in order to develop their potentialities for the service of the state.
The main characteristics of the concept of career civil service are: (a) permanence of tenure and stability of service, (b) equal
245
opportunity of competing for government service, (c) merit to be the sole criteria of recruitment with due recognition to ability and personal efficiency in a sound promotion system, (d) the extent of territorial jurdisdiction of public employees is fairly large. This not only enlarges their scope of activity but also improves their avenues of promotions; and (e) adequate steps are taken to provide in-service training to the civil servants to keep them in touch with the latest trends and developments in administrative theory and practice. According to Powell, two new provisions should be included in any modern career system.
The first is the idea of planned upward progression, involving both the identification of a career ladder and carefully executed plans for the continuing growth and development of those who are expected to climb it. The second new element is the advance planning of staffing needs.
The system of a career civil service is applicable to all ranks of administration from the highest to the lowest grades. It can be usefully applied to all levels of government—national, state and even local government services. Professionalisation of public services have many advantages. In the words of Milton M. Mandell:
The advantages are teamwork and continuity in administration and an effective way of attracting the ablest candidates to the public service.
It is a system of service, with recruitment on merit, security of tenure and due recognition of service and merit through timely promotions. It offers a respectable life career which relieves an employee from fear of want during service as well as after retirement (government service has pensionary benefits) while assuring him ample job satisfaction, and opportunities of self-advancement if he shows the necessary ability in work. This gives the state a class of non-political permanent corps of loyal and industrious officials who form the bad one of public administration.
Every public organisation constitutes its own service systems comprising permanent civil service groups, whose size and functions depend on the nature of the organisation. Most government departments in all countries have employees who are normally recruited at the lower grades, the senior positions
246
being filled by promotion from below. Modern civil service constitutes men and women with both general and technical qualifications leading to the oft publicised debate on generalists versus specialists (the bureaucrats versus the technocrats).
The concept of a career civil service has been accepted and prevalent in India for a long time. Recruitment to the Indian Civil Service is based on the principle of equal opportunity for all. Recruitment at all levels is made through competitive examinations open to all graduates from any discipline (arts, science, medicine, engineering, commerce and law). The entrance examination to the Indian Administrative Service is meant to attract the very best talent of the country irrespective of sex, caste or creed. Candidates are recruited at an early age (from 21 to 26 years) and are given extensive in-service training in administrative thought and practice to equip them for their tasks. Promotions are based on the merit-cum-seniority principle and the scales of pay are revised to keep pace with the rising price index. Pension schemes are fairly attractive. Due to the large intake in these services, it has managed to attract an overwhelming number of young men and women in the country, as is evident from the large numbers who take the civil service examination every year.
Position Classification
Systematic classification of jobs and standardisation of all staff are two of the most essential features of a personnel system in any organisation. All other problems of personnel administration can be solved provided there is logical and scientific classification of personnel. W.F. Willoughby has rightly stressed the need for a genuine system of classification. He said, "Classification and standardisation of public employment constitutes, indeed, the starting point or the basis upon which the whole personnel structure must rest."8 Thus, a judicious classification system would help in sorting out easily the problems of pay, line of promotion, duties and responsibilities. "Upon proper classification", says Dr. H. Finer, "depends the efficiency of recruitment, the possibility of creating a rational promotional system, and the equitable treatment of people working in different department."9
In a classification plan, the lowest unit is a 'position'. The American Classification Act of 1949 defines position as the work
247
consisting of duties and responsibilities given to an employee.
A number of similar or identical positions put together constitute a 'class'. The positions covered in one class have identical qualification requirements and are given identical salary schedules. Stahl has defined class as a "group of positions sufficiently alike in respect to their duties and responsibilities to justify common treatment in various employment processes."10
The classes are further grouped into broad occupational groups called 'service', e.g., engineering, health, education, etc. The constitution of a service, according to the Administrative Reforms Commission, involves:
i) determining duties and responsibilities of various positions;
ii) translating these in terms of skills, requirements;
iii) grouping positions which broadly require similar skills; and
iv) gradation of positions in terms of responsibilities.11
System of Classification
There are two systems of classification.
a. Position Classification: In position classification a man's rank is basically a function of the position he fills. The salary of a civil servant is dependent upon the position he holds. The foundation of a job-oriented career system is a position classification plan. Such a plan is a prerequisite for any system that regards the nature and content of each position as central to good organisation and to motivation based on the work to be performed.
In position classification the most important determinants are the duties and responsibilities attached to the job rather than the person discharging them. The salary and status of a civil servant depends upon the position to which he is assigned.
There are four steps in the development of a position classification plan:
1. analysing and recording the duties and other distinctive characteristics of the positions to be classified (job analysis and description);
2. grouping the positions into classes upon the basis of their similarities;
3. writing such standards or specifications for each class of positions as will indicate its character, define its
248
boundaries and serve as a guide in allocating individual positions to the class and in recruitment and examinations; and
4. installation by allocating individual positions to the classes thus described.12
b. Rank Classification: In rank classification, a man's status and salary are determined with reference to the service he is assigned after recruitment. It does not depend upon the 'position' he holds or the work he does.
For example, a member of the All India Service may serve either in the secretariat or in the field or in a corporation or in a company, but he would go on drawing the same salary and hold the same status in every post. Similarly, a Director of Health posted as Officer on Special Duty in any other department would draw the same salary while the job performed is entirely different. Thus, salary and status are independent of posting.
Rank classification has many merits: (i) It is easy to understand and administer, (ii) It encourages career opportunities and promotes mobility, (iii) It encourages loyalty to the civil service rather than to a position, (iv) It attracts competent people to the service.
However, the rank-in-man classification suffers from many inherent limitations: (i) It violates the principle of equal pay for equal work. (ii) It does not define the contents of any job in detail. It does not describe what is expected for a post and, consequently, the performance of its incumbent may not be rationally measured, (iii) It is not conducive to the formulation of scientific standards on which selection of personnel, training, posting, transfer, promotion, career development, etc., may be organised.
Since position classification is considered better than rank classification it has been adopted in most countries of the world. Countries using rank classification are now changing over to position classification. Classification may be done on the basis of status, sex, caste, department, pay.
At present, the civil services in India are classified by services, classes and grades. The services are: All India Services, Central Services, Central Secretariat Services, State Civil Services. All these services are divided into four classes, i.e.. Class I, II, III and IV. Each class has a number of grades. The
249
Second Central Pay Commission (1957-59) came to the conclusion that the existing classification of civil services did not serve any practical purpose and should change because "the lines of division run horizontally across the services, resulting in a grouping of services and posts on a non-departmental and non-occupational basis." However, this recommendation was not accepted.
The Administrative Reforms Commission (1969) examined this question and observed that "the posts in the Civil Services should be grouped into categories, so that all those which call for similar qualifications and involve similar duties and responsibilities fall in the same category. The same pay scale should be applied to all posts in the same category. It proposed that (1) the entire civil service should be brought into a framework of 20 to 25 grades. (2) All the Class 1 posts may be evaluated and assigned to nine common pay scales. These nine grades may be divided into three levels, namely, junior, middle and senior. (3) The Department of Personnel should undertake urgently a detailed study for the purpose of determining the grades as well as the posts to which these should be attached. However, the Government of India is yet to take action on the recommendations of this Commission.
Recruitment of Civil Service Personnel
Recruitment of personnel for the civil services is one of the crucial tasks of modern government and lies at the heart of the problem of personnel administration. The main test of any machinery of recruitment lies in its ability to recruit the right type of persons for the right jobs. The concept of a career civil service assumes that public service recruitment would be based on the principle of merit and equal opportunity for all. The recruitment process should be able to attract the best available talent among the youth to the civil services. The increasing diversification of the nature of civil service functions and the growth of democratic and equalitarian principles have largely determined the normative context of personnel recruitment in democratic countries. J.D. Kingsley says:
Public recruitment may be defined as that process through which suitable candidates are included to compete for appointments to the public service. It is thus an integral part of a more inclusive process—selection—which also includes the process of examination and certification.
250
Pfiffner and Presthus observe:
Personnel recruitment for the second half of the twentieth century will have to be geared to a nuclear physical world in which the solutions of human problems will demand the utmost in human competence. The emphasis will be not only on finding, but on building men who are capable of performing the complex tasks of co-ordinating institutions growing even more complex.13
The first country to develop a scientific system of recruitment was China where recruitment through competitive examinations was first introduced in the second century before Christ. In modern times Prussia was the first to introduce a system of recruitment gradually replacing the 'patronage' system from 1857 onwards. In the United States, the 'spoils system' was discarded in favour of the 'merit principle' by the Civil Service Act of 1883. In India, the merit principle has been in existence since 1853, when it was first introduced during the British rule.
The process of recruitment and selection includes a number of different steps which are as follows:
1. Announcement of examinations, through newspapers, journals and other media.
2. Holding of examinations for testing or determining the abilities of the recruits.
3. Certification is the process of sending for an appointment.
4. Selection is the act of choosing from eligible candidates.
5. Appointment is made by the competent authorities of selected recruits. Appointment may be permanent, temporary, provisional or probationary. 6. Placement refers to the putting of recruited persons in the right jobs.
7. Orientation means induction into the service and a certain amount of training for a particular job.
The recruitment process involves a number of problems.
They are as follows:
a) location of the recruiting authority;
b) methods of recruitment;
c) qualifications of the employees;
d) methods of determining qualifications; and
e) administrative machinery for determination of qualifications.
251
(a) Location of the Recruiting Authority
The problem of location is of such fundamental importance that it is usually provided in the Constitution of most democratic countries. Generally, there are two methods of locating the recruiting agency. In one system, the power is vested in the electorate. This effective system of recruitment is usually adopted for policy-making posts (e.g., chief executive) or in electing personnel of a local administration (e.g., village panchayats).
The other system is where the power of appointment is given to a government organisation. Constitutionally the recruiting bodies called Public Service Commissions function as the personnel recruiting agency on behalf of the government.
(b) Methods of Recruitment
There are two main methods of recruitment, one is recruitment from outside and the other is through departmental promotion. The latter is one in which appointment to the higher posts in the service is made only from within the service itself either through a system of promotion or through restricted competitive examinations. It has been argued that the best method is to have direct recruitment in the lower grades and recruitment through promotion in the higher grades of service. Such a system will have the following advantages:
1) All employees are provided enough incentive to work knowing that promotion is guaranteed by well defined conditions of service. Higher posts will have the advantage of the ability of experienced and senior experts.
2) Gradual advancement through increased monetary benefits is a good form of compensation for those who may put up with low salaries at the junior level.
3) Besides monetary advantage, there is no guarantee in the system of recruitment from without that it would be able to secure efficient employees to senior positions. Most governments would prefer 'insiders' to 'outsiders' in highly responsible posts.
4) In the system of recruitment from without, no system of examination can be entirely foolpoof or satisfactory in discovering the best talent among the candidates. In the promotion system, more weightage is given to past experience and the degree of responsibility previously enjoyed by a person.
252
5) This system reduces the expense and burden of the Public Service Commissions by restricting the work of recruiting and training new applicants to only the lower level posts.
The main defects in this system vis-a-vis the order (recruitment from without for all posts) are that it narrows the area of selection (a mediocre may fill the post leaving out the more talented). It is also discriminatory and violative of the principle of equal opportunity to all. Direct recruitment ensures a continuous supply of fresh talent and ability. This is particularly essential in technical and professional fields where new techniques and ideas continue to emerge rapidly, in tune with the changing socio-economic conditions of the country.
Neither of the two methods of recruitment are entirely satisfactory. In all countries a combination of both systems is practised to get the most desirable results.
(c) Qualifications of the Employees
One of the main problems in the recruitment system of modern civil service is laying down proper qualifications to suit the needs of the diverse tasks of administration. Broadly there are two types of qualifications required of public servants, general and special.
General Qualifications: The modern state lays down certain general standards for its employees. They relate to his civil status, domicile, sex and age.
Civil status: Since the growth of nation-states it has become a universal practice to recruit only citizens. Even when the services of an alien are indispensable, the appointment is made only on a short term basis.
Domicile: The domicile qualification is generally laid down in public services in countries with federal systems.(This qualification was first introduced in the USA to give the representation to each federating unit in the national services. Several critics brand it an undesirable and decidedly harmful practice impeding efficiency and introducing provincialism and parochialism in administration.
In India domicile rules were prevalent till 1957 and have been discarded now.
Sex: Public service, until recently, was taboo for women in most countries, a restriction which gradually disappeared with
253
spread of the influence of the doctrine of equality, and the increasing employment of women in all types of services. In India all public services have been thrown open to women.
Age: In countries like Britain and India where the concept of civil service as a career has been adopted, comparatively lower age limits for clerical and semi-skilled jobs (between 16 and 20 years) and for administrative and technical (21-26 years) have been provided. But America which does not follow the government service-as-a-career principle prefers to recruit trained and experienced personnel in public service. Hence the age scale there varies from 18 to 50 years.
Special Qualifications
Educational. In respect of educational qualifications, different countries prescribe patterns. The British system lays down definite educational qualifications for entrants, with an emphasis on liberal education (classical and the humanities). In India every university graduate can sit for the civil service competitive examinations and the subjects are so broad based as to include the widest range of university subjects. The American system being influenced by the doctrine of equality does not prescribe any educational qualifications. Anybody who qualifies in the competitive examination may enter the civil service)
Technical Experience: Technical experience is an additional qualification often laid down for technical services. This is essential to fill up technical posts in public administration by professionals like doctors, engineers and lawyers}
Personal Qualifications: The public servant is required to possess many personal qualifications like integrity, resourcefulness, tact and sincerity. Besides devotion to public duty, other desirable qualifications are:
a) A flexible, but essentially scientific mode of thought, characterised by a recognition of the need for coordination.
b) Familiarity with the subject-matter of organisation and management.
c) Facility at problem solving.
d) A highly developed reading and writing ability.
e) Ability to settle vexing situations through interpersonal contact.14
254
(d) Methods of Determining Qualifications
The following methods of determining qualifications have been adopted in most countries today:
1. Personal judgement of the appointing authority.
2. Certificates of character, ability, and educational qualifications.
3. Record of previous experience—educational and occupational.
4. Examinations.
1. Personal Judgement of the Appointing Authority: Under this system, the recruiting authority lays down the qualifications of the applicants. This being a highly arbitrary and subjective system, it has mostly been discarded in democratic countries, where this job has been left to the Public Service Commissions. However, this system can be followed when there is a small number of posts to be filled and an appointing officer is by qualification and experience the best person to lay down the qualifications. At present few top positions of the civil service in India and in some other countries are filled by this system. The most desirable use of this method can be made if the recruiting authority has to make the appointment from a panel of names prepared by the Public Service Commissions on the basis of competitive examinations.
2. Certificates of Character, Ability, and Educational Qualifications: This method is often used to supplement other methods before appointing a person to a public post. Character certification and academic recommendations from responsible persons can be good methods of judging a candidate's past record. However, this cannot be the sole basis of judging the overall fitness of a candidate for a post, for character certificates may be subjective and not always relevant to the requirements of the post.
3. Record of Previous Experience: In this, the entire pervious record of work (both educational and occupational) of the candidate is examined. The USA has evolved a scientific system of making records of the work and experience of employees through what is known as 'Efficiency Records' or 'Service Ratings'. This combined with the educational record of a candidate can serve as a sound basis of preliminary selection as is usually done.
255
4. Examination: Civil Service Recruitment Examinations are meant to test not only the general knowledge and mental ability of the candidates but also some of their personal traits and service records.
There are four main types of personnel recruitment tests, namely: (i) written examination, (ii) oral examination, (iii) performance demonstration, and (iv) evaluation of education and experience.
Written Examination
Written tests may be either essay-type or objective types in form. Essay type are meant to examine the power and clarity of expression and the standard of logical thinking of the candidate. The objective type is usually employed to test the general knowledge and speed of thinking of the candidate. Either or both types are employed in civil service recruitment. Written tests fall under the following main categories:15
1. The Ability Tests: They may be either objective or essay type in form. In both, the purpose is to assess the general mental ability of the candidate, his memory, response to problems and power of logic. Besides, other tests have been derived in the USA to test the specific character traits of candidates.
They are:
a) General intelligence test was invented by Binet and Simon of America in 1905. It is a device of measuring the mind through such measures as Intelligence Scale and Pressey Series.
b) Unit trait system was devided by L.L. Thurstone. Unit trait system is a process of identifying unit traits of intelligence, for example, perception, space factor, memory, reasoning ability and comprehension.
c) Social intelligence test was also devised by Thurstone and his group. It measures the quality of social intelligence, that is, the quality of adaptability to all kinds of new situations and ability to influence people.
d) Administrative ability test is known as the Gottshchold test and it tests the administrative ability. Some of the qualities tested are (a) ability to appraise people; (b) capacity to take prompt decisions; and (c) social behaviour.
e) Mechanical intelligence test is used to test the ability of mechanical performance needed for lower level skilled
256
and semi-skilled grades, e.g., clerks, stenographers, typists and machine operators.
2. Aptitude Tests: Various aptitude tests are extensively used for recruitment in the defence and other technical services in the UK and the USA which are meant to test the particular aptitude of the students towards that job.
3. Achievement Tests: The academic qualifications laid down for recruitment to various services are referred to as achievement tests, for example, in India the achievement test for taking the Civil Service Examination is graduation.
4. Personality Tests: Various kinds of complex personality tests have been devised in Western countries to discover all possible traits of human personality, such as the Laired Personal Inventory was devised to measure emotion and temperament; Bern Reuter Flanagan Personality Inventory to test confidence and sociability; and Alloport A.S. Test to test qualities of ascendance and submission. These are highly complex psychiatric devices meant to test hidden traits of human personality.
5. Oral Interview: However, the commonest, least complex and expensive method of personality test is the viva voce (also called the oral interview.) This test is normally supplemented by a written test. The interview is generally conducted by a board of three to five experts consisting of members appointed by the Civil Service Commissions. These tests can never be entirely free from bias subjectivity. They are meant to test the candidate's alertness, intelligence, presence of mind and general personality.
(e) Administrative Machinery for Determining Qualifications
The task of handling the recruitment of the civil service is such an immensely lengthy, time-consuming and complex job that it needs to be placed in the hands of an agency outside the operating service to maintain standards of objectivity and neutrality in personnel selection. Such a personnel recruiting agency, usually called the Public or Civil Service Commission, is put in charge not only of the recruitment and examination of public personnel but is also entrusted with other duties related with personnel matters, such as pay, leave, promotion, transfer and classification.
257
In recent years procedures of recruitment and training of personnel have been the subject of serious debate and discussion in many countries. In Britain the Fulton Committee was appointed by the British government to review the entire range of problems connected with personnel administration with
special relevance to recruitment and training. The Committee, in its report, published in 1968, first initiated the debate on the 'generalist vs. specialist' controversy, making a strong advocacy for relating jobs to organisational objectives and pleaded for increased professionalism in the public services. The essence of the Fulton report was that the days of the 'amateur' in administration are over and the concept of a generalist administrative class is obsolete and insufficient to meet the changing needs of the times. In India, the Administrative Reforms Commission also made a vigorous plea for the gradual infusion of specialists in the administrative services to meet the technological challenge to our administration.
The Fulton report had a snowballing impact on the generalist vs. specialist debate with many administrators and academicians vociferously taking one side or the other. The generalist's cause was presented with great vigour and force by Frederick C. Mosher who found the continuous swamping of the US civil services with professionals and technocrats as a dangerous and harmful trend for democratic administration. This view was also supported by Paul Appleby who has stated that there is no single problem in public administration equal to "the reconciliation of the increasing dependence upon experts within an enduring democratic reality." Both these writers view professionalism as a serious threat to the two democratic ideals of public service, viz., recruitment on merit (equal opportunity to all) with responsiveness to political direction. The pro-generalist writers also assert that specialists can never acquire the broadness of vision and outlook, so necessary in a developing nation like India where the complexity of administrative problems calls for an administrator to be a planner, a manager and an operator at the same time.
Both the views have many points of truth. But both the approaches need not be mutually exclusive, a harmonious blend of generalism and specialism may yield fruitful results. The bureaucrat often lacks specialised knowledge on many matters
258
required for certain jobs, the technocrat may lack broad overview on many matters of administration. The changing problems and socio-economic conditions today call for an administrator who not only helps in policy formulation and execution but also acts as an agent of social change where necessary.
Forms of Recruitment
There are three main forms of Civil Service Recruitment. They are as follows:
1. Cadet System: The cadet system is followed in many countries mainly for recruitment in the defence services. Under this system recruitment is made at a young age, usually between the ages of 16 and 20 years, followed by a long period of institutional training during which the cadets are given instruction on courses in general education and specialised skills required for the jobs.
2. General Mental Ability: The system which is followed in India and many European countries lays stress on recruiting young men and women after graduation in the liberal arts of basic sciences between the age group of 21 and 26 years. Under this the government seeks to recruit candidates with broad educational attainments and mental ability. It is based on the concept of career civil service.
3. Expertise: The government recruits people with specific qualifications, technical knowledge or experience suited for the recruitments to various posts. The age-scale of recruitment varies from 18 to 45 years. This system is followed in the USA and in Canada to a certain extent. In this, open recruitment from outside takes place at all levels of the hierarchy and government service is not based on the concept of a career civil service. Eligible candidates from non-governmental positions may also be recruited to government posts, if required. This system has the same objectives as the 'lateral entry system' under which a certain quota is fixed for recruitment to the senior civil service posts from among outsiders not belonging to the same service through competitive selection. The 'lateral entry system' may be followed in recruitment on the basis of general mental ability.
Recruitment System in India
In India recruitment system is essentially based on the British pattern. Recruitment qualifications at the initial stage are not
259
based on any kind of specialised knowledge or experience. The method of testing merit of the applicants is to assess the general knowledge of the candidate on a variety of subjects. Entrance to civil services is based on merit which is tested by competitive examinations open to all citizens irrespective of religion, sex, caste or creed. Graduation is the minimum qualification necessary to take these examinations. Direct recruitment to the administrative and most of the executive services is made on the basis of competitive examinations based mainly on the following:
a) a test of intellectual ability and scholastic attainments through written examinations on subjects of the candidate's choice (optional papers);
b) a written test common to all candidates, meant to test the capacity for clear and logical thinking, memory, expression and general knowledge (compulsory papers); and
c) an interview to assess a candidate's personal qualities.
(Recruitment by promotion is also made at lower levels of services. Following the recommendations of the Kothari Committee the recruitment to the All-India and Central Services (Class-I) is made on the basis of a combined civil services examination common to all the services in three stages:
i) Civil services preliminary examination (objective type) for the selection of candidates for the main examination;
ii) Civil services main examination (written);
iii) Interview of those candidates who have qualified in the written test at the final stage of recruitment.
Union and State Public Service Commissions in India
In the Indian Constitution, Article 315 provides for the establishment of a Union Public Service Commission and State Public Service Commission; two or more states may agree to have a common commission.
Composition and Qualifications of Members
The Constitution does not fix the number of members of the Union or the State Public Service Commissions. It has left this matter to the discretion of the president/governor as the case may be. The Union Public Service Commission has a chairman and 10 members as of December 31,1991. They are appointed by the president. At least one-half of the members should be persons with a minimum of ten years experience in government service.
260
The tenure of office is fixed for six years or until the attainment of 65 years of age in the case of Union Public Service Commission and 62 in the case of State Public Service Commissions. A member can be removed from office only by an order of the president in the case of the Union Public Service Commission and the state governor in the case of the State Public Service Commissions on grounds of insolvency, infirmity of mind or body, or engagement in paid employment outside the duties of his office. In order to ensure the impartiality and independence of the members, the Constitution provides that, upon ceasing to be a member in due time, the incumbent will be ineligible for any further appointment in the same office or in any office under the government except a higher appointment in the same commission. The president of India determines the salary and other conditions of service of the members of the Commission through regulations. It is provided that the conditions of service of a member of the Commission cannot be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. The entire expenses of the Commission, including salaries and allowances of its members, are charged to the consolidated fund of India. A member of the Union Public Service Commission can be removed from office only by an order of the president on grounds of misbehaviour. The president shall refer the matter to the Supreme Court and the Court shall conduct an enquiry under Article 145 and submit its report to the president, who can suspend the member concerned.
Functions
The functions of the Commission under Article 320 may be summarised as follows:
1. To advise the government on all matters relating to the method of recruitment and principles to be followed in making appointments to the civil services either directly or by promotion.
2. To conduct examinations for appointment to the All India and Union Services.
3. To interview candidates for direct recruitment.
4. To advise the government on the suitability of candidates or promotion and transfer. Recommendations for such promotions are made by the departments concerned and the Commission is requested to ratify them. On an average, the Union Commission handles about 4,000 cases annually.
261
5. The Commission is also consulted on matters like temporary appointments for periods exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, grant of extension of services and re-employment of certain retired civil servants. About 1,000 such cases come up every year.
6. The Commission is also consulted on matters like regularisation of appointments, claims for pension, claims for re-imbursement of legal expenses incurred by government servants in defending legal proceedings institute against them in respect of acts done in the execution of their official duties, claims for pension, or compensation in respect of injuries sustained on duty.
7. The Commission is consulted regarding the making of an order in any disciplinary case in the following circumstances:
i) censure;
ii) withholding of increments or promotion;
iii) reduction to a lower service, grade or post;
iv) compulsory retirement;
v) removal or dismissal from service.
8. To advise the government on any other matter specifically referred to it by the president or the governor.
Staff Selection Commission
The Union Public Service Commission is responsible only for a small percentage of the total number of positions in the Government of India. A Staff Selection Commission was set up to rationalise arrangements for making lower level appointments to the non-technical grades of the Government of
India. In 1975, the Government of India had decided to constitute a Subordinate Selection Commission. It was renamed the Staff Selection Commission from July 1976.
Besides the Union and State Public Service Commissions, recruitment is also done by Staff Selection Commissions. There are six regional offices located at Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Guwahati, and Madras and two sub-regional offices at Raipur and Bangalore.
Central Establishment Board (CEB), Senior Selection Board (SSB) and Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC): The posts of and above the level of under secretary in the Central Secretariat are not reserved for any particular service. The service of officers
262
belonging to various All India and Central Group 'A' Services are borrowed for specific periods on the expiry of which they are generally reverted to their respective states/cadres. This tenure, however, may be extended or curtailed in the exigencies of public service or on the request of the officers themselves in special circumstances. To ensure that placements to various positions follow this dictum, there is a two-tier institutional arrangement in the form of the Central Establishment Board (CEB) presided over by the secretary, Department of Personnel and the Senior Selection Board (SSB) presided over by the cabinet secretary—the former to process appointments at the levels of under secretary, deputy secretary and director, including equivalent positions, and the latter to process appointments at the level of joint secretary or equivalent positions. All recommendations for filling up the posts at the levels of deputy secretary to joint secretary and equivalent positions made by the CEB an SSB, are finally approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The proposals for appointments to the posts above the level of joint secretary and equivalent ranks are initiated by the cabinet secretary for the approval of the ACC. The ACC also approves important non-secretariat appointments like the appointments of chairmen, managing directors, functional directors and other directors on the boards of all public sector undertakings, nationalised banks, statutory authorities and government-owned companies/enterprises, etc.
Public Enterprises Selection Board
The Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) is entrusted with the responsibility of making recommendations for appointment to the full-time board level posts of chief executives and functional directors and part-time chairmen in the Central Public Enterprises.
Criticism
There are many critics of the method of recruitment to the public services who have time and again pointed out the defects in the system. Dr. Appleby comments "that the examining techniques are not up-to-date and conscious criteria not fully related to modern knowledge about administrative qualifications."16 He also remarks:
There is too little willingness to recruit in intermediate and higher levels, too much reliance on promotion from below
263
but with promotion limited too strictly to the single 'class' to which a person was first appointed. There is too much unwillingness to recruit in sufficient numbers, even for present needs, and too little realisation that future needs of far more serious dimensions cannot be met in the future except by additional recruitment and training now.17
The interview system has also often been criticised. A.D. Gorwala observes, "a fifteen minute conversation with laymen howsoever wide experience they might be possessing, cannot take the place of an expert psychological examination designed to give a scientific insight into the candidate's mental and emotional make-up."18 He also feels that "there is need for a great deal of more contact between the Public Service Commissions and the universities."
The Administrative Reforms Commissions have also in their periodic reports pointed out the flaws in our recruitment policy from time to time and called for an adoption of a more relevant and imaginative policy in future.
Training
Training is the systematic imposition of skilled knowledge to all categories of civil servants for their advancement and efficiency in service. Training of civil servants has assumed special significance in the context of the recruitment policy in democracies which is meant to test the general abilities of candidates yet are, however, not quite enough to carry them through for the rest of their career, once they are selected. With the gradual diversification and complexity of the functions and tasks of government, occupants of public offices have to be trained for their jobs. The practice of advanced countries has amply proved the effectiveness and utility of such in-service training. To meet the
challenges of continuing socio-economic change, the administrator of today and tomorrow has to be kept abreast of the latest developments in administrative theory and technique to deal with all kinds of situations. An indication of the growing importance of training is the gradual proliferation of training programmes and institutions to train civil servants in all countries. According to A.D. Gorwala the general conception of training is a mixture of many elements.
In one sense, training means the imparting of knowledge of facts and their inter-relations—knowledge essentially of
264
specialised or professional nature.... In another sense training involves the teaching of techniques which require the coordinated handling of tools and appliances and physical faculties rather than of ideas.... In still another sense, training entails the formation of mental and physical habit patterns to ensure that the same stimuli would always produce the same automatic responses; finally, training implies what the good gardener does to the growing sapling....
Training helps the recruit to acquire occupational skill and knowledge and contribute his best towards the objectives of the organisation. Training moulds and shapes the entrants to internalise the organisational skills and character, and helps them to adapt to new environments. As Nigro puts it, "The function of training is to help employees grow, not only from the standpoint of mechanical efficiency but also in terms of the broad outlook and perspective which public servants need."19 Training is necessary to equip civil servants for higher positions and greater responsibilities where specialised knowledge and increased competence may be needed. Training not only enhances the competence and ability of civil servants but in the process contributes to organisational efficiency and prestige. It also fosters a spirit of camaraderie and a sense of duty among the employees. Training helps build integrity and morale in the public servants by developing the requisite mental attitudes to questions of personal and public conduct. The British Committee on the Training of Civil Servants, in 1944, has outlined five main aims of training.
1) attaintment of precision and clarity in the transaction of business;
2) continuous adjustment to the changing socio-economic needs of our times;
3) gain a broad overview of administration instead of a narrow departmental vision;
4) vocational training is needed to understand the nature of present task and undertake new responsibilities; and
5) enliven the nature of routine tasks by making them more interesting.
According to Simon, three factors have given particular urgency to training for government service in developing countries: the need for innovation in administration to meet the
265
demands and challenges of our times; the rapid multiplication of government tasks and duties; and the acute shortage of skilled manpower in developing countries. Training is absolutely necessary to develop personnel quality and resources in Third World countries.
Types of Training
Training can be of several types. Some types may be for individuals, whereas other types may be for groups. There can be pre- or post-entry training, as well as training on and off the job. It can be of a specialised or of a general nature. They are discussed briefly as under:
Formal Training: This requires classroom lectures, seminars, debates and discussions combined with tutorials and work projects. It may be full-time or part-time, pre-entry or post-entry in nature. It may be given at a particular venue during a specified period, after which a degree or certificate may be awarded to the trainee.
Pre-entry Training: Any educational qualification or training which prepares a candidate for civil service, including education imparted in schools and colleges is pre-entry training, as it aims to prepare students for eventual public employment. The term pre-entry training is however limited to referring to vocational or specialised training. In India there is hardly any specific pre-entry training scheme in existence. In the United States a rather wide pre-entry training scheme exists (for candidates selected
for administrative and managerial positions) where students in the course of their technical education undergo internship of apprenticeship in selected organisations before taking up formal employment.
Orientation Training: The orientation training is the planned and guided introduction of employees to their departments and environment of work. The new recruit is guided and oriented towards the work programme and to the diversity of factors involved in a work situation.
Post-entry Training: The post-entry training refers to the training an employee gets in service. It may be formal or informal in structure and content. Lectures may be combined with work experience.
266
Organisation of Training
Establishment of a suitable machinery for organising training is very vital for the continued efficiency of the civil services. The different channels through which training can be imparted are as follows: (i) Senior officers of various departments may themselves undertake the responsibility of training juniors. (ii) Training may be conducted in the organisation by outside institutes, (iii) Employees may be sent to outside institutions or universities to get training. Both formal and informal training is necessary if the employee is to specialise and keep an active interest in his job.
Techniques of Training
Many types of training techniques have been evolved in various countries, mainly the USA. The more important among these are: lecture method, syndicate method, case study method, role pay and managements games, and sensitivity training.20
Lecture Method: The lecture method is one of the commonest and oldest methods of training in classroom teaching. However, to make it more effective it should be supplemented with post-lecture debates and discussions, seminars, conferences and other audio-visual methods.
Syndicate Method: The syndicate method is now widely followed in training institutes in various parts of the world. In this method a topic under instruction is assigned to small groups of trainees who are asked to conduct a thorough study of that subject under the guidance of the teachers. Syndicates are of two types—problem solving and knowledge gathering.
Case Study Method: Under the case study method an intensive and in-depth study of a particular subject is undertaken by narrating the actual field experience of working with the problem to trainees by experienced persons. The case narrative is first studied and then debated upon by the students with the teachers.
Incidence Method: The incidence method is a problem-solving approach meant to develop decision- making skills in the trainees. Students are given instruction on basic administrative facts and problems. On the basis of these facts some problem areas are identified and students are asked to write solutions to these problems and defend their answers. This enables them to develop reasoning and problem solving skills.
267
Role Play and Management Games: In this method trainees are told to enact concrete roles related to their jobs as a part of demonstrative training. Management games are also similar in nature. After the play-acting a debate takes place on the character acting of each trainee in a discussion of creative criticism.
Sensitivity Training: The sensitivity training is one of the latest methods of attitude conditioning of civil servants to groom them towards requisite modes of behaviour. Trainees are exposed to groups who make them aware of their peculiar character traits (if any), thus providing them an opportunity for self-analysis and improvement.
Training in India
Post-entry training of civil servants in India is the responsibility of central and state governments. This initial post-entry training is imparted in two ways—institutional training (for administrative, policy, audit and accounts, and income tax services); and (ii) training under the guidance of senior and experienced officers (for defence, accounts, customs, postal services, etc.) There are various central Secretariat Training Schools which trains new recruits to the Central Secretarial Service. Systematic facilities for post-entry training do not exist for the Class II and subordinate services. Here the emphasis is on on-the-job informal training. However, some departments like the railways and posts and telegraphs run staff colleges to train their staff.
Various administrative bodies, however, regularly conduct refresher courses for public servants. The National Academy of Administration conducts refresher courses for officers of the IAS with ten to fifteen years service. The refresher course is meant to impart specialised training in administrative thought and practice. Refresher courses for senior civil servants are also organised by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. The training programmes conducted so far were on social welfare administration, development administration, financial administration, and problems of planning.
Young recruits to the Indian Civil, Police and Foreign Services get their initial on-probation training at the National Academy in Mussourie before proceeding to other specialised institutions to get their particular service-oriented training. An
268
important consideration for introducing a common introductory five-month course in Mussourie for all civil service recruits was to enable them to have a knowledge of the political, constitutional, economic and social context in which the administration functions, besides acquainting themselves with the machinery of government and the broad principles of public administration. A new pattern of sandwich type of training was introduced for the IAS probationers at the National Academy in July 1969. Being problem-oriented the training is based largely on the experience and observations of the probationary IAS officers in the field of district administration during practical training in the states.
For top business and government executives, the Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad, provides a four-month course at the college. The objective of the Staff College is the development of executive and managerial capacities of the administrators, both in business and industry as well as in government. Training in the police services is conducted at the Police Training College for the IPS at Hyderabad. Similarly, many training schools have been set up in several states to train recruits to the higher levels of the state services.
It is thus obvious that in India, institutionalised training programmes have greatly expanded in number, scope and nature. Refresher and orientation courses, seminars, workshops and conferences form the major techniques of in-service training of civil servants. The central government grants study leave liberally (particularly to the scientific, technical and administrative staff) to enable them to undertake post-entry training in service.
Deficiencies
The major loophole in our training system of civil servants is the lack of a sound and integrated policy on employees' training. Training facilities are not equal in all government departments not are coordinated in a unified pattern. Lower level (Class II and subordinate services) employees rarely get systematic post-entry training. Another disturbing fact is that no class relationship exists between training and promotion, hence many employees are not often encouraged to undertake training. Flaws also exist in the content of the training courses which need to be modified in keeping with the advancement in modern administrative thought
269
and practice as well as the changing socio-economic climate of the administration. Training of civil servants has been, till recently, a neglected aspect of personnel administration in India. It was only in 1968 that a training division was established in the Ministry of Home Affairs to deal with training policies and programmes of the Government of India in the field of administration.
Training for Development Administrators in the Third World
Training is an action process, (a) by which capabilities of the personnel can be improved (b) to meet the organisational needs in terms of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes required in performing organisational tasks and functions. Training may be viewed in terms of two broad categories. First, the routine training to administrators encompasses such tasks as record keeping, job analysis, job auditing and evaluation, organisation and method, office management, accounting, and time and motion studies. This type of training is primarily directed to routine and operational matters which are necessary for the continuous maintenance and servicing of the administrative machinery. The other category which we may call 'development training' is oriented to human resource development required for undertaking and managing government's development activities. Thus developmental training seems to require a new perspective and approach in formulating training needs and methods.
New developmental tasks have put tremendous pressure upon the existing administrative systems of Third World countries everywhere. Conceptualisation of government as a catalyst of social change and development makes it almost imperative to redefine the role and function of civil servants in society. Administrators will be required to engage themselves consciously and directly in the task of bringing about social change and development by initiating and implementing policies and decisions aiming at change and development. One of the consequences of such redefinition of the role of administrators will be to transform the administrator from a desk worker to a field worker. Public officials now will have to assume such new roles as those of business executives, dispensers of social services, executors of economic policy, planners and industrial managers. Assumption of these new roles demands a fundamental change in the outlook/orientation, knowledge, skills and attitudes of the civil servants.21
270
Training Requirements
Knowledge: Development administrators in the Third World countries would have to initiate and operate development activities under multiple pressures and obstacles emanating from society. It is, therefore, necessary that development administrators are aware of the political, social, cultural and economic environmental constraints of the country in which they have to function. They must be acquainted with the social and cultural norms and values of the people they have to serve. Besides, the development administrator must have an accurate understanding of the general social structure, involving knowledge of sociological and economic relationships and principles. In short, a thorough study of the environmental setting in which he has to perform is required.
Skills: For development administrators' general skills, usually provided through regular administrative training programmes, will not suffice. They would require skills in development programme and project formulation, implementation and evaluation. They should have ability to shape new courses and strategies as policy formulators. A pro-change policy formulator is actively engaged in formulating strategies and policies for making new changes for development. The development administrator must be good at immediate improvisation to become an effective crisis manager/ administrator. He would require the ability to motivate others in accepting new changes and development. Also the development administrator needs to be an interest broker capable of choosing among competing interests and reconciling all parties to the outcome.
Attitudes/Values: In the new 'social service' and 'development' role, the civil servants must formulate and implement developmental works not as routine duty, but as social service meant to transform some aspect to national life. According to a thinker, development administrators to be effective and successful in undertaking and managing development programmes must acquire the attributes of an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is one who is creative and result-oriented and does not hesitate to take calculated risks. It is essential that in training programmes due emphasis and encouragement is given to creativity and innovation.
271
Planned national development needs a greater degree of people's participation. The success of development programmes like integrated rural development programme, family planning programme, irrigation or rural works programme depends on people's acceptance, trust and confidence. Development administrators must consider it a part of development policy to make a consistent effort
to educate and consult people and solicit their participation in developmental tasks. Development must be a cooperative endeavour of the people and their administrators.
Methods
Training methods would be as varied as the specific training requires. In the context of development administration which requires fresh outlook and creative approach, case study method may be useful as a training device. Case study method is one that enhances a civil servant's comprehension and competence through the study of concrete cases. Lecture method coupled with debate and conference method may be used for transmitting information. Laboratory training (such as sensitivity training, T group training) may be utilised for creating awareness of self and social processes. Role playing has proved to be an effective techniques for promoting attitudinal change. Problem-solving and decision-making workshops may be useful in increasing competence of civil servants in solving problems and in making effective decisions. Field exercises in the rural areas can also be a very useful training method.22
The content and techniques of training in any country cannot be static, but flexible and dynamic in character, changing according to the social-economic conditions of society and the needs and aspirations of the people.
Promotion
A sound promotion system is of vital importance for the continued efficiency of the public services. Promotion in the words of Dr. White implies:
an appointment from a given position to a position of higher grade, involving a change of duties to a more difficult type of work and greater responsibility accompanied by change of title and usually an increase in pay.23 Promotion is a reward to an employee which entails a change in his position and status. The promoted rises to a higher rank in
272
the organisational hierarchy and pay scale which is often accompanied by additional responsibilities in the new post.
A system of graded promotions is essential to help build morale and efficiency in public services. Unless the civil service has adequate promotional avenues, it will not be able to attract ambitious and talented young men and women towards it as an attractive career. It may even frequently cause the more capable job aspirants to prefer employment in private enterprises. It deters employees from taking training courses and making other efforts towards self-improvement. A proper promotion system helps in retaining the services of the ablest amongst its employees and also in giving them an opportunity to improve their capabilities and qualifications. It is, thus, useful to the employees individually as well as to the administration as a whole.
But to improve the morale and efficiency of administration, a promotion system must be based on the principles of equity and fair play. Unjust prejudice, favouritism, corruption or bias on the part of promoting officers by pushing up unqualified employees are some hurdles in the way of establishment of a just and sound promotion system.
Essentials of a Promotion System
W.F. Willoughby lays down the following conditions as a basis of a promotion system:
1. Adoption of standard specifications setting forth the duties and qualifications required for all promotions in the government service.
2. The classification of these positions into district classes, series, grades and services.
3. The inclusion of all positions (except those of a policy making character) into this classification.
4. The adoption, so far as possible, of the principle of recruitment from within for filling up of higher posts.
5. The adoption of principle of merit in determining the selection of employees for promotion.
6. The provision of adequate means for determining the relative merits of employees eligible for promotion.24
All types of civil services lay down certain eligibility criteria for promotion to all grades. Generally, there are two main forms of qualifications:
273
a) Personal qualifications of the candidates, for example, educational standard, professional training or experience, or any specially laid down personal qualification, like physical fitness, social and other qualities.
b) Service status is another relevant factor for determining eligibility for promotion. This refers to the range of selection of candidates for promotion. There are posts for which promotion is confined to a section or division or department, whereas there are others to which employees with requisite qualifications from other departments may also be eligible.
Principles of Selection for Promotion
There are two main principles on which the eligibility criteria for promotion can be fixed.
1. The Seniority Principle: The seniority principle in government service is widely prevalent as a method of promotion in most countries. According to Dr. Finer:
It is automatic, and avoids the need for making invidious distinctions between one person and another, of placing the young over the old, of measuring the responsibility for the result of promotion.25
It is greatly followed in public service everywhere since it is objective, easy to follow, and gives everyone a chance. It greatly eliminates chances of favouritism and corruption. It also reduces 'unhealthy rivalry or bitterness in the organisation thereby promoting harmony and increased morale in the services.
However, this system also has its flaws. In the first place, it does not necessarily lead to the selection of the best among those available and eligible for promotion. It also leads to demoralisation and complacency in service, among the more talented officials. This system, in fact, encourages only ,
mediocrity. The principle may be successful for the lower posts but for the higher ones special types of qualities may be required.
2. Merit Principle: The merit principle requires that merit should be the sole basis of promotion. This ensures that the best person is promoted to the higher post 'based on specified criteria alone'. This would encourage hard work and efficiency, reward talent and increase morale in the services.
274
Methods of Testing Merit
i) Personal Judgement of the Head: It is an old and respected principle that the departmental superior who is in close touch with the employees and is in the best position to know their administrative and personal qualities and potential as well as the requirements of higher posts, must be the best judge for assessing the eligibility of an employee's promotion. This also helps the departmental head to maintain discipline and authority in the department.
Criticism: But there have been many serious objections to this. Firstly, public organisations today are too vast and populous in nature making it impossible for all departmental heads to keep a close touch with their subordinates or to form an accurate opinion of their merits and capacities. Secondly, this system is greatly subjective making it susceptible to all kinds of pressures and prejudices. It often leads to unhealthy rivalry and causes considerable ill-will among those who may miss out for promotion.
Safeguards
a) The adoption of promotion boards constituting many senior officials (instead of one departmental head) to assess the progress record of any employee. In some countries, it is within the purview of the Public Service Commissions to review all promotional cases at higher levels of the civil service and note all irregularities which can be reported to Parliament.
b) In some countries, there is a system of appeal under which while the task of assessing the record of candidates for promotions has been left to the head of the department, a right of appeal to an agency outside the department has been given to the aggrieved party.
c) In order to make the reports of the departmental heads more objective and systematic and to avoid as much subjectivity as possible, the assessment is made according to the prescribed forms which has specific categories like: (1) official conduct; (2) knowledge of branch or department; (3) initiative; and (4) power of taking responsibility. Grades like, 'well qualified', highly qualified', 'not yet qualified' are given. Reasons have to be assigned for the reports marked 'exceptionally well qualified' or 'not yet qualified' by the rating officer.
275
(ii) Promotional Examination: Some countries have examinations for promotions to senior grades of service. This system is generally followed at the lower levels of the public services. Promotional examinations may be competitive or qualifying in nature.
(iii) Efficiency Rating: The system of efficiency rating originated in the USA for scientifically assessing the service record of public employees. It is based on two main factors, namely, the classification of all governmental posts and the mechanical evaluation of workers' qualities. It aims at assessing the different traits with a scientific accuracy and at solving all problems of promotional assessment. There are methods of Efficiency Rating which are generally used separately or in combination.26 They are:
a) Production records: The production records are generally used to assess work of a mechanical character such as those of typists, stenographers and machine operators. Production records when combined with Records of a worker's personal traits, (punctuality, hard work, etc.) may give an adequate picture of a worker's abilities.
b) The graphic rating scale system: Assessment is based on certain categories or traits of an employee's character such as accuracy, industry, initiative, resourcefulness and dependability. Each quality is graded into different classes like 'excellent', 'very good', 'satisfactory', 'unsatisfactory'. The entire scale gives a clear picture of a worker's ability and character.
c) Personality inventory: The personality inventory includes a broad list of traits of human character relevant to employment. From these the raring officer has to select only those items which are relevant to the characteristics of the employee. However, the efficiency rating system has often been criticised for being too mechanical an attempt to categorise human character. Human character can hardly be analysed so scientifically and systematically and cannot be really open to laboratory experiment.
Performance Appraisal in India
Promotions to all high and middle government posts are made by the union and state governments in India generally on the recommendations of the heads of departments, and often with the aid and advice of the state or Union Public Service
276
Commission (in the case of the highest civil service posts). Confidential reports, which are filled up every six months, are the basis for promotion. In the confidential reports rating is done according to columns marked 'outstanding', 'above average', 'below average', and 'unsatisfactory'. Promotion in the public services in India is based on the seniority and/or merit principle. For selection posts (largely in Class I and Class II) the criterion of selection is merit. The officers considered for promotion are arranged in order of seniority, their number being limited to from three to five times the number of vacancies available for promotion. In the case of non-selection posts (Class III and IV) categories, promotion is made on the seniority principle, unless anyone is otherwise rejected or considered unfit. Generally, the basis of promotion has been seniority at lower levels, seniority-cum-merit at the middle ranks and merit at the senior grades of the civil service.
Suggestions for Improvement
1) The system followed in the confidential reports on employees' performance should be remodeled to facilitate assessment of performance, personal qualities of workers and identification of the true potential of the candidates with as much objectivity as possible.
2) The system is now too heavily loaded in favour of seniority rather than merit.
3) Promotions should be linked to training and professional expertise and should ensure opportunities for growth and development in career.
4) To avoid any kind of subjectivity, promotion boards should be established and take recourse to a system of appeals where necessary. Qualifying and promotional examinations may be introduced for positions in the middle levels of the civil service.
According to many critics of the promotion system, promotions are made "within classes and often within cadres of a class. This may secure the rights of the civil servants but makes the higher public service more or less a closed shop." Elaborating this point, Dr. Appleby writes: The relatively small number who are promoted over class barriers is enough to enlarge the competition slightly, but it leaves original membership in a very great special advantage and competition from outside not highly significant.
