public administration in a global context: bridging the gaps of theory and practice between western...

Public Administration in a Global Context: Bridging the Gaps of Theory and Practice betweenWestern and Non-Western NationsAuthor(s): Eric Welch and Wilson WongSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1998), pp. 40-49Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976888 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.208 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:47:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/976888?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


PublicAdministradon in a Global Context: Bfidging the Gaps of Theory and Practice between Western and Non-Wester Nafions Eric Welch, Syracuse University Wilson Wong, Syracuse University

This article identifies existing gaps of theory andpractice in public administration between Western and non- Western nations. By placing national bureaucracies within a global context, the article develops a framework that can be applied to bridge the gaps, improve the cumulation of knowledge in public administration, and enhance the relevance of theoryforpractitioners. Based on the framework, the article hypothesizes ways in which global pressures such as continuously advancing information technology, the impact ofglobal institutions, and demandsforpublic-sector efficiency influence public bureaucracies. It concludes with guid- anceforfiture research and implications for practice.

Public bureaucracies operate increasingly in a global environment that requires greater communication and cooperation among nations. This globalization of public administration has highlighted the parochial nature of much of the literature, which was written to apply to one nation or to a small group of similar countries. When literature that was designed for the West or for Europe is applied to non-Western nations, it rarely fits well, exaggerating the tension between theory and practice.

At the same time that globalization underscores the poor fit between theory and practice, global pressures provide an opportunity to conduct comparative research that is meaningful and useful for managers in all nations regardless of economic, political, and social considerations. Such work can help bridge the gap between Western and non-Western perspectives. This article provides a framework that will facilitate such research.

The article first identifies the gaps as problems for public administration theory and practice using sup- porting literature from both Asian and Western theorists and practitioners. It then explores a sample of the literature that describes broader concepts of the modern global environment as well as the theoretical importance of organizational environments for bureaucracies. Subsequent sections concentrate on solutions-the development of a theoretical perspective that incorporates specific global pressures, and the statement of hypotheses that explore the impact of these pressures on the structure and activity of public organizations. Finally, the article discusses the implications of the framework for future research and practice.

The Dual Gap Disenchantment and even amazement over the

parochial nature of American public administration is well expressed in the public administration literature. American public administration is not considered to be either informed by international theoretical perspectives or very adaptable to other national contexts.

40 Public Administration Review * January/February 1998, Vol. 58, No. 1



For example, Hood (1989, 348) writes: "Today (Americans perhaps excepted), public administration scholars live in what is much more of a 'global village' conceptually, in that it would be hard to write an acceptable research degree thesis in the subject today which did not draw on an international literature for its conceptual framework. It is hard to see this trend going into reverse."

Another example of the ethnocentric and even greater Eurocen- tric nature of public administration is given in Table 1. A survey of five journals in the field of public administration was conducted to determine the prominence of comparative and Asian themes. The three categories identified for each year studied were (1) number of articles on comparative public administration theory, (2) number of articles on Asian national study, and (3) the number of articles on comparative public administration that incorporate Asia as either a case study or the focus of the analysis.1 Results indicate only five articles on comparative public administration and 46 articles in which Asian nations were subjects of description (40 of those were in the International Journal of Public Administration and the Asian Journal of Public Administration) across all three years. Only one article sought to build theory through comparison of Asian and non-Asian nations.

Similar results were obtained from a content analysis of 253 comparative articles published in 20 journals for the years 1982- 1986 (Wart and Cayer, 1990). Wart and Cayer further identify the absence of broader theorizing work as a major factor contribut- ing to the ambiguity of purpose and identity crisis of comparative public administration. It is not the lack of comparative work but the lack of a comprehensive and nonethnocentric comparative framework that is a major concern.

The parochial nature of public administration theory in the United States would not be such a concern in the world of the 1920s or even the 1960s, but in today's global village failure to incorporate ideas from other contexts can be detrimental to the long-term development of public administration theory in America and for the applicability of American public administration theory abroad. Efforts in comparative public administration in the Unit- ed States have attempted through various means and with a variety of national objectives to bridge the gap between theory based on the American perspective and the context of other administrative systems. Two main methodological trajectories have emerged in the literature.

The first, ascribed mainly to the founders of the field in the United States (most obviously Ferrel Heady and Fred Riggs) take the perspective that bureaucracies are subsystems within the political, economic, and social context of a particular nation. Analysis under this framework takes the form of an outside-in process in

which bureaucracies can be evaluated best by a continual focusing in from the social to the economic to the political context in which they are found. The aim of this approach is to provide a description and explanation for "why" bureaucracies are what they are and why they do what they do. This set of theorists can be grouped into what may be called traditionalists.

The second and more recent position is typified by the work of Guy Peters in which improvement in scientific integrity is sought through the identification of dependent variables and the systemat- ic collection of empirical evidence.2 This type of analysis is an inside-out exploration in which phenomena found universally in the bureaucracies studied are analyzed to determine what the dif- ferences are. The context is then formed around the findings while the long-term objective of prescription is sought. This set of theorists can be called revisionists.

The revisionists criticize the lack of cumulative knowledge in comparative public administration and attribute its downfall in the 1960s and 1970s to this lack. They see the lack of cumulative knowledge as the direct result of the absence of scientific methods and approach. Traditionalists criticize the assumptions and the reductionist nature of the newer approach, which they believe does not provide enough richness of detail and is limited to the comparison of bureaucracies operating under similar political, economic, and social contexts. That is, the traditionalists criticize the revisionists for focusing almost exclusively on Western bureaucracies.

