L

MANAGEMENT THEORY ANn SO~IO·E~ONOMI~

DEVELOPMENT:AN EXPLORATORY FR1'MEWORK

FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTFROM A MAmOMANAGERIAI~ PERSPE~TIVE

PH.D. THESIS

The University of Iowa

December, 1983

Thesis supervisor: Professor Willard R. LANE

Copyrigh t byBOUKARY SAVADOGO

1983All Rights Reserved

Graduate CollegeThe University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

PH.D. THESIS

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Boukary Savadogo

has been approved by the ExaminingCommi.tteefor the thesis requirement for the Doctor ofPhilosophy degree at the December, 1983graduation.

Thesis committee:

Member

To

Uy late father,El Hadj Amadou Gondolgo

and

My late stepmother,Kalizeta Barry

and to

All the men, women, andchildren everywhere, who believe that

OURS could be a GREAT t'lORLD if onlyeveryone had an opportunity to

take part in itsMANAGEHENT!

ii

If any single factor is the key forunlocking the forces of economicgrowth in the underdevelope~areasof the world, that factor is manaeement.

Stefan H. Robock, 1961

In many World Bank ex-post projectevaluations "8ood management" is themost frequently cited source of projectsuccess.

The World Ban~, 1981

iii

ACKNOl{LED~mNTS

Writing a doctoral thesis is truly a great intellectual odyssey,

a journey made less arduous and more enjoyable by the help that the

writer receives from the academic community, from family members

and friends. In my case, I was most fortunate to cross the paths of

many great people and outstanding scholars who generously gave their

time and advice to help me reach an important milestone in my quest

for knowledge and wisdom.

I would like to give special thanks to my advisor and thesis

supervisor, Professor Willard R. Lane who provided me ~rlth guidance

and counseling throughout the doctoral program. I wish to express my

appreciation to the other members of my thesis committee, Professors

Joseph Ascroft, George Chambers, WaIter Foley, and WaIter Krause for

• their help and encouragement. I also learned from Professors Jacques

Bourgeacq, Michael McNulty, James L. Price, Bill Snider, Franklin

Stone, and Christopher Roy.

I wish to acknowledge the generous financial support provided by

the Government of Upper Volta,. the African-Anerican Institute, and

The University of Iowa.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Library of Congress

in Washington, D.C., Doctor Ragaa Makharita at the World Bank, and

Mister Richard Gbayoro, Director of the CESAG Project at the West

African Economic Community (CEAO) in Ouagadougou, Upper Volt~.

Special thanks to my family, friends, and relatives for their

encouragement and support.

Finally, I would like to thank Jean Purvis who typed the final

version of this thesis. I take full responsibility for any errors

or omissions remaining in the thesis.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES • • •

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER

xi

xii

1. INTRODUCTION • •

The Importance of Development • • • • •The Development Debate • • • •The Managerial Approach to Development •Statement of the Study Problem • • • •Problems Related to the Lack of a Comprehensive

Theory . . . . . . • . . . . . .. . ... .Problem of Conceptualization • • • • • • •Problem of Knowledge Integra ~ ;,J~E ~t ••••••

Problem of Units, Levels a ,(.'¥"oc ci'f;j~search

The Need for a Macromanageria Pe pectia~d theSignificance of the Study. ~<.I. /. • • • .. • (~\, •

Purpose of the Study • • • • '~.( C f:. f~.l ':;7~J :

~.J ,------ ...Study Assumptions • • • •• '.-.. \. • • • • • g.

Study Scope and Limitations .~.... '.'_,. .~ OQ;(;

Definition of Terms ••• • • / "'h ;-.. • ~,-:,;§~ • •• "' __ '1,(' ~ rl"'e'f\

Definit10n of Development 'r:,~~8"

Definition of ManagementDefinition of Other Terms

Effectiveness • • • • •Efficiency •.• •FrameworkGoalsSocial System

Overview and Plan of the Study •

1

1457

89

1113

1416171820212223232424252526

II. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE • • 28

The Interdisciplinary and Eclectic Nature ofDevelopment Studies • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29

Competing Approaches to Development •••• 30The Conventional Approach to Development 30The Non-Conventional Approach to Development 31The Growth with Equity Approach: A Derivativeof the Conventional and Non-ConventionalApproaches • • • • • • • • • • •

vi

32

Page

The Human Resources Approach • • • • • • • • 33Dependency Theory and Development • • • • • • 35The New International Economic Order (NIEO) • 36Other Approaches to Development • • • • • • • 37Broad Changes in the Evolution of Development

Ideas .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37The Search for a Prime Mover of Development 41

The Economic Determinants of Development 41The Non-Economic Determinants of Development 43

Obstacles to Development • • • • • • • • • • 44Critique of the Search for Obstacles to

Development •••• • • • • • • • • • 45The Ambiguous Nature of ObstacJes to

Development • • • • • • • • • • 47Critique of Dualism and the Myth ofTradition Versus Modernity • • • • 48

Redefinition of Obstacles to Development 50Recapitulation • • • • • • • • • • • • 52

. . . .

Ill. REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT LITERATURE

The Changing Assumption of Comparative t~nagement

Findings of Case Studies of ~~nagement in theDeveloping Countries ••••••• • • • •

Case Studies of Effective Management in theDeveloping Countries • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Findings of Case Studies of Ineffective~~nagement in the Developing Countries

Cross-National Studies in Comparative Management •Managerial Differences Between Developed and

Developing Countries • • • • • • • • • •Managerial Similarities Between Developed

and Developing Countries • : • • • • • • • ~ • •Comparison of Management Among Developing

Countries Only • • • • • • • • • • • • • •The Socio-Cultural Determinants of Management

General Aspects of Socio-Cultural Factors inComparative Management • • • • • • • • •

Specific Effects of Socio-Cultural Factorson Management • • • • • •

Social Development ~~nagement • • •Recapitulation • • • • • • • • • • •

Summary of Case Studies of Management inSingle Countries • • • • • • • •

Summary of Cross-National Studies inComparative Management • • • • • •.• • • • •

Summary of Studies of the Socio-CulturalDeterminants of Management • • • • • • •

vii

54

54

56

56

5962

62

64

6669

69

727479

79

79

80

viii

Page

Summary of the Social Development ManagementLiterature • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 80

Relevance of the Comparative ManagementLiterature to the Study of Development • 81

84

91919495

848889

9697979799

100102102104

106

The Methodological Problem in Macromanagement ••••The Adequacy of an Exploratory Study DesignA Heuristic Approach to Exploratory Research • • • • •Procedure for Developing the Framework: The

Inventory Method •• • • • • • • • • •Description of the Inventory Method • • • • • • •Selection and Analysis of Studies • • • • • •Frame of Reference • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Procedure for Empirically Testing Parts of theProposed Framework •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Selection and Measurement of Variables • • • • •Goal Variables • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Efficiency Variables • • • • • • • • • •Outcomes/Effectiveness Variables • • • • • •

Study Sample • • • • •Data Sources ••••••Reliability of the Data •Statistical Procedures

Elements of the Proposed Framework • • • • • • 106The Background Environment of Management 106

People • • 109Ideas .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Societal Problems, Societal Goals, andSocietal Will • • • • • • • • • • ,109

~mnagement Structure, Contents and Processes 110Management Philosophy and Style 111Management Structure • • • • • • • • • • 112~~nagement Tasks, Roles and Functions 114

Management Outcomes • • • • • • • • • 116Posited Relationships Between the Elements of

the Framework. • • • • • • • 117Phase I • • •• • • 117Phase 11 • • • • 118Phase III • • •• • • 119

Comparison of the Proposed Framework with OtherModels in Comparative Management •••••••• 120

V. STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION •••

IV. STUDY DESIGN AND ~1ETHODOLOGY

Richman-Farmer Model •Negandhi-Prasad ModelKoontz Model • • • • •Differences Between the Three Models andthis Study Framework • • • • • • •

Results of Illustrative Analysis of DataSummary of Results of Regression Analysis withVariable 12 (Physical Quality of Life Indexor PQLI) as the Dependent Variable • • • •

Summary of Results •••••••Discussion • • • • • • • •

Summary of the Results of Regression Analysiswith Variable 13 (Per Capita GNP) as theDependent Variable .• • • • • •

Summary of Results • • • • • •Discussion • • • • . . • • • • • • • •

Summary of the Illustrative Analysis of DataGeneral Discussion • • • • • • • • •

Proposition 1 •••• • • • • • •Proposition 2 •••• • • • • •Proposition 3 • • • • • • • • • •Proposition 4Proposition 5Proposition 6Proposition.7 •••••••••••••••Proposition 8Proposition 9Proposition 10 •Proposition 11 •

Recapitulation

VI. Sm~y AND CONCLUSION

Summary of the Study Problem and Objectives •••••~tudy Design and l1ethodology • • • • • • • • • •Study Results and Discussion • • • • •Contributions of the Study • • • • • • • • • •Weaknesses of the Study • • • • • • • •

Reliance ori Verbal StatementsNarrowness of Theory BaseWeakness of Data Analysis

Suggestions for Future ResearchIdentification of Societal Managers ••••Operationalization and Ueasurement ofVariables • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Exploratory Research and the Refinement ofResearch Hypotheses • • • • • • •

ix

Page

120122124

124127

129129129

131131131133133134136·138139140142143144145146147148

-149

149150150151153153154155155156

156

157

Confirmative Research, Predictive andCausal Explanations • •

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

158159

APPENDIX A: THE EMERGENCE OF A MANAGERIAL PARADIGM OFSOCIO-ECONOHIC DEVELOPlmNT: RATIONALE ANDEXPLANATION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 163

APPENDIX B: A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF IMPORTANT FACTORS INTHE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STRESSED BY VARIOUSDEVELOPMENT SCHOLARS. • • • • • • • • • • • • 172

APPENDIX C: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING HANAGEl·mNT. 175

APPENDIX D: INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL ENVIROmmNTALFACTORS THAT AFFECT MANAGEliENT • • • • • • 181

APPENDIX E: THE STUDY SA}lPLE, PART A

APPENDIX F: THE STUDY SAUPLE, PART B

APPENDIX G: LIST OF 19 NATIONAL BASIC INDICATORS FORtmlcH DATA WERE COLLECTED ••• • •

APPENDIX H: VALUES OF 13 VARIABLES FOR 37 COUNTRIES

189

191

193

195

APPENDIX I:

REFERENCES

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS • •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

197

199

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. The "Religion of Development" and Other Sacred andSecular Religions • • • • • • • • • • 3

2. Alleged Obstacles to Development in the Third World 46

3. Factors Contributing to Success in the Management ofDevelopment Programs (Learning Process Versus BlueprintProgramming Models) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 77

4. Estimates of the Average Annual Rate of Grolrth of RealGDP, 1960-70 for Six African Countries According toSeven Data Sources •••••••• • • • 103

5. Comparison of Three Sets of Philosophical Views AboutHuman Nature that Affect Management • • • 113

6. Summary Table of Regression Analysis with Variable 12(Physical Quality of Life Index) as the DependentVariable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

7. Sucmary of Regression Analysis with Variable 13 (PerCapita GNP) as the Dependent Variable • • • • 132

8. Change in ~1anagement Assumptions

9. Countries Excluded from the Sample

10. Countries Included in the Sample

. . . . . . . . 166

190

192

11.

12.

Values of 13 Variables for 37 Countries •

Correlation Matrix (Data with Group Medians forMissing Values) • • • • • • • • • • •

xi

196

198

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Price's model of organizational effectiveness •••••••

2. A macromanagerial framework for the study of develop~ent

3. Richman-Farmer model

4. Negandhi-Prasad model •

5. Koontz model

xii

Page

93

107

121

123

125

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The present study addresses a major problem that plagues theory

and research on the role of management in promoting socio-econQmic

development, namely, the lack of a unified conceptual framework that

could be used to integrate existing research findings and provide a

general theory base for future research. In essence, the study is

an exploratory inquiry into the theoretical dimensions of the

relationships between management and development and it seeks to

build the needed framework from a macromanagerial perspective.

While the immediate purpose of this inquiry is to develop a

managerial framework for the study of development, its ultimate goal

is to contribute to development theory. Since development plays a

central role in the study, a brief look at its importance and

relevance is in order, before the study problem can be more clearly

stated.

The Importance of Development

It is a truism to state that the problem of promoting social and

economic development in the world is one of the most debated questions

in academic circles, national governments and il.-'rnational

organizations. At issue is what to do to improve the livelihoods of

people and how to do it. Faced with unprecedented population growth

2

and seemingly dwindling natural resources, the world community is hard

pressed to meet the challenge of generating and distributing more and

more food and wealth to meet basic human needs for food, health,

shelter and education and thereby, raise the levels and standards of

living of the world's populations.

So important is the issue of promoting social and economic

development that it has been called "one of the great world crusades

of our time" (Bryce, 1960, p. 3), and "the dominant reality of our

times" (Heilbroner, 1968, p. 190). Indeed, some scholars have

likened the world-wide preoccupation with development to a new

"religion" complete with its saints and sinners. As Uphoff and

Ilchmann (1972) see it:

Like any religion, the religion of developmentprovides its believers with a world view thatdefines empirical situations in terms of saintsand sinners, transcedent moving forces,appropriate and inappropriate acts, and thesequence of activity most laudable and rewarding.By simplifying reality, the religion allows itsadherents to confront this reality more confi­dently, if not necessarily more effectively.Moreover, it gives them scapegoats; failures canbe charged off to various devils or to faults incharacter. (p. 20)

Uphoff and Ilchmann go on to present a table showing the main

features of the "religion of development" as compared to other sacred

or secular religions. This presentation is shown in Table 1.

The paramount importance attached to development can be

attributed to the dire socio-economic conditions that still prevail

in most parts of the world. At the very same time when mankind has

Table 1

The "Religion of Development" and Other Sacred and Secular Religions

Christianity Communism Nationalism Development

~

The Force of Jehovah Dialectical Destiny of theCreation (Alpha) materialism nation

The Source of Messiah Karl Marx The "Father ofSalvation the Country"

The Recipients Elect Proletariat Colonizedof Grace

The Source of Devil Capitalists ColonialistsOpposition

The Agency for Church Party (Communist) NationalistProgress movement

Decisive Event Second Coming Revolution Independence

The Show-down Last Judgment Expropriation of Expulsion ofthe expropriators colonialists

The· Final Age Hillennium Communist common- National(omega) wealth sovereignty

Science and technology

Industrialization

Poor and under­privileged

Planning Commission(USAID)

Economic takeoff

High-consumptionmass society

Source: Uphoff. N.T .• & Ilchman. W. F. The political economy of development. BerkeleyandLos Angeles: University of Calif~rnia Press, 1972, 20.

w-

I '

4

made great strides in scientific and technological achievements and

has decidedly entered the so-called space age, large segments of this

same mankind are still living under socio-economic conditions

reminiscent of the Middle Ages. Year after year, data collected by

national governments and international organizations show that while

many battles have been won, the war of development has just begun.

Poverty and deprivation are still the most dominant reality for

hundreds of millions of people around the world. According to Ruth L.

Sivard (1981), there are 2,000,000,000 people with no access to safe

drinking water; 450,000,000 people who are hungry or malnourished;

42,000,000 who are blind; 12,000,000 babies who die every year before

their first birthday; 870,000,000 adults who are illiterate;

130,000,000 children who cannot get elementary education; 500,000,000

people who are unemployed or underemployed; and 250,000,000 who live

in slums and shantytowns. As long as these conditions exist in the

world, ac~ieving development will always be a top priority.

The Development Debate

How is it that, in spite of all the efforts undertaken at both

national and international levels to fight world poverty, in spite

of the accomplishments made in many areas such as disease control and

improved communications, the overall results still fall far too short

of expectations? In more general terms, how can social systems be

made to grow, progress and prosper socially and economically in the

most desirable way? What criteria are to be used to gauge their

5

growth, progress and prosperity, and provide standards and

guidelines for purposive action? These questions lie at the core of

the development debate, a debate that may actually be as old as

organized society itself and yet, has retained all its relevance ­

indeed, all its sense of urgency - today.

To date, no universally satisfactory or even universally

accepted answers to these questions have been found. Over the years,

those engaged in the study of socio-economic development have

stressed different things at different times and in different

settings. One of the oldest and best known approaches to development

is the economic approach with its emphasis on economic infrastructure

and the accumulation of material wealth. Through the years, other

perspectives on development have been proposed, one of them being

the human resources approach which stresses human development,

mainly through education. A relatively more recent approach to the

development problem is the managerial approach.

The Managerial Approach to Development

The argument put forth by the proponents of the managerial

approach to development is simple and straightforward. The gist of

their reasoning is that the most common factors stressed by

development theorists - natural resources, capital, people with the

right education and skills, adequate economic institutions - as

important as they are, remain by themselves idle, passive or

unorganized elements. It takes management to bring them together,

6

organize them and put them to work in an efficient and effective

manner in order to achieve development.

This reasoning has led many scholars to assert that management

plays the most important role in promoting development. Those who

make this assertion include, among many others, Robock (1961),

Farmer and Richman (1964 & 1965), Budhiraja (1965), Davies (1965),

Robbins (1965), Stanley (1967), Negandhi and Prasad (1968), Drucker

(1969 & 1974), Koontz (1969), Negandhi (1973b), Lall (1976), Korten

(1979), Lindenberg and Crosby (1981), Pascale and Athos-(1981). To

quote Drucker (1974),

Wherever we have contributed only the economicfactors of production, especially capital, wehave not achieved development. In the few caseswhere we have been able to generate managementenergies we have generated rapid development ••••Management is the mover and development is aconsequence. (p. 35)

The role of management in the promotion of development has, for

the most part, been investigated within the field of comparative

management, a particular brand of management which seeks to study

managerial policies and practices under different cultures.

Comparative management is in fact a variant of situational or

contingency management, the distinction being that here, the

situation is a particular socio-cultural milieu. According to

Negandhi (1975), the field of comparative management can be divided

into three groups: (1) the economic development orientation; (2) the

environmental approach; and (3) the behavioral approach (p. 335).

This study concerns itself with the first of these three approaches.