277
This minimisation of competition not only brings rigidity in administration but is, in his opinion, "the basic deterrent to rapid improvement of the administrative grasp of government responsibilities."27
Remuneration and Service Conditions
The health and vitality of civil services depends on the levels of remuneration. Therefore, the salary system must be so designed as to attract, motivate and retain the staff. The tempo of undertaking the challenging and arduous tasks by the government can only be hastened if it has the right number of employees with adequate skills in the proper place, at the proper time, performing the deserved activities to achieve the desired objectives.
Salaries should always be determined on the basis of inputs like education, training and work environment. We must evolve a pay structure which would ensure equilibrium between the inputs and the emoluments pertaining to self and in relation to others. This requires job evaluation which is a process of enquiring into the inputs required of employees for minimum job performance and equating the relative worth of the various jobs within the organisation so that differential salaries may be paid to jobs of different worth.
In most of the newly created organisations, the salary structures have been adopted from other organisations as job evaluation is always expensive to administer and to keep up-to-date. Many top executives feel that job evaluation should be avoided as long as problems are not too serious. However, job evaluation is a scientific method to determine pay structures.
The factors which are taken into consideration for the determination of salary scales are as follows:
i) The salary structure should be so designed as to ensure recruitment at different levels of persons with requisite qualifications and to keep them working efficiently,
ii) The minimum salary for a job should be determined not only on economic considerations but also to satisfy social tests.
iii) Equal pay for equal work should be an important factor in the determination of pay scales. Social legislation, e.g., the Minimum Wage Acts, also play a role.
278
iv) Variations in pay scales should take into consideration the degrees of experience, skills, duties and responsibilities involved in the performance of the work.
v) The level of consumer prices should also be taken into account.
vi) Salaries should be commensurate with the kind of personnel the organisation requires.
vii) The employer's capacity to pay also determines salary scales in an organisation.
Methods of Job Evaluation
There are two systems in use for job evaluation:
Non-Analytical
Non-analytical methods establish the grade hierarchy but are non-quantitative while analytical methods are quantitative and can be expressed in a numerical form. Small organisations prefer non-analytical methods compared to analytical ones which are used by large organisations.
a) job Ranking Method: Ranking is a direct method of comparing jobs together so that they are ranked in their order of importance. This technique simply lists the relative worth of the various jobs under consideration. Jobs are not divided factorwise but are considered as whole entities. Due to the difficulties in ranking a large number of jobs at one time, the 'paired comparison' technique of ranking is sometimes used. Besides, we can use the technique of selecting top and bottom jobs as benchmarks for the remainder of the ranking process. These jobs are easy and quick to administer. The chief disadvantage of the method is that it is subjective as there are no 'yardsticks' for the jobs and obviously the underlying assumptions of those doing the ranking cannot be examined.
b) Job Classification Method: In this method, we select one or two jobs from each level of the grading structure and prepare standard descriptions of the duties, responsibilities and requirements of them. These jobs are known as bench-marks or key jobs, job descriptions are then examined, and jobs are classified into the grades or levels that seem to be the most appropriate ones. Since this method depends upon the existing jobs for classification, it becomes unrealistic and cannot gauge the changes in job contents. Besides, jobs in their total content rather
279
than in the assessment of individual tracts go to make the position.
Analytical
a) Weighted Point Assessment: The point method of job evaluation analyses several factors common to the job being evaluated, and then rates each job along a scale of each factor. The general scheme is identical to that of the graphic rating scale which is the most widely used device in the appraisal of employees. The rating scale includes a definition of each compensable factor.
(b) Factor Comparison Method: The factor comparison method is more complicated than the point method.
Its essential feature are:
i) Selects job factors or characteristics;
ii) Constructs a scale for each job factor;
iii) Measures all jobs in terms of the yardsticks;
iv) Conducts a wage survey for selected key jobs;
v) Design the wage structure; and
vi) Adjusts and operates the wage structure.
Role of Pay Commissions
It would be worthwhile to examine the role of Pay Commissions. Four Pay Commissions have been set up so far in India. Let us examine the views of the Third and Fourth Pay Commissions regarding "Terms of Employment". The Third Pay Commission mentioned the criteria of inclusiveness, comprehensibility, and adequacy. It was not in favour of a literal comparison between government salaries and private sector salaries without examining the totality of prevailing circumstances. Besides, the Commission wanted coordination among all sectors of public employment. It fixed the salaries on the basis of duties and responsibilities, difficulties and complexities of tasks, qualifications, etc.
The main contribution of the Commission has been to rationalise the pay scales and to reduce the prevalent 500 scales to a mere 80. The disparity between the lowest and the highest scales was reduced from 15.4 as on 1 January, 1970 to 11.8
The Fourth Pay Commission recommended the following:
a) The rates of pay and other conditions of service in the private sector need to be considered though disproportionate importance may not be attached to it
280
b) The principle of supply and demand is relevant but for unskilled labour, wages may be linked with essential physiological need.
c) The government should not only be a model employer but also a good employer.
The main criterion was attracting and retaining the persons it needs and they be reasonably satisfied with the pay and other conditions of service taken as a whole. The Fourth Pay Commission recommended 36 scales of pay.
Other Service Conditions
The important measures essential for employees' health, safety and welfare are varied.
1. The physical surroundings in which people do their jobs must be as pleasant and comfortable as possible.
2. Good housing with all attached facilities.
3. Adequate welfare services such as transport, canteen facilities.
4. Hours of work with due regard to basic social needs at home and in the community.
5. Employees' safety and health must be safeguarded.
6. Security of employment, together with insurances against misfortune.
Fringe benefits and health, safety and welfare measures serve as a golden handcuff reducing the turnover of employees and making it easier for the management to attract talent and retain it.
The National Commission on Labour has aptly stressed that the concept of welfare is necessarily a dynamic one. It means a continuous improvement of employees' standard of living, social security and, of course, dignity at the place of work unions should engage themselves in devising schemes for the welfare of employees with the cooperation of the organisation and not concentrate merely on material benefits.
Many unions in the private and public sectors have started co-operatives, workers' banks, schools, hospitals, etc., for the benefit of the employees and their families.
The Ministry of Personnel has helped the employees and their families through a number of schemes, such as:
a) Setting up of a benevolent fund to provide financial assistance to central government employees in the event of their prolonged illness, premature retirement or death;
281
b) Central Civil Services, Cultural and Sports Boards were set up in 1964 to promote sports and cultural activities through 18 Regional Sports Boards;
c) Recreation clubs have been set up in the ministries/ departments to promote recreational activities;
d) A Griha Kalyan Kendra has been set up to impart technical, vocational training in home crafts and other household arts for fruitful utilisation of leisure time of the people as well as to promote social, cultural and educational activities;
e) A Kendriya Bhandar has been established at New Delhi to provide essential commodities and items of daily requirements of an assured quality and at reasonable rates;
f) Refreshment canteens have been opened within office premises to provide beverages, snacks and meals prepared in hygienic conditions to the employees during working hours at economic prices;
g) Residents' Welfare Associations have been set up and Area Welfare Officers appointed to foster a spirit of mutual help and goodwill among the residents of government colonies and to help the residents to maintain civic amenities.
There are three forms of retirements benefits:
a) non-contributory wherein the government is responsible for the retirement benefits;
b) partly contributory wherein the government and the employees share the cost of retirement; and
c) wholly contributory wherein the employees help themselves.
In India, there are two main schemes for retirement benefits for employees, namely, the Pension Scheme and the Contributory Provident Fund.
1. Pension Scheme
This involves cash disbursement to retired employees in fixed monthly amounts. It provides them a secure life as long as they survive. There is also provision for extraordinary pensions like the injury pension or family pension. The injury pension is paid to the employee in case of injuries received in the course of duty, while the family pension is payable to the widow or minor children or, in some cases, to the parents of an employee killed in the course of discharge his duties.
282
2. General Contributory Fund
Under this scheme there is provision for employees to contribute to the Provident Fund to which government contributes an equal share. The employee gets the money at the time of retirement and has also the facility to draw loans out of it from time to time.
3. Gratuity
Available at the time of retirement and ex-gratia; available to dependents if the employee expires during service.
4. Leave Encashment
There is provision for leave encashment up to 240 days at the time of retirement.
Conduct and Discipline
Since all staff members cannot be expected to always conduct themselves in an unimpeachable manner, provision for disciplinary action is made in every organisation.
Disciplinary action means the administrative steps taken to correct the misbehaviour of the employee in relation to the performance of his job. Corrective action is initiated to prevent the deterioration of individual inefficiency and to ensure that it does not spread to other employees. The Administrative Reforms Commission has rightly stated that the healthy functioning of the administration depends not only on the competence of its personnel, but also on the maintenance of a high standard of personal conduct and the observance of discipline, It is, therefore, essential that there should be a clearly enumerated code of correct official behaviour and provision for the punishment of those who deviate from it. There should, of course, also be provision for punishing slackness and inefficiency.
The Constitution of India is the source of Service Law. In pursuance of service law, rules for the conduct of government servants have been made by the president. The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules lay down the procedure for inquiry once the penalties are to be imposed.
The following matters are covered by the Conduct Rules. Greater strictness is observed in those services where more discretion is involved:
i) Maintenance of correct behaviour towards official superiors;
ii) Loyalty to the state;
283
iii) Regulation of political activities to ensure neutrality of the personnel;
iv) Enforcement of a certain code of ethics in official, private and domestic life;
v) Protection of the integrity of the officials by placing restrictions on investments, borrowings, engagement in trade or business, acquisition or disposal of movable and immovable valuable property, acceptance of gifts and presents; and
vi) Restriction on more than one marriage.
Although misconduct is not defined in any service or industrial law, acts which constitute misconduct invite disciplinary action.
Constitutional Provisions and Public Services
Service jurisprudence in India is exhaustive. It is made up of constitutional provisions, service rules, executive directions and practices, administrative law, judicial decisions, and general principles of natural justice. The main purpose of service jurisprudence is to protect the rights of the civil servant to maintain neutrality as well as to ensure efficiency and discipline. Let us examine this framework.
Articles 309 to 323 provide important principles pertaining to civil services.
a) Recruitment and Regulation of Conditions of Service
Article 309 empowers parliament to lay down the conditions of service of the Public Services and posts under the union and the states, respectively. The Constitution itself provides for the creation of Public Service Commissions for the union and the states to assist in the recruitment of Public Services (Article 315). The law-making power of the legislature and the rule-making power of the executive should be in consonance with the Articles of the Constitution such as Articles 14,15,16,19, 32,98,146,187, 229, 234 (i), 301, 311, 320, etc., otherwise these can be declared null and void by the judiciary.
b) Constitutional Safeguards for Civil Servants
(a) No removal by subordinate Authority; Article 311 (1).. provides that a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to the authority by which he was appointed. It also means the same if the removing authority is of the same or co-ordinate rank as the appointing authority.
284
c) Reasonable Opportunity to Defend
Article 311 (2) provides that a civil servant holding a civil post cannot be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank unless he has been given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. In Khem Chand V. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the "reasonable opportunity" envisaged by Article 311 includes:
1) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence which can only be done if he is told what the charges against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based;
2) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and also
3) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, provided the gravity of the charges tentatively proposes to inflict one of three major punishments and communicates the same to the Government servant.
Originally, the reasonable opportunity to defend was provided to civil servants under Article 311 (2) at two stages: at the inquiry stage and at the punishment stage after the charges had been proved by inquiry and the punishment proposed was cither dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 has abolished the right of a civil servant to make a representation at the second stage through a newly added proviso to Article 311 (2).
The protection of Article 311 (2) for giving reasonable opportunity is not available in the following circumstances:
i) Where a person is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of misconduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge;
ii) Where it is impracticable to give the civil servant an opportunity to defend himself but the authority taking action against him shall record the reason for such action;
iii) Where the interest of the security of the state is at stake it is not expedient to give such an opportunity to the civil servant.
The employee has still two remedies available where the second proviso to Article 311 (2) applies:
285
i) departmental appeal under the relevant service rules to show that the charges against him are not true; and
ii) remedy of judicial review, where the court will examine whether the penalty imposed on the aggrieved employee is excessive or arbitrary or was not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Rational to Determine Punishment
The protection of Article 311 is available only when the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is by way of punishment. The main issue is how to determine whether dismissal, removal or reduction in rank amounts to punishment.
The Supreme Court has laid down two principles to determine whether the termination is by way of punishment:
i) Whether a civil servant had a right to hold the post or the rank; and
ii) whether he has been visited with evil consequences.
If a government servant had a right to hold the post or rank either under the terms of any contract of service, or under any rules governing the service, then the termination of his service or reduction in rank amount to a punishment and the protection of Article 311 would be available to him.
Minor or Major Penalties
The Civil Service Rules provide for the imposition of minor or major penalties on the civil servant depending on the nature of misconduct. The minor penalties include (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments; (iii) withholding of promotion; (iv) recovery of pecuniary loss caused to government by negligence or breach of orders. Major penalties include reduction to a lower scale, compulsory retirement, removal from service, which is not a disqualification for future employment, dismissal from services, etc.
The procedure for the imposition of minor penalties is brief and summary. The government servant is given an opportunity to make a representation against the imposition of minor penalty. There is no need of any regular enquiry. Thereafter, a final order imposing minor penalty is passed.
On the decision of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee for any misconduct, all the procedural requirements need to be adhered to in this regard and
286
punishment for misconduct should be inflicted only after the misconduct is clearly established.
Broadly speaking, the position is that the members of the All India Services and commissioned officers of the armed forces can be removed or dismissal by the president only, while the power to take lesser kinds of disciplinary action in case of other classes of civil servants is vested in the government, central or state, under whose administrative control the officer concerned may be serving in an authority empowered by them.
Appeals can be made only to the appointing authority and not above that.
The authority deciding a disciplinary case can withhold an appeal if:
i) It is not permissible under the rules;
ii) It is defective in form, or is couched in disrespectful or improper language, or is not referred through the proper channel;
iii) It is not preferred within six months after the date of communication of the order appealed against and a reasonable cause of delay is shown;
iv) It is repetition of a previous appeal to the same authority and no new facts or arguments are adduced;
v) It is addressed to an authority to which no appeal by competent authority.
No appeal lies against the withholding of an appeal by the competent authority.
The Constitution no doubt provides for consultation with the Union or the State Public Service Commission in cases in which the disciplinary orders are to be passed by the president or the governor (whether as an original order or as an appellate or revision order). Consultation with the Public Service Commission in this special class of cases is justified on two grounds, which do not apply to other kinds of disciplinary orders: (i) that generally there is no appeal or other remedy against the orders of the
president and the governor and hence the need for special treatment; and (ii) that these heads of the State cannot be expected to look into all the papers themselves and hence the need for advice.
An appeal to the courts against wrongful removal or dismissal can always be made, but the rules forbid a government
287
employee to resort to the courts until the remedies available to him under the service rules and regulations have been tried and exhausted. The courts themselves usually do not entertain such appeals until then.
Employer-Employee Relations
It is vital that in the running of an organisation, a correct and proper relationship should exist between the employers and the employees. It is not only that the employers should safeguard the interests of the Employees, but that the employees should also possess a positive attitude and identity themselves with the objectives of the organisation. Therefore integration between employees and organisations is the crux of the effort to improve efficiency and to ensure optimum utilisation of resources.
We may mention here briefly that employees associations are of two types: professional associations and trade unions. Professional associations are formed by members of the same profession for advancement in the profession as well as to look after their conditions of service. Trade unions are generally formed by subordinate staff to seek to improve the wages and other conditions of service of their members.
Let us now discuss the four aspects of management / staff relations.
a. Right to organise and form associations/unions
b. Right to strike
c. Political activity
d. Machinery for negotiation and settlement of disputes.
a) Right to Organise and Form Associations/Unions
India
The legal status of public employee unions in India is determined by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution read with Article 309. Clause (i) of Article 19 confers on all citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association, etc. Clause (ii) of Article 19 empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of these rights in the interests of the security of the state.
Article 309 empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. The state can impose reasonable restrictions upon the fundamental right of civil servants. Such restrictions have been spelt out in the conduct rules.
288
As a result of these restrictions the present position in India is that the civil servants cannot join or continue to be members of any service association which has not been recognised within six months of its formation or the recognition to which has been refused or withdrawn. The following conditions are essential for getting an association recognised:
a) The association must consist of government employees only;
b) The executive of the association must be from amongst its members;
c) The association shall remain neutral to political influence; and
d) The association shall not entertain individual cases.
However, the employees cannot become members of an unrecognised association as it is a disciplinary offence.
UK
Civil servants in the UK are absolutely free to form associations and to continue to be members of such associations whether or not they are recognised by government. These associations can get affiliations under trade union movements.
USA
In America, employees have the right to be members of any service association. However, these associations must have a non-strike clause in their constitution.
b) Right to Strike
Let us examine the position regarding the rights of civil servants to go on strike to get redressal of the by grievances in different countries.
UK
There is no law prohibiting strike by civil servants. 'Striking' is, however, a disciplinary offence and the government can take any disciplinary action depending upon the situation. However, strikes are rare in the UK as settlements are made mostly through negotiations.
USA
The civil servants are prohibited by law to engage in strikes as laid down in the Labour Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act, 1947. The penalty presented was severe. This has been made
289
more stringent by a law enacted in 1955 (Public Law-330, 84th Congress) which states that no person shall accept or hold office or employment in the government in the USA or any agency thereof, including wholly-owned government corporations, who participates in any strike, or asserts the right to strike against the Government of the USA or such agency, or is a member of an organisation of government
employees that asserts the right to such a strike. Violation of this requirement is punishable with fines and/or imprisonment.
Other Countries
In Australia, Japan and Switzerland, it is illegal for government employees to participate in a strike. France is the only country which permits the right to strike.
India
The position in India is the same as in the UK. Strikes are not prohibited by law but constitute a breach of discipline. Most of the Conduct Rules prohibit a government servant from participating in any demonstration/strike.
c) Institutional Arrangements for Negotiations and Settlement of Disputes
UK
In the UK, employee-employer relations are regulated through as well established network of institutions popularly known as the Whitley Councils after Mr. J.H. Whitley. These councils are not statutory books but draw their strength from the cooperative and impartial attitudes of men and women managing them. The councils are founded on the belief that arbitrary exercise of authority could be brought under review and rectified. Such councils operate at three levels—national, departmental and local. The national council deals with all matters affecting the service as a whole. The departmental councils deal with departmental matters. To deal with local matters, there are local councils.
The National Whitley Council consists of 54 members, 27 from the staff and 27 from the government. The head of the Home Civil Service is the chairman of the National Whitley Council while the vice-chairman comes from the staff. In the absence of the chairman, it is not the vice-chairman but a member from the official side who presides over its meetings. Besides, the
290
chairman and the vice-chairman, there are four secretaries, two from each side.
The Whitley Councils have not replaced staff associations. The staff representatives on the councils are selected by staff associations. The staff representatives on the councils may also include association officials who may or may not be civil servants themselves.
The procedure of working of these councils is very simple. No individual voting takes place. Much of the business is carried on through committees and personal contacts. When a decision is arrived at, it becomes generally operative subject to the approval of the cabinet.
The working of Whitleyism in England reveals that its success is basically due to the cooperative attitude adopted by both sides.
USA
In the USA, because of the separation of powers, it is the legislature which is responsible to a great extent for regulating conditions of service of the staff. This incorporates limitations and an element of rigidity in staff relations. In spite of this, there has been rapid unionisation of the public service, in the country. The Advisory Commission on Inter-Governmental Relations, 1969, has strongly favoured the meet-and-confer approach. There are three types of employee organisations—agency-wise, public service-wise and nation-wise. Kennedy's order in 1962 has recognised the legitimate role of employees' organisations. President Nixon's executive order of 1969 recognised one form of union to the exclusion of numerous competiting unions. In 1971 (based on the first major strike by federal employees in 1970) federal representatives bargained over salaries. There is need for some sort of delegation by the legislature to solve the potential and emerging problems of the employees.
Whitley Councils in India
On the recommendations of the First Pay Commission (1946), the Home Ministry urged all the ministries to establish Staff Committees in July 1954. In 1957, the Home Ministry changed the name of Staff Committees to Staff Councils and welfare officers, were appointed in each ministry on the British model.
Each ministry has two Staff Councils: a Senior Staff Council for Class II and III employees and a Junior Staff Council for Class
291
IV employees. Class I employees are excluded from the scheme. The main aim is to ensure the largest measure of cooperation between the government and its employees and increase efficiency in the public service combined with the welfare of government employees.
Coordination Committee
This consists of three senior officers of the Ministries of Home Affairs, Finance Works, Housing and Supply and deals with matters that are not solved by the Staff Councils.
The Staff Councils are advisory in character and only make recommendations to the government for consideration in matters relating to (a) general conditions of service, (b) welfare of the members of the staff, and (c) improving efficiency in work.
The Second Pay Commission (1957-59) received memoranda and representations from 956 associations and individuals. It found that the Staff Councils could not be described as machinery for either negotiation or consultation. It recommended the following measures to improve the working of the Staff Councils:
a) The establishment of a Central Joint Council to cover both the industrial and the non-industrial civil service.
b) The setting up of compulsory arbitration tribunals to deal with matters like pay, hours of work, leave, etc.
c) Close association of the Ministry of Labour with important matters concerning staff relations.
The Government of India decided to establish machinery for joint consultation and compulsory arbitration for central government employees which has been in force since October 1966. It is based on the pattern of the Whitley Council in the United Kingdom.
Joint Consultative Machinery and Compulsory Arbitration Structure
The scheme covers all regular civil employees of the Central Government, non-industrial and industrial, except.
a) Group A Services;
b) Group B Services other than the Central Secretariat 'Services and the other comparable services in headquarters organisation of the government;
c) Persons in industrial establishments employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacities and those who,
292
being employed in supervisory capacities, draw their salary in scales, the minimum of which is Rs. 2,900 p.m.;
d) Employees of the union territories; and
e) Police personnel.
Objectives
The basic objectives of JCM are to:
i) promote harmonious relations between the government and its employees;
ii) secure the greatest measure of cooperation between the government in its capacity as an employer and the general body of its employees in matters of common concern; and
iii) increase the efficiency of the public services through a collaborative endeavour to narrow the area of unresolved differences and widen the ambit of agreement on substantive issues of common concern.
Scope and Functions
JCM covers within its ambit all matters relating to conditions of service and work, welfare of the employees as well as improvement of the efficiency and standards of work. JCM would concentrate on matters of general policy and not on individual cases.
Under this scheme a three-tier machinery is provided at the national, departmental and regional levels.
a) National Council: It consists of an official side of 25 members appointed by the government and 60 members nominated by recognised associations for a term of three years. The seats are distributed between the federations/unions/ associations on the basis of numerical strength of the staff employed in each ministry/department by the chairman of the Council. The cabinet secretary is the chairman of the Council and the staff elects its own leaders. The official and staff have their own secretaries. The National Council may meet as often as necessary but not less than once in four months. Special meetings can also be called. The quorum for a meeting is one-third of the individual strength of the official and staff side. The council may constitute two standing committees—one for the industrial employees and the other for the non-industrial staff to deal with their respective matters. Sub-committees can also be appointed. It had held 36 ordinary meetings and two special meetings till 1991.
293
b) Departmental Council: It deals with matters affecting the staff employed in the departments. The secretary of the ministry concerned is the chairman of the Departmental Council and represents the official side which consists of not more than 10 members appointed by the government. The staff is represented by members ranging between 20 and 30, the exact number being determined by the total strength of the staff and the number of grades and services in the Department. The term of membership is three years. Ministries/departments are also taking steps to set up the lower level (office) councils in various offices.
c) Regional and/or Office Council: It deals only with regional or local matters. It has a maximum membership of 5 from the official side and 8 from the staff.
Arbitration
An important feature of the JCM scheme is the provision for compulsory arbitration in cases of disagreement between officials and staff relating to:
a. Pay and allowances
b. Weekly hours of work
c. Leave of a class or grade of employees.
A Board of Arbitration (BOA) under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour has been set up with a chairman who is an independent person. Besides, there are two other members, one each drawn from a panel of 5 names submitted by the official side and the staff side of the National Council. The awards of the Board of Arbitration are binding on both sides subjects to the overriding authority of parliament.
Up to December 31,1991,204 cases had been referred to the Board of Arbitration. Awards have so far been given by the Board in 192 cases. The demands of the staff have been accepted in 144 cases and rejected in 31 cases, 13 cases have been allowed to be withdrawn. Four cases have been amicably settled.
Working of Staff Associations in India
Organisational Defects
1. Ill-managed and Irregular: Most of the staff associations are not well managed. They do not carry out their deliberations regularly in a systematic way. They adopt ad hoc measures to deal with ad hoc problems. There is no regular secretariat to keep the members duly informed of all the developments.
294
2. Irregular Payment of Contributions: Most of the staff members do not pay their contributions regularly which inhibits the organisations to carry on their activities systematically. Members feel disinterested in their associations.
3. Irregular Publication of Proceedings: The deliberations of the staff associations are not regularly published or distributed to the members. Staff associations should bring about proceedings which can induce participation of their members.
4. No Peaceful Elections: Elections to the associations are not peaceful. Some members have alleged administrative interference in elections.
Notes and References
1. E.N. Gladden, The Civil Service, Its Problems and Future, Staples, London, 1948, p. 35.
2. ibid., p. 35.
3. L.D. White, The Civil Service in the Modern State, p. 11.
4. Heman Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1949, p. 172
5. "Organisation Theory and Civil Service Reform in Public Administration", in journal of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, Vol. 43, pp. 313-316.
6. W.F. Willoughby, Principles of Public Administration, New York, 1964, p. 208.
7. ibid., p. 208.
8. W.F. Willoughby, op. cit., p. 220.
9. Heman Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1949, p. 856.
10. O. Glenn Stahl, Public Personnel Administration, 7th Ed., New York, Harper and Row, 1976, p. 82.
11. India: A.R.C. Report of the Study Team on Personnel Administration (Personnel Planning, Staffing of Public Sector Undertakings and Personnel Management), August, 1967, New Delhi, Manager of Publications, 1969, p. 42.
12. Stahl, p. 153.
13. Pfiffner and Presthus, Public Administration: Principles and Practice, p. 294.
14. ibid., p. 296.
15. A.R. Tyagi, Public Administration, pp. 438-440.
16. Paul H. Appleby's Report of a Survey of Public Administration, 1957, p. 63.
17. ibid., pp. 24-25.
18. A.D. Gorwala's Report on Public Administration, 1957, p. 63.
295
19. Felix Nigro, Public Administration—Readings and Documents, Rinehart and Co., New York, pp. 253-54.
20. A.R. Tyagi, Public Administration, Principles and Practice, pp. 458-459.
21. Lulful Haq Chowdhury, "Training for Development", in IJPA, Vol. XXVI, 1980, pp. 378-383.
22. United Nations, Handbook of Training in the Public Service, New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Public Administration Branch, 1966.
23. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, Macmillan, New York, 1958, p. 400.
24. ibid., p. 274.
25. Heman Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, London, Methuen, 1954, p. 849.
26. A.R. Tyagi, op. cit., pp. 502-504.
27. Appleby, Report of a Survey of Public Administration in India, p. 28.
296
10 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION-II Some Issues
Civil Service Neutrality
The theory of the neutrality of the civil services was developed in England to meet the requirements of the parliamentary system of government in which the tenure of the political executive is unstable due to periodic elections, and resultant change of government.
In the cabinet system, as it evolved in Great Britain, a clear demarcation was made between the political executive (the ministers) and the permanent administrators. The political executive normally performed the following functions:
i) Represented the government policy within the administration;
ii) Brought the viewpoint of the general public to bear on the administrative decisions:
iii) Provided leadership in developing national policy;
iv) Exercised statutory powers vested in them.
On the other hand, the functions of the career administrators are the following:
i) execution of laws and government decisions;
ii) providing expert guidance, information and managerial assistance to the political executive, where necessary;
iii) maintaining the continuity of administration;
iv) helping the political executive to understand the probable consequences of alternative courses of action.
The points of difference between the political and administrative officers do not end here. A minister is an amateur in administration, his office is of a temporary nature and he is more in touch with the public. He plays a key role in formulating a policy, and has a partisan outlook. On the other hand, a career official is a professional in administrative affairs and enjoys a permanent tenure. His contacts with the
public are much less, and his main task is to execute policy without dabbling in active politics. He is expected to be non-partisan and politically neutral.
In all systems, according to Peter Self, there are certain typical forms of interaction between the politicians and administrators
297
which result from the distinctive style and interests of the two groups of participants. Important areas of interaction include policy-making, arbitration of interests, treatment of individual and local claims, and balancing between political accountability and administrative discretion. In the first two areas, politicians have formal responsibility, but administrators supply the missing elements of political decisions. In the third area, administrators defend their distinctive methods or uniformity and impartiality against politicians' frequent interest in influencing particular decisions. The fourth area represents an inevitable point of conflict between the needs and interests of the two groups.1
Political neutrality is an essential complement to the merit system (in recruitment and promotion of personnel) for it guarantees that the civil servants who have been recruited and promoted by merit will give the minister—whatever be his political complexion—impartial advice and criticism whenever he needs it. Further, it assures the ministers that irrespective of the personal likes or dislikes of his subordinate officials, the ultimate decisions of the minister will be faithfully implemented by the civil servants. Political neutrality means not only the absence of political activity or bias on the part of civil servants but also that they will serve every government that comes to power irrespective of its party affiliations.
The main reason for the advocacy of civil service neutrality is that the civil servant can serve the changing governments drawn from different parties with the same vigour and honesty. Since execution, not formulation, is the task of the civil servant, any commitment other than to the goals and objectives of his allotted tasks will defeat the very purpose for which he exists. Besides exercising his voting rights, if he engages in partisan politics his role as an impartial adviser and administrator would be seriously impaired in the eyes of the public.
If the administration is to work efficiently and smoothly, and the governmental objectives are to be achieved satisfactorily, the minister and his subordinate officials must work in cooperation and harmony. There should be mutual faith and trust. Ministers should not interfere too much in day-to-day
administration. Commenting on the minister-civil servant relationship the Administrative Reforms Commission laid down the following norms:
298
a) the obligation of every public servant to implement faithfully all policies and decisions of the ministers even if these be contrary to the advice tendered by him;
b) the freedom of public servants to express themselves frankly in tendering advice to their superiors including the minister; and
c) the observance by public servants of the principles of political neutrality, impartiality and anonymity. It expressed the view that due to differing backgrounds and interests of ministers and their secretaries the desired emotional unison and unity of purpose is still to be realised.
It is the minister who remains constitutionally responsible for his department to the parliament. If something goes wrong in his department he alone has to give a satisfactory account of it to the parliament. This implies that even in cases where he is not personally responsible, he has to take responsibility for any act of omission and commission of his official subordinates.
However, the traditional concept of civil service neutrality is undergoing a change, particularly in the developing countries, under the impact of many factors. The doctrine of civil service neutrality represents a particular stage in the development of the party system of government. An important factor bearing on this question is the pivotal role the civil servants are being called upon to play in the developing countries. The successful implementation of developmental tasks requires on the part of administrators, not only qualities of initiative and leadership but emotional and intellectual commitment to the social welfare values adhered to by the state as well.
The relevance of the classical theory of neutrality has often come to be questioned for the following reasons: (a) The processes of policy decision making are no longer confined to the political executive; they percolate through the entire fabric of government resulting in inescapable items of delegation and zones of such policy where the political executive does not come into the picture at all, and yet, the decisions reflect the ethos of the party in power, (b) The leadership role of public bureaucracy is explicit in all political systems, but is more pronounced in the setting of developing countries. In the context of
large-scale welfare programmes, neutrality is neither possible nor desirable. A certain commitment to the goals and objectives of the state is
299
inescapable—neutrality cannot be allowed to degenerate into disinterestedness, (c) In the sphere of policy advice and execution, modern bureaucracy takes an active part, (d) As a human being, no civil servant can be psychologically neutral on issues and problems which confront him; he is a product of his upbringing and a certain subjective element from his judgements cannot be eradicated.2
Thus, the basic assumptions behind the concept of bureaucratic neutrality are that it is the product of a merit system and therefore seeks to reflect it in those systems where this concept is recognised in the behaviour of the bureaucrat, and that the advantages of permanency, continuity, reliability and professionalism which are supposed to obtain in a neutral bureaucracy far out weigh the disadvantages, conservatism, reluctance to depart from routine and resistance to change. These assumptions are refused in modern times in practically all political systems—including western democracies where such ideals originated.
Therefore, the only acceptable connotation for this doctrine seems to be an idea of non-partisanship and impartiality in the sense that where the civil servants are implementing a body of statutory laws and regulations, they shall act impartially and not carry into these operations any political considerations which are not contemplated in the statutory law. However, for the large bulk of their activity, that is, non-statutory a new doctrine is necessary to suit the modern times. In the absence of a better phraseology what should shape the attitudes of the civil servants now is a doctrine of political responsiveness which may have the broad name of commitment.3
Generalist-Specialist Relationship
The philosophy of the Indian Civil Service was based on the subordination of the specialist to the generalist on the British model. It meant a dichotomy of the Civil Service into a higher 'administrative class and other subordinate technical services'.
A generalist is a public servant who has no specialised background and who can be moved to any department or branch of administration. He is a civil servant in the managerial cadre who is well versed in the procedures of administration and who generally performs POSDCORB functions: planning, organising, supervising directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting.
300
The specialist is one who has special knowledge or skill in a particular field like doctors, engineers, educationists, technicians, and scientists. The Administrative Reforms Commission calls specialised services 'functional services'.)They include not only services discharging a technical function based on a pre-entry vocational training but also those which after entry specialise in particular areas of administration requiring no pre-entry vocational qualification. Most of the organised government services are already functional. The ARC distinguishes these from a 'general purpose service'. The IAS officers starting their service in the districts soon get dispersed into different functional areas. The Fulton Committee in Britain (1966-68) takes 'specialists' to mean those who are in government service with specific qualifications and skills—architects, doctors, engineers, accountants and technicians. While some like doctors, engineers, acquired their professional qualifications before joining service, others like accountants and technicians may acquire their special skills after joining service. The Indian Institute of Public Administration defines a 'generalist officer' as one with a liberal college education and after some training is appointed to a middle level supervisory post which does not call for any compulsory technical qualification. The specialist or technical officer is the incumbent of a supervisory position which calls for specialised skills and for which a technical or professional qualification is laid down. He is normally excluded from areas where his specialised knowledge or expertise may not find direct application.
In India, the generalist occupies the superior position which comprises the policy-making levels. Most of the Secretariat positions of deputy secretary and above are held by the IAS. The field positions manned by specialists are headed by members of the IAS—the Director of Agriculture, or Health or Education. At the district level, the general collector or commissioner leads a team of technical district officers like the District Superintendent of Police (DSP), the District Magistrate, the District Medical Officer, the District Education Officer, etc. The Block Development Officer (BDO) is a generalist leading a team of technical Extension Officers in agriculture, health, education, veterinary service, etc.
The generalist is held superior to the specialist on various grounds: (1) The first is the alleged high calibre of the IAS who are recruited on tests which require a high level of merit. Things have
301
changed since Independence, which has opened out new vistas of employment in industry, commerce, medicine, engineering, banking, insurance and other allied fields. Therefore it can no longer be said that the IAS is the 'sole repository' of merit.
A radical change has come over the nature of the Indian state since 1947. It is no longer the police state of the British Raj; the Constitution has turned it into a socialist democratic welfare state. The increasing emphasis on development administration calls for specialised technical talent. Government work has become highly technical and diversified and the new civil servant has to deal with scientific, social, economic and technical problems. The Civil Service is no place for an amateur; it has to be staffed by professionals now.
Another source of the pre-eminence of the old ICS was its 'district experience' and, more specifically, its revenue and magisterial experience. The wide and varied experience gained by these services from their postings to a variety of jobs was supposed to equip them with the qualities needed for senior administrative positions. This has of late come under challenge. Land revenue, magisterial and general administration do not today add up to total 'district experience'. District experience today stems from several sources—agriculture, industry, health, education or police. It took an old ICS officer with 8 to 10 years' district experience to become a district collector and magistrate and 15 years' district experience before he went to the Secretariat. Today an IAS officer of 3-5 years' standing becomes district collector and soon after goes to the Secretariat. Further, modern collectors have been shorn of their judicial authority and magisterial powers.
District experience is no longer considered necessary at the centre which lays greater emphasis on continuity of specialisation than on the periodical renewal of field experience. The needs of the departments are getting more and more specialised and this led to a revamping of the service at the centre.
The traditional organisation was the 'area administration'. In this the village, block, tahsil, district and division are the units round which the administration at that level revolves. A manager is required at these levels to perform the managerial functions of planning, directing, coordinating and budgeting which only an experienced administrator can do. A Secretariat is also needed at the headquarters manned by generalists to act as a 'link' between
302
the specialists in the field and the amateur minister at the top. The generalist secretary is in a better position to give correct and proper advice to the minister because he has a complete understanding of the total effect of the various factors on a policy decision.
Further, genera lists charge specialists with increasing parochialism, bias and narrow-mindedness. The main grievance of the specialist services lies in the discrimination against them in the matter of pay and allowances and promotion. The IAS is favoured with superior grades and special allowances. The top posts are also reserved for the IAS. Our government is seized of the problem and has been trying to find a solution. Various steps have already been taken in this direction. The tenure system has broken down; senior officers seldom go back to their parent state. A Central Secretariat Service has been created and this has lessened the dependence on the IAS. New specialist services have been set up like the Indian Economic Service (IES), the Indian Statistical Service (ISS), the Indian Forest Service, the Indian Health Service and the Indian Engineers Service. These accord better status and emoluments in addition to better chances of promotion to specialists. Specialists are also being increasingly appointed to higher administrative positions.
The ARC(1966-70) has recommended the functionalisation of all services and manning senior management posts by members of the respective functional services. The Fulton Commission in England had earlier recommended the professionalisation of the British Civil Service. Professionalisation has two advantages: (i) added skill in one's job deriving from training and sustained experience; and (ii) a fundamental knowledge of the relevant subjects. Both constitute a striving for higher standards. Yet another solution to the dichotomy is the creation of a Unified Civil Service recruited on the basis of a common competitive examination and uniform pay and emoluments—the Indian Union Service—on the lines of the one that Pakistan has created. It has several branches, each being a functional branch of a unified civil service.
Integrity in Public Administration
The problem of administrative corruption is perhaps as old as administration itself, but the problem of public accountability is as old as the theory and practice of democratic administration. The
303
enormous expansion of the governmental bureaucracy, both in size and range, touching on all aspects of the citizen's life, has brought the problem of effective public checks and control on public administration to the forefront. The adoption of the goals of a social welfare state in almost all developing countries has resulted in an extension of bureaucracy in size and number. The expansion of governmental tasks results in the multiplication of the volume of work where administrative power and discretion are vested at different levels of the governmental hierarchy. And where there is power and discretion, there is always the possibility of abuse, more so when the power and discretion have to be exercised in the "context of scarcity and controls and pressure to spend public money, as in India," says Mohit Bhattacharya.
The Law Commission had pointed out in its fourteenth report that there is a vast sphere of administrative action in India in which the bureaucracy can exercise discretionary authority without being accountable to citizens in any way in case of abuse of authority. Statutory powers have been given to all types of bureaucrats with ample scope for harassment, corruption and indulgence in malpractices by the errant few who may choose to do so. The increase in the scope and direction of governmental powers has been accompanied by an increase in the volume of legislation and executive orders in their extension to new areas.
Besides an increase in discretionary powers and delegated legislation, there has also been a phenomenal rise in the amount of administrative adjudication. The number of administrative tribunals has rapidly multiplied. As 'dispensers of justice' administrative tribunals have many plus points like speedy disposal of cases, freedom from the bounds of purely technical rules and consequent ability to give effect to legislatively expressed policy. Judgements of these tribunals are not ordinarily open to review by law counts except on procedural grounds like excess of jurisdiction and bias or error.
All the above problems—executive discretion, delegated legislation and administrative adjudication—are vitally connected with the problem of public accountability of administration. The problem of administrative malpractices is universal, though of more pressing importance in countries like India, with its history of colonial rule, and an unresponsive authoritarian administrative culture. In the democracies of the West, there are many informal agencies of public control over
304
administration like political parties, pressure groups, press and public opinion which by their vigilance and initiative can manage to exert a powerful influence and act as a check against administrative excesses.
Due to widespread illiteracy, ignorance of bureaucratic norms and procedures and retrogressive colonial legacies these informal agencies are very weak in India.
Administrative malpractices may take many forms. Numerous are the forms of corruption and abuse of authority in India. The Central Vigilance Commission has identified the following modes of corruption:
1. Misappropriation of public money and stores.
2. Possession of disproportionate assets.
3. Abuse of official position/powers.
4. Acceptance of illegal gratification in recruitments, postings, transfers and promotions.
5. Acceptance of gifts.
6. Misuse of imported and allotted quotas by various firms with the connivance of public servants.
7. Moral turpitude.
8. Unauthorised occupation and subletting of government quarters.
9. Under-assessment of income tax and estate duty for pecuniary gain.
10. Showing favours to contractors and firms.
11. Chaiming of false travelling allowance and house rent.
12. Purchase of immovable property without prior permission or intimation.
13. Misuse of government employees for personal work.
14. Production of forged certificates of age or birth or community.
15. Acceptance of substandard stores/work.
16. Borrowing money form contractors/firms having official dealings with officers.
17. Incurring pecuniary obligations of persons with whom the public servants have official dealings.
18. Causing loss to government by negligence or otherwise.
19. Irregularities in the reservation of seats by rail and by air.
20. Non-delivery of money orders, insured covers, and value payable parcels.
21. Irregularity in the grant of import and export licences.
22. Irregularity in the grant of telephone connections.
305
23. Misuse of advances sanctioned for purchase of scooters and cars.
24. Abnormal delay in settlement of compensation claims to displaced persons.
25. Wrong assessment of claims of displaced persons.
26. Cheating in connection with the sale and purchase of plots for residential purposes.4
Institutional Devices to Combat Administrative Excesses
Administrative Courts
The French system of administrative courts to deal with disputes between the administration and individual citizens is a unique device that has also been adopted by other countries like Greece, Belgium and Turkey. A distinction is made between acts which a government servant performs in his personal and those in his official capacity. For the latter type of acts he can be sued in the administrative courts. The members of the courts are civil servants with thorough knowledge of the administrative processes. The administrative courts exercise general supervision over administration and possess ultimate authority over all disciplinary matters concerning civil servants.
The operational procedure of these courts is very simple. The plaintiff has to submit two copies of complaints, a copy of the contested decision, and an abstract of the legal arguments or factual details in support of the case. The court makes preliminary inquiries and invites the administrator concerned to justify his decision or actions. The court can then take action on two grounds of legality or can recognise the existence of a fundamental or legal right which the administration has violated and ensure appropriate redress. Decision in these courts are taken as promptly as possible and are much less expensive than in the ordinary courts. The gradual spread of this French institution to many other countries is a growing proof of its efficacy and popularity as a device for prompt redressal of citizen grievances.
The Procurator
The procurator system which originated in the USSR has now spread to many other countries of East Europe like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It is an important institution for redressing citizens' grievances and ensuring observance of legality at all levels of the administration. The procurator is in
306
charge of multiple functions including the prosecution for crimes, supervision over legality in the activity of the investigating agencies, judicial sentences and judgments, and legality of the execution of sentences. However, its most significant function is that of 'general supervision', a twofold task consisting of supervision over:
a) conformity of the subordinate, legislation of ministries and other governmental agencies with various higher laws and decrees; and
b) the strict implementation of laws by officials and citizens. The Russian Constitution gives a general mandate to the Procurator's Office to prevent Soviet governmental bodies from exceeding their powers. An individual citizen has the right to make a compaint to the procurator who may take either of the following steps:
i) It may advise the complainant to avail of the ordinary administrative or judicial channel.
ii) It may itself initiate administrative or judicial proceeding in cases where the procurator has been given necessary authorisation.
iii) It may take action on the subject of the complaint and directly address the organ against which the complaint has been made. The action by the procurator can take the form of a "protest" or "proposal" to rectify the violation of law or an initiation of proceedings against errant officials. It has been found to be a useful and effective device for redressal of citizens' grievances in the socialist countries.
The Ombudsman
A typical Scandinavian institution for redressing citizens' grievances, which has aroused worldwide interest, is the institution of ombudsman. It has been adopted in North European countries such as Finland and Norway. Although the political systems of these countries may vary, they have a common interest in the democratisation of public administration and finding ways and means for establishing an effective system of public accountability and control over the administrative apparatus at all levels. The ombudsman is established as an instrument of parliament for the supervision and control of the administration. He, however, functions independently (a constitutional post) of the government and parliament in the
307
performance of his duties. Parliament is, however, entitled to define and demarcate its sphere of authority. Ombudsman, a Swedish word, stands for an officer appointed by the legislature to handle
complaints against Administrative and judicial action. The investigations of the ombudsman are conducted informally. In investigating complaints, the ombudsman has free access to all the files of the administration and can demand explanations from the officials or authorities concerned.
In his capacity as commissioner of parliament the ombudsman supervises the observance of law and status. He can investigate all cases of administrative malpractices and improper use of authority. He investigates complaints against administrative decisions or actions as well as complaints of official high-handedness, inefficiency or negligence. His work is carried out in the following ways:
1. Proposals for reform of administrative procedures and operations.
2. Directions or orders suggesting punitive action to be taken against officials.
3. Notification or report in case of giving notification or reporting upon defects in existing legislation to the minister concerned or to the houses of parliament.
The ombudsman system has gained widespread popularity primarily because it is a speedy and cheap method of handling appeals against administrative decisions. It is not only an instrument for supervising the administration, but also an instrument for protection of citizens' rights. The prestige that traditionally goes with the office and the objectivity and competence of the ombudsman have contributed to the legitimisation of the institution and its worldwide acceptance.
Administrative Vigilance and Discipline: The Indian Response
Although the primary responsibility for maintenance of discipline and eradication of corruption in the various departments rests with the respective heads of departments, the Ministry of Personnel formulates all policy matters pertaining to vigilance and discipline among the public servants. It also coordinates the activities of various heads of departments and functions as the nodal authority in the matter of administrative vigilance. Besides, it deals with:
- vigilance cases against officers belonging to the Indian Administrative Service and the Central Secretariat Service (Grade I and above of the service); and
308
administrative matters connected with the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Vigilance Commission as also with policy matters relating to the powers and functions of the Commission.
In 1962, parliament set up the Santhanam Committee to examine the various aspects of corruption and recommend measures to check it. The Committee recommended the setting up of an independent Vigilance Commission instead of the Vigilance Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs (set up in 1955) and vigilance officers in other ministries in February 1964. Thus, the CVC, along with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) set up in 1963, became responsible for over-seeing the conduct of public servants.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Its main work is to investigate corruption through its team of inspectors. The CBI sets its work in motion on the basis of a complaint, or an implanted suspicion. It may also come as a reference from a department or the CVC. Agents appointed by the CBI also act as sources of information. It functions administratively under the Ministry of Personnel.
Special Police Establishment
It was set up in 1941 under an executive order of the union government. In 1963, the Special Police Establishment was made one of the divisions of the CBI. To avoid duplication, the Special Police Establishment takes up the following cases:
1. Cases which substantially and essentially concern the central government's affairs or employees, even if they also involve state government employees.
2. Cases that substantially involve the state governments affairs or employees, even if they also involve central Government employees are taken up by the state police; and
3. Cases against employees of statutory bodies or public undertakings set up and financed by the Government of India.
The SPE is supplementary to the State Police Force. It enjoys, along with the respective State Police Force, concurrent powers of investigation and prosecution in respect of offences under the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946.
309
Central Vigilance Commission
The Central vigilance Commission was set up in 1964. It has jurisdiction and powers in respect of all matters to which the executive powers of the central government extend. Its functions are advisory in the same sense as of the Union Public Service Commission.
Functions
i) It undertakes an enquiry into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner.
ii) It causes an enquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint that public servant had exercised or refrained from exercising his powers for improper or corrupt purposes and any complaint of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity, or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanour on the part of a public servant.
iii) It calls for reports from agencies to exercise a general check and supervision.
iv) It is empowered to initiate a review of procedures and practices of administration relating to the maintenance of integrity in administration.
v) It can take over under its direct control complaints for further action which may be either to ask the CBI to register a regular case and investigate it or to entrust it for enquiry to the CBI or to the agency concerned. The Central Vigilance Commission has three Directorates, i.e., the Directorate of General Complaint and Redress, the Central Police Organisation and the Directorate of Vigilance. It has to submit an annual report to the Ministry of Personnel which lays it before both the houses of parliament.