Being empirical is not the problem, but being comparative is. The comparisons that are made by [the empiri- cists] are almost completely limited to the United States and a few European countries-all Western industrial- ized democracies. Some models that [they use] seem to be applicable only to parliamentary or presidential democracies, and not to the much larger number of con- temporary political entities which have regimes domi- nated by single parties or by professional bureaucrats....In my view, the best available approaches for the comparative study of public administration over the whole range of existing national political systems should be pursued, even though empirical and quantita- tive measurements are not always possible. If this means some loss of status or prestige in relation to comparative public policy or other fields of inquiry where such measurements are more readily available, so be it (Heady, 1995, 54-55).

Unfortunately, neither the traditionalists nor the revisionists have helped develop theory that is more applicable to or informa- tive for non-Western nations. The traditionalists have provided a

Table 1 Numbers of Artides on Comparative, Asia, and Comparative with an Asian Country in Analysis in Five Public Administration Journals

1995 1994 1993 CPA Asia CPA & Asia CPA Asia CPA & Asia CPA Asia CPA & Asia

Administration and Society 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 PublicAdministration Review 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 JournalofPublicAdmin. Research & Theory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian Journal ofPublicAdministration 2 7 1 0 11 0 0 10 0 InternationalJournal ofPublicAdministration 0* 1* 0* 2 4 0 0 7 0 * Survey covers first six issues of the 1995 volume of IJPA

SICA Jubilee: Theory and Practice in the Western and Non-western Worlds 41



lens for adoption of theory and administrative technology in non- Western nations. However, the model does not go far enough in providing testable hypotheses of broader cross-national theoretical generalization. Moreover, the revisionists have been limited in their scope of analysis to organizations that align politically, social- ly, and economically. These theoretical models are little informed by non-Western experiences and are thus poorly applicable to non- Western theorists and practitioners. Although the work of the revisionists appears to provide some hope for greater theoretical generalization, such efforts and resulting models are little informed by the adoption and adaptation processes occurring in non-West- ern countries.

Even though the impetus for borrowing from American public administration theory continues, a cursory review of the Asian public administration literature to take one example, reveals a gap between what is borrowed and what fits.

Public administration in China has yet to develop its own theories....A review of recent books and journal articles indicates that, as far as theory building goes, most Chinese public administration scholars are merely 'importers'. They have borrowed ideas and theories from various schools in the West to apply to the Chi- nese context. If scholars continue to borrow ideas, the development of theories to explain and predict administrative phenomena in China will be problematic (Zhang, 1993, 14).

In their contribution to a recent book on administration in Korea Kim and Bell (1991, 19) concur:

Thus many Korean scholars have argued that conven- tional Western theories are not adequate to fully explain what really transpires in the Korean administrative setting. The gap between scholars of public administration and actual practitioners seems partially linked to the fact that academicians largely refer to foreign sources of information and guidance in their professional field, while the actual administrators take counsel in the local managerial staff and in their own experience. Direct participation in their own Korean administrative system may be a way to root theorists more solidly in the reali- ties and complexities of the Korean public bureaucracy.

These references indicate that in addition to the gap in communication across borders that results in poorly informed U.S. theory, there may also be a growing gap between theory and practice in Asia. It is always difficult to find a perfect match between theory and practice. However, when theoreticians in non-Western nations are mainly informed by American public administration theory, while practitioners are busily adapting administrative technologies to a vastly different context, the gap between theory and practice in non-Western nations may be even wider than in the United States. Theorists in non-Western nations have two options. First, they could adopt the traditionalist perspective of context evaluation. This theoretical perspective seems well suited to situational exploration for adoption of technologies. Unfortu- nately, this type of analysis does not lead to generalization that is useful for policy or management.

Second, other nations may consider middle-range analysis as an appropriate starting point for the development of theoretical mod-

els of change and reform that are locally relevant and predictive for management and policy purposes. Unfortunately, middle-range theory may be helpful from a regional perspective, but theorists in Asia will be less able to find a common language with theorists in the West. In addition, neither set of nations will appreciate the global context within which they now exist.

This article considers that both approaches to comparative public administration are necessary. Nevertheless, the schism among theorists is creating a gap between public administration research and practice in Western and non-Western nations. Emphasis on middle-range theory renders many of the Western models off-tar- get for non-Western practitioners, while emphasis on broader, more inclusive theory provides limited policy or management relevance for practitioners faced with immediate policy and management decisions.

Ironically these gaps are occurring at a time in which the global environment is subjecting most governments to a similar set of global pressures. Although each government reacts differently to these forces based on national context (political, economic, and social systems), global pressures are a substantive force pushing governmental change. As a result, the identification of a set of environmental pressures common to all nations and their subsequent inclusion into a theoretical model for analysis may serve to reduce the theoretical and application gaps identified above.

The Global Administrative Environment The existence of global pressures for change has been described

in numerous books and essays. For example, Harlan Cleveland (1993) notes that a substantively changed world has been created. "The borders between world and regional, world and national and regional and national are most dynamic and no less important than local borders."

Not only are administrative domains becoming increasingly blurred, so too are lines of control and power. For example, Cleve- land shows that the power of national bureaucracies is being shift- ed into an international and borderless domain. He notes that power is leaking from the top of national government into international arrangements, agreements, and agencies. This type of leakage may result in reduction of national government discretion and control (Cleveland, 1933).