Statement of the Study Problem

7

A comparison of the managerial approach to development with the

economic approach or the educational approach, for example, reveals

a serious theoretical weakness of the managerial approach. Although

different economists may give different explanations of the

development process, they have at least at their disposal a compre-

hensive theory, if not theories, of economic growth as a conceptual

basis for research. Likewise but perhaps to a lesser extent,

educators interested in the study of development can build on the

theory of human resources. By way of contrast, managers thus far,

have failed to come up with a workable and comprehensive theory of

socio-economic development. This failure has been described by

Negandhi (1975) in these words:

This level of concern [with development] incross-cultural management studies leads to a link,theoretically and empirically, with developmenttheorists. The area or discipline of economicdevelopment itself, if not vague, is too generalto be suitable for testing the well-conceptualizedhypotheses necessary for building any discipline.As a result, the cross-cultural management fielddid not progress far beyond identifying and notingthe importance of managerial input in economicdevelopment. (p. 335; emphasis added)

There is thus an urgent need for studies aimed at building a

theory base for the managerial approach to development. This study

addresses this need and proposes t~ build a comprehensive framework

for the study of developmen~ from a managerial perspective. It is

intended to be part of the ongoing exploratory works which seek to

8

lay the conceptual foundations of a general managerial theory of

socio-economic development.

Problems Related to the Lack ofa Comprehensive Theory

The central problem investigated in this study has its roots in

some more general problems that beset the entire field of comparative

management. It is, therefore, necessary to take a close look at these

general problems before attempting to clearly define and delineate

the problem area of the study.

In a much quoted article titled "The Management Theory Jungle,"

Koontz (1961) levelled a severe criticism against what he perceived

to be a real Babel Tower in management theory. According to him,

management scholars tend to attach different meanings ,to the same

key words and give different definitions of management as a body of

knowledge. Furthermore, he argues, many newcomers to the field tend

to dismiss past observations and analyses, and theorists are unable

or unwilling to understand each other.

Koontz's criticisms apply just as well to comparative

management. As many scholars point out - e.g., Nath (1969),

Schollhammer (1969, 1973, 1975), Boddewyn and Nath (1970), Roberts

(1970), Negandhi (1974), Kiggundu et al. (1983) - the field of

comparative management is plagued by a number of weaknesses that need

correction if a useful theory is to be developed. According to

Schollhammer (1975), a large portion of current research can be

criticized as (1) merely descriptive of empirical phenomena and

9

lacking in analytical rigor, (2) episodic and produced on an ad hoc

basis, (3) reflecting substantial methodological deficiencies,

(4) self-centered in the sense that already existing studies are

frequently ignored.

Three major problems are most often cited in the literature and

are particularly worthy of note because of their implications for

theory building. These problems are reviewed below.

Problem of Conceptualization

Negandhi (1974) has flatly asserted that cross-cultural

management studies have "too many conclusions, not enough conceptuali-

zation" (p. 59). This problem manifests itself in the lack of

similarity in the definition and operationalization of concepts by

different scholars. This state of affairs has been a stumbling block

in research and theory building in comparative management. Koontz

(1976) contends that many writers in comparative management have

failed to meet the very first requirement of science, which is the

utilization of clear concepts and definitions. He writes:

In reviewing the research and analysis that havebeen made in the field of comparative management,one is struck with how many of the differingconclusions as to the transferability of manage­ment are due to problems of semantics. Theconcepts of "management and philosophy,""management know-how," "management principles,"and "management knowledge," are usually lefteither undefined or not clearly defined. (p. 84)

Three main reasons seem to account for the present conceptual

problems in comparative management:

10

First, management is so pervasive that it escapes easy and clear-

cut definition. This point is well emphasized by Budhiraja (1965):

The term 'management' is difficult to define; itmeans different things to different people. Someidentify it with functions performed by entre­preneurs, managers or superiors. Others think ofit as a particular group of persons. To workers,management is synonymous with the exercise ofauthority over their working lives. Some socialscientists view management as a class withdefinable status and power in society. Mangement,indeed, is all of these things and perhaps more.It has economic, social, and political dimensions.(p. 18)

Secondly, and closely tied to the preceding explanation, is the

fact. that management is actually more than a concept. According to

Haas (1974), a concept whose semantic field is wide enough to

subsume other concepts, should be called a "metaconcept" (p. 47).

In this sense, management is a metaconcept that includes many

concepts such as planning, drganizing, leading and so on. Given

the width of the semantic field of the term "management," its

definition, operationalization and measurement are bound to vary with

different researchers.

Thirdly, comparative

is

these circumstances, scholars are

field which

'¥"'¥.'l"l,.t. Under

their

research methodologies and their findings until the field reaches a

stage of relative stability and C0nsolidation. As Merton (1957)

points out:

There is a phase in the development of a disciplinein which ad hoc measures and indices are evolvedanew in each study so that although the wordsreferring to the property remain much the same,the aspect of the phenomenon they actuallydesignate varies substantially. (p. 325; emphasisin original text)

In short, the conceptual problems in comparative management

are attributable to some visible reasons. But lest the notion take

hold that these problems of definition and conceptualization are

insolvable, Albanese (1978) has made the helpful suggestion that a

universally accepted definition is not necessary:

Managing can be and is defined in several ways,depending on the purposes of the definer.Differences of opinion exist about what shouldbe included in the definition, and it is unlikelythat this problem will ever be resolved perma­nently. If a universally accepted definition ofmanaging were necessary before we could start ourstudy of managing, we could never start!Fortunately, all we need is a nefinition that is(1) consistent with other widely used definitionsand (2) useful for our purposes... (p. 7)

Problem of Knowledge Integration

A second major problem that plagues comparative management is

the inability of researchers to integrate their findings into a

coherent body of knowledge. In this regard, Sigelman (1976) has

made a criticism of comparative administration that is relevant to

comparative management:

Different scholars with different researchperspectives use diffe.~~t instruments to inter­view different types of bureaucrats in examina­tions of different problems in different nations.(p 624)

11

The lack of integration can be observed at two levels: first,

12

within the field of comparative management itself and second, within

the larger field of general management. In other words, comparative

management scholars not only tend to ignore each other's work, but

they also fail, in many instances, to make the needed connection

between their specialized field and general management theory.

Schollhammer (1975) puts this best when he writes:

A sizable portion of the on-going internationaland comparative management research is notaimed at theory-building in the sense thatcertain hypotheses are tested. There is evidenceof an inadequate linkage between empiricalresearch and existing theoretical constructs.Theoretical and empirical research in currentinternational and comparative management researchseem to be largely independent of each otherinstead of interdependent and mutually supportive.(p. 38)

Some scholars have made concrete proposals about how to

integrate the field of comparative management. For example, Nath

(1974-1975) has called for a linking of comparative management to

organizational theory. Similar proposals were made by Negandhi

(1975) and Cabell (1977). Another proposal called for the adoption

of an open system theory (Negandhi, 1973a). Still, the problems of

integration remain acute and new attempts to solve them are needed.

13

Problem of Units, Levels andFocus of Research

Current research in comparative management is, in general, micro­

*analytical. The units and focus of study are either individual

managers and the people they manage, or individual organizations.

There is nothing wrong with such an approach as long. as the purpose of

research is to increase kno~l~dge about managers and organizations.

However, problems do arise when inferences are made about the larger

social system from the findings of micro research. This point is of

great importance in the study of the relationship between management

and development because development is a mega-phenomenon that affects

a social system in its entirety. To draw inferences from studies

conducted at the level of managers or organizations about the larger

social system is to commit an ecological fallacy. As Guhan (1981)

rightly points out:

A part of the problem is that the managementapproach seeks to arrive at its 'concepts andtechnologies' for 'development mana8ement' drawingupon its experience and enterprise management.This process ignores some basic differences. Tothe enterprise manager, the political system andits functioning are externalities or 'the environ­ment' which is to be lived with or manipulated inthe pursuit of the interests of the enterprise.Onthe other hand, politics is thoroughly internalto development; the development manager cannotmanipulate, but is rather manipulated by it.(p. 1689)

*Whether a study on organizations is micro or macro depends inpart, on the frame of reference of the researcher. It is not uncommonto find in the organizational literature studies that are consideredto be macroanalytic because the organizations studied' are viewed asmacro-organisms studied in their globality. In the present study,however, the frame of reference is a large social system as definedlater in this chapter, i.e., a whole country. Organizations then aremicro-parts of this large social system.

14

Since there is an infinity of managers and organizations, scholars

who focus their research on them, especially in cross-country settings,

are forced by the sheer number and magnitude of the issues involved

to devote their efforts to what Schollhammer (1975) calls "small

problems" (p. 39). This, in turn, makes integration and synthesis

of knowledge all the more difficult to achieve and all the more

needed. Schollhammer (1975) sums up the situation in these words:

A very substantial percentage of the research inprogress is one-dimensional, i. e., narrow inscope and directed to 'small' problems, withemphasis on short-run results. This situationwould not have to be viewed critically if atthe same time a comprehensive synthesizing orintegrative research effort was made. This is,however, not the case. International andcomparative management still consists of avariety of theories, paradigms and a substantialvolume of empirical studies in search of asynthesizer. (p. 39)

The Need for a Macromanagerial Perspectiveand the Significance of the Study

From the foregoing analysis, it appears that the field of

comparative management and the search for a managerial theory of

development have a lot to gain from a more macro-synthetic, global

approach. This contention is supported in the research literature.

For example, in one of the most up-to-date assessments of the field

of comparative administration and management, Kiggundu et al. (1983)

have stated that

The findings in particular comparative studiesacross countries or regions make a convincingcase for the development of more global approachesto research on and utilization of administrativescience. (p. 80)

15

The need for a macro-managerial approach extends beyond the

confines of comparative management and well into the realm of general

management. This point is well stressed by McFarland (1977):

Empirical research in large, complex organizationshas advanced to the point where interorganizationalrelationships and environmental influences arebeing studied more intensively. The increasedknowledge now demands intensive research on manage­ment in the context of social institutions. Amacromanagement level of theory and conceptualiza­tion is needed for understanding the linkages ofmanagers and their organizations within and acrosssocial institutions. Macromanagement theory willnot only serve to guide and interpret research onmanagement processes in society at large, but willalso play a vital role in the determination ofsocial, political, and economic policy. (p. 613;emphasis added)

To understand the importance of a macro-managerial approach, one

can look at the discipline of economics. It is customary to think of

economic theory as a body of knowledge with two branches: (1) Micro-

economics which focuses on individual consumers and firms and (2)

Macroeconomics which focuses on aggregations of economic units,

especially national economies (Brigham & Pappas, 1976, p. 3).

A macro perspective in comparative management is needed not as a

replacement of micro theory, but as a complement so that the two

branches can reinforce each other and contribute to the widening and

enrichment of the methodologies, contents and processes of

management. Exclusive reliance on a micro approach leads to the

atomization of knowledge. At any rate, a general manag~rial theory of

development cannot be developed at the micromanagerial level alone.

16

The statement of the central problem of the study and the review

of the related problems listed above set the stage for the enunciation

of the objectives of the study.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study is to make a contribution to

the development of a unified managerial theory of socio-economic

development. It attempts to do so by conducting an exploratory

inquiry into the relationships between management and development, the

latter being the dependent variable. This overall purpose includes

a number of more specific objectives which are:

1. To develop an integrated framework for the study of

development from a managerial standpoint. The framework is

intended to offer both a research tool for synthesizing

existing knowledge on the subject under consideration, and

an integrative device of management theory and development

theory.

2. To suggest ways for empirically testing the usefulness of

the proposed framework as a research tool and to provide an

illustrative testing of some key elements of the framework.

3. To generate testable hypotheses for further research, one

of the hypotheses being a proposition for assessing the

effectiveness of social systems in achieving devel~~ment.

With regard to the more general problems of comparative

management - conceptualization, integration of knowledge, and focus

17

of research - the study proposes to contribute to their solution

in the following manner:

1. As a way of contributing to a standardization of concepts

and measures, the study proposes definitions of terms based

on a synthesis of prevailing definitions and uses concepts

and measures which are or can be easily operationalized and

for which empirical data can be collected. A standardization

of concepts and measures will help solve some of the

conceptual problems in comparative management.

2. To address the problem of the lack of integration of knowledge,

the study adopts a synthetic, inventory-type of methodology

that calls for the incorporation of existing works in any

new attempt at theory building. An interdisciplinary

approach is chosen and the theory base of the study is

clearly specified.

3. To contribute to the development of a macromanagerial theory,

the study focuses on large social systems, namely, whole

countries as its units of research.

Study Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in conducting the study:

1. A positive relationship is posited between management and

the achievement of development. This means that the stD~y

does not primarily attempt to answer the question: Why

18

does management play a key role in the pursuit and

*achievement of development?

2. The study further assumes that an interdisciplinary theory

base provides the best and strongest conceptual "ground"

for the development of a managerial theory of development.

This assumption is warranted in light of the fact that both

fields of inquiry - management and development - are highly

interdisciplinary.

3. It is also ,assumed that the goal approach to effectiveness

is the most suitable approach for assessing the effectiveness

of social systems in achieving development. This approach

to effectiveness is defined later in this chapter.

Study Scope and Limitations

The major limitations of the study are as follows:

1. The study is exploratory. According to Kerlinger (1973):

Exploratory studies have three purposes: todiscover significant variables in the fieldsituation, to discover relations among variables,and to lay the groundwork for later, moresystematic and rigorous testing of hypotheses.(p. 406)

In accordance with the purposes of exploratory research and

the already stated purposes of this study, key managerial

variables relevant to the study of development will be

identified and the relationships between some of these

*For a review of some of the reasons why management plays animportant role in development, see Appendix A.

19

variables will be discussed. The primary interest of the

study lies, however, in the third type of the purposes of

exploratory research identified by Kerlinger: laying the

groundwork for future research. What the study does is to

propose a skeleton of theory - the proposed framework - along

with a number of hypotheses, with the hope that subsequent

research will add more flesh to this skeleton of theory.

There is no formal testing of hypotheses in the study.

2. The study does not attempt to propose definitive solutions

to the managerial problems of promoting development. Instead,

this exploratory inquiry is more concerned with the

epistemological question of developing a theoretical basis

for the study of development from a managerial point of view.

It is not intended to provide prescriptions for the management

of development.

3. The units of study are whole countries. They were chosen for

the purpose of addressing the need for a macro perspective

in comparative manqgement.

4. The study makes relatively little use of statistics. An

analysis of data is provided but is only intended to be

illustrative rather than prescriptive. Three considerations

militated against an exclusive reliance on empirical data

analysis in the study. First, exploratory research does not

usually allow a researcher to draw inferences and practical

implications from the study; conversely, because the

researcher is not expected to draw practical implications

from the study, but only to suggest avenues for future

research, there is no pressing need for relying on data

treatment. Secondly, as will be shown in Chapter IV, the

reliability of the data used in the study is questionable;

it is, therefore, more appropriate to use the data for

illustrative purposes only, because a study based on the

analysis of unreliable data would result in misleading

findings. Thirdly and most importantly, this study is more

concerned with conceptual analysis than data treatment. As

Negandhi (1974) and Schollhammer (1975) point out, the most

pressing problem in comparative management is not a lack of

empirical studies, although this problem does exist in some

areas; it is rather a problem of

and theory building.

Definition of Te

Since this study is chiefly concerned

and theory building, a clear definition of

point, necessary. The definitions given below - the~ are in general

based on a synthesis and/or modification of current definitions - are

proposed with reference to whole large social systems such as

countries.

20

21

Definition of Development

Development, used interchangeably with the phrase socio-

economic development, is the proven ability of a social system to

solve its existential as well as its essential problems over a

relatively long period of time.

This definition is primarily based on a definition of development

proposed by Everett Kleinjans, which is quite representative of

current views on the development process and reads as follows:

Development is the process through which a societymoves to acquire the capability of enhancing thequality of life of its people, primarily throughthe solution of its problems. In this sense,although they have been slow to recognize it, theUnited States and other affluent countries arestill underdeveloped in such areas as urban life,environmental protection, race relations, crime,and other social problems. (Everett Kleinjans,"Foreword," in Schramm and Lerner, 1976, p. ix)

Such a definition has the merit of showing that every nation is

underdeveloped with regard to a particular problem and developed with

regard to another one. This definition can be contrasted to the one

given by Riggins (1968) and quoted in Chapter 11. Riggins stresses

"rising income," and his definition is more representative of past

views on development, although its insistence on the temporal length

of the development process is still valid. The definition proposed by

Kleinjans is more objective and balanced because it does not make a

value judgment as to which type of problem solving ability is the best

one.

22

Three key elements are stressed in the definition of development

proposed in this study. First, the definition explicitly mentions

"proven ability," thus implying that development cannot be defined

in terms of latent or potential ability. All the nations of the world

have the potential to develop, though this potential varies. Yet,

the majority of these nations are considered underdeveloped because

they still have to convert their potential into reality.

Secondly, the definition makes a distinction between existential

and essential problems. These terms are employed in their

philosophical meaning. Existential problems are those that the

social system faces in its concrete, day-to-day existence. Essential

problems are more abstract in the sense that they have more to do with

the spiritual, metaphysical dimensions of the life of the social

system.

Finally, the definition emphasizes the length of the time during

which development occurs. A country that is able to feed its people

for 10 years, then is unable to do the same for the next 10 years,

cannot be said to have proven its ability to solve the existential

problem of hunger. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be developed

with regard to this problem. The process of development is reversible

and multidimensional.

Definition of Management

Management is the human act of leading people and marshaling and

mobilizing resources to achieve common goals in the most efficient and

effective way.

The terms "goals," "effectiveness" and "efficiency" are defined

below and, therefore, need no further explication here. As

mentioned earlier in this chapter, various scholars give different

definitions of management. However, two common threads run through

most of these definitions of management and they are: working with

people, and achieving goals.

The word "act" is chosen instead of more popular words such as

"process," "art," "practice" because it is semantically wider and

expresses better the dynamic nature of management.

The definition of management proposed above stresses the point

that management goes hand in hand with efficiency and effectiveness.

