IDPMDISCUSSIONPAPERSERIES

PaperNo.72

WhatHasHappenedtoDevelopmentAdministration?

SomeCriticalReflections

FarhadHossainUniversityofManchester

June2007

ISBN: 9781904143963

Furtherdetails:Publishedby:

InstituteforDevelopmentPolicyandManagementUniversityofManchesterExternalAffairsOfficeHaroldHankinsBuilding,PrecinctCentre,OxfordRoad,ManchesterM139QH,UKTel:+44(0)1612752814Email:idpm@man.ac.ukWeb:http://idpm.man.ac.uk

WHATHASHAPPENEDTODEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION?

SOMECRITICALREFLECTIONS

FarhadHossain

ABSTRACT

This article provides a critical analysis of the evolving role of the concept of development

administration in the discipline of public administration. Since its inception in the 1950s,

development administration has helped scholars in public administration to advance theoretical

and empirical understanding of their discipline in industrialized, transitional and developing

countries. Research on development administration weakenedduring the 1980s in manyOECD

countries, consequently causing it to lose its momentum in the field but since the turn of the

centuryithasshownsignsofrevivalintheadministrativesciencediscourselargelyinresponseto

emergingchallengesandopportunitiescreatedbyglobalization.Theconceptisgainingincreasing

utility inemergingresearchareassuchassocialcapital,economicglobalization,governanceand

administrativedecentralization,developmentNGOs,ICTandegovernance.

INTRODUCTION

This article argues thatdespite itspracticalapplicability to and theoretical relevance in

international development management, the concept of development administration has been

weakening inthedisciplineofpublicadministrationsincetheearly1980s.Theaimofthearticle

is to advance academic understanding of development administration and its applicability to

3

contemporary international development management. In doing so, the article presents a

theoretical overview of development administration, and highlights the theoretical gap that

emerged in the 1980s between public administration and development administration.

Managementproblemsininternationaldevelopmentinitiativesarealsodiscussed.Withthematic

analyses of economic globalization, social capital, good governance, administrative

decentralization, sustainability of development NGOs and the challenges of egovernance, the

article identifies four emerging researchagendas for contemporarydevelopmentmanagement.

The article suggests that academic study of the above issues related to development

administration and international development has vital importance for the current academic

discourseinpublicadministration.

THEORETICALBACKGROUND

Sincethe1950s,thestudyofdevelopmentadministrationhasbeenviewedaspartofthestudy

of public administration (Siffin 1991, 7), though research on development administration has

diminished since the 1980s. Siffin seems escapist aboutdevelopment administration, as in his

view, it focusesonmattersoutside theboundariesofconventionalpublicadministration (Siffin

1991,1112).Hecommentson theproblemofdevelopmentadministration,arguingthat there

really isntmuchofaproblem,inasmuchas there isntmuchofa field (1991,8).Development

administration isa termthat impliesaquestion:howcanthe ideasandmechanismsof public

administrationbeusedasinstrumentsofsocialandeconomicdevelopment?Riggssimilarlyasks:

howdoesthestudyofdevelopmentadministrationdifferfromthestudyofpublicadministration

in general, or even from the study of comparative administration? No clear answer to this

question can be given (1977, 3). The comparative view of public administration and

developmentadministrationcanbeunderstood furtherfromthefollowingtable(Hussain1994,

1314):

4

Table1

PUBLICADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION

PublicAdministrationlooksafterthepublic

policyatlargeincludinglawandorderand

otherserviceslikehealth,housing,sanitation,

etc.

DevelopmentAdministrationisabranchof

PublicAdministration.

Itsstructureiscentralizedwithtopbottom

hierarchy.Bureaucracyisitsmodusoperandi

andrulesaremostlyrigidandnonflexible.

Itactivelyrevolvesroundtargetsandwidensup

tovillages(lowestlevelofhabitations).

Peoplesparticipationisnotbindingand

imperative.

Itsimplementationneedstechnicalandtrained

personnelratherthantraditionalbureaucracy.It

callsforflexiblerulesandregulations.

Thisiscontinuousandneverending. Itisoccasionalandactivityendswhenthe

targetisachieved.

The above comparative view highlights the scope of public administration and

developmentadministration.However,theclaimthatdevelopmentadministrationisoccasional

isarguableandcannotbetheoreticallyjustifiedbecauseitisconstantlyevolving.

Jreisat(1991,1920)ismoreoptimisticabouttheconceptthanSiffin.Heclaimsthatthe

field of comparative and development administration constitutes a rich heritage of scholarly

5

contributions that include studies of numerous countries, cultures, organizations, and groups.

Katz has, rather, identified the borders between development administration and public

administration (1977, 120121). In his opinion, development administration differs from

traditionalpublicadministrationinitsobjectives,scope,andcomplexity.Hearguesthat

development administration is innovative, since it is concerned with the societal

changes involved in achieving developmental objectives. In its quest for change,

government becomes concerned with a wide scope of activities. No longer is it

limited to themaintenance of lawandorder, theprovisionof some limitedpublic

services, and the collection of taxes rather, it is specifically involved in the

mobilization of resources and their application to a great variety of development

activitiesonamassivescale(Katz1977,120).

