Prismatic Theory in Public Administration: A Review of the Theories of Fred W. Riggs
| Published date | 01 December 1966 |
| Author | RICHARD A. CHAPMAN |
| Date | 01 December 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1966.tb01598.x |
Prismatic Theory in
Public
Administration
:
A
Review
of
the Theories
of
Fred
W.Riggs
RICHARD A.CHAPMAN
This article, by the Leverhulnie Lecturer in Public Administration at the
University
of
Liverpool,
was
originally given as a paper at the Annual
Conference
of
the Political Studies Association in London in March
1966.
Fred
W.Riggs
is
a Professor in the DeFartrnent
of
Government at Indiana
University, and also Chairman
of
the Comparative Administration Group
of
the
American Sock@
for
Public Administration. He has publishpd two
books
and a
nuniber
of
articles specifically
on
comparative administration. His two books ate “The
Ecologv
of
Public Adniinistration’
(London:
Asia Publishing House,
I
961
pp.
152,
zos.),
and ‘Administration in Developing Countries’ (Boston
:
Houghton MiJlin,
1964,
pp.
477,
$7.95).
Page references in the text are
to
‘Administration
in
Developing Countries’ unless otherwise stated.
The theory
of
prismatic society is founded on
a
number
of
models designed
by Professor Fred W.Riggs in an attempt
to
illuminate administrative
problems in developing countries. Recognizing that economic develop-
ment can be measured by such indices as the level
of
per capita income,
or the ‘preconditions’ or ‘take-off’ of Rostow’s theory
of
The Stages
oj
Economic Growth>
Riggs asks whether there are comparable key variables in
administrative development.
The first section
of‘
this article is
a
short summary
of
the theory
of
prismatic society (there is
a
glossary at the end of the article), the second
section contains criticism and discussion, and in the third section an
attempt is made to set Riggs’ ideas
in
the context
of
recent
development^
in the study
of
public administration.
I.
THE
PRISMATIC MODEL
In
1953
the American Political Science Association set up an
ad hoc
com-
mittee on comparative administration, and after that committee had Ixen
&continued, the American Society for Public Administration established
tvhat is now known as the Society’s ‘Comparative Administration Group’.
‘See
W.\V:.Rostow,
Tlic
Stages
of
Economic
Growth,
London: Cambridge University
Press,
1961.
Rostow suggests, for examplr, that during
the
‘take-off’,
the
rate of investmrnt
and
savings
may
rise
from, say,
5
per cent. of
the
national income
to
10
per
cent.
or
mow.
4’5
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
In
a
draft statement on basic research and training, the
C.A.G.
described
comparative public administration as ‘the theory of public administration
applied to diverse cultures and national settings’
arid
‘the body of factual
data, by which it can be examined and tested‘.l Riggs, however, in his
paper on trends in the comparative study of public administration, given
at the annual meeting of the
A.S.P.A.
in
1961:
expresses his personal
opinion that the term ‘comparative’ should
be
used only for empirical,
nomothetic studies.
He
notes three trends in the comparative study of public administration.
‘T’he first is
a
trend from normative toward more empirical approaches
(characterized by a growing interest in descriptive and analytic informa-
tion for its own sake). The second
is
a shift from idiographic toward nomo-
thetic approaches (‘any approach which concentrates
on
the unique case
-
the historical episode
or
“case study”, the single agency or country, the
biography or cultural area
-
is basically idiographic. By contrast, an
approach which seeks generalizations, “laws”, hypotlieses that assert
regularities of behaviour, correlations between variables, may be called
nomothetic’)
.3
The third is
a
shift from
a
predominantly non-ecological
to
an ecological basis for the study of public administration. Riggs describes
thc first trend as fairly well established and the second and third as
‘pcrhaps only just emerging’.
Kiggs recalls
(The
Ecology,
p.
2)
that although it was
as
long ago as
1947
that Professor .John Gaus4 stressed the importance of ecology in explaining
administrative behaviour, few students have followed Gaus’ advice. Few
students of public administration have lxen concerned with the links
I)et\veen environment and administration. In the past, students of admini-
stration largely concentrated on historical or geographical variations in
particular institutions, and scholars have written almut adniinistration
li-om
a
rather domestic viewpoint. However, in studying comparative
administration (even if
we
take the
C.A.C.
definition which is Tvidcr
than Riggs’), it is necessary to examine, in addition to the administrative
institutions, social arrangements and the systems of government.
Com-
parative public administration is concerned with the similarities
and
differences between different systems
of‘
administration, but such
similarities and differences can only be understood by considering them
in
their environment.
In order to provide
a
framework for his study
of
the ecology
of
public
administration, Riggs focuses his attcntion on five aspects of lire, the
economic, social, symbolic, communicative and political
(The
Ecology,
1Qtioted
in
Fcrrel
Heady and
Sybil
LStokes (eds.),
Papers
in
Coniparativc Public hfministra-
2This
paper
was
later published
as
“Trcnds in
the
Comparative
Study
of
I’ublic
31bid.
IJohn
Caus,
Rejections on Public
.Idtnini.Plration,
LJnircrsity,
Ala.
:
University
of
Alabarria
Press,
1947.
/ion,
Ann
Arbor,
Mich.:
Institute
of
Public
Administration,
1962,
p.
4..
:Idministration’,
International Review
of
Administrative Sciences,
Vol.
28,
1962,
pp.
9-
15.
To continue reading
Request your trial