The Commission receives complaints from the citizens. It also gathers information about corruption from various other sources, e.g., press reports, audit objections. It has the following alternatives to deal with these complaints:
a) It may entrust the matter for inquiry to the administrative ministry/department concerned.
b) It may entrust the Central Bureau of Investigation to make an enquiry.
c) It may ask the director of the CBI to register a case and investigate it. In order to help the Central Vigilance
310
Commission, chief vigilance officers have been appointed in each ministry/department, under the control of the heads of the departments. They provide a link between the Central Vigilance Commission and the ministries/ departments. Besides, vigilance officers have been appointed in attached and subordinate offices. At the state level, there has been a State Vigilance Commission in each state since 1964, on the pattern of the Central Vigilance Commission with minor local variations.
Recent Developments
Joint Parliamentary Committees: Parliament and its Committees can also take interest in checking corrupt practices. Parliament set up a Joint Parliament Committee on August 8,1992, to probe a securities scandal involving more than Rs. 3000 crores. It consisted of 30 members with chairman. The terms of reference of the JPC were:
i) To go into the irregularities and fraudulent manipulations in all its aspects and ramifications in transactions relating to securities, shares, bonds and other financial instruments and the role of the banks, stock exchanges, financial institutions and public sector undertakings in transactions relating thereto, which have or may come to light;
ii) To determine the responsibility of the persons, institutions or authorities in respect of such transactions;
iii) In the above context, to identify misuse, if any, of and failures/inadequacies in the control mechanism and the supervisory mechanism;
iv) To make recommendations for safeguards and improvements in the system for elimination of such failures and occurrences in future; and
v) To make appropriate recommendations regarding policies and regulations to be followed in future.
The JPC was to be provided all assistance by the government and its agencies. The quorum was one-third of the total number of its members.
To sum up, the institutional devices of public accountability and for redressing citizens' grievances in India are many and varied (legislative, administrative and judicial). Several institutions at the central, state and local levels exist for this purpose but they merely touch the tip of the iceberg of
311
administrative corruption. Dissatisfaction with governmental functioning and behaviour of employees is widespread. It is against the background of bureaucratic inefficiency and general illiteracy and apathy of the masses at large that the usefulness of ombudsman or any other grievance handling machinery should be considered. The ombudsman type of institution presupposes a fair measure of administrative efficiency so that most cases of citizens are attended to promptly, first by the regular machineries such as administrative agencies and then the judiciary. But where the normal functioning of the administrative machinery is inertia-ridden and corrupt, the ombudsman is likely to be swamped with overwork. As the Administrative Reforms Commission has pointed out:
The setting up of these authorities is not the complete answer to the problem of redress of citizens' grievances. They only provide the ultimate set-up for such redress as has not been available through the normal departmental governmental machinery and do not absolve the department from fulfilling its obligations to the citizen for administering its affairs without generating, as far as possible, any legitimate sense of grievance.
In the ultimate analysis, it has been pointed out that an efficient and clean system of administration is the by-product of a similar political and administrative culture. In a democratic system, administrative leadership belongs to the politicians who are the representatives of the people. In the present Indian environment of falling standards of political morality, and administrative corruption, institutional devices to check administrative malpractices will not really grow and flourish because they cannot become independent of the overwhelming bureaucratic apparatus of the government and the overpowering political forces at work around them.
Notes and References
1. Peter Self, Administrative Theories and Politics: an Enquiry into the Structure and Processes of Modern Government, p. 153.
2. O.P. Dwivedi and R.B. Jain, India's Administrative State, Gitanjali Publishing House, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 72-73.
3. M.K. Chaturvedi, "Commitment in Civil Service", in Indian Journal of Public Administration, 17 (1971), pp. 41-42.
4. A. Awasthi and S. Maheshwari, Public Administration, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Agra, 1984, pp. 417-418.
312
11 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Significance of Financial Administration
Financial administration means the management of the finances of a state or of a public authority endowed with taxing and spending powers. Sound financial management is vital to the success of any enterprise. This is all the more so for any government. Efficiency and economy are the two watchwords of public finance. Financial administration seeks to raise, spend and account for the funds needed for public expenditure. Sound fiscal administration is of vital importance to government. As revenue is derived from the citizens it is morally incumbent upon governments to spend money efficiently and economically. Imprudent financial management alienates the people from the government, ultimately endangering the latter's existence. Unsound financial administration, thus, may destroy the prospects of democracy itself. There is yet another factor which has added considerable significance to financial
administration today. The unprecedented increase in government expenditure in modern times makes it absolutely necessary that sound principles, tools and techniques of financial administration should be evolved and employed by all governments. It involves the activities of four agents: the executive which needs and spends the funds; the legislature which grants the funds and appropriates them to particular ministries and departments: the Finance Ministry which controls the expenditure, and Audit which sits in judgement over the way in which the funds have been spent.
Budget
The word 'budget' originally meant a bag, pouch or pocket attached to a person. In public administration the term refers to a financial document which is annually placed before the legislature, by the executive, giving a complete statement regarding the government revenues and expenditure of the past financial year and an estimate of the same for the next financial year. There is no unanimity among writers regarding the
313
definition of the term 'budget'. It has been defined differently by different authors of public administration. The word has been used synonymously with 'programming' and 'management'. However, most people agree that the budget is the keystone of financial administration and the various operations in the field of public finance are correlated through the instrument of the budget.
A budget is a financial report of statement and proposals which are periodically placed before the legislature for its approval and sanction. A budget is a balanced estimate of expenditures and receipts for a given period of time. In the hands of the administrator the budget is a record of past performance, a method of current control, and a projection of future plans. It is a report of the entire financial operations of the government of the past (for a given period) and gives us a glimpse into future government fiscal policy. Budgeting aims to gather legislative support for government proposals. It is an attempt to allocate financial resources through political processes. It reflects an organisation's goals and aspirations and its policies and proposals to realise them. "The real significance of the budget lies," states Willoughby, "in providing for the orderly administration of the financial affairs of a government.
The budgetary system that evolved in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was viewed primarily as a legal and accounting instrument, and the budget agency had the main responsibility of consolidating money estimates of expenditure needs from the various departments each year. The conventional pattern of government budgeting serves the sole, purpose of fiscal accountability and is merely a document for parliamentary control of the financial operations for the
government. The entire expenditure is presented through a series of demands for grants. Every ministry presents one demand for its own requirements and separate demands for each of its subordinate organisations. The demands for grants, thus follow the organisational pattern and the details in each of these demands are on the basis of objectwise classification, for instance, establishment charges, contingencies equipment and materials. This type of budget is known as the line-item budget with its focus on itemised classification of expenditure.
314
The line item budget is effective from the viewpoint of public accountability, but today a budget has several other objectives. Viewed as an instrument of financial administration, budget is a vital tool of management. As an operational instrument, it is presented in the form of projects and programmes for which there is managerial responsibility in terms of achievement and costs in a given period. The government budget is also being used as an instrument for the analysis of government policy in financial administration. It can be used to review the pros and cons of the fiscal policy of the government which has an impact on the national economy as a whole. Through the budgetary process the government can influence levels of taxation, expenditure and capital investment consumption which practically affects all segments of the national economy and economic behaviour of the entire nation.
Traditionally, budgets have been mainly designed to ensure financial and legal accountability to the legislature and, within the executive, observance of similar accountability on the part of each subordinate agency. Budgets are generally prepared with emphasis on the subjects of expenditure constituting the primary units of appropriation such as salaries of officers, establishment charges, allowances, honoraria, etc. They lay more emphasis on the cost aspects without any indication of the results. The traditional budget reveals what government purchases but not why; it indicates what government buys but not what the government does. In short, traditional budgeting fails to provide an adequate link between financial outlays and physical targets. According to Mr. S.S. Visvanathan, an expert in the field of performance budgeting, the four shortcomings in the conventional budget arise mainly from the existing systems of classification
Those are:
a) The classification does not serve as an adequate base for informed decision making at each level of management. It does not help management to control and appraise the performance and execution of its various programmes, projects, activities and schemes (programme activity and classification are suggested to remedy this);
b) It is difficult to see from the conventional budget and account heads for what broad purposes and objectives
315
resources are being allocated. To remedy this, functional classification is suggested;
c) The classification does not permit a proper analysis of the impact of government transactions on the total national economy. (This is sought to be remedied by an economic classification); and
d) It is not helpful as a basis for judging the progress made towards the achievement of goals and objectives as envisaged in the development plans.
In developing countries which are committed to bring about rapid socio-economic progress and development of their peoples, the bureaucracy has by trial and error become the major instrument of implementation of public policy. Developmental goals like improving the level of social services, health and education, building infrastructure like roads, communication facilities, electricity and market centres or raising production in agriculture and industry incur much government expenditure. In the change-oriented milieu of development administration, a system of rigid checks and balances over financial administration may act as a deterrent to increased government spending which is vitally necessary to lay the foundations of a social welfare state. Too much stress on economy and accountability may make the administration tardy. Therefore, in the modern age, to suit the need of massive public investment and expenditure there is need for reforming the traditional concepts of accountability based budgeting. Elaborating the needs for reform in the budgetary system, specially in developing countries, Thavaraj writes:
The need for result-oriented budgeting is more keenly felt in all the developing countries where investable resources are few, the backlog in development is considerable, entrepreneurship is scarce and consequently the role of the government is all-pervading, embracing a wide variety of enterprises ranging from the simplest of consumer goods to the most complex capital goods industries and infrastructural facilities. Planning and budgeting are, therefore, extremely important to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources.... Measurement of performance is an essential aspect of result-oriented budgeting.
Most of the shortcomings of the line-item budget were sought to be removed by the performance budget, a new concept in
316
financial administration which first originated and developed in the USA. Since 1950, the US government has adopted the performance budget. Several Third World countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have also incorporated the principle of performance budgeting, partially if not totally, in their budgetary systems.
Features of a Performance Budget
Performance budgeting is a financial document that seeks the implementation and control of government programmes through budget allocation. This is done by presenting government operations in terms of programmes, activities and functions. Through such a functional classification of governmental financial operations, public policies are sought to be identified in the annual budget in concrete physical terms so that a direct interaction between inputs and outputs could be identified and state performance reviewed through clearly identifiable cost overheads. In traditional budgeting the objects of government expenditure, purpose of the different proposed outlays, or linkages between costs and performance cannot be clearly identified or assessed. In performance budgeting, the focus is on the end rather than the means. The main purpose is to clearly define the objects of governmental spending, the work to be performed and an estimated cost of the performance. The concept of a programme budget, which is also called a performance budget, sets in advance the targets and the authorisations against which the performance of the governmental departments can be assessed periodically. It serves as a basis for efficiency and work measurement qualitatively and quantitatively. The performance of the past year serves as an evaluation sheet for next year's budgetary targets and estimates. Performance budgeting shifts the emphasis from the means of achievement to the achievement itself, from what the government buys and acquires, to the service rendered.
The difference between a line-item budget and a programme budget has been aptly summarised in the following lines:
A line-item budget shows how many clerks will be hired, how much travel money will be spent, how much will go for printing or mimeographing, and what will be expended for papers, typewriters, and stationery. The plans are based on these line-items; the controls are geared to these lines; the
317
information has to do with the things used. In sharp contrast, the programme budget starts with the wok to be done, the costs of various work units, the purpose of travel, the ends to be served by printing or office supplies. The programme plans are in terms of the jobs to be accomplished; the controls are related to responsible management, the information tells what work is being or will be done in relation to what was authorised in the past.
Performance budgeting comprises five essential elements as suggested by Peter B. Dean:2
a) programming, or the subdivision of the government budget for information purposes into programmes and activities representing identifiable units with similar aims and/or operations;
b) identifying the operational aims of each programme and activity for the budget year;
c) budgeting and accounting for each programme so that the separate costs and revenues of each programme and activity are shown;
d) measuring the outputs and performance of activities so that these can be related to their costs and to operational aims; and
e) using the resultant data to establish standards and norms so that costs and performance can be evaluated and government resources used more efficiently.
Principles
There are three interrelated considerations or basic steps in the development of performance budgeting in an organisation. They are:
a) evolving a meaningful classification structure in terms of programmes, projects and activities under each function entrusted to an organisation in order to show precisely its objectives, the work done and the organisational responsibilities;
b) bringing the system of accounts, reporting and the prevailing financial management practices in general into accord with the new classification and requirements of performance budgeting; and
c) establishing suitable work units for physical measurement of work done, or services rendered under each programme
318
and activity and developing suitable norms, standards and other performance indicators for appraisal of performance.
In fact, performance budgeting attempts to integrate the planning, budgeting, costing, reporting and control systems of the organisation.
In its ultimate application, this approach involves a sound budgetary operation, financial discipline, skilled and responsible manpower both for budget formulation and for execution, a frequent and efficient system of recording and reporting financial and physical data, and close coordination between various governmental agencies and the central budget agency.3
Significance/Purpose
Performance budgeting is very useful for developing countries. It facilitates better programming, decision-making, review and control for a more intelligible presentation of government activities to the public and the legislature. Broadly speaking, the main purposes sought to be served by performance budgeting are:4
a) to correlate the physical and financial aspects of every programme/activity;
b) to improve budget formulation, review and decision making at all levels of management in the government machinery;
c) to facilitate better appreciation and review by the legislature;
d) to make possible more effective performance audit;
e) to measure progress towards long-term objectives as envisaged in the plan; and
f) to bring annual budgets and development plans closely together through a common language.
Processes of Performance Budgeting
A performance budget is prepared in functional categories, such as agriculture, education, industry and health. Each functional category is divided into 'programmes', for instance, health may be divided into primary health, child health, and public health. Each programme is subdivided into activities which in turn, are further divided into 'projects'. Activity constitutes the collection of similar types of work in a programme, the purpose of which is to contribute to the achievement of the latter, for example,
319
training of primary rural health workers is an activity in the public health programme. 'Project' entails any activity which requires capital investment, such as building hospitals and health clinics. There are four main steps or phases of performance budgeting. They are: (i) compiling a functional classification of all governmental activities in the manner discussed above; (ii) evolving a system of fiscal management and cost reporting which may be in accordance with the objectives of a programme budget; (iii) developing accurate statistical weights and measures of assessing government performance in terms of adequacy and unit costs; and (iv) establishing in the budgetary processes, an objective system of performance evaluation to provide periodic feedback to executors of public policies.
The entire budgetary process of a performance budget entails certain basic steps:
The first step is to indicate the organisational structure of the agency and the objectives of that agency. The second step is to draw up a financial requirements table. The table, which seeks to make a tabular presentation of the budgetary needs of the organisations, contains three basic elements: (i) a programme and activity classification; (ii) object-wise classification showing the same expenditure divided into broad object-wise expenditure groupings, such as establishment charges, travel, grants-in-aid, etc; and (iii) sources of financing indicating the demand numbers and major heads under which these outlays are included in the current appropriation structure. The third step consists in providing an explanation of the financial requirements. This needs to be done with reference to each of the programmes included in the table. The purpose of this explanation is to provide some indicators that are capable of reflecting the performance aspects of the organisation.
Merits of Performance Budgeting
Performance budgeting serves many useful purposes and fulfils many shortcomings of the line-item budget. It is becoming increasingly popular as a tool of fiscal management and policy in modern financial administration. In the first place it makes it possible to establish identifiable linkages between policy and performance, inputs and outputs, the physical and financial aspects of governmental programmes and activities. Secondly, it
320
would improve upon the budgetary processes and related-fiscal policy making coupled with the analysis of actual governmental performance. Thirdly, it would help to evolve a better system of financial accountability and legislative control. Fourthly, it would facilitate the processes of audit of governmental operations. Fifthly, it would make effective result-oriented assessment of the long-term development policies of the government. Sixthly, it would be the innovator of far-reaching reforms in financial administration. Seventhly, it would help eliminate waste and inefficiency in the financial transactions of government, make budgets direction oriented and more development motivated. Lastly, it fixes responsibility very precisely besides giving a clear picture of revenue and expenditure alternatives.
Limitations and Difficulties
The adoption of performance budgeting imposes a lot of initial difficulties specially in countries where the traditional form of budgeting has been continuing for a long time. The major reasons for this are discussed as follows:
a) The government performance is not always easily quantifiable and often may not have clearly visible results. In the absence of quantitative performance units an attempt to correlate plan programmes to budget heads often becomes a futile exercise, for example, law and order activity is a government activity whose 'result' or 'performance' cannot be very objectively measured.
b) The difficulty relates to the lack of cost-accounts. Many assets of the government agencies cannot be accounted for in terms of unit costs.
c) A problem in adopting the performance budgetary procedures is the arduous task of linking accounting heads with development heads. The difficulty arises due to the fact that the development heads such as agricultural production, education, and health are spread at different places in the departmental organisation forming different major heads of accounts, with the result that it is very difficult to decipher the total expenditures on all the schemes under a development head. Therefore, it is often impossible to know what had been originally planned and their costs.
321
Performance Budgeting in India
In India, proposals in favour of performance budgeting started originating in the mid-fifties. The Estimates Committee discussed budgetary reforms in its twentieth report and recommended the adoption of performance budgeting in India. It reiterated this recommendation again in its report in 1960.
Following the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1968, strongly urging the central and state governments to adopt this new form of budgeting, performance budgets of four central ministries were prepared that year. In 1977-78 about thirty-two developmental departments in the central government switched over to performance budgeting. Many state governments have also now introduced performance budgeting in selected departments.
However, the system of performance budgeting in India suffers from the same limitation discussed earlier (in the limitations of performance budgeting). Problems have arisen in the setting up of work units and in estimating costs. Regional diversities have resulted in different local precedents in costing procedures. In the absence of universal norms and standards of performance evaluation much of the benefits of this type of budgeting in terms of efficiency and performance are lost. In India, the achievement figures are often not quoted in concrete physical terms and the technique of cost
measurement has not been followed right down to each cost centre. Targets and estimates are yet to be explained in terms of relevance and objectives as clearly as they should be.
To overcome these shortcomings a reorganisation of the heads of accounts to bring them in line with the heads of development is first required.
A reform in the accounting system is also called for. A measure of rationalisation of the administrative organisation of government ministries and departments will also facilitate the processes of performance budgeting. Lastly, a complete integration of planning and budgeting is imperative far a greater degree of success in the performance' of programme budgeting in India.
M.J.K. Thavaraj, in his article "Performance Budgeting in India" has rightly said that "it should, however, be remembered that performance budgeting is a tool and not a panacea. Whether
322
it is manageable or unwieldy depends largely on the skill of the tool-maker. How effectively it is applied depends on the skill, imagination, energy and strength of purpose of the user. All it can provide is a meaningful basis for administrative planning, executive coordination, legislative decisions and administrative accountability at all levels of government. It is by no means a substitute for responsible public administration.5
Budgetary Process in India
In India under Article 112 of the Constitution, the president causes to be laid before the houses of parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India during the financial year: This Annual Financial Statement shows the sums charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and the money required to meet other expenditures. The former is non-votable and the latter votable. Votable estimates are submitted to the Lok Sabha which can assent to, refuse, or reduce the grant but not enhance it. All demands for grants and taxation proposals thus emerge from the executive. Expenditure can be sanctioned only by parliament. The Constitution safeguards the interests and rights of the taxpayer through three provisions: (i) No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, (ii) No expenditure shall be incurred from public funds except as provided in the Constitution, i.e., unless it has been sanctioned by parliament, (iii) The executive has to spend only in the manner sanctioned by parliament. This control is exercised by the comptroller and auditor-general (and, after the separation of Accounts from Audit, by the auditor-general).
The Ministry of Finance administers the finances of the government; in fact, the entire structure of financial administration revolves round the Finance Ministry. It frames the Annual Financial Statement in consultation with the other ministries. After parliament has approved of the budget, it controls the entire expenditure of the government with a view to economy in public spending by the other administrative ministries.
After the money has been spent, public expenditure is subjected to the searchlight of an independent audit to examine the legality and the propriety of the expenditure. Parliamentary control of taxation and expenditure is rendered effective through independent audit. The Auditor-General is independent of the
323
executive and is accountable only to parliament. After parliament has voted grants to government, the auditor-general has to see that the moneys voted are spent on items according to the Appropriation Act and the amount spent does not exceed the amount granted. He has to report to parliament any expenditure not in conformity with the declared intentions of parliament or any faulty administration of a grant.
The budget has three stages: preparation, legislation and execution.
i) Preparation
The budget is the programme of the chief executive. Efficient budgeting depends on the active cooperation of all departments and their subdivisions. Each agency should have a budget office. The budgeting and the programming work of the agency should be interrelated under the direct responsibility of the agency head. Each agency has a budget officer who transmits the agency's views and proposals to the central budget bureau. Budgeting is not an exclusively central function; it should permeate the entire administrative structure. The communication between the central office and the agency officers responsible for budgeting and programming is a two-way communication. India is a federal state with a centre and units, each having its own budget. The work on the Union Budget starts with the officers preparing the estimates in September on the basis of the figures supplied by the Finance Ministry. The Finance Department consolidates these estimates in January. They are next scrutinised by the accountant general.
ii) Legislation
The budget is the most important tool of legislative control over the public purse and through the purse over the executive. It includes control of revenue and expenditure. No tax can be collected without its prior authorisation and no expenditure incurred without its prior approval. The finance minister presents the budget in the Lok Sabha towards the end of February. It is proceeded by an Economic Review portraying the state of the economy during the current year. The finance minister presents the budget with a budget speech explaining at length the financial proposals of the government. The budget is presented in the Rajya Sabha at the same time. Parliament
324
recesses for three days to enable the members to study the budget proposals. On reassembly a general discussion takes place for three days after which demands for grants are voted on the basis of the priority of demands previously agreed to by the leaders. Only the votable items are put to vote. Motions may be moved to reduce any grant. On the last day all the remaining items are put to vote en bloc. Voting on demands for grants is followed by the Appropriation Bill authorising the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund and vesting in the government the authority to draw money from the Consolidated Fund.
Vote on Account: As voting on demands for grants may take some time, a vote on account may be passed providing for the expenditure of a department for about four monhts in the new fiscal year. It is open to general discussion.
Consolidated Fund: The centre and the states in India have each its Consolidated Fund to which all receipts are credited and all authorised payments are debited. Expenditure is of two kinds: votable and non-votable. The non-votable items, i.e., those that are charged on the Consolidated Fund are: (i) salaries and allowances of the president and expenditure on his office; (ii) the salaries of the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the speaker and the deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha; (iii) debt charges including interest and amortisation charges on government loans; (iv) salaries and allowances of the judges of the Supreme Court; (v) salary, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the comptroller and auditor-general of India; (vi) any sums required to satisfy any judgment-decree of any court or arbitrary tribunal; (vii) any other expenditure declared by the Constitution or by parliament to be so charged. Expenditure on the counterparts of the above in the states are charged on the Consolidated Fund of each state.
The Finance Bill: The Finance Bill is the Bill embodying the Government's Financial (Taxation) Proposals for the ensuing financial year which has to be passed by parliament every year. It is open to general and clause discussion. Amendments may propose the abolition or the reduction of any tax but not any new tax nor an increase in the rate of any existing tax. The Bill as amended is passed by the Lok Sabha and after consideration by the Rajya Sabha goes to the president for his signature on receipt of which it becomes an Act.
325
Money Bill: Money Bill is one dealing with taxation, borrowing, or expenditure, especially with one or more of the following matters:
1) a) the imposition, aboliton, remission, alteration, or regulation of any tax;
b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India.
c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of money into or the withdrawal of any money from such Fund;
d) the appropriation of money out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India;
f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the union or of a state; or
g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in (a) to (f)
2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or any pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.
3) If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the speaker thereon shall be final.
A Money Bill differs from a Finance Bill in the following respects:
i) A Money Bill deals exclusively with taxation, borrowing, or expenditure whereas a Finance Bill has a broader coverage in that it deals with other matters as well.
ii) A Money Bi11 is a Bill certified to be such by the speaker of the Lok Sabha whereas a Finance Bill requires no such certificate.
326
(iii) A Money Bill must be returned by the Rajya Sabha to the Lok Sabha within 14 days of its receipt, with its recommendations, if any, which the Lok Sabha is not bound to accept. Disagreement over a Finance Bill, however, is resolved at a joint sitting by a majority of the total number of members present and voting.
iii) Execution of the Budget
After the Appropriation Act is passed, the grants as voted by parliament are distributed, care being taken to spread the cuts, if any, over numerous heads. Appropriation is the allocation of funds to a given unit as passed by parliament. Within a grant, an intra-unit transfer of funds is permissible. Unspent balance, if any, lapses. Actual expenditure depends on two conditions: sanction by competent authority and provision of adequate funds. The spending authority shall exercise due care in the spending of public money. Public money shall not be spent for the benefit of a particular individual or community; and all orders sanctioning expenditure shall be communicated to the auditor. The accountant-general monitors the progress of receipts and expenditure and brings irregularities, if any, to the notice of the competent authority.
Instruments of Financial Control
Four organs of government exercise financial control in a parliamentary democracy—the legislature, the government, the finance ministry and the audit department. Parliament exercises control over revenue, expenditure, borrowing and accounts. Legislative sanction is required for the levy of new taxes or for the increase in the rates of existing taxes, for the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund for public expenditure, and for the raising of loans. Public accounts are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and are audited by a statutory authority which is independent of the executive. India follows four principles of financial control: (i) The executive, acting through ministers, cannot raise money by taxation, borrowing or otherwise without the authority of parliament; and proposals for expenditure requiring additional funds must emanate from the cabinet, (ii) The second principle vests in the Lok Sabha the exclusive control of the purse. Money bills must originate in the Lok Sabha which has the sole power to grant money by way of
327
taxes or loans and to authorise expenditure. The Rajya Sabha may reject a grant but not add to it. (iii) The demand for grants must come from the government. Neither the Lok Sabha nor a State Assembly may vote a grant except on a demand for grant from the government, (iv) Likewise, the proposal for a new tax or for an increase in the rate of an existing tax must come from the government.
The executive, in addition to the legislature exercises control over finance. It determines the pay allowance, leave, travelling allowance to each of the administrative authorities. The cabinet is assisted by an Economic Committee which decides on the financial matters to be referred to the cabinet for decision. Its secretary reviews with each ministry its financial proposals in the light of the funds available. It coordinates the activities of the government in the economic sphere, determines the priorities of the development schemes in the central and the state spheres and distributes the available resources among the competing schemes. Its orders on the estimates are final.
The Finance Ministry has a special responsibility in enforcing economy in expenditure. It has to ensure that the administrative departments get adequate, funds, that they keep within their grants, that they surrender their savings well before the close of the year and that the spending departments send progress reports regularly, and on time. It coordinates the activities of the different ministries, reviews the results and monitors. The general trends of government expenditure.
Under the Constitution the executive is to formulate demands for money. The Lok Sabha has the prerogative to exercise control over taxation, to grant supplies for public expenditure and control appropriations, and public expenditure. This is ensured by the audit of public accounts by an independent statutory authority—the comptroller and auditor-general and the subsequent examination of his audit report by a parliamentary committee—the Public Accounts Committee. The comptroller and auditor-general examines the annual accounts and satisfies himself that parliamentary grants have been applied to the purposes for which they have been voted and in the amounts intended and they have been spent according to laws, rules and regulations. He reports on any waste, losses or departures from settled financial principles and procedure. This report examined
328
by the PAC completes the cycle of parliamentary control of public expenditure. It is a discretionary audit to ascertain whether the executive has observed the rule of prudent housekeeping in public expenditure.
The Committee on Estimates is a continuous 'Economy Committee' to suggest economies within the limits of accepted policy. It is not concerned with government policy as such. Its concern is with exploring how that policy could be achieved with minimum public resources. It has 30 members from the Lok Sabha elected on the principle of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. Its chairman is appointed by the speaker. By convention one-third retires every year. It works through sub committees.
Importance of Audit
Audit is indispensable for sound financial administration, especially for parliament to exercise financial control. Audit is being used in all the countries of the world to ensure optimisation of financial resources, though its status and role may differ from country to country. A sound system of audit is the only safeguard and protection against the misuse of public money.
To quote Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, "Ours is a poor country, its resources are limited and we cannot afford to risk any kind of waste, and the Audit and Accounts Department will have to look upon their functions as functions of the greatest public utility by pointing out errors and by showing where and how we can remove abuses, effect economies, increase efficiency and reduce waste of expenditure.... I do hope that these people who are the watch-dogs, so to say, of the public funds or the tax-payer's money will exercise great vigilance and control and see to it that we get a proper return for every rupee we spend and that there is proper utilisation of public funds."6
There can be no two opinions on the need and desirability of audit. Audit is an essential ingredient of a modern democratic government like India. It may be mentioned here that the audit of government accounts (including the accounts of the state) in India is a union subject and is entrusted to the comptroller and auditor general of India.
Audit in India
Audit in India derives its authority from Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution of India and the Parliament Act of 1971 (Duties,
329
Powers and Conditions of Service Act) and its amendment in 1976. Before we discuss the audit organisation and its functions, let us discuss the features of audit in India.
a) Integrated Audit
The comptroller and auditor general of India controls the audit of accounts not only of the union but also of the states.
b) Quasi-Independent Audit
Audit is not put under any ministry at the union or the state level-Audit reports, however, are submitted to parliament and the state legislatures through the president or governors respectively. In the UK the comptroller and auditor general's reports are submitted directly to the House. In the USA, under the Reorganisation Act, 1946, the comptroller general reports directly to Congress. Thus, the Indian counterpart is not entirely independent, as it is in the UK and the USA but quasi-independent.
c) Limited Functions
The comptroller and auditor general is supposed to discharge both the functions indicated by his designation but he actually functions only as an auditor. He has no control over the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund. Many departments are authorised to draw money by issuing cheques without the approval of the comptroller and auditor general who is concerned merely with the audit of expenditure. In contrast, the comptroller and auditor general in the UK controls the receipt and issue of
public money nothing can be paid out of the Exchequer Account maintained at the Bank of England without his authority.
d) Limited to Meet Legal Requirements
The Indian audit system concentrates mainly on ensuring conformity to rules and regulations, and very rarely goes into 'propriety' or 'performance' audit. In advanced countries like Sweden, audit is very thorough and measures the performance of the government for the information of the people and serves as an index of the economic and financial health of the nation.
e) Field Offices Located throughout the Country
The audit organisation in India is not concentrated at the headquarters only but is located in the field as well.
330
f) Separation of Audit from Accounts
Accounts have been separated from audit at the union level in India since 1976 and the system seems to be working well. The state governments follow suit so that there is complete separation of accounts from audit in the country. There is now departmentalisation of accounts in the central government and the administrative departments have assumed full responsibility for making payments and keeping accounts. Under the new system, the payment functions have been taken over by the ministries themselves and are discharged by their own Pay an Accounts officers.
Several advantages have been claimed for the scheme of separating accounts from the audit. The departmentalisation of accounts will enable the ministries to watch the flow of expenditure regularly and take effective corrective action wherever necessary. Secondly, it will facilitate the settlement of claims directly by the departments by cheques. Thirdly, the large variations from the budgeted allocation, which were very common till 1976, are expected to disappear under the new system of separation. Fourthly, it will also help in proper maintenance of provident fund accounts and prompt settlement of claims. Fifthly, this will speed up the compilation of accounts.
Audit and Administration
What should be the ideal relationship between audit and administration to ensure the legality of public finances? Today Indian audit concentrates mainly on the legality of money raising and expenditure and thus serving only a limited purpose. In order to ensure the propriety and performance of financial transactions, the auditors would have to examine these transactions from a broader angle.
The Administrative Reforms Commission had recommended changes in audit to make it comprehensive: These were:
1. The audit department should give greater attention to examining the internal systems and procedures within the administrative agencies and, where necessary, submit periodical reports to the government for consideration and implementation of suggestions for reforms.
2. The comptroller and auditor general should take steps to strengthen and develop necessary competence and expertise for the conduct of efficiency-cum-performance
331
audit and generally extend the scope of this type of audit to cover all departmental activities of the government. There are no two opinions about the need for better relations and understanding between audit and executive departments to ensure fruitful use of financial resources. They should not develop an antagonistic attitude but should collaborate in their efforts to maximise the output of financial resources.
The requirements of modern management and especially financial management, strengthen the need for active collaboration of auditors and administrators to inject the desired changes into the system. The auditors have to change their attitude to make the administrators feel comfortable with them. Dheerendra Krishna has rightly said that:
The audit cannot continue merely to serve as a critic; it should assume a more positive role of catalyst to reforms, instead of tending to perpetuate the status quo. If the training input of audit staff is largely confined to the knowledge of rules and prescribed procedures, naturally, the output from the audit will largely pertain to routine deviations from these rules. In practice departments indulging in developmental activities often flout the rules and regulations in many ways. For example, expenditure in excess of a sanctioned project is very common. If the audit remains procedure oriented instead of being
a performance audit, the executive would, naturally devise ways of ignoring it. On the other hand, if training input is broadened to include modern management techniques, there can be a qualitative change in audit activity. If modernisation of public administration is given the highest priority by the Government, the audit should gradually transform its organisation through training input and necessary organisational changes.7
The Public Accounts Committee observes. "It is not the intention that audit should encroach upon purely administrative matters or range over the entire field of administration. But where administrative action has serious financial implications, it is the duty of the audit to see that administrative action is not only in conformity with the prescribed law, financial rules and procedure but it is also proper and does not result in any extravagance, loss or infructious expenditure."8
332
Thus, there is the need to promote a better understanding between them to ensure overall development. The roles of audit and administration are really complementary; they are never intended to act in opposition to each other. The purpose of both is the same, namely, to obtain the optimum results by the outlay of limited resources in carrying out our plans and programmes.9
Notes and References
1. S.S. Visvanathan, Performance Budgeting in Government (an illustrative guide), I1PA, New Delhi, Sept. 1972, pp. 1-2.
2. Peter N. Dean, Govt. Budgeting in Developing Countries, London, 1989, p. 4.
3. United Nations, op. cit., p. 3.
4. ARC: Report of the Study Team - Financial Administration, May, 1967, chapter III.
5. M.J.K. Thavaraj, "Performance Budgeting in India", in Management and Govt. (ed), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1976, p. 328.
6. Quoted in M.S. Ramayyar, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, IIPA, New Delhi, 1967, p. 10
7. Dheerendra Krishna, "Role of Audit in Improving Financial Administration in IJPA, Vol. XXXV, (Oct.-Dec., No.4).
8. PAC, Fourth Report, "Third Lok Sabha", p. 51.
9. See S.L. Goel, Financial Administration and Management, Sterling, New Delhi, 1993, for a reading on all aspects of financial administration in India.
333
12 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, REGULATION AND REFORMS
Delegated Legislation
'Delegated Legislation' refers to the law-making power conferred by parliament on the executive. As the exercise of this law-making power is the derivative power, not the original one, it is called subordinate legislation—it is subordinate in terms of the Act under which it is exercised. It is void if it violates the parent Act, or transgresses the power granted under the Act.
Delegated legislation is a comparatively recent development. It is an outcome of the positive role of the state. Governmental outlook has undergone a complete change as a result of changes in social, economic and political ideas, and changes in society brought about by successive advances in the fields of science and technology. State is no longer content with minimum intervention. Its role is now positive and includes the management of the entire life of the people, the overall aim being the conscious promotion of welfare of the population. Obviously, this positive role calls for a spate of legislation. Parliament has not the time (and competence) to pass such an enormous number of detailed enactments. Delegated legislation is the inevitable outcome of the increasing burden on the legislature.
The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences thus explains the rising tide of delegated legislation: "Probably increased legislative delegation should be considered a phenomenon of the modern positive state. Changing concepts of the function of Government in our complex economic world have placed an ever-increasing burden upon modern legislatures. The sheer volume of business makes delegation necessary. The spread of democracy, which has done away with the ruling class, increased the size of legislative
bodies and altered the role of individual members, has made it more difficult for legislature to deal effectively with their business. The importance of technology in the modern world renders mere intelligence inadequate in solving governmental problems. A rapidly changing economic and social order
334
demands that any scheme of governmental control and regulation be flexible. Administrative agencies offer the services of the expert and are better equipped for experimentation than legislatures.1
As the factors responsible for the rise and growth of delegated legislation are universal and not confined to any particular governmental system, delegated legislation is a universal phenomenon. Under the impact of new forces its tempo is on the increase. In India, recourse to it is being made on an extensive scale as a result of a considerable increase in parliamentary legislation consequent upon an unprecedented expansion of activities of government, though necessary statistics are not available. Even in the United States whose Constitution is apparently based upon the doctrine of separation of powers, delegated legislation is increasing in volume and scope. The US Constitution declares that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress," (Article 1), and "the executive powers shall be vested in a President of the United States" (Article 2). The Constitution apparently forbids delegated legislation; and this situation soon presented a dilemma, which, fortunately, was avoided by the common sense of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld delegated legislation in the famous case of Hampon & Co. vs. U.S. (1928). It enunciated the new classic formula on delegation in this way: "If Congress shall lay down by legislative Act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorised to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power." Consequently, delegated legislation does not stand entirely forbidden in the United States; rather is permitted within certain limits.
Types
There are two types of delegated legislation: the normal and the exceptional. The former is marked by two characteristics; first, its limits are clearly enforceable by the judiciary; and secondly, it does not delegate power to legislate on matters of principle or to impose taxation. The exceptional type of delegated legislative powers are:
i) to legislate on matters of principles, and even to impose taxation;
ii) to amend Acts of Parliament, either the Act by which the powers are delegated, or other Acts;
335
iii) conferring so wide a discretion on a minister, that it is almost impossible to know what limit parliament did intend to impose; and
iv) abandoning limits of delegated powers not formally, yet actually by forbidding control by the courts of law.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Delegated Legislation
1) It saves parliamentary time without, in any way, undermining its overall responsibility. Since parliament need not go into minute details, it can better concentrate itself on major issues of policy and matters of principles.
2) It is conducive to flexibility. Since details are left to be filled up by the executive, they may be easily changed in response to fast changing needs, without necessitating a formal amendment of the Act.
3) It permits the utilisation of expert knowledge. Parliament is a gathering of laymen; it is a competent body to lay down broad principles and objectives, but it is not competent enough to determine minute details. The task of laying down details requires expert knowledge of the subject-matter.
4) Parliament cannot foresee all sorts of contingencies which may arise when a particular scheme is put into implementation. It is, therefore, necessary that discretion is allowed to the official to deal with the situation by issuing rules and regulations to deal with ad hoc situations.
5) Parliament is not always in session. Emergencies, which are not unlikely phenomena, call for prompt action. It, therefore, stands to reason that the executive should be suitably empowered to face emergencies like war, flood, earthquakes, etc.
However, the government officials, in their zeal for "getting things done", are sometimes prone to ignore, or at least underestimate, popular convenience and will. The rule-making power in the hands of the executive, thus, curtails individual rights and liberties, and leads to arbitrariness and injustice.
Sometimes, matters of vital importance including policy matters are delegated to the executive. This is objectionable. Policy determination is a task of parliament. The administrators have no means of making themselves aware of the needs and wishes of the general public. And yet, it is obvious that in
336
numerous cases, the sub-legislation affects the common man no less profoundly.
Sometimes, the empowering clauses in the Act are vague, giving almost a blank cheque to the executive. This risk indeed, is appalling. It would do well to remember that the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the Indian parliament frowns upon rules lacking in specificity and definiteness.
Delegated legislation may often seek to oust the jurisdiction of the court, thus depriving citizens of judicial protection. The Act may lay down that the rules made thereunder shall not be called in question in any court of law. This is all the more deplorable, as there are not administrative tribunals having authority, stature and competence of high courts to look into the matter.
Inadequate scrutiny by parliament of the rules and regulations makes delegated legislation also grow into despotism.
Delegated legislation is a necessary evil; it is necessary because parliament does not have the time (and competence) to enact detailed legislation on all kinds of subjects on which laws have to be made; and it is evil because the delegated power is open to abuse in the absence of proper safeguards and vigilance. In India, too, delegated legislation is on the increase, in scope, volume and nature.
Since delegated legislation is a necessary evil and is likely to increase in volume, rather than diminish in view of the complex social organisation and vast developmental and promotional activities that a modern government undertakes, some safegurds and controls are necessary and desirable. The following safeguards should set bounds to the system of delegated legislation.
Safeguards
Limits to law-making powers given to the executive should be carefully defined by the enabling Acts.
The jurisdiction of the courts should not be curtailed.
The departments should consult outside interests, which are directly affected by the proposed exercise of rule-making powers.
Explanatory notes should be attached to all regulations so that the layman may know why a particular regulation is needed, and how it would be exercised. Besides, there should be an Explanatory Memorandum in the enabling bill indicating what
337
types of regulations are to be made under the bill when it is enacted.
Uniform procedure should be adopted in regard to all regulations requiring them to be numbered, printed, published and cited.
Rules and regulations should normally be published; their publication should be a condition precedent to their coming into force.
Parliamentary control and supervision should be strengthened.
Rule-making power should be delegated to trustworthy authority, which is approved of by parliament.
In England and India, there are Standing Committees of Parliament to scrutinise delegated legislation. In the United States, on the other hand, there is no equivalent to such committees, the responsibility being diffused. The responsibility is shared by a host of committees—standing committees in each House of Congress, committees on government operation in each House, and some other joint bodies. All these committees are assisted by expert staffs.
In India, the Acts passed by parliament must conform to the provisions of the Constitution, failing which they are liable to be declared void. The invalidity of delegated legislation may, therefore, arise in any of the following three situations: i) the enabling Act is ultra vires;
ii) the subordinate legislation violates the Constitution; and
iii) the subordinate legislation runs counter to the provisions of the enabling Act.
It is now well established by a decision of the Supreme Court that the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole, and that in modern times when the legislatures enact laws they often find it convenient and necessary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out policy laid down by their Acts. The extent to which such delegation is allowed is also well-settled. The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in any case. It must lay down the legislative policy and principle, and afford guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates subsidary powers.
338
The Committee on Subordinate Legislation
The Committee on Subordinate Legislation in India was nominated by the speaker in December 1953. It satisfies itself that the rules and regulations framed by the executive in pursuance of the legislative powers conferred by the parliament are in conformity with the authority delegated to them. It submits its report to the Lok Sabha. The Committee examines each order; and reports on the following aspects:
"(i) Whether it is in accord with the general objects of the Act pursuant to which it is made; (ii) whether it contains matter which in the opinion of the Committee should more properly be dealt with in an Act of Parliament; (iii) whether it contains imposition of taxation; (iv) whether it directly or indirectly bars the jurisdiction of the courts; (v) whether it gives retrospective effect to any of the provisions in respect of which the Act does not expressly give such power; (vi) whether it involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund or the Public Revenues; (vii) whether it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Act pursuant to which it is made; (viii) whether there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or laying it before parliament; and (ix) whether for any reason its form of purport calls for any elucidation."
The Committee in its first report, published in March 1954, made two useful recommendations:
i) Bills containing proposals for delegation of legislative powers should invariably be accompanied by a memorandum containing the details and scope of such proposals; and
ii) uniformity should be secured in the provisions of Acts delegating legislative powers in various Acts.
With a view to enforcing uniformity in regard to these matters, and to have proper parliamentary control over subordinate legislation, the Committee recommended:
i) that the Acts containing provision for making rules should lay down that such rules should be laid on the table of the House as soon as possible after they are published in the official gazette.
ii) that all these rules should be laid on the table of the House for a uniform and total period of 30 days.
iii) that the enabling Act should contain express provision that the rules made thereunder would be subject to such modifications as the House may like to make.
339
iv) that in exceptional cases the House may make provision in the Bills, containing proposals for delegation of legislative power, that these rules may be laid on the table of the House for 30 days before they come into operation.
The Committee has shown an unvarying tendency to denounce several features of delegated legislation, such as, curtailment of the jurisdiction of the courts, violation of the provisions of the parent Act, indefinite complication of an order and its being laid on the table of the House.
The Committee's labour is yielding result. Quite a large number of its recommendations have been accepted.
Administrative Adjudication
Administrative adjudication has been defined by Prof. Dimock as "the process by which administrative agencies settle issues arising in the course of their work when legal rights are in question."
Administrative adjudication differs from ordinary administrative action on the one hand, and from judicial action, on the other, although it has certain features of both, as its name itself suggests. It is not pure administrative action, because it involves adjudication of some dispute regarding certain private rights or property. But at the same time, it is not a purely judicial decision, as is given by courts of law, because the adjudication of the dispute is an integral part of the administrative action which the administrative authority is taking in enforcing a public law or policy. The circumstances which give rise to the exercise of the adjudicative authority are such as permit the administrative agency to regulate the rights or privileges of the citizens for the sake of common good, public safety and security.
Administrative adjudication differs not only from pure administrative action but also from regulatory decisions of the administrative authorities, such as, registration, authorisation and licensing, even though they combine the administrative function of enforcing public policy with the judicial function inasmuch as they decide the status of the applicant and thus, involve discretion. Actually in such matters the line of demarcation between administrative action and administrative adjudication is so thin that different countries take different views regarding their nature. For instance, licensing is termed judicial in UK but in India it is considered to be quasi-judicial and often in the context of particular cases even administrative.
340
Generally speaking, the causes of the growth of administrative adjudication are the same as those of administrative law. Both are integral parts of a common process which arose to cope with the problems and complexities of the modern industrial and urban society necessitating positive action on the part of the governmental agencies. In the words of Prof. Robson, parliament did not overlook the courts of law; but they found the possibility of setting up new organs of adjudication which would do the work more rapidly, more cheaply, and more efficiently than the ordinary courts, which would possess greater technical knowledge and fewer prejudices against government, which would give greater weight to the social interests involved and show less solicitude for private property rights; which would decide with a conscious effort at furthering the social policy embodied in the legislation. With the rise of the concept
of social justice and welfare state, the emphasis shifted from individual rights to social interest. But the established judiciary was unable to uphold the new system. To quote Robson again: "With the extension, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, of the functions of the government to one new field after another, with the progressive limitation of the rights of the individual in the interests of the health, safety and general welfare of a community as a whole, with the development of collective control over the conditions of employment, and manner of living and the elementary necessities of the people, there has arisen a need for a technique of adjudication better fitted to respond to the social requirements of the time than the elaborate and costly system of decision provided by litigation in the courts of law."
The development of social control of education, medicine, sanitary, engineering, and other subjects, frequently highly technical, raises matters of standards and techniques which are, to a large degree, beyond the range of the abilities and competence of lawyers and judges, unless they have had opportunities to specialise in the fields concerned.
Large number of situations arise these days which, unless quickly and firmly resolved, may jeopardise the health and safety of the peoples, for example, safety measures in coal mines, illegal transactions in foreign exchange, unfair business practices, etc. In all such situations, proverbial delay in the regular courts of law would cause immense loss to the public exchequer and national prestige.
341
Administrative adjudication brings to the individual citizen cheap and timely justice. The judicial procedure is costly, dilatory and cumbersome. It is beyond the means and understanding of the common man in a poor country like India where poverty and ignorance are predominant. The procedure of the administrative tribunal is, on the other hand, simple and brief. It does not often require the formalities of law suits, pleadings, cross-examinations, etc.
Lastly, at the present time there is such a tremendous rise in litigation that the ordinary law courts, with their present size and expense, cannot cope with it. In India, for instance, the new Constitution vested certain rights in the public servants as against the state, their employer. The provision has given rise to such a spate of law-suits against the government brought by their employees that if all the High Courts and the Supreme Court are put entirely to that work, they will not be able to dispose it off even in one full year. Moreover, this additional work may cause serious repercussions over the organisation and working of the law courts. Administrative tribunals with their simple procedures are better suited to adjudicate in such cases.
There has been a considerable growth in the number of administrative tribunals in India, particularly since Independence. They have now become an indispensable part of the governmental machinery in this country. The Law Commission in one of its reports noted that the number of statutes which provide for constitution of such tribunals 'runs in legion'. The actual number may run over 3,000. Some of these have been established under central statutes, while others have been created under the various laws of the state governments. Some of them are purely administrative in their functions while the others are quasi-judicial. The agencies for administrative adjudication in India may take various forms such as (i) the minister himself, (ii) the permanent head of the department, (iii) a ministerial tribunal, (iv) a special committee or commission, (v) specialised courts of law, (vi) single member tribunal, or (vii) composite tribunal.
Forms of Administrative Tribunals in India.