Despite these analyses and arguments, it is obvious that the context and scope of

development administration remains central to public administration. The concept of

development administration emerged in the post World War II era of nationbuilding and

administrativereformsinpostcolonialstatesinthedevelopingworld.Theconceptoftenrefersto

the two fields of public administration and development, which can be combined under the

headingofdevelopmentadministrationoradministrativeaspectsofdevelopment(Riggs1978,

1,italicsadded).Sinceitsinception,theconceptofdevelopmentadministrationhasmainlybeen

employed in studying administration and development in developing countries. Development

administrationismostoftentreatedasafacetofcomparativepublicadministration.Inhismost

widely used book, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Ferrel Heady (1966)

discussespublicbureaucracyas itexistswithindifferenttypesofpoliticalsystems.Hesketches

fivegeneralfeaturesofpublicadministrationindevelopingcountries,andcarefullyexaminesthe

interplayofbureaucracyandpolitics(Siffin1991,8).

6

As explained by Riggs (1977, 3 see also Handerson 1971, 234), the Comparative

AdministrationGroup (CAG)of theAmericanSociety for PublicAdministration (ASPA)playeda

significant role in the emergence of the concept of development administration in the 1960s.

Administrative problems in developing countries at the time were significant concern of CAG,

ASPA. Thus, under the auspices of comparative studies of national public administration,

development administration became more prominent as an independent concept in public

administrationstudiesindevelopingcountries.Onesignificantchangeinthe1967versionofthe

USAgency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)administrativedoctrine, asembodied in the

agencymanual, is theemphasis on developmentadministration,curiouslywithoutonce using

thatpopulartermatall(Abueva1969,554). Despiteitsgrowthasanindependentareainpublic

administration since the 1950s, development administration, as an academic discipline, began

losingitsmomentuminthe1980sinindustrializedcountriesanditwouldnotexperiencearevival

untiltheturnofthecentury(seeforexample,Hossain2001,37Collins2000,3).

PUBLICADMINISTRATIONINTHE1980s:EXPLORINGTHEGAPBETWEENRICHAND

POORCOUNTRIES

Throughout the 1980s, theoretical concerns of public administration in the USA and other

developed countries started to differ from the concerns of the poorer countries in the South.

During the 1970s, administrative reform in developing countries was an influential catchword

(Siffin 1991, 9) which was usually understood as a subject matter of development

administration.However,Hussain(1994,11)arguesthatdevelopingthecapacityofbureaucracy

didnot helpmuch. Training imparted to bureaucracy didnot correspond to the needs of the

developingcountriesbecausetrainingtechniquesandcontentsremainedWesternorAmerican.A

reflection of Hussains view also could be found in the recent American literature on public

administration. For example, after several decades of scholarly contribution to the field of

7

comparative anddevelopment administration, Professor FredW. Riggs inhis recent (2001, 1)

writing concluded that American public administration is truly exceptional and has limited

relevance to the solution of administrative problems in other countries. Nevertheless, it is so

widely imitated and viewed as a model that anyone studying Public Administration needs to

understandwhytheAmericansystemisexceptionalandwhyitspracticesaresooftenirrelevant

inothercountries.Suchanunderstandingrequires acomparativeanalysis of different regimes

basedon the sameconstitutionalprinciples, that is the separationofexecutive, legislative and

judicial powers and the identification of the peculiarly American structure of a hybrid

bureaucracy.

In the 1980s privatization was labeled as the subject matter of public administration

(Siffin 1991, 9) which covers a limited sphereof the organizational landscape indeveloping

countries, as compared to the developed world. The bestknown academic forums of public

administration like theMinnowbrookI (in1968)andII (in1988)concentrated their theoretical

focus on US administration and suggested reforms in that system. The 1968 theoretical

discussionwasmainlyon

ethics, social equality, human relations, reconciling public administration and

democracy, andconcern for the stateof the field.However, several 1988 themes

were not as prominent in 1968, notably leadership, constitutional and legal

perspectives, technology, policy, and economic perspectives (Frederickson 1989,

100).

Thus, the discussion in both of the Minnowbrook forums naturally was far from the

central concerns of public administration in developing countries. Over the decades, the

operationallandscapeoforganizationshadbecomecomplexinternationallyduetothewidening

gapbetweentheeconomiesofrichandpoorcountries.Asaresult,developmentadministration

was left behindonthe journeyofpublic administration sometime in the1980s although the

8

subject matter of development administration is not a separate discipline from public

administration.

However,likeCollins(2000,3),manyscholarsinpublicadministrationfeelthattheturn

of the century is an appropriate time to reflect on the impact of public administration on

development and, in turn, the impact of facets of development onadministration. The issues

confrontingthoseinthefieldareserious,andincludethefailureofexistingsystemstocopewith

growing gaps between rich and poor within and between countries, with environmental

degradation, frequent conflict between andwithin states, andgrowing distrust of government

generally.

MANAGEMENTPROBLEMSININTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT

Paul(1986, 1)hasarguedthatadministrationormanagementhasalwaysbeen identifiedasa

neglected factor indevelopmentprojectactivities.Even in recent years, inpractice, theoriesof

development administration have been infrequently applied in planning and implementing

developmentprojectsandprogramsindevelopingandtransitionalcountries.TheWorldBankhas

foundthatsome51percentofitsruraldevelopmentareaprojectsduringtheperiodof1965to

1985failedtoachievetheBanksminimumacceptablerateofreturnof10percent(Turnerand

Hulme1997, 140).Therefore, there is ageneral concern thatmost of the faileddevelopment

programscouldnotreachtheirdevelopmentalgoalsonlybecausestakeholdersfocusedtoolittle

attention on the administration of development programs. Certain scholars (e.g. Turner and

Hulme1997,141144)alsoclaimthatthechallengesofdevelopment,particularlyinruralareas,

arenot wellstructuredproblemsasprojectplanningmethodologiesassume,butarerather ill

structuredorsimplyamess.Orthodoxprojectplanningmethodologiesdemand largeamounts

ofreliabledata.Inmostdevelopingcountries,suchdataarenotavailableandsoplannershave

to make assumptions. Another feature of project management in developing countries is

9

uncertaintyand instability. Separationofplanning frommanagement causes serious problems.

Belatedly,inthe1980s,projectplannersbegantorecognizeproblemsrelatedtoimplementation.

The lack of beneficiary participation also causes serious problems. All of these factors make

developmentprojects vulnerable to the longpolitical processes ofwhichaid agencies, political

parties, local lites, politicians, bureaucrats, andother interestgroups are a part. As a result,

critics (for example,Quibria1994)haveargued that theextent of rural povertyhas notbeen

reducedormayhaveworsenedovertheyears.

It isagainstthisbackgroundthatWerlin(2003,329342)arguesthat the inadequacyof

governanceratherthanresourcesistheprimaryreasonforthegapbetweenpoorcountriesand

rich countries. Werlin is also sympathetic and convinced of the need to pursue a research

agenda where scholars find away out of the confusion associatedwith our inability to know

whethergovernanceishelpedorhurtby thedichotomiesofcentralizationanddecentralization.

Such dichotomies can also be found, for example, between bureaucratization and

debureaucratization regulationandderegulationmorecontrolor lesscontrolprivatizationand

public management downsizing and rightsizing strict guidelines and flexible guidelines and

moreexpertise andgreater public input.Heattributes this to the limitations ofOrganizational

Theory(rationalafinelyorderedsystemofsuperordinationandsubordinationinwhichhigher

officessupervise lowerones),CulturalTheory(semifeudalisticand traditionboundgovernance

theories and its failure to incorporate politics), and StructuralFunctional Theory (success of

political systems in maintaining political support has failed).Hepropounded what he calls the

PoliticalElasticityTheory,whichattemptsnotonlytoreduceconfusion inpublicadministration,

butalsotolinkcomparativeadministrationtocomparativepoliticsanddevelopmentstudies.

Theoretically, the study of development from the administrative science perspective

diminished since the1980sbecausepublicadministration indevelopeddemocracies, that is, in

the richer parts of the world, has dealt with some other aspects relevant to their everyday

business. Therefore, advancing scientific studies on development administration has vital

importance for fostering better understanding both academically in higher educational

10

institutions,andpracticallyinthefield,wheredevelopmentprogramsarecarriedout.Inorderto

addresstheseissues,academicunderstandingofexistingtheoriesmustbeadvanced,whichwill

improve conceptual understanding of development administration so that the challenges of

present day development assistance programs and international development can be better

tackled.

MANAGINGINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENTINTHE21STCENTURY:SOME

EMERGINGRESEARCHAGENDAS

TheU.S.AgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)spendsbillionsofdollarseveryyearona

widevarietyofdevelopmentcooperationinitiativesinmorethanonehundredcountriesaround

theglobe(USAID2006a).Theorganizationhasninedifferentareasofdevelopmentcooperation,

oneofwhich ispromotingdemocracyandgoodgovernancein23differentcountriesinAfrica,

17inAsia/NearEast,21inEuropeandEurasia,and15differentcountriesinLatinAmericaand

Caribbean (USAID2006b).Similarly, theCanadian InternationalDevelopmentAgency (CIDA) is

currently engaged in promoting governance and development in their 25 partner countries

aroundtheworld(CIDA2006).

Across theAtlantic, UnitedKingdoms official developmentassistancealonewill rise to

almost 6.5 billion ($11.20) by 2007/08 (DfID 2006). Similarly, other European Union (EU)

member states also spend billions of dollars every year in their development cooperation

initiativesacrosstheglobe.TheOECDmemberstatescollectiveefforts totackleglobalpoverty

and attain the United Nations Millennium Development Goals have gained momentum. The

scope of these activities does not include the developmental initiatives of other private

stakeholders, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational agencies. In

practice,developmentmanagementhasnever featuredprominently inthefieldofdevelopment

aid.Therefore,theimportanceofacademicdiscoursesindevelopmentadministrationisgrowing.

11

Scholarly research should try to bridge the theoretical gap between development

administrationandpublicadministrationwhichdevelopedduringthe1980sand1990sinboth

developing and industrialized countries. Theoretically, research on development administration

shouldbecarriedoutbytakingabroaderperspective,with the intentionofmaking conceptual

contributions to administrative science. Due to its strong roots in development studies,

developmentadministration itself isamultidisciplinaryareaofstudy.That iswhytheresearch

agenda should be thematically indepth and designed to cover the central issues of the

contemporary international development discourse (see also Collins 2000, 314). The multi

disciplinary orientation of development studies should in no way be lost in the study of

developmentadministration.However,theaimshouldbetomaketheoreticalcontributionsinthe

area of administrative science, and practical contributions in the area of development

management. For example, scholarlyworkonthe followingemerging thematic issueshasvital

importance in the contemporary development administration and international development

discourse:

1.)Theharmonyandtensionbetweeneconomicglobalizationandsocialcapital

2.)Challengeswithgoodgovernance:administrativedecentralizationand localdevelopment in

developingcountries

3.)Alternativedevelopmentstrategies:exploringthecomparativeadvantageofNGOled

developmentinitiatives

4.)DigitaldividesandapplicabilityofICTledegovernanceindevelopingcountries

Careful selection of theoretical approaches in addressing these research topics are of vital

importanceincarryingoutanystudyontheabovetopics.Eachoftheabovetopicsisverylarge

inscopeandrequiresathoroughunderstandingoftheseissuesandthemesreflectedineachof

thetopics.Thethematicdiscussionoftheabovetopicsisfurtherdiscussedbelow.

12

Theharmonyandtensionbetweeneconomicglobalizationandsocialcapital

Economicglobalizationhasmostlybeenstudiedbyscholars indevelopmenteconomics,history,

sociology and anthropology. Despite the economic advances achieved (World Bank 2000) in

manypartsof thedevelopingworld,Korten(1996,127)argues thatglobalizationhasrendered

many of the political roles of government obsolete. Companies with globalized operations

routinely and effortlessly sidestep governmental restrictions on the basis of old assumptions

aboutnationaleconomiesandforeignpolicy.

Renato Ruggerio, exDirector of the World Trade Organization stated: We are

creatingasingleglobaleconomy(quotedbyHarawira1999).Embeddedwithinthis

newsingleglobaleconomyisasetof liberalEuropeanepistemologieswhichdefine

human beings as economic units and the free market as a rationally operating

frameworkwithinwhichperfectcompetitionexists.This frameworkhas its roots in

the mercantilism of the earliest forms of imperialism, and is ideologically flawed.

Economicliberalismandfreetradearethelinchpins[sic]oftheneweconomicorder

designed to carry humankind on a wave of economic triumph into the new

millennium.(Harawira1999)

Therecentprotestsagainsteconomicglobalizationinmanypartsoftheworldmakeusrethink

itsdynamicsanddrawbacks.However, the studyofeconomicglobalization is largely lacking in

thepublicadministrationliterature.

Social capital refers to stocks of cultural elements such as social trust, norms, and

valuesthatpeoplecandrawupontosolvecommonproblemsformutualbenefits(Li2001,130).

ProfessorPutnamoftheJ.F.KennedySchoolofGovernmentatHarvardarguesthatanalogous

to notions of physical capital and human capitaltools and training that enhance individual

productivitysocialcapitalreferstofeaturesofsocialorganizationsuchasnetworks,norms,and

13

social trust that facilitate coordinationandcooperation formutualbenefit (Putnam1995,67).

Studies on social capital have been produced by several scholars in administrative science

(Putnam 2000 and 1995, Harisalo and Miettinen 1997). Putnams study reveals a competing

scenariobetween social capital andmodernization in theUSandexaminesAmericasdeclining

socialcapitaloverthelastthreedecadesorso.

Economicglobalizationandmodernization help eachother to survive andat the same

timeaffectsocialcapital.Developmentaidpromotesmodernizationinthedevelopingworld.The

missionofmostdevelopmentprojectsistomodernizetraditionalsocietiessuchsocietiesarealso

referred to as prismatic societies by Riggs (1978). Dor Bahadur Bista (1994) has empirically

presented the consequences ofmodernizationanddevelopmentaid,and his studyon fatalism

anddevelopmentbearscommentingonatsomelengthinthisregard.

AwellplannedresearchagendathataddressesthefindingspresentedbyKorten(1996)

on economic globalization and Putnam (2000) on social capital could contribute an indepth

theoreticalcontributiontothestudyofinternationaldevelopmentbyimprovingunderstandingof

theinterlinkagesbetweenthesetwoinfluentialareasinsocialscience.

Challenges with good governance: administrative decentralization and local

developmentindevelopingcountries

Governanceisawordthatissoubiquitousandsodebasedthat,likeHumptyDumptyinAlicein

Wonderland,we canuse it tomean almost anythingwe like (McCourt 2006). By referring to

Kaufmann,McCourtprovidesthedefinitionofgovernanceasthesettraditionsandformaland

informal institutions that determine how authority is exercised in a particular country for the

commongood.He rightly identifiedanumberofelementsofgovernance,includingdemocracy

and political governance, economic governance, corporate governance and socioeconomic

governancewherehehighlightsthearenasofdemocraticandpoliticalgovernanceincivilsociety,

politicalsociety,government,bureaucracy,economicsocietyandthe judicialsystem.Kaufmann

14

etal(2005,5)constructedmeasuresofsixdimensionsofgovernanceindicatorsandtheseare:

a.)Voiceandaccountabilitymeasuringpolitical,civilandhumanrightsb.)Political Instability

and violence measuring the likelihood of violent threats to, or changes in, government,

including terrorism c.) Government effectiveness measuring the competence of the

bureaucracy and thequality of public servicedelivery d.) Regulatoryburden measuring the

incidence of marketunfriendly policies e.) Rule of law measuring the quality of contract

enforcement,thepolice,andthecourts,aswellasthelikelihoodofcrimeandviolenceandf.)

Controlof corruption measuring theexerciseofpublicpower forprivategain, includingboth

pettyandgrandcorruptionandstatecapture.

However, the notion of good governance had already been introduced to the

internationaldevelopmentcooperationagendainthelate1980s,followingdiscussionsinmainly

World Bank circles on the outcomes of structural adjustment policies. It developed into a

somewhat confusing and controversial term (Kruiter 1996). Theoretically, the scope of

governanceiswideandcoverslargerissuessuchasadministrativereform,nationaldevelopment

policies, democratization, decentralization, corruption, partnerships between thepublic, private

and the third sector, and other areas of public affairs (Turner andHulme 1997). Among the

above, research on administrative decentralization has a tradition and direct relevance to the

studyofcomparativeanddevelopmentadministration.Includingadministrativedecentralization,

theotherissuesofgovernancementionedabovehaveagrowingimportanceinthecontemporary

international development discourse and cover the central aspects of development

administration.

Amajorobstacletotheeffectiveperformanceofpublicbureaucraciesinmostdeveloping

countries is the excessive concentration of decisionmaking and authority within the central

government.Decentralizationwithin thestate involvesa transfer ofauthority toperformsome

service to the public from an individual or an agency in central government to some other

individual oragency closer to the public to be served. However, inpractice, the challenges to

good governance through decentralizationare numerous. In most developing countries, there

15

hasbeenatendencyofindependentgovernmentstofavourthedelegationofpowerwithinpublic

services rather than through locally electedauthorities. Furthermore, the capacity of local and

regional authorities has remained generally weak. There has been significant rhetoric about

participationand localautonomy,but centralgovernmentshavejealouslyguarded theirpower.

(Turner andHulme,1997)Similar findings havealso been reported byother researchers (see

Khan and Zafarullah, 1991 Siddiqui, 1992Seppl, 2000) in their work on central and local

governance.Ingeneral,governancehasthusremainedfarfrombeingreferredtoasgood.

Itistruethatacademic researchinpublicadministrationandinternationaldevelopment

covers thecentral issues cuttingacross traditional subfields of international relations, political

science and public administration. However, research on good governance and administrative

decentralization ismorecentral topublicadministration thananyother fields insocialsciences.

Therefore,thereisscopeforscholarsinadministrativesciencetomakecontributionsintheareas

ofgoodgovernanceandthesearchforlocalcapacitybuildingindevelopingcountries.

Alternativedevelopmentstrategies:exploringthecomparativeadvantageofNGOled

developmentinitiatives

The role of NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in managing development initiatives in

developing countries has been central to the contemporary development aid discourse.

Developmentprojects runby NGOsareassumed tobe flexible, innovative,participatory, cost

effective, and directed at the poor. Several social, economic, political and cultural arguments

existtojustifytheadvantagesofNGOs(Hulme1994Tvedt1995and1998bVartolaetal2000

Hossain2001).Marketfailureandgovernmentfailureareconsideredbymanytobetheleading

reasonsforthegrowthofNGOs(AnheierandSeibel1990,1).Scholarsarguethatthisgrowthis

areflectionofdissatisfactionwithboththestateandthemarket.Ontheotherhand,theuseof

NGOshasbeenconsistentwithboththeNewRightaidpoliciesofgovernmentsintheUSAand

UK and the alternative aid policies of the donor community in the Nordic countries and the

16

Netherlands.(Hulme1994,251and265)TherestructuringpoliciesoftheWorldBankandother

influentialdonor institutions (e.g., inOECDcountries) led toaplanned reductionof theroleof

thestateindevelopingcountriesandincreasedspacefordevelopmentNGOs(Tvedt1998a,62).

However, thesustainabilityofNGOleddevelopmentinitiativesisquestionedin thesocial

scienceliterature.Adevelopmentprogramisconsideredsustainablewhenitisabletodeliveran

appropriatelevelofbenefitsforanextendedperiodoftimeaftermajorfinancial,managerial,and

technical assistance from an external donor is terminated (OECD 1989, 7). Among others, a

recentstudy(Hossain2001,11)arguesthatdespitethesaidcomparativeadvantagesofNGOs,

their developmentprojects remainunsustainable inmanydeveloping countries. Research also

suggests that the comparative advantage that NGOs are generally assumed to have in the

literatureonNGOsindevelopmenthasbeenfalsified(Tvedt1997,1).Despitethesearguments,

NGOshaverapidlygrownintheOECDanddevelopingcountriessincethe1970s.Duetoalackof

reliable data, the number of development NGOs, their total aid volume, and the number of

beneficiaries cannotbe stated precisely (Tvedt 1998b,10). It is also difficult to estimate their

numberandvolumeofaidtheyprovidebecausethedistinctionbetweenthe traditionalwelfare

organizationsand themoderndevelopment NGOsconnected to international aid system is not

clear.However, it isestimatedthatabout4,000developmentNGOsinOECDmembercountries,

dispersingbillionsofdollarsayear,areworkingwithapproximately10,000to20,000Southern

NGOs (based in developing countries), assisting between 100 and 250 million people (Tvedt

1998b,1).

Therefore,indepthandthematicempiricalstudiesonthetopicareneededtoexaminethe

sustainability and the comparative advantage of NGOs in developing countries. Such studies

would enrich the literature on development administration and bring valuable insight to the

actors involved in international development in carrying out development assistance to

developingcountries.

17

DigitaldividesandapplicabilityofICTledegovernanceindevelopingcountries

Onceproperlymanaged,InformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)andegovernance

canaddtremendousdynamism in reformingpublicadministrationandcanchangethemodeof

interactionbetween the stateand its citizens.However,concerns regardingdigital divides and

the challengesof egovernance in thedeveloping states ofAfrica, Asiaand LatinAmericaare

growing. If the factors contributing to digital divides are not carefully identified and properly

solved, there is a growing risk that in the coming years, digital resources might become the

preserve of the haves, while ignoring the plight of the havenots as they seek access to

resources indeveloping countries.Technologycanexcludepeople, butgovernance shouldnot.

As amatter of fact, themoral foundationof goodgovernance is democracy and the inclusive

natureofthestate.Theperformanceofgovernanceshouldbemeasurednotbytheselectionof

technologies the stateuses,butby theparticipation that the statepromotes in its operations.

Thisisindeedamatterforthedynamicinterplaybetweenethicsandeconomics.

Compared with the possibilities, the present challenges in promoting egovernance in

developingcountriesaremany.Therelativelylowrateofliteracy,computerliteracyandlackof

proficiencyinEnglish indevelopingcountriesaremajorchallengesthategovernanceisfacing.

Purchasing power is almost always connected to the socioeconomic status of individuals: if

peoplewithanaverageincomecanevenbuyacomputer,howwouldtheybeartheoperational

costs related to computerandInternet services?Eventhoughsomeonehasall of therequired

skills, the necessaryeconomicbasis anda computer, it still depends on theavailability of the

basic infrastructural support to gain access to the computer and the Internet. This support

includes electricity, availability of Internet services, and even in some cases, telephones. The

purchasingpowerofthepoorshouldnotbedifficulttoguess.Itcanalsobehardforagrowing

numberofthepoorinthepresentworldtojustifytheuseofacomputerintheireverydaylives

aseventhebasicservices(i.e.housing,healthcare,education)arenotsecured.

18

However,egovernancecanbringthecentralgovernmentclosertopeoplebybypassing

unnecessary bureaucratic interference by local authorities or oligarchic regimes. At the same

time,localgovernanceoperationscanbemademoretransparentbyinitiatingegovernance.The

developmentalchallengesof thepresentworldand thedivisionbetween the richandthepoor

alsobringaboutanethicalperspectiveonthesubject.Anindepthandempiricalexploration is

required to explain the current status, challenges, and the possibilities of peoplecentered

grassrootsbasedegovernanceindevelopingcountries.Whatevertheobstaclestoegovernance

mightbe, the local, nationaland transnationalstakeholders indevelopmentmanagementmust

constantlypromote,andensure citizenparticipation inegovernancebymakinguseof various

meaningfulchannels.Inordertomakeegovernancesustainable,peoplelivingatthegrassroots

level of thedevelopingworld shouldbegiven the right to share their concernswith the local,

nationalandinternationalgovernmentalagencies.

Research on social capital, economic globalization, governance and administrative

decentralization,developmentNGOs, ICTandegovernancecanbringvaluable insightandcan

make significant theoretical contributions to the administrative challenges of international

development.Academicunderstandingoftheseimportanttopicscanbeadvancedbytheexisting

theories ofadministrative scienceandat the same time, these theories can furtherbe tested,

widened and strengthened by applying them to the emerging contexts of development

management.

Thesocioeconomicdevelopmentofdevelopingcountriesdirectlydependsonhowthese

countriesaregoverned.Therefore,byignoringthepresentdayschallengesofgoodgovernance

andadministrativedecentralization,nodevelopmentinitiative isguaranteedasustainable future

indevelopingcountries.Since the1970s, theperformanceofdevelopmentNGOsasalternative

developmentorganizationshasbeengenerallyappreciatedby theaiddonorsdespite the fact

thatmostoftheirdevelopmentinitiativesareheavilydependentonforeignaidandtheprojects

arenotsustainable.SustainabilityofNGOleddevelopmentprojectscanbeensuredbyimproving

the managerial capacity of the NGOs. It is also true that egovernance can add tremendous

19

dynamism in reformingpublic administrationand can change themodeof interactionbetween

thestateanditscitizens.However, ifthefactorscontributingtodigitaldividesarenotcarefully

identifiedandproperlysolved,thereisagrowingriskthatinthecomingyears,digitalresources

might become the preserve of the haves, while ignoring the plight of the havenots in

developing countries. The above topics are central to the contemporary international

developmentdiscourseandneedtoberesearchedfromanadministrativeperspective.

CONCLUSION

Theoretically, it ischallenging tosolveall theproblemsdevelopmentadministration facestoday

asa subfield ofpublic administration.Everyday,bilateral,multilateral andother international

donorsareconfrontedwithnewchallenges in theirdevelopmentefforts.Nevertheless,over the

decades, development aid has beenplaying an important role in the development process of

leastdevelopedcountries.Generalizing thedrawbacksofdevelopmentaidandeffortscouldbe

misleading. Generalizing the merits of development aid could also be misleading. Certainly,

performanceofdevelopmentaidandeffortscanbeimprovedbystrengtheningthemanagement

capacityofthedevelopmentstakeholdersintheOECDanddevelopingcountries.

Therefore,academicstudyon theabove issues related to developmentadministration

andinternationaldevelopmenthasvitalimportanceforthecurrentacademicdiscourseinpublic

administration.Inadditiontotheacademiccommunity,themainusergroupsoftheinformation

producedbyacademic researchon these topicsare the stakeholders (forexample,authorities,

political decisionmakers) involved in international development both in the South and in the

North.Theoretically,identifyingthedynamicsanddrawbacksofdevelopmentadministrationand,

practically,searching forbetterways tocarry out international developmenteffectively, largely

dependson the future interest andability of academics and practitioners to study the subject

properly.Inthiscontext,theleadingforumsofpublicadministrationliketheAmericanSocietyfor

20

PublicAdministration(ASPA),NationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairsandAdministration

(NASPAA), International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA),

InternationalInstituteofAdministrativeSciences(IIAS),EuropeanGroupofPublicAdministration

(EGPA)andothernationalandinternationalacademicinstitutionsandforumsinthedisciplinecan

playanimportantrole.

21

REFERENCES

Abueva, Jos V. 1969. Administrative Doctrines Diffused in Emerging States: The Filipino

Response.InPoliticalandAdministrativeDevelopment,editedbyRalphBraibanti,536587.

Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Anheier,HelmutK.andSeibel,Wolfgang.Eds.,1990.TheThirdSector.ComparativeStudiesof

NonprofitOrganizations.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Bista, Dor Bahadur. 1994. Fatalism and Development. Nepal's Struggle for Modernization.

Calcutta:OrientLongman.

CIDA. 2006. Canadian International Development Agency. Available at http://www.acdi

cida.gc.ca/indexe.htmAccessedMarch10,2006.

Collins, Paul. 2000. The Last Fifty Years and the Next Fifty Years: A Century of Public

Administration and Development. In Applying Public Administration in Development

Guidepoststothefuture,editedbyPaulCollins.314Chichester:JohnWileyandSonsLtd.

DfID. 2006. Department for International Development [U.K.]. Available at

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/AccessedMarch10,2006.

Frederickson,H.George.1989.MinnowbrookII:ChangingEpochsofPublicAdministration.Public

AdministrationReview.49(2):95100.

Handerson, Keith M. 1971. New Comparative Public Administration? In Toward a New Public

Administration The Minnowbrook Perspective, edited by FrankMarini. 234250. New

York:ChandlerPublishingCompany.

Harawira,Makere.1999.Economicglobalisation,indigenouspeoples,andtheroleofindigenous

women. Paper presented at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, May 1999, The

Hague, Netherlands.Availableat http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/Mak.htmAccessedon

February21,2006.

22

Harisalo,Risto andMiettinen, Ensio. 1997.TrustCapital. TheThirdForceof Entrepreneurship.

Tampere:UniversityofTampere

Heady,Farrel.1966.PublicAdministration,AComparativePerspective.NewYork:MarcelDekker

Hossain, Farhad. 2001. Administration of Development Initiatives by NonGovernmental

Organizations. A Study of Their Sustainability in Bangladesh and Nepal. Tampere:

UniversityofTampere.