Admittedly, one can talk about a system being managed inefficiently

or ineffectively. In such a case, it would be more appropriate to

talk about mismanagement rather than management.

Definition of Other Terms

The other key terms used in this study are defined below in

alphabetical order.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the degree to which the managers of the social

system actually achieve societal goals.

This definition is based on the goal approach to effectiveness,

which is a wide:f known and used approach. There are competing

approaches to the assessment of effectiveness. However, it can be

argued that the goal approach to effectiveness is perfectly suited to

23

24

the problem of development because "becoming developed" can be

easily conceptualized as a major goal which society seeks to achieve.

This major goal can then be broken down into smaller and more specific

objectives, the achievement of which will contribute to the

realization of the major development goal.

Efficiency

Efficiency is the extent to which the managers achieve societal

goals with a minimum expenditure of resources.

This definition of efficiency resembles the economic concept of

technological efficiency. It was mainly inspired by Simon (1970) who

defined efficiency as "that choice of alternatives which produces the

largest result for the given application of resources" (p. 179).

Framework

A framework (conceptual) is an abstract and hence, simplified

representation of a real life phenomenon from a particular perspective

and for a particular purpose. To illustrate, the framework proposed

in this study is an abstract and simplfied representation of the

process of socio-economic development from a managerial perspective,

for the pu!pose of providing an epistemological tool for the study of

development. A framework then, is a conceptual frame similar to a

model. In this study, how~ver, a framework is considered to be

slightly different l~um a complete model in the sense that it is less

fully developed than a full-fledged model. As said earlier, this study

25

only proposes the bare elements of a "skeleton" of theory. This is

the essence of an exploratory study.

Goals

Goals are the broad ends sought by a social system and for which

it expends its resources and efforts. It is a common practice in the

management and organizational literature to make a distinction between

official or stated goals, and operative or real goals. The latter are

those goals for which efforts and resources are actually spent.

March and Simon (1958) have identified three types of goals: (1)

official or stated goals; (2) operative goals which reflect the true

intentions of organizational leaders but may be hidden from the public;

and (3) operational goals which are measurable. In this study, the

terms operative and operational are used interchangeably.

Social System

A social system is defined in Webster (1971) as "the patterned

series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups, and

institutions and forming a coherent whole" (p. 2162).

This definition does not specify the boundaries of a social

system. This is so because it is possible to arbitrarily set the

limits of a system to fit one's purposes. For example, a social

system can be defined as compriFing the members of a family in Iowa

City, or the inhabitants v* a village in Upper Volta. In this study,

a social system is equated with a whole nation-state.

26

In addition to the terms defined in this chapter t other terms

will be introduced later t especially in Chapter V; these terms will be

defined upon their introduction t or shortly after.

Overview and Plan of the Study

Chapter I presented the study problem. This presentation included

a note on the importance of development t a statement of the study

problem t followed by an overview of some problems in comparative

management that serves to highlight the significance of the study. A

case was made for a macromanagerial approach to the study of

development. This chapter also included statements on the purpose of

the studYt its assumptions t scope and limitations t a definition of

terms t and the plan of the study.

Chapters 11 and III consist of a review of the related literature

and taken together t provide the background and the topical context

of the study. Chapter 11 deals with the development literature in

general t and it reviews the main trends in development ideas in the

post World War 11 period t as well as the different views that have

been advanced by different scholars about the causal factors of

development. Chapter III is more narrow in scope and focuses

exclusively on some recent works in comparative management that are

relevant to development.

In Chapter IV t the methodology used to conduc~ th~ study is

presented t following an explanation of some practical considerations

that led to the choice of this particular methodology. Chapter IV

28

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE

To provide some of the elements of the topical context of this

study, this chapter offers a background on development through a review

of some of the major trends in development ideas since World War 11.

This review eontains, among other things, an examination of the main

alternative views that have been expressed by various development

scholars about development and its determinants.

Chapter 11 includes these major sections: (1) The Interdisci­

plinary and Eclectic Nature of Development Studies; (2) Competing

Approaches to Development; (3) Broad Changes in the Evolution of

Development Ideas; (4) The Search for a Prime Mover of Development;

(5) Obstacles to Development; (6) Recapitulation.

The review of the development literature was conducted according

to a simple technique of topical grouping. The following criteria

were used to select writings for inclusion in the review: (1) the

writings clearly belong to a distinct perspective on development;

(2) they belong to the post-World War 11 period. By and large, the

works reviewed constitute a representative sample of the development

literature.

29

The Interdisciplinary and EclecticNature of Development Studies

The field of socio-economic development studies is characterized

by a great number of theories and opinions. Bearing witness to the

great diversity of development ideas, there has been in the last

three decades or so, a tremendous growth in the development literature.

To quote Eugene R. Black former president of the International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development,

Few subjects have received more intensive study inrecent years than the subject of economic develop­ment. The disciplines of all the social scienceshave been brought to bear, and a whole new body ofliterature has resulted. To digest and order thisbody of literature would require a philosopher,widely schooled in academic economics, with a goodcommand of history, who hel~ a degree in civilengineering, with geography and anthropology asminor subjects, and who had taken a post-graduatecourse in modern social psychology. (as quoted inRiggins, 1968, p. 7; emphasis added)

The point made by Eugene R. Black regarding the seemingly

insuperable task of "digesting" and "ordering" the development

literature is valid because, as he points out, the subject of

development has been - and still is - investigated by all social

scientists. Nonetheless, it is possible to provide a useful overview

of development ideas by limiting the overview to the major trends-in

development thinking instead of attempting to cover the entire body

of the development literature. Such an overview is provided in the

t~_lowing pages.

30

Competing Approaches to Development

Weaver and Jameson (1978) attempted to discern the main

*paradigms of development by focusing on these aspects of these

paradigms: value assumptions about human nature, the good life and

the good society; operational criterion provided for attaining the

good life and the good society; general methodology; strategies

suggested for solving the development problem. On the basis of these

guidelines, they identified three major approaches to development which

they termed respectively the conventional approach; the non-

conventional or political economy approach; the derivative or growth

with equity approach.

The Conventional Approach to Development

The conventional approach to development, according to Weaver and

Jameson, is the same as the traditional, neoclassical, orthodox, or

economic approach. It began with Adam Smith and was carried on by

economists like Ricardo, Mill, Marshall, Schumpeter and Keynes. More

recent scholars who represent this approach include, among others,

Arthur Lewis, Nurkse and Hirschman. In this approach, man is

assumed to be a rational animal seeking his self-interest. For him,

the good life means the maximization of pleasure and the minimization

of pain, that is, getting the greatest possible amount of goods and

*Weaver and Jameson borrow the conccl''" of "paradigm" fromThomas Kuhn. It is defined as a "world-view shared by a group workingon or thinking about a particular topic." (Weaver & Jameson, 1978,p. 2). The term is used in this study with the same definition.

31

services with the smallest effort. The criterion of development is

the growth of output in terms of Gross National Product (GNP) and the

strategy for achieving development is basically the adoption of a

capitalist model of development.

More specifically, a number of policy guidelines are proposed,

the main ones being the following: (l) "laissez-faire" which calls

for a limited role of government in the belief that development is

best achieved through the actions of private individuals (advocated

by economists like Friedman, Haberler, Johnson and Bauer); (2)

planning which, in turn, can be done in two ways: a) balanced growth

according to which investment should be made simultaneously in many

industries so that these industries will provide the demand for each

other's output, and b) unbalanced growth, an approach with the most

linkages to other industries. The balanced approach is advocated by

scholars like Nurkse (1967) while Hirschman (1958) supports the

strategy of unbalanced growth.

Because of its emphasis on economic growth, the conventional

approach is sometimes referred to as the "grow now, distribute later"

or the "trickle down" approach to development.

The Non-Conventional Approach to Development

Unlike the conventional approach, the non-conventional approach,

also known as the radical or political economy approach, stresses the

*The Gross National Product (GNP) is the value of all goods andservices produced in the national economy in a given period.

32

paramount importance and influence of the social interactions of

individuals and the questions of equity and distributive justice.

This line of thinking started with Karl Marx and continued with Lenin,

Mao, Baran and Gunder Frank. This school of though is also shared by

some Latin American dependency theorists such as Furtado, Sunkel and

Dos Santos, as well as by the so called liberationists (Illich,

Goulet, Freire). Like the conventional approach, this approach,

too, assumes that people are rational beings but insists, however,

that they act in groups and that, beyond the satisfaction of basic

human needs, the good life is the result of social activities.

Accordingly, development is to be achieved in a collective manner

which involves the whole social system.

The Growth with Equity Approach:A Derivative of the Conventional and

Non-Conventional Approaches

The third approach identified by Weaver and Jameson is an out-

growth of the first two and may be called the growth with equity

approach. It has a number of variants and is associated with such

writers as Grant (1976), Haq (1976), Hellor (1976), Waterston (1974,

1975), Adelman (1975) and Streeten. Though this approach rejects

the other visions, it does borrow many of their elements. For

example, it uses the capitalist institutions of the traditional(

approach and the egalitarian ideas of the political economy approach.

According to Weaver and Jameson, each approach has its limita-

tions. The growth approach is unsatisfactory because it does not give

33

due consideration to the questions of equity and distributive justice

whereas the radical mode does not adequately address the problem of

promoting rapid growth. As for the third approach, critics contend

that it offers nothing new.

Weaver and Jameson briefly mention another approach to development

which they call the "neo-Malthusian" approach (p. 73). However,

their analysis rests essentially on the three approaches reviewed

above.

In addition to the three main approaches to development identified

by Weaver and Jameson, there are other perspectives on development.

To be sure, many of these other perspectives can be grouped within

the three-pronged classification proposed by Weaver and Jameson.

For example, dependency theory can be lumped together with either

the non-conventional approach, or the growth with equity approach.

However, these perspectives on development have received so much

attention on the part of development theorists that they warrant a

separate review. Three of these perspectives are particularly

important: (1) the human resources approach; (2) dependency theory;

and (3) the New International Economic Order.

The Human Resources Approach

A perspective on development that began to be popularized in the

1960's by scholars like Schultz (1963) - and later ry Schultz (1970),

Becker (1975), Denison (1974), among others - is the human resources/

human capital approach. The proponents of human capital theory

34

contend that expenditures on education, health and other social

services, are not mere consumption expenditures. Instead, they amount

to a sound investment in people to build a human capital that will

contribute to more economic growth and development.

According to Lockheed et al. (1980), economists only began to

pay systematic attention to the contribution of education to economic

growth in the 1960's. Yet, they point out, educators in the 1920's

had already begun to investigate the role of education in improving

agricultural productivity. For instance, as early as 1920, studies

were reported by Folkes that showed a strong influence of education

*on agricultural productivity in Indiana, Missouri and New York.

A more recent historical antecedent to the theory of human

capital can be seen in the works of Robert Solow (1957) who showed

that over 80% of the growth in output per labor hour in the D.S.

economy for the period of 1909-1949 was attributable to technical

progress. Following in Solow's footsteps, other researchers showed

that technical progress is achieved through education, training and

research.

The main contribution of the human capital approach to development

was to rightly point out that, in the final analysis, people are the

key to growth and development. Physical capital is important but

people are a sine quanon of development. There is still, however,

*The study mentioned by Lockheed et al. is Gertrude Folks, "FarmLabor vs. School Attendance," American Child, 2, 1920:73-80 (Lockheed,et al., 1980:39n)

35

an ongoing debate on whether the full development of human capital is a

cause, a concomitant, or a consequence of overall development.

Dependency Theory and Development

One of the newest perspectives on development, according to

Portes (1977), is dependency theory which considers development as

liberation from various forms of dependency. Unlike most other

development theories, dependency theory originated in the Third World.

It has been most forcefully expounded by Latin American scholars such

as Sunkel, Prebisch and Furtado. The proponents of dependency theory

contend that the developing countries are in a position of dependency

and subservience vis-a-vis the developed countries. Development and

underdevelopment, they argue, are not two different stages in the

history of mankind but rather the integral parts of the same world

economy. Breaking the relationships of dependency and exploitation

that tie the developing countries to the developed nations is a

necessary first step for the development of the poorer countries.

Dependency theory has been criticized for exaggerating the

importance of external factors while neglecting the key role of

internal factors within individual countries:

In the hands of some writers, dependency hasbecome a deus ex machina explanation ofeverything that is wrong with Third Worldsocieti~s..•.

!i.st, some writings have equated nationaldevelopment with liberation from foreigndomination ...•

36

Second, denunciations of imperialism anddependency as global phenomena leave no roomfor analysis of national variants. (Portes,1977, p. 124)

In sum, the critics of dependency theory argue that it is biased

and one-sided and therefore, is of limited value.

The New International Economic Order (NIEO)

Dependency theory contributed in part in convincing the leaders of

the developing countries that the present world economic system is

fundamentally detrimental to their development efforts. Hence, their

demand for a New International Economic Order. The following

quotation gives a good idea of what the NIEO is:

The present phase of the much longer-term debateon international economic issues between thedeveloped and the developing countries grew outof intensified pressure by the world's poorercountries in 1973-74 for fundamental changes inthe existing international economic order, whichthey perceived to be working against theirinterests and which they had been activelyseeking to change since the creation of the U.N.Conference on Trade and Development in the early1960's. At the 1974 Sixth Special Session of theU.N. General Assem2ly - spurred on by thesuccesses of OPEC, which they saw as strengtheningtheir bargaining power - they demanded betteraccess for their manufactured goods to the marketsof the industrialized world, more stable andpreferably higher prices for their raw materials,renegotiation of their external public debt, curbson the activities of multinational corporationsand improved access to technology, a growing sharein the world's industrial production, a new andless demeaning aid relationship, and a greatervoice in the management of the internatio..~l

*OPEC: Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

37

monetary system and the international financialinstitutions. Collectively, their goals came tobe known as the "new international economic order."(McLaughlin, 1979, p. 77)

Other Approaches to Development

There are other approaches to development. One of these is a set

of theories of social evolution which, according to Portes (1977),

date back to 19th century Europe and evolved to lead to new

formulations such as the theory of social differentiation. In the

perspective of social evolution theory, ~evelopment is built on

polarities provided by ideal-typical forms of social organization

(for example, modern versus traditional). Development is thus

considered to be the gradual passage from one social form to a more

differentiated form of social organization.

Since the field of development studies has benefited from the

contributions of all the social sciences, anthropologists,

communication specialists, geographers, historians, philosophers,

sociologists, just to mention these, have all proposed their own

perspective on the development problem. But by and large, the main

approaches to development are those reviewed above.

Broad Changes in the Evolutionof Development Ideas

According to Brookfield (1975), the view of development as the

realization of human potential is ancient and the idea of economic and

social progress dates back to classical times. For him, what is new

and significant is the realization of unacceptably low living

38

standards among national populations as a whole. Another rather

recent development idea as seen by Brookfield is the finding that

laissez-faire policies have severe limitations in the promotion of

development and that government action is needed; this view gives

legitima~y to development planning. There is also a growing concern

about world inequality, and widespread agreement that economic growth

alone is not enough; equally important is the need for restructuring

international specialization and reducing inequalities.

Parallel to this evolution, notes Brookfield, there has been

a trend away from conventional models of growth to new approaches

which take into account the issues of world inequalities and the

distinctive features of the less developed countries. These changes

in development thinking can be attributed to a number of major

historical factors of which the following are most worthy of note:

the great depressions; the two world wars and their related events;

the formation of the United Nations Organization; the advent of

Marxism and the ensuing fear of revolution in the West; the progress

of decolonization and the emergence of the Third World countries as

independent and sovereign nations.

Streeten (1977) has identified six major changes in development

thinking: (1) the emergence of differing views between the

industrialized countries' and the Third World as illustrated by the

shift from a lino : theory of development to a theory of neocolonialism

and dependency; (2) a change in emphasis on the meaning and measure

39

of development; (3) a growing concern about the world's common

problems and shared constraints; (4) a greater attention to actual

or potential conflict; (5) an acknowledgment of the wide variety of

experiences, interests and stakes in the world order; (6) a shift

from optimism about development prospects to deep pessimism in the

1970's.

Another way of looking at changes in development ideas,

according to Streeten, is to consider some key elements such as

capital, entrepreneurship, skills, education, foreign trade,

population, unemployment, rural development, and see how they have

respectively influenced development thinking over time. In this

regard, many earlier ideas have been discarded and new strategies

are emerging. For example, many earlier development economists

thought that the experience of the rapid recovery of post World War 11

Europe with American assistance could be duplicated in the developing

countries. Top priority was given to industrialization and

infrastructure and there was a belief that high average growth rates

of production would reduce poverty. The goals of development were

narrowly defined in terms of GNP and growth rate, and the contribution

of the developed countries were primarily considered to be capital

and technical assistance. Moreover, the Third World was regarded as

a monolithic bloc with its common problems, and development waF

exclusively seen as a problem of the underdeveloped coul. __ ies alone.

Today, these ideas have largely been abandoned.

40

Other scholars whose writings give a good sense of the changes

in development thinking are, among others: Krause (1961), Ewing

(1966, 19n9), Higgins (1968), Schiavo-Campo and Singer (1970),

Livingstone (1975), Ewing and Koch (1977), Salvatore and Dowling

(1977). Based on their writings as well as those of the scholars

reviewed above and others, it is possible to identify two broad types

of changes that have occurred in the history of development ideas

since World War 11.

The first major change is to be seen in the shift from an

exclusive reliance on theories originating in the industrialized

countries with little or no relevance for the developing world to

more relevant, more relativist and often Third World-centered

theories. This type of change can be explained by the failures of

past development approaches, the increase in knowledge and world-wide

communications, and the concomitant imperative for factual accuracy

and relevance.

The second broad type of change relates to the increased concern

for more equality between and within countries and regions in an

interdependent world with limited resources. This concern can be

attributed to the pressures from poor countries, the emergence of

new geo-political conditions and a new awareness in the rich

countries of the interdependency of world problems.