Other students of the global context of public administration

Figure 1 Model of Global Pressures on Bureaucracies

Gloal Pressures ||Bureaucracy |

National Context i vi

Political System/

Economic System

|Social System |

Feedback

42 Public Administration Review * January/February 1998, Vol. 58, No. I



include Ali Farazmand, who writes about the shifting terrain of public administration around the world.

The emerging global public administration is based on a number of structural adjustments or readjustments that have been taking place around the globe. These readjustments have been in the forms of redefining the scope and boundaries of public and private sectors, of administrative reforms, or civil service reforms, of organizational reconfiguration and restructuring, and many more (Farazmand, 1994, 81).

Ferrel Heady (1995, 97)acknowledges that a set of international variables in addition to political, economic, and social considera- tion are relevant factors: "Cross-national explorations of the rela- tive importance of such factors should be encouraged, and for an understanding of any single nation-state bureaucracy all of the per- tinent factors should be investigated."

Finally, although examples of this kind of writing are common in the literature, Keith Henderson (1994, 333) correctly frames the issue of global pressures for change and evolution of administrative systems as an argument between "indigenization and internationalization: the former position advocating a basically nationalistic or regional perspective on study and application in public administration and the latter a world wide study and international application."

Clearly, therefore, governments and their bureaucracies, are not only increasingly aware of global pressures for change and reform, they are increasingly making decisions that incorporate global constraints and opportunities into their own domestic agendas. National bureaucracies are becoming increasingly porous and increasingly affected by the global environment. At the very least, the global environment should not be ignored as an influential force for bureaucratic change and decision making. This article takes the argument one step further and offers a structured framework for analysis of how global pressures affect bureaucracies.

The Relevance of the Global Environment for Organizations

A vast body of American public administration literature considers the environment of organizations to be a primary contributor to administrative and policy outcomes. For example, Olsen (1988) offers four models of governance-based primarily on observation of Western administrative systems-that seek to explain how decisions can be affected or directed by the environment. Two of these models deal specifically with environmental pressures. According to his institutional state model, decisions are made among actors with shared goals or norms while they are determined and respond to environmental forces. The supermarket state model speaks to a situa-

tion in which decisions are made among actors with conflicting interests-also in a context of response to environmental factors. In addition, Olsen notes that all four models can exist simultane- ously to various extent in any nation.

Rainey (1991) outlines the potential ways in which environment provides a descriptive and analytical dimension to organizations. An example is Aldrich's multiple dimensions of environmental analysis including domain consensus-dissensus, stability-instability, concentration-dispersion, homogeneity-heterogeneity, and turbulence (see Table 2). Each of these dimensions is increasingly applicable to a global environment layered on top of the national social, economic, and political environments.

In summary, not only is the environment of administrative systems and organizations clearly an appropriate place to look in public administration theory, but the relevance of the global context is also increasing. However, discussion about the importance of the global environment is not helpful without a theoretical framework within which researchers (and educators) can begin to focus. It is with this purpose in mind that this article now turns to the global pressures that increasingly affect all administrative systems in the world.

Theoretical Framework for Global Pressures

A set of requisite qualities exists for the development of a viable theoretical model from which hypotheses can be generated. First, the strength of the theoretical perspectives of the traditionalists and the revisionists must be preserved and incorporated into the design. Second, the existence of global pressures must be considered to affect bureaucracies directly and indirectly. It is of critical importance for the model to recognize that these pressures are acted out indirectly through the filters of national political, economic, and social systems. In addition, however, these pressures are also acting directly on the bureaucracy from the increasingly dynamic and powerful global system. The third requisite function of the model is to maintain the bureaucracy as the focus of analysis in which organizational characteristics and roles are the objectified criteria of comparison. Finally, the model must be adaptable to comparisons across multiple national contexts such that the theoretical and practitioner gaps are addressed.

The model for representing global pressures on bureaucracies is

Table 2 Aldrichs Descriptive and Analytical Dimensions of Organizational Environment

Characteristic Description Capacity The extent to which the environment affords a rich or lean supply of necessary resources. Homogeneity-heterogeneity( The degree to which important components of the environment are similar or dissimilar. Stability-instability The degree and rapidity of change in the important components or processes in the envi-

ronment. Concentration-dispersion The degree to which important components of the environment are separated or close

together, geographically or in terms of communication or logistics.( Domain Consensus-dissensus The degree to which the organization's domain (it's operating locations, major functions

and activities, and clients and customers served) is generally accepted or disputed and contested.

Turbulence The degree to which changes in one part or aspect of the environment in turn create changes in another; the tendency of changes to reverberate and spread.

Source: Rainey, 1991.




presented in Figure 1. According to this model, the global system, represented by global pressures, acts directly on bureaucracies. However, the global system also works indirectly on bureaucracy through the filters of national political, economic, and social systems. Finally, true to the last two criteria outlined above, the bureaucracy remains the focus of analysis, and the framework is not limited in its scope of applicability for national comparison.

While Figure 1 appears relatively simple, it contains a number of complexities. First, global pressures range in significance and impact from minor to major. Their significance depends upon the nations in question. This article does not attempt to name the full array of existing global pressures and it will not presume to rank the subset chosen. Instead, the pressures described below are offered as examples to demonstrate the validity of the framework.