The adjudicatory functions of the Indian Adminstration fall into the following broad categories:
342
1)Departmental Proceedings against Government Servants
Legally this adjudicatory power vests in the officer superior to the one against whom the disciplinary charge lies. But in disciplinary cases involving major penalties, a formal and elaborate procedure, as laid down in the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has to be followed and the controlling authority designates a separate Reporting Officer to conduct the proceedings. In the central government, now the Central Vigilance Commission maintains a roster of commissioners for disciplinary proceedings whose services are requisitioned by the disciplinary authorities whenever necessary. In certain states, like Rajasthan, there are separate Civil Service Tribunals for conducting these proceedings.
2) Adjudicatory Powers of Revenue Authorities
The Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Commissioners, etc., working under its authority enjoy adjudicatory powers under the Income Tax Act, the Estate Duty Act, the Wealth Tax, the Gift Tax Act and the Super-Profits Tax Act. Recently the Board has set up separate Tax Appellate Tribunals where the aggrieved taxpayer can prefer an appeal against the orders of the income tax officers. Here too the procedure has been formalised. The Central Board of Customs and Excise also exercises such powers. At the state level there are Divisional Commissioners and Boards of Revenue who enjoy vast adjudicative powers. The procedures followed by them are more or less, like those followed by the civil courts. These
are laid down in the Revenue Codes of the respective states. The district level revenue officers also enjoy vast powers of this nature. Likewise, the magistracy enjoys vast powers of an adjudicatory nature under various statutes, such as the Rent Control and House Allotment Act etc. Similarly, the sales tax authorities exercise similar powers.
3) Election Tribunals
The Chief Election Commissioner is the final authority in matters relating to the conducting of elections to the state and union legislature. Under him, there are election commissioners, one in each state, district election officers and various other categories of officers. Besides, the chief election commissioner also constitutes election tribunals for hearing appeals and other petitions under the Representation of Peoples' Act. Appeals from these tribunals may go to the High Courts and even to the Supreme Court.
343
4)Tribunals for Land Acquisition/Requisition Proceedings
The Land Requisition Act, 1894, provides the procedures to be followed in cases of land acquisition and determination of compensation. These powers vest in the district collector and divisional commissioner. A system of judicial proceedings has been provided. For acquisition of other immovables, such as mines, factories, separate procedures and tribunals are provided by the special Act or Ordinance.
5) Tribunals for Industrial Disputes/Labour Welfare
Tribunals concerned with industrial commercial labour and welfare matters vary from a field officer of the government (central or state) to an independent tribunal and a semi-autonomous board. Examples: Chief Inspector of Factories, Inspector of Factories, Industrial Disputes Tribunal (Workmen's Compensation Tribunal), Rubber Board, Wage Boards (such as of Working Journalists).
6) Adjudicatory Powers of Transport Authorities
In the States under these powers are Motor Vehicles Acts; Railway Rates Tribunal (matters relating to discrimination in freight rates etc.); Director General of Shipping and the Court of Survey under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
7) Adjudicatory Powers of Regulatory Authorities
Under central government, the Registrars of Trade Marks, Patents and Copy-rights, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Central Board of Film Censors and the Press Council of India enjoy adjudicatory powers in their respective spheres. In the state governments also, local bodies, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and other officers of similar type exercise adjudicatory powers.
Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful to modern circumstances, we should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to democracy. In the first place, whatever its advantages may be, administrative adjudication is a negation of the Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures equality before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over governmental arbitrariness. But administrative tribunals, with their separate law and procedures of ten made by themselves, put a serious limitation upon the principles of Rule of Law.
344
Secondly, administrative tribunals have, in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate even the principles of natural justice. In countries where government has full control over trade and industry, the individual's very fundamental rights of freedom of occupation and movement lie at the mercy of administrators.
Thirdly, administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any precedents. In these circumstances, it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions. In fact, administrative law is today in a medley of confusion and uncertainty in almost all the countries following the Rule of Law system.
Fourthly, there is no uniformity in the procedure which administrative tribunals follow. In certain cases, tribunals are arbitrary and inconsistent in their decisions.
Fifthly, in spite of so much inconsistency, there is, in many cases, no provision for appeal. In fact, there are no regular authorities for review and control and where even the jurisdiction of courts of law is ousted by law, there the aggrieved party has no relief whatsoever.
Lastly, administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who do not have the acumen or training of judicial work. They cannot have the detached and independent outlook of a judge.
Even a brief review of the drawbacks of administrative adjudication forces our attention to the need of devising proper safeguards. These safeguards may be of three types: organisational, procedural and judicial.
The first essential safeguard, therefore, is that the adjudicator of disputes should be a different person. He may be an officer of the same service which is responsible for administration of the functions of the agency. But in each district or locality, depending upon the volume of adjudicative work, there should be an officer responsible for the adjudicative work.
Secondly, so far as practicable, there should be adjudication boards or tribunals rather than a single officer being empowered to adjudicate. This is, again, a well-established rule of fair justice that a decision taken jointly by a board of members is always better than a one-man decision.
A tribunal may combine technical knowledge of the subject-matter of dispute with the legal acumen of a judge by including on the tribunal both lawyers and specialists.
345
Viewed from the procedural point of view, administrative tribunals present, in almost all the countries following the Anglo-Saxon system of law, are in a state of complete disharmony and confusion. The procedures and practices vary from completely informal rules of evidence and with no examination or cross examination of witness to the sufficiently well-developed and set practices of judicial procedures.
Thus, the system is a clear violation of the rule of law. In fact, unlike France and Germany, there is in UK and India no superior administrative tribunal to which appeals may be made from the decisions of the administrative agencies. And though there lies a right of appeal in the ordinary court of law on points of law, but not on points of fact, there are yet cases where parliament itself precludes the jurisdiction of the law courts over the subject-matter of a statute by declaring the decisions of the administrative authority to be final and conclusive.
Administrative action requires supervision from three different points of view. The first is the public welfare point of view which is exercised by parliament and the public at large; the second is the view point of administrative efficiency which is looked after by the administrative hierarchy; and the third point of view is that of private interest and this can be exercised adequately only by the law courts.
Administrative adjudication in India and the UK is unsystematic, sporadic and scattered. Neither the law they administer is definite nor is their procedure well-defined. Several tribunals are merged with the administrative authority and sometimes it is difficult to say whether the act is administrative or judicial. There is no definite hierarchy of appeals and the control exercised by the law courts is neither definite nor always very useful. There is an urgent need to systematise the jurisdication of tribunals in these countries and, more particularly to establish a superior tribunal for hearing appeals and exercising control over the inferior tribunals and authorities. Given these reforms, administrative tribunals will play a still more useful role in administration.
Administrative Reforms
Paul Appleby suggested two basic types of changes in administration: constant and episodic.2 The first type stands for incremental change that occurs in course of spontaneous
346
adjustments to changing situations. New filing system, alterations in procedures of work, reshuffling of posts are examples of this type. Episodic change is called 'reorganisation' by Appleby. It is much more wide-ranging in scope and content involving a major shake-up in government.
Viewed thus, administrative reform is a process that can be broken down into distinct phases from the perception of problems to their implementation and evaluation.
A very similar process-model has been suggested by Caiden.3 It is much more elaborate and analytical. Caiden's model includes four distinct phases:
a) awareness of need for administrative change.
b) formulation of goals and objectives, strategy and tactics,
c) implementation of reform, and
d) evaluation of reform in terms of the reformer's objectives.
Effective awareness of need for change starts when problems are aired and proposals to solve these suggested. Administrative reform becomes necessary when the administration:
i) is unable to cope with rising demands coming from clients;
ii) is unable to anticipate future demands that are likely to be put on it;
iii) is lacking in effective methods to cope with its ongoing and projective activities.
The second stage is concerned with proper formulation of goals and remedial action. Once a problem has been identified (e.g., low productivity, high turnover of personnel, etc.), one has to go deep into its causes and formulate concrete suggestions for reform. Both 'relevant knowledge and creative thought' are necessary to propose workable remedies. Goals and objectives of reform are to be clearly stated, and strategy and tactics to push through reform in the face of opposition has to be worked out.
While analysing implementation of reforms Caiden refers to four methods of implementation:4
i) reforms imposed through political revolution,
ii) reforms introduced to remedy organisational rigidity,
iii) reforms through the legal system, and
iv) reforms through changes in attitude.
Reforms, when accepted and implemented, should be monitored and evaluated. In course of the implementation process, many problems and difficulties are likely to arise. The
347
organisation must be prepared to receive them and make necessary adjustments to the original proposals. This presupposes a plan of implementation in a phased manner. At each stage the expected result should be predetermined, and as the implementation process gets going the actual results should be compared with the expected ones.
Reforms depend for their success on able leadership, correct diagnosis and grasp of the situation, proper sense of timing, wider support base, careful planning and phasing of proposals, command over resources, and above all a sound understanding of the political environment. The implementation of reforms has to be planned properly, and monitoring should be a part of the implementation process. It has to be clearly proved that reforms produce expected results. Hence, evaluation should be an integral part of reform.
The question of administrative reform has engaged the attention of the Government of India, for about three decades. Various attempts at reforming the administrative system have been made since the attainment of independence, but in spite of the measures taken to remedy the defects in the administration of the country, the problem of reforms has become increasingly complicated and difficult. The patterns of administration were designed when government's main business was to keep law and order, so they were not adequate for the current challenges the country was facing.
The problems of administrative improvement in India are larger and more complex than in any other country in the world. There is the matter of sheer size and diversity of population. Indians speak many different languages, they are separated by great distances and inadequate transportation links; they hold many different religious beliefs; many of them suffer from under-nutrition, high mortality rates and the strong forces of tradition and habits enforce the continuation of practice which are no longer pertinent to contemporary realities.
To the above we may add two other factors which are responsible for making the problem of administrative reform extremely complicated and difficult: First, we have to get away from the heritage
of pre-Independence administration which was authoritarian, unresponsive and unaccountable to the public. Second, the government has adopted the goal of a welfare state.
348
The most important weakness of our administrative system is its inability to carry out the social and economic policies of the government. In economic development as in other fields of national activity there is a disconcerting gap between intention and action. Naturally, therefore, the national tasks of reconstruction and development facing the administration in India are stupendous.
Administrative organisation is a tool for conducting the economic and political affairs of the society in a disciplined and orderly manner, and for effectively achieving social and economic progress. Like all tools it has to be shaped to suit the environment in which it operates, and the nature of the material which it has to handle. The environment and the material are continuously changing, and if administration is to serve its purpose it has to continuously adapt itself to these changes. Moreover, it is not feasible to lay down a blueprint for a perfect administrative system. Nor is such perfection achievable pragmatically. But what is practicable is to improve on the quality of an existing administration by exercising a constant and vigilant watch over the areas of deficiency, and effecting a timely change whenever necessary. There is thus a need and scope for reforms in any administration.
The nature and scope of reforms vary depending on the magnitude of the problems. Reforms can be conceived very narrowly as has been done in the past, both at the centre and in the states, in the form of procedural improvements, such as the single-file system, the officer oriented pattern and increases in financial and administrative delegations. Or they can take a wide perspective and be drastic to the extent of replacing outmoded, worn-out career services and systems and replacing them by something entirely new and better suited to meet new needs.
In another way, broadly speaking, there are two kinds of problems: First, the overall problems, which affect the working of all government organisations, like personnel administration, the staffing pattern of ministries and departments, the need for reviewing financial administration in all its aspects, etc. Second, there are other problems of a local character which concern only particular areas of administration or particular ministries. Allied with them are the problems of state government and local administration, in which the central government is vitally
349
interested, because of the essential unity of the administration of the country under a federal constitution. The appointment of the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1964 was a belated acknowledgement of the fact that the administrative machinery both at the centre and in the states, required a thorough overhaul. The problem of administrative reforms in India is obviously a very difficult one. Some of the most glaring defects of the existing administrative system are: (1) faults in administrative organisation and structure, (2) delay in the dispatch of business, (3) inefficiency, and (4) lack of integrity or corruption. Reference may also be made to some other defects as pointed out by eminent authorities. Paul H. Appleby, an American expert on public administration, highlighted another chronic and persistent shortcoming of our administration. This is diffusion of responsibility and the plethora of consultation before a decision is reached accompanied by a general lack of follow-up and implementation. According to S.G. Barve, another outstanding deficiency is failure to locate definite, responsibility at different points and levels of the administrative hierarchy. This location of responsibility is to be finally carried down to the level of the individual functionary.
There is another dimension to the system of administrative reforms which is of a controversial nature. The establishment of the Administrative Reforms Commission in India was motivated by the fact that a total 'overhaul' of the administrative system was perhaps deemed essential at that juncture though the 'overhaul' did not prove to be successful as we have observed earlier. This has led many critics to argue that there is less of a need for a 'total overhaul' of the administration as is often demanded and more of a need to re-orient the existing machinery for the performance of new tasks and to inform it with new concepts of public management and accountability. Notwithstanding the difference of approach, the fact remains that the ARC neither helped in 'piecemeal' reform of administrative processes nor in a total 'overhaul' of the system.
However, there is another aspect which needs to be given more emphasis. This relates to the implementation of the recommendations of the ARC. The government has taken an unduly long time to accept and implement them. The sooner the government takes a decision on the acceptance of the
350
recommendations of the ARC, the easier it would be to evaluate the validity of its proposals, otherwise they are likely to become stale, and rapidly get out of tune with the times. The implementation of the ARC proposals calls for three important types of actions on the part of the government. First of all, a well defined and bold policy, a firm decision on the part of political leadership in power to carry out the reforms accepted by it. The main difficulty in taking such a far-reaching policy decision is that although everyone is in favour of re-organisation as a general principle, no one wants to re-organise himself or have his interests affected. In the second place, there is the need for providing adequate institutional
arrangements and safeguards for implementation of reforms. And thirdly, an operational plan to push ahead with the implementation of the accepted reforms.
Unfortunately, however, the government has not shown any enthusiasm or willingness to proceed rapidly reorganising the administrative machinery on the lines suggested by the ARC. The slow pace of implementation may be due to the fact that reforms in any sphere of social life invariably encounter resistance. Since the bureaucracy by nature is conservative and conformist, it breeds a status quo oriented attitude. There is, thus, a great danger of an in-built resistance from the bureaucracy itself to change.5 In the ultimate analysis, the public administration of a country reflects the value system and the national commitment of the political elite. The bureaucracy is part of a continuum in the elite structure of the country consisting of political cadres and leadership, the business and entrepreneurial class, professional and trading classes, large, middle and small landowning peasants; and the industrial proletariat. The ethos and working style of bureaucracy are derived from those professed by this elite. It is no wonder, therefore, that in the context if our political and administrative culture which is still largely traditional, the bureaucracy has itself become a major stumbling block in the process of administrative change.
Experience in India indicates that administrative reform is successful only when associated with major social, political or economic reforms. Realisation of the national objectives of a socialistic, secular and a democratic society has set the pace for a reorganisation of the administrative machinery, some of which have already been achieved as indicated above. Important
351
administrative changes rarely precede political and economic reform; they are rather consequence of the latter.
Some reform proposals put forth from time to time for rapid improvement of the Indian administration have been: (1) In each ministry, department, division, office/section, development agency and company the top leadership should assume active responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation. (2) The top person in each organisation should assume personal responsibility for inspiring the employees about the importance of the work of the organisation and for assuring that each employee understands the significance of his own efforts. (3) In large organisations, staffs of full-time specialists in work improvement should be maintained. The staffs should be manned by people who possess these qualities; resourcefulness, energy, patience, and special skill in the techniques of O & M. (4) Reasonably attainable operating goals should be established, including quantity goals for the organisation as a whole and for each unit within the organisation. (5) Reasonable standards of
performance for each employee should be maintained, including standards for both quantity and quality of work performed. (6) A system of periodic, prompt operating reports should be maintained, which compares actual production results with planned performances. It should also compare the organisation's activities with the activities of similar organisations. (7) At each level in the organisation, leadership should make sure that the employees participate in the establishment of goals and standards, in the review and evaluation of performance, and in planning for eliminating weaknesses. (8) At frequent intervals appraisal should be made of the opinions of those who are served by the organisation, including analysis of patterns of complaints.
A major problem of Indian administration relates to its modernisation. Administrative modernisation is associated with the degree of specificity of functions, the extent of universalistic norms of conduct and the prevalence of achievement considerations. Such a transformation of the administrative system implies, among other things, its minimum professional and functional autonomy and its separation from political roles, and the adoption of modern administrative technology. Modernisation of administration also implies the growth of what is called 'development administration'. Development
352
administration emphasises the appropriate structural-institutional, functional and value changes in the administration needed for the implementation of the goals of modernisation. The establishment of development administration is a slow and difficult process since it involves the problem of 'training, socialising and directing of a cadre of administrators who can and will adapt to public needs.'
There are several tools of administrative improvement. The foremost among them is the O & M — the Organisation and Methods— which include the study of the entire process of management. It is concerned with the organisation, and methods of work in the offices of public bodies. It aims at improving office procedures or methods of work in offices. Another important tool, related to the former, is work-study. It is the application of detailed analysis of work to achieve higher output. It aims at discovering, through systematic methods and a scientific approach, simpler, easier, and more effective and economical ways of doing work. It includes two other different techniques, that of Method Study and work measurement. Whereas the former aims at improving methods of work resulting in more effective use of staff and equipment etc., the latter assesses human effectiveness. The objectives of work measurement are: (i) better internal control of work scheduling and individual assignments; (ii) more effective budgeting, forecasting and allocation of funds; and (iii) laying down basis for method simplification, organisational changes, etc.
The Special Reorganisation Unit (SRU) in the Ministry of Finance has developed a system of organisation analysis and work study. Another important aspect of the O & M work is work simplification. It aims at simplifying procedures and methods. Some of the important techniques for improving work methods are: (i) work distribution analysis; (ii) work count analysis—a technique for analysing flow and sequence of operations; (iii) motion analysis—a technique for making maximum use of physical motion; and (iv) layout analysis — a procedure designed to lead to better utilisation of space personnel and equipment.
'Operational Research' is, in essence, the organised application of the methods of scientific research to operating problems outside the conventional field of science. Its objective is to provide the executive with quantitative basis for decisions
353
regarding operations under their control. Its technique is to find new measures of effectiveness and to develop, where necessary, refined and powerful numerical methods specially adapted to the problems at hand. There is also the automation, i.e., the use of mechanical devices or processes. The approach towards office automation is made through the system of punched card, electronic data processing, and integrated data processing. Automation is an important aid to efficiency in office work.
Notes and References
1. Encyclopedia of the Social Science, Vol. V, pp. 65-66, New York, Macmillan.
2. Paul H. Appleby, "The Significance of the Hoover Commission Report", The Yale Review, 39(1): 2-22, September 1949.
3. Gerald E. Caiden, Administrative Reform, The Penguin Press, London, 1970, Chapter V.
4. ibid., pp. 145-156.
5. To quote an instance, in one of the seminars held recently in New Delhi which discussed the ARC recommendations on the Unified Grading Structure and the proposal for the abolition of the special position of the IAS, the proposal was vehemently opposed by those who belonged to this specific cadre.
See Indian Institute of Public Administration, Personnel Administration: Implementing the Reforms: Report of the Conference on Staffing Policies, Unified Grading Structure, Training and Development of Personnel (New Delhi, IIPA, 1970).
354
13 DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Problems of Developing Countries
The character of modern administration has been greatly moulded by much expansion in the functions of modern states.
The factors which taken together gave rise to 'Big Government' also contributed to the establishment of the 'administrative state' in almost every developed and developing country of the world. The government formulates public policies and depends on the public administration for their implementation. In modern states bureaucracy performs multiple functions. Besides, performing the older regulatory functions which were mostly preventive, and coercive in nature (maintenance of law and order, collection of revenue, defending the state against aggression), they now render various services to the people. Provision of modern amenities of life, education, health, employment and improved means of transportation are some of the important tasks of socio-economic transformation undertaken by newly created departments of government everywhere, specially in the developing countries of the Third World.
In these countries the bureaucracy for historical reasons, being more articulate and well developed than other social structures is in a better position to assume key responsibility for socio-economic change. Therefore, despite various alternatives which are often floated from time to time the public bureaucracy, retains the central place in the politico-administrative system due to its "homogeneity, large number and professional competence".
Most of the Third World countries face the common problems of moving towards the twin goals of nation-building and rapid socio-economic progress. They are caught up in a whirlpool of rapid change and an upsurge of rising expectations which create tremendous pressure on the governments to bring about an all round development and modernisation of all sectors of administration, polity and society. Though various Third World countries have adopted varying strategies of
355
development, there are certain common elements in their politics of development. The major elements are: (i) a widely shared consensus on the goals of development; (ii) a high degree of reliance on the government for achieving the developmental objectives; (iii) wide prevalence of primordial over national loyalties; (iv) oft-recurring political unrest and instability; (v) existence of a modern political elite; and (vi) uneven growth of political structure and the bureaucracy among those in the more developed category.
Developmental goals and the urgency with which they are sought to be achieved inevitably call for vigorous state action as the principle instrument of social transformation. Neither time nor means is available for experimentation with slow and gradual progress in the western pattern of development with private enterprise as the main vehicle of change. The political authority with its power and resources almost automatically assumes a position of pivotal importance in the developmental process of the Third World.
To become an agent of change public bureaucracy must have the potential to give direction and dynamism to the pace of change and have the capacity to adapt itself to changes demanded or planned by the political authority and also initiate its own changes, where needed. In other words, public administration should undergo structural and attitudinal changes to develop the right type of vision, change-orientedness and administrative skills for the success of developmental programmes. This brings us to the question of how far the existing administrative structures of the post-colonial, post-independence societies of the Third World are competent and capable enough to carry on the tasks expected of them. How well have they been playing their role and meeting the challenges: This can be better understood if we analyse the problems and strains of the bureaucracy in the Third World in the context of the problems of interaction between the existing administrative structure and its colonial or past heritage in the functioning of administration and politics.
Ferrel Heady has discussed some of the common historical legacies of the developing countries as reflected in the characteristic features of their present administrative systems. These are as follows:1
356
1) All countries, including those which escaped western colonisation, have consciously tried to introduce some version of modern western bureaucratic administration. In a country which was formerly a colony its administration will almost certainly resemble that of the coloniser.
2) These bureaucracies are deficient in skilled manpower necessary for developmental programmes, the shortage being of trained administrators with management capacity, developmental skills and technical competence.
3) These bureaucracies are other than production oriented. The value attached to status based on ascription rather than achievement explains much of this behaviour. Non-merit considerations may greatly influence promotions, assignment dismissals, and other personnel practices. Corruption is widespread.
4) The widespread discrepancy between form and reality is what Riggs has called 'formalism'. It reflects an urge to make things seem as they presumably ought to be rather than what they really are. There is a wide gap between government proposals and their implementation, most laws being quietly bypassed or not implemented at all.
5) Finally, the bureaucracy in a developing country is apt to have a generous measure of operational autonomy, which can be accounted for by the convergence of several forces usually at work in a recently independent and modernising nation. Colonialism was essentially rule by bureaucracy with policy guidance from remote sources, and this pattern continued even after independence. Groups capable of competing for political influence or of imposing close controls over the bureaucracy are few, so that often it moves into a partial power vacuum. The political role of bureaucracy varies from country to country and is closely related to the particular political system type in a developing country.
During the colonial period the emphasis in transitional societies was on the establishment of legal and administrative structures of modern government. The task of building cohesive political processes was not the concern of colonial rulers. This led to an imbalance between administrative and political development in these countries. When they achieved
357
independence their administrative systems were far more developed than the political with the result that the latter was ineffective and ill-equipped for determining the appropriate goals of administration, maintaining the integrity of the administrative system, and collaborating with it in achieving its welfare goals. Lucian Pye, F.W. Riggs and La Palombara also came to this conclusion in their analyses of bureaucratic and political developments in the new states. Pye, for instance, finds that these countries
have neither effective administration nor stable polities and that public administration cannot be greatly improved without a parallel strengthening of the democratic, representative political process.2 Similarly, Riggs is struck by "the weakness of their extra-bureaucratic political institutions in contrast with the burgeoning growth of their bureaucracies and advances the thesis that premature or too rapid expansion of the bureaucracy when the political system lags behind tends to inhibit the development of effective politics."3 Both Pye and Riggs thus emphasise the importance of strengthening the political system as a pre-condition for the effectiveness of administration; if the former is weak and ineffective, the latter will also partake of the same character. To both of them, excessive concentration on strengthening the administrative system without parallel strengthening of the political processes, will only accentuate the imbalance between administration and politics. By exphasising the problem of the viability and relative importance of the political and administrative structures in political modernisation, they provide a valuable insight for the planners and builders of new societies.
A conclusion which emerges from the above discussion is that the goal of realising a modern state and a modem society is greatly dependent upon the establishment of both a stable and cohesive polity and the strengthening of the authoritative structures of government. For example, in India, it would appear that there has been a decline in the functional capability of both the political and the administrative sectors of the system. A fundamental feature of political development in India is the ineffectiveness of the political system in dealing with increasing demands in the shape of providing basic services, maintaining law and order and formulating and executing policies.
The Indian administration still exhibits a continuity of the British bureaucratic system with its emphasis on formalism,
358
impersonality, obsesssion for security and lack of bureaucratic initiative.... A major weakness of the Indian administrative system is its callousness in responding to the goals and demands of nation-building and modernisation. A key problem in India is, therefore, the training, socialising and directing of a cadre of administrators who are sensitive and capable of adapting to the needs and responding to the issues of society. Another major problem of the administrative system relates to the need for its modernisation which is related with the degree of specificity of functions the extent of universialistic norms of conduct, and the existence of achievement standard. Such a transformation of the administrative system implies, among other things, its minimum professional and functional autonomy and its separation from political roles, and the adoption of modern administrative practices. The adoption of universalistic norms in administration, as in the sphere of political development, does not mean the supplanting of traditional norms and institutions but their utilisation for the achievement of new goals.
Development Administration: The Concept
After the Second World War, the newly independent nations which emerged out of imperial exploitation, all embarked upon a complex process of nation-building and rapid social reconstruction. Poverty, illiteracy, disease, low levels of agricultural and industrial productivity posed a formidable challenge of development to the governments of these new nations. The concept of development administration has almost exclusively been used with reference to the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The idea of development administration as a direct state engineered effort to intervene in the processes of socio-economic transformation was therefore born during the aftermath of decolonisation.
The conceptualisation and elaboration of the concept of development administration was done by Western, specially American, scholars.4 Third World development became a very powerful intellectual category in American social science thinking of the fifties. It was looked at as a strategy against insurgency and the growth of 'communism' in the Third World There had emerged two interrelated viewpoints about the role of public administration in this situation. The Comparative Politics Group of the Social Science Research Council in the USA looked
359
at administration as having system maintenance and system stability building potential capacity. To them bureaucratisation was a functional prerequisite for maintaining stability and legitimacy in the political order. The Comparative Public Administration Group perceived modern administration as a mechanism for the attainment of developmental goals. Thus the bureaucracy was looked at as a precursor to provide planning and an identical infrastructure for converting inputs of objectives, capital and know how into developmental outputs. Two developmental goals—nation-building and socio-economic development—constitute the keynote of development administration.
Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought with regard to the definition and scope of development administration. Montgomery and Fainsod represent the school of thought which defines development administration in a narrow sense. According to Montgomery, it connotes "carrying planned change in the economy or capital infrastructure and to a lesser extent in the social services, especially health and education." In the words of Fainsod, "it embraces the array of new functions assumed by developing countries embarking on the path of modernisation an functional specialisation."5 Development administration ordinarily involves the establishment of machinery for planning economic growth and mobilising and allocating resources to expand national income. According to this school of thought, development administration means merely a programme-oriented
approach to administration which is concerned with the resolve to mobilise existing and new resources and cultivate appropriate skills to achieve the developmental goals of administration.
The other school of thought which is represented by Lucian Pye, Fred W. Riggs and Weidner, uses the term development administration in a broader sense. According to it, development administration refers to the process of guiding an organisation towards the achievement of progressive political, economic and social objectives, authoritatively determined in one manner or another. Understood in this sense, development administration would include the entire process of nation-building, particularly in the developing states of the world. In this connotation development administration becomes an integrated concept for
360
the study of public administration. In short, it may be said that development administration is essentially a concept of administration which is action-oriented rather than structurer oriented. While it involves the study of a traditional and routine type of administrative system it is more concerned with the dynamics of an administrative system with a view to judging its capacities as an instrument of programme planning an execution.
It is by now widely acknowledged that development administration is public administration with a difference. Structurally development administration is concerned with the organisation of new agencies for development or refashioning of established agencies. The internal authority structure and hierarchy within organisation engaged in development tasks have also to be differently conceived.(The emergence of the new nations out of a colonial administrative framework and their urgent need for rapid socio-economic reconstruction necessitated a radical change in government organisation and procedures. It was in this historical context that a new administrative paradigm called development administration arose. The colonial legacy of routine law and order administration was found unsuitable for .the accomplishment of nation-building tasks and programmatic goal fulfilment, like agricultural and industrial development, removal of socio-economic inequalities, etc. Revenue collection, export of raw material, providing essential public services and law and order were the prime concerns of colonial administration. It was centralised, authoritarian, unaccountable and unresponsive to the public.
The rnanagement of development has been the central focus of development administration) It connotes planned institutional capacity to accomplish the specific goals of development through the formulation of appropriate policies, programmes and projects and their successful implementation. Participative, responsive and accountable management constitutes the essence of development administration.
As George Cant has aptly said,6 development administration is characterised by its purposes, its loyalties and its attitudes. The purposes are of change, progress and innovation as contrasted with purposes of maintaining the status quo. In terms of loyalties, development administration has to be goal-oriented, client centred, accountable and responsive to public wishes and
361
demands rather than to any vested interests, king or empire. In terms of attitudes, development administrators have to be flexible, adaptable and result-oriented. Pai Panandikar and Kshirsagar,7 in their study of administrative behaviour in development, propose four behavioural prerequisites, (i) change orientation, (ii) result orientation, (iii) citizen participation orientation, and (iv) commitment to work.
Development administration, to succeed involves production of planned results in close association with clientele. It calls for serious restructuring of administration to facilitate people's involvement in all aspects of development. Inherent in development administration is the idea of decentralisation. Evaluation of development administration has to be on the basis of actual results achieved. It is not merely efficiency that is sought but effectiveness that is desirable.
The distinction between development and non-development administration is more formal than real. Routine land revenue or law and order administration creates conditions for development. If the state fails to maintain law and order, no developmental effort will succeed. Similarly, failure of developmental effort may lead to rising public frustration and unrest that might become a serious law and order problem. Another important area of interdependence is that the capital assets (roads, dams, buildings and institutional places) created for development have to be maintained properly. Routine maintenance management is thus as important as development management.
Another area of academic interest is the close link of development administration with political processes. Too often the 'management' aspect of development administration has been stressed overlooking the fact that development administration is essentially change-oriented and anti-status quo. To reach the benefits of development to more and more social groups in society means generating tensions and conflicts between the haves and havenots, between the privileged and the under-privileged sections of society. Development would also mean creating institutional opportunities for power distribution. What kind of development, and for whom and how are all questions of politics.
Development policy formulation and its implementation are vitally connected with the political processes
362
of a society. Hence to divorce the study of development administration from politics would be shortsighted and incomplete.
Political and Administrative Development
Development administration, in a developing country, is mainly concerned with two aspects of development—political and economic. The economic development of a country largely depends on its political development. So we would refer briefly to the characteristics of political development especially relevant to administrative development. S.P. Huntington identifies four sets of categories which recur continuously: rationalisation, national integration, democratisation and participation. Friedrich suggests the following six features:
1. the capacity to act efficiently to cope with technological requirements of survival;
2. enforcible restraints on government;
3. operative popular participation in rule-making;
4. existence of general rules replacing shared values and beliefs of the community;
5. a judiciary to interpret these rules and define terms of settlement; and
6. voluntary associations, such as parties, which provide alternatives to existing governments, implement participation, and continually re-examine existing rules.
Administrative development in low-income countries has generally been defined as a pattern of increasing effectiveness in the utilisation of available means to increasing effectiveness to achieve prescribed goals. It, therefore, involves both qualitative and quantitative changes in bureaucratic politics, programmes, procedures and methods of work, organisational structures and staffing patterns, number and quality of development personnel of different types and patterns of relations with clients of administration. Public administration in general and development administration in particular are closely linked with increasing the capacity of the state to produce goods and services to meet and induce changing and expanding demands.
Development administration differs from routine administration in some other respects also. For instance, the rigidly well defined lines of authority which operate in the case of revenue and police departments cannot be adopted in the case of
363
development administration as it would stifle the potential knowledge and creative capacities of individuals. The student of development administration must first study the differences in values and social attitudes of the people of developing societies (vis-a-vis developed ones) before recommending any rules whether relating to merit system, span of control or any specific structure. In this respect development administration demands a greater degree of social, economic and political insights. Since there will be more in common between the problems of various developing societies than between the developed and the underdeveloped societies, development administration will necessarily be comparative in character.
Donald C. Stone draws attention to one aspect of development administration which is worth noting here. He says that development administration demands much more cooperation and coordination among ministries and departments than routine administration. He cites two examples of lack of coordination among departments which has an impact on particular geographical areas, viz., the question of major highways versus feeder highways and the interrelationship of agricultural development and industrial development as it takes place in a particular geographic area. Development administration to be successful requires that department heads understand how development plans benefit them so that they render the necessary cooperation. It also requires that regional and local governments be fitted into plan formulation exercises and plan implementation programmes.
As is evident from the foregoing discussion the essential thrust of development administration has been that stable and orderly change can be brought about by a management revolution under the aegis of the state bureaucracy.
Briefly, the present and future priorities of development administration are as follows:
1- With the ever increasing functions of state, the role of administration will continue to expand in the developmental sphere. The government will become the principal planner, organiser, promoter and director of developmental efforts in all Third World countries.
2. Administrative activities will gradually become complex and technical with increasing diversification of government functions.
364
3. The need for planning, coordination and control of all government activities connected with development will be greater.
4. The administrative reforms and improvements in management will have to be greatly stressed.
5. Personnel structure and training will have to be geared to developmental tasks. In such a set-up respect for hierarchy and a rigid application to rules and regulations at the cost of goal achievement will have no place.
6. Decision-making in organisations will have to be flexible and innovative, status-consciousness in bureaucracies will have to be replaced by increasing service motivation.
7. There is need to redesign public bodies to enable collective decision making and promote collaborative problem solving.
8. Increasing decentralisation will enable developmental agencies at field level to operate more autonomously.
9. There should be free flow of communications at all levels of the organisational pyramid.
10. There should be an adequate working partnership between the political and executive wings of the administration.
11. Commitment and dedication on the part of all engaged in developmental tasks, specially the political leadership and bureaucracy, is the first and most essential prerequisite of development administration
12. The active participation and cooperation of the people has to be forthcoming for the success of developmental programmes.
Development Administration Theory: A Critique
The development administration theory of the 1950s and 1960s, says Rondineli,8 was reflected in two somewhat different, but not mutually exclusive, approaches. One group of development theorists felt that policy implementation in the developing countries could be improved through the transfer of administrative procedures and techniques from industrial countries. They followed the Weberian model. They attempted to establish within developing countries administrative procedures that were rational and politically neutral. They were concerned with methods used by governments to attain their development objectives through the implementation of national plans and
365
policies. They emphasised the role of bureaucracy as an instrument of development.
The other group argued that political processes and administrative structures had to be thoroughly transformed and modernised before the developing nations could achieve economic and social progress. Known as political modernisers they felt that the transfer of the administrative procedures and techniques from Western democracies, although necessary, was not sufficient. They looked at development as 'Social Engineering' and national government as 'the prime mover of change'. Development administration was thus viewed as the instrument for transforming traditional societies into modern ones.
Some scholars have identified certain fundamental inconsistencies in the Western formulation of development.9 For example, this formulation exhibits a fairly explicit ethnocentric bias. It minimises, ignores and distorts indigenous cultural traditions. Once translated into the administrative realm, it reinforces the belief in a universally valid set of functional administrative principles without any significant connection with specific socio-culrural and political circumstances.
The foundations of the development administration paradigm suffered a terrible set back following the widening gap between the 'centre' (develop) and 'periphery' (developing) through the second development decade. The theatre of Cold War having been shifted to the Third World, the myths of mutuality of interests and Western benevolence were exploded. It became evident that the concept of an impersonal bureaucracy motivated by efficient implementation of given public policies deserved re-examination. Bureaucracy is a source of power, and if it gets institutionalised it seeks to pursue its class interests in collusion with the ruling class or classes. It can go to the extent of subverting implementation of development programmes which may jeopardise its class interests. It has been proved by many studies that the ruling class—bureaucracy alliance—is primarily responsible for the failure of land reform programmes in India.
Michael Crozier's study10 challenged the thesis of bureaucratic rationality. He pointed out that bureaucracies were characterised by goal displacement and self-reinforcing vicious cycles. The very idea of the bureaucracy seeking legitimacy for its
366
actions through rules and regulations has adverse implications for development administration. The rules and regulations evolved during the colonial regime are inequitous and meant for system maintenance. The post-colonial state has not made basic changes in them because the state itself was captured by the emerging bourgeoisie. Such rules cannot bring about change as desired by the development theories. In fact, they provide the bureaucracy an escape route and a structure to perpetuate class exploitation. It has been pointed out by some scholars that development has come to mean the most effective strategy against insurgency and socialist modes of socio-economic organisation. Development administration forms part of the Western ideological and intellectual offensive to keep the Third World within the Western orbit.
Criticisms against development administration have been many and varied. Some of them have been discussed as follows:
Development administration assumes that the bureaucracy is the most efficient and rational form of human organisation and that the management and organisational experience of the West could be adopted to suit the specific developmental needs of the Third World. In fact, development administration was seen as a mutation from colonial administration by injecting development goals and structures in the old cadre of civil servants. The task of the developed countries was thought to He in creating external inducement to change through technical assistance and technology and institutions transfer. It was thought that the institutional imitation would produce results obtained in the developed countries, namely efficiency, increased rationality and the like. By the late 60s it became evident however that externally induced modernisation had failed to solve the basic problems of under-development. The gap between the rich and the poor had increased as incremental reformism had failed to remove acute poverty, socio-economic class disparities and regional imbalances. The very paradigm of social change through administrative manipulation has been questioned. It has often been pointed out that radical socio-economic transformation of the Third World is not so much an administrative problem as a political one.
The development administrative model had both radical and conservative critics. Conservative critics tried to belittle the
367
importance of the public sector in development efforts stating that the function of the state consisted in creating appropriate conditions for the healthy growth of a competitive private sector. They therefore viewed development administration as an artificial distortion of objective market forces.
The radical criticism of development administration has come from the 'dependency' theorists who note that the phenomenon of under-development has its roots in the developed first world that has caused under-development and has therefore a vested interest in its perpetuation. The processes of under-development are dialectically interrelated. From the dependency perspective, modernisation need not be looked upon as a vehicle for development, but often, as a major contributor to under-development. In any case, mere economic growth may not lead to equitable economic development of classes and regions, not to speak of political and social development.
Development administration model has also met with adverse criticism in the West where the concept was first popularised. Several crises gained ground in the West during the late 60s like urban crises, social upheavals, protest and deep questioning of institutions. The rational bureaucracy thesis was being increasingly challenged and it was argued that the essence of the bureaucratic phenomenon was the inherent inability of a complex, impersonal, hierarchical and specialised organisation to learn from
experience. Instead of rational, goal-oriented social action, bureaucracies were characterised by goal displacement and a series of self-reinforcing vicious cycles.
Contemporary Approaches
In the seventies and eighties the development problem has been reconceptualised in various ways. Rather than looking at growth (in statistical teams) as a measure of development, meeting basic human needs, equitable distribution of socio-economic benefits, and people empowerment are being increasingly looked upon as development goals. Development scholars no longer treat the Third World as a homogeneous group of countries, but increasingly recognise the importance of cultural, context-based approaches to development.
A single comprehensive theory of development does not exist. The contemporary theoretical approaches to development are: (1) pluralistic, recognising many pathways to development,
368
and (2) less Western in their cultural assumptions. Key elements in contemporary development approaches, reflected in the thinking of Rogers12, Korten and Klaus13, Bjur14 Bryant and White15, include: (1) greater equality in distribution of development benefits, (2) popular participation, knowledge-sharing and empowerment to facilitate self-development efforts by individuals, groups, and communities, (3) self-reliance and independence in development, emphasising the potential of local resources, (4) limiting growth of population16, and (5) integration of "appropriate" technology with "big" modern technologies in order to facilitate development.17
Contemporary Theorising in Development Administration
The focus of development administration has changed over the years, keeping pace with new development theorising. Once confined to the deployment of foreign aid, development administration today focuses on planned change to meet a nation's broad political, economic, social, and cultural objectives.18 Non-government, non-bureaucratic, religious, cultural, voluntary, and community organisations are now increasingly involved in development projects. Localised, decentralised, and participative approaches to development are encouraged.
One contemporary trend in development administration theory is a shift from a 'blueprint approach' to a 'learning-process' approach. The 'blueprint' approach involves designing a specific plan of action in
advance for administering a development programme.19 With all its supposed advantages, this approach is inflexible, and somewhat closed, with its inability to respond to the needs of a changing environment.20
In contrast, a 'learning-process' approach is a relatively open-ended strategy to planned social change. This approach involves a cybernetic process by which development administrations can adapt themselves to changing environments and incorporate mid-course corrections, based on existing local condition.21 Problems are diagnosed and solutions implemented by people and administrators jointly via a process of mutual learning.22
The 'blueprint' approach emphasises advanced planning for the people. The 'learning-process' approach emphasises planning with the people, and doing so during the process of administering a development programme.
369
Another trend in contemporary development administration theorising is a shift from a production-centred to a people-centred approach to development. The production-centred development approach emphasises production of goods and services to maximise returns on investment.23 This approach stresses: (1) industry over agriculture, (2) urban development over rural development, (3) utilisation of capital resources over human resources, (4) exploitation or the environment for short-term gains over sustained harnessing of natural resources, and (5) establishing large scale industries over small scale industries.24 Such a development approach neglects the basic needs of the rural poor in Third World countries, and promotes socio-economic inequality.
In the people-centred approach to development, the needs of the people take precedence over those of the production system. This approach views an individual not as a subject but as an actor who defines the goals, controls the resources, and directs the processes affecting his/her life.25 The central themes of people-centred development are: (1) empowerment of people, and (2) development of an administrative process which responds to the needs of the people.26
The key elements in people-centred development are: (1) human growth and well-being, (2) equality, (3) self-reliance, (4) participation, and (5) sustainability. Sustainability is considered the keyword in a development programme. A development programme can be sustained by (1) creating a felt need among beneficiaries about the efficacy of the programme, (2) developing institutions which continually
adopt27, (3) providing (or self-generation) resources, and (4) building support among political elites and community groups.28
As we move to the twenty-first century, development administration theory is less ethnocentric, and less cultural in its Western assumptions. Today, development administration is characterised by context-based theories which incorporate the indigenous social, cultural, political, and economic realities of Third World countries.29
Weberian Model of Bureaucracy and Development Administration
The present century has witnessed remarkable changes in almost all facets of human life under the impact of science and
370
technology but there is no relevant change in the operational style of bureaucracy in response to such changes. It still projects its classical image which is based on the bureaucratic theory of organisation propounded by Max Weber. The bureaucracy as an organisational model has shown remarkable resilience to change in keeping with the changes in the environment in which it functions. This problem has now assumed great significance in the context of the structural and attitudinal changes required in the bureaucracy in conformity with the changing socio-political and economic environment of transitional societies. In these societies, the state has assumed the responsibility of multifaceted development, and the bureaucracy has assumed the role of the key partner in initiating and implementing programmes of nation building and socio-economic progress.
In Weber's ideal type construct, authority in the bureaucratic organisation inheres in the office and not in the particular person who happens to be the office holder at any given period of time. This stress oh depersonalisation of office is reflected in the bureaucrat's trained impersonality since functionaries are supposed to minimise personal relations and resort to detached work procedures. In such an approach the peculiarities of individual cases are often ignored which tend to produce conflict in the bureaucratic contacts with the public or the clientele.30 Thus the concept of an impersonal order has within it the seeds of latent conflict between the officials and the public. In fact, it is greatly dysfunctional to the emerging concept of human relations oriented administration and harmful to the interests of a developing nation.
The concept of impersonality may bring a rigid rule oriented approach which is the very opposite of commitment now regarded as an essential prerequisite for development administration.31
Secondly, in this model, the organisation of official functions is bound by rules. Rules provide stability and continuity to an organisation but as Merton observes, "Adherence to the rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes transformed into an end-in-itself; there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals whereby an instrumental value becomes a terminal one." In achieving developmental tasks, very often new rules have to be framed or old ones modified to suit the changed conditions of
371
society. In case rules are outdated or static, they will tend to become dysfunctional to development. A rigid application of old rules will promote an element of conservatism in bureaucracy. In the changing set-up of developing societies rule application should be rational and dynamic which requires special training on the part of bureaucrats.
Thirdly, according to Weber, bureaucracy functions according to a strict division of labour based on specified spheres of competence and authority which should be clearly demarcated in every organisation. A clear-cut carving out of a sphere of competence of a particular administrative branch or division helps to avoid overlapping or confusion. But in the context of development administration, the rigid application of this principle may lead to considerable delay in getting things done. Development administration throws numerous new challenges in the sphere of administration and the administrator is expected to perform as he thinks fit in any new situation that may develop in his sphere of authority. Strict adherence to this norm will only lead to redtapism, shirking of responsibility and delay in programme implementation. What is required is a flexible approach to the division of tasks at all levels, keeping in view the need to meet any emergency as and when it arises.
Fourthly, under the Weberian model, the organisation of offices follows the principle of hierarchy, that is, each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. The criterion of hierarchy, it has been stated, is more appropriate to a centralised administrative system than to a democratically decentralised system. In developing countries, the government has become a multipurpose agency employing a number of technocrats and specialists in its numerous branches, divisions and bodies. If all these agencies were to be placed in strict hierarchical order, it would lead to tricky problems of generalist-specialist relationships regarding placement in the hierarchy, which may result in considerable heartburning on the part of both. Further, a rigid adherence to the hierarchical principle does not contribute to the feeling of mutual trust, either in the inter-organisational relations, or in the
inter-personal relations in the administration. In a developing country all agencies and officials of the government should consider themselves active participants and co-partners in the development process rather than parts of a hierarchical ladder they have to climb.
372
Weber's ideal type model advocates the separation of administrative staff from ownership of the means of production or administration. It makes a complete distinction between the office and the office holder, thereby stressing the fact that personal and public ends are distinct and have separate spheres. This view was necessary to a great extent to check corruption and to explain the main difference between private and public administration. However, it is not enough to formulate a code of conduct for bureaucrats, to check corruption. It is more necessary to examine the cause of the malady which has assumed alarming proportions in developing countries, and try to strike at the roots. Another postulate of the Weberian model is that administrative acts, decisions and rules should all be recorded in writing, in order to help public accountability of administration and to make administrative transactions more scientific and professional. But unfortunately in the context of developing countries, this has only given way to rule-orientation, and excessive formalisation of the official work greatly impeding efficiency in an organisation. Too much documentation not only results in procedural delay but also makes it difficult to discriminate between important matters. Stress should be more on performance rather than procedures and file work in the administration of development projects and programmes.
Commenting on the special characteristics of a development bureaucracy Ghildyal writes:
Bureaucracy for development tends to be characterised by flexibility (even expediency) in place of excessive emphasis on rationality. It reflects a sense of commitment in terms of convictions and enthusiasm instead of impersonality and chilling neutrality conveying lack of interest. It represents a sense of social equality instead of ascribed respect to positions in hierarchy and rank-consciousness which generates sycophancy and flattery. It places premium on professionalism and authority of competence in place of authority and legitimacy of position in the hierarchy. It acknowledges authority of the situation and it may even tend to develop a sense of ad hocism in place of predictability of patterns of behaviour. It fosters a sense of permissiveness and accessibility of the top brass of administration and tears off the executive mask of aloofness of those in the higher
373
echelons of the pyramid. It also encourages and fosters communicability and openness of communication and consultation in inter-personal relationships in place of secrecy because
developmental processes thrive on democratic traditions. Democracy distributes power by changing the loci of power rather than by concentrating it at some focal points. Delegation, therefore, becomes the hallmark of developmental bureaucracy, just as coordination and teamwork are its essence in implementation.32
The Riggsian Model and Development Administration
F.W. Riggs has been primarily interested in conceptualising the interactions between administrative systems and their environment. He maintains that an administrative system operates in the context of its socio-cultural, political and economic environment and there is a continuous interaction between the environment and the administrative system, both influencing mutually. This ecological model is the focal point of Riggsian analysis and has been one of the most creative models in analysing the administration of developing countries. In presenting his concepts/he has taken the help of structural-functional systems, and ecological approaches. The structural-functional approach considers structures as patterns of behaviour which have become standard features of a social system. Functions represent the interrelationships among various structures or the consequences of one structure over other structures. In Riggsian terms, the less number of functions a structure performs, the more "diffracted" it is, and conversely, the more functions a structure performs, the more "fused" it is. A combination of both creates "prismatic" structures.
A social system is a vast network of interrelated parts, each one of which can be understood in relation to other parts and to the whole system. Accordingly Riggs suggested that administrative structure and behaviour being an integral and interacting part of the entire society, could be comprehended properly only in the context of the social system in which it is embedded. The environment influences the system in the form of "inputs" which are converted into "outputs" by the system. Through a process of feedback, outputs cause the emergence of new inputs. The interaction between a system and its environment is characterised as an "ecological" interaction.
374
Using the ecological approach, Riggs considers public bureaucracies as one of the several basic institutions in a society that interact with other sub-systems in a society, viz., the political, the economic, the social and cultural systems. Riggs has particularly studied the differences in social, cultural, historical or political environment and their effect on administration. He has also studied as to how an administrative system affects the society of which it is a part. This interaction of the environment with administration has been termed by him as "ecology" of administration.
Development, according to Riggs, is a process of increasing autonomy (discretion) of social systems, made possible by rising levels of diffraction.33 The development level of a society is reflected in its ability to make decisions in order to control its environment. This decision-making capability is based on the level of diffraction in a society. Diffraction in turn, is a function of differentiation and integration. A high level of differentiation coupled with a high level of integration makes a society or a system diffracted. However, a low level of differentiation with corresponding level of integration makes a system "fused". Lastly, a high level of differentiation with a low level of integration makes a society "prismatic".
Riggs views development administration as a goal-oriented administration—an administration which is engaged in the task of achieving progressive political, economic and social goals. In this context Riggs has presented the concept of "administrative development" which refers to the increase in the capabilities of an administrative system to achieve the prescribed goals.
Riggs has been primarily interested in social change and in understanding the process of transition in developing societies. Here a reference will be made to two of his typologies, first the "agraria-industria" typology and second the "fused-prismatic-diffracted" typology. In the first model Riggs differentiated two types of societies—societies where agricultural institutions dominated, and societies where industrial institutions were predominant. Riggs has identified certain structural features of agrarian societies, such as:34
1. There is a dominance of ascriptive, particular and diffuse patterns.
2. The local groups are stable and there is very limited spatial mobility.
375
3. Occupational differences are very simple and stable.
4. There exists a differential stratification system of diffuse impact.
The chief features of an industrial society are the following:
1. There is a dominance of universal, specific and achievement norms.
2. The degree of social mobility is higher.
3. Occupational system is well developed and cut off from other social structures.
4. There is an egalitarian class system based on generalised patterns of occupational achievement.
5. Associations are functionally specific and non-ascriptive in nature.
The "transitia" society represents a transitional stage of society between the agraria and the industria.
On the basis of empirical research Riggs later came out with his second model which constructs two ideal polar types:
a) a refracted society where every function has a corresponding structure that specialises in its performance; and
b) a fused society which a single structure performs all functions.
For example, in developed societies, the family performs certain social functions, the market performs the economic functions and the legislature and political parties perform political functions. In traditional societies, it is not unusual to see a few structures such as a family or a leader performing a whole set of functions like rule-making, rule adjudication, economic allocation, and even health administration. As society grows and develops, specialised structures increase in number, each one of which becomes engaged in specific functions. So, differentiation of structures is often viewed as the essence of development.
Riggs talked of the "prismatic" society as a mid-point between the two ideal types, combining the features of both, fused and refracted, that are characterised by heterogeneity (the simultaneous presence of quite different kinds of systems, practices and viewpoints); formalism (the extent to which discrepancy exists between formal structures and actual modalities, between the prescriptive and the descriptive, between impressions and real practices); and overlapping (the
376
extent to which what is described as administrative behaviour is actually determined by non-administrative criteria).
In a primatic society pressure for change is external as well as internal. When it is external, it is termed "exogenous" and when internal, it is termed "endogenous". Riggs is of the view that greater formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping are likely to exist in an "exo-prismatic" society in comparison with an "endo-prismatic" one. Problems of formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping are faced by prismatic or transitional societies in their bid to assimilate social change in the shortest possible time.
The Riggsian approach tries to provide an integrated perspective on public administration in so far as he maintains that an administrative system operates in the context of its socio-cultural, political and economic environment and that the process of interaction between the environment and the administrative system is a continuous one. Both interact with and influence each other. He makes it very clear that "administration" is different in different social settings. He thereby focusses on the obvious nexus between the administrative system and the society in which it is embedded.
Riggs has since changed his original views about the prismatic society. In his later publication entitled Prismatic Society Revisited (1975), he considers his earlier conceptualisation as a mistaken 'one-dimensional approach' and suggests a new definition of prismatic society based on a 'two-dimensional approach'. The original dimension was degree of differentiation, and along this dimension societies were classified into three types: fused, prismatic and diffracted.
In his new formulation, Riggs has introduced the second dimension of degree of integration among structures in a society that is differentiated (a fused society is, by definition, undifferentiated and hence, integrated). The possibility of mal-integration or lack of coordination among social structures accompanies the process of differentiation.
According to Riggs, differentiated social systems can be ranked on a mal-integrated-integrated scale. The two basic societal models of diffracted and prismatic (where differentiation can be found) are further subdivided into finer types on the basis of degree of integration. Accordingly, diffracted societies are reconceptualised as eco-diffracted, ortho-diffracted, and neo-diffracted. Prismatic societies are similarly finegrained into eco-prismatic, ortho-prismatic, and neo-prismatic.
377
This reformulation means that the prismatic model would include any society that is differentiated but mal-integrated. Also, a diffracted model refers to any society that is differentiated and integrated. Prefixes (eco, ortho, neo) are attached to both the prismatic and diffracted types to suggest stages in the degree of differentiation.
The two-dimensional approach, as Riggs claims, has the advantage of conceding that 'prismatic' conditions need not be confined to less developed countries only, but may occur in societies at any level of differentiation including those in developed nations.
In the three principal models, the bureaucracies are correspondingly unique. In the "fused" model, traditional bureaucracies were functionally diffuse each official typically performed a wide range of functions, affecting political and economic as well as administrative functions. At the other end of the spectrum, the differentiated societies (especially well-integrated ones that are reconceptualised as neo-diffracted) have bureaucracies that are much more functionally specific "as the chief—though by no means the only—agents for performing administrative tasks." In the transitional prismatic societies (the ortho-prismatic models), the bureaucracies are neither diffuse nor narrowly specific, but are intermediate as to the degree of functional specialisation. They do not blend well with the other institutions within the political system and thus tend to fuel the forces of mal-integration. Prismatic societies thus suffer from a serious lack of balance between the rates of political and bureaucratic growth. Due to bureaucratic hegemony, the bureaucrats often encroach upon the jurisdiction of the politician and try deliberately to affect the political process.
While acknowledging the pioneering enterprise of Riggs, it needs to be admitted that the prismatic-sala model has lost its specificity, as Riggs himself has later conceded that it is not meant for exclusive application to the developing countries alone. The Riggsian model suffers from overgeneralisation, as the so-called 'developing countries' are not a homogeneous category. Any meaningful conceptualisation has got to reckon with the subtle peculiarities of the new nations in terms of their culture, history, administrative tradition, economy and geography.
Notes and References
1. Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, pp. 69-72.
378
2. Lucian Pye, 'The Political Content of National Development', in Irving Swerdlow (ed.), Development Administration: Concepts and Problems, Syracuse University Press, 1963.
3. F.W. Riggs (ed.), Frontiers of Development Administration, Duke University Press, 1970.
4. See John D. Montgomery and William J. Siffin (eds.), Approaches to Development Politics, Administration and Change, McGraw Hill, New York, 1966.
5. Edward W. Weidner, "Development Administration: A New Focus for Research", In Ferrel Heady and Sybil L. Strokes (eds.), Papers in Comparative Public Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1962.
6. George F. Cant, Development Administration: Concepts, Goals, Methods, University of Wisconsin Press, 1979.
7. V.A. Pai Panandikar and S.S. Kshirsagar, "Bureaucratic Adaptation to Development Administration", in S.K. Sharma (ed.), Dynamics of Development, Vol. 1, Concept, Delhi, 1978.
8. D.A. Roudinelli, Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Approach to Development Administration, Methuen & Co. London, 1983, p. 16.
9. O.P. Dwivedi and J. Nef, "Crisis and Continuities in Development Administration", Public Administration and Development, Jan-March, 1982.
10. Michael Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Eurosion Publishing House, New Delhi, 1975.
11. John H. Bodley, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems, Palo Alto, CA, Mayfield Publishing Company (2nd ed.), 1983.
12. Everett M. Rogers, "Communication and Development: The passing of the Dominant Paradigm", op. cit., and also Everett M. Rogers, Communication and Development Today, op. cit.
13. David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, Hartford, CT, Kumarian Press, 1984.
14. Wesley Bjur and A. Zomorrodian, Toward Indigeneous Theories of Administration, Los Angeles, School of Public Administration, University of Southern California, 1986.
15. C. Bryant and Louise White, Managing Development in the Third World, Boulder, Westview Press, 1982.
16. ibid.
17. E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered, New York, Harper and Row, 1973.
18. Wesley Bjur and Gerald Caiden, "Reforming Institutional Bureaucracies", in International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. XXIV, 1978, pp. 359-365.
19. David C. Korten, "Rural Development Programming: The Learning Process Approach", in David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus
379
(eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
20. John Friedmann, "Planning as Social Learning" in David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
21. Korten, "Rural Development Programming: The Learning Process Approach", op. cit.
22. Edger S. Dunn, "The Nature of Social Learning", in David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
23. David C. Korten and George Camer, "Planning Frameworks for People-Centered Development", in David C.Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
24. David C. Korten, "People-Centred Development: Toward a Framework", in David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development, Contributions Towards Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
25. ibid.
26. Peter L. Berger and Richard Neuhaus, 'To Empower People", in David C. Korten and Rudi Klaus (eds.), People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, op. cit.
27. Wesley Bjur, "Toward a Theory of Optimal Institutionalisation", Los Angeles, School of Public Administration, University of Southern California, 1977.
28. Louise G. White, Creating Opportunities for Change, Boulder, CO, Lynne Riener, 1987.
29. Wesley Bjur and A. Zomorrodian, op. cit. Riggs, op. cit.; and J. E. Goldthorpe, The Sociology of The Third World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
30. Merton, et. al, Reader in Bureaucracy, p. 368.
31. See A.V. Satyanarayana Rao, "Weberian Model of Bureaucracy and Development Administration", in Avasthi & Arora (eds.), Bureaucracy and Development: Indian Perspectives, Associated, New Delhi, 1978, pp. 1-8.
32. U.C. Ghildyal, "Bureaucracy in a Developing Society", in Avasthi & Arora (ed.), Bureaucracy and Development: Indian Perspectives, p. 22.
33. F.W. Riggs, Administration in Development Countries, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1964, and The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1962.
34. Shum Shun Nisa Ali, Eminent Administrative Thinkers, Associated, New Delhi, pp. 103-104.
380
14 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—I
Significance and Importance
Recent emphasis on comparative studies in social sciences has expanded the domain of social analysis beyond the earlier narrow emphasis on 'Western' culture bonds. The 'comparative revolution' is further serving the purpose of restructuring theoretical constructs in a more 'scientific' way. Traditional literature on 'comparative government' focused on foreign relations, political parties, election machinery, pressure groups, constitutions, or institutions in their formal aspects. But post-World War II studies are full of criticisms of the traditional comparative government literature on the grounds that: (i) it was culture-bound, i.e., it was limited to the study of Western nations and institutions; and (ii) it was non-comparative in character because despite the study of governments of several nations within the same cultural framework cross-cultural and cross-temporal analysis and explanation were rare. But during and after World War II the study of comparative government as well as comparative public administration gained a respectable status in the academic field.
Within public administration proper, the most important field of scholarly activity today is the comparative study of public administration. The great interest in this kind of study grew out of the fact that during World War II and the post-War period hundreds of American students and teachers were professionally engaged in several foreign countries in connection with military occupations and many technical assistance programmes of the United States, the United Nations, and private foundations. This exposure to foreign, often non-Western, governmental systems naturally stimulated a sense of 'comparativeness' in general, and in particular raised questions about the appropriateness and possibility of transferring familiar Western administrative devices to the environments of non-Western societies.
The importance of the study of comparative public administration is well accepted today. There are two factors that
381
make comparative studies significant. The first factor relates to the academic study of public administration. Now it is believed that generalisations relating to administrative structures and behaviour emerging out of comparative studies in different nations and cultures can help in formulating theoretical constructs which can provide a scientific basis to the study of public administration.
The study of comparative public administration also contributes to a greater understanding of the individual characteristics of administrative systems functioning in different nations and cultures. Besides, comparative studies also help in explaining factors responsible for cross-national and cross-cultural similarities as well as difference in the administrative systems.
The second important function of comparative public administration relates to its relevance to the empirical world. Through a study of comparative public administration, administrators, policy makers and academicians can examine causes for the success or failure of particular administrative structures and patterns in different environmental settings. It is interesting to find out through comparative analysis as to which important environmental factors help in the promotion of administrative effectiveness and which administrative structures function appropriately and successfully in what type of environmental settings. Lastly, through comparative public administration, we learn about the administrative practices followed in various nations and then we can endeavour to adopt those practices which can fit in our own nations and systems.
The importance of comparative public administration lies in its academic utility in terms of scientific and systematic study of public administration and in improving the knowledge about other administrative systems so that appropriate administrative reforms and changes can be brought about in different nations.
Comparative administrative studies can be conducted at three analytical levels: macro, middle-range and micro. Macro studies focus on the comparisons of whole administrative systems in their proper ecological contexts. For instance, a macro study would involve a comparison of the administrative systems of India and USA. It will comprise detailed analyses of all important aspects and parts of the administrative systems of the
382
two nations. Generally, the relationship between an administrative system and its external environment are highlighted in the macro level studies. The middle-range studies are on certain important parts of an administrative system that are sufficiently large in size and scope of functioning. For instance, a comparison of the structure of higher bureaucracy of two or more nations, or a comparison of local government in different countries will form part of middle-range studies.
Micro studies relate to comparisons of an individual organisation with its counterparts in other settings. A micro study might relate to an analysis of a small part of an administrative system, such as the recruitment or training system in two or more administrative organisations. Micro studies are more feasible to be undertaken and a large number of such studies have been conducted by scholars of public administration. In the contemporary comparative public administration, all the three types of studies co-exist.
There are a number of approaches, models and theories presently characterising the subject-area of comparative public administration. Particularly after Second World War, a number of approaches have emerged in comparative administrative analysis. Much of this effort is based on an adaptation of the developments in comparative anthropology; comparative sociology and comparative politics. We will now study different approaches in a nutshell.
The most influential of the approaches is Max Weber's ideal-type bureaucratic model. This has structural characteristics of hierarchy, specialisation, role-specificity, recruitment by merit, promotion by seniority-
cum-merit, career development, training, discipline, separation between personal and official means, etc. The emphasis in the model is on rationality and efficiency.
There have been a number of studies conducted in a comparative context employing the bureaucratic model of Weber. Notable scholars in this area include Michael Crozier (on France), Roy Laird (on the Soviet Union) and Morroe Berger (on Egypt). The methodological limitation of an ideal-type model and specific context of a legal-rational authority system pose constraints in the application of Weber's model to the comparative study of bureaucracies. Nevertheless, for an analysis of the bureaucracies, of the developed countries the
383
model is still considered eminently useful. Dwight Waldo views Weber's bureaucratic model as a "paradigm" of public administration.
The behavioural approach emphasises "facts", rigorous scientific methods of data collection and analysis, quantification, experimentation, testing, verification and an interdisciplinary orientation. It focusses on the analysis of human behaviour in administrative settings.
Further, the general systems approach views an administrative system as a subsystem of the society. It looks at various parts of an administrative system (formal organisation, informal organisation, roles, individuals) and examines the interlinkages among various parts. Besides, the approach analyses the dynamic interactions between the administrative system and its external environment.
One of the most popular approaches in comparative public administration is the ecological approach which has been stressed considerably by Fred Riggs. This approach examines the interactions between an administrative system and its external environment. Thus the impact of the political system, economic system, social system and the cultural system, on the structure and behaviour of the administrative system as well as the influence of the administrative system on these environmental structures is highlighted in the ecological approach.
A related approach, drawn mainly from anthropology and sociology, is the structural functional approach. A structure, according to this approach, is a pattern of behaviour that has become a standard
feature of a social system. Further, a function denotes the impact of a structure on another structure and the interrelationships among various structures.
Fred Riggs has successfully applied the ecological and structural-functional approaches in his analysis of societies and their administrative systems. His typology of "agraria-transitia-industria" systems, developed in 1957, was superseded by the typology of "fused-prismatio-diffracted" societies that was constructed in 1959. For the past thirty years or so, Rigg's model of prismatic society and its administrative system known as "sala" has ruled the contemporary model-building scene in comparative public administration. A very well-known conceptual approach in comparative public administration is of
384
'development administration' which has been elaborately dealt with in a separate unit. This approach focuses on certain characteristics of a dynamic administrative system, e.g., goal orientation, change-orientation, progressiveness, innovativeness, participation and responsiveness.
The questions of modernisation and diversity are of great concern to students of comparative public administration. Only by treating public administration with reference to the four dimensions—ecological, goal orientation, developmental and cross-cultural comparability—can such questions be dealt with. In other words, conceptual constructs of comparative public administration should have the following elements in order to respond to the challenges of modernisation: (1) cross-cultural comparability allowing broad comparisons among administrative systems in Western and non-Western settings; (2) developmental dimensions, giving such comparisons a broad linkage with the question of modernisation; (3) ecological perspective, studying the interactions between the administrative systems and their environment; and (4) goal orientation, stressing the unique goals of particular cultures in relation to their administrative systems.
Three major conceptual approaches have been developed in comparative public administration—the bureaucratic system, the general systems and development administration. The bureaucratic approach has been used to study the developmental role of bureaucracies. The general systems approach focuses upon the functioning of administrative systems in their social and environmental contexts. "The basic premise of the ecological approach in comparative public administration is that public bureaucracies may be regarded as one of the several basic institutions in a society. Thus, in order to understand the bureaucracy's 'structures' and 'functions', one must study it in the context of its interrelationships with other social institutions. In systemic terms, the bureaucratic system is continually affected by and feeding back upon the political, economic, and socio-cultural sub-systems in a society."
The primary concern of contemporary studies in comparative public administration is the construction of ecological and developmental models that can be used in cross-cultural analysis. Conceptual tools that can deal with the
385
dynamics of change and goal-oriented behaviour are needed. Obviously, the scope of focus has not only widened to include the limited aspects of bureaucracy or administration (i.e., administrative development) but has gone further to study the interaction of the bureaucracy with other aspects of the social system (i.e., development administration). In this sense, current comparative public administration has naturally evolved much further than both early American administrative theory and Weber's analysis.
Besides the above, there are a number of other less-known approaches to comparative administrative analysis. These include 'information-energy' model of John Dorsey and decision-making model of Martin Landau. Nevertheless, other models have not been able to match the comprehensiveness and acceptability of Weber's bureaucratic model, Riggs's prismatic model and of course, the construct of development administration.
Comparative study, whether of government or of administration, is an essential part of scientific method. Leaders concerned with the improvement of their administrative systems in India and other developing countries may learn many useful lessons by a comparative study of different historical and existing administrative patterns. Some of these lessons may profitably be applied to many of these countries by their leaders. Since some of the administrative problems and difficulties are common to many of the developing countries, the success achieved by some in resolving them may help other countries facing similar problems to overcome them.
The British Administrative System: Some Feature
The political characteristics of Great Britain have been described as "the civic culture" by Almond and Verba. They define it as a political culture that is participant and pluralistic, "based on communication and persuasion, a culture of consensus and diversity, a culture that permitted change but moderated it."1 Since the political culture and political structure are congruent, the political system has been able to maintain stability and its legitimacy has been well established.
This gradualist pattern of political development led Great Britain to retain nominal monarchy linked with a unitary and parliamentary system. The greatest advantage of gradualism on
386
public administration was that the administrative system also was able to develop in a way that reflected the political changes and kept in tune with them. Political and administrative adaptation were concurrent and fairly well balanced. At no time has the administration been called upon to assume the whole burden of government because of a breakdown of the political machinery.2
It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that the British reformed their civil service by putting recruitment on merit. Earlier, most appointments were filled on patronage basis and many posts were sinecures requiring very little work although some use was made of qualifying examinations before appointment. Reform of the defects of the civil service came about as the result of the famous Northcote-Trevelyn Report of 1854. The principal recommendations which were put into effect included the abolition of patronage and the substitution of appointment on a career basis at an early age through a system of competitive examinations to a unified service which draw a clear distinction between intellectual and routine work, with subsequent promotion also to be based on merit rather than nepotism.
A merit bureaucracy however did not appear in Britain until representative political bodies decided that it was needed and provided for it. This has basically influenced the self-image of the bureaucracy and of its relationship to political leaders and to the public. In political cultures such as Britain, where there is a high level of political participation, the citizenry regards the bureaucracy's role as essentially service oriented and being properly subjected to firm political control, however expert the bureaucrat may be, and however intimately he may be involved in public policy selection. The bureaucracy is viewed as the neutral agent of the political decision makers.
In Britain, ministries are the basic administrative units, supplemented by nationalised industries and public corporations outside the ministerial framework. Decisions as to executive organisation are considered a prerogative of the Crown, meaning that they can be made by the government of the day. Changes in ministries are relatively frequent. The standard pattern is for each ministry to be headed by a minister who is responsible before Parliament for all ministry affairs, and who heads the ministerial
387
hierarchy. Directly under the minister is the office of permanent secretary, held by a senior civil servant with the obligation to serve any minister and any government with the same degree of neutrality. One or more deputy secretaries assist the permanent secretary, each in charge of several sections. Under-secretaries and assistant secretaries head up lower echelon divisions, with principals and assistant principals in turn heading up smaller units within these divisions.
Responsibility for personnel management has been shifted from the Treasury to a Civil Service Department directly under the control of the Prime Minister.
Generally, the British have shown a preference for career-staffing and candidates with general mental ability for fresh recruits.
In recruitment, competition for the British higher service until the end of World War II took the form of competitive examinations on a variety of subjects paralleling the courses of study offered in the universities and open only to recent university graduates.
Those chosen enter a probationary period of at least two years during which they serve as trainees, followed by a sixteen-week course at a newly founded Civil Service College. During the succeeding four years further assessment and training leads to "streaming" into ability groupings of those considered promising for high level posts in their later careers and those deemed more suitable for middle management positions, thus resulting apparently in career patterns corresponding roughly to the old administrative and executive classes.
The administrative class before World War II came almost exclusively from upper class graduates of Oxford or Cambridge who earlier had attended public schools such as Eton and Harrow. During the last thirty years, however, many factors have helped broaden the social and educational base from which higher civil servants are being drawn.
Career-staffing in Great Britain, with entry ordinarily barred except at an early age, has meant a minimum interchange of personnel between governmental and non-governmental careers.
In Great Britain, the civil service is an establishment of the Crown, and its affairs are almost exclusively controlled by orders-in-council or other executive action.
388
The British operate under a convention that imposes upon the official and the minister clearly understood mutual obligations based on the principles of impartiality and anonymity. The civil servant is expected to offer his advice to the minister, who has political responsibility, but he is obligated to carry out loyally all governmental decisions.
This system is supposed to and does keep out of the public eye the extent and nature of the involvement of civil servants in policy making, but it certainly permits the higher ranking career officials to initiate and choose among policy proposals, subject to ministerial discretion. The powers actually exercised by civil servants, depends on the characteristics of individual ministers.
External controls over bureaucracy are quite extensive in Great Britain although concern has often been expressed in recent years about the growing complexities of maintaining accountability in view of increasing grants of discretionary authority to administrators and the burdens of legislative surveillance over a constantly widening range of governmental programmes.
However, dispite all this, W.S. Sayre has summarised the British bureaucracy as orderly, symmetrical, prudent, articulate and cohesive.
The Administrative System of the United States: Some Features
The United States shares with Britain a "participant" and "pluralist" civic culture and a stable democratic political system. In the United States there has been a good balance between political and administrative development and changes in the political sphere have reflected in the changes in the administrative sphere as well. Compared to the civil service in France, Germany or Britain, the United States bureaucracy was markedly slow in becoming professionalised and in acquiring other characteristics of the Weberian model. This happened only after the civil service reform movement gained momentum in the United States, where the spoils system had been carried to excess during the middle part of the nineteenth century, eventually leading to enactment of the Pendleton Act by Congress in 1883. This reform measure however was limited in impact, applying only partially to the federal civil service and not at all to State and local levels of government service. However, it did begin a process of putting selection and promotion on a merit rather than a patronage basis.3
389
In the US too like Britain the bureaucrat is expected to work under political direction though he may be actively involved in policy formulation. The bureaucracy is viewed as a neutral instrument of the government. Structurally, in the United States, the executive departments are the major units of administration but included in the executive branch are a host of regulatory commissions, government corporations and other agencies. Decisions of executive reorganisation are left to the congress. Congress exercises the power to create or abolish executive departments but has willingly delegated limited power to the President to make for his choice at times with Congressional approval. The department secretary at the head is a political appointee of the President (subject to Senate confirmation) and serves at his pleasure. Usually a department has an Undersecretary and several Assistant Secretaries. The tasks of a central personnel agency for the federal government are now divided between a new office of Personnel Management and a new Merit Systems Protection Board.
The American approach has been to emphasise the position held and the requirements for satisfactory performance of the duties connected with it, rather than the assessment of individual potential for placement in an appropriate rank category. As a result there has been no clear-cut grouping equivalent to the British administrative class. In the American system of grades reflecting levels of responsibility in the system, the top three "super grades" usually comprise experts in a professional capacity. The idea of a senior civil service with similarities to the British administrative class was recommended in several commissions beginning with that of the Second Hoover Commission in the 1950's but was not adopted until 1978, when a Senior Executive Service (SES) was authorised to become operational in 1979. It remains to be seen whether the SES will produce a service-wide category of administrative generalists.
The American tradition has been to offer more specialised and practical examinations on an open competitive basis to those meeting prescribed minimum qualifications. The result has been the recruitment of large numbers of potential higher level administrators, but the channels for their career advancement are much less planned and more haphazard than in the British system. However, in the USA due to a more open society with
390
less pronounced class distinctions, and because of the methods used for appointment and advancement in the civil service, the upper ranks of the bureaucracy have been considerably more representative and have a less elitist character, although public servants have been better educated and generally come from business and professional backgrounds. In the US, interchange between governmental and non-governmental careers is fairly common. In the US there is no constitutional protection for the national
civil service. The executive and the legislative branches share in regulating the bureaucracy which gives it only a partial statutory base.
Both in Britain and in the United States, high ranking bureaucrats play major roles in governmental policy making, but the rules of the game vary. Instead of behind-the-scence activity protected by a carefully preserved veil of anonymity and secrecy, as in the British tradition, the Americans expect that bureaucratic participation in policy making will be much more open with the inevitable reactions that follow to the bureaucrat concerned who has to publicly face it.
Moreover no clear line exists in law, policy, or tradition between career and political executives. The mixture of career administrators and outsiders in high executive posts is frequently resorted to. In fact, in the American system there is a lack of a definite or inviolable demarcation between bureaucratic and political officialdom. The civil service has gradually become more professionalised in its outlook, in response to the demands placed upon government for performance, but the service orientation remains and responsiveness to the political organs of government is universally accepted in theory and largely recognised in practice. The Americans have produced " a more internally competitive", a more experimental, a noisier and less coherent, a less powerful bureaucracy within its own governmental system, but a more dynamic one.4
The Indian Administrative System
The Indian administrative system as it exists today is a product of two different sets of influences; the British colonial administrative traditions and the ideals of a democratic welfare state which was constitutionally adopted in India after independence. Among India's colonial legacies, perhaps the most well developed institution which the British left behind was the
391
Indian Civil Service (ICS). This consisted of an exclusive administrative elite, selected on merit who were exceptionally devoted to duty, but were by interest and training, the main supporters of British imperialism. Colonial administration in India was authoritarian, unresponsive, exclusive and paternalistic in character, qualities which the civil servants were taught to imbibe and maintain in their dealings with the public. Primarily performing regulatory functions like maintenance of law and order, collection of revenue, the administration during the British period had practically no developmental tasks to perform or welfare goals to achieve. The civil service was a very powerful body with powers of policy making and execution vested in their hands to a great extent. However, though the colonial government was involved in minimal welfare functions (construction of roads, railways, educational institution and
hospitals, to name a few), the ICS men served to some extent as an integrating force, in a country with multiple diversities such as India. They were efficient though bureaucratic in approach.
This was the legacy which India inherited at the time of independence: a generalist civil service trained in routine regulatory functions and in the rigid application of rules, unused to the task of nation-building or social reconstruction and without any institutionalised system of accountability to the people. However, it must be stated that the inherited bureaucracy had many merits. During the colonial era the foundation of a modern educational system capable of providing a pool of future administrative personnel was there, besides a network of communications, that is, schools, colleges, banks and the press which provided the basic requirements in developing an infrastructure of a modern nation.
The Constitution of India provides for the post of president who is the head of the state as well as the executive head of the union administration. Though the Constitution gives him vast powers, in effect he is no more than a nominal head of the executive, his powers being actually exercised by the council of ministers, the real executive. The council of ministers functions through a number of ministries and administrative departments. A ministry is an organisational set-up under the charge of a minister and consisting of one or more departments of the government, while a department is an organisational unit within
392
the ministry. It is headed by a secretary. Rules of Business framed under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution regulate the allocation of government business among ministers. The allocation is made by the president on the advice of the prime minister by specifying the items of business allotted to each ministry, and by assigning a ministry or a part of it or more than one ministry to a minister. The ministries vary in size, composition and the nature of their functions. The chief concern of a ministry or department is determining government policy without its sphere of responsibility, its implementation and periodic review.
A typical ministry is a three-tier structure consisting of (i) a minister, assisted by one or more ministers of state, deputy ministers or parliamentary secretaries; (ii) a secretariat with the .secretary as its head; and (iii) the executive organisation of the department or departments in a ministry headed by a director general or inspector-general. Where the execution of government policies requires decentralisation, a ministry has under it subsidiary organisations called attached and subordinate offices to help it. Cabinet ministers, ministers of state, deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries constitute the political element of the government. They do not enjoy a permanent tenure, and their fate is tied to the fate of the political party to which they belong. The minister lays down the broad policy of the department and
decides all major policy issues arising in the department. He does this with the help of permanent civil servants who provide essential material for policy formulation. Besides policy formulation, the minister keeps an eye over the execution of policies. Here, too, he depends on civil servants. Though the work of execution of policy is performed by civil servants, they are not responsible to parliament for the administration's acts of omission and commission. Thus, the principle of civil service neutrality and ministerial accountability is upheld in India too, as is done in Britain. The minister speaks for the department or departments under him before parliament as well as the general public. With the specialised help of civil servants, he initiates necessary legislation in parliament, and answers parliamentary questions.
The minister of state works under the guidance and supervision of the minister and performs those functions assigned to him by the minister. At times he is given the full
393
charge of the ministry. The deputy minister represents the minister in parliament in his absence, and answers questions. He also assists in piloting bills, and explaining policies and programmes. The parliamentary secretary assists the minister in the discharge of his parliamentary functions and duties.
A ministry or department is an organisational unit of the secretariat. Normally the secretary to the government is the administrative head of the ministry and also the principal adviser of the minister on all matters of policy and administration. Where the ministries are large, the secretary is assisted by joint secretaries in charge of separate wings. A ministry is divided into divisions, branches and sections.
The hierarchical organisation within a department falls generally into three categories—top management, middle management, and the lower levels. The opt management is manned by members of the Indian Civil Services, whereas middle management consists of members of the Central Secretariat Services and other field officers. The lower levels are constituted by ministerial services.
Administrative Organisation in India
The civil service in India are divided into three categories: all India services, central services and state services. The Constitution specifies two all India services, the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service, but additional all India services can be created by the parliament, provided there is approval by two-thirds of the members of the Rajya Sabha. After independence three new all India services were created—Engineering, Health and Forestry. The recruitment to all India services is by
competitive examinations organised by the Union Public Service Commission, the officers of which are later assigned to state cadres. Though serving in the states they remain under the payroll and disciplinary control of the central government and may come to New Delhi for short-term assignments under the central government.
The central government services numbering more than twenty, include the Indian Foreign Service, the Central Secretariat Service, the Indian Postal Service and the Indian Revenue Service, the personnel for these are recruited on the basis of a common competitive examination. Each service has its own grades, pay scales, promotional avenues and distinct
394
operational sphere and orientation. Personnel for the state services are recruited by the State Public Service Commissions. Structurally they do not differ much from the other two services, the only difference being that their personnel are subject to state control and are normally not transferred outside the state. Another structural characteristic of the Indian system of public administration is the rapid increase in the number of civil servants and its increasing structural diversification by the recruitment of more and more specialists and technocrats in the public service. Numerous reasons have been put forward for the rapid growth of the bureaucracy in India—the primary being that in a developing nation much needs to be done and there is usually no shortage of employable manpower. Hence to relieve the pressure of unemployment and meet increasing public demands for more government involvement the size of the bureaucracy goes on expanding. In India, the number of the central government employees stood at 1,445,050, on April 1, 1948; it had gone up to 1,773,870 on June 30, 1957; and in 1980, the number of central government employees stood approximately at 3.6 million. The state and municipal public services have also shown significant growth in the last three decades.
The change in the character of the government and its ever expanding functions has been accompanied by an increasing diversification in the composition of the public services everywhere leading to the recruitment of a growing number of specialists and technicians in government services. In India public services are increasingly employing more and more specialists like scientists, doctors, engineers, agronomists, economists, statisticians, educationists and jurists. According to the Third Central Pay Commission Report, 1973, the technical and professional services group of officials constituted 6.4 per cent of the total number of central government employees.
The Union Public Service Commission is responsible for all matters relating to the recruitment, appointment, transfers, promotion and disciplinary control of central government public service personnel.
Evolving Administrative System
The advent of independence and the resulting political and social changes constituted the second set of influences on the administrative system of the country. The adoption of a
395
democratic social welfare state brought with it the concept of welfare administration and public accountability which necessitated considerable changes in the structure and functioning of the colonial mode of administration. In the changed environment, bureaucracy was expected to be subservient to its political masters, act as the major instrument of social change and be accountable to the people and responsive to their needs and aspirations. India launched massive Five-Year Plans meant to eradicate poverty and backwardness through rational and comprehensive state efforts. The state became the major promoter of planned change. The government adopted as its goal a social welfare state and embarked on an ambitious programme of nation-building and rapid socio-economic development. The nature of governmental goals and tasks, therefore, underwent a qualitative change. These expanding frontiers and the new tasks of government required an efficient and capable government machinery to handle social, economic, political and technological problems in the context of development administration. The entire emphasis of bureaucratic functions shifted from regulatory to that of individual and community welfare. A suitable administrative structure was, therefore, required to plan and implement the various tasks undertaken by the government.
Unfortunately, however, despite the changed socio-economic and political milieu after independence, the influence of the earlier colonial system continues to dominate the Indian science. The structural characteristics of the Indian Civil Service during the British period, an open entry system based on recruitment by merit, permanancy of tenure, dominance of generalist administrators at all levels of the administrative hierarchy, a regular graded scale of pay with promotions based predominantly on seniority have all been retained with only minor modifications. Some of the new leaders, no doubt, expressed their grave misgivings over adoption of a post-independent bureaucratic structure with no major changes. They felt that development administration needed a new structural and behavioural orientation. This demand was, however, ultimately resisted by a stronger lobby within the political leadership who on the contrary being great admirers of the 'steel-frame' (the civil service structure) felt that the British pattern had
396
inherent virtues which were vitally needed for maintaining the country's unity and continuity in administration. Thus the arduous tasks of nation building and progress were entrusted to the newly created Indian Administrative Service (the IAS), successors to the ICS, but with no radical changes in the British administrative traditions.
The Socio-Economic Background
The IAS, constituted after independence on the model of the ICS, continues to have an elitist character by background and training of its members. This is evident from the many empirical studies on the socio-economic background of the Indian bureaucracy undertaken by various scholars—C.P. Bhambhri, V. Subramaniam, and R.K.Trivedi.5 These studies have revealed that the civil services in India are still manned by persons belonging to the urban educated professional middle class of India. Civil service as a career seems to attract the youth from educated class more than from any other social sector. A higher proportion of young recruits come from the English-medium convent schools and the more well known colleges. Consequently, the higher echelons of bureaucracy generally belong to the educated upper middle classes of the urban areas or higher castes of rural areas. Their parents come from the upper strata of society and are engaged in the professions such as law, engineering, medicine and teaching. This fact is quite often reflected in their attitude to life, career, and the public in general. C.P. Bhambhri has observed that in the Indian context there is a dissonance between the orientation and attitudes of the higher civil service and the national goals of planning, equality, secularism, social justice and democracy.6
Children from business backgrounds, lower income groups and rural farming or artisan classes are grossly unrepresented in these services. In recent years, however, the social base of the services in India has considerably widened for the following reasons:
a) steady expansion of educational facilities and increase in the number of scholarships and freeships for economically needy students;
b) reservation quota for scheduled castes and tribes; and
c) lowering of marks for the interview to these services.
397
Despite these reasons, the Indian bureaucracy remains as unrepresentative as ever, the higher civil services being drawn from only ten per cent of the community. The attitude of the bureaucrats reflects the bias and prejudice of their social class. Behaviourally the bureaucrats continue to remain conservative and resistant to change with an obsession for rules and regulations and routine administration. They lack initiative, dynamism, and a will to change their attitudes or orientation. In recent years, the reservation policy has enabled many members of the lower castes to get into the civil service. However, it has been observed that even among them, it is the relatively better off sections, who avail of the reservation policy, and after joining the bureaucracy soon become a part of the privileged classes like their other upper caste brethren. Hence, in the long run, they are behaviourally no different from the rest.
Some scholars have however maintained that it is difficult to say conclusively whether there is any direct correlation between the socio-economic status of the service and their orientation. The earlier theory that civil servants are sympathetic only to their class of origin has not been proved without doubt. Many empirical studies have proved that the socio-political attitudes of the bureaucracy in general are not very different from the rest of the society.
India Bureaucracy and Development Administration
Since independence India has attempted to follow a planned system of development with the public administration as one of the key instruments for spearheading the developmental efforts. India is perhaps the only Third World country to experiment in planned development through democratic means. The government sought to achieve growth with justice through a developmental model which, as Jagannadham opines, reflects the combined influence of the idealism of the freedom struggle, the democratic liberalism of the West and the socialism of the Soviet Union.7 Needless to say, the Indian model is both unique and difficult to achieve. In advanced Western countries economic development and growth were preceded by political and administrative development. They took years to reach the present level of prosperity and growth which we tried to achieve in the shortest possible time span through peaceful means which precludes the use of force or other totalitarian methods. In Third
398
World countries like ours, mere economic growth means nothing without relative equality. India's development plans were ambitious efforts meant to remove poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and disease. All public policies and governmental efforts were geared to the tasks of achieving developmental goals. Planned development was meant to bring about the most rational use of existing resources to create a developmental infrastructure in the industrial and agricultural spheres, urban and rural areas, and the benefits of development were sought to be as widely distributed as possible.
Commenting on the changing role of the administrator today, T.N. Chaturvedi, a senior civil servant comments thus:
It is an instrument for implementation of people's will and aspirations as expressed in the Constitution. It is the focal point of stability and order in the shifting sands of politics. At the same time, as an elitist class, it is an instrument of modernisation and social change. It is an instrument of planning and economic development. It may be expected to safeguard the rights of the underprivileged sections in society. It has to be all the time aware of the political milieu and the democratic context in which it has to operate. Therefore, the civil service has to undergo radical structural, procedural and attitudinal changes if it has to serve as an effective instrument of change and progress in a developing society. The civil service has to cultivate much wider social awareness and responsiveness as well as social base apart from the traditional virtues of integrity, functional efficiency and a sense of fair play and impartiality.8 The Indian bureaucracy suffers from numerous dysfunctional constraints. Firstly, as discussed earlier, our bureaucratic culture is still dominated by the colonial ethos which is greatly dysfunctional from the point of required value-patterns for development administration. The Indian bureaucracy is still authoritarian, unresponsive and paternalistic in its public dealings to a great extent. Secondly, it displays all the demerits of the Weberian model, by its recurrent tendencies towards delay, rigidity and obsession with rules and regulations, at the cost of performance. It lacks dynamism and initiative and is best suited for routine jobs. Development administration has to be result-oriented, dynamic and flexible in approach. Thirdly, the
399
socio-economic background of the majority of bureaucrats makes them conservative and rigid. They gradually become incapable either by interest or habit, of feeling the pulse of the people. They learn to put a high premium on conformity and propriety, and observance of precedents. In short, caution rather than change is their outlook on work. They hardly make any efforts at soliciting public cooperation and participation in administrative affairs, or establishing rapport with the citizens and community to understand their problems, demands and desires. Other dysfunctions which the bureaucracy is subject to, are impersonality, the tendency to stress organisational procedures rather than performance, lack of originality and initiative. A rigid hierarchical structure precludes team spirit and mutual trust. The power and privileges of the higher levels of the bureaucracy have only strengthened their class consciousness and elitist character.
A study undertaken by Ralph Braibanti and his associates9 clearly displayed that British values continued to set the tone of bureaucracy in India, and there has been no radical departure from the pre-independence norms which included obsequiousness towards superiors and an ostrich-like attitude to changing conditions.
In a study on the impact of cultural environment and the prevalent value systems in a society on bureaucratic behaviour Higginbotham10 has analysed the behavioural patterns of the Indian bureaucracy in a setting characterised by conflicting and changing cultural patterns. The Indian bureaucrats, many of whom were raised in traditional Hindu environment, as they carry out their duties in formal bureaucratic structures, are strongly reminiscent of the pre-independence British administration. They reveal ambivalence and contradiction in values which are the result of the twin processes of traditionalism and modernity.
The Indian bureaucracy also suffers from certain strange paradoxes like extreme impersonality combined with ready susceptibility to personal pressures and corruption. Administrative corruption may take many forms in India. It may be nepotism and favouritism in the process of selection, recruitment or promotions in public services and taking bribes and doing illegal favours in a variety of ways. One of the reasons for its widespread increase is red-tapism and delay in administrative functioning.
400
In a recent study of the Indian bureaucracy and its compatibility with development administration, Pai Panandikar and Kshirsagar observe that the bureaucratic structure and its orientation to a development role are not necessarily incompatible. However, bureaucratic behaviour generally adversely influences development orientation. The bureaucracy in India will not be able to accomplish the developmental programmes as long as it retains its present character, although such a bureaucracy could yet be utilised in certain specified sectors of structural transformation such as improvement of roads, irrigation and public sector enterprises.11
The failure of the Indian bureaucracy has been most prominent wherever nation-building programmes required a new value-orientation or a modified institutional framework.
Generally, the bureaucracy in India has resisted innovations in its structural arrangements and it has been firm in its faith in the superiority of the pyramidal structure of administration, in its resentment of the efforts to remodel the administration of nation building purposes, and its adherence to the numerous administratrative routines which practically immobilise developmental administration. The bureaucracy's lack of adequate understanding of the culture and value in India and lack of a balanced assessment of its past and future roles have been important factors in the failure of its effective utilisation in the programmes of planned socio-economic change.12
Future Trends
From the programme of poverty alleviation, removal of inequality, illiteracy, and ignorance, employment generation, family planning, management of scarce resources, meeting recurring challenges of floods and droughts, ecological imbalance and problems of pollution, to the rising aspirations and expectations of the masses, the technological challenges of mechanisation—the accumulating and overall impact of all these new phenomena on the broad spectrum of society— dysfunctional and deviant aspects, such as innumerable forms of crimes, deviance, terrorism and violence endangering the unity and integrity of the nation, nationalism on low ebb, the crisis of confidence, faith and values, and threats of internal violence and external pressures are the broad framework of administrative problems of the future.
401
It is unfortunately true that the administration has lost a great deal of its credibility. The most vital task is to restore it and this can be done by clearly defining the domains of politics and administration and playing the rules of the game. There is a crying need to strengthen the basic administrative frame, revive and strengthen people's institutions, decentralise the administrative systems in terms of authority, decision making and accountability, improve grievance removal machinery, enforce discipline and productivity norms, monitor projects and programmes strictly and provide positive incentives for boldness, honesty and achievements. Government has to display exemplary firmness and determination in dealing with matters of corruption, indiscipline, nepotism, and inordinate delays. Civil services at all levels will have to be motivated to perform and this will be possible through massive inputs of training and orientation and well thought out system of incentives and disincentives. Administration has also to be modernised in terms of technological innovations, equipment, techniques, faster communications, better information and monitoring systems and better work environment.
Improvements in system, organisations and institutions are not only desirable but essential. But there is the supervening need of political will and ability to fully back up and concretise the changes. Without the unflinching determination of political leadership transformation of administration to make it an able and effective instrument of public good will remain merely wishful thinking.
Notes and References
1. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963, p. 8.
2. The entire discussion is based on Ferrel Heady's book, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1979, pp. 198-212.
3. For a detailed discussion, see Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1979, pp. 198-212.
4. Wallace S. Sayre, "Bureaucracies: Some Contrasts in Systems", in Indian journal of Public Administration, 10, No. 2 (1964), p. 223.
5. For a summary of their view, see G.B. Sharma, "Social Composition of Indian Bureaucracy. Some Reflections on Its
402
Representatives", in Ramesh K. Arora (ed.), Indian Administrative System, New Delhi, 1978, pp. 200-223.
6. C.P. Bhambhri, "The Administrative Elite and Political Modernisation in India," in IJPA, 17 (1971), pp. 47-64.
7. V.Jagannadham, "Citizen-Administration Relationship in Development", in V.A. Pai Panandikar (ed.), Development Administration in India, Macmillan, Madras, 1974, p. 196.
8. T.N. Chaturvedi, "Foreword" in A.R. Tyagi (ed.), The Civil Service in a Developing Society, Delhi, 1960.
9. Ralph Braibanti and Joseph J. Spengler (eds.), Administration and Economic Development in India, Cambridge University Press, London, 1963.
10. Stanley, J. Higginbotham, Cultures in Conflict, The Tour Faces of Indian Bureaucracy, New York, 1975.
11. V.A. Pai Panandikar and S.S. Kshirsagar, Bureaucracy and Development Administration, New Delhi, 1978.
12. Dwivedi and Jain, India's Administrative State, 1985, p. 226.
403
15 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—II
Comparison between the Weberian Model and the Socialist Model of Organisation and Management
Evidently, one attribute of all bureaucratic organisations is the implementation of policies through an administrative staff. No discussion on the conception of a bureaucratic organisation can proceed without reference to the Weberian model of bureaucracy. Its basic structural prerequisites are:
i) defined rights and duties prescribed in written regulations;
ii) systematically ordered authority relationships;
iii) promotions regulated by merit and seniority;
iv) technical competence as a formal condition of employment;
v) fixed monetary salaries;
vi) strict separation of the office and the incumbent in the sense that the employee does not own the means of administration and cannot appropriate the position;
vii) administrative work as a full time career; and
viii) operations governed by a system of abstract rules and their consistent application to particular cases.
The socialist conception of organisation has been influenced by the Marxist theory of state as defined and adapted by socialist theorists on organisation. There are three basic elements in the Maxist perception of the state. First, the state is an organ of class domination. Second, it exists to create an order which legalises and perpetuates the oppression of the one class by moderating class conflicts. Thirdly, to state is a temporary phenomenon; it will wither away with the abolition of classes. In advocating the abolition of the state, however, the Marxist theory does not rule out the imperative of having an administrative machinery in a society. It contends that unlike the capitalist society, in a communist society agencies of administration will be organised on the principle of representation and their functioning will be conditioned by social division of labour. In this context the
404
function of administration primarily relates to the management of the level and the varied modes of production in the light of the social priorities at a given point of time. In other words, it ceases to remain merely an instrument of coercion and becomes responsible to society.