41

The Search for a Prime Mover of Development

From the preceding overview of historical trends in development

thinking. it is obvious that over the years. development scholars

have had divergent opinions as to what factors account for the

development or underdevelopment of nations. The earlier causal

explanations of development and underdevelopment have been summarized

by Heilbroner (1968) as follows:

Why are the underdeveloped nations so pitiablypoor? Only a half-century ago it was common toattribute their backwardness to geographic orclimatic causes. The underdeveloped nationswere poor, it was thought. either because theclimate was too debilitating or because naturalresources were lacking. Sometimes it was justsaid that the natives were too childlike orracially too inferior to improve their lot.(p. 190)

The Economic Determinants of Development

In the recent history of the development debate, economists were

the first to seriously grapple with the issues. The reason for that

was simple:

Unique among the social sciences, economics had ametric - money - and hence would readily measureand quantify in areas where other social sciencescould not. (Bryant & White, 1982, p. 6)

For the most part and quite logically, economists tended to pose

the development problem in predominantly, if not exclusively,

economic terms. Because de-relopment was considered ab initio to be an

economic problem, its achievement was believed to depend on economic

42

activities. In this perspective, the very definition centered around

the idea of increasing national income. As Riggins defines it,

development is:

a discernible rise in total and per capitaincome ...widely diffused among occupationalgroups and among regions and continuing for atleast two generations. Fluctuations may takeplace around a long-term trend, but a rise inincome for a decade or two followed by relapseinto chronic stagnation over long periods (suchas seems to have taken place in Indonesia) wouldnot constitute development. The process will beaccompanied by structural change,. narrowing gapsin productivity among sectors and regions, andimproved education and health. (Riggins, 1968,p. 33)

From this definition, it follows that such things as structural

change, education and health, are the consequences or the concomitants

of development since they only "accompany" it. The key factor is

rising income. And quite logically again, promoting development from

this standpoint means first of all, fostering economic growth in

order to increase income. And for growth to take place, the

traditional factors of production - mainly land, capital and labor -

were strongly emphasized. To illustrate this point, Adler (1961),

for example, claimed that capital formation was one half of economic

develof>ment and that "the other half is rather meaningless without it"

(pp. 118-119).

To the three pillars of the production function were added some

adjunct elements such as the division of labor, the level of

technology, the existence of an entrepreneurial class, and so forth.

43

The combined factors constituted the essential components of growth,

and hence were the determinants of development.

When viewed in this manner, development is hindered in the poor

countries because some of the necessary ingredients are missing.

Therefore, for development to happen, the missing elements must be

provided and obstacles removed. When they were put to the test in

real life situations, these prescriptions did not bring about the

expected results.

The Non-Economic Dete~minants of Development

There are two main reasons why an exclusive emphasis on the

economic aspect of development could not bring about rapid

development. For one thing, it was discovered that a country could

well have economic growth without development. But perhaps even more

important, it was found that many other determinants of development

especially social factors, had not been given due recognition:

The more economists labored with the exoticcultures of Asia, Africa, and Latin America,the more impressed they became with both theforce and intricacy of social factors. Tenyears after the end of World War 11 some leadingeconomists were ready to admit that the reallyfundamental problems of economic development arenoneconomic. °CCochran, 1964, p. Ill)

The recognition of the paramount importance of social factors

meant that the development problem could not be solved by economists

alone, and that the efforts of other scholars in other disciplines

were needed. And as it turned out, there was no reluctance on the

44

part of other social scientists to come to the rescue with their own

prescriptions:

Anthropologists talked of the need to changetraditional attitudes and to induce a work ethic;political scientists talked of the need forpolitical control; administrators talked of theneed for merit civil service systems; andsociologists talked of the need for elites toprovide the necessary savings, role models, andleadership. (Bryant & White, 1982, p. 6)

The combined efforts of economists and other social scientists

increased the available knowledge on the development problem but by

and large, a large part of this knowledge tended to be of a negative

type in the sense that many scholars had an irresistible penchant

for stressing the negative factors or conditions that hindered

development in the poor countries, instead of putting more efforts in\

the identification of the positive indigenous elements that would

enhance development.

Obstacles to Development

In more specific terms, it was often argued that the poor

countries exhibited a set of overall negative conditions that were

obstacles to development and impervious to change. Phrases such as

"low equilibrium" or "slow growth" economies, "missing factors,"

"vicious circle of poverty,1I "backward societies," "obstacles to

growth,1I inadequate institutionG,1I "poor resource endowment," IIdual

economies,1I "bad climateb, ' "soft states," IIpr ismatic societies,"

just to mention these few, were widely used to describe the poor

45

countries. In retrospect, it seems as if earlier development

theorists were competing with each other as to who could come up with

the lengthiest list of obstacles to development in the poor countries.

Table 2 presents a list of obstacles that were being stressed in the

mid-sixties.

A good example of the search for obstacles to development can be

seen in Rogers (1969) who attempted to identify the common elements of

what he called the "subculture of Peasantry". According to him,

Central elements in this subculture of peasantryare: (1) mutual distrust in interpersonalrelations; (2) perceived limited good; (3)dependence on and hostility toward governmentauthority; (4) familism; (5) lack of innovative­ness; (6) fatalism; (7) limited aspiration;(8) lack of deferred gratification; (9) limitedview of the world; (10) low empathy. (p. 25)

Since peasants make up the large majority of the population in

most poor countries, it goes without saying that the derogatory traits

identified by Rogers apply to most people in these countries.

Critique of the Search forObstacles to Development

The quest for obstacles to development has contributed little to

the solution of development problems because in general, long lists

of obstacles amount to little more than tautological statements about

why the poor must stay poor. History has it that Napolean Bonaparte,

the famed French emperor and conqueror, used to say that a war c~iminal

is he who has lost his war. To paraphrase this saying, for most of

those who only see obstacles to development in poor countries, these

Table 2

Alleged Obstacles to Development in the Third World

TYPES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

Model

1. SUB-SAHARA(for example,Zaire)

11. LATIN AMERICA(except Mexicoand Costa Rica)

Ill. SOUTH ASIA(for example,India andPakistan)

LimitingCharacteristic

AN INADEQUATECULTURE BASE

A RIGID SOCIALSTRUCTURE

POOR DISTRIBUTION OFTHE FACTORS OFPRODUCTION

Elaboration

- recent emergence from colonial rule- insufficient trained personnel- mismanagement of public funds- unstable government- unreliable law enforcement- minimum public services- restricted opportunities for large-scale commerce

and industry- inadequate educational system

- social position dependeng on land ownership,business, government employment, and' positionin the armed forces

- large rural mass dependend on the produce ofsmall plots of land

- unskilled, semi-employed urban population- government in the interest of the economically

unproductive elite

- large and dense population- shortage of arable land- limited savings- retarded industrial development- limited effective employment- risk-taking prohibitive

Source: Galbraith, J. K. An overview. In D. P. Rogers, R. J. Clark, & J. J. Farrell (Eds.),Inside world politics. Boston:, Allyn &Bacon, 1974, 234.

.p­C'

I"'""",,,,",,,,, • ,* M n ·5i; N#K ;:LOL?F ,,,9 'i¥JlJP";Bj" ,,; ,#4,.&4., 38. P s 1 ;r, ¥*9RtERA« S; ,.kWP, ; j4&3 H. ,; ; A ,-% ;,; ;::&\f!J¥¥. J &#.,4, M!i8¥H > ,.lfAf),,';;#W:e;t, OM U#4A!4QS(F.""'ifJJ,,,;4¥9¥,·.Q(AJA L,£3 k AJ.a#i..AJtti.-.4·. p ... .aR' w.j\ . c 4. .l4444gkt

47

countries are "development criminals" for not having won their

"development war". It is the classic case of blaming the victim.

The Ambiguous Nature ofObstacles to Development

By the mid-sixties, many of the alleged obstacles to development

were shown in many instances not to be obstacles_at all. For example,

Japan which had a rather rigid social structure (resistant to change)

with relatively little known natural resources developed at a pace

that was the envy of even the rich countries. Socialist countries

developed without the required institutions of a free market and the

profit motive. By way of contrast, countries with huge natural

resources such as Zaire in Africa and many oil-rich nations failed

to develop as quickly as the earlier proponents of capital formation

would have predicted.

This state of affairs led scholars like Hirschmann (1972) to state

that those who were much concerned with obstacles to development had

overstated their case and that the identification of obstacles had

become a "quasi-vanishing act". According to him, these alleged

obstacles are, for the most part, factors whose elimination is

unnecessary or postponable, or factors that can actually be turned

into assets:

(1) The obstacle does not ·constitute an absolutebarrier in the case of country Y; certain forwardmoves are available to this country, and theobstacle, while still exerting a negativeinfluence on development, can still be dealt with,perhaps more easily, at a later time.

(2) The alleged obstacle, in view of another setof circumstances, turns out not to be an obstacleat all and therefore does not need to be removed,either now or later.

(3) The alleged obstacle, in view of yet othercircumstances, turns into a positive advantageand asset for development. (pp. 55-56)

Another economist who has criticized the obstacle approach to

the explanation of development is Heilbroner (1968). He writes:

Bad climates may have had adverse effects. Yet,many hot areas have shown a capacity for sustainedeconomic growth (for example, the Queensland areasof Australia), while we have also come torecognize that a number of underdeveloped areas,such as Argentina and Korea, have completelytemperate climates. So, too, we now regard thelack of resources in many areas more as a symptomof underdevelopment than a cause -- which is tosay that in many underdeveloped areas, resourceshave not yet been looked for. Libya, forinstance, which used to be written off as atotally barren nation, has within the last fewyears been discovered to be a huge reservoir ofoil. Little is heard today about native childish­ness or inherent inferiority. (Perhaps weremember how the wealthy classes similarlycharacterized the poor in Europe not too manycenturies ago.) Climate and geography andcultural unpreparedness unquestionably constituteobstacles to rapid economic growth -- and in someareas of the globe, very serious obstacles -- butthere are few economists who would look to thesedisadvantages as the main causes of economicbackwardness. (p. 190; emphasis in original text)

Critigue of Dualism and the Mythof Tradition Versus Modernity

Even the claim that "traditional society" and "dual society" -

which incorporates both traditional and modern features - are a

hindrance to the promotion of development has not been substantiated

48

49

by the facts. As England and Japan show, traditional institutions,

indeed feudal institutions, can survive side by side with modern-day

institutions without per se impeding development. The distinction

made between tradition and modernity has been criticized by Gusfield

(1967) as leading to what he calls "misplaced polarities" (pp. 51-62).

Brookfield (1975) is critical of dualism and modernization

because he feels that at the core of both lies a dichotomous thinking

which, in the final analysis, impedes advance in understanding the

problems at hand. For him, the method of economic dualism appears

as one which sets up ideal types based on assumptions drawn from

observations of real world dualism - which is acceptable. But

unfortunately, the analysis of the interrelationships between the two

sectors leads to oversimplifications and generalizations that are far

removed from the real world conditions. The modernization thesis,

likewise, embodies a particular view of change based on the dualistic

view that tradition and modernity are opposed forces and the latter

grows at the expense of the former. This approach stresses unilinear

change instead of the continuous interaction that takes place, and it

o~scures such important processes as opposition to change interaction

and symbiosis. In sum, Brookfield contends that the dichotomous

thinking which underlies dualism and modernization is simplistic and

misleading.

Similar criticisms have been made by Geertz (1963) whose views

about the relationship between traditional and modern social

structures and socio-economic development can be summarized as

50

follows: as far as development goes, there is no such things as an

intrisically "bad" traditional structure that will inevitably impede

development, or an inherently "good'·' modern structure that will

automatically bring about development. Every particular social

structure has its unique features, its own strengths and limitations

and there are many roads to development and many development models.

There are no uniform relationships between traditional and modern

social structures and development. Instead, there are different

sorts of traditionalism that can lead to contrasting sorts of

modernism through development. This should not be construed to mean

that generalizations cannot be made. Indeed, it is possible to

identify some common factors and constants of social and cultural

change associated with development; however, the process of

development can tak~ place in a variety of forms and the traditional

features of local settings in the developing world which are shunned

by development planners, need not be a hindrance to development.

The influence of these traditional features will depend on the model

and strategy of development selected.•

Redefinition of Obstacles to Development

The criticism made about the obstacle approach to the explanation

of development or underdevelopment does not imply that there are no

real obstacles. The problem with the traditional approach is that it

tends to be one-sided and partial because it over-emphasizes problems

in the poor countries and overlooks similar problems in the richer

51

countries. For example, corruption, neopotism, red tape, patron-

client types of relationships in politics, the force of social

inertia, are often mentioned in reference to the Third World when

in fact, these are universal phenomena.

But real bottlenecks do exist in all countries that impede

certain types of progress. Hirschman (1972) points out that very often,

the real obstacle is the inability of policy-makers themselves to

have a clear understanding of the opportunities available in any

country and take full advantage of them to promote development:

Finally, and most important, while our exercisepoints to many ways in which obstacles can bemade into assets, it says nothing about theability to perceive these possibilities on thepart of the policy-makers in developing countries.If this ability is strictly limited, as is oftenthe case, then this very limitation emerges as asuper-obstacle, which commands and conditions theexistence and seriousness of the more conventionalobstacles. (p. 61; emphasis in original text)

Whether a country has good leadership and good policy-makers

is not a question that is limited to any particular type of countries;

it is relevant everywhere. Streeten (1977) has enumerated a number

of problems that tend to be neglected or dismissed by development

analysts. An illustrative list of these real problems includes the

following: (1) the unwillingness of governments to firmly grasp some

sensitive issues such as land reform and taxation; (2) nepotism and

corruption; (3) oligopoly and monopoly ver - power of large land-

owners, of big industrialists and multinational corporations; (4) the

power of organized urban labor unions; (5) the unequal structure of

52

power and wealth and the restricted access to public services; (6)

weak entrepreneurship and defective management of public sector

enterprises, of the civil service and of the private but protected

firms; (7) the lack of coordination between central planning and

executing ministries and between the different levels of the socio­

economic system; (8) the weakness of the United Nations specialized

agencies charged with the promotion of development; (9) the

violation of basic human rights and the staggering expenditures on

armaments.

Recapitulation

The point to emphasize is that,"in general, development scholars

do not agree on what causes development or underdevelopment. A non­

exhaustive list of key factors that have been identified by different

development theorists would include factors that are economic;

technological; psychological; political; sociological; ecological;

educational; administrative; communication-related, and the list could

be lengthened at will. A more detailed listing of some of these

factors is provided in Appendix B.

It may be safe to say that almost everything matters, when it

comes to promoting development. The process of starting and sustaining

the development efforts of a country is affected by a myriad of

factors and the weight assigned to each factor depends, in part, on

the particular development theorist. An economist will tend to stress

economic factors whereas an anthropologist might show more interest in

53

socio-cultural factors. The need for an integrated approach that

could bridge the gap between competing development theories is one

of the many reasons that paved the way for the emergence of a managerial

perspective on development. This point is further elaborated in

Appendix A.

54

CHAPTER IH

REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT LITERATURE

Chapter III provides a summary review of some of the comparative

management literature relevant to the study of socio-economic

development. The studies selected for inclusion in this review had

to be fairly recent, i.e., published within the last 15 years or so.

Furthermore, all studies had to relate partly or entirely to the

developing countries; this criterion excluded comparative studies of

management in the developed countries only. The selected studies

were grouped according to their topical coverage and then reviewed in

chronological order. Authors whose 'publications appeared during the

same year were listed in alphabetical order.

This chapter includes the following sections: , (1) The Changing

Assumption of Comparative Management; (2) Case Studies of Management

in Single Countries; (3) Cross-national Studies in Comparative

Management; (4) The Socio-cultural Determinants of Management;

(5) Social Development Management; (6) Recapitulation.

The Changing Assumption ofComparative Management

Traditionally, comparative management studi€s were largely based

on the assumption that "good" management practices were to be found

only in the industrialized countries, and that the poor countries

55

needed to import these practices from their more fortunate counterparts.

The transfer of management know-how was viewed as a one-way flow from

the "management-rich" countries to the "management-poor" nations.

Though this view has not disappeared altogether, more and more recent

studies attempt to adopt a more balanced approach according to which,

countries of both groups can learn from each other. Wallender (1978)

expresses this view:

The disparities between the function of managementin the developing countries (DCs) and in theindustrialized countries (ICs) suggest thatdeveloping country managers may have much to teachus about our own approach to management. Interimresults from the study show that DC managementmay be more capable of dealing with turbulentenvironments and crisis situations than is U.S.management. (p. 23)

During the 1960's, the view that poor countries should import

managerial know-how from elsewhere was prevailing and the need was

often expressed by national governments and international agencies to

find ways of transferring managerial know-how from the industrialized

countries to the Third World countries. To meet this need, many an

international forum was held with hopes of increasing knowledge on

the social and cultural factors that may enhance or impede management

transfer.

At a meeting of experts convened by the International Labour

Office (ILO) in November 1963, an attempt was made to draw a list

of the socio-cultural factors that affect management. The experts

came up with a list - indicative rather than exhaustive - of the

following factors: (1) Group and personal relations and loyalties;

56

(2) Attitudes toward authority and responsibility; (3) Educational

and intellectual traditions; (4) Status and prestige; (5) Concepts of

justice; (6) Attitudes toward work; (7) Attitudes toward property;

(8) Attitudes toward women; (9) Attitudes toward public authorities

(ILO, 1966, pp. 181-184).

A complete listing of the sub-factors included in each of these

nine categories is provided in Appendix C.

The ILO experts went on to identify these three areas for which

further research was needed; (1) Case studies of management in single

countries; (2) Management and managerial effectiveness in different

cultural settings; (3) Real influences of social and cultural

factors on management in specific cultures (ILO, 1966, pp. 184-185).

The review of literature undertaken in the pages to follow will

show, among other things, how current research in comparative

management has contributed to these three areas of needed research.

Findings of Case Studies of Managementin the Developing Countries

The studies reviewed in this section are divided into these two

groups: (1) Case Studies of Effective Management; (2) Case Studies of

Ineffective Management.

Case Studies of Effective Managementin the Developing Countries

In - study of Indian managers in an engineering firm, Kakar (1971)

found that managers with a more democratic leadership style were more

57

effective than authoritarian managers in terms of employee performance

and satisfaction.