Second, this model allows researchers to set up hypotheses that control for national political, economic, and social contexts. In addition it may be possible to hypothesize, test, and offer general- izations about how various national systems tend to alter global pressures and thereby act upon bureaucracies. If, for example, a plus or minus sign is added within each of the political, economic, or social system boxes in Figure 1, it may be possible to define a set of influences that nations have as mediators between global pressures and the bureaucracy. Such research activity could begin to discover a reduced set of national models of governmental change

or reform that would be of great benefit to public managers in all nations.

This leads to the final comment. The bureaucracy and its attributes remain the unit of analysis. Therefore, dependent variables such as the size, scope of services, management behavior, or decision-making autonomy can be subjected to rigorous empirical analysis.

In summary, the model takes advantage of existing global pressures and the traditionalist and revisionist theoretical perspectives to build a composite model for analysis. Table 3 provides a con- ceptualization of how the synthesis compares to existing perspectives. The main unit of analysis is still the bureaucracy, while in the synthesis model any set of nations can be the focus of the analysis rather than individual nations in the traditionalist sense or a similar set of nations in the revisionist sense. Although in the synthesis column Table 3 also identifies a set of comparativists con- ducting research, they are doing so without the benefit of an over- arching theoretical framework for analysis.

Finally, the weaknesses of this new approach should also be acknowledged. Comparative studies of this sort will require significant a priori work to operationalize variables and to obtain comparable data. In addition, obvious characteristics such as the size and influence of nations in the global system need to be better incorporated. For example, the size and influence of the United

Table 3 Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives

Traditionalist Revisionist Synthesis Unit of Analysis Public bureaucracy Public bureaucracy Public bureaucracy Intellectual Background Traditional comparative public Comparative politics/policy studies; Integrates the two approaches; global

administration; development admin- scientific inquiry environment; administrative envi- istration ronment in PA theory

Major Goal Grand theory (failed) Developing scientific methods and Helps to bridge the gaps between testing. theories, and theory and practice

Scope of Analysis Individual nations (by default) A set of "similar" nations Any set of nations

Perspectives Outside-in (analyzing the impact of Inside-out (analyzing dependent Separates direct and indirect effects social, economic, and political sys- variables within the bureaucracy- on bureaucracy while integrating the teams on the bureaucracy) cross-national; cross-time) existing theoretical perspective.

Theoretical Emphasis Contextual: social, economic and Organizational: people, behavior, Organizational with the addition of political subsystems organization, and power global pressures as environmental

forces for bureaucratic change

Major or Relevant Authors Riggs, Heady, Guess Peters, Aberbach, Rockman, Putnam Ryan, Dwivedi, Henderson

Strengths * Provides an in-depth and com- * Provides a scientific and empirical * Recognizes the impact of global prehensive framework for analyz- method pressures on bureaucracy ing bureaucracy * Useful in generating middle- * Retaines the strengths of the two

range theory existing perspectives * Allows study of common vari-

ables and generation of testable hypotheses

Weaknesses * Unable to generate cumulative * Simplistic assumptions on simi- * Operationalization of the pres- knowledge and general scientific rarities among nations sures theory * Not useful for general theory; * Comparable data

* Widens the gap by limiting the widens the gap * Limited inclusion of effects of exchange between theory and national size and influence experience




States more often make it a contributor to the global system rather than a recipient of global pressures.

The Global Pressures The inclusion of global pressures into the model of analysis not

only promises to bridge the gap in comparative public administration, it also serves the important step of increasing the explanatory power of public administration theory on the change of bureaucracy. Three major global pressures are highlighted in this article to serve as examples in demonstrating the theoretical richness of the new model: information technology, global institutions, and efficiency and productivity.

Information Technology

The global pressure of information technology broadly affects public bureaucracies. Governments decide to create or adopt increasingly powerful information storage, retrieval, and communication hardware and software as a means of increasing the viability and modernity of their bureaucracies. It is widely assumed that information technology allows organizations to work more effi- ciently in an era of heightened citizen demand and awareness. In addition to the more straightforward issues of hardware and software, information technology has two other major impacts on bureaucracies. First, it often provides the capacity for reorganiza- tion and restructuring that alter the speed and direction of information flows. Such changes have implications for power shifts and concerns for information sharing which are time-honored areas of analysis in public administration. Second, greater availability of information and affordable prices for access mean that information is potentially more available to citizens. The extent to which nations attempt to exert control over the on-line information flow may have implications for the structure, role, and behavior of the bureaucracy.

Information technology is considered a global pressure because the process of technological change is self-sustaining and not directly controlled by any single national government. In addition, the impact of the information technology is felt around the world and creates different impacts on and responses from national bureaucracies.3 Often new information technology is adopted by individual countries to maintain global economic competitiveness and institutional legitimacy. However, it is undeniable that the technology has major and sometimes unexpected impacts on bureaucracy (Ingraham, 1996; Kettl, 1994). Information management philosophies, styles, and techniques vary among national bureaucracies. These variations can become the subject of rigorous analysis.

Global Institutions

The pressure of global institutions is probably the most visible and tangible of all global pressures. It is defined as the pressure exerted by a formalized institution with a global jurisdiction that has authority and power over individual countries in a given policy area. Many policy areas are no longer controlled within national boundaries but are conducted in an international setting. An

increasing number of policy decisions are now being made by global institutions instead of individual countries.

