Comparative Studies in Public Administration: Intellectual Challenges and Alternative Perspectives

• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: M. Shamsul Haque,Zeger Wal,Caspar Berg
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13349

344 Public Administration Review • March | Apri l 202 1

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 2, pp. 344–348. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13349.

Comparative Studies in Public Administration: Intellectual

Challenges and Alternative Perspectives

Abstract: In the current age of globalization, there is a greater need for comparative studies in public administration

to explore cross-national variations in adopting new global models. Many of the major challenges impeding the

intellectual promises of earlier waves of comparative administration continue to affect the contemporary state of

the field. As a part of the PAR Symposium on Comparative Public Administration, this short article explores the

ideational, epistemological, structural, and institutional challenges to comparative administration and briefly suggests

some remedial alternatives.

Comparative studies in public administration are

crucial for the field’s knowledge-building process

by making theoretical generalizations based

on cross-national patterns in institutions, structures,

causal relations, and normative priorities (Fitzpatrick

etal.2011). Making such generalizations, however,

often involves the disaggregation of administrative

narratives into narrow empirical research questions

without paying much attention to the embedding

sociohistorical contexts shaping each nation’s

administrative system, especially in non-Western

developing countries (Drechsler2013; Fitzpatrick

etal.2011; Jreisat2010; Riggs1964). With regard to

the significance of paying attention to contexts, it has

been highlighted that, even among Western nations,

“policy learning—if it is to be successful—is at least as

much about the analysis of the circumstances in which

particular innovations succeed (or fail) as about the

innovations themselves” (Klein2009, 306).

In recent years, the significance of comparative

studies has increased with the transnational

imposition or imitation of dominant administrative

models or paradigms (Farazmand2001; United

Nations2001)—including Weberian bureaucracy,

Development Administration, and New Public

Management (NPM)—without much attention paid

to the contextual variations in the developing world.

Concomitantly, the universality of administrative

principles developed by early administrative thinkers

such as Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow was

questioned by a generation of scholars that emerged

after World War 2 (e.g., Riggs, Siffin, & Heady).

They highlighted the limits of using imitative models

and drew attention to the context boundedness

of knowledge building in public administration

(Jreisat2010; Riggs1991). However, the context for

comparative public administration has become more

challenging due to the global adoption of business-

type reforms affecting major dimensions of public

administration (e.g., citizen–administration relationship)

that produced highly divergent cross-national

administrative outcomes (Kim2008; Leach2016).

Many critics of postwar comparative administration

have argued that Western administrative models

imposed or imitated in postcolonial countries in Asia,

Africa, and Latin America remained largely Western-

centric and were often inappropriate for many

non-Western countries (Adamolekun2006; Burns

and Bowornwathana2001; Candler, Azevedo, and

Albernaz2010; Riggs1991). In fact, since the early

1970s, intellectual confidence in the practical use of

comparative public administration began to diminish

as its prescribed administrative reforms failed to

demonstrate convincing administrative performance

in developing countries (Fitzpatrick et al.2011; van

Wart and Joseph Cayer1990).

However, cross-regional and cross-national

comparative studies in public administration began

to receive greater intellectual attention starting from

the early 1990s (Jreisat2011; Leach2016). In 2011,

a section on “Comparative Public Administration

Research: A Senior Academic Exchange” was

published in PAR (Public Administration Review)

(71,6), which highlighted the significance of

comparative administration in the globalized world.

As highlighted by Fitzpatrick et al.(2011, 821),

“Intensified globalization, especially the necessity to learn

more about how administrative reforms work effectively

M. Shamsul Haque Zeger van der Wal

Caspar van den Berg

National University of Singapore Leiden University

University of Groningen

Caspar van den Berg is a Professor

of Global and Local Governance at

the Campus Fryslân, University of

Groningen. His specialization covers public

administration, administrative politicization,

and regional governance.

Email: c.f.van.den.berg@rug.nl

Zeger van der Wal is a Professor at the

Faculty Governance and Global Affairs,

Institute of Public Administration, Leiden

University. He is also an Adjunct Associate

Professor at the National University of

Singapore. Areas of his specialization

include public management, administrative

values, and administrative reform.

Email: z.van.der.wal@fgga.leidenuniv.nl

M. Shamsul Haque is a Professor at the

Department of Political Science, National

University of Singapore. He specializes in

public administration, governance, and

bureaucratic politics.

Email: polhaque@nus.edu.sg

Viewpoint Article:

Global PA

Symposium