Farris and Butterfield (1972) studied the distribution of

control in 16 development banks in Brazil, using Tannenbaum's control

*graph model. They found that contrary to common assumptions about

Latin American organizations, these banks were not managed by

authoritarian executives and control in these organizations was evenly

distributed among hierarchical levels. They also found that control

at each level was associated with bank effectiveness. The authors

hypothesized that their findings could be explained by viewing

effective development banks as technocracies.

According to Flores (1972), American managerial techniques in

management control and planning can be used effectively in a

developing country such as the Phillippines.

In a study of the relationship between entrepreneurship and

development, Dresang (1973) reported that in Zambia, bureaucrats with

a sense of entrepreneurship tried to advance their career by

identifying themselves with successful development programs. This in

turn, contributed to development.

After conducting an empirical study of the management practices

and effectiveness of American and Japanese subsidiaries, and local

firms in Taiwan, Negandhi (1973) concluded that advanced management

practices and know-how found in U.S. industries 'uld be usefully and

effectively transferred to industrial enterprises in Taiwan.

* See Tannenbaum, A. S. CEd.). Control in organizations. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

58

Jaggi (1977) assessed the managerial styles of 120 Indian

executives and found a significant positive relationship between job

satisfaction and a consultative-participatory managerial style.

To identify and describe variables which contributed to

managerial effectiveness in Nigeria, Imoisili (1978) studied the

management practices and effectiveness of 18 large business companies

operating in that country. Two sets of effectiveness indicators were

used: (1) economic indicators (return on capital, productivity of

assets, sales margin, net operating margin); and (2) non-economic

indicators (employee turnover, ability to retain management talent,

c~mpetitiveness of compensation schemes, employee satisfaction). The

results of the study showed that the difference between effective and

less effective organizations could be explained by these factors:

perception of the Nigerian environment; planning; delegation of

authority and control; and span of control of managers.

Neubauer (1978) reported the effective use in Mexico of

managerial techniques such as job evaluation, performance appraisal

and wage determination.

Following an observation of several industrial and business

projects in China, Blake and Mouton (1979) argued that in that

country, individual productivity was emphasized over all other goals.

This primary goal was supported by several strategies such as the

maximization of personal contributions to the state and the tying of

the bonus compensation system and team leadership advancement to

productivity.

59

W~rker participation in the decision-making process was found by

Szal (1979) to contribute to effectiveness in mobilizing local

resources and satisfying the community's needs.

Based on a study of administrative practices in Egypt, Badran

and Hinings (1981) took the position that by virtue of being late-

comers, firms in the Third World countries were in a better position

to adopt new managerial techniques than the older firms in the West.

Altunbay and Kizilian (1982) reported the promising implementation

of a management information system at the Marmara Scientific and

Industrial Research Institute in Turkey. The system was designed to

provide for a continuous review of the activities of the Institute and

facilitate the collection of accurate and timely data to help

affiliated organizations.

Findings of Case Studies of IneffectiveManagement in the Developing Countries

A study of the Nigerian military by Luckham (1971) revealed

that there was a conflict between institutional practices transferred

from the West and the local socio-cultural factors. This conflict

tended to reduce bureaucratic efficiency.

Why does planning fail in Nepal? This question was asked by

Wildavsky (1972). He suggested that the failure of planning in this

country was attributable to insufficient information, few and poor

project proposals, inability to program foreign aid, adversary

relationships with the Ministry of Finance, and limited administrative

60

capacity. The author argued that planning by itself cannot solve the

problems inherent in the basic political and administrative factors.

In Mexico, welfare bureaucracies were found by Poitras (1973)

to deviate from the goals for which they were created.

Bureaucratic efficiency in Nigeria was found to be hampered by

conflict between public bureaucracies and the political establishment

(Balogun, 1976). Managerial effectiveness in this country was

limited because of low .levels of education, corruption, and political

enta~glement (Iboko, 1976).

AI-Araji (1977) reported that in Irak, development administration

and plapning failed because objectives lacked consistency and

comprehensiveness, and there was no adequate coordination of

activities.

In Kenya, the activities of a personal department within an

organization extended far beyond the bqundaries of the organization

and well into the larger social environment (Henley, 1977).

Development administration in Guyana, according to .Hope (1977),

was made difficult by a lack of high-level manpower for policy

implementation, a highly bureaucratic public service and excessive

centralization of authority and control, a lack of coordination of

policies between departments, a lack of dissemination of information

for effective decision-making, low levels of economic developm~nt,

and scarce financial resources.

61

The bureaucratic system in Colombia was characterized by

subjective decision-making, high concentration of power in a limited

number of people, low level of development, and high socio-political

instability (Lombard, 1978).

A study of the Department of Food of India by Sinha (1979)

revealed that as it grew larger, this department became a rigid

bureaucracy insensitive to the needs of its constituencies. Public

participation in decision-making became very limited and central

decisions were no longer dictated by the mission of the department,

but by other considerations such as status-consciousness.

In the Philippines, the central government's legislative and

executive branches were assigned the task of formulating policies

for municipal reform, thus showing a lack of local autonomy and a

lack of delegation of authority (Villanueva, 1979).

In a case study of India's organizational structure, Raragopal

(1980) argued that this structure tended to exacerbate conflict

between regulatory and development departments.

Other recent case studies of management in different countries

include Getter (1975), Goodall (1975), Reginbotham (1975), Rowell

et al. (1975), Mahar and Rezende (1975), Coward (1976), Crosby (1976),

Runt and Truitt (1976), Blair (1978), Boseman and Phatak (1978),

Adebayo (1979), Cheema (1979), Adeniyi (1980), Choguill (1980),

De Beer and Van de Ven (1980), Farid (1980), Rirschman (1980),

Kingshott (1980), Lungu (1980), Scott (1980), Yavas and Rountree

(1980), and Zabra (1980).

62

Cross-National Studies in Comparative Management

In this section, studies comparing management in two or more

countries are reviewed. These studies are grouped into these

categories: (1) Differences Between Developed and Developing

Countries; (2) Similarities Between Developed and Developing Countries;

(3) Comparisons Among Developing Countries Only.

Managerial Differences Between Developedand Developing Countries

Helmich and Papageorge (1976) conducted a cross-cultural study

of leadership styles in the United States, Japan, India, r~xico and

Greece. They found that leaders in the more industrialized countries

tended to be more task-oriented, while those in the less industrialized

countries were more employee-oriented.

Timsit (1976) argued that foreign managerial models were likely

to create more problems than they solved in the Third World countries.

They must, therefore, be avoided in these countries.

In a comparative study of role-tensions in Western and Chinese

factories in Singapore, Deyo (1978) found that Western factories were

more democratic and decentralized, whereas Chinese factories were

centralized, autocratic, and task-oriented.

A study of the personal value systems of over 2,556 managers

in Australia, Japan, Kore~, India and the United States led the

author (England, 1_',J) to suggest that there were large individual

differences in personal values withi.n each group of managers. The

63

author also found that these value systems were relatively stable and

related to the way a manager behaved on the job, and to a manager's

career success.

To test the hypothesis that differences in executive behavior

were linked to a wide dispersion of national patterns of reward for

executives, Granick (1978) conducted an empirical analysis of the

reward structure for executives of large industrial enterprises in

three capitalist countries (England, France, and the United States),

five socialist countries (German Democratic Republic, Soviet Union,

Slovenia, Hungary and Romania), and one developing country (Algeria).

The author found that there were great differences among these

countries' rewards systems and that the pattern of the dominant type

of reward was neither a function of the country's socio~economic

system, nor of its level of deyelopment. Granick made this interesting

observation:

Britain"France and the United States constitutea sample of striking contrast. They are countrieswith reasonably similar cultures, methods oforganizing the economy, and levels of technology.Yet each falls into a different grouping ofmanagerial reward patterns .... (p. 46)

A 10-year study of over 100,000 managers in the United States,

11 West European countries, India, Japan and several Latin American

countries was reported by Bass et al. (1979). The study showed the

following: (1) U.S. managers had the highest tolerance for risk-

taking; (2) German and Austrian managers had the lowest preference

for authoritarian work incentives; (3) Japanese managers were least

64

concerned with conformity to rules while their Indian counterparts

were the most concerned; (4) managers with high rates of advancement

(ROA) valued leadership, expertise and prestige more highly than

those with low ROA; (5) however low ROA managers placed higher value

on self-realiz~tion, affection, security aud imagination than did

high ROA managers; (6) high ROA managers were task-oriented and

pragmatic, often opposed to group decision-making and less dependent

on higher authority.

Rosenberg and Rosenstein (1981) compared workers' participation

in two D.S. plants to workers' participation in directing councils

in Yugoslavia. The U.S. system was considered by the authors to be

discretionary and consultative while the Yugoslav system was

mandatory. The study led to the suggestion that participative

programs in the U.S. enjoyed greater workers' involvement in

management.

Managerial Similarities BetweenDeveloped and Developing Countries

Goodsell (1976) compared the postal systems of the United States

and Costa Rica and concluded that their bureaucracies were strikingly

similar and tended to erode the differences between the two systems.

Wright (1976-77) compared the responses of American and Chilean

firms to the changing environmental conditions in Chile during the

four years preceding the marxist regime of Salvador Allende. IIe found

that both American and Chilean managers perceived similar country

65

environmental factors as being critical and thei~ perception changed

with time. American firms were not more innovative than their

Chilean counterparts.

Prasad (1981) compared the beliefs of Brazilian managers to those

of expatriate managers in Brazil and found that Brazilian managers

did not manifest significant differences with their West European

and North American counterparts on his measures of information sharing

and objectives. However, Brazilian managers had a lower belief in

the capacity of their subordinates for leadership and initiative.

North American expatriate managers expressed the most democratic

attitude.

Stephens (1981) attempted to measure the relative influence of

national environments on a number of variables believed to affect the

leadership styles of managers. He administered a questionnaire to

managers in six textile plants in the U.S. and Peru (three plants in

each country). The plants were similar in number of employees, level

of technology and independence of management. The following

leadership traits were studied: perception of employee initiative;

willingness to share information and objectives with subordinates;

attitude toward participative management; perception of locus of

control. The author found no significant differences between Peruvian

and American leadership s~yles. His expectation of finding a more

participative democratic style in the U.S. as opposed to an

authoritarian, external control-oriented style in Peru, was not

fully supported by the data.

66

Comparison of Management AmongDeveloping Countries Only

Montgomery (1972) studied the extent to which the delegation of

authority increased the effectiveness of land reform policies in

several countries, using four measures of effectiveness: (1) improved

tenure security, (2) increase in peasants' income, (3) increase in

peasants' political power, and (4) adequate bureaucratic power.

He found that delegation of authority increased effectiveness and

that land reform was less effective in countries with centralized

authority.

A research program at Cornell University of Asian countries

(Esman, 1978) found that the grouping of small farmers into membership

organizations increased the effectiveness of assistance programs

because effective organization allowed farmers to have more influence

and provide mutual assistance. However, organizing them effectively

was a difficult task to initiate and maintain.

According to Muwanga-Barlow (1978), the development of the

administrative sciences in Anglophone African countries requires

confident and secure leadership, a definite and firm socio-economic

philosophy, a clear sense of direction, a set of objectives, a

continuous period of stability, an efficient machinery for

implementation as well as trust, confidence and cooperation between

political leaders and top bureaucrats.

A comparison of the managerial problems and practices in India

and Nigeria by Nambudiri and Saiyadain (1978) showed the following:

67

in both countries, the practice of long-range planning was still in

its infancy. Both societies faced the unsolved conflict between

traditional values and the requirements of a modern industrial

society. Both countries needed more and better trained managers,

higher productivity and a more effective accommodation with trade

unions. Unlike India, Nigeria had a national wage policy for public

servants which was also used as a guide by the private sector.

However, Indian managers had demonstrated more competence in

acquiring technology, managing large organizations, shaping a large

and viable public sector, and in competing with multinational

corporations.

Gable and Springer (1979) made a comparative empirical analysis

of public efforts to improve rice production in Indonesia, Korea, the

Philippines and Thailand, by conducting a cross-national survey of

1,815 public officials working in agencies responsible for

implementing national policies. The survey was supplemented by case

studies and data on rice production in each country. The authors

inferred from the study that there were many strategies to achieve

development and that the choice of a particular strategy required an

understanding of the administrative system within a country.

Ting -(1980) investigated the extent to which modern management

technology contributed to the effective performance of firms in newly

industrializing countries. The study sample consisted of six firms in

Singapore and Taiwan. The author used two measures of performance

(net profit margin and operating profit margin) and management

68

technology was assessed with three measures (management positional

level, qualification level, and management intensity level). The

author found that technology factors, especially management

development intensity, were strongly associated with operational

performance. It was not possible, however, to establish a cause and

effect relationship.

In a study of 12 firms in India and Tanzania (six in each

country), Kanawaty et al. (1981) found that new forms of work

organization used in the industrialized world, could be effectively

adopted in the Third World countries.

Using two macro-analytical units (management-system facets,

and development-process concomitants), Khan (1982) conducted a study

of public management as a key factor of the development programmes

of the seven East Carribean Common Market countries (Antigua,

Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, and

St. Vincent). The author suggested that management was influenced by

the colonial experience of these countries, their growth patterns,

and the experience of public services in managing development plans

and projects.

Other studies of cross-national management include, among

others, Barrett and Bass (1970), Kasfir (1972), Hesseling (1973),

Hanson (1974), Ronen and Kraut (1977), De la Torre and Toyne (1978),

Inzerilli (1978), Raksasataya (1978), Schaffer (1978), Crino and

White (1980), Thompson (1980).

69

The Socio-Cultural Determinants of Management

The studies reviewed under this heading are divided into two

groups: (1) General Aspects; (2) Specific Effects of Socio-Cultural

Factors on Management.

General Aspects of Socio-Cultural Factorsin Comparative Management

Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970b) conducted a correlational study of

managerial attitudes in 14 countries on three continents; their

analysis correlated eight socio-cultural, political and economic

indicators with the attitudes and motivation of managers. They found

that managerial attitudes were significantly affected by cultural

and economic factors. Of these factors, the most important ones

were: level of education, life expectancy, and percentage of Roman

Catholics. The authors cautioned that

it is both difficult and dangerous to labelfactors as economic, political, social or culturalsince most of them have multiple dimensions.(p. 458)

According to Boguinard (1971), the task to be performed was the

most influential factor, not the environment per se.

Perhaps the most comprehensive work in comparative management in

terms of identifying the elements of the environment that affect

management was a study by Richman and Copen (1972). This study itself

was the continuation of earlier works by Richman and others. The

authors proposed a typology of the environmental factors divided into

two broad spheres: the national environment, and the international

70

environment. A complete listing of these factors is given in

Appendix D. The findings of their study led the authors to conclude

that American managerial practices and techniques could be effectively

implemented in developing countries, although some of them should be

modified. The authors suggested that the major factors inhibiting the

success of these managerial practices in the developing countries were

a lack of knowledge of the local environment, and a lack of a vehicle

to transfer managerial techniques.

Kizilbach (1974) made the point that the cultural norms, the

economic and trade practices, and the patterns of human relations

found in a society were important environmental factors that must be

taken into account in training managers.

An organizational questionnaire based on Likert's eight

*organizational variables was administered by Bennett (1977) on two

samples of Filipino and Hong Kong Chinese bilingual managers. He

found that equivalent questions generated different responses,

depending on the language in which the questions were asked. The

author theorized that the different answers related to different

reference groups.

*Likert's organizational variables are: (1) leadership process;(2) motivational forces; (3) communication process; (4) interaction­influence process; (5) decision-naking process; (6) goal setting orordering; (7) control processes; (8) performance goals and training.See Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill,1967, 197-211.

71

Pizam and Reichel (1977) compared two groups of Israeli managers:

(1) those who migrated to Israel from Europe and America and were

considered as Westerners, and (2) those who came from Africa and Asia,

called Orientals. They found that in comparison to managers of

Western ancestry, managers of Eastern descent were (1) less inclined

toward centralized decision-making; (2) more likely to have their

peers' counsel in evaluating their subordinates; (3) more prone to

believe in a long time employment commitment to one company; (4) more

paternalistic in dealing with their subordinates; (5) less respectful

of formal authority; (6) less inclined toward team work. The two

groups were similar in attitudes toward rules and procedures,

seniority and nepotism.

In a study of the relative roles of culture and industrialization

in shaping the value systems of managers in five countries (Australia,

India, Japan, Korea and the United States), ~fuitely and England (1977)

found that both culture and industrialization accounted for the

similarities and differences found in the value systems of managers.

The authors insisted that both played an important role.

Wallender (1978) reported an exploratory study launched in 1977

to identify the factors that affected technology acquisition and

management development in various developing countries. Five countries

were chosen: Brazil, Peru, Korea, Tanzania and Kenya. Eight to

sixteen cases were written for F _~h country, focusing on such things

as how local firms were organized, planned their activities, and

,,

72

utilized technology. A total of 67 cases were completed. Partial

results of the study pointed to a number of critical factors which

influenced organizations. These factors were: limited understanding

of the value of technology; internal organizational practices;

attitudes of managers; availability of manpower; lack of information;

local economic and technological infrastructure; local technology

options. The author suggested that the managerial functions of

organizing and controlling preceded the functions of planning and

leading, contrary to traditional conceptualization of the management

process.

To investigate the role played by face in the managerial

practices of Chinese managers, Redding and Ng (1982) surveyed 102

managers in Hong Kong, using questionnaires and content analysis of

narrated face incidents. Their survey provided strong support to

the view that face plays an important role in organizational behavior.

Specific Effects of Socio-CulturalFactors on Management

The cultural environment in the developing countries does not

permit either mechanistic or organic organizations to work effectively.

This conclusion was reached by Milne (1970) who argued that in these

countries, Western managerial practices could not work because the

natives had a high degree of ritualism, familism and formalism.

Adamolekun (1976) contended that attempts to correct administra-

tive deficiencies in Africa have generally been undertaken on an

ad hoc basis and that three conditions must be met to create

73

development-oriented bureaucracies in Africa: a strong and purposeful

leadership; a clear conception of public service internalized by all

public officers; and a permanent machinery for administrative reform.

The environment of organizations in Latin America is character­

ized by a lack of local autonomy and a lack of delegation of

authority. Such was the conclusion of Tapia-Videla (1976), who used

the notion of the "corporate-technocratic" state to study comparative

public administration in Latin America.

Anglophone African countries have in general followed the

elitist system of British administration, but there is one major

difference. Unlike British administration which has a convention of

civil service neutrality, administration in Africa is politicized

(Subramanian, 1977).

Local governments in Jamaica are ineffective because they

operate in a socio-cultural environment which exhibit these short­

comings: a tradition ofnon-participative decision-making; excessive

centralization; authoritarian/submissive attitudes reflected in a

dependency syndrome (Mills, 1979).

Stahl (1979) has called for far-reaching changes in the socio­

cultural environment of Third World countries to increase managerial

effectiveness.

Factors that influence the development of modern management

practices in Saudi Arabia include: Islamic religious beliefs; male­

dominated business enterprises; strong family ties; traditional

74

attachment to pride and self-respect; and a shortage of skilled

managers (Anastos, et al., 1980).

According to Glenn and James (1980), elements of the socio­

political environment that make it difficult to apply conventional

techniques in countries of the Third World include: the governments'

policies of placing an ever increasing number of people on the payroll;

the scarcity of machinery, materials, energy and money; and the

strict regulation of business life.

Organizational development in Latin America is inhibited by an

environment which contains more negative than positive elements

(Bourgeois & Boltvinik, 1981).

Other studies of the socio-cultural environment include

Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970a), Sirota and Greenwood (1971), Negandhi

and Prasad (1972), Kellyand Reeser (1973), Negandhi and Reimann

(1973), Pezeshkpur (1978), Almaney (1981), Kelley and Worthley (1981),

Wigglesworth (1981), and Wright (1981).

Social Development ~~nagement

The late 1970's saw the emergence of a small but important

school of thought in the field of international management: the

school of social development management. This emergence has been

described by de Vogeler (1982) in these words:

75

In 1977 members of a working group from fourmanagement schools* in developing countriesidentified, on the basis of their respectiveexperiences in teaching management, a kind oforganization whose manager needs conceptualframeworks and managerial skills that aredifferent from the ones that are commonly taughtto private and public enterprise managers, oreven to managers or public organizations thathandle, for example, tax collection, publicsecurity and water supply. The working groupcalled the third kind of organization socialdevelopment organizations and their managerssocial development managers. (p. 1; emphasis inoriginal text)

The ideas espoused by the proponents of social'development

management have been most forcefully expressed by Korten in a series

of writings. According to him, the purposes of social development

management are: (1) to. strengthen the effectiveness of development

programs intended to build the capacity of the poor to solve their

own problems and improve their livelihoods; (2) to build through

active involvement and learning a body of management knowledge and

methods that are of practical relevance to development programs;

(3) to approach development from the perspective of responsible

people working through organizations to mobilize resources in pursuit

of development objectives (Korten, 1980a, p. 8).

A representative sample of the social development management

literature is reviewed below.

*The four management schools are the Asian Institute ofManagement in Manila, Philippines, the Indian Institute of }~nagement

at Ahmedabad, India, the InstitutoCentroamericano de Administracionde Empresas in Managua, Nicaragua, and the Instituto de Estudios,Superiores de Administracion in Caracas, Venezuela (de Vogeler,1982, p. 3).

76

Ickis (1978, 1982) advanded the thesis that development

programs designed to improve the lives of the rural poor in Central

America, have failed because of the failure to adapt the rigid

structure of public agencies to the demands and requirements of

integral rural development strategies. Development strategies,

he argued, were doomed to failure from the time of their inception

because they were formulated without an implementation structure.

In a paper presented at the 25th Anniversary World Conference

of the Society for International Development, Korten (1982) offered

a summary of his observations and studies of the effectiveness of

development programs in the developing countries. His summary is

shown in Table 3.

Thomas (1982) identified five constraints that hinder the

achievement of effective people-centered development programs:

(1) the fear of local leaders of the empowerment of citizen groups;

(2) the lack of a political will in national government leadership;

(3) the need for certainty among planners and managers of government

agencies; (4) the incapacity of schools, universities and training

institutes to teach social learning and collaborative planning; and

(5) the extreme diversity that exists in culturally mixed

organizational systems around the world. Accordinp, to him,

bureaucratic performance must be reoriented to help achieve social

d.·~~lopment objectives. Such a reorientation requires the following:

(1) planners and other professionals who can share their expertise

with non-experts and can listen effectively to their clients'

Table 3

Factors Contributing to Success in the Management of Development Programs(Learning Process Versus Blueprint Programming Models)

Initiated

Begin With

Program Design

Technology

Primary Resource Base

Error

Supporting Organization

Growth

Staff Development

Organized T,y

Evaluation

Leadership

Social Analysis

Primary Management Units

Successful Development Programs(Learning Process)

In Village

Action

Evolving-Collaborative

Indigenous-Scientific

Local People and Resources

Embraced

Built Bottom-Up

Gradual-Organic

Continuous-Action Based

Teams

Self-Continuous-Process

Strong-Sustained-Individual

For Problem Definition

Systems and Institutions

Typical Development Programs(Blueprints)

In Capital

Plan

Static-Experts

Scientific

Central Funds and Technicians

Buried

Existing or Built Top Down

Rapid-Mechanistic

Preservice-Formal Classroom

Technical Specialty

External-Intermittent-Impact

Limited-Changing-Positional

To JustifyPlan

Projects

Source: Korten, D. C. Social development management. Paper presented at the 25th AnniversaryWorld Conference of the Society for International Development, Baltimore, ~laryland,

July 18-22, 1982, 10.

..........

78

definitions of needs and facts; (2) non-bureaucratic control

mechanisms characterized by equal, two-way communication channels;

(3) incentive mechanisms which reward bureaucrats for being

responsive to clients; (4) evaluation criteria for organizational

performance responsive to and shared by clients. The author

summarized his views on the reorientation of bureaucracies as

follows:

Reorientated norms for bureaucracies suggestsreciprocal rather than hierarchical controls;flexible, temporary (perhaps amoebic-like)structures rather than fixed pyramids; special­izations tempered by extensive intra­organizational and inter-organizationalcommunication, especially with client groups;flexibility and discretion in the application ofrules and procedures determined by task groupnegotiation and sub-organizational contractdevices; and, equity as a primary evaluationcriteria [sic] followed by efficiency measures.(Thomas, 1982, p. 12)

Paul (1983) reported the findings of an international study of

the managerial and institutional interventions associated with six

successful development programs in different developing countries.

Each program was analyzed within a framework of strategic management

in terms of (1) strategic interventions; (2) structural interventions;

and (3) process interventions. The study showed that each of these

interventions, and the interaction effects among them, contributed

to effective performance if there was congruence among them. Lack of

congruence reduced performance. The author suggested that the three

major factors singled out by many development observers as being

79

critical to the success of development programs - political

commitment, resources, and leadership - were important but not

sufficient to insure success.

Recapitulation

Summary of Case Studies ofManagement in Single Countries

There are both cases of effective and ineffective management in

the developing countries. Effectiveness and ineffectiveness are

both accounted for by a wide array of factors. Current research

does not make it possible to identify factors or managerial

practices that are universally associated with effectiveness. It

may well be that such universal factors do not exist, and this is

precisely the fundamental proposition of situational management

theory.

Summary of Cross-National Studiesin Comparative Management

The studies reviewed showed similarities and differences

between the developed and developing countries on the one hand, and

on the other hand, among the developing countries themselves. Some

writers-have suggested that managerial differences between countries

are attributable to cultural differences whereas similarities can be

explained by degree of industrialization (Negandhi, 1975). However,

as Ajiferuke and BoddeWYn (1970) point out, it is not always possible

to distinguish cultural factors from economic factors. As to the

80

applicability of Western management practices in the developing

countries, those practices that are technical in nature are the

easiest to apply whereas those that involve important factors in the

local environment require some modification (Kiggundu, et al., 1983).

Summary of Studies of the Socio-CulturalDeterminants of Management

The comments made by Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, and by Kiggundu

et al., are also relevant to studies in comparative management that

have sought to either simply identify socio-cultural factors that

affect management, or to investigate some specific effects of these

factors. The negative aspects of the local environment that inhibit

managerial effectiveness in the Third World are fairly well documented.

But there are relatively few studies that show a positive association

between socio-cultural factors in the developing countries and

effectiveness. It may be safe to say that those who report cases of

effective management in these countries do not attribute

effectiveness to the core, first-order, elements of the socio-cultural

milieu such as the prevailing religion or traditional family

structure. It is rather attributed to second-order elements such as

level of technology, national political ideology, availability of

resources, and existence of competent managers.

Summary of the Social DevelopmentManagement Literature

Two common threads run through the social development management

literature: (1) development programs must put people first and empower

81

the poor to solve their own problems; (2) the management of develop-

ment is made more effective by the adoption of a democratic-

participatory style, Le., a "human-relations" approach to management

that allows the manager to get actively involved and learn while

managing.

Relevance of the Comparative ManagementLiterature to the Study of Development

In Chapter I, comparative management studies were criticized for

being: (1) limited by weak conceptualization; (2) lacking in

knowledge integration; and (3) micro-analytical in the sense of

focusing on individuals and organizations and less on whole countries.

The review of the literature provided in this chapter warrants this

criticism.

In spite of these shortcomings, comparative management studies

are relevant to the study of development. This relevance is rather

indirect for a large body of the comparative management literature

because in many instances, there is no explicit and outright

reference to development. But although many studies do not explicitly

mention the socio-economic development of a country as their main

concern, there is always an underlying assumption that the effective

management of organizations has a positive impact on the welfare of

a country. Thus, these studies address the question of development

indirectly.

The literature of social development management, for its part,

addresses the development debate in a very direct and explicit way.

82

It is, thus, the body of literature that comes closest to the spirit

of this study.

There are, however, two key differences between this study and

the perspective of social development management. First of all, the

theorists of social development management advocate a heavy reliance

on a human-relations approach to management as the single best way

to achieve effectiveness. This study, in contrast, is based on

situational management theory according to which, different approaches

to management can be equally effective in the "right" situation.

Secondly, the main focus of study of the social development

management writers is on development projects and what these writers

consider to be some specialized organizations which are structurally

and functionally different from the complex organizations traditionally

studied by organizational theorists. This study does not focus on

organizations or development projects; its units of study are whole

countries.

There are also two major areas of agreement between this study

and the writings of the social development management theorists.

The first area of agreement is the recognition of the need for a

comprehensive theory. As de Vogeler (1982) puts it:

There is a need for a theoretical base on thenature of social development to underpin thegeneration of knowledge and technologies tomanage social development programs. Such a theorywould be more comprehensive than a focus on thepoor and their needs; it would include an under­standing of the political, economic and socialstructures and dynamics that lead to the regenera­tion of poverty. (p. 35)

83

The second area of agreement between this study and social

development manap,ement is the call for a macromanagerial approach to

development at the level of whole countries. Thomas (1982) writes:

A part of the research and experimentation agendamust reach the macro-level of organizationalanalysis and practices. It is not enough to dealonly with the linkages at the bureaucracy­community nexus. The implications for nationallevel and international organizations are yet tobe examined in substantive detail. (p. 14;emphasis added)

To contribute to the development .of a macromanagerial theory of

development is precisely the central concern of this study.

•

84

CHAPTER IV

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The rules of objective inquiry require a researcher to specify

the procedures used to investigate a particular subject, so as to

allow other researchers to eventually replicate the original study

and confirm or infirm its findings. To meet this criterion of

replicability, the steps followed in conducting this study are fully

described in this chapter. To begin with, some practical problems

that led to the choice of the particular design and methodology used

in the study are briefly reviewed.

As pointed out in Chapter I, this study is exploratory.

Therefore, its design reflects its exploratory nature. The main

reason for choosing such a design has to do with the relative novelty

of the subject matter of the study. As compared to other topics of

the social sciences, the management of macrosocial systems is in its

infancy and well established methods for investigating it are hard

to come by.

The Methodological Problem in Macromanagement

Although there is a substantial number of works that have

attempted to address the problem of devising adequate methods for

the study of large social systems from a cross-national

85

standpoint,* suitable instruments for the study of these systems

from a macromanagerial perspective are yet to be developed.

In the field of comparative management, the existing tools of

investigation are primarily designed to study individual managers

and organizations and are, at best, very imperfect research

instruments for approaching the macromanagerial and developmental

problems of large social systems as conceptualized in this study.

That great caution must be exercised in extending the findings of

research conducted at the levels of individuals and organizations

to larger social systems, is well documented in the social sciences

literature. For example, Salvatore and Dowling (1977) have

pointed out that what is good for individual business firms within

a country may actually be detrimental to the economy of this country

as a whole. These two writers state that,

in a less developed country it is frequentlypossible to have a conflict between micro- andmacro-efficiency in an investment project. Inindustry, for example, a firm may find that acapital-intensive means of production willminimize its costs even though capital is therelatively scarce resource in the economy andlabor is abundant. This is particularly truewhen interference with the market mechanismmakes wages artifically high and the price ofcapital artificially low. In such cases, whatis good for the firm (micro-efficiency) is notgood for the economy as a whole (macro­efficiency).

*See for example Rokkan (1968), Halt and Turner (1970),Przeworski and Teune (1970), Armer and Grimshaw (1973), Elder (1976),Smelser (1976), Treiman (1976), Szalai (1977), Berting et al. (1979),and Niessen and Peschar (1982).

Similar problems exist in agriculture. Much ofthe new technology is designed for large-scale,mechanized farming, where machines predominatefrom plowing to harvesting. Using the newtechnology as it exists, and thereby achievingmicro-efficiency, will exaggerate society'sunemployment problem and lead to macro-inefficiencyin the economy. (pp. 132-133)

To make generalizations about the larger social system from

research done at the micro-social level rests on a fundamental

assumption that is highly open to dispute: the assumption that a

social system is a mathematical sum or product of its component

parts. But as Sutherland (1978) points out,

societal systems cannot be understood merely assome product of their parts. That is, in movingfrom the individual to the organization, fromthe organization to the institution and from thei~stitution to the societal system, something newis added at each stage. Any higher-order systemis, as a rule, something more than the sum ofits parts. And unless we are able to capturethis 'something more' that is added, we cannotadequately comprehend societal phenomena orrationally manage them. (p. XIV)

The distinction between micro and macro levels of study

reflects more than a concern for methodological rigor. It has very

practical implications for the management of large social systems.

It may be safe to state that the biggest problem confronting the

leaders of the Third World countries, perhaps of all countries, is

not so much the management of organizations within the larger

social system,* although this problem does exist. The biggest

86

*In this study, the terms country, nation, large social system,and societal system are used interchangeably.

87

challenge, it seems, is to manage the total society itself in order

to achieve overall results that are more than the sum of the partial

results obtained by all single organizations within society. And

this is precisely one of the areas in which the contributions of

social scientists have been notably meagre.

According to Sutherland, social scientists have paid scant

attention to large societal systems because: (1) the components of

these systems are not always empirically accessible, (2) their

critical properties cannot always be measured precisely, and (3) they

cannot be taken apart and analyzed in a laboratory environment

(pp. XII-XIII).

With regard to the management of large social systems,

Sutherland notes that social scientists must contend with the

added difficulty of identifying and defining the "managers" of these

systems:

One cannot talk about societal management in thesame terms that we might speak of the managementof some institution or organization. In thefirst place, we really don't know who--or what-­should be responsible for societal management.It is not government, for government can onlycontrol institutions, and less directly thearray of formal organizations it can identify.A societal system is more than any calculablefunction of the institutions and organizationswithin its boundaries. It is also deceptive tospeak about the people determining their societal

88

destiny; this, as historians will quickly po~nt

out, is at best a vapid assertion. (p. 208)

In sum, the management of large social systems has not been

adequately investigated by social scientists and as a result, there

is a paucity of tried and tested methodological instruments to be

used for research and theory on the topic.

The Adequacy of an Exploratory Study Design

In light of these problems, an exploratory study design is

called for because, as Hartman and Hedblom (1979) point out:

An exploratory study ... examines new areas ofinquiry, including new or previously unintegratedsocial phenomena as well as techniques of datacollection or measurement. The desig~ should beemployed in areas in which theory is lacking ordisputed (mixed results), or when concepts,variables, measurement instruments, and techniquesare poorly defined. (p. 80)

The conditions specif~ed in the preceding quotation apply to

the subject matter of this study. The authors from whom the

quotation was excerpted sum up the reasons for employing an

exploratory design in these words:

In short, the exploratory design is typicallyundertaken when the problems are heretoforeunstructured or poorly defined. Such a designassumes that concepts and relationships between

*For the purpose of this study, the managers of a social systemare simply the major decision-makers within the system, those whohave and exercise power. For the countries included in the studysample, the most visible major decision-makers are national governments;therefore, these governments will be considered to be managers oftheir countries, even though they are not the sole managers.

89

variables have not been established or tied toexisting theory. Its strengths lie in the factthat the design is free to follow the sense ofthe problem rather than being constricted by arigid design. It should break ground and exploretools and techniques to be used in later, moreextensive projects. (p. 81)

The flexibility of the exploratory design does not mean that the

researcher is free to follow the vagaries of his imagination. As

Lastrucci (1967) cautions,

A good exploratory study should not ..• be designedas a short of catch-all of research problems.The principles of parsimony should always be keptin mind. It is much more fruitful to limit theinitial exploration to the major problems ofresearch. (p. 106)

Without proper constraints; an exploratory study of the type

undertaken here runs the risk of limiting its usefulness because of

two different but related problems. On one hand, in order to

reach a satisfactory level of generalization of its substantive

contents, the study may over-abstract reality and omit some key

variables. 'On the other hand, an attempt to stay close to the

empirical facts and include a large number of variables may result

in overloading and increased complexity, which runs counter to one

of the basic aims of research: bringing clarity and simplification•

to obscure and complex issues.

