Linking decentralization and centralization: A critique of the new development administration
| Author | Herbert Werlin |
| Date | 01 August 1992 |
| Published date | 01 August 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230120302 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL.
12,223-235
(1992)
Linking decentralization and centralization:
a
critique
of
the
new development administration
HERBERT WERLIN
University
of
Maryland
SUMMARY
This article examines the orientation
of
what is here called the ‘New Development Adminis-
tration’ (NDA), as put forth by Esman (1988). It does
so
using political elasticity theory.
The article is sympathetic to the NDA’s emphasis upon decentralization, community develop-
ment, deregulation, privatization, minimal government, popular participation and flexible
forms of foreign aid. However, it argues that these require an administrative framework to
be effective, including strong leadership, effective bureaucracies, the cooperation of beneficiar-
ies and the ability to shift from soft to hard forms of power. While the importance
of
a
bureaucratic reorientation is generally recognized, NDA supporters seem unclear about the
requisites needed. Without adequate supervision and control, NDA objectives cannot be
achieved.
INTRODUCTION
Readers of
Public Administration and Development
might remember David Korten’s
reply (1989) to my 1989 critique of the community development literature. This
article is only indirectly a ‘reply to a reply’. It questions the general thrust of much
of the ‘New Development Administration’ (NDA) school, as presented by Milton
Esman (1988). In doing
so,
I am in danger of overgeneralizing and including authors
that should not be given an
NDA
label. However,
I
believe that this danger is
outweighed by the need to stimulate thinking in the important field that we work
in.
To
understand where
I
am coming from, allow me to refer the reader to my
introductory article in the May-June 1991 issue of
Public Administration and Develop-
ment.
Here I introduce two interrelated concepts: political elasticity and political
software. Political elasticity has to do with the capacity of leaders to use ‘soft’ (basi-
cally persuasive and manipulative forms of power) and then to shift, as necessary,
to harder (more threatening and coercive) forms of power. This, as
I
see it, requires
a high quality of political software (human relationships) essential for political organi-
zations (political hardware) to function effectively. I have in mind the steps normally
taken by enlightened business people: establishing acceptable goals, hiring and train-
ing qualified personnel, stimulating motivation, encouraging competition, promoting
legitimacy and two-way
flows
of communication, etc.
I
believe that political elasticity
*Dr. Werlin
is
an Indepdendent Consultant and adjunct member
of
the Faculty
of
the University
of
Maryland. Urban Studies
&
Planning Department
027
1
-2075/92/030223-
1
3$06.50
0
1992 by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial