“Comparative Public Administration (CPA) began with no paradigm and ended with none”. Golembiewski. Comment on the reasons why universal theory remains elusive in comparative public administration.

Answer: CPA emerged during the 1950s-60s with an attempt to conduct cross-cultural studies by following an empirical- descriptive ecological approach led by F. Riggs.
There search /studies were conducted in various countries by La Palombara, F. Riggs, Ralph Braibanti, etc. who tried to build theory.
The main objectives of the CPA:
● To build a grand theory of PA which would have universal relevance
● To understand distinctive features of developing countries for improved policy and administrative reforms
● Development administration
However, soon by the 1970s CPA started seeing a declining trend with criticism surrounding its Ivory tower image. Academic weakness and lack of clarity as CPA at times became synonymous with development administration. And even Thomas Kuhn characterized it as poly-paradigmatic and pre-paradigmatic due to lack of consensus. CPA adopted lofty ideas and objectives which it could not achieve. The Ivory tower image is criticism given by Riggs himself which refers to the loftyand rhetorical objective of building a universal theory of public
administration which the CPA ultimately failed in achieving then.
Reasons why universal theory remains elusive in comparative public administration:
● Failure of Rigg’s Fused- Prismatic- Diffracted Society:

• His theory is criticized as it has western bias. He considers western society as ideal and others are transitional. But we can find that prismatic features are found in developed countries also. ○ Although he was giving a developmental model, it is a static model as
  he explained the process of development between fused and diffracted as if diffracted society would not change. But all societies are in the state of change.
• His model explains more about the social system rather than the administrative system as he takes a structural- functional approach in his formulation of the model.
  ● There was a lack of consensus on what should be studied in CPA and many approaches were followed.
  ● Although they promised for empirical study, their studies are still normative as they had many normative aspects too like what ought to be.
  ● They study only 4-5 countries. By studying limited countries there can’t be science of Administration.

● The boundaries of administrative systems are difficult to establish because they consist of agencies specialized by function, agencies at different levels of government etc.
● Administrative agencies are constantly changing. This is a problem of CPA.

However, CPA is still relevant as a field even if it has failed. There is emergence of middle- range theories which can be relevant for a few countries if not for the entire world which is the trajectory of the New CPA. Moreover, as MBC 3rd made it important, the agenda shows that
CPA is relevant as a field of PA. There is a view that if we are able to synthesize the R&D in CPA coming under the globalized era, we may reach towards a global PA.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation