BPAC 107 Solved Guess Paper 2026 for Comparative Public Administration, IGNOU BA (Honours) Public Administration (BAPAH)

Meaning, nature and scope of CPA

Exam question: Bring out the meaning, nature and scope of comparative public administration.

Meaning of CPA

Comparative public administration is the study of public administrative system from a comparative perspective and in cross-national and cross-cultural contexts.

It is a branch of Public Administration with its own identity, examining the structure, processes, behaviour, roles and impact of administrative systems at the international level. Its main purposes are:

1. To learn the distinctive features of a particular administrative system or cluster of systems.
2. To explain cross-national and cross-cultural similarities and differences.
3. To examine the causes of success or failure of systems in their ecological settings.
4. To understand the strategies, processes and impact of administrative reforms.

Nature of CPA

Fred W. Riggs (1962) observed three important trends in the discipline, which are still visible today. These shifts produced six types of studies that co-exist:

1. Normative: stresses the 'should' aspects, efficiency and principles of administration.
2. Empirical: based on facts gathered through observation, experiment and field survey.
3. Ideographic: single-nation, single-institution or single-sector studies.
4. Nomothetic: generalisations from empirical research that aid theory-building.
5. Non-ecological: studies of legal and formal aspects that ignore the environment.
6. Ecological: studies the dynamic relationship between an administrative system and its environment.

Scope of CPA

The scope is as large as public administration itself. The textbook identifies five types of comparison:

1. Cross-institutional: comparing two or more institutions in structure, function and impact.
2. Intra-national and cross-national: within one country, or across two or more nations.
3. Cross-national but intra-cultural: nations sharing the same culture, for example India and Bangladesh.
4. Cross-national and cross-cultural: nations at different levels of development, for example the USA and Nigeria.
5. Cross-temporal: comparison across two or more distinct time periods.

Conclusion: CPA is the cross-national, cross-cultural study of administrative systems. Its nature is transformational and co-existential, and its scope spans every facet of administration.

Max Weber's bureaucratic approach

Exam question: Examine the characteristics of Max Weber's bureaucratic approach to the study of comparative public administration.

Meaning of the Bureaucratic Approach

Max Weber (1864 to 1920), a German historical sociologist, built a series of 'ideal-type' models. He defined authority as the probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons.

Weber located authority in its acceptance by those commanded and identified three bases of legitimacy: legal-rational (laws and rules), traditional (sanctity of traditions) and charismatic (exceptional qualities of a leader). The administrative system of a legal-rational authority is called bureaucracy.

Characteristics of the Bureaucratic Model

1. Officials are subject to authority only in their official positions; only formal authority is legitimate.
2. All offices are arranged in a hierarchy, with a non-bureaucrat (elected representative) at the top.
3. Each officer has clearly defined competence and job responsibilities.
4. Staff are appointed through an open, contract-based selection system.
5. Appointment is based on technical competence determined by systematic rules.
6. Specialised knowledge is the basis of entry and the source of superiority.
7. Members are paid fixed, graded salaries with pensions on retirement.
8. 'Office' is the primary occupation; parallel occupations are not allowed.
9. A career system operates, with promotion by seniority and/or merit.
10. The official is separated from the means of organisation, which curbs corruption.
11. All officials are subject to discipline and conduct rules.
12. Administration runs on rationality, ensuring maximum results from resources.
13. Bureaucracy is more efficient than traditional and charismatic systems.

Significance

Weber held that capitalism strengthened bureaucracy, which applies to all large organisations and not government alone. Dwight Waldo termed the Weberian model the 'paradigm' of public administration, and Riggs' prismatic-sala model draws on Weber's typology of authority.

Conclusion: Weber's bureaucracy is an ideal-type model of the legal-rational authority system. Though no real bureaucracy matches it fully, it remains the universally accepted paradigm of efficient administration.

General systems approach

Exam question: Examine the features of the general systems approach to the study of comparative public administration.

Meaning of the General Systems Approach

The general systems approach had its roots in Sociology and Anthropology and focused on a society, its parts and their interdependence. Talcott Parsons is credited with popularising the concept of the social system.

The concept of system involves the study of (1) the parts or sub-systems, (2) interactions and interdependence among the parts, and (3) the dynamic interrelationship between a system and its environment.

Key Concepts

1. Demands and support: the two types of environmental influences, or inputs, on a system.
2. Throughputs: the processing that integrates inputs and makes the system functional.
3. Outputs: the response of the system through its decisions and actions.
4. Feedback: outputs lead back to fresh inputs, making input, throughput and output a continuous cycle.
5. Dynamic equilibrium: the balance among subsystems and between a system and its environment.

Initiatives in CPA

Dwight Waldo (1955) urged scholars of public administration to adopt the emerging systems approaches. It was Fred W. Riggs who in 1957 used the approach in his Agraria-Transitia-Industria typology and later in his fused-prismatic-diffracted typology.

Merits

1. It studied the whole administrative system, not just its parts.
2. It examined interactions and interdependence among subsystems, making analysis dynamic.
3. It promoted the study of environmental influences, giving a fillip to the ecological approach.

Limitations

1. Concepts like system, input and equilibrium were abstract and hard to operationalise.
2. It was too general for empirical study in the absence of operational definitions.
3. Identifying all inputs, throughputs and outputs was difficult, which forced selectivity.
4. Whole-system study required large teams, common tools, finance and time.

Conclusion: The systems approach gave CPA a holistic, dynamic and ecological orientation, but its abstract concepts limited empirical research. With the decline of grand theories it lost much usage, while leaving a lasting holistic awareness.

Riggs' Agraria-Industria and prismatic-sala models

Exam question: Bring out the key aspects of Fred Riggs' Agraria-Industria and Prismatic-Sala models.

Agraria and Industria Models

In his 1957 article 'Agraria and Industria: Toward a Typology of Comparative Administration', Riggs used ideal-type methodology, abstracting Agraria from Imperial China and Industria from the modern USA.

1. Agraria: status by birth, tradition-bound functioning, multi-functional structures, a rigid and closed status system, and little specialisation.
2. Industria: universalism and equity, specialised structures, progress by merit and achievement, mobility across groups, and an achievement-based class system.

This polar typology could not explain mixed, transitional societies, so within two years Riggs replaced it with a new typology.

Fused, Prismatic and Diffracted Societies

Riggs classified societies by their level of differentiation (specialisation) and integration (coordination):

1. Fused society: traditional, multi-functional structures, status by ascription and particularism, low mobility.
2. Diffracted society: high specialisation and integration, universalism, high mobility and achievement; its administration is the 'bureau'.
3. Prismatic society: the intermediate type marked by selectivism, attainment and poly-functionalism; its administration is the 'sala'.

The Prismatic-Sala Model

A prismatic society is a mixed society carrying features of both fused and diffracted societies. Its three main features are:

1. Heterogeneity: traditional and modern systems, practices and attitudes exist side by side.
2. Formalism: a wide gap between laws and their implementation, which allows partiality and corruption.
3. Overlapping: modern structures perform functions while traditional structures keep their influence. Its dimensions are the bureaucratic polity (politics), the bazaar-canteen model (economy), poly-communalism or 'clects' (society) and poly-normativism (culture).

Conclusion: Riggs moved from the polar Agraria-Industria typology to the fused-prismatic-diffracted model. The prismatic society, with its heterogeneity, formalism and overlapping, and its sala best capture the administrative reality of developing countries.

New Public Management

Exam question: Explain the New Public Management's comparative perspective and its impact on comparative public administration.

Meaning of NPM

New Public Management took shape from Osborne and Gaebler's book Reinventing Government (1992), which urged a less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial government. It pursues three goals, efficiency, economy and effectiveness, through ten maxims:

1. Catalytic government: steering action across all sectors.
2. Community-oriented government: empowering citizens in service delivery.
3. Competitive government: promoting competition among service providers.
4. Mission-driven government: driven by missions, not rules.
5. Result-oriented government: measuring outcomes, not inputs.
6. Customer-driven government: treating clients as customers with choice.
7. Enterprising government: earning rather than only spending.
8. Anticipatory government: preventing problems before they emerge.
9. Decentralised government: taking decisions close to citizens.
10. Market-oriented government: relying on market mechanisms.

Comparative Impact

Starting in Great Britain and the USA, NPM spread to Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France and the developing world; even China adopted it. Its visible changes include:

1. Stress on markets, liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation.
2. Containment and downsizing of bureaucracy and privatisation of state enterprises.
3. Public-private partnerships and outsourcing of services on contract.
4. Citizen's charters, openness, transparency and the Right to Information.
5. Performance orientation through outcome budgeting and performance auditing.
6. Lateral entry of experts and extensive use of information technology.

Conclusion: Born of Reinventing Government, NPM sought an entrepreneurial, result-oriented state. Its spread from Britain and the USA across the world has transformed administrative systems through markets, downsizing and citizen-centric reforms.