Evidently the Weberian and socialist conceptions of bureaucracy differ regarding its specific functions and role. Weber views bureaucratic organisation in a value neutral context; it stands for rationality and machine-like efficiency. In Marxist-Leninist conception it is an organ of political coercion in a class society. Weber underlines the continuity and permanence of bureaucracy and considers it an indispensable machinery for managing a complex industrial society. In the socialist viewpoint, the old bureaucratic model needs to be replaced by a new one based on the elective principle and accountability to the public. These differences apart, the socialist theory emphasises the continuance of administration (though on a social basis) even after the so-called withering away of the state. Theoretically, it denotes the management of multiple public tasks on specific functional basis without the impingement of the coercive political role of the state.
However, theory apart, bureaucratic organisations, whether in the West or in socialist countries perform some important common functions. Some of the common structural features of public bureaucracies are: hierarchical structure, use of rules and regulations, impersonality of operations, division of labour, complexity of administrative tasks, and employment of trained personnel either on a career or on a programme basis.
In analysing socialist and Western bureaucracies it has been further demonstrated by various scholars that formal attributes by themselves do not ensure the operational efficiency of a bureaucratic organisation. Despite the common view of the socialist bureaucratic systems as huge monolithic structures it has been noted by various experts that like their Western counterparts they too are seen to develop pluralism and informal interaction patterns.
Finally, like the big corporations or the governmental agencies in the USA or the UK, public organisations in socialist countries suffer from the weaknesses of what a scholar has called "bureaupathic" behaviour that creates bottlenecks in their
405
operations. This is due to the perennial problem of insecurity that results from imbalance between the hierarchical authority and specialised ability. These dysfunctional tendencies may be considerably reduced either by periodic structural adjustments for improved coordination or by the control imposed by certain external agencies to which the bureaucratic organisations remain accountable. In the West, governmental agencies are not only responsible to the legislative bodies but also are mutually counterpoised. In socialist countries, though the bureaucratic organisations are theoretically responsible to the communist party, they are also answerable to a host of other organs like the legal apparatus, the planning agencies and the political agencies.
Lenin's Contribution to the Socialist Theory of Organisation and Management
Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924) may be said to be the most important among thinkers who contributed to the socialist theory of organisation and management. Lenin's theoretical research is associated with his practical activity as leader of the Communist Party, organiser of the Great October Socialist Revolution and founder of the Soviet Socialist State. Lenin's thinking on the management of social production marked the emergence of the Marxist-Leninist science of management.
Lenin's works concerned with theoretical and practical approaches to management embrace a wide range of problems: the socialist theory of organisation, the fundamentals of the scientific organisation of labour, countrywide planning, the implementation of democratic centralism, the fight against bureaucratic distortions and so on. His ideas on socialist management are of considerable importance to the development of management thought.
Socialist Theory of Organisation: the Concept of Democratic Centralism
Lenin's major contribution lies in developing the theory of organisation and management under socialist conditions. Lenin's elaboration of the scientific principles underlying the theory should be regarded as a development of Marx's and Engels's teaching. Marx and Engels proved that society would not always develop spontaneously, that the destruction of the economic basis generating antagonistic relations would create objective
406
conditions for a transition to a planned organisation of social life. On the basis of these and other propositions advanced by the founders of Marxism, Leninism evolved a scientific basis for the science of management.
Lenin developed the basic principles of administration of socialist society—the principle of democratic centralism whereby systematic centralised control is combined with broad democracy and local initiatives by foremost bodies of workers; the principle of objectivity and concreteness, which require that the system of control should take into account the objective laws and their specific manifestations in concrete historical conditions; the principle of effectiveness and optimisation, under which maximum results must be obtained at a minimum expenditure of materials, labour and money; the principle of stimulation, which is to ensure the combination of the material and moral stimuli to work; the principle of the main bulk or singling out from a great number of tasks that which provides the key to the entire complex of administrative problems; the territory-and-branch principle of combining administrative, territorial and industrial branch approach; the principle of combining the official and social principles of administration. Lenin insisted on every administrative worker being judged (a) from the point of view of his conscientiousness, (b) from the political angle, (c) in the light of his knowledge of his job, and (d) by his administrative ability.
Lenin stressed more than once that neither age, nor past services, high rank or influential connections, were adequate criteria for promotion to administrative posts "loyalty to socialism", combined with "a sober and practical mind", adequate scientific and technical knowledge, talent for organisation, and ability to get a large number of people to work together were to be taken into account. He believed that only such people should be promoted to responsible posts as directors of the people's labour, or directors of administration. A manager of administration or industry must be not only "ideologically firm, politically mature and highly responsible", he must also be familiar with the science of management and be able to pursue his activities in keeping with its principles.
In theory, the Leninist model is a combination of democracy and centralism. Democracy is seen here as the power of the working people, election of governing bodies at all levels, and
407
above all, their accountability to various institutional units of the political system as well as to the main source of power, the people. On the other side, centralism is conceived as collective leadership exercised on the principles of subordination of the minority to the majority undivided authority, and above all, obedience and discipline. Democracy and centralism should be interlinked, indeed integrated in the political system. It means, in brief, expressing different views, ascertaining majority opinion, incorporating in it a decision, and conscientiously implementing that decision.
In the Leninist model the organisational structure as well as the process of decision making, at the level of either the state organ or the party apparatus, are guided by the principles of democratic centralism, dual subordination, and the production territorial criterion. The term democratic centralism denotes the permissibility of dissent or debate to the extent that it does not jeopardise organisational unity or unity of action already agreed upon. Besides, it also calls for absolutely binding character of the decisions of higher bodies on lower bodies. The principle of dual subordination makes each administrative unit responsible to the popular assembly which apparently created it, and vertically, to the corresponding organ at the next level in the hierarchical chain. The production-territorial principle assumes that within a particular geographical area, all enterprises engaged in a given line of production would be coordinated within one administrative hierarchy.
Generally, operative methods of the Leninist administrative apparatus are based on the concepts of "one-man-management" and "collegiate management". Theoretically, these two concepts stand for two different forms of organisation: board governed or individually managed agencies. If the principle of collegiate management seeks to ensure collective leadership in making of decisions regarding vital problems, "one man management principle" has been so conceived as to inhibit shirking of individual responsibility by entrusting a precise task to anyone in charge of an agency or a bureau.
The Chinese Administrative System—Features and Trends
Administration in socialists countries have to face all the problems of developing societies engaged in rapid economic development with inadequate resources. The insistent emphasis
408
on responsiveness of the official state administrative machinery to the party apparatus creates all sorts of problems. It leads to continuous conflicts between party units and the official government agencies held accountable for the administration of particular programmes. It also poses dilemmas of individual choice to the person who is both a public official and a disciplined party member, reducing his initiative and willingness to experiment because of fears about being caught between competing duties.6
Ever since the revolution in 1949, Communist China has gone through several stages in its political development, reflecting shifts in political objectives and power relationships. In the early years from 1949 to 1957, the emphasis was on social reconstruction following the long war years, and the launching of projects for rapid economic development with special stress on heavy industry. The Soviet model was consciously taken as a guide and the state bureaucracy was mainly relied on for implementation. During 1957 a complicated intra-party debate led to the movement known as the "Great Leap Forward" with what proved to be over-ambitious objectives for rapid progress on all fronts. The CCP took a more commanding role using the slogan "politics takes command", and the state apparatus was downgraded as over bureaucratised. Centralised economic planning was dropped in favour of a decentralised effort to stimulate agricultural production through rural communes without sacrificing industrial development. A breakdown in this campaign, resulting in a severe economic crisis from 1959 to 1961, ushered in a period of retrenchment which lasted through 1965.
Mao resumed the political offensive again in 1966 by launching the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution", aimed at rectifying what were charged to be deviations by the CCP from Maoist policies. The widespread internal turmoil which was spearheaded by Red Guard revolutionary groups loyal to Mao had two important political consequences. The CCP leadership was purged and its organisational effectiveness vastly reduced; the People's Liberation Army emerged as the primary power centre. From 1969 to Mao's death in 1976, an unstable equilibrium was maintained during which military influence was sharply curtailed, and "moderate" and "radical" factions fought for superiority within the CCP. Glorification of Mao increased as his
409
actual participation in governance declined. The official state structure, which like the party had suffered during the Cultural Revolution, regained authority and responsibilities. The long anticipated power showdown triggered by Mao's death late in 1976 brought about a victory for the more moderate and pragmatic elements in the CCP. Pragmatism as a basic approach has been reinforced since then and stress has been placed on efforts toward rapid progress in promoting a programme of "four modernisations": of industry, agriculture, science and technology, and the military.
The post-Maoist leaders, especially Deng Xiaoping, have viewed reform of the bureaucracy as necessary for realisation of the "four modernisations" and have taken steps toward greater bureaucratic rationalisation and professionalisation. Specific measures have included opening up access to advanced education at home and abroad; greater stress on technical qualification for initial recruitment; replacement of again bureaucrats by de-emphasising seniority in favour of expertise; structural streamlining which has sharply reduced the number of ministries and agencies in the state council and the size of their staffs; and renewed emphasis on direct public controls over lower level officials through the ballot, public opinion polls, and other devices. Bureaucratic personnel "are now expected to be revolutionary, well-educated, and professionally competent". However, the evidence available so far does not prove that fundamental, institutional and ideological changes have taken place in China. By combining Maoist and more technocratic principles the new leadership hopes to achieve stability, marked by efficiency and production. The overriding consideration has however remained the same, i.e., to make sure that the bureaucracy remains politicised.
Administrative Structure
The Chinese communist regime represents a revolutionary movement, operating in a tradition rooted but changing society, that has attempted not only to create a new policy but also to use political power to achieve rapid modernisation and to transform China's social structure and system of values. As such, it has evolved organisational structures and modes of operation that blend in a unique fashion elements from a variety of sources. "The theoretical Leninist model of 'democratic centralism', the
410
post-Leninist model of Soviet society, the Chinese Communists' own pre-1949 experience in conducting revolutionary struggle and administering 'liberated' areas, and not the least important China's centuries old traditions of authoritarianism elitism, ideological orthodoxy, and bureaucratic administration."7
Several important organisational hierarchies reach from the centre of national power to the local level in Communist China. However, the one with ultimate authority and undisputed importance is the Communist Party which monopolises the processes of policy making. Next in importance is the government bureaucracy, which in implementing party-defined policies carries the major load of administration. Knowledge of the way in which these parallel hierarchies function and interrelate is essential to any understanding of how the administrative system in Communist China operates.
Under the principles of "democratic centralism" on which the Chinese political system operates, the final decision-making authority is highly centralised in both the Communist Party and the government. In the party the Central Committee elected by the Party Congress is theoretically the ultimate repository of power between Congress sessions. In practice the Politburo and its Standing Committee together with the party secretariat run the party organisation and the party in turn directs all the other organisations in the country, including the bureaucracy.
In the government, the National People's Congress (NPC) or its Standing Committee, which functions in its name between annual sessions, is theoretically the "highest organ of state powers". Operationally, however, the State Council (Cabinet) and its "Inner Cabinet" (consisting of the premier and deputy premiers) are in charge of the government and are immediately responsible for directing all the ministries and other administrative agencies of the central government, as well as all local governments and administrative agencies.
The NPC is the highest government organ and has constitutional duties similar to those of many parliamentary bodies in other countries. It is empowered to amend the Constitution, decides on the national economic plan, and is empowered to make laws and supervise their enforcement. Upon recommendation of the Party's Central Committee, the NPC designates, and can remove, the Premier and other members of
411
the State Council, elect the State President and President of the Supreme People's Court and Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuratorate. It is elected for a five-year term and meets at least once a year.
When the NPC is not in session, its Standing Committee serves as the executive body to act on behalf of the Congress (the second session of the fifth NPC in June 1979 approved a constitutional change which required the establishment of standing committees for People's Congresses at and above the country level). While the Standing Committee is elected by the NPC, it is the Standing Committee which has the power to conduct elections of the deputies of the NPC and to convene the NPC sessions. Since the NPC meets once a year, the standing committee controls a great deal of this body's powers.
The State Council, the nation's highest executive organ, administers the government through functional ministries and commissions. The Constitution stipulates that the State Council comprise a premier, vice-
premiers and heads of national ministries and commissions. The State Council may also include others, such as vice-ministers. The membership of the State Council has ranged from thirty to over one hundred.
Since the full State Council is too large a body for effective decision making, in practice this role has been assumed by an Inner Cabinet of the premier and his vice-premiers.
Doak Barnett has described the State Council as the "command headquarters" for a network of bureaus and agencies staffed by cadres who administer and coordinate the government's programmes at the provincial and local levels.
The powers and functions of the State Council have been enumerated in Article 49 of the Chinese Constitution as follows:
1. Formulate administrative measures, issue decisions and orders, and verify their execution, in accordance with the Constitution, laws and decrees.
2. Submit Bills to the NPC or its Standing Committee.
3. Coordinate and lead the work of ministries and commissions.
4. Coordinate and lead the work of local administrative organs of state throughout the country.
5. Revise or annul in appropriate orders and directives issued by ministries or by heads of commissions.
412
6. Revise or annul inappropriate decisions and orders issued by local administrative organs of state.
7. Put into effect the national economic plans and provisions of the state budget.
8. Control foreign and domestic trade.
9. Direct cultural, educational and public health work.
10. Administer affairs concerning the nationalities.
11. Project the interest of the state, maintain public order, and safeguard the rights of citizens.
12. Direct the conduct of external affairs and defence.
13. Ratify the status and boundaries of autonomous regions, countries and municipalities.
14. Appoint or remove administrative personnel according to provisions of law.
15. Exercise any other power vested in it by the NPC or its Standing Committee.
Though the People's Republic of China is a unitary state, the country has been divided into administrative units which enjoy merely delegatory power from the central government. Constitutionally the whole country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly administered by the central government. Provinces and autonomous regions are subdivided into autonomous prefectures, counties, autonomous counties and cities. At the grassroots level, there are people's communes and towns which are the subdivisions of countries and autonomous countries. Municipalities directly under the central government, and other large cities are divided into districts and counties. There is also the division of autonomous perfectures into counties, autonomous counties and cities. All the "autonomous" units of administration are national autonomous areas. The term "autonomous" does not mean that they possess special powers which are denied to other units of administration. In fact, like other units of administration they are integral parts of the centralised administrative hierarchy. Doak Barnett says:
They (the autonomous areas) are different from other units mainly because within them concessions are made to local minority customs and languages and special efforts are made to absorb minority cadres into the local administration.
The various organs of local government are parallel to the organs of government at the national level. Thus the provinces,
413
municipalities, countries, cities, municipal districts, people's communes and towns, all have their people's congresses and revolutionary committees as deliberative and executive agencies of administration. These bodies are described in the Constitution as the repository of political power at the grassroots level and the leading organs of collective economy.
Administration in China is generally analysed primarily in terms of the major regional levels of authority in the party and/or government hierarchies, starting from the national level and working downward through the great administrative regions, provinces, special districts, counties and communes. However, the operation of the administrative system as a whole can also be usefully analysed in terms of functional "systems" each of which constitutes a distinct chain of command organised on a nationwide basis and reaching from the centre to the local level.8
Interlocking Structure of the Government and Party
The Chinese Communist Party controls and directs the machinery of the state through an interlocking system of party personnel and a structure parallel to that of the state government.
Party control and leadership of government organisations are exercised in a variety of ways. Firstly, the central committee's departments, and committees within the party's own hierarchy form a kind of "shadow government"; as already indicated, each department or committee is responsible for one of the broad functional fields or "general systems" into which most government work falls, and it provides continuous policy guidelines to all the government agencies within that field.
Secondly, party members monopolise the key leadership posts in government bodies at all levels, and they are directly subject to instructions from higher party officials as well as from government authorities. Party instructions always have primacy, since the party is universally recognised as the ultimate authority on policy. Large number of non-party cadres still work in the government, but the number occupying leadership posts, in ministries or any other major government agencies, has steadily declined.9
An example of interlocking personnel was Hua Guofeng, who was both chairman of the CCP and premier of the government. Besides, the Communist Party chairman automatically becomes the chairman of the party's Military
414
Affairs Commission, which supervises the armed forces and sets military or defence policies. The first vice-chairman of the party's Military Affairs Commission becomes, by tradition, the Minister of Defence. One of the party's vice-chairmen, Deng Xiaoping, was also the chief of staff of the armed forces. Of the thirty-six ministers in charge of the various governmental agencies elected by the fifth NPC in 1978, twenty-nine, or eighty-one per cent, were members of the Central Committee of the CCP. All major economic ministries, including economic planning, capital construction, research and development, foreign trade, and heavy and light industries were in the hands of ministers who were members of either the Politburo or the Central Committee. In fact, the parry's highest policy-making body, the Politburo, is functionally organised parallel to the government ministries, with members specialising in the various governmental activities. In each state bureaucracy there is a party cell of leading CCP members who provide direction to the state organ. The party has always been able to exercise its control in a state bureaucracy by supervising its personnel. Thus, the state structure and the party are not truly parallel entities since they interlock from top to bottom.
Another major element in the system of party control over government agencies consists of the party's basic committees and branches, which are established within all government organisations as within other institutions in society where there are sufficient party members to form party branches. Party control is reinforced also by the party directed mass organisations that exist within all government agencies, from the central government to the country level, for instance, the Young Communist League, the Labour Union, Women's Association. The party's control is further enhanced by its monopoly of posts in certain areas they control and "watchdog" units within government organisations. These include the personnel units, major staff officers and, supervision units—all of which operate with a relatively high degree of secrecy and wield great power.
Development of the Chinese Bureaucracy
The Cadre System
Government policies and programmes are generally carried out by the staff in the administrative agencies. In the non-Communist world, these people are called bureaucrats, the Chinese call them
415
"cadres" or "kanpu" which denotes leadership, skill and capability in an organisational set-up. Thus, we may refer to the state council members as the party and central government's leading cadres. The intermediary level of bureaucrats is the middle-level cadres; and those at the bottom level, who must deal directly with the masses, are the basic-level cadres. Every cadre is a party member, but every party member is not a cadre. In short, cadres are the functionaries of the various party and government bureaucracies and have authority to conduct party or government business.
On the basis of their employment, the cadres are divided into three broad categories: state, local, and military.10 Each group has its own salary classification system with ranks and grades, similar to civil service systems in non-communist countries. Urban state cadres have a system with twenty-four grades, while local cadres have twenty-six grades. Local cadres at the commune level or below are paid directly by the organisations they work for. This ranking system is also associated with status, privileges, and the degree of upward mobility in the career ladder. A cadre's rank, particularly at the state level, is determined not necessarily by length of service or seniority but frequently by educational background, expertise, or technical competence.
Trends in the Cadre System
The term "cadre" has a variety of meanings. In its broadest sense it includes both party members and non-party staff, who hold any official post in the bureaucratic set-up in China at any level. The term implies persons in authority but over the years it has been applied to an increasingly large number who may even be junior officials. As dedicated revolutionaries, the top leaders have fought a steady battle against "bureaucratism" in all its forms and have placed great stress on the need for promoting a "mass line style of work" that demands close contacts between the ruling elite and those ruled, and between different levels within the bureaucracy.
However, the sheer size of the bureaucracy required to rule China, the enormity of its tasks, and the Communists' totalitarian concepts of power, all reinforce the tendency towards a highly organised, stratified bureaucratic structure of authority, in fact, if not in theory. In short, the problems of
416
administering a huge totalitarian nation have been very different from the Party's earlier problems of organising a revolutionary movement, and it has simply not been possible to create an enormous ruling bureaucracy and still preserve the purity of revolutionary values and outlook.11
The Personnel Bureau of every ministry is a powerful organisation staffed entirely by party members, located adjacent to the party committee's office and having overlapping personnel with the committee, its influence derived not only from its responsibility for personnel management but also from the fact that it served as a key "watchdog" or control organ. Since the party itself retained ultimate control over personnel management including decisions on appointments, transfers, promotions, and disciplinary action, the bureau served in effect as a special extension of the party apparatus into the government bureaucracy.
Most cadre salaries are not specially high but a cadre's income is relatively good compared to that of an ordinary peasant or a worker. He enjoys a greater degree of financial security than the majority of the population. Moreover, cadre-status qualifies him for free medical care, low-rent housing, cheap food, better than ordinary accommodation while travelling and access to comparatively good schools for his children.
The Chinese explanation for frequent transfers of cadres is that it is necessary to combat "bureaucratism", "localism", "departmentalism" or excessive loyalty to one's organisational unit.
However, the new leaders in post-Mao China apparently are of the opinion that there need not be a contradiction between "reds" (ardent ideologues) and "experts" (skilled technocrats); they have proposed to educate a vast corps of cadres who can be both ideologically correct and professionally competent. Attempts have been made since 1977 not only to reduce the number of cadres and educated urban youth sent to the communes for physical labour but also to improve the living conditions of the government personnel. There are two main reasons why these remedial measures have been taken; firstly, the need for the nation which has embarked on a very ambitious modernisation programme, to utilise fully the technical skills of the educated, and secondly, to minimise the constant complaint
417
and resentment by the personnel, particularly the educated urban youth, about the poor living conditions in the countryside. The new leadership in the post-Mao China seems to have recognised that the work of the educated elite and their professional achievements must be acknowledged and given due recognition.
It remains to be seen how well they will deal with the challenge of increased routinisation and bureaucratisation to their ideals of revolutionary 'mass line' politics, the steady growth of functional specialisation and the growing 'red and expert' problem, the delicate problems involved in determining the correct balance between centralisation and the search for higher degree of administrative stability, the problem of managing bureaucratic politics within a system that idealises monolithic unity, and the question of what mixture of persuasion and coercion should be employed in dealing with the population.12
Comparison between the Chinese and the Western Administrative Models
There are some differences in the civil services of China and those of Western countries. First, in China there is no independent and impartial recruiting agency like the Civil Service Commissions of these countries. Whereas in other countries, government servants are non-partymen elected on the basis of merit and open competition, in China members of the Communist Party receive preference and they are not recruited in accordance with the well established principles of recruitment. The result is that most of the government employees and officials in China are committed communists.
Secondly, in China, there is supposed to be harmony between policy makers and administrators, both follow the same ideological and social base. Civil services are totally controlled by the Communist Party. Civil servants do not form any trade unions.
The Chinese model of administration based on the Maoist ideal of "mass line politics" differs significantly from the Western administrative systems based on the Weberian model of bureaucacy. Many of the structural and behavioural features of the Weberain model have been severely criticised by Mao and he sought to either replace them or substitute some of them with other criteria in his own model of mass-based participative
418
administration. The specific feature of the Chinese administrative model which distinguishes it from Western models of administration lies in its emphasis on the "politicisation" of administration, its stress
on the ultimate political goals administration, and in the scope of its operations which is much wider and all encompassing in nature than Western administrative systems.
The Chinese bureaucracy like its western counterparts is also based on a hierarchy of specialised offices to which people are appointed or promoted but the criterion for appointment or promotion is not essentially technical competence as stressed in the Weberian model. The Chinese scheme favours the politically motivated generalist more than the apolitical technical specialist. In practice, this means considering a bureaucrat's social class origins, party membership and level of commitment to communist ideals, besides his education and technical skills.
The Chinese model does not emphasise "specialisation" and "professionalism", for various reasons. It is felt that if too much importance is given to a limited number of technical experts it might discourage the spirit and initiative of the ordinary lower ranking members of the administrative network, that is, the "masses" upon whose efforts the Chinese model leans heavily for organisational success. The success of the higher ranking bureaucrats would be judged by their ability to mobilise to the fullest, the cooperation of the energy and initiative of their subordinates in the implementation of decisions. The ordinary workers and lower level cadres should be made to feel capable of making positive contributions to the decisions. The ordinary workers and lower level cadres should be made to feel capable of making positive contributions to the decisions that vitally affect their lives, and optimisitic about their abilities to compete for higher positions. The scope for upward mobility should be fully guaranteed in all bureaucratic organisations to increase the motivation and dedication to work of all cadres, including the lowest in the hierarchy.
Therefore, the functions of the Chinese administrators are not merely technical, both technical and political skills are required of them. As a result technical and political considerations are given importance in appointment as well as promotion of administrative personnel.
419
Secondly, the Chinese model rejects the Weberian emphasis on the autonomy of bureaucratic organisations and the notion of an "impersonal and natural" bureaucracy as an ideal for all societies. The entire bureaucracy in China operates within a political framework and qualities of political zeal and dedication to political objectives of a communist state are considered virtues which every bureaucrat should cultivate. An apolitical and purely technical attitude to work is considered sterile and unproductive in the Chinese model. The Chinese communists absolutely reject the need for organisational autonomy, and epithets like "departmentalism" and "localism" are used for bureaucratic organisations trying to assert such autonomy. What this really means is that all organisational decisions
are ultimately linked with the political goals of the state which extend beyond organisational boundaries. Political interference within and outside the organisational decisions do not have undesirable social consequences and that administrators do not make mistakes and are efficient in their allotted tasks.
The Chinese reject the rational-legal justification of authority and stress on more participatory leadership based on comradeship among all levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy. In the Chinese ideal of "mass line" politics, many procedures have been invented to reduce the effects of hierarchy in organisations. Most of the cadres have to spend a considerable part of their schedule doing manual work in rural areas alongside their subordinates. This is done to promote comradeship among various cadre levels and also to enable superiors to get an intimate knowledge about specific administrative problems in rural areas. Also, there are elaborate procedures for mobilising support for decisions made at higher levels A new policy is announced and explained by policy makers and then cadres at all levels are encouraged to give their suggestions and comments. The fullest participation of the employees at all levels is solicited, the aim being that subordinates, by taking an active part in decisions affecting them, will identify more with the organisation and contribute positively towards it. In Chinese organisations participation of subordinates is actively solicited through efforts to formalise and mobilise their informal social groupings. In every organisational unit there are work, study or discussion groups comprising eight to fifteen members, who elect officers,
420
arrange joint recreation, hold outside political study meetings, and engage in group or self-criticism. All these extra-curricular activities are aimed at political indoctrination of cadres at all levels and to increase their involvement in work.
Wage and status differences in hierarchical grades exist in the Chinese bureaucracy but much effort has been made to undermine these by increasing organisational cohesion and communications across hierarchical divisions. Though in the Chinese scheme, to ensure compliance to organisational goals, both coercion and a broad scheme of incentives (material and non-material) remain important, there is a constant endeavour on the part of the political authorities to get people to respond to what Etizioni calls 'normative and social power'. The organisational elements of the Chinese model (the mass line, politics takes precedence, group discussions) are supposed to make this possible. According to the Chinese, if these methods are applied in a proper manner, the bureaucracy at all levels should respond increasingly to social pressure and patriotic appeals, making coercion and material incentives gradually redundant to ensure compliance to organisational goals.
In China no aspect of an administrator's life is considered completely irrelevant to his organisational performance, unlike the Weberian model, where a strict distinction is made between the bureaucrat's personal and official life. Various recreational activities and political indoctrination sessions are organised to utilise the spare time of the cadres to increase their work motivation and dedication to socialist goals. Work timings and schedules in government, organisations and offices may also be changed from time to time to suit political objectives. These efforts tend to make Chinese bureaucracies more total in scope and pervasive in character than their Western counterparts. Chinese cadres engage in more activities inside and outside the organisation than bureaucrats do in the West. Finally, the Chinese do not believe in the concept of tenure posts or view bureaucracy as a career. Chinese bureaucrats may hold posts for long periods but they serve at the will of the state. Besides, bureaucrats are frequently transferred from one post to another, up or even down the ladder, to meet the changing demands of the developing economy. Manual labour in rural areas is considered an essential part of their training.
421
The Chinese also stress the fact that administration should strive to minimise their rules and procedures so that all members, specially the junior personnel, who have new ideas and innovations to improve work, will be able to freely carry them out. Periodically special political campaigns are launched in China to reform organisational methods and procedures and bring administration within easy reach of the masses. They reject the notion of unity of command prominent in classical organisational theory and in the Soviet principle of "one man management". The Chinese stress on collective leadership and flexible methods of consultation. Horizontally this means collective decision making by party committees in consultation with administrators, technicians and workers. Vertically this means referring to many kinds of decisions up and down the various levels of the administrative hierarchy, often for ideas, reactions and approval. This procedure obviously results in delayed decision making to a certain extent, and makes it difficult to specify responsibility at individual level, but the supporters of the Maoist ideal believe it would lead to increased cadre involvement in organisational goals and activities.
The above survey points to the specific features of the Chinese model of administration and how it differs in significant aspects (normatively and operationally) from the Western administrative concepts and practices. However, the Chinese administrative system has many features in common with the Western bureaucracies. The Chinese bureaurcacy is organised as a hierarchy of specialised offices in pursuit of specific goals. Its primary task is the implementation of state goals in the social and economic spheres. Authority percolates from the upper to the lower ranks of the bureaucracy, and those at the top generally have more seniority or experience, and receive more wages than their subordinates. Recruitment and promotion are based on universalistic achievement standards; rules and written communications are widely used in Chinese organisations, and offices are separate from office holders who can be replaced.
Martin King Whyte has attempted a very useful comparison between the Western bureaucratic model (based essentially on Weberian thought) and the Chinese model of administration based on the thoughts of Mao. He has explained the similarities and dissimilarities between the two models in the following manner:13
422
Western Conception of Administration
1. Criterion of technical competence in personnel allocation is stressed.
2. Organisational autonomy is promoted.
3. Legal-rational authority should form the base of organisational authority.
4. Informal social groups unavoidably occur in the formal structure of organisation.
5. Differentiated rewards to office and performance are encouraged.
6. Varied compliance strategies are needed, depending on the organisation.
7. Formalistic impersonality is a characteristic of modern organisations.
8. Another feature of large scale organisations is their unresponsiveness to emotions.
9. There is partial inclusion of limited contractual obligations of office holders.
10. Job security is encouraged in organisations.
11. Calculability of organisational results is through rules and established procedures.
12. There is unity of command and strict hierarchy of communications.
Chinese Conceptions
1. Use both political purity and technical competence.
2. Politics takes command, and opens to outside political demands.
3. Mass line participative charismatic authority is stressed.
4. Informal groups can and should be fully coopted.
5. Differentiated rewards to office and performance are de-emphasised.
6. Normative and social compliance should play the main role everywhere.
7. Comradeship not hierarchy among interpersonal cadre relations is stressed.
8. Political zeal is encouraged.
9. There is near total inclusion and theoretically unlimited obligations.
10. Job security and career orientation are discouraged.
423
11. Flexibility and rapid-change values, rules and procedures are looked on with suspicion.
12. There is collective leadership and flexible consultation.
Similarities between the Two Models
1. Organisations have specific goals.
2. Organisations utilise a hierarchy of specialised offices.
3. Authority and rewards are greater at the top of an organisation, though the Chinese try to de-emphasise this point.
4. There is universalistic hiring and promotion criteria though the critieria is different in both systems.
5. Files, rules and written communications regulate organisational life.
6. Offices are separated from office-holders.
Underlying the differences between the two models is a general disagreement over the ways organisations are viewed. In the rational bureaucratic type, the chief concern is with achieving internal efficiency through the maximum use of technical knowledge. In the Chinese conception the predominant emphasis is on finding ways to maximise the involvement and commitment of organisational participants, particularly the masses at the bottom of the organisation. While Weber focused most of his attention on the administration within bureaucracies rather than on the entire personnel, the Chinese focus most of their attention on how subordinates are tied into the organisation. The primary concern of the Chinese is with maximising (human) inputs rather than with getting the most return from limited inputs. Whyte has argued that there is some logic in this approach in China's case.
Given her relatively low level of economic development and abundance of unskilled labour, advocates of the Chinese model claim that its implementation will produce full employment and involvement in organisations among participants, thus producing more diligent, careful and creative work.
Thus much of the dysfunctional aspects of Weberian ideal type of rational buraucreacy are seen as avoidable if the Chinese ideal is followed. In other words, the major emphasis of the Chinese model is that only greater involvement can produce greater actual efficiency.
The Maoist critique of Bureaucracy is broad but not total, and organisations with multiple levels of specialised offices
424
continue to exist in China. Individual organisations are controlled and coordinated by national state administrative, army and party hierarchies. If we take size, hierarchy and division of labour as our criteria, rather than other traits on our list, we can say that the Maoists are not rejecting bureaucracy but are trying to make it more responsive and efficient.14
Current Administrative Reforms in China
The current administrative reform in China started in 1979. It represents a major effort on the part of the Chinese Communist Party and government and is an element in the comprehensive political, economic and social reforms introduced in post-Mao China.
The goal of administrative reform is to update public administration and to improve administrative efficiency so that public administration will keep pace with economic modernisation.
The administrative reform consists of three major parts: differentiation of party and government functions with more power and greater responsibility to governmental agencies; decentralisation of decision-making power; and structural functional rationalisation of governmental bureaucracies.15
In post-1978 China, the national goal and the priority of programmes have shifted from continuous revolution to economic development. This shift requires the public administration to change its role as
organiser and mobiliser of the revolution to administrator and manager of development, especially economic growth. Similarly, administrative functions and structure must adapt to play the new role.
Since 1980, reformers have made efforts to differentiate the power and functions of the government and party bureaucracies. The current reform has brought about three main changes:
1. Separation of government bureaucracies from party bureaucracies at the grassroots level in the rural areas: At the central, provincial and county levels, government bureaucracies exist parallel with party bureaucracies. Yet at the grassroots level in the rural areas they had been combined with the people's communes ever since the late 1950's. Then the village and township governments were dissolved. The people's communes merged with the government and party bureaucracies as well as
425
with the economic cooperatives. It became the single infrastructural institution in the rural areas. The Fifth People's Congress decided in 1982 to re-establish the village and township governments. In October 1983, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council issued a joint order that village and township governments be re-established throughout the country, and the infrastructural party and government bureaucracies and cooperatives be separated as independent institutions. Towards the end of 1984, most of the villages and townships in the country had set up their governments. Statistics of that time revealed that government bureaucracies, party bureaucracies and cooperatives were separated in 80.3 per cent of all the people's communes.
2. Reduction of concurrent offices held by party leaders in governments: Before the reform, party secretaries, specially the first secretaries, usually concurrently held high offices in governments at the same level. For instance, the party secretary of the provincial committee was at the same time the governor or his deputy in the province. The secretary of the commune's party committee was concurrently the chief executive at the grassroots level. The reform has reduced the concurrent offices held by party leaders in governments. The premier is no longer at the same time one of the secretaries of the central party committee. None of the governors is concurrently the first secretary of the provincial party committee.
3. Clearly defined and differentiated power and functions between the government and party bureaucracies: The reform reasserted that government bureaucracies at all levels are the executive agencies of the People's Congress at each respective level. They exercise government power and
administer public affairs within their jurisdiction. Functionally, they carry out the decisions made by the People's Congress, implement the policies and laws of the state, make sure that state plans are fulfilled, and formulate and execute welfare programmes in education, health, public security, civil mediation and administration.
The reform has completed separation of government bureaucracies from party bureaucracies at all levels and differentiated their power and functions. While the absolute supremacy of the Chinese Communist Party in formulating policies remains unchanged, more latitude and greater
426
responsibility for policy implementation have gone to the government bureaucracies. The reform has reduced the party's involvement in public administration. Reforming efforts centre on reducing direct management by the central government and transferring decision-making power and responsibilities to institutions at lower levels. Provincial, county and village governments have acquired more decision-making power in local economic planning, resource management and foreign trade. They have also increased their authority to supervise and coordinate production and marketing within their jurisdiction. Now local governments are able to diversify their production and exploit regional advantages for rapid growth. But the main thrust of decentralisation is to increase the power of the enterprises and to reduce government intervention in economic management at the central level, as well as at the provincial, the county and the grassroots levels. The administrative reform aims at distributing macro decision making power to the local governments and micro decision making power to the enterprises. The enterprises have increased their power now. The following functional responsibilities are transferred to them: independently using capital; adopting new technology; drawing up and executing their own yearly and long-term plans; buying their supplies and marketing their secondary products whose prices are not controlled by the government; managing their production, owning the net profits made— namely the profits left after paying taxes and interest—and being accountable for losses in production; selecting, recruiting and dismissing employees, or electing their lower managers. The current administrative reform includes structural leorganisation of the bureaucracies and improvement of personnel management. It has been applied at all levels of central and local bureaucracies.
1. Structural reorganisation
Under the principles of organisational simplicity and streamlining of the bureaucracy, the structural reorganisation involved merging agencies with similar or overlapping functions, abolishing those duplicate ones and eliminating excessive sector commissions. The reform has also strengthened line control and coordination at the central level by placing responsibility for achieving and maintaining a
balanced economy in the hands of the Economic Commission of the State Council rather than in those of the functional ministries.
427
2. Improvement in Personnel Management
The reformers believe that when the strategy has been decided, the cadres determine everything. Therefore, the priority of the current administrative reform is to improve personnel management. The aim is to recruit civil servants with a broad educational background and competence, who are younger than their predecessors and have greater political integrity. The reform of government personnel management has abolished de facto lifetime tenure for civil servants by enforcing etirement ages—65 for minister, 60 for senior executives and other male civil servants, 55 for female civil servants. The second thrust is to reduce redundancy and to institutionalise the rotational in-service training and development of civil servants. The reform had trimmed the state council staff from approximately 51,000 to 39,000: a quarter of the posts were relinquished. The number of all provincial staff has shrunk from 180,000 to 120,000 people.
In addition to these changes in personnel management, reformers have tried to improve recruitment, rewards, evaluation of performance, and procedures for resignation and dismissal. They have already introduced elections and contracts for some recruits, position allowances and greater mobility.
Prior to the current administrative reforms, the bureaucratic Chinese public administration was in a crisis. Over-centralisation and a lack of differentiation of power and functions were its characteristics. On the one hand, party organisations took the place of government bureaucracies, exercised their power and performed their functions. On the other hand, the government bureaucracies involved themselves in the direct management and control of the production, supply and marketing of the economy. Bureaucratic unresponsiveness and inefficiency could no longer be tolerated in the present drive for economic development and modernisation. The current administrative reform from above is the main mechanism to improve administration and encourage development.
428
The administrative reform means, in its essence, redistribution of power and structural reorganisation at this new state of development in China. The redistribution of administrative power is a mixture of centralisation and decentralisation. The current reform, though expanding the decision-making power of the lower echelons and localities,
emphasises the decentralisation of decision-making power to enterprises and cooperative economic units.
In the structural reorganisation of governmental agencies, the emphasis has been on rationalising the bureaucracies by developing formal organisation and reducing informal organisation. With the stress on 'rule by law' instead of 'rule by will', reformers have made great efforts to work out laws and regulations which have confirmed the differentiation of powers and functions.
Notes and References
1. Shivaji Ganguly, "A Comparative Paradigm of Western and Soviet Bureaucracies", in Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XXIII, 1977, pp. 10-113.
2. John N. Hazard, The Soviet System of Government, University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 219-257.
3. For a detailed discussion of their principles, see V.G. Afana Syev, The Scientific Management of Society, Progress, Moscow, Chapter 7.
4. ibid.
5. David Granick, The Red Executive: A Study of the Organisation Man in Russian Industry, London, Macmillan, 1960.
6. For a detailed discussion, see Ferrel Heady, op. cit., pp. 373-77.
7. Doak Barnett, Cadres, Bureaucracy and Political Power in Communist China, Columbia, 1967, p. 427.
8. ibid., pp. 3-10.
9. ibid., pp. 18-20.
10. James C.F. Wang, Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Introduction, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1980, pp. 118-123.
11. Doak Barnett, Cadres, Bureaucracy and Political Power in Communist China, p. 440.
12. ibid., p. 445.
13. Martin King Whyte, "Bureaucracy and Modernisation in China, The Maoist Critique", American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, April 1973, pp. 149-163.
14. ibid., p. 163.
15. This discussion is based on Yen Chunmer's article, "Current Administrative Reform in China", in International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 52, 1986, pp. 123-144.
429
16 PUBLIC POLICY
Significance
Policy can be broadly defined as a proposed course of action of an individual, a group, an institution or government, to realise a specific objective or purpose, within a given environment. Policy formulation is necessary prior to every action in every form of organisation, private or public. It is a prerequisite for all management. It is the policy which lays down the framework within which the organisational goals are set to be accomplished. The objectives of an organisation which are often vague and general are concretised in the policy goals, which set the administrative wheels in motion. Policy formulation is one of the vital tasks of any government. In the words of Appleby, "The essence of public administration is policy-making." Marshall Dimock defines it as "the consciously acknowledged rules, of conduct that guide administrative decisions."
Public policies are those which are developed by governmental bodies and officials, though non-governmental actors and agencies may also exert direct or indirect pressure or influence in the policy-making process. The special characteristics of public policies as differentiated from other policies emanate from the fact that they are formulated by what David Easton has termed the "authorities" in a political system, namely, "elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors, monarchs, and the like."
There are certain implications of the concept of public policy. First, purposive or result oriented action rather than random behaviour is the hallmark of public policy. Public policies in modern political systems are not chance happenings. Second, public policy refers to the action or decisional pattern by public administrators on a particular issue over a period rather than their separate discrete decisions on that matter in an ad hoc fashion. Third, policy is what governments actually do and what subsequently happens, rather than what they intend to do or say they are going to do. Fourth, public policy may be either positive or negative in form. Positively, it may involve some form of
430
government action regarding any issue or problem; negatively, it may involve a decision by government officials not to take action on a matter on which governmental opinion, attitude or action is asked for. Lastly, public policy, at least in its positive form, is based on law and is authoritative. It has a legal sanction behind it which is potentially coercive in nature and is binding on all citizens. This is the main point of difference between public policy and policies of private organisations.
Why Study Public Policy?
Most Third World countries are struggling hard to develop their economies, to sustain improvements in their social systems and to increase the capacity of their political systems with a view to achieving the major objective of national development. The study of public policy represents a powerful approach to this end. Public policy is an important mechanism for moving a social system from the past to the future.
Public policy is conditioned by the past. To find out how the present dimensions of public policy in the developing countries emerged, how they currently appear and how the present sustains them are important questions in the study of public policy.
The earliest writings of political scientists reveal an interest in the policies pursued by various governments and their impact on society. Yet the focus of attention has never really been on the policies themselves but rather on the political processes and institutions of government. The studies did not explore the linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy. Currently, the focus of political science is shifting to public policy, to the description, analysis and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity.
The reasons for studying public policy or engaging in policy analysis may be both academic and political. A study of the policy formulation processes may help to gain greater knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the interacting social, economic and political processes and their implications for society. Policy may be viewed either as a dependent or an independent variable, the attention is placed on the political and environmental factors that help determine the content of policy. For example, how do the distribution of power among pressure
431
groups and governmental agencies affect the policy outcome, or how do urbanisation and national income help shape the content of policy? If public policy is viewed as an independent variable, the focus shifts to the impact of policy on the political system and the environment. Then the questions arise as to what effect policy has on social welfare. How does it influence future policy choices or mobilise support for the political system?
Secondly, factual knowledge about the policy-making process and its outcome are a preprequisite for prescribing on and dealing with societal problems normatively. Many political scientists believe that the study of public policy should be directed towards ensuring that governments adopt appropriate policies to attain certain desirable social goals. They reject the notion that policy analysts should strive to be value free contending that political science should not and cannot remain politically neutral or silent on vital contemporary social, economic or political problems. They want to improve the quality of public policy in ways they deem desirable, notwithstanding the fact that substantial disagreement may exist in society over what constitutes "desirable" or the "appropriate" goals of policy.
Factors Determining Policy Formulation
Four different levels in policy making may be distinguished:
(1) political or general policy framed by the legislature;
(2) executive policy framed by the government; (3) administrative policy that is, the form in which the administrator carries out the will of the government; and (4)(technical policy, that is, the day-to-day, policy adopted by officials in the working out oi the administrative policy.
Policy formulation in practice often overlaps with the policy decision stage of the policy-making process. Formulation aims at getting a preferred policy alternative approved; an affirmative decision is the reward of the whole process.
A policy decision involves action by some official person or body to approve, modify or reject a preferred policy alternative. If positive, it takes such forms as the enactment of legislation or the issuance of an executive order. What is typically involved at the policy-decision stage is not selection from among a number of full blown policy alternatives but rather, action on what is chosen to call a preferred policy alternative—one for which the proponents of action think they can win approval, even though it
432
may not provide all that they might want. As the formulation process moves towards the decision state, some proposals will be rejected, others accepted, still others modified, differences will be narrowed, bargain will be struck, until eventually in most cases, the policy enactment will only be a formality.
Policy making cannot be adequately understood apart from the environment in which it takes place. Demands for policy actions are generated in the environment and transmitted to the political system; at the same time, the environment places limits and constraints upon what can be done by policy makers. Included in the environment are such geographical characteristics as natural resources, climate and topography; demographical variables like population size, age and sex ratio distribution and spatial location; political culture; social structure; and the economic system. Other nations become a significant part of the environment for foreign and defence policy. The discussion here will focus on two of these environmental factors to which political scientists have given much importance to, namely, political culture and socio-economic variables.2 Policy formulation in every country is, in the words of Seckier Hudson, "arrived at, then, in all sorts of ways, conditioned by all sorts of matters."3
Political Culture
Culture has been defined as the entire pattern of social life, the inherited modes of living and conduct that the individual acquires from his community or environment., Most social scientists agree that culture is one of the many factors that shapes or influences social action. What is relevant here is that part of culture which is called political culture, that is, widely held values, beliefs, and attitudes concerning governmental policies and actions and some of the implications and significance of this culture for policy formation.
Differences in public policy and policy making in various countries can be explained, at least partly, in terms of political cultural variations. Social welfare programmes are older and more widely covered in West European countries than in the United States because there has been greater public demand and approval of such programmes in those countries. Again, government ownership in business and industry is more prevalent in Britain than in the USA where public opinion is more
433
in its favour. Karl Deutsch suggests that the time orientation of people—their view of the relative importance of the past, the present, and the future - has implications for policy formation. A political culture oriented more to the past than to the future may sanctify age-old traditions, customs and social moves in India more than perhaps in the United States, a country whose culture may be more future oriented, adaptable and innovative.
Almond and Verba have differentiated between parochial, subject and participant political cultures. In a parochial political culture, citizens have little awareness of or orientation towards, either the political system as a whole, or the citizen as a political participant. It is suggested that some tribal societies and modern day Italy are illustrative of parochial political cultures. In a subject political culture as that of many developing countries like India, the citizen is oriented towards the political system, yet he has little awareness of himself as a participant. He is aware of governmental authority, he may have political views, but he is essentially passive. In the participant political culture, which Almond and Verba found in the United States, citizens have a high level of political awareness and information and have explicit orientations towards the political system as a whole, and a notion of meaningful citizen participation in politics. Included in this orientation is an understanding of how individuals and groups can influence decision making. The implications of these differences in political culture for policy formation seem readily apparent.
Citizen participation in the policy formation in a parochial political culture is going to be essentially non-existent, and government will be of little concern to most citizens. The individual in a subject political culture may believe that he can do little to influence public policy which may lead to his passive
acceptance of governmental action that may be rather authoritarian in style. In these cultures chances of popular unrest culminating in violence are very high. In the participant political culture, individuals may organise into groups and otherwise seek to influence government action to rectify their grievances. Government and public policy is viewed as controllable by citizens. Also, one can assume that more demands will be made on government in a participant political culture than in the other two types.
434
Returning to an earlier point, political culture helps shape political behaviour, it is related to the why and how of recurrent modes of behaviour in a society. A study of political culture is important because values, beliefs, and attitudes inform, guide and constrain the actions of both decision makers and citizens.
Socio-economic Conditions and Natural Resources
The term socio-economic conditions is used here in the widest sense (geographical characteristics and demographic variables being inclusive in 'economic resources') because it is often impossible to separate social and economic factors as they impinge on or influence political activity.
Public policies can be seen as emanating from conflicts between different groups (private and public) often with opposing interests and attitudes. One of the major sources of conflict in modern societies is economic activity. There are clashes of interest between big and small business, employers and employees, wholesalers and retailers, consumers and sellers, farmers and landlords, workers and industrialists and so on. Groups that are underprivileged, dissatisfied or threatened adversely by economic change very often seek governmental intervention or assistance to improve their lot or status. Thus it was that in many capitalist countries, organised labour, dissatisfied with the wages resulting from union bargaining with employers have often sought minimum wage legislation from the government. Rapid industrialisation disrupts the equilibrium of many groups in society. Feudal landed class lose their importance; new classes emerge like the middle class, big business class and the industrial workers who want a voice in governmental decisions.
It is a well recognised fact that a society's level of economic development will impose limits on what the government can do in providing public goods and services to the community. The scarcity of economic resources will, of course, be more limiting in many of the developing countries than in the affluent ones.
The ways in which socio-economic conditions influence or constrain public policies have been subjected to considerable analysis. Economic development shapes both political processes and policy outcomes. Differences in the policy choices of states with different political systems turn out to be largely a product of differing socio-economic levels rather than a direct product of
435
political variables. Levels of urbanisation, industrialisation, income and education appear to be more influential in shaping policy outcomes than purely political variables like voter participation, inter-party rivalry, political party strength and legislative apportionment.
Conceptual Approaches to Policy Making
Confronted with the obvious concern of public administration with public policy making the textbooks revised their definitions to reflect the public-policy orientation.
Public administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy.4
Public administration may be defined as the coordination of individual and group efforts to carry out public policy.5
As a study, public administration examines every aspect of government's efforts to discharge the laws and to give effect to public policy.6
Systems Model for Policy Analysis
David Easton in his Analysis of Political Systems argues that the political system is that part of the society which is engaged in the "authoritative allocation of values".
Inputs are seen as the physical, social, economic and political products of the environment. They are received into the political system in the form of both demands and supports.
Demands are the claims made on the political system by individuals and groups to alter some aspect of the environment. Demands occur when individuals or groups, in response to environmental conditions, act to effect public policy.
The environment is any condition or event defined as external to the boundaries of the political system. The supports of a political system consist of the rules, laws and customs which provide a basis for the existence of a political community and the authorities. It is rendered when individuals or groups accept the decisions or laws.
At the heart of the political system are the institutions and personnel for policy making. These include the chief executive, legislators, judges and bureaucrats. In the systems version they translate inputs into outputs.
Outputs, then, are the authoritative value allocations of the political system, and these allocations constitute public policy or
436
policies. The systems theory portrays public policy as an output of the political system.
The concept of feedback indicates that public policies may have a modifying effect on the environment and the demands generated therein, and may also have an effect upon the character of the political system. Policy outputs may generate new demands and new supports, or withdrawal of the old supports for the system. Feedback plays an important role in generating suitable demands for future policy.
Limits of Systems Approach to Policy
The systems theory is useful in understanding the policy making process and its value to policy analysis lies in the questions that it asks:
1. What are the important dimensions of the environment that generate demands upon the political system?
2 What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to transform demands into public policy and to preserve itself over time?
3. How do environmental inputs affect the character of the political system?
4. How do the characteristics of the political system affect the content of public policy?
5. How do environmental inputs affect the content of public policy?
6. How does public policy affect, through feedback, the environment and the character of the political system?
The usefulness of the systems model for the study of public policy is, however, limited due to several factors.
This model is criticised for employing the value-laden techniques of welfare economics which are based on the maximisation of a clearly defined "social welfare function".
The missing ingredients in the systems approach are the "power, personnel, and institutions" of policy making. In examining these we should not forget that political decision makers are strongly constrained by economic factors in the environment of the political system.
This Eastonian model also ignores an important element of the policy process, namely, that the policy makers (including institutions) have also a considerable potential in influencing the environment within which they operate. The traditional input-
437
output model would see the decision-making system as "facilitative" and value-free rather than "causative", i.e., as a completely neutral structure. In other words, structure variations in the systems are found to have no direct causal effect on public policy.
Finally, the extent to which the environment, both internal and external, is said to have an influence on the policy-making process is determined by the values and ideologies held by the decision makers in the system. It suggests that policy making involves not only the policy content but also the policy maker's perceptions and values. The values held by the policy makers are fundamentally assumed to be crucial in understanding the policy alternatives that are made.
Institutional Approach to Policy Analysis
In a pluralist society, the activities of individuals and groups are generally directed towards government institutions such as the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, political parties, etc. Public policy is formulated, implemented and enforced by governmental institutions. In other words, a policy does not take the shape of public policy unless it is adopted and implemented by governmental institutions.
Government institutions give public policy three different characteristics.
Firstly, the government gives legal authority to policies. Public policy is the outcome of the legislature and is characterised by the use of legal sanctions. It is regarded as a legal obligation which commands the obedience of the people.
Secondly, the application of public policy is universal since it extends to all citizens in the state.
Thirdly, only the state can legally impose sanctions on violators of its policies.
As such, there is a close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. It is not surprising, then, that political scientists would focus on the study of governmental structures and institutions.
Institutionalism, with its focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions, can be applied in policy analysis. The structures and institutions and their arrangements and interactions can have a significant impact on public policy.
Traditionally, the focus of study was the description of governmental structures and institutions. The study of linkage
438
between government structures and policy outcomes remained largely unanalysed and neglected.
The value of the institutional approach to policy analysis lies in asking what relationships exist between institutional arrangements and the content of public policy, and also in investigating these relationships in a comparative manner. It would not be correct to assume that a particular change in institutional structure would bring about changes in public policy. Without investigating the actual relationship between structure and policy, it is difficult to assess the impact of institutional arrangements on public policies.
Rational Policy Making Model
In the rational-comprehensive model an administrator confronts a given objective, such as reducing poverty by a list of values (in the form of priorities) according to their relative importance. The policy maker in choosing the best policy to pursue, rationally ranks all the relevant 'values' or 'advantages' in attaining this objective, such as improving the health of the poor, reducing crime and eliminating illiteracy. Than he formulates several possible alternatives to achieve the stated objective, for instance, a guaranteed income plan, direct government subsidies, higher welfare payments, or unemployment relief programmes and maximise the ranked list of 'values'. This approach to decision making is rational, because the alternatives and values are logically selected and weighed in relative importance, and also 'comprehensive', for all the alternatives and values are taken into account by the policy maker.
However, the variety of factors both within policy making agencies and from their environment along with the changes that continually occur in these factors, complicate the policy maker's task, making rational decision making difficult.
If a policy maker were to follow the standards of the rational decision-making model he would list and assess all goals that appear relevant to the agency's problems and would then take such steps for each of the policies that appeared capable of achieving each of the potential goals. On the basis of all relevant information about the probable advantages and disadvantages associated with each package of goals and policies, the policy framer would then select the one best goal-and-policy combination to realise the agency's programme objectives.
439
The rational model of policy making expects officials to take every issue into consideration and make clear decisions that can then guide the actions of subordinates. This would result in integrated policies that complement rather than conflict with one another. However, administrators who would accept the prescriptions of the rational model find their way blocked by a number of constraints typical in democratic societies. They reflect the heterogeneity and conflict that are considered by many writers components of the democratic process.
The five major features of public administrative systems that block the fulfilment of rational decision making by personnel in administrative units include: (1) the multitude of problems, goals and policy commitments that are imposed on or kept from decision makers by actors in the environment of an administrative unit; (2) barriers to collecting adequate information about the variety of 'acceptable' goals and policies; (3) the personal needs, commitments, inhibitions, and inadequacies of decision makers which interfere in their assessment of goals and policies that are acceptable from their agency's point of view; (4) structural difficulties within administrative units and involving their relations with legislative and executive branches of government; and (5) the deviant behaviour of individual administrators.7 In the face of these problems policy makers tend to seek decisions that will be satisfactory rather than optimal. They avoid as many difficult choices as possible.
The rational method has also been criticised as impractical according to critics. It is impossible to collect all the information and make the complete list of policy options that such a process involves; furthermore, the process is very time consuming, and policy makers must act without delay. Besides, the assumption that values can be ranked and classified is also erroneous. Legislators, administrators, and the public frequently disagree about the values a nation should pursue and policy makers do not select values in an abstract manner. Furthermore, according to this method, everything must be considered before new policies are decided. This entails risks because the consequences of adopting new policies are unknown.
What actually occurs in administrative decisions, argues Charles Lindblom, is quite another process, namely, 'the
440
successive limited comparisons' or 'branch' technique. An objective is established, for example, of reducing poverty by a fixed allocation of funds; but in policy making this objective is very often compromised. It may soon be mixed up with other goals such as educating minority students or providing unemployment relief for the jobless. Administrators first take up on a priority basis programmes of immediate relevance. In selecting appropriate policies, they do not outline a wide range of possibilities, but only a few 'incremental' steps which appear to them to be feasible on the basis of their experience. Lindblom states that policy makers do not rationally select the most 'optimal' programme, as a matter of fact, under the 'successive limited comparisons' method public administrators pragmatically select from among the immediate choice at hand the 'most suitable' compromise that may satisfy the groups and individuals concerned with the programme.
There are two advantages of incrementalism according to Lindblom. First, if the decision maker proceeds through a succession of small incremental changes, he has the advantage of avoiding serious alterations, should mistakes be made. Second, this method is truly reflective of the policy-making process in democratic states which operate chiefly by means of consensus and gradualism and rarely by sweeping changes in public policies. However, Lindblom admits that from the perspective of the 'academic theorist' this approach may seem 'unscientific' and 'unsystematic'. He also acknowledges that incrementalism can result in important policy alternatives being overlooked. Yet, he believes that in democratic societies, individuals are free to combine to pursue almost any possible common interest they may have, so the values neglected by one set of policy makers are likely to be considered by others.
Though it is widely accepted that incrementalism describes the reality of the policy-making process, it is also true that problems facing government are often so critical that incremental changes are not sufficient and innovation is required. Amitai Etzioni's mixed scanning addresses itself to this problem, for it combines incrementalism and rationalism.
He agrees with Lindblom's attack on the rational approach but also believes that incrementalism is not without flaws either. He feels that incrementalism discourages social innovation and is
441
partisan in approach; which in reality means that the interests of the most powerful and organised get the maximum attention from policy makers. Besides, incrementalism cannot apply to fundamental decisions such as a declaration of war. Hence Etzioni suggests a mixed scanning approach, combining elements of the rational method with the incremental.
He explains his mixed scanning approach by a simple illustration:
Assume we are about to set up a worldwide weather observation system using weather satellites. The rationalistic approach would seek an exhaustive survey of weather conditions by using cameras capable of detailed observations and by scheduling reviews of the entire sky as often as possible. This would yield an avalanche of details, costly to analyse and likely to overwhelm our action capacities. Incrementalism would focus on those areas in which similar patterns developed in the recent past and, perhaps, on a few nearby regions; it would thus ignore all formations which might deserve attention if they arose in unexpected areas. A mixed scanning strategy would include elements of both approaches by employing two cameras: a broad-angle camera that would cover all parts of the sky but not in great detail, and a second one which would zero in on those areas revealed by the first camera to require a more in-depth examination. While mixed scanning might miss areas in which only a detailed camera could reveal trouble, it is less likely than incrementalism to miss obvious trouble spots in unfamiliar areas.8
Application of Etzioni's model to social problems would lead to a broad social survey in which general information is gathered, such as indices of employment levels. If this revealed trouble spots, the focus should be shifted to an indepth analysis of troubled sectors of the economy. In this way, comprehensive action with respect to the areas studied in detail would be possible encouraging innovation while at the same time recognising the impracticability of "comprehensive reviews of all community sectors and the stability and predictability of incrementalism would be preserved."'
Simon's Models
One of the first critics to challenge the redefinition of public administration as the study of public policy was Herbert Simon,
442
who warned that it would range as wide as governmental problems and would eventually swallow political science and possible other social sciences as well. Eventually it would become applied social
science.10 He preferred to see scholars concentrate less on public policy and more on the behaviour of those who made decisions in the public arena and the processes by which they defined public policy. Administrative theory "should be concerned with the processes of decision as well as with the process of action."11 A general theory of administration would "include principles of organisation that will insure correct decision making just as it must include principles that will insure effective action". Decision making was the heart of administration; it pervaded the entire administrative process as much as the art of getting things done.
In Administrative Behaviour, Simon noted, that decisions were made at every level within an organisation. They contained varying degrees of factual (administrative, pertaining to means) and value (policy, pertaining to objectives) judgements. Differentiation was difficult because most value judgements also involved factual questions. Further, sanctions were needed to ensure that experts deciding factual questions followed democratically formulated value judgements. He proposed that, ideally, the factual and ethical elements should be separated as far as possible and allocated between politicians and administrators according to their relative importance and the degree to which the ethical issues were controversial. In so far as decisions led to the selection of final (organisational) goals, they were "value judgement", and where they implemented such goals, they were "factual judgements". Where representatives made factual judgements (semi-scientific, quasi-judicial, quasi-business), they should be supplied with information and advice. Where administrators made value judgements (social policy, politics), they should be responsive to community values and answerable for their decisions. In practice, representatives often requested administrators to make decisions with a high policy content for them; administrators, in deciding questions with a high political content, followed their own values. In short, fact and value could not be separated institutionally, and individuals could not separate completely factual and value components in a decision.
443
Simon's point of departure was his emphasis on correct decisions, as well as right ways of doing things; the one could not be divorced from the other. Efficient decision making was not the ruthless pursuit of mechanical efficiency in means, but that choice of alternatives that produced the best results for the given application of resources. It was a relationship between the ends desired and the means used to achieve the desired ends. The ideal was unattainable perfect rationality, by which all objectives would be defined and arranged according to priority, all possible alternative strategies would be listed together with their consequences, and comparative evaluation taken of the strategies and their consequences, so that the maximum results would be forthcoming for the resources employed. In practice, however, complete information was unobtainable, man was not an exclusively rational being and both the objectives and the consequences in public policy were not susceptible to quantitative measurement or even approximate evaluations. In addition to objective rationality, there was also subjective, personal rationality. Empirical studies would reveal how people actually made decisions and what most
influenced them, but Simon believed that his preliminary research had revealed the possibility of measuring and evaluating efficient decision making and the need to define, quantify and measure administrative choice.
In collaboration with D.W. Smithburg and V.A. Thompson, Simon produced the first behaviouralist textbook in public administration, designed to show how American public administration worked "through a realistic, behavioural description of the processes of administration."12 It concentrated more on the informal side of public administration, introducing and applying concepts in sociology and psychology to public administration. Although it was not specifically designed around a decision-making approach, it repeated much of the argument of Administrative Behaviour and went much further in challenging the notion that the ideal in public administration was rationality in pursuit of mechanical efficiency. But as more empirical evidence about how decisions were actually more began to accumulate, Simon dropped the notion of optimal rational choice altogether and opted for bounded rationality and a satisficing model of decision making—that is, people accept what is good
444
enough or satisfying to them and do not search for all possible alternatives. Their expectations limit their search, and they adopt the most satisfying perceived alternative. In Models of Man (New York: Wiley, 1957), he predicted mathematical models of programme feasibility within bounded rationality, once time limits, value systems and factually available alternatives were known.
These seminal ideas were further developed by Simon in a series of lectures given in 1960 and published in The New Science of Management Decision (New York: Harper and Row, 1960). The decision-making process was again broken into intelligence (searching the environment for conditions calling for decison); design (inventing, developing, and analysing possible courses of action); and choice (selecting a course of action), execution being indistinguishable from making more detailed policy. The skills of each were learnable and trainable, providing that a distinction was made between personal and organisational decision making. Decisions occurred along a continuum between programmed decisions that were repetitive and routine, and for which a definite routine had been worked out so that they were not treated anew everytime, and non-programmed decisions that were novel, unstructured, and consequential, for which there was "no cut and dried method for handling the problem because it has not arisen before, or because its precise nature and structure are elusive or complex, or because it is so important that it deserves a custom-tailored treatment.'3
By 1960, Simon had identified three major models of decision making, namely, (a) non-programmed decision making based on instinct, judgement, intuition, and other extra-rational factors, (b) pure-
rationality optimal decision making, and (c) satisfying. decision making. In the 1960s, Simon added the maze model of decision making: problem solvers follow different sets of paths, some of which lead to a payoff solution, others merely to additional sets of paths.14
The Official Policy Makers
Official policy makers are those who are legally empowered to formulate public policy (this does not preclude the possibility of these people being controlled by others, like political party bosses or other interest or pressure groups). These include legislators, executives, administrators, and judges.
445
Legislatures
Formally legislatures perform the task of law making in a political system. This does not necessarily mean that they have independent decision-making powers or that they actually frame the official policy. It is often said that the British and Indian parliaments merely consent to laws that are originated by political parties and pressure groups, framed by bureaucrats, and introduced in the legislature by the government. This is because the government enjoying a comfortable majority in the legislature, knows that it can get any measure of its choice passed by parliament. In the course of approving legislation the parliament performs other important functions like deliberating, scrutinising, criticising, and publicising, government policies and their consequences for the public on the floor of the house. However, in the American system of separation of powers, legislatures often take an independent and final decision in matters of law making. In the US Congress, the standing committees have ultimate authority over proposed legislation and may even act in opposition to a majority of the members of the House in which they exist. On matters of taxation, civil rights, welfare and labour relations policies tend to be shaped in substantial part by the Congress. In contrast, in matters of foreign and defence policy, the Congress is guided more by presidential initiatives. An individual legislator while voting will be guided more by his party affiliations than personal bias or ideological orientations. He may also be guided by his constituency requirements in particular cases. In parliamentary democracies voting is essentially on party lines.
In comparison, the Chinese national legislature often merely ratifies or confirms decisions made by high officials within the Communist Party. It can, thus, be safely concluded that legislatures are more important in policy formation in democratic than in dictatorial countries; and within democratic systems, legislatures generally tend to show greater independence in policy formulation in presidential systems (USA) than in the parliamentary (India).
The power vested in parliament or congress must become decentralised if it is to give due weightage to policy proposals. To be able to discuss these genuinely it needs to develop expertise about the issues involved in proposals. The elected members,
446
however, can hardly be specialists on everything, hence the decentralisation of parliamentary power to various committees. These committees permit each member to specialise in a few policy areas. The idea for legislative committees actually came from the British parliament, but in England the committees atrophied with the growth of the cabinet government. Once parliamentary committees have been set up to allow more expert consideration of proposals, it is hoped that parliament will show a reasonable degree of difference towards the committees decisions. Thus the committees have become crucial in determining the fate of legislation in both the presidential and parliamentary forms of government.
Finally, in the parliamentary systems, a mass of legislation is made under the powers delegated to the ministers by parent statutes for reasons of pressure on parliamentary time, the technical quality of such legislation, and the need for sufficient time to develop adequate administrative machinery. However, in most countries only a small proportion of such statutory instruments delegated legislation receive any parliamentary scrutiny at all.
The Executive
In what has been called an "executive-centred era" modern governments everywhere depend vitally upon executive leadership both in policy formation and execution. In parliamentary countries all policies must have the approval of the cabinet and all important laws in parliament are introduced by the ministers of the government. In the USA the president's option to exercise legislative initiatives is clearly recognised as a fact to stay. The divisions in the congress resulting from the committee system and lack of strong party leadership render that body incapable of developing consistent and coherent legislative programmes. Consequently, the congress gradually has come to expect the president to initiate or send proposals for legislation. This does not mean that the congress acts on the president's commands or merely approves his proposals. The presidential proposals are very often rejected or considerable modified before enactment. In the areas of foreign and defence policy, the president possesses greater constitutional power and operating freedom than in domestic policy. The US foreign policy is largely a creation of presidential leadership and action.
447
In the developing countries the executive probably has even more influence in policy making than in modern countries. This is because there is often no strong bureaucratic base, and the executive plays a larger role in policy formulation because of a greater concentration of power in governmental hands coupled with less responsiveness to the legislature. In such countries pressure groups have little influence or impact in policy making due to their lack of sophistication or coordination. However, executive decision making is not done in a vacuum. The executive is expected to act in conformity with the Constitution, statutes and court decisions. Foreign policy decisions often depend on their acceptability by other nations, while domestic policy decisions may depend upon their acceptance by legislatures, administrators and the public. Another limiting factor may be availability of resources.
Administrative Agencies
Administrative systems throughout the world vary with respect to size and complexity, hierarchical organisation and degree of autonomy. Although it was once an accepted doctrine in political science that administrators were merely executors of policies determined by other organs of governments, the fallacy of this distinction is now being increasingly realised. It is common knowledge now that politics and administration are blended, and that administrators are involved in the policy formulation process in more ways than one.
In complex industrial societies specially, the technicality and complexity of many policy matters, the need for continuing control, and the legislators' lack of time and information, have led to the delegation of much discretionary authority to administrative agencies formally recognised as rule-making power. Agencies are also a major source of proposals of legislation in the presidential systems like United States and parliamentary governments like Britain. Public officials are associated with policy formulation in three important ways. First, they have to supply facts, data and criticism about the workability of policy to the ministers or to the legislature if the initiative for policy making comes from them. The members of parliament or ministers are a changing body of amateurs who may have political skill or popularity but lack administrative acumen or experience, and as such they have to rely and give due
448
weightage to the suggestions of the officials. Secondly, very often the initiative for policy legislation originates from the administration. This is due to the fact that it is the administrators who are constantly in touch with the general public, and therefore, in a better position to understand the difficulties that arise in the implementation of policies. It is from the bureaucracy that suggestions and proposals for removing those difficulties or amendments in the existing law often emanate. Thirdly, on account of lack of time and knowledge, the legislature passes skeleton acts and leaves the details to the administration. It is here that administrators have the maximum scope for policy making. In order to execute these acts,
the administration frames rules, regulations and by-laws which is significant contribution to policy making.
The Administrative Role
Under the Indian Constitution, the higher civil servants have a constitutional responsibility to advise on policy options. The secretaries to the Government of India, for example, take, or advise ministers to take, decisions that arise within the framework of the existing laws or policy which otherwise cannot be dealt with by routine procedures. Such decisions clarify the scope of a policy and finalise its application in new and special situations. Further, they are extensively involved in preparing explanatory material for ministerial use on the operation of existing policies. They also advise on the financial and administrative implications of different policy alternatives. Thus, the higher civil servants, particularly the secretaries to the Government of India and the state government, play more than an advisory role in the public policy formulation process.
Secondly, the higher civil servants have a nearly total monopoly of the knowledge which they have derived from educational qualifications and direct experience of the operation of public policies. Their vast experience and knowledge enable them to argue from positions of great strength about the financial and administrative difficulties of policy proposals, the repercussions likely to be encountered from the affected groups and new methods of dealing with policy problems. The very fact that they collect data for policy decisions, analyse the problem involved and select policy alternatives has a bearing on policy making. Some new proposals regarding policies emerge as they
449
state their views on problems for which no satisfactory answer has been found. The details of many new policies are conditioned by what is administratively and politically feasible.
The Courts
In countries where the courts have the power of judicial review, they have (as in the United States) played an important role in policy formation. The courts have often greatly affected the nature and content of public policy through exercise of the powers of judicial review and statutory interpretation in cases brought before them.
However, the judiciary, in any political system, participates in the policy making process indirectly. Courts are approached to interpret and decide the meaning of legislative provisions that are often generally stated and permit conflicting interpretations. Any judge confronted with a choice between two or more interpretations and applications of a legislative act, executive order, or constitutional provision must choose from among them, because the decision has to be given or the controversy must be ended. And when the judge does so, his or her interpretation becomes policy for the specific litigants. When a court accepts one interpretation or a decision is accepted by other courts, the court has made a policy for all jurisdictions in which that view prevails.
The judiciary in democratic systems has played a major role in the formation of social and economic policies. Much of the law relating to such matters equal protection of law, property ownership, corporations, employer-employee relationships, and the position of women in society has been developed and applied by the courts in the shape of common law.
India, the relative importance of the Supreme Court and the high courts has been increasing. The Indian courts have become increasingly involved in prescribing specific policies regarding public schools, labour conditions, or welfare assistance, to name a few areas.
Basically, judicial review is the power of courts la determine the constitutionality of actions of the legislative and executive branches and to declare then null and void if such actions are found to be in conflict with the constitutional provisions. The judiciary has played a major role in the formation of economic policy in the United States. Many laws relating to such matters as property ownership, contracts, corporations, and employer-
450
employee relations have been developed and applied by the courts in the form of common law and equity. They originated in England but have been adapted to American needs and conditions by the American judges. Judicial activism in the United States in the past was restricted mainly to the areas of economic regulation and law enforcement but for the past two decades the courts have also ventured into many new areas of social and political activity. Legislative apportionment, the rights of welfare recipients, the operation of public institutions such as public schools, prisons and hospitals and the location of public facilities are major examples of this type. The courts are playing a more positive role not only by specifying the government's limits to action but also by stating what it must do to meet legal or constitutional obligations. The increasing sphere of governmental interference in people's lives, the failure of the legislative and the executive to act on many problems, the willingness of the courts to play
a more positive role probably guarantee a continuation of this extended judicial involvement in policy formation even in the future.
In India too, the courts have by their power of judicial review, considerably affected the process of policy making. However, in India, they have often been accused of playing a conservative role in their interpretation of the Constitution which has led to a considerable tussle between the legislature and the judiciary. The main areas of conflict have been the interpretation of the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles and the legislature's power of Constitution amendment. The verdicts of the courts often went against the government's progressive laws. To overcome the judicial barrier the government had to often resort to constitutional amendment.
Unofficial Participants
Besides the official policy makers, many others may participate in the policy making process, like interest groups, political parties and individual citizens. They may considerably influence policy formation without possessing legal authority to make binding policy decisions.
Pressure Groups
Interest or pressure groups play an important role in policy making in most countries. The strength and legitimacy of groups
451
differs from country to country, depending upon whether they are democratic or dictatorial, developed or developing. Pressure groups are found to be more numerous in the United States or Great Britain than they are in the Soviet Union or China. The main function of these groups is to express demands and present alternatives for policy action. They may also supply the official law makers with much technical information for and against a specific issue and possible consequences of a policy proposal. Given the plural character of American society, it is not surprising that pressure groups are many and varied in number, interests, size, organisation and style of operation. The primary concern of a pressure group is to influence policy in a particular policy matter. Often there are several groups with conflicting desires on a particular policy issue, and policy makers are faced with the problem of having to choose between conflicting . demands. Well organised and active groups naturally have more influence than groups whose potential membership is poorly organised and inarticulate. Influence also depends on other factors like numerical strength, monetary and other resources, cohesiveness, leadership skills, social status and attitudes of the policy makers on specific policy issues.
Political Parties
In modern societies generally, political parties perform the function of "interest aggregation", that is, they seek to convert the particular demands of interest groups into general policy alternatives. The way in which parties "aggregate" interests is affected by the number of parties. In predominantly biparty systems such as the United States and Great Britain, the desire of the parties to gain widespread electoral support will force both parties to include in their policy proposals popular demands and avoid alienating the most important social groups. In multiparty systems, on the other hand, parties may do less aggregating and act as the representatives of fairly narrow sets of interests as appears to be the case in Finance. In India, there is a multiparty system, with half a dozen national parties and regional parties of twice the number. Most of the national parties have manifestos which only differ in stress rather than in content since their common desire is to extend their electoral base as wide as possible. The regional parties, however, are more sectarian in their approach since they desire mainly to woo a particular
452
regional segment of the population. In one-party systems like the Soviet Union and China, they are the chief official framers of public policy. Generally, however, political parties have a broader range of policy concerns than do interest groups, hence they will act more as brokers than as advocates of particular interests in policy formation.
In parliamentary states, the political party which has a majority of votes in parliament forms the government which is the chief official policy maker. Needless to say, most of the governments make policies according to the policy manifestos on which they have been elected to office. In presidential systems like the United States, the fact that members of Legislatures often vote in accordance with their party policy, which party controls the Congress has significant policy implications.
The Individual Citizen
Since democratic governments are representative governments, it is often said that citizens are therefore, indirectly represented in all policy making. In an abstract sense, this is true, but concretely, this aphorism means very little. Citizen participation in policy making, even in democratic countries, is very negligible. Many people do not exercise their franchise or engage in party politics. Neither do they join pressure groups nor display any active interest in public affairs. Even while voting, voters are influenced comparatively little by policy considerations. However, despite such political attitudes of a great majority of citizens, some still participate directly in decision making. In some of the American
states (like California) and some countries (like Switzerland) citizens can and still vote directly on a legislation or on Constitutional amendments which are submitted to the voters for approval. Elections are the major instruments in democratic countries to gauge public opinion or popular wishes. As Charles Lindblom summarises the argument: "The most conspicuous difference between authoritarianism and democratic regimes is that democracies choose their top policy makers in genuine elections." Some political scientists speculate that voting in genuine elections may be an important method of citizen influence on policy not so much because it actually permits citizens to choose their officials and to some degree instruct these officials on policy, but because the existence of genuine elections puts a stamp of approval on citizen participation. Indirectly,
453
therefore, the fact of elections enforces on proximate policy makers a rule that citizens' wishes count in policy making.
However, it is a truism that no government, however dictatorial, can afford to go against the desires, wishes, customs or traditions of the people. Even dictators will undertake many popular measures to keep down unrest or discontent against the regime. One-party systems like the Soviet Union, also seem concerned to meet many citizen wants even as they exclude citizens from more direct participation in policy formation.
Policy Formulation in India
The various organisations that participate indirectly or directly in the policy formulation process in India axe the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the administration, political parties, pressure groups and the public opinion. Policy making is very often a cooperative endeavour, a collective effort in which many people and agencies participate.
Public policies must conform to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, such as those laid down in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy, the Articles of the State Policy. The Articles of the Constitution dealing with the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have been the subjects of public debates and disputes amongst the political parties regarding their importance and place in the Indian polity. The current judicial thinking is that the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are complementary to each other, since they are mutually reinforcing in nature. Now both levels of government are under an obligation to formulate public policies, taking into account the Directive Principles. Yet the policy options offered by these principles are many and the government can pick and choose from these depending on its own priorities.
Institutional Factors
In addition to four constitutional factors the democratic and sovereign republic, the parliamentary system, the federal character of the constitution and a broad kind of socio-economic philosophy, there are other factors that govern policy making in India.
Policy making is a collective effort in which many institutions participate. In India some of the important institutions are:
454
Parliament
Parliament in India is the supreme public policy making body. It reigns supreme because the council of ministers headed by the prime minister is dependent upon the support of a parliamentary majority to remain in force. It enacts laws which will bring the policies into effect. It also legitimises the policy decisions of the government.
In reality, however, it does not really reign supreme. It does not determine policies except in a constitutional term. It influences public policies through general discussions and debates. Much of the legislation in India is prepared within the executive and introduced by a responsible minister. The executive is assured of a legislative majority for the policy proposals it represents. Any control which parliament might be said to exercise ever the executive is obviously indirect. Consequently, the role of parliament in policy making can be more correctly understood if parliament is considered to a 'constitutional procedural device' for approving the decisions of the government rather than as an independent policy making institution.
The Executive
It is the constitutional task of the executive to decide the policies which are to be submitted to Parliament. The executive in India consists of the President of India, the council of ministers and the machinery of government. The president, being head of the state, exercises his powers on the advice of the council of ministers (Article 74).
i) Cabinet
The real executive is the council of ministers consisting of the prime minister, cabinet ministers, ministers of state and the deputy ministers. It is well known that the council itself hardly meets, and all the policy functions are performed by the cabinet functioning on the principle of unity. It is the top policy making body in the government, but only major proposals are taken to it for its decision; other matters of less significance are disposed of by the minister concerned.
For facilitating its work, the business rules provide for the constitution of standing committees of the cabinet to ensure speedy decisions on issues of national importance and other vital matters.
455
The cabinet is serviced in its policy role by the 'cabinet secretariat' headed by the cabinet secretary. He attends all the meetings of the cabinet and its committees. The cabinet secretary often prepares the agenda for cabinet meetings, takes minutes, circulates decisions and follows them up to see that action has been taken in the department. The role of the cabinet secretary is crucially important in the policy making process.
ii) The Prime Minister and His Office
Within the council of ministers in general and the cabinet in particular, the prime minister dominates policy making. As already mentioned, senior civil servants have an increasingly important advisory role in policy making. Since public policy making has to rely more and more on the technical advice of specialists and on the administrative experience of generalists, their advice has been given more and more weight by the ministers. Indeed, the way in which senior civil servants collect the data necessary for policy decisions, analyse the problems involved and present the pros and cons of selected policy options has a considerable influence on the final policy decisions. Ministers often find it even more difficult to resist the choice of policy options pressed on them if they are based on a better analysis of the needs of the future.
Established Institutions
Apart from the normal institutional arrangements, certain functional institutions have been established, and have specific and related advisory roles. These include the Reserve Bank of India, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, University Grants Commission, Agricultural Prices and Costs Commission etc.
In addition, there is a large number of institutes and bodies which have an important role to play in policy planning. Some of these are: the Indian Institute, the National Council of Applied Economic Research, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Indian Council of Medical Research.
Besides, there are several bodies outside the government which attempt to exert influence on government policy as and when their interests are involved. Mention may be made of bodies such as the Federation of the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Indian National Trade Union Congress, and Indian Medical Association.
456
The Planning Commission and the National Development Council are two other institutions exercising much influence over the policy making process in India.
The council is expected to 'review the working of the national plan', 'consider important questions of social and economic policy', and 'recommend measures or the achievement of the aims and targets set out in the national plan'.
K. Santhanam also observes: "The position of the NDC has come to cabinet functioning for the government of India and the governments of all the States". Thus the NDC is the apex policy making institution in the country.
The Judiciary
It plays a constructive role in shaping and influencing public policies in two ways: by its power of judicial review and judicial decisions.
The Constitution entitles the Supreme Court and high courts at the state levels to exercise judicial review of legislation. Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine the constitutionality of actions of the legislature and the executive. If such actions are found to be in conflict with the constitutional provisions, the courts can declare them null and void. They not only specify the government's limits with regard to certain actions but also state what it must do for the public interest. Besides their activism in areas of economic regulation, the courts have ventured into new areas of social and political concerns. The functioning of public institutions such as hospitals, jails and schools and the location of public facilities how receive the attention of the courts.
Thus the role of the judiciary in responding to administrative action has been to protect the rights of the citizens against the growing state power. The increasing governmental interference in citizens' lives, the failure of governmental action on social and economic problems, the willingness of the judiciary to play a more constructive role all tend to ensure a continuation of judicial activism in polio,' formation.
Non-Governmental Institutions
The policy making environment, besides comprising people and institutions like the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the bureaucracy, includes some non-governmental organisations,
457
such as political parties, pressure groups, media and citizenry. Their view and influence are of critical value to the policy making process.
i) Political Parties
The Indian political system is characterised by a multiparty system. Parliamentary representation includes both the national and major regional parries. The largest political party is the ruling Congress Party which has been in government at the centre and in most of the states since India's Independence except on short intervals. Being a multiparty system, most socio-economic policies are modified as a result of debates in parliament. The political expression of the people is largely confined to electing a popular government. When in power, the political party tends to retain governmental office in the face of every kind of opposition. This itself adds its own uncertainities to the process of formulating rational and sound policies.
ii) Pressure Groups
The exercise of political influence through organised or interest groups is a dominant feature of our democratic government. For the individual citizen, interest groups are an important channel of communication. They communicate more effectively than individual citizens with public officials on policy issues. They strive to influence the decisions of the government without attempting to occupy political offices. Often these groups are found to have conflicting value on particular policy issues an policy makers are faced with the problem of having to choose between conflicting demands. Obviously, well organised and active pressure groups have more influence than groups whose membership is poorly organised an inarticulate.
iii) The Individual Citizen
A democratic government is supposed to reflect the wishes of the people Yet, in reality citizens' participation in policy making is very negligible. Acting alone, the individual citizen of a country of one billion people is rarely a significant political force. Many people in our country do not exercise their franchise or engage in party politics. Only a very small percentage of the population exercise any influence in the selection of public policies.
Need for Policy Evaluation
Public policy analysis is concerned with the effect of governmental decisions on the target public. Vital government
458
decisions in all sectors of public concern involve great cost to the nation. Besides involving the taxpayers' money, almost all governmental policies affect vast sections of the citizens, either directly or indirectly. Thus they have every right to know why particular decisions were taken, how they were arrived at, and what would be their likely consequences. These questions are now being raised by policy analysts. Since the government's long term policies and plans will greatly determine the future shape of society, there is a great need now for the building up of scientific knowledge about policy making. To solve critical problems of society, Yehezkel Dror advocates the development of policy science.
Policy science can... be partly described as the discipline that searches for policy knowledge, that seeks general policy issue knowledge and policy making knowledge, and integrates them into a distinct study.15
Policy issue knowledge is knowledge relating to a specific policy, whereas policy making knowledge concerns itself with the entire spectrum of policy making activity—how it operates and how it can be improved. Dror advocates an optimal approach to policy making and policy analysis. He pleads for the adoption of the best policy by a judicious evaluation of goals, values, alternatives, costs and benefits based on the maximum use of all available information and scientific technology. He even recommends extra-rational aids to facilitate effective policy analysis. Intuition, value perferences, extraordinary leadership and acute reality perceptions may also be used in policy making and analysis.
Policy analysis today is emerging as a sub-discipline with its focus on the following areas:
a) There is comprehension of policies rather than recommendation. The emphasis is on understanding of policies and not directly proposing new ones.
b) Efforts will be made for finding casual links on policy matters. Causes and consequences of public policies are now being subjected to scientific enquiry.
c) There is a need for creation of a body of policy science knowledge. Specific policy issue studies are being utilised for arriving at broader generalisations.
459
Evaluation of Public Policy
The evaluation of public policy is an attempt to assess the content and effects of policy on those for whom it is intended.16 Often policy evaluation occurs throughout the policy process, not necessarily at its termination stage. Evaluational activity may restart the policy process (problem formulation onwards) in order to continue, modify or terminate existing policy. There are generally three recognised methods of policy evaluation. They areas follows:
a) Policy impact evaluation: In an assessment of overall programme impact and effectiveness, the emphasis is on determining the extent to which programmes-are successful in achieving basic objectives and on the camparative evaluation of national programmes.
b) Policy strategy evaluation: This evaluation is an assessment of the relative effectiveness of programme strategies and variables. The emphasis is on determining which strategies, methods and procedures are most productive or effective.
c) Policy project appraisal: The process is an assessment of individual projects through site visits and other activities with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency.
While discussing policy evaluation, one must first understand the basic difference between policy output and policy outcomes.
Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the government which can be measured in concrete terms, for instance, construction of government offices, schools, public parks, highways, payment of welfare benefits, operation of hospitals and prisons. These activities can be measured in concrete terms but figures reveal very little about the policy outcomes or the qualitative impact of public policies on the fives of people. Knowing how much is spent on pupils in a school system on a per capita basis will reveal nothing concerning the effect schooling has on the cognitive and other abilities of students, let alone the social consequences of the educational system.
However, broadly policy evaluation requires knowledge of what is to be accomplished within a given policy (policy objectives), how to do it (strategy) and what, if anything, has been accomplished towards attainment of the objectives (impact or
460
outcomes) and the relation of policy thereto. The most useful method of policy evaluation for policy makers and administrators is the systematic evaluation to determine the cause and effect relationships and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is, of course, often impossible to measure quantitatively the impact of public policies, especially social policies with any real precision. There are certain barriers that create problems for policy evaluation.
Uncertainty over policy goals: When the goals of a policy are unclear or diffused, policy evaluation becomes a difficult task. This situation is often a product of the policy adoption process. Since support of a majority coalition is often needed to secure adoption of a policy, it is often necessary to appeal to as wide a spectrum of persons and interests (often conflicting) as possible. Officials in different positions in the policy system such as legislators and administrators, or national and state officials, may define goals differently}and act accordingly.
Difficulty in determination of causality: Systematic evaluation requires that changes in real life conditions must demonstrably be caused by policy actions. But the mere fact that action A is taken and condition B develops does not necessarily mean that a cause-and-effect relationship exists, for example, the relationship between crime prevention measures and occurrence of crime is not a simple cause-and-
effect relationship. The determination of causality between actions, especially in complex social and economic matters, is a difficult task.
Diffused policy impacts: Policy actions may affect a wide spectrum of people both in the target and non-target categories and also have many intended or unintended consequences. A welfare programme may affect not only the poor but also others, such as taxpayers, bureaucrats and lower income groups. The effect on those groups may be symbolic or material, tangible or intangible.
Difficulties in data-acquisition: Ashortage of accurate and relevant facts and statistics may always hinder the work of a policy evaluator. Thus mathematical models may predict the effect of a tax cut on economic activity, but suitable data to indicate its actual impact on the economy is difficult to obtain. Official resistance to provide all types of relevant data may also prove to be a hindrance Policy evaluation means commenting on
461
the merits and demirits of a policy, that is,(value judgements have to be made. Agency and programme officials, bureaucrats and others are naturally going to be concerned about the possible political consequences of evaluation. If the results do not come out in their favour or show them in a wrong perspective, their careers may be in jeopardy. Consequently government officials may discourage evaluation studies, refuse access to data, show incomplete records, or create various other hurdles in the researcher's process of policy evaluation.
Within government, policy evaluation is carried on in a variety of ways and by a variety of actors. Sometimes it is a systematic activity, at other times rather haphazard or sporadic. In some instances policy evaluation has become institutionalised, in others it is informal and unstructured. A few agencies of official policy evaluation are the legislatures and their committees, the audit office, commissions of enquiry, the Planning Commission and departmental evaluation reports.
Besides, there is much policy evaluation carried on outside the governmentVThe communications media, university scholars, private research institutions, pressure groups and public interest organisations make evaluation of policies that have effect on public officials to some extent. These also provide the larger public with information publicise policy action or inaction, advocate enactment or withdrawal of policies and often effectively voice the demands of the weaker or underprivileged sections of the public.
The legislative process: One of the declared functions of the legislatures in democratic countries, is the security and evaluation of the application, administration, and execution of laws or policies.
Policy evaluation is exercised through a number of techniques: (a) questions and debates, (b) various motions in parliaments like call attention, no-confidence, (c) committee hearings and investigations, and (d) the budgetary process. In the course of these activities legislators reach conclusions regarding the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of particular programmes and policies—conclusions that can have serious consequences for the policy process.
The audit process: The auditor's office as in India and the USA, has broad statutory authority to audit the operation and finance
462
activities of government agencies, evaluate their programmes and report their findings to parliament. In India two committees of parliament, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, have been specially empowered to help in effective parliamentary control over the governmental expenditure. Their main purpose is to see that the budgetary appropriations have been utilised economically by the government for the approved purposes within the framework of the grants. Secondly, they undertake a detailed examination of the annual budget estimates of the government to suggest possible economies in the implementation of plans and programmes embodied therein.
Administrative agencies: All government departments prepare their internal evaluation reports which provide an opportunity to appraise the working of the programmes and projects undertaken by the department, for example, the Budget Division of the Finance Ministry has the power of overview the working of the plans and programmes of all ministries and departments while framing the budget estimates for every department. Similarly, every department while sending its own demand for grants to the Finance Ministry evaluates in the process its annual plans, programmes and performance.
The organisation and methods division in ministries also often indirectly perform the task of policy evaluation.
Commissions: The Planning Commission, the Finance Commissions, the Administrative Reforms Commissions and various ad hoc commissions that are set up by the government from time to time also play an important role in public policy evaluation by presenting their detailed, researched reports on the consequences and impact of particular government policies.
To sum up, in modern democratic political systems, public policy making and evaluation are very complex processes. Many participants may be involved, and many factors may affect their outcomes. While analysing the policy process all these relevant factors should be taken into account, so that all possible variables are open to enquiry.17
Notes and References
1. Dimock and Dimock, Public Administration, Rinehart and Co., New York, 1936, p. 82.
2. George C. Edwards III and Ira Sharkansky, The Policy Predicament—Making and Implementing Public Policy, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 220-235.
463
3. Seckler Hudson, Organisation and Management: Theory and Practice, The American University Press, Washington, 1957, p. 71.
4. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, New York, Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 1955, p. 1
5. J.M. Pfiffner and R. Presthus, Public Administration, p. 7
6. M.E. Dimock, G.O. Dimock, and L.W. Koenig, Public Administration, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958, p. 12.
7. Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration, p. 88.
8. Amitai Etzooni, "Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision-making", in Public Administration Review, 27. No. 5, Dec. 1967, pp. 389-390.
9. Larry L. Wade, The Elements of Public Policy, Columbus, Ohio, Merili, 1972, p. 110.
10. H.A. Simon, A Comment on the Science of Public Administration, New York, Knopf, 1950, p. 6.
11. H.A. Simon, Administrative Behaviour, New York, Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 1947, p. 1.
12. H.A. Simon, D.W. Smithburg, V.A. Thompson, Public Administration, New York, Knopf, 1950, p. 6
13. H.A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision, New York, Harper & Row, 1960, p. 6.
14. Charles E. Lindbolm, "The Science of Muddling Through", in Public Administration Review, 19, No.2 (Spring 1959), pp. 79-88.
15. Yehezkel Dror, Public Policy making Re-examined, Chandler, San Francisco, 1968, p. 8
16. Ira Sharkansky, Policy Analysis in Political Science, Markham, Chicago, 1970.
17. See R.K. Sapru, Public Policy Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation (Sterling, New Delhi, 1994) for a detailed discussion on all aspects of Public Policy Making.
464
17 ADMINISTRATION AND PEOPLE
The Concept of People's Participation in Administration
The need and desirability of mass participation in the political processes of society has been widely proclaimed, time and again, by different writers and philosophers, as divergent in their views as Aristotle and Marx. The entire theory and practice of democratic politics rests on the workability of the notion of an active citizen involvement in the holding and sharing of power and responsibilities of government and public office. The concept of public participation was first operational in ancient Greece where democracy as a form of government originated. In the direct democracies of ancient Greece all important decisions were taken by popular assemblies and the citizens were active participants in the affairs of state. Since then the meaning and content of democracy has both widened and narrowed with the changing nature and role of state. The connotation of democracy has now widened to include with the political a social and economic content as well.
Liberty and equality are now the twin goals of a democratic state. Increase-in the size and population of modern states has made the operation of direct democracies impossible. Modern democracies now operate on the principle of indirect public participation through representative institutions.
In the modern era of the 'administrative state' many writers have voiced their concern over the problem of responsiveness of the administrative state to the norms of democratic procedures. To safeguard individual rights and liberties against bureaucratic or arbitrary abuse an increase in people's vigilance and participation in politics is necessary. Modern states should show "concern for individual people in the criteria used in making decisions; as an effort to assign each person's need equal weight in policy deliberations and as an effort to make as broad as feasible the opportunities for people to participate in the decisions that affect them."1
Political scientists are unanimously agreed on the fact that the main utility of extensive public participation in politics is to
465
ensure that the vested interests of the privileged do not prevail over the interests of the majority. To safeguard against such possibilities adequate measures of public accountability and ventilation of public grievances should exist besides avenues of citizen participation in politics.
Rapid socio-economic development is one of the key goals of most governments, specially developing countries where the administration is involved in the economy in various ways. The government tries to achieve its socio-economic objectives through the instrument of public bureaucracy which becomes one
of the chief agents of societal change and transformation in these societies. The main problem of administration in developing societies is to reconcile an authoritarian colonial administrative legacy based on a notion of passive political participation to the needs and demands of a goal oriented administration which needs active public cooperation and support to fulfil main targets of developmental plans and programmes of the government. Without such a support even a well conceived plan of development is likely to fail. Development administration is administration for the socio-economic development of the people, by the people and for the people. Their active cooperation and participation in the planning and implementation processes is vital for its success.
Citizen participation may be used both for support by an agency and as a control device by the law makers. Participation has both a broad and a narrow connotation. In a broad sense, it implies giving every citizen an opportunity to actively participate in constructive public work (without belonging to any governing or managing bodies), besides the franchise, in a democracy. In a narrow sense, participation would refer to a specific action by which the citizen registers his involvement in public affairs to achieve a particular objective.
Participation may be direct or indirect, formal or informal; it may be political, social or administrative in nature. The effectiveness of mobilised or institutionalised citizen participation in public administration depends on three factors:
a) with what degree of seriousness the participant body or agency asserts itself;
b) whether public administration consults the body; and
c) whether public administration delegates certain functions to that body.
466
Citizens' participation in administration may take many forms. It refers to all those activities which show the citizen's involvement in the processes of administration, that is, participation in policy formulation and programme planning, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes meant for development of particular target groups. In developing societies the traditional definition of people's participation (active citizen involvement in the decision making process) often becomes irrelevant due to lack of time, initiative, and resources of the citizen who fails to show the necessary enthusiasm or
cooperation towards governmental programmes meant for his benefit. Therefore, in these countries participatory activities by the citizens have to be solicited by the government. The state not only plays the key role in attempts at socio-economic transformation and modernisation but also in promoting, what is called institutional participation.
Citizen participation demands certain preconditions, of these, perhaps, the most important are enlightened political leaders, conscientious civil servants and an informed and cooperative general public. Knowledge of mutual problems and difficulties on the part of both officials and citizens is a vital input for successful participation. Participation at all levels—both rural and urban—is also necessary for speedy development.