Numerous examples of formalized global institutions that exercise power and influence over individual countries exist. For example, many global trade agreements or organizations such as the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) may have even greater influence on a country's economy than any of the domestic economic institutions in each individual country (Heilbroner, 1992; Reich, 1991). Examples are not limited to economic policy and the expansion of free market economies, but are also evident in other policy areas such as environmental protection and health.4

Efficiency and Productivity

The global pressure of public-sector efficiency and productivity is perhaps the best documented pressure in the public administration literature (Burns, 1994; Ingraham, 1996; Kettl, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Peters, 1994; Pollitt, 1990; Savoie, 1994). There now exists a worldwide pressure on public bureaucracies to cut waste and increase output. With an increasingly integrated world of mobile resources and well-informed citizens, reluctance to keep a national bureaucracy up to a global standard of efficiency and productivity can mean a dissatisfied citizenry and a permanent outflow of valuable resources from the national terri- tory.

The flip side of efficiency is the simultaneous pressure on public agencies to develop ways of increasing effective output and delivery of services. This pressure can be seen most obviously in the number and variety of streamlining, downsizing, new management, and privatization efforts in governments throughout the world. However, the potential impact of this pressure is more pro- found than its immediate impact on bureaucratic structures. It has the potential to redefine the role of government in society, create more tension between administration and democracy, and pose serious questions on the foundation of legitimacy in public administration.

Testable Hypotheses and Rationale The impact of each of these global pressures on four major

attributes of bureaucracy-structure, scope, autonomy, and management-is also examined.5 Table 4 summarizes the impacts of the global pressures on the four different attributes of bureaucracy. This analytical framework serves as the essential and middle stage between the model in Figure 1 and the development of testable hypotheses below.

Structure refers to the centralization and decentralization dimension of the bureaucracy. A global pressure can either increase or decrease the degree of centralization. Scope describes the breadth of services for which the bureaucracy is responsible. It can also incorporate a measurement of the degree to which social services are assigned to the public and private sectors. Global pressures can either increase or decrease the scope of the public sector in society. Autonomy deals with the ability or power of the national bureaucracy to make independent policy decisions. Glob- al pressures can either reduce or enhance bureaucratic autonomy in a policy area. Finally, management relates to the orientation




Table 4 Effects of Global Pressures on Bureaucracies

Pressure/Attribute Structure Scope Autonomy Management( Information Technology Centralization/Decentralization Increase /Decrease Reduce /Enhance Accountability:Discretion / Control Global Institutions Centralization/Decentralization Increase/Decrease Reduce/Enhance Accountability:Local/Global Efficiency/Productivity Centralization/Decentralization Increase/Decrease Reduce /Enhance Accountability'.Process/Outcome

guiding the behavior of management in a bureaucracy. Due to the importance of accountability in public administra-

tion and management (Dilulio, Garvey, Kettl, 1993; Finer, 1941; Friedrich, 1940; Romzek and Dubnick, 1987; Rosenbloom, 1992), this criterion has been chosen to describe the impact of global pressures on the management attribute of the bureaucracy. Moreover, instead of being a single dimension concept, accountability is multidimensional where different global pressures can impact on different dimensions of bureaucratic accountability. Information technology can pressure a bureaucracy to shift its accountability focus along a continuum of discretion and control, while the pressure of global institutions may force public managers to balance accountability between local and global needs. The pressure of efficiency and productivity touches on a classic question in public administration. Namely, does more efficiency and productivity shift the accountability focus from process to outcome in which a trade-off between democracy and efficiency may have to be made (Kaufman, 1977; Waldo, 1948)?

Drawing on the analytical framework, we now use three of the combinations between the global pressures and attributes of the bureaucracy to formulate specific hypotheses and to build theoretical rationales that can allow our model and framework to be tested empirically. These combinations are highlighted in bold print in Table 4. We present only three hypotheses, but more than three can be generated from the model. The exercise below illustrates the process by which other hypotheses can be generated.

Information Technology and Structure: The Decentraliz- ing and Centralizing Forces in Public Bureaucracies

Hypothesis One: Increased adoption of information technology will increase the degree of decentralization in the bureaucracy. (Competing hypothesis: Increased adoption of information technology will increase the degree of centralization in the bureaucracy.)

This is probably one of the most interesting but arguable hypotheses from the model and framework of global pressures. Existing literature and empirical evidence still provide no indica- tion of how advanced information technology will affect the structure of the bureaucracy. Based on the public choice tradition in public administration theory in which bureaucracy is viewed as facing a control problem between principal and agent (Downs, 1967; Niskanen, 1971), more accessible information may lead to a bureaucracy that is more like Weber's ideal type. On the other hand, a noneconomic approach to public administration theory would predict that information technology will lead to more empowerment of employees and citizens and the creation of learning organizations both of which increase decentralization (Ingra- ham, 1996; Kettl, 1994). A brief look at the real world provides no clarity for the conflict. Information technology is often used to

make government information more accessible to citizens in the Western countries. But in some Asian countries, such as China and Singapore, technology is being used to make information (not only government information) less accessible to some and more accessible to others, perhaps the bureaucracy itself. This scenario may be creating information hierarchies.