Hulme, David. 1994. Social Development Research and the Third Sector. NGOs as Users and

Subjects of Social Inquiry. In Rethinking Social Development. Theory, Research and

Practice,editedby DavidBooth.251275.Essex:Longman.

Hussain,Motahar.1994.DevelopmentAdministrationinBangladesh.Dhaka:HasanPublishers.

Jreisat, Jamil E. 1991. The Organizational Perspective in Comparative and Development

Administration. In Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration,

editedbyAliFarazmand.1523.NewYork:MarcelDekker,Inc.

Katz,SaulM.1977.ExploringASystemsApproachtoDevelopmentAdministration.InFrontiersof

DevelopmentAdministration,editedbyFredW.Riggs.109138.Durham:DukeUniversity

Press.

Kaufmann,D.,A.KraayandM.Mastruzzi.2005.Governancematters IV:Governance indicators

for 19962004, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Available at

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/govmatters4.htmlAccessedonMarch31,

2006.

Korten,DavidC.1996.WhenCorporationsRuletheWorld.London:EarthscanPublicationsLtd.

Kruiter, Anje 1996. Good Governance for Africa: Whose Governance? Maastricht: ECDPM.

Downloaded on February 21, 2006 from:

http://www.oneworld.org/ecdpm/pubs/govahk.htm#int

Li,Ning.2001.SocialCapitalandInternationalR&DCollaboration.AdministrativeStudies.20(2):

130143

23

McCourt,W.2006.Thehumanfactoringovernance:ManagingpublicemployeesinAfricaand

Asia.London:PalgraveMacmillan

OECD. 1989. Sustainability in Development Programmes: A Compendium of Evaluation

Experience.SelectedIssuesinAidEvaluation1.Paris:OECD

Paul,Samuel.1986.StrategicManagementofDevelopmentProgrammes.Geneva:International

LabourOffice(ILO)

Putnam,Robert.1995.BowlingAlone:America'sDecliningSocialCapital.JournalofDemocracy.

6(1):6578. Available at

http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.html Accessed on

November5,2002.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The collapseand revival of American community. New

York:Simon&Schuster.

Quibria,M.G.Ed.,1994.RuralPovertyinDevelopingAsia.Volume1.Manila:AsianDevelopment

Bank.

Riggs,FredW.1977.Introduction.InFrontiersofDevelopmentAdministration,editedbyFredW.

Riggs.337.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Riggs,FredW.1977B.TheContextofDevelopmentAdministration.InFrontiersofDevelopment

Administration,editedbyFredW.Riggs.72108.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Riggs, FredW.1978.AppliedPrismatics ADevelopmentPerspective.Kathmandu:Center for

EconomicDevelopmentandAdministration,TribhuvanUniversity.

Riggs, Fred W. 2001. Public Administration in America: The exceptionalism of a hybrid

bureaucracy. Available at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/ampa.htm and at

http://webdata.soc.hawaii.edu/fredr/welcome.htm#paAccessedonJune18,2002.

Seppl,Pekka.2000.TowardsLocalPartnerships.TheSocialInterfacesofAidinRuralTanzania.

Helsinki:MinistryforForeignAffairsofFinland.

24

Siffin,WilliamJ.1991.TheProblemofDevelopmentAdministration.InHandbookofComparative

andDevelopmentPublicAdministration,editedbyAliFarazmand.513.NewYork:Marcel

Dekker,Inc.

Turner,MarkandHulme,David.1997.Governance,Administration&Developmment.Makingthe

statework.London:MacmillanPressLtd.

Tvedt,Terje.1995.NongovernmentalOrganizationsasChannelinDevelopmentAssistance.The

NorwegianSystem.Oslo:RoyalMinistryofForeignAffairs.

Tvedt, Terje. 1998A. NGOs Role at The End of History: Norwegian Policy and the New

Paradigm.InNGOsUnderChallenge:DynamicsandDrawbacksinDevelopment,editedby

Farhad Hossain and Susanna Myllyl. 6083. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of

Finland.

Tvedt,Terje.1998B.AngelsofMercyorDevelopmentDiplomats?NGOsandForeignAid.Oxford:

JamesCurreyLtd.andTrenton:AfricaWorldPress,Inc.

USAID. 2006a. U.S. Agency for International Development. Available at http://www.usaid.gov/

AccessedonMarch10,2006.

USAID. 2006b. Democracy and Governance, U.S. Agency for International Development.

Available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/ Accessed on

March10,2006.

Vartola, Juhaetal.Eds.,2000.DevelopmentNGOsFacing the21st Century. Perspectives from

SouthAsia.Kathmandu:InstituteforHumanDevelopment

Werlin,HerbertH.2003.PoorNations,RichNations:ATheoryofGovernance.

PublicAdministrationReview,63(3):329342

WorldBank.2000.GlobalEconomicProspectsandtheDevelopingCountries2000.Washington

DC:TheWorldBank.