Problems of People's Participation in Developing Countries
The degree and extent of people's participation in the administration of developing countries like India is greatly conditioned by the basic nature and operational peculiarities of administration during the colonial period, when maintenance of law and order, and revenue-raising were the prime considerations of administration. The administrative apparatus and functions were then, to a great extent, autonomous and unaccountable to the public. Public participation neither existed nor was solicited by the government. In the authoritarian and inegalitarian political and administrative culture in which colonial administration functioned, the benefits of administration accrued mostly to the upper and the privileged classes of society. In terms of methods of operation administration was essentially coercive, formal and procedural.
After independence with the adoption of the goals of a social welfare state, the key responsibility for rapid socio-economic
467
progress and modernisation was undertaken by the state which sought to implement them with the help of public bureaucracy With the beginning of the process of planned development in India the planners and administrators have repeatedly stressed the need to involve the masses and solicit their cooperation in the tremendous challenge of development administration. To shake free the inertia of the masses who had hitherto been only used to being passive recipients of government aid the government sought to create an institutional infrastructure to promote popular participation. Panchayati raj and community development programmes were introduced mainly to solicit popular participation in the development administration of the government. The community development
programme was a method of soliciting community participation to assist the government authorities in improving the economic, social and cultural life of the people in the rural areas.
They include encouraging the village people to become self-reliant, responsible citizens, capable of participating in socio-economic development and nation building by proper utilisation of the scarce resources, adoption of modern agricultural methods and practices. Utilising the free time of the villagers in useful community work; extending the principle of cooperation to make the rural families creditworthy; launching a multi-pronged attack on hunger, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness and upgrading the social status of the village teachers and associating them in development programme.2
In short, the essence of the concept of rural development is the all round development of the village community with the efforts of the people themselves. Panchayati raj system was introduced to operationalise the concept of democratic decentralisation and devolution of real power and responsibility to the local masses for the development of their areas. The need for citizen participation in the plan formulation and implementation processes have also been repeatedly stated in the objectives of India's Five-Year Plans, the recurring theme of which is to bring about the social, economic and political development of the Indian masses with the active inspiration, participation and involvement of the masses themselves in the development programmes
468
Means of Citizen Participation
Low literacy levels, lack of awareness, inertia, poverty and general apathy of the people obviously restrict mass participation in the policy formulation process in India. The citizen can at best, participate in the outlining of directions and policy objectives only indirectly by (a) electing his representatives to panchayat bodies at the village, block and district levels, to state legislatures, and parliament; (b) participation by enlightened citizens in seminars, studies and discussions promoted by political parties, pressure groups, youth forums, universities, voluntary associations, press, planning bodies, and government machinery; and (c) by articulation of the needs and demands of people before policy makers and planners through political parties and other institutions.
Citizen viewpoints are also articulated by various agencies such as political parties, pressure groups, press and voluntary associations. Institutional participation refers to the participation of citizens in policy making in government of administrative agencies such as central and state legislatures, panchayati raj bodies, etc.3
Extensive empirical studies on the nature and degree of citizen's participation in India have revealed that the colonial legacy, social diversity, poverty and illiteracy and the peculiarity of the political process combine to greatly restrict popular participation in the public administration in India. The colonial legacy of limited government by an administrative elite stands in the way of the administrators' soliciting extensive public cooperation. Decision making on all major issues of public policy is monopolised by a small politico-administrative elite in India. The social structure is characterised by numerous cleavages along religious, ethnic, linguistic and class lines. Widespread poverty and illiteracy facilitate the dominance of powerful socio-economic groups in society who monopolise the fruits of development and progress. With the general passivity and subservience of the masses, it is scarcely surprising that the bureaucracy has become a privileged minority who refuse to share any decision-making power with the people(Community development programmes failed to generate the necessary enthusiasm and rural initiative, and donations in cash and kind were not as forthcoming as was required to make the movement
469
a success. It turned out to be more of a 'government's programme' instead of 'people's programme'. The system of democratic decentralisation introduced in India did not really develop power on the masses. The composition of panchayati raj bodies merely reflected existing caste and class division in rural society besides being subject to political pressures which rendered them ineffective to a great extent. Planning did not eradicate widespread poverty, inequality and unemployment. The fruits of development did not reach the target groups (the rural and urban poor, landless farmers, small artisans, tribals and backward castes) who neither participated in the development programmes nor benefited from them.
The major components of citizen perceptions of administration which are generally considered essential for widespread public participation in development administration are:
1. adequate citizen knowledge of administrative norms and practices;
2. genuine public support for the goals, policies and programmes of the government;
3. positive evaluation of the job performance of governmental officials by the public;
4. perceptions of the administrative system as sensitive and responsive to the public;
5. belief in the integrity and honesty of the administrative cadre, rather than a tendency to view it as corrupt or corruptible;
6. perception of administrators as committed to egalitarian goals and practices;
7. feelings of efficacy and optimism about citizen action in the political system generally and in the administrative subsystem particularly; and
8. motivational orientations emphasising cooperative action with administrative officials in the implementation of developmental goals.
All these components are essential for the evolution of a balanced citizen-administration relationship, that is, to prevent the dominance or subservance of administration as well as to minimise the ignorance, apathy or helplessness of citizens. Unfortunately, in the present Indian context the major
470
components of this relationship are conspicuous by their absence, which in fact is proving to be the main hurdle in widespread and effective public participation in the public administration in India.
Based on extensive field survey Eldersveld, Jagannadham and Barnabas came out with the following research findings on citizen-administration relations:
The attitudes of Indian citizens towards their government and its administrative officials particularly, is a complex and paradoxical mosaic of support and hostility, of consensus and critique) From 75 per cent to 90 per cent view governmental jobs as prestigious, 90 per cent feel that health and community development programmes are worth wise, and less than 50 per cent (20 per cent rural) are critical of the job performance of Central Government officials. On the other hand, the majority feel that 50 per cent
or more of the officials are corrupt, large proportions (60 per cent urban, 32 per cent rural) say their dealings with officials are unsatisfactory, and the majority sense that their probabilities of gaining access to officials and being successful in processing their complaints with them are low. Over 50 per cent feel officials in certain agencies are not fair, that the citizen can do little by himself, and from 60 per cent to 75 per cent feel that political pull is important in getting administration action.4
Other studies on citizen-administration relations have revealed various reasons for general mistrust and lack of faith of the public in administration. The reasons for this are: (a) corruption, and unhelpful attitude of the bureaucrats, (b) inordinate delay in getting the wheels of the administrative machinery in motion, (c) citizen's ignorance about procedures and formal rules, and (d) discrimination between the rich and the poor; the rich having easy access to administration and the general tendency of officials to avoid the poor and underplay their needs and interests.
The Indian administrative system has no doubt established a wide network in both rural and urban areas but apparently it still has a very limited impact on the life of citizens whose enthusiasm and cooperation towards it has not been forthcoming. Citizens would have been more involved in the planning, modernisation
471
and development processes, if they had felt their demands and expectations are in the process of realisation. But in the existing milieu of slow pace of development and failure of rising expectations, it is small wonder that the people are turning increasingly hostile, critical and cynical and a tide of 'revolution of rising functions' has taken over. Although the chief defects of administration which affect the citizen directly art; delays in implementation and diffusion of responsibility rather than faulty planning or incorrect policy making, in the ultimate analysis the quantity and quality of people's involvement in the socio-economic development in India is set by the elites in all walks of life, particularly the political and administrative.
Citizens become what their leaders make them to be, and administration operates under two forces: leader's direction from above and citizen's understanding and cooperation from below. Administration is a trustee subject to the watchful eye and the guiding hand of people inside and people below. The emphasis on the public and the administration's relations with it are as important for analysis of bureaucracy as the new techniques for improvement of organisational efficiency.5
In conclusion, To conclude
People's participation in the development process means active cooperation and involvement of the general masses and the targeted public in the various interfaces of the decision-making process in development administration This calls for their active interests, enthusiasm and cooperation in planning, implementation and evaluation of development programmes at all levels, particularly at the grassroots level. Public participation must become a mass movement, for, it is not only a means to development but in itself a development goal. Public participation is integral to the very process of development, particularly the development of a developing democracy like India. It calls for both political and administrative decentralisation. The Panchayati Raj institutions were established as institutions of grassroots democracy and of democratic development. In the recent past, the system has lost its old moorings, its ethos and elan. The need of the hour is to revive and rejuvenate the Panchayati Raj bodies by holding elections to them at stated
472
intervals, by developing adequate resources and power to these local government institutions, by according adequate representation in such bodies to members of weaker sections such as women, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by compulsory reservation of seats, nomination or co-option as in Gujarat, by eradicating poverty through structural changes in society including more effective implementation of land reforms, increasing production and productivity through modernisation, science and technology, generation of employment opportunities and providing a purposeful relevant education to our children and adults and inculcating national unity.6
Public Accountability and Control
One of the norms of democratic administration is that power should be commensurate with responsibility and the holders of public office should be accountable to the people for the exercise of authority. This is considered an effective safeguard against the misuse of power and abuse of public authority. Various forms and measures of public accountability of administration have been devised in all democratic states, including India.
According to L.D. White,7 public accountability consists of the "sum total of the constitutional, statutory, administrative and judicial rules and precedents and the established practices by means of which public officials may be held accountable for their official action." In other words, public accountability refers to the liability of government servants to give a satisfactory account of the use of official power or discretionary authority to the people. This is considered a check against arbitrary use of authority.
Various formal and objective methods and procedures (legislative, executive and judicial) have been gradually evolving to ensure the public servant's accountability and responsiveness to the public will in democracies.
With the ever increasing functions and importance of public administration in modern welfare states the issue of public accountability has assumed great importance. The civil servants not only implement policy but in a large measure are actively responsible for their initiation and formulation. In Third World countries where the bureaucracy becomes the chief agent of social and economic change and progress, they have to be given a wide range of discretionary authority to perform their functions. No
473
clear norms and precedents exist and in many situations bureaucrats are largely left to themselves to take decisions. In the authoritarian administrative culture which pervades many of the Third World countries an effective system of public control over administration is a growing imperative to curb all kinds of authoritarian tendencies.
A successful system of administrative control should strike a balance between the effective use of public authority and the democratic rights of the people.
The extent and range of public accountability varies according to the constitutional framework of the country. In direct democracies like Switzerland, the control of the people over administration is far more direct and effective than in indirect democracies. In communist countries like the Soviet Union and China, public accountability, in effect, means accountability of the administration to the communist party. In indirect democracies, the major agencies which exert control over administration are the legislature, executive and the judiciary. In the cabinet form of government, as in England and India, legislative control is more effective than in the presidential form.
In modern democracies people exercise control over the administration through their elected representatives in the legislature. It is the legislature which lays down the policy and sets the administrative wheels in motion. It chalks out the nature and scope of administrative action, determines the number of administrative personnel, besides sanctioning requisite funds for the implementation of government policies. The control of the legislature does not end here. It also continues to supervise, direct and control the implementation of administration.
In parliamentary forms of government, it is the political executive, the minister, who is accountable to the legislature for the administrative acts of the departmental heads. The public officials are not personally answerable to parliament for their official acts though they may have to appear before parliamentary committees to defend certain legislative proposals.
In India, the principal methods of legislative control are of three types, that is, control over (i) policy, (ii) departmental acts, and (iii) finances.
The various methods of exercising such control are:
474
Debates and Discussions
The parliament may exercise control through various debates and discussions which provide an opportunity for the review of governmental policies and their implementation. The more notable occasions for discussion among these are during the president's inaugural speech to both houses of parliament, the budget speech of the finance minister or during the introduction of new legislative proposals.
There are also some other occasions, when various aspects of administration are put up for legislative comment or criticism.
Resolutions or Motions
The legislature has the power to pass resolutions on any matter or move motions to censure a particular minister or the government as a whole. The most important motions are call attention motion, adjournment motion, privilege motion and the no-confidence motion. A resolution is only meant to be recommendatory whereas censure motions, if passed, make it compulsory for the government to resign.
Questions
In a parliamentary form of government, legislative questions become the most continuous and vocal method of the people's representatives to exercise their scrutiny over the acts of omission and commission of the government. During the question hour in parliament any member can ask any
question seeking information on any matter. The minister concerned replies to these questions with the aid of the bureaucrats and secretaries in his department. If the answer given to a question does not satisfy the questioner, supplementary questions can also be asked to which ministers are expected to give satisfactory replies. The main purpose of the question hour is to ventilate public grievances and to draw the attention of the people towards various facilities of the government. Since the question may cover any field or branch of administration, the public officials are constantly alert, conscientious and responsible for their official acts.
Budgetary Control
In every democratic country, the legislature controls the nation's purse-strings. No money can be spent by the executive without legislative sanction. The budget proposals are extensively
475
debated in parliament before being voted upon. With the ruling party enjoying a majority in parliament, in parliamentary democracies the demand for grants can neither be rejected nor reduced, but provides an opportunity for a general review of public policy. It is also the duty of the parliament to see that the money sanctioned has been spent economically and in accordance with the guideliness laid down by it. This requires proper audit of governmental expenditure which is the duty of the comptroller and auditor general of India. The auditor general while auditing the governmental expenditure examines whether the money spent had legislative sanction and whether it was spent for the purpose for which sanction was made. It also examines governmental expenditure from the principles of economy and financial propriety.
Parliamentary Committees
Modern parliaments are so overburdened with work that they neither have the time nor technical expertise or knowledge to go into the details of the working of various administrative agencies and governmental departments. Thus the parliamentary committee system was evolved to act as a watchdog on public administration and governmental functioning. Some of the important committees of Parliament in India are: Public Accounts Committees, Estimates Committee, Committee on Public Undertakings, Committee on Subordinate Legislation and so on.
The Public Accounts Committee examines the report of the auditor general regarding the propriety of expenditure incurred by government department. The Estimates Committee examines the budgetary estimates sent by different ministers to suggest, economies in expenditure.
The Public Undertakings Committee is responsible for scrutinising the reports and accounts of the public sector undertakings in India to see whether they are being managed in accordance with sound business principles.
The main purpose of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation is to exercise a necessary check over delegated legislation which is a typical legislative outgrowth of modern parliamentary states. The legislature usually lays down the broad principles and outlines of laws delegating authority to the administration to fill in the details. The above committee in India is charged with the responsibility of seeing whether the powers
476
delegated by the parliament have been properly exercised within the framework of the parliamentary statute delegating such authority.
Limitations of Legislative Control
The relative ineffectiveness of legislative control in the modern age is a universal phenomenon in all democratic countries. Legislatures neither have the time nor expertise to effectively control all spheres of administration. Their control is sporadic in nature and that too meant to highlight certain acts of omission and commission, which might have been brought to their notice by the public or the press. In the presidental form, congressional control over administration is very limited in nature and scope. In parliamentary countries like India legislative control is considerably reduced and restricted in effectiveness due to the following reasons:
(a) The executive plays a key role in formulating policies. The legislative leadership therefore rests more with the government.
(b) The expansion in the volume and variety of administrative work has led to the increasing incapacity of the legislatures to effectively control the ever-growing bureaucracy.
(c) Budgetary control is also limited by the fact that since voting is always on party lines any government with the required legislative majority can get any demand for grant passed in parliament. Hence, legislative control over administration is more illusory than real or substantive in nature.
Executive Control of Public Administration
In a parliamentary form of government, it is the council of ministers who are collectively responsible to the legislature for all the departmental activities. Each minister is also individually responsible for the acts of omission and commission of his department and may have to resign if a no-confidence motion is passed against him any time. In his administrative work, the minister is assisted by the secretary of the department and other high officials who are concerned with the operational aspects of routine administration rather than the minister who lays down the broad administrative policies of the department. The main need for executive control over public administration lies in the fact that under the cloak of ministerial responsibility the powers
477
of the civil servants are growing everywhere, and hence the ministers may find it necessary to keep a check on their powers since the ultimate legislature responsibility is theirs. The chief executive formulates policies whose implementation depends entirely on the civil servants. The civil servants are often conservative. Very often the government finds it difficult to implement programmes which in some way or other disturb the vested interests of the civil servants, for example, in the USA during President Roosevelt's tenure, the bureaucracy was found to be an obstacle in the speedy implementation of the New Deal Programme. In England too, the civil service proved to be an impediment to the socialistic programmes of the Labour Government after the Second World War. In India, the government often complains of the inflexible attitude of the administrators who are accused of being not sufficiently committed to the socialistic programmes of the government.
There are many methods of executive control of administration, but according to E.N. Gladden,8 there are three important controls of the executive on the civil service, namely political directions through ministerial administrator, the operation of the national budgetary system and recruitment by an independent authority.
Policy Making
It is the task of the chief executive to frame administrative policies. In the USA, the president determines the broad outlines of administrative policy. He has the power to delegate the policy-making power to
various heads of departments within the overall framework of his guidelines without in any way delegating his main responsibility of direction, supervision and control. In a parliamentary government, it is the cabinet which is in charge of policy making, overall direction and coordination of the different branches of administration, besides individual ministers exercising control over public officials in their respective departments
Budgetary System
It is the executive which is responsible for the framing of the budget, getting the demand for grants passed in parliament, and then allocating necessary funds to each department for expenditure. Every department submits its annual financial demand to the executive before the budget is framed, which has
478
to be first approved by the cabinet before it finds its place in the final budget estimates.
Recruitment
The broad principles of recruitment are laid down by the chief executive. The ministers themselves select the secretaries and deputies of their departments. Other recruitments to the civil service are, however, done on the recommendation of an independent recruiting board—the Public Service Commissions—in most democratic countries. In the USA the chief executive seeks senatorial approval of the official appointments he makes but he has the exclusive power of dismissal of his cabinet and top aides.
Executive Law Making
Delegated legislation becomes an importance tool of exercising executive control over public officials. Most of the laws passed by the parliament provide a broad framework and the minor details are filled in by the administrators in their daily application of laws. This is an important method of executive control over administration and can be used in controlling administration by laying down rules and regulations to be observed in the implementation of a particular law concerned.
Executive controls are very important because they are self-corrective and continuous in nature. However, the effectiveness of these controls depends much on the civil service-minister relationship specially in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy. The minister who is an amateur in administration
has to depend on the administrative abilities of his secretaries in the departments who are considered experts in the field. Since government comprises both the wings (political and permanent) of the executive, an effective coordination between the two leads to harmonious functioning of the administrative departments. The minister and his administrator colleagues should work together as a team based on mutual trust and understanding. The minister should lay down policies and supervise wherever necessary without interfering in the details of administration. Before taking important decisions the minister should take all representative opinions into consideration though he is not bound by any advice. The civil servants on their part can influence, persuade or advise the minister in whatever way they
479
choose, but it is their official duty to implement a policy as faithfully as possible once a decision is taken by the minister.
Judicial Control
In democracies, the judiciary plays an important role in upholding the sanctity of the Constitution and protecting the rights and liberties of the people. L.D. White explaining the importance of judicial control writes:
The system of formal external control over officials and their acts falls primarily into two main divisions—that exercised by the legislative bodies and that imposed by courts. The purpose of legislative supervision is principally to control the policy and the expenditure of the executive branch, the end sought by judicial control of administrative acts is to ensure their legality and thus to protect citizens against unlawful trespass on their constitutional or other rights.9
The main task of the judiciary is to protect individual citizens whenever the official authority encroaches on their constitutional or statutory rights. The necessity of control has given birth to the doctrine of rule of law, a concept which was made famous by the British constitutional lawyer, A.V. Dicey. In the following passage from Dicey's book, there is classic exposition of this concept:
No man in punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land, no man is above the
law, but every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals... the general principles of Constitution... are with us the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the court.10
Scope of Judicial Intervention
The judiciary can interfere with administrative orders whenever they cause prejudice to the rights of persons due to lack of jurisdiction, patent error of law and fact, and abuse of power or irregularities of procedure. The causes of judicial intervention can be elaborated a little further.
Lack of Jurisdiction: Every public official is to act within the clearly defined limits of authority entrusted to him most often for a certain period and within a specified area. If he contravenes the
480
limits of the scope of authority content period/areawise, his actions may be declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Errors of Law: Judicial remedies may be sought by citizens, if any official misinterprets the law and imposes on the citizens duties and obligations which are not required by the content of law. A citizen who has suffered on account of an error of law has the right to claim damages in courts.
Error of Fact Finding: There may be cases in which the official has erred in finding facts and acted on wrong presumptions, which may affect a citizen wrongly, who can bring this matter to light in courts.
Abuse of Authority: If a public official abuses his official authority to inflict suffering or injustice on any person, the courts have the power to intervene and punish the official.
Errors of Procedure: It is the duty of public officials to act according to certain laid-down legal procedures in the exercise of authority. If any public official does not follow the prescribed procedure, the courts have a right to pronounce on the legality of his action.
With the increase in power, number and functions of administrative bodies the rights of citizens are also protected by the quasi-judicial tribunals which exist in most democratic countries.
Judicial Remedies for Lawsuits against Government and Officials
Judicial intervention can be in the form of suing the government itself or the public official concerned against whom any citizen may want a redressal of his grievance. The position regarding the suitability of the government and public officials differs in the countries following the system of rule of law from those following the administrative law. The rule of law system prevails in England, the USA and most Commonwealth countries including India. The administrative law system is practised in France and some countries of Europe.
The rule of law system establishes that the public officials are subject to the ordinary laws of the land and cannot seek official protection for acts performed in their official capacity for which they are personally liable or suitable in courts. However, there are always certain high officials who enjoy legal immunity for official
481
acts in all countries like the British monarch, the American president, the president of India and governors of Indian states. The suability of the state in India is governed by Article 300 of the Constitution, which clearly states that the state is suitable for contracts, that is, trading functions and is not suitable for the tortuous acts of its officials. In practice, however, the state is often held responsible for the illegal acts of its public officials.
On the other hand, in the countries where the system of administrative law prevails, the state is liable and suitable for all illegal acts of its officials. The errant officials in these countries are tried not in ordinary courts but in the administrative courts which have the powers to award damages from the public funds to the aggrieved parries.
Extraordinary Judicial Remedies in India
The courts in India have also been constiutionally provided with a number of writs which may be used by them to protect citizens' rights against arbitrary violation by the government or public officials.
Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus, which literally means "to produce the body of" is a prerogative writ meant to provide immediate relief from arbitrary confinement or restraint and is issued for the vindication of the individual right to personal liberty by scrutinising the legality of the confinement by the court. It is an obligatory power of the courts to issue this writ if there is a prima facie case of supposing that the person detained is unlawfully deprived of his right to liberty. The writ will normally be issued if the court feels satisfied that the detention has not been made in accordance with the procedure established by law (Articles 21 and 22) and the person detained has not been produced before the magistrate, within twenty-four hours of his arrest. However, the Preventive Detention Act in India restricts the overall merit of this writ to a great extent. But even this Act has been hedged in with certain safeguards to prevent its arbitrary use. A person cannot be detained for a period of more than three months unless the cause of detention is investigated by an advisory board consisting of persons of the status of a judge of a high court within that period and the board has upheld the cause of such detention.
Mandamus
The writ of mandamus is a command issued by a common law court of competent jurisdiction directing any person, corporation
482
or inferior court requiring him or them to do some particular thing specified therein which concerns this or their office and is in the nature of public duty. This writ cannot be claimed, as a matter of right and its issuance is entirely optional and discretionary by the courts. It is a writ issued to a public official to perform an official duty which he has failed to do. Normally, the writ is not issued, unless there is an alternative remedy which is self-sufficient, beneficial and effective.
Prohibition
Prohibition is a judicial writ issued by a higher to a lower court for preventing it from usurping jurisdiction which it has not been legally vested with. The writ thus commands the lower court not to exercise its power and authority over a matter which is not in its sphere of jurisdiction. This writ can be claimed as a matter of right and can be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals.
Certiorari
The writ of certiorari means the direction of a superior court to an inferior court for transferring the records of proceedings of a case pending with it for the purpose of determining the legality of the proceedings and for giving more satisfactory effect to them than could be done in the inferior court concerned. The writ can be made available to adjudicate upon the validity of judicial decisions.
This writ usually upholds or nullifies the judgment of the inferior court.
Quo Warranto
The literal meaning of the word "quo warranto" means "what warranty or authority". The writ of quo warranto is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to a permanent public office or franchise and to remove him from the post if his claim is found to be illegal. The burden of proof to prove his claim lies on the respondent.
It is now clear that the writs discussed above are in the nature of judicial control over judicial as well as administrative acts. The Supreme Court in India has been empowered under the Constitution to issue directions, writs and orders in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the Indian citizens and the high courts have been empowered within their jurisdiction to issue directions, orders or writs for the
483
enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Thus, it would be observed that the powers of high courts are wider to the extent that besides issuing writs they can also issue other directions and orders as may be found necessary not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose.
Limitations of Judicial Control
Judicial remedies are no doubt a great bulwark of individual rights and liberties but they are also hedged in with certain limitations which often restrict their general usefulness. Firstly, all administrative actions are not subject to judicial control. Secondly, even within their sphere of jurisdiction, the judiciary cannot intervene on its own but can intervene only on the request of injured parties who may or may not choose to seek judicial redress. A large fraction of cases of administrative excesses do not even come before the courts because the judicial process being slow, cumbersome and expensive many do not like to take advantage of judicial remedies even though they may be aware of them.
Notes and References
1. Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration, Policy Making in Government Agencies, p. 217.
2. Tarlok Singh, India's Development Experience, Macmillan, Delhi, 1974.
3. For a detailed discussion on the various methods of citizen participation, see Noorjahan Bava, People's Participation in the Development Administration in India, Uppal, New Delhi, 1982.
4. Samuel J. Eldersveld, V. Jagannadham, A.P. Barnabas, The Citizen and the Administrator in a Developing Democracy, New Delhi, 1968, Indian Institute of Public Administration.
5. V. Jagannadham, "Administration and the Citizen", in Indian journal of Public Administration, 17 (1971), p. 616.
6. Noorjahan Bava, People's Participation in Development Administration in India, pp. 194-195.
7. L.D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, p. 495.
8. E.N. Gladden, Essentials of Public Administration, Staples Press, London, 1953, p. 81.
9. L.D. White, An Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, pp. 574-475.
10. A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan, London, 1931, pp. 183-184, 189, 191.
484
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afanasyev V.G., The Scientific Management of Society, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1971.
Albrow, Martin, Bureaucracy, London, Pall Mall, 1970.
AH, Shum Shun Nisa, Eminent Administrative Thinkers, New Delhi, Associated Publishing House, 1984.
Anderson, James E., Public Policy Making, London, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1975.
Appleby, Paul H., Policy and Administration, Alabama University of Alabama Press, 1957.
Arora, Ramesh (ed.), Administrative Theory, New Delhi, IIPA, 1984
, (ed.) Perspectives in Administrative Theory, New Delhi, Associate Publishers, 1979.
Avasthi A. and Arora Ramesh K. (eds.), Bureaucracy and Development: Indian Perspectives, New Delhi, Associated Publishing House, 1978.
Avasthi A. and Maheshwari S., Public Administration, Agra, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1983.
Bernett A. Doak, Cadres, Bureaucracy and Political Power in Communist China, New York, Columbia University Press, 1967.
Bava, Noorjahan, People's Participation in Development Administration in India, New Delhi, Uppal Publishing House, 1984.
Bhalerao C.N. (ed.), Administration, Politics and Development in India, Bombay, Lalwani Publishing House, 1972.
Bhambhri C.P., Administration in a Changing Society, Delhi, National Publishing House, 1972.
-----, Bureaucracy and Politics in India, Delhi, Vikas, 1971.
Bhattacharya, Mohit, Bureaucracy and Development Administration, New Delhi, Uppal Publishing House, 1979.
-----, Public Administration, Calcutta, World Press, 1987.
Caiden, Gerald E., Dynamics of Public Administration: Guidelines to Current Transformations in Theory and Practice, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1971.
Crozier, Michael, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964.
485
Dutta P.R., Public Administration and the State, New Delhi, Uppal, 1978.
Dwivedi O.P. and Jain, R.B., India's Administrative State, New Delhi, Gitanjali Publishing House, 1985.
Dunn, William N. and Fozouni Bahman, Toward a Critical Administrative Theory, Delhi, Sage Publications, 1976.
Eldersveld, S.J. Barnabas A.P. and Jagannadham (eds.), The Citizen and the Administration in a Developing Democracy, An Empirical Study, IIP A, New Delhi, 1968.
Gladden E.N., History of Public Administration, London, Frank Cass, 1972.
Goel S.L., Advanced Public Administration, New Delhi, Sterling, 1994.
------, Personnel Administration and Management, Sterling, New Delhi, 1993.
Golebiewski R.T. (ed.), Public Administration, Readings in Institutions, Processes, Behaviour, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1976.
------, Public Administration as a Developing Discipline, New York, Marcel Dekker, 1977.
Heady, Ferrel, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc., 1984.
Henry, Nicholas, Public Administration and Public Affairs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1975.
Hill, Michael J., The Sociology of Public Administration, London, Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1972.
Hough, Jerry F. and Fainsod, Merle, How the Soviet Union is Governed, Cambridge, MIT, Harvard University Press, 1979.
Jain R.B., Contemporary Issues in Indian Administration, Delhi, Vishal Publishers, 1976.
Nigro, Felix A., Modern Public Administration, New York, Harper and Row, 1970.
Panandikar V. A. Pai and Kshirsagar S.S. (eds.), Bureaucracy and Development Administration, New Delhi, Centre for Policy Research, 1978.
Prasad Ravindra D. & Sivalinga V. & Satyanarayana P. (eds.), Administrative Thinkers, New Delhi, Light & Life Publishers, 1980.
Riggs, Fred W., The Ecology of Public Administration, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1961.
486
------, Administration in Developing Countries, The Theory of Prismatic Society, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1964.
Sapru, R.K., Public Policy: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation, New Delhi, Sterling, 1993.
Schapiro, Leonard, The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union, London, Hutchinson University Library, 1970.
Self, Peter, Administrative Theories and Politics: An Enquiry into the Structure and Process of Modern Government, New Delhi, S. Chand and Company, 1984.
Sharan, Parmatma, Modern Public Administration, Meerut, Meenakshi Prakashan, 1981.
Sharkansky Ira, Public Administration, Policy Making in Government Agencies, Chicago, Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1978.
Smith, Gordon, Public Policy and Administration in Soviet Union, New York, Praeger, 1980.
Swerdlow, Irving, Development Administration, Concepts and Problems, New York, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1983.
Thavaraj, M.J.K., Financial Administration, Delhi, Atma Ram and Sons, 1975.
Varlamov K., Socialist Management: The Leninist Concept, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1977.
Wang, James C.F., Contemporary Chinese Politics, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1980.
Uveges, Joseph A. Jr. (eds.), Public Administration: History and Theory in Contemporary Perspective, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Basel, 1982.
487
INDEX
Adams, Brook, 61
Administration and People, 464-486;
Problems of people's participation in developing countries, 466-467;
Means of citizen participation, 468-472;
Public accountability and control, 472-476;
Executive control of public administration, 476-479;
Judicial control, 479-480;
Judicial remedies for law suits against government and officials, 480-481;
Extraordinary judicial remedies in India, 481-483;
Limitations of judicial control, 483
Administration, Polity and Society, 76-103;
Interaction with historical and political legacies, 77-80;
Administration and social structure, 80-81;
Interaction with Traditional structures and culture, 81-89;
Impact of political system, 89-92;
Situation in developing countries, 92-94;
Administration and economic structure, 94-100;
Integrated perspective, 100-103;
Administrative behaviour, 133-163, 442-443;
Bases of decision making, 133-134;
Problems of decision making, 134-135;
Decision making and Herbert Simon, 135-136;
Simon's Models, 136-139;
Criticism, 139;
Leadership, 139-142;
Motivation and morale, 142-144;
Theories of motivation, 144-146;
Abraham Maslow, 146-149
Douglas McGregor, 149-152
Chris Argyris, 152-156
Herzberg's Theory, 156-159
Rensis Likert, 159-163
Administrative Lag, 61
Administrative law, regulation and reforms, 334-353
Delegated legislation, 334-337
Committee on subordinate Legislation, 338-339
Administrative adjudication, 339-341
Forms of administrative tribunals in India, 341-345
Administrative reforms, 345-353
Administrative Reforms Commission, 194, 247, 249, 257, 263, 282, 297, 300, 310, 321, 330, 349, 350,462
Administrative State, 54, 69
"Agraria - Transitia – Industria Model", 42,44
All India Medical Council, 196
Almond, Gabriel, 41, 66, 385, 433
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 21
American public administration, 21, 110
Analysis of political systems, 435
Appleby, Paul H., 7, 91,141,167, 183, 257, 262, 276, 345, 346, 349, 429
Approaches and relations of public administration with other Subjects, 34-52;
Approaches: past and present, 34-45;
Public policy approach, 45;
Political economy approach, 46;
488
Marxian traditions, 46-47;
Relations with history, law, economics, political science and sociology, 47-52
Appropriation Act, 326
Apter, David, 41
Argyris, Chris, 38, 118, 119, 139, 152-156,167
Aristotle, 10, 464
Aron Raymond, 50
Arthashastra, 10
Barnabas, 470
Barnard, Chester, 17, 37, 38, 127, 140, 141, 142, 144, 172
Barnett, Doak, 411, 412
Barve, S.G., 349
Bavelas, Alex, 118, 119
Beard, Charles, 15, 61
Beetham, David, 130
Belgium, 35, 48
Bennis, Warren, 38, 119, 130
Berger, Morroe, 382
Bertalanffy, Von, 39
Bhambhri, C.P., 38, 78, 80, 396
Bhattacharya, Mohit, 303
"Big Government", 54, 78
Blau, Peter, 38
Bolsheviks, 86
Braibhanti, Ralph, 399
Braverman, 47
Brown, Radcliffe, 41
Buddhism, 86
Bureaucracy, 58, 63, 67-69, 72, 75, 78-80, 85, 92, 95, 119, 123-131, 350, 395, 398, 399, 400, 403, 405
Byrant, Bjur, 368
CAG, 180, 187, 219
Caiden, Gerald, 2, 58, 346
Cambridge University, 387
Cant, George, 360
Cartwright, D., 118
Central Social Welfare Board, 196
Champman, Richard, L., 56
Charlesworth, 196
Chaturvedi, T. N.,398
Churchman, West, C, 40
Civic Culture, 93
Civil Service Commission, 187
Clegg, Stewart, 47
Cleveland, Fredrick, N., 56
Coffee Board, 32
Coleman. S., 85
Comparative public administration-I, 380-401;
Significance and importance, 380-385;
British administrative system, 385-388;
Administrative system of United States, 388-390
Indian administrative system, 390-393
Administrative organisation in India, 393-394
Evolving administrative system, 394-396
Socio-Eco-nomic background, 396-397
Indian bureaucracy and development administration, 397-400
Future trends, 400-401
Comparative public administration - II, 403-428;
Comparison between Weberian Model and the Socialist Model of organisation and management, 403-405;
Lenin's contribution to the Socialist theory of organisation and management, 405
Socialist theory of Organisation: the concept of democratic centralism, 405-407
The Chinese administrative system, features and trends, 407-409
Administrative Structure, 409-413
Interlocking structure of the government and party, 413-414
Development of Chinese bureaucracy, 414-417
489
Comparison between Chinese and the Western Administrative models, 417-421
Western conception of administration, 422
Chinese conceptions, 422-423
Similarities between two models, 423-424
Current administrative reforms in China, 424-428 Confucius, 10
Council of Cardinals, 191
Crozir, Michael, 38, 365, 382
Dahl, Robert, 17, 44
Davies, Ernest, 231
Davis, Keith, 118
Dean, Peter, B., 317
Democratic Administration, 62-64
Development administration, 60, 74, 96, 354-377
Problems of developing countries, 354-358
Concept, 358-362
Politican and administrative development, 362-364
Development administration theory: A critique, 364-367
Contemporary approach, 367-368
Contemporary theorising in development administration, 368-369
Weberian Model of bureaucracy and development administration, 369-373
Riggsian Model and development administration, 373-377
Deutsch, Kari, 433
Diamant, 66
Dicey, A.V., 479
Dickson, William, 117,119
Dimock, Marshall, 3, 169, 184, 231, 339, 429
Dorsey, John, 385
Downs, 28, 46
Dror, Yehezkel, 458
Drucker, Peter, F., 10, 17
Dunkerly, David, 47
Easton, David, 429, 435
Eisenstadt, 66
Elbourne, 184
Eldersveld, 470
Election Commission, 180
Elizabeth -I, 293
Emerson, 10
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences,334
Engels, 405
Esman, 70
Etizioni, Amital, 420, 440, 441
Fainsod, 359
Fayol, 5, 8, 10, 14, 36, 61, 111, 112, 113, 165-167
Federalists, 34, 48
Ferner, 84
Fesler, James, 20, 197, 228
Finance Commission, 32
Financial Administration, 312- 332
Budget, 312-316
Features of performance budget, 316
Principles, 317-318
Significance/purpose, 318
Processes of performance budget, 318-319
Merits of performance budget, 319-320
Limitations of performance budget, 320
Performance budget in India, 321-322
Budgeting process in India, 322-326
Instruments of financial control, 326-328
Importance of Audit, 328
Audit in India, 328-330
Audit and administration, 330-332
Finer, Herman, 242, 243, 246, 273
Follett, M.P., 5, 10, 14, 110-113, 185, 188, 189
Formalism, 72
France, 35, 48, 202
490
Fredrickson, 23
Fulton Committee, 57, 257, 300, 302
Gandhi, Mahatma, 86
Gaus, John, 42, 76
General and industrial administration, 112
Germany, 35, 48
Ghildyal, 372
Gladden, E.N., 55, 242, 477
Goodnow, 13
Gorwala, A.D., 229, 263
Gouldner, 127
Graicunas, V.A., 169, 170, 171
Graves, 183, 222
Griha Kalyan Kendra, 281
Gulick, Luther, 9, 14, 15, 16, 32, 35, 36, 111, 113, 114, 185, 202, 208, 215
Guofeng, Hua, 413
Haldane Committee, 217 Halsey, 179
Harvard Business School, 117 Hawthorne Experiment, 16, 111,
117, 118
Heady, Ferrel, 76, 355
Hegel, 124
Henry-VIII, 243
Herzberg, Fredrick, 156-159
Herzhera, 143
Higginbotham, 399
Honey, C. John, 20, 21
Hoover Commission Task Force, 227, 389
Hoxie, Robert (Prof.), 110
Huntington S.P., 362
Importance and challenges in society, 54-75;
Role in modern state, 54-61;
Attaining democratic and socialistic goals, 61-65;
Challenges in developed societies, 65-70;
Importance of public administration in a developed society, 70-75
Indian administration, 34, 48
Indian Civil Service, 77
Indian Historical Records Commission, 187
Indian Institute of Public Administration, 267, 300
Industrial Policy Resolution, (1956), 229
Industrial Revolution, 106
Institute for Social Research, 179
Jagannadham, 470
Jainism, 86
Jeffersonians, 34, 48
Joint Parliamentary Committee, 310
Kautilya, 10
Kendriya Bhandar, 281
Kennedy, 290
Khera, S.S., 189
Kingsley, J.D., 249
Koontz and O'Donnell, 140
Korten and Klaus, 368
Kothari Committee, 259
Kothari, Shanthi, 38
Krishna, Dheerendra, 331
Kshirsagar, 361, 400
Laird, Roy, 382
Landau, Martin, 385
Laski, 128
Law of Karma, 86
Law of Manu, 86
Leadership: man and functions, 119
Lenin, 47, 110, 405, 406
Leviathan administrative theory, 29
Lewisohn, Sam, 110
Likert, 143, 159-163
Lilliputian Administration, 217
Lindblom, Charles, 439, 440, 452
491
Linking Pin Model of Organisation Structure, 161, 162
Lloyd, 128
MacFarland, 184
Machiavelli, 10
Mahabharata, 10
Malinowski, 41
Management and Morale, 118
Management and the Worker, 117
Management by Objectives, 145
Mandell, Milton M., 245
Mao, 409, 417, 421
Marini, Frank, 20
Marx, 3, 31, 46, 47, 123, 124, 405, 464
Maslow 18, 143, 146, 148, 149, 156
Mathur, Kuldeep, 38
Matrix organisation, 155
Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, 130
Mayo, Elton, 117
McGregor, 143, 149, 150-152, 156
Merton, Robert, 38, 41, 118, 119, 128, 370
Metcalfe, 10
Michels, Robert, 122, 124
Miller, 40
Millet, John, D., 168, 176, 177
Minnowbrook Conference, 20, 22, 1968 (USA)
Models of Man, 444
Montgomery, 138, 359
Mooney, J.D., 10,14, 36, 111, 112, 165, 182, 183, 188, 190
Morgan, 144
Mosher, Fredrick, C, 257
Motivation-Hygiene Theory, 156
Mouzelis, Nicos, 47
National Development Council, 187
Nature and scope of public administration, 1-32;
Meaning and definition, 2-5;
Public and private administration, 5-9;
An art or a science, 9-10;
Evolution and growth, 10-20;
New public administration, 20-24;
Administrative responsiveness, 24-25;
Rationality, 25;
Management worker relations, 25;
Structures, 25-27;
Public Choice School, 27-28;
Current concerns, 28-31;
Scope, 31-32
New despotism, 128
New public administration, 20, 22-24, 26, 27
Newman, 182
New Science of Management decision, 138, 144
Nigro, F.A., 4, 264
Niskanen, 28
Nixon, 290
Northcote-Trevelyn Report, 386
October Revolution, (1917), 46, 47
Offe, Claus, 131
Organisation and management, 17
Organisational development, 145
Ostrom, Vincent, 27
Oxford University, 387
POSDCORB, 15, 25, 32, 113, 208, 299
Palombara, La, 66, 357
Panandikar, Pai, 38, 361, 400
Parker, 30
Parsons, Talcott, 41
Personnel administration-I, 241-294;
Concept of a career Civil Service , 242-246;
Position classification, 246-249;
Recruitment of Civil Service personnel, 249-258;
Recruitment system in India, 258-259;
UPSC and SPSC in India,259-261;
492
Staff Selection Commission, 261-262;
Public Enterprises Selection Board, 262- 263;
Training, 263-271;
Promotion, 271-275;
Performance appraisal in India, 275-277;
Remuneration and service condition, 277-278;
Methods of job evaluation, 278-279;
Role of Pay Commissions, 279-280;
Other civil conditions, 280-282;
Conduct and discipline, 282-283;
Constitutional provisions and public services, 283-287;
Employer-employee relations, 287-291;
Joint consultation machinery and compulsary arbitration structure, 291-293;
Working of Staff Association in India, 293-294
Personnel Administration II: Some Issues, 296-311;
Civil Service neutrality, 296-299;
Generalistic-Specialistic relationship, 299-302;
Integrity in public administration, 302-305;
Institutional services to combat administrative excesses, 305-307;
Administrative vigilance and discipline: Indian response, 307-308;
CBI, 308;
Special Police Establishment, 308;
Central Vigilance Commission, 309-311
Pfiffner, J.M., 3, 31, 36, 178, 191, 211, 250
Philadelphia Conference on theory and practice of Public Administration, 1967 (USA), 20
Pigors, Paul, 61
Planning Commission, 186, 187, 236, 237, 461, 456
Powell, 245
Presthus, 36, 129, 250
Principles and methods of scientific management, 106
Principles of organisation, 165-205;
Hierarchy, 165-167;
Unity of command, 167-168;
Span of control, 169-171;
Authority, 171-174;
Responsibility, 174-176;
Supervision, 176-180;
Integration versus disintegration, 180-181;
Coordination, 181-188;
Centralisation and decentralisation, 194-200;
Issues in field headquarters relationship, 200-205
Prismatic Society Revisited, 376
Prussia, 11
Public Accounts Committee, 331
Public Administrtion Review, 22
Public Enterprises Selection Board, 262
Public Policy, 429-463;
Significance, 429-430;
Why study public policy, 430-431;
Factors determining public policy formulation, 431-432;
Political culture, 432-434;
Socio-economic conditions and natural resources, 434-435;
Conceptual approaches to policy making, 435;
System model for policy analysis, 437, 438;
Rational policy making model 438-441;
Simon's models, 441-444;
The official policy makers, 444-448;
Administrative role, 448-449;
The courts, 449-450;
Unofficial participants, 450;
Pressure groups, 450-451;
Political parties, 451-453;
Policy formulation in India, 453-455;
Established Institutions, 455-457;
Need for policy evaluation, 457-458;
Evaluation of public policy, 459-462
493
Public Service Commission, 208, 254, 263, 274, 283, 286
Pye, Lucian, 357, 359
Radhakrishnan, S., 328
Ramayana, 10
Reflections of Public Administration, 43
Reily, 14, 111, 112, 165, 190
Rice, 40
Riggs, F.W., 19, 29, 41, 42, 44, 65, 70, 72, 76, 95, 130, 356, 357, 359, 373, 375, 377, 383
Robson, Prof., 232, 340
Roethlisberger, F.J., 117-119
Rogers, 368
Rondinelli, 199, 364
Roodman, Zelda, 193
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 233, 477
Roy, Ramashray, 38
Rudolph Susanne, 128
Rules of India Series, 34, 48
Samurains, 86
Santhanan Committee, 308
Santhanam, K., 456
Sayles, Leonard, 118
Sayre,W.S.,388
"Scalar Principles", 112
Schell, 140
Science of public administration, three problems, 17
Seckler - Hudson, 134, 140, 168, 185, 432
Self, Peter, 90, 91, 296
Sharkansky, Ira, 69, 100, 108
Sheldon, Oliver, 110
Shelton,R.,111
Simon, Herbert, 3, 17, 37, 38, 40, 91, 115, 127, 135, 139, 155, 165, 264, 442-444
Smithburg, D.W., 137, 443
Socialism, 64, 65
Staff Councils, 64
Stahl, 247
State Public Services Commission 286, 394
Stone, Donald C, 363
Structure of organisations, 207-240;
Types of chief executive, 207-208;
Functions of chief executive, 208-209;
Line, staff and auxiliary agencies, 209-214;
Departments, 214-221;
Boards and commissions, 221-228;
Public enterprises, 228-235;
Staff agencies in India, UK, USA, 235-240
Subramanian, V., 396
Taft Commission Report, 14
Tariff Commission, 32
Taylor, 10, 12, 36, 106-111, 113, 144, 158, 167, 168
Tead, Ordway, 9, 62
Terry, 141, 183, 188
Thavraj, 315, 321
The Change Process in Organisation, 119
The human side of the enterprise, 149
Theories of organisation, 105-131;
Scientific management, 106-107;
Standardisation of work methods, 107;
Scientific selection and training of workers, 107;
Equal division of work between management and worker, 107-108;
Mutual collaboration of workers and management, 106-111;
Classical theory, 111-116;
Human relations theory, 116-119;
Comparison between Classical and human relations theory, 119-120;
Difference between formal and informal organisation, 120-122;
Bureaucratic theory, 122-131
494
Third World, 31, 44, 54, 60, 61, 63, 71, 73-75, 82-85, 198, 270, 316, 354
Thompson, V.A., 137, 443
Thurstone, L.L., 255
Trivedi, R.K., 395
Tullock, 28, 46
UGC, 187, 196
UK, 57, 64;
Commissions, 219-220
UPSC, 180, 187, 259-261, 275, 286, 393, 394
USA, 12-14, 20, 28, 30, 43, 44, 48, 51, 61, 65, 95, 96, 109, 117, 214;
Commissions, 220-221
US Commission of Industrial relations, 110
USSR, 62
University of Michigan, 179
Urwick, 5, 8, 9, 14, 36, 111, 113, 114, 171
Verba, 385, 433
Vishwanathan S.S., 314
Vroom, Victor, 145
Waldo, Dwight, Prof., 8, 20, 22, 26, 36, 51, 82, 383
Weber, Max, 122-130, 165, 171, 173, 174, 370, 371, 372, 382- 385, 404, 423
Weidner, 359
While, L.D.,3, 14, 35, 115, 119, 165, 182, 189, 210, 213, 243, 271, 368, 472, 479
White, Orion, 58
Whitley, J.H., 289; Whitley Council, 289-291
Whyte, Martin King, 421, 423
Willoughby, W.F., 9, 14, 181, 201, 210, 218, 244, 246, 272, 313
Wilson, Woodrow, 3, 9, 12, 13, 15, 90
World War (I and II), 11, 17, 19, 29, 34, 39, 46, 70, 111, 358, 380
Xiaoping, Deng, 414