In face of this conflicting theory and mixed initial observations, two competing hypotheses should be the focus of empirical investi- gation. This points to one of the primary advantages of setting up an empirically based model-feedback from empirical analysis can be used to improve the theory. Furthermore, our model of the direct and indirect effects of global pressures provides a unique opportunity for clarifying the directional impact of information technology on bureaucracy despite often confounding national contexts. The model controls for the mediating effects of social, economic, and political systems such that the pure effect of information technology on bureaucracy can be determined.

Global Institutions and Autonomy: Reduction of

National Autonomy in Global Policy Area

Hypothesis Two: Greater formalization of a global institution in a policy area will reduce the policy-making autonomy of a bureaucracy in that area.

The forming of global institutions represents a leakage of power and authority from a national authority to the global institutions. Although total submission of the national to the global is unlikely, there is no doubt that the level of autonomy previously enjoyed by national bureaucracies will be reduced in the face of the global environment. However, it should be noted that many global organizations have no formal power or broad appeal. Therefore, the hypothesis includes the degree of "formalization" of those global institutions as a factor in their influence on national institutions. To operationalize the concept of reduction of autonomy, it may be possible to measure the extent to which external decisions influence national policy agendas.

Efficiency / Productivity and Accountability: Diffusion

of Market-Based and Outcome Driven Reforms

Hypothesis Three: The greater extent of bureaucratic reform in other countries which is designed to enhance efficiency and productivity of public management, the higher the likelihood for similar reform in additional countries.

This hypothesis is a straightforward deduction from the model itself. As more countries in the world improve bureaucratic efficiency and productivity, a single country will face more pressure to carry out similar reforms. By extension, it can also be predicted that new policies and reforms are most likely transferred and

46 Public Administration Review * January/February 1998, Vol. 58, No. I



adopted among geographically proximate countries with similar economic, social, and political contexts. The rationale behind this hypothesis can be demonstrated by the obvious fact that individual national bureaucracies observe each other in an effort to obtain ideas for increasing their own efficiency and effectiveness. The ultimate objective may be to maintain global (or regional) economic competitiveness or to enhance national political legitimacy or both. Ideas about institutionalism drawn from organization theory can also be applied (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). That is, there can be "peer pressure" in the global community for countries to try to look like each other or to adopt the newer administrative technology. This dimension will therefore involve some more intangible factors such as ideology and culture.

Research and Practical Implications Issues for Research

A major research emphasis is the setting up of an empirically testable theoretical model for understanding how global pressures affect bureaucracies. We have tried to build a theoretical framework that can explain, predict, and be subjected to empirical testing for modification and falsification (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Such an approach allows greater generalization and accumulation of knowledge. The need for both in the field of public administration in general and comparative public administration in particular has been recognized for a long time (Bozeman, 1989; Dahl, 1947; Denhardt, 1990; Rosenbloom, 1992; McCurdy, 1986). Moreover, empirically supported theory forms the foundation in the development of prescriptive knowledge in public administration (Boze- man, 1993).

All major steps of the research, except the empirical analysis, are carried out in this article. Figure 1 provides the model from which we generate a framework of analysis of global pressures on the key aspects of public bureaucracy. Drawing on the framework devel- oped in Table 4, we selected a few of many possible combinations of global pressures and attributes of bureaucracy to specify a more concrete theory and formulate the corresponding testable hypotheses. However, the theoretical richness of the framework of analysis based on the model is actually much greater than the few theories that we chose to illustrate here. In addition, once empirical observations are collected, the circle of research is complete and we can verify and modify the model and theory according to the empirical results to improve its explanatory and predictive power. Moreover, using empirical evidence as the evaluation criteria allows the merit of our theory to be judged with other competing theories and models.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that the global environment provides a natural and useful opportunity for developing a more comprehensive theory of public administration. On the one hand, the direct-and-indirect-effect approach allows us to isolate other confounding factors and to shed insights on the pure effect of each global pressure on bureaucracies. On the other hand, the appreciation of the mediating effect of national context allows us to discover a reduced set of national models of governmental change or reform. In short, by taking advantage of the global environment, the theoretical framework in this article can enrich our

knowledge of bureaucracies in general and any specific national bureaucracy.

Issues for Management and Practice If we accept the assumption of a global environment for public

bureaucracy, there will be a need to redefine the role of and need for public management. In addition, there is also a related need to change the way we conceptualize and structure our professional education for public managers.

The impact of a model of global pressure on management practice is similar to that of the development of open environment theories in organization theory. The key message to public managers is that managing the national environment is not sufficient for achieving effectiveness in the public sector. In other words, "get- ting things done" for public managers is now more challenging and more complicated than ever. It requires the ability to balance the needs and pressures from both domestic and global environments. As described by Rivlin (1992), domestic administrative functions and planning must increasingly take into account policies and opportunities in other nations.

Previously, public managers may have been able to manage effectively by "thinking globally and acting locally." Thinking globally allows the public managers to study and borrow ideas and innovations from countries with similar contexts or situations. However, "acting both globally and locally" is the way of practice for today's public managers. Global forces have significant effects on the attributes of bureaucracy such as structure, scope, and autonomy.

The emergence of global pressures has important implications for professional education in public administration. There is little doubt that a new set of skills and a new body of knowledge are required if public managers are to be effective in the new environment. Unfortunately, few professional programs in public administration incorporate the "international" or "global" elements into their core curricula (Ryan, 1994). Educators may also want to shift their teaching focus to better incorporate international and comparative public administration and thereby provide a better understanding of how national bureaucracies are affected by the common global environment. With the rise of global pressures on bureaucracy, it is time for educators in the field of public management to critically rethink the structure and components of their programs.

Conclusion This article has identified two important gaps in public admin-

istration theory and practice with regard to Western and non- Western nations. First, there is a gap between the two theoretical approaches of comparative public administration, the traditionalist and the revisionist. This gap has, in turn, widened the gap between public administration theory borrowed by non-Western administrative systems and the applicability of that theory.

Simultaneous with the development of these gaps, there has been a visible rise in the constraints and opportunities faced in common by all nations. These forces have been identified in the article as global pressures for bureaucratic change. These pressures-




information technology, global institutions, and efficiency and productivity-are considered to intrude enough into the national political, administrative, economic, and social environments that they can be objects of analysis in the analytical framework.

This article has attempted to synthesize the strong points of both theoretical approaches of comparative public administration (traditionalist and revisionist) while incorporating the existence of the global context into a general theoretical framework for analysis. The outcome of this exercise has been to produce a matrix of global pressures and their impacts on specific aspects of the bureaucracy. The resulting analysis allows development of testable hypotheses and provides channels for feedback for enhancement of theory.

This work should be of value to both researchers and practitioners. In the future, attention to global pressures by researchers may help to close the theoretical and application gaps. The analytical framework presented in this paper provides a set of hypotheses for research that specifically incorporate national and global factors

currently affecting bureaucratic structure and behavior. It is hoped that application of this framework for analysis will provide a richer context and clearer direction for public managers in all nations.

Eric Welch Post Doctoral Fellow in Public Administration, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Technology and Infor- mation Policy, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. Primary areas of research include public management, technology and environment policy, and organization behavior.

Wilson Wong Ph.D. candidate in Public Administration and Research Associate at the Center for Policy Research, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. Pri- mary research areas include public finance and budgeting, public management, and organization theory.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their appreciation to the anonymous

reviewers for their helpful suggestions for improving this article. They would also like to thank Dr. Ali Galaydh, Dr. James Garnet, and Dr. Barbara Grosh

for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This paper was first presented at the Public Administration Theory Conference in Savannah, Georgia, 1996.

Notes 1. This brief review of the literature does not include Asian-language jour-

nals, but we believe it is representative of both Asian and Western research because Asian academic contributions often appear in English language journals.

2. The four dependent variables are People, Organizations, Behavior, and Power. Policy is another such variable.

3. For example, in western countries like the United States, information technology is observed to create a leakage of authority from government (Cleveland, 1993). Meanwhile, Asian countries such as China and Singa- pore are investigating ways of using information technology to tighten

state control over society (New York Times, 1996). 4. Examples in health policy include the World Health Organization's

(WHO) procedures for controlling communicable diseases. For environmental protection, one example is the 1987 Montreal Protocol for the protection of stratospheric ozone by reducing emissions of chlorofluoro- carbons.

5. The four attributes are similar to the attributes of people, power, behavior, and organization that are examined by Peters (1988). Other attributes of bureaucracy can also be studied as dependent variables using the model of global pressures.

References

Aberbach, Joel D., and Bert A. Rockman (1987). "Comparative Administra- tion: Methods, Muddles, and Models." Administration &! Society 18(4): 473-506.

Atkinson, Adrian (1991). "Environment and Development: Concepts and Practices in Transition." Public Administration and Development 11: 401- 413.

Aucoin, Peter (1990). 'Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums." Governance: An Inter- nationalJournal of Policy andAdministration 3(2): 115-137.

Aufrecht, Steven E. and Li Siu Bun (1995). "Reform with Chinese Character- istics: The Context of Chinese Civil Service Reform." Public Administra- tion Review 55(2): 175-182.

Bozeman, Barry (1989). All Organizations Are Public. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

(1993). Introduction and Conclusion In Barry Bozeman, ed. Public Management: The State of the Art, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, John P. (1994). "Asian Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspec- tive." In John Burns, ed., Asian Civil Service Perspectives. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Caiden, Gerald, and Naomi Caiden (1990). "Towards the Future of Compar- ative Public Administration." In 0. P. Dwivedi and Keith M. Henderson, eds., Public Administration in World Perspective. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Caiden, Gerald E. (1994). "Globalizing the Theory and Practice of Public

Administration." In Jean-Claude Garcia-Zamor and Renu Khator, eds., PublicAdministration in the Global Village. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Chow, King W. (1993). 'Conceptualizing Administrative Organization in China." In Miriam K. Mills and Stuart S. Nagel, eds., Public Administra- tion in China. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Cleveland, Harlan (1993). Birth of a New World: An Open Moment for Inter- national Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cook, Thomas, and Donald Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dahl, Robert (1947). "The Science of Public Administration: Three Prob- lems." PublicAdministration Review (7): 1-1 1.

Denhardt, Robert (1990). 'Public Administration Theory: The State of the Discipline." In Naomi Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Adminis- tration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter Powell (1983). "The Iron Cage Revisited: Insti- tutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review (48): 147-160.

Dilulio, John, Gerald Garvey, and Donald Kettl (1993). Improving Govern- ment Performance: An Owner"s Manual Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Downs, Anthony (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown. Dwivedi, 0. P. and Keith M. Henderson (1990). "State of the Art: Compara-

tive Public Administration and Development Administration." In 0. P. Dwivedi and Keith M. Henderson, eds., Public Administration in World




Perspective. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Farazmand, Ali (1994). "The New World Order and Global Public Adminis-

tration: A Critical Essay." In Jean-Claude Garcia-Zamor and Renu Kha- tor, eds., Public Administration in the Global Village. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Finer, Herman (1941). "Administrative Responsibility and Democratic Gov- ernment." Public Administration Review 1: 335-350.