A Heuristic Approach to Exploratory Research

To cope with the twin problems of the great complexity of the

subject matter of the study and the very real possibility of

overloading it with too many variables, the design of this

90

exploratory work largely follows what Sutherland (1978) calls a

"heuristic process" and which he defines as being:

A search process where the final destination isunspecified, but where the individual or agencyhas two sources of discipline: (a) a set of apriori constraints which serve to artificiallybound the search space (or to determine a first,tentative step); and (b) a set of criteria fordistinguishing a favorable from an unfavorable(a promising from a sterile) trajectory. Atrial-and-error process lacks both the above.In short, a heuristic process is employed whenwe know only vaguely where we want to go andare not sure how to get there. In a moreextended form, a heuristic process is employedwhen we know that we want to get somewhere else,but we don't know where that might be till weactually strike it. In operational terms, then,a heuristic process is the procedure recommendedfor operations in an extremely complex, proteanand rapidly changing environment. (pp. 309-310)

The heuristic approach to research is well suited to the

purposes of this exploratory study. To rephrase the study problem in

heuristic terms, it can be said that a major goal of the study is to .

build a managerial framework for the study of development. It is

further posited that the overall dependent variable is development

while management is the determinant. However, it is not known

beforehand how the final framework will look like. Nor is it'known

what the relationships between managerial variables and development

variables will be, both in terms of nature--positive or negative--and

degree--strong or weak. In other words, it is vaguely known where

the study should lead to, but the actual destination is uncertain.

The a priori constraints that limit the study space and the criteria

for distinguishing a favorable from an unfavorable route are the

•

91

specific procedures used to conduct the study. These are described

below.

Having examined the practical problems that led to the choice

of an exploratory type of study design, the specific procedures

employed to conduct this study can now be described. Two procedures

are used. The first one which is the main methodological component

of the study, is a set of steps followed in developing the framework

proposed in the study. The second procedure is secondary and involves

some limited analysis of data as a way of testing empirically some of

the relationships between some key variables depicted in the

framework. This empirical testing is provided for illustrative

purposes only.

Procedure for Developing the Framework:The Inventory Method

Description of the Inventory Method

To build the framework proposed in this study, an inventory

approach to model building is used. As the name implies, this

method usually involves the selection and inventory of research

findings about a particular phenomenon according to a specified

number of selection criteria, followed by the integration of the

disparate findings into a meaningful whole with or without

modifications. _ Examples of social scientists who ~sed this method

include, among others, Berelson and Steiner (1964), and Price

(1968).

1 92

Perhaps, the best way of describing the inventory method of

model building is to describe a specific instance of its use. The

above cited Price (1968) provides a good example. In order to

develop a comprehensive model of organizational effectiveness, Price

analyzed 50 studies that he selected from the literature according

to these four criteria: (1) each study contains information about

organizational effectiveness; (2) each study is reported at fairly

great length; (3) each study is based on primary sources; (4) each

study describes an administrative organization (Price, 1968, pp. 6-8).

The author defines an administrative organization as "an organization

composed primarily of full-time members. This criterion excluded

studies of voluntary associations" (p. 8). Using a single frame of

reference to reduce the conceptual confusion inherent in the

multiplicy of the studies analyzed, Price derived from these studies

the core variables that determine organizational effectiveness.

These core variables were divided into a number of categories and

integrated into a comprehensive model of organizational effectiveness.

Price's model is shown in Figure 1.

In its broad lines, the method followed to develop the framework

proposed in this study is similar to that used by Price. But there

is a difference. In developing his model, Price was able to use

the findings of studies of organizational effectiveness. That is,

the focus of the studies that he analyzed was on organizations.

However, as stated earlier, there are not many studies of the

managerial determinants of socio-economic development that primarily

THE ECONOMIC SYSTnt1. DIVISION OF LABOR2. SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENTALIZATION3. MECHANIZATION4. CONTINUOUS ASSDmLY

'1'1I I

THE POLITICAL SYSTni (INTERNAL)1. LEGITIMACY2. RATIONAL-LEGAL3. CENTRALIZATION (TACTICAL)4. CENTRALIZATION (STRATEGIC)

'1'1I-!J

f--i

~lIIIIIII

r-li!'--H

93

THE POLITICAL SYSTnt (EXTERNAL)1. AUTONOMY

2-5. IDEOLOGY (CONGR~CE,

PRIORITY, AND CONFORMITY)6. CO-OPTATION7. MAJOR ELITE CO-OPTATION8. REPRESENTATION

9-10. MAJOR ELITE REPRESENTATIONAND CONSTITUENCY

'j' II 1

FUNCTIONS AND DYSFUNCTIONS

INTERVENING VARIABLES1. PRODUCTIVITY2. CONFORl1ITY3. HORALE4. ADAPTIVENESS5. INSTITUTIONALIZATION

~-=1 EFFECTIVENESS I

THE CONTROL SYSTnt1. SANCTIONS2. SECONDARY NORM ENFORCER-

NORM CONFORMER RELATIONSHIP3. GRADED SANCTIONS4. COLLECTIVE SANCTIONS5. COMMUNICATION

6-7. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALCOMMUNICATION

8-10. INSTRUMENTAL, PERSONAL,AND FORMAL COMMUNICATION

.1I .1",

POPULATION AND ECOLOGY1. SIZE2. SPATIAL MOBILITY3. SPATIAL MOBILITY ORIENTED

TO EFFECTIVENESS

----- - RELATIONSHIPS DISCUSSED

---- - RELATIONSHIPS NOT DISCUSSED

Source: Price, J. L. Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1968, 205.

Figure 1. Price's model of organizational effectiveness.

94

focus on large societa1 systems. Therefore, the findings of current

and past research in comparative management cannot be integrated into

a unified framework without some modification. In fact, the

inventory of findings only served to help identify broad classes of

variables that are important for theory bUilding.

Selection and Analysis of Studies

The comparative management studies reviewed in Chapter III as

well as some other studies* were ana1yzed with this question in mind:

What are the managerial or management-related variables that have

been found by researchers to have a significant relationship with

socio-economic development, directly or indirectly? An inventory of

the findings of these studies revealed that important variables

could approximately be divided into three major categories:

(1) Environmenta1/situationa1 variables. These are variables

related to the physical and socio-cu1tura1 environment where management

*In addition to the studies reviewed in Chapter Ill, thefollowing works were ana1yzed: Barish and Verhu1st (1965), Basu(1965), B1air (1978), BoddeWYn (1970), Budhiraja (1965), .Burke (1969),Caiden and Wi1davsky (1974), Chambers (1974), Chapel (1977), Chowdhry(1966), Co1eman, et al. (1977), Co1es (1975), Coward, Jr. (1976),Crino and White (1980), Dehoeck and Kinsey (1980), Dwivedi and Nef(1982), E1-Namaki (1979), Gant (1979), Ghise11i, et al. (1969),Gooda11 (1975), Goodman and Love (1979), Gou1d (1979), Grind1e (1980),Gross (1980), Hart (1970), Hunter (1970), Hyman (1967), Ing1e (1979),Inzeri11i (1978), Jed1icka (1977), Kent (1981), Kirkgreen (1979),Knight (1980), Ku1p (1970), La11 (1976), Lee (1968), Linjenberg andCrosby (1981), Marston (1978), McC1e11and and Win·.- (1969), Mentzerand Sam1i (1981), Morgan (1979), Negandhi and Prasad (1968), OECD(1967), Onyeme1ukwe (1973), Prasad (1966), Putti (1979), Richman andFarmer (1964), Riggs (1970), Rondine11i (1982), Rothwe11 (1972), Roxas(1976), Seidman (1979), Siffin (1972), Stringfie1d (1965), Thurber andGraham (1973), Vanek and Bayard (1975), Vozikis and Mescon (1981),Webber (1969a, 1969b), Weidner (1970).

I95

takes place. (2) Management policies and practices variables. These

variables include the commonly accepted tasks of management such as

planning, organizing, coordinating and leading, as well as such

things as management philosophy, management technology, and know-how.

(3) Effectiveness variables. These variables show the extent to

which management is effective in achieving common goals; they are

outcome variables.

Frame of Reference

To integrate all the variables into a unified framework, the

management process chart developed by MacKenzie (1969) was used as

a guiding frame of reference. This chart shows in schematic form

the basic elements, functions, and activities that are part of the

management process. The three basic elements with which management

deals, and their three related managerial tasks are identified in

the chart as follows:

At the center are people, ideas, and things,for these are the basic components of everyorganization with which the manager must work.Ideas create the need for conceptual thinking;things, for administration; people, forleadership. (MacKenzie, 1969, pp. 80-87)

MacKenzie also identified three general or continuous managerial

functions--problem analysis, decision making, and communication--and

five sequential functions: planning, organizing, staffing,

directing, and controlling. Each function entails the carrying out

of a number of specific activities. For example, the function of

planning involves forecasting, setting objectives, developing

strategies, programming, budgeting, setting procedures, and

developing policies.

Although the primary focus of MacKenzie's chart is on organiza-

tions, most of its elements are general or abstract enough to be

applicable to larger macrosocial systems such as whole countries.

The chart provided this study with a convenient scheme for building

two key components of the proposed framework: the environmental

component, and the component of management structure, contents and

96

processes. These two components correspond respectively to the first

and second major categories of variables mentioned above:

environmental/situational variables; and management policies and

practices variables. All the components of the proposed framework

are fully described in Chapter V.

Procedure for Empirically Testing Partsof the Proposed Framework

It will be recalled that the main purpose of this study is to

develop a managerial framework for the study of development. It was

pointed out in Chapter I that the study is more concerned with

conceptualization than data treatment. However, to be useful and

workable, the proposed framework must lend itself to empirical

testing. Therefore, an illustrative testing of some of the

relationships b r Teen some of the variables included in the framework

is provided in this study. The purpose is to show how the elements

of the framework can be subjected to empirical testing. Given the

97

exploratory nature of the study, a simple correlational study is an

adequate way for achieving this purpose. The specific steps followed

in carrying out this correlational study are outlined below.

Selection and ~feasurement of Variables

Thirteen variables derived from three major concepts of the

proposed framework--managerials goals, efficiency and effectiveness

were included in the correlational study.

Goal Variables

To begin with, five variables were selected to show the relative

level of priority attached by the managers of a country to a number

of alternative goals which they seek to achieve. These variables

were operationally defined as the percentages of central government

expenditures allocated in each country to the following areas:

1. Education

2. Health

3. Social security, housing and welfare

4. Economic services

5. National defense

Efficiency Variables

Next, six variables were used to tap the dimensions of the concept

of efficiency as applied to the management of a whole country

seeking to achieve its development goals. These variables are listed

and operationally defined as follows:

98

6. Administrative efficiency: percentage of central government

expenditures allocated to general administrative services.

This percentage is inversely proportional to degree of

efficiency. The actual data used for the purpose of

determining administrative efficiency were data for general

public services.

7. Labor efficiency (or productivity) in agriculture: ratio of

percentage of labor force in agriculture to percentage share

of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).*

8. Labor efficiency in industry: ratio of percentage of labor

force in industry to percentage share of industry in GDP.

9. Labor efficiency in services: ratio of percentage of labor

force in services to percentage share of services in GDP.

10. Educational efficiency: ratio of percentage of government

expenditures allocated to education to national literacy

rate.

11. Efficien~ of capital: ratio of increase in gross investment

to increase in GDP (same as the incremental capital/output

ratio or ICOR).

The Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR) is a standard

measure used by economists, usually for the purpose of estimating the

*There is a difference between GNP and GDP. According to Kurian(1982), "GDP equals GNP plus income earned in the country but-sentabroad, minus income earned abroad but sent into the country. ThusGDP tends to exceed GNP in debtor countries and the reverse is true increditor countries" (p. XVI). A definition of GNP is provided inChapter 11.

99

amount of investment needed in an economy or an enterprise to produce

an extra unit of output. The measure used in this study is crude

because it uses unweighted data.

These six constructs capture a great number of the dimensions of

managerial efficiency at the level of a whole country. Whether they

tap all its dimensions is irrelevant because the purpuse is not to

establish definitive causal connections but only to assess the degree

of association between variables.

Outcomes/Effectiveness Variables

To complete the list of variables included in the illustrative

analysis of data, two measures of the effectiveness of countries in

achieving development were chosen. These measures are:

12. The Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI). This measure

was developed by the Overseas Development Council (ODC). It

combines three indicators of development--life expectancy

at age one, infant mortality rate, and literacy rate--with

equal weights to yield a single score ranging from 0 to 100

for each country. The three indicators were chosen by ODC

on the valid assumption that they mirror the overall socio­

economic conditions that prevail in a country.

13. Per capita GNP. - This is one of the traditional yardsticks

used by economists to measure the economic performance of a

country. It is computed by dividing the GNP of a country by

its population.

100

The PQLI and per capita r-NP are complementary measures for

assessing the development performance of a country. Per capita GNP

gives an idea about how wealthy a country is, whereas the PQLI shows

how successful a country is in meeting basic human needs in health

and education. A country may score relatively high on one of these

measures and relatively low on the other. For example, Tanzania

would rank as one of the least developed countries in terms of per

capita GNP ($250). Yet it has one of tne best PQLI scores (50). By

way of contrast, Gabon has the highest per capita GNP in the study

sample ($3,280), but also one of the lowest PQLI scores (21).

Although this is not a causal study, one of its assumptions is

that there is a positive link between management and development, and

that development is the dependent variable. The logical implication

of this assumption is that a country's development performance as

measured by both its PQLI and per capita GNP, is partially determined

by the 11 goal and efficiency variables mentioned above.

Study Sample

Three major considerations guided the drawing of the sample of

countries included in the study. First, it was initially deemed

necessary to have the largest sample possible since a main goal of

the study is to contribute to a unified and general managerial theory

of development, i.e., a theory that would be relevant to th~ ~reatest

number of countries. Thus, the initial sample of the study comprised

all countries for which data could be found. As it turned out, all

101

the countries of the world met the criterion of data availability.

But two other considerations led to a drastic reduction of the sample

size.

First of all, there was a need to reduce variance as much as

possible. By limiting the sample to a group of countries located

in the same geo-physical and geo-political area, variance could be

reduced and homogeneity increased.

Secondly, as the study progressed, it appeared preferable to

this writer to limit this part of the study to countries he knew

best. And although the writer has had many opportunities to engage

in direct observation of development problems in several countries

on three continents (Africa, Europe, and America), he is most familiar

with the countries of Africa, south of the Sahara Desert.

These considerations led to the retention of a pool of some 40

countries from which a few more countries were deleted and a final

sample of 37 countries was retained. The reasons for deleting some

countries from the sample are exposed in Appendix E while the

countries included in the study sample are listed in alphabetical

order in Appendix F.

To be sure, limiting the sample to Sub-Saharan Africa does not

provide a perfectly homogeneous sample. There is no doubt that

African countries exhibit a great deal of differences in size, wealth,

resource endowment, population, ethnic composition, just to mention

these few. However, the sample would be even more heteregeneous, had

it included African countries together with, say, American or Asian

102

countries. At any rate, it can be strongly argued that when it comes

to being managed for achieving development, African countries show

far more similarities than differences. Moreover, these countries

form a coherent bloc within the overall geo-political configuration

of the world.

Data Sources

The data for the measures included in the correlational study

came, for the most part, from a report on African development

prepared by the staff of the World Bank and originally published in

1981 (see World Bank, 1981). The World Bank itself gets its data

from specialized national and international agencies engaged in

cross-national data collection. Data for national literacy rates

and the PQLI were obtained, respectively, from Ruth L. Sivard (1982),

and Kurian (1982).

Reliability of the Data

A few words must be said about the reliability of the data. It,is widely recognized that the gathering of data in and about Third

World countries is a very imperfect endeavor. There is evidence

that figures usually vary with the data gatherer. Table 4 shows how

different sources of data collection differ in their estimates of

the rates of growth of the Gross Domestic Product for six African

countries. As the table shows, for Y~li, the highest estimate (IBRD

figure) is 13 times the lowest (UN figure) (World Bank, 1981, p. 187).

Table 4

Estimates of the Average Annual Rate of Growth of Real GDP,1960-70 for Six African Countries According to Seven Data Sources

Country planningCountry SOEC SIEC UN OECD IBRD UNCTAD ministry

Chad 2.1 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 0.5 5.5

Mali 3.0 2.5 0.5 2.8 6.6 5.2

Mauritania 7.4 8.0 7.7 7.3 6.5 6.9

Niger 2.4 2.0 4.7 2.0 0.9 2.4

Senegal 1.6 1.6 1.3 2.0 2.1 1.0

Upper Volta 3.9 3.3 3.0 2.0 1.5 0.7

SOEC: Secteur des Etudes Socio-Economiques de Synthese (Bureau des Programmes, Direction de l'Aide auDeveloppement, Ministere de la Cooperation, Paris).

SIEC: Secteur d'Inforrnation Economique et Conjuncture (Bureau des Programmes,Directionde l'Aide auDeveloppement, Ministere de la Coop~ration, Paris).

UN: United Nations.

OECD: Oreanization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Development Assistance Committee).

IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank).

UNCTAD: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Source: The World Bank. Accelerated development in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: The Bank,1"11,187.

I-'ow

J¥I@;A(., A; ?,ZCP*¥?.j44 gaG $M!¥\V.kJ:J.J$4M.Q "'"W9,.ro.;;:& s; CX,S, Z!x.XO\.S,).l.JjJIIRJ5, L # 9tflJk44jbS A; \;JJJI.·,.i,,·.$i,,;l4"-.·j44GJRFLiI .,~ei)ji--'Pl\'t\"";;:;',,\jJQ!(w,4(Jt"\\,,,,*,"'!"'''''l!i·'''\i'U*''''"'''t,'f3'l'W'PUf.ii"Ml!h: ,F.It'''' ....,W,.,~~~~~.~..~/~'~~, .,"(I,y ·,~·,.t"'·'""!'I·!··'·';"W~l

I 104

The problem of data unreliability does not constitute a forbidding

obstacle to the conduct of this exploratory study because the analysis

of data is only proposed for illustrative purposes and no attempt is

made to draw definitive causal inferences from it. This is not to

imply that reliable data are not needed. Studies aimed at empirically

proving or disproving specific causal relationships between management

and development will have to adequately solve the problem of data

reliability, or they will lead to nowhere.