Friedrich, Carl (1940). 'Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility." In C. Friedrich and E. Mason, eds., Public Policy. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Heady, Ferrel (1995). Public Administration in Comparative Perspective. 5th ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Heilbroner, Robert (1992). 21st Century Capitalism. New York: Norton. Henderson, Keith M. (1994). "Rethinking the Comparative Experience: Indi-

genization versus Internationalization." In 0. P. Dwivedi and Keith M. Henderson, eds., Public Administration in World Perspective. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Hood, Christopher (1989). "Public Administration and Public Policy: Intel- lectual challenges for the 1990s." Australian Journal of Public Administra- tion 48(4): 346-358.

Ingraham, Patricia (1996). "Evolving Public Service Systems." In James Perry, ed., Handbook of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaufman, Herbert (1977). Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washing- ton, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kettl, Donald (1993). Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kettl, Donald F. (1994). "Managing on the Frontiers of Knowledge: The Learning Organization." In Patricia W. Ingraham and Barbara S. Romzek, eds., New Paradigms for Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kim, Bun Woong and David S. Bell, Jr. (1991). "The Theory and Applicabil- ity of Democratic Elitism to Korean Public Administration." In Gerald E. Caiden and Bun Woong Kim, eds., A Dragon's Progress: Development Administration in Korea West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1992). "A Theory of Human Motivation." In Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, eds., Classics of Public Administration. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

March, James, and Herbert Simon (1993). Organizations, Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

McCurdy, Howard (1986). Public Administration: A Bibliographic Guide to the Literature. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Ng, Kathleen, and Hon S. Chan (1992). "Environmental Management and Street-level Regulators: A Cultural Trap?" Public Administration and Development 12: 387-397.

New York Times (1996). "Chinese Tiptoe Into Interact, Wary of Watchdogs: Authorities are Trying to Keep the Internet Within Their Grasp." 5 February.

Niskanen, William (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.

Olsen, Johan P. (1988). "Administrative Reform and Theories of Organiza- tion." In Colin Campbell, S. J. and B. Guy Peters, eds., Organizing Gover- nance, Governing Organizations. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.

Panos (1996). The Internet and the South: Superhighway or Dirt-track? Internet

Report. Peters, B. Guy (1988). Comparing Public Bureaucracies: Problems of Theory

and Method Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Peters, B. Guy (1994). 'New Visions of Government and the Public Service."

In Patricia W. Ingraham and Barbara S. Romzek, eds., New Paradigms for Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Peterson, Stephen B. (1991). "From Processing to Analyzing: Intensifying the Use of Microcomputers in Development Bureaucracies." Public Adminis- tration and Development 11: 491-510.

Pollitt, Christopher (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo- American Experience. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Pradhan, Goraksha Gahadur N., and Mila A. Reforma (1991). Public Man- agement in the 1990s: Challenges and Opportunities. Manila, Philippines: EROPA Secretariat General.

Quah, Jon S. T. (1994). "Improving the Efficiency and Productivity of the Singapore Civil Service." In John Burns, ed., Asian Civil Service Perspec- tives. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Rainey, Hal G. (1991). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reich, Robert (1991). The Work of Nations. New York: Vintage. Riggs, Fred W. (1994). "Global Forces and the Discipline of Public Adminis-

tration." In Jean-Claude Garcia-Zamor and Renu Khator, eds., Public Administration in the Global Village. Westport, CT: Praeger.

(1991). "Public Administration: A Comparativist Framework." PublicAdministration Review 51(6): 473-477.

(1980). The Ecology and Context of Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective. Public Administration Review 40(2): 107-115.

Rivlin, Alice (1992). Reviving the American Dream. Washington, DC: Brook- ings Institution.

Romzek, Barbara, and Melvin Dubnick (1987). "Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy." Public Administration Review 47: 227-238.

Rosenbloom, David (1992). "Public Administrative Theory and the Separa- tion of Powers." In Jay Shafritz and Albert Hyde, eds., Classics of Public Administration. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Books / Cole.

Ryan, Richard (1994). "The Importance of Comparative Study in Educating the U.S. Public Service." In Randall Baker, ed., Comparative Public Man- agement: Putting U.S. Public Policy and Implementation in Context. West- port, CT: Praeger.

Savoie, Donald J. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Shirk, Susan L. (1995). How China Opened Its Door: The Political Success of the PRC"s Foreign Trade and Investment Reforms. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Waldo, Dwight (1948). The Administrative State. New York: Ronald Press. Wart, Montgomery Van, and N. Joseph Cayer (1990). "Comparative Public

Administration: Defunct, Dispersed, or Redefined?" Public Administration Review 50(2): 238-248.

Zhang, Amei, and Zou Gang (1994). 'Foreign Trade Decentralization and Its Impact on Central-Local Relations." In Jia Hao and Lin Zhimin, eds., Changing Central-Local Relations in China: Reform and State Capacity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Zhang, Cheng F. (1993). "Public Administration in China." In Miriam K. Mills and Stuart S. Nagel, eds., Public Administration in China. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.




public administration in a global context: bridging the gaps of theory and practice between western...

Documents