To get the measures for the 13 variables included in the

correlational study, data were collected for a total of 19 indicators

for each country. These indicators are listed in Appendix G.

Statistical Procedures

To analyze the data, the SPSS* statistical package was used.

The actual analysis consisted of a multiple regression analysis.

This procedure makes it possible to assess the amount of variance

in the two outcome variables--PQLI and per capita GNP--explained by

all of the 11 goal and efficiency variables. Multiple regression

analysis also makes it possible to assess the separate contribution

of each of the 11 goal and efficiency variables in explaining the

variance in the two outcome variables. Thus, this procedure provides

a convenient way for assessing the degree of association, i.e., of

correlation between: (1) goal variables and outcome variables;

(2) efficiency variables and outcome variables.

*SPSS, short for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, isa widely used computer language designed to provide a wide array ofstatistical analyses in social science research and computing.

105

According to Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973), and Kim and Kohout

(1975), the use of multiple regression analysis is subject to the

following assumptions: the relationships among the variables are

linear; the variables are additive; the measurement of the variables

is done on an interval scale; the error terms are normally distributed,

uncorrelated, and have a constant variance or homoscedasticity; the

independent variables are uncorrelated. These assumptions were

posited in the study, not demonstrated. The results of the analysis

of data are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the study are presented in this chapter. The

presentation begins with a detailed description of the elements of

the proposed framework and proceeds with a discussion of the posited

relationships between the key elements of the proposed framework.

This chapter also includes a comparison of the framework to current

models in comparative management, a presentation of the results of

the illustrative analysis of data, and a general discussion of the

study. The general discussion is organized around 11 major

propositional statements.

Elements of the Proposed Framework

Figure 2 depicts the framework developed in this study. The

framework contains three major components: (1) the background

environment of management; (2) management structure, contents, and

processes; and (3) management outcomes. These components are

described below.

The Background Environment of Management

The background environment of mar.agement is the initial spatio­

temporal, physical and social milieu where management takes place.

An inventory of the environmental factors mentioned by various

106

PHASE I PHASE 11 PHASE III

A

CONCEPTUALPHASES' OFMANAGEHENT

BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT OUTCOMESOF MANAGEMENT CONTENTS & PROCESSES

Core elements ~nagement style Intermediate Outcomesand philosophy

1. People 1. Efficiency2. Ideas 1. Theory X 2. Goal congruence3. Things 2. Theory Y 3. Managerial adeauacv

'-~ ~ 3. Theorv Z ~ J,Derived elements J, Ultimate outcome

~nagement structure1. Societal problems 1. Effectiveness2. Societal will 1. Power distribution J,3. Societal goals 2. Goal structure Managed Environment

3. Reward svstemJ, 1. People

~anagement tasks 2. Ideasroles and functions 3. Things

4. Solved problems1. Leadership 5. Unsolved/new problems2. Conceptual thinking 6. Unmet/new goals30 Administration4. Problem analysis5. Decision-making6. Communication7. Resource allocation

Figure 2. A macromanagerial framework for the study of development.

------~) Relationship of direct determination~ Relationship of indirect determination

....o......

HORE DEVELOPEDSOCIAL SYSTEM

STRATEGY OFDEVELOPMENT

fi LESS DEVELOPEDU SOCIAL SYSTEM

B

CORRESPONDINGPHASES OFSOCIO-ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

,

go. ". • >OM "'"h' ""M' ~".",'",A'.,,"" '".,~ ,".. "" " ..go, le'" , ,'h"" " •• ~.. WO<, M"" WOO '"" .... '" ..." _...J

108

comparative management writers shows that these factors are generally

grouped under such categories as sociological, political, legal,

economic, educational factors, and so forth. Appendices C and D give

two examples of factor classification.

Current categorizations of the environment factors that affect

management suffer from two weaknesses. First, they suffer from the

difficulty inherent in any attempt to differentiate between different

categories of factors. As Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970a) rightly

point out, it is not always possible to establish a clear distinction

between cultural and economic factors. Take, for example, the

question of how the people in country X make a living; should it be

considered an economic question or a socio-cultural question? lfust

existing categorizations of environmental factors do not address

this kind of question in a satisfactory manner.

Another weakness of existing classifications of environmental

factors in management is the tendency to compile lists of factors

of excessive length. While long lists of environmental factors may

give a sense of inclusiveness, they may also run counter to one of

the basic principles of science: the principle of parsimony. Theory

building requires, among other things, the search for the most

parsimonious solutions to complex problems.

Unlike most writings that have attempted to categorize

environmental factors, this study does not use such headings as

political, economic, cultural factors. Instead, the key factors of

the environment of management are defined as being the basic elements

109

upon which management acts. As pointed out in Chapter IV, these

basic elements have been identified by tfucKenzie (1969) as People,

Ideas, and Things. These three items are shown in Figure 2 as the

constituent core elements of the background environment of management.

Three derived elements--societal problems, societal will, and

societal goals--complete the list of the environmental elements.

People

This element refers primarily to the socio-demographic

dimensions of a society. It encompasses various characteristics of

the population such as age, sex, ethnic composition, number, active

labor force, etc.

Ideas

These are the ideas and ideals that orient and permeate the life

of a society. Examples of ideas include religious beliefs,

philosophical thouehts, ideologies, scientific knowledge.

Things

This element represents the tangible, physical objects found in

the environment of a society; they can be natural elements such as

land, air, and water, or man-made objects such as houses, paved

roads, and machines.

Societal Problems, Societal Goals,and Societal Will

These are derived elements that arise from the interaction among

and between the three basic core elements of the environment of society.

IAs defined in this study, the. environment of a large social

system like a country is not external to the system. A country is

equal to its environment if our frame of reference is the national

environment, and a subset of the environment if we refer to the

international environment. In real life, the environmental elements

to be managed by societal managers come under a composite form, that

is, they combine two or more of the three basic elements. Societal

problems and goals are composite elements. Two other examples of

composite elements are education and technology. Education is

essentially an idea embodied in people, while technology, usually

but not always, comes under the form of knowledge (idea) with a

concrete expression in a tool (thing). Societal will refers to

the collective will of society to solve its problems and achieve

its goals. (See Chapter I for a definition of goals and a

presentation of the two types of problems faced by a society.)

Management Structure, Contents and Processes

This phrase refers to the overall management policies and

practices most commonly found in a social system. The structure,

contents, and processes of management constitute the second major

component of the framework depicted in Figure 2. They include three

sub-components: management philosophy and style, management

structure, and management tasks, roles, and functions.

110

I111

~~nagement Philosophy and Style

It is generally agreed that the act of managing within a society

cannot be divorced from the philosophical beliefs held by people in

general, and by managers in particular, about human nature, the good

life, and the good society. McGregor (1960) has proposed two sets

of philosophical assumptions made by managers about human nature,

and which he labeled respectively Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X

managers assume that human nature is innately "bad". The people

whom they lead are seen as being inherently lazy, motivated by lower­

order needs such as physiological and safety needs, lacking self­

discipline and ambition, and avoiding responsibility. Therefore,

they must be forced to work, and tightly controlled and directed.

Theory Y managers, on the other hand, assume that human nature

is intrinsically "good" and work is perceived as a natural activity

by workers who actively seek responsibility, and are motivated by

higher-order needs such as autonomy and self-actualization.*

Reddin (1970) added a third theory about human nature which he

called Theory Z. This theory is more consistent with situational

management theory and it postulates that human nature is neither

good nor bad. Instead, people are complex beings and they can be

bad and good, depending on the situation. Theory Z offers a

"rational situationist view of man" (Reddin, 1970, p. 190).

*McGregor's ideas are based, in part, on ~faslow's hierarchy ofneeds.

112

Reddin (1970) writes:

Taking a position one way or the other [Theory Xvs. Theory Y] on this kind of issue is good foran argument. Since neither position is to anyextent provable, the argument is based on whateach side would like to believe. A much moreuseful approach for a manager would be Theory Z.It carefully avoids the ideological traps ofeither X or Y. It sees man as a situationistand as one open to both "good and evil" (p. 189)

Although these theories were developed to apply primarily to

individuaf managers and organizations, they are general enough to

be applicable to management at the level of a whole country and are,

therefore, included in the framework proposed in this study. A

comparison of Theories X, Y, and Z is provided in Table 5.

The philosophical views of management within a society will

determine, to a large extent, the dominant style of management found

in that society. By style is simply meant the overall manner in

which managers, as a group, choose to exercise the tasks of leading

people and managing resources to achieve societal goals. The

dominant style of management within a society can range anywhere

from the most anarchic form of laissez-faire to the most ruthless

regime of authoritarianism.

Management Structure

This is the infrastructural setting of management, that is, the

formal institutional arrangements of mana"~ment. Three essential

components of the structure of management are: (1) the distribution

of power both within management, and between management and the

Table 5

Comparison of Three Sets of Philosophical Views About Human Nature that Affect Management

Theory X

1. Man is a beast

2. Evil is man's inherentnature

3. Biology drives man

4. Force motivates man

5. Competition is man's basicmode of interaction

6. Individual is man's socialunit of importance

7. Pessimistic best describesman's view of man

Theorists: Hobbes;Machiavelli; Freud; Taylor;Weber

Theory Y

1. Man is a self-actualizingbeing

2. Good is man's inherentnature

3. Humanism drives man

4. Voluntary cooperationmotivates man

5. Cooperation is man's basicmode of interaction

6. Group is man's social unitof importance

7. Optimistic best describesman's view of man

Theorists: McGregor; Likert;Argyris; Maslow; Herzberg

Theory Z

1. Man has a will

2. He is open to good and evil

3. Situation drives man

4. Reason motivates him

5. Independence is man's basicmode of interaction

6. Interaction is man's socialunit of importance

7. Objective best describes man'sview of man

Theorists: Locke; Fromm; Sullivan;Kelly; Drucker

Source: Adapted from Reddin, W. J. ~lanagerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, 189-190.

......

......VJ

_MR' $ it # ,QIQ.4.4, 4, Cl _,AA t _ 4J.&4C .J..U, ,X(!M;;;Jt9£j(.;;P;HUQ£4.,,,, i d~ .:.AJb q.::;" ¥kg q tiikR.4MA* Kt ~.t$$ .t .w4:X;iZfiAiAEfJjii ""Jl.14l.Jk:;:;;;;;P1¥P.4;tJAiPQ,g Ji.£ ,Jti§iiMM4;a;p; A. ,,; 4 P,} "-"*'*',,1'lt;WWiiji3IJii<ji4 . ii4l,LW ijili,!ff'I'",M3. , .\41"'# f! M,~~:"

114

larger social system; (2) the structure of goals, i.e., the number

and hierarchy of the societal goals which management seeks to achieve;

and (3) a reward system designed to induce both managers and non­

managers to work toward the achievement of societal goals.

Management Tasks, Roles and Functions

Tasks, roles, and functions are what managers do to help

achieve societal goals. With regard to the achievement of development,

many past and present development theorists have, at one time or

another, stressed the essentiality of some managerial functions in

the development process. For example, the following managerial

functions have been singled out as key activities that must be

performed to help achieve development: (1) Planning: Haq (1963),

Waterston (1965), Lewis (1966), Kulp (1970); (2) Entrepreneurship:

Schumpeter (1934), Hoselitz (1952), Hartman (1959), Walinsky (1962),

Katzin (1964), Hart (1970), Killy (1971), Dresang (1973); (3) Decision­

making: Hirschmann (1958), Simon (1959); (4) Implementation: Caiden

and Wildavsky (1974), Heginbotham (1975), Ryavec (1975), Ingle (1979),

Pressman and Wildavsky (1979); (5) Motivation: lkClelland (1969);

(6) Communication: Rao (1966), Rogers (1976), Hedebro (1982); (7)

Budgeting: Caiden and Wildavsky (1974).

The managerial function most often mentioned in the development

literature is by far Administration. In fact, there is a whole

separate body of literature devoted to the topic of Development

Administration and Comparative Administration. Examples of scholars

who have contributed to this specialized field include, among others:

115

Burke (1969), Kasfir (1972), Bendor (1976), Sigelman (1976),

Springer (1977), Esman (1978), Heady (1978, 1979), Cheems (1979),

Dwivedi and Nef (1982), Rondinelli (1982).

There is no general agreement on the nature of the relationship

between management and administration:

The terms "management" and "administration" areoften used interchangeably. Historically,however, distinctions have been made. Individualsfrom a business orientation tend to refer tomanagement as a higher-level activity within theorganization and administration is described asa lower-level function of the managerial process.Conversely, individuals from a public administra­tion perspective tend to use the term "administra­tion" to describe the managerial process at ahigher-level within the organization and manage­ment as a lower-level function. (Kaluzny, et al.,1982, p. 8n)

The position taken in this study is that administration is a

function of management. This is in agreement with Richman and

Copen's definition of management as "administration plus entrepreneur-

ship" (Richman & Copen, 1972, p. 21), and MacKenzie's categorization

of managerial tasks as being leadership, conceptual thinking, and

administration.

A synthesis of managerial tasks and functions has been attempted

by MacKenzie (1969) who identified three major tasks of management

(leadership, conceptual thinking, and administration); three all

important managerial functions (problem analysis, decision making,

and communication); and five sequential functions (planning,

organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling). The three major

116

tasks, as well as the three major functions are included in this study

framework. Another major task--resource a110cation--was added.

Management Outcomes

The third main component of the framework is management outcomes.

At the level of a whole society, the outcomes of management can be

divided into two major categories: intermediate, and ultimate

outcomes.

The extent to which management increases its own efficiency is an

intermediate outcome. Two other important intermediate outcomes are

goal congruence, and managerial adequacy. Goal congruence is the

degree of concordance between the operative goals actively pursued

by management and the recognized goals of society. Managerial

adequacy means two related things. First, it denotes the degree to

which the various elements of management within society form a

coherent whole. Secondly, adequacy refers to the suitability of the

existing managerial system in terms of actually contributing to the

achie~ement of societa1 goals.

The ultimate outcome of management is effectiveness, i.e., the

achievement of societa1 goals. From the standpoint of achieving

socio-economic development, management is effective only to the extent

that it brings about a new society whose environment contains elements

that are "more developed" than those that w'ere present in the initial

background environment of management.

•

Posited Relationships Betweenthe Elements of the Framework

As shown in Figure 2, the three key components of the proposed

framework correspond to three conceptual phases of the management

process. These phases are presented in two levels. Level A

describes the process from a managerial perspective whereas Level B

shows the same process from the standpoint of development theory.

Needless to say, these levels are purely conceptual and cannot be

separated in real life. The relationships between the elements

included in the framework are described below.

Phase I

From a managerial standpoint, Phase I represents the background

or initial environment of management. In terms of socio-economic

development, this initial environment constitutes an underdeveloped

117

or less developed social system. Out of the interactions between the

core elements of the social system arise a great number of existential

and essential problems that reflect the needs and values of a society.

Development is one of these problems.

If a society as a whole clearly perceives its problems and

recognizes the need to solve them, the solution to each societal

problem becomes a societal goal to be achieved. The achievement of

socio-economic development is one of the most important goals of

modern day ~~cieties.

For a societal problem to become a societal goal, there must be

a will to solve this particular problem on the part of society.

118

When applied to the problem of development, the ~rill to solve societal

problems becomes the "will to develop". * The "'Till to develop is a

powerful intervening element between the problem of development and

the goal of development on one hand, and on the other hand, between

the goal of development and the choice and implementation of a

strategy of development. This will can either arise directly from

the grassroots within a society, or be induced by the leaders--the

managers--of a society and then transmitted downwards to the larger

masses.

In sum, the environment of a society largely determines the

nature and number of problems faced by this society, and hence, the

managerial problems of society.

Phase II

Once a society has decided to solve its problems and achieve its

collective goals, including the goal of development, it must evolve

a strategy that corresponds to Phase II of the framework proposed in

this study. A strategy chosen and implemented for the purpose of

achieving development is, by necessity, a managerial strategy because

the essential tasks to be accomplished are invariably to lead people,

and marshal and mobilize resources to achieve the common goal of

development. These tasks constitute the essence of management, as

defined in Chapter I.

*This phrase was borrowed from Montgomery and Marglin (1965).

119

To the extent that the chosen strategy is a response to problems

arising from the interactions between the core elements of the

environment, it can be said that management is determined by its

background environment. Consequently, all the constituent elements

of the structure, contents, and processes of management (as shown in

Phase II of the framework) are largely and initially determined by

the environment whence they evolved.

Phase III

Phase III in the framework describes the outcomes of management,

i.e., the results brought about by the strategy chosen by society to

achieve its collective goals. The framework shows that the structure,

contents, and processes of management, directly, determine the

outcomes of management. No direct relationship is shown between the

background environment of management and the outcomes of management.

This lack of a direct relationship is explained by the fact that

management acts as an intervening variable between its environment and

its outcomes. This point will be further discussed later in this

chapter.

A close look at the framework also reveals that the ultimate

outcome of management comprises a new environment made up of basic

elements similar to those found in the background environment of

management. This 'is to say that, at the level of a large social

system such as a whole country, the environment is the social system

itself. To manage the environment of a whole country is to manage

the country. The managed environment becomes a new background

environment from which evolves a new set of management structure,

contents, and processes, and the process depicted in the framework

starts all over again.

Comparison of the Proposed Framework withOther Models in Comparative Management

At this point, it may be useful to compare the framework

proposed in this study to current models in comparative management.

For this purpose, three of the major models were selected. These

models are described below.

Richman-Farmer Model

Richman and Farmer (1965), two leading pioneers in model

building in comparative management, developed a model designed to

identify both the environmental determinants of management, and

the critical elements of the management process. They identified

four major categories of environmental factors (educational, socio-

logical, legal-political, and economic), and six elements of the

management process (planning, organizing, staffing, directing,

controlling, and policy making in operating areas). An updated

version of the classification of the environmental determinants of

management as shown in the Richman-Farmer ~IDdel was provided by

Richman and Copen (1972) and is shown in Appendix D. The model

itself is depicted in Figure 3.

120

Affect

I 1Elements of the

tlanagement ProcessExternal

Constraints Planning Management

Organizing and

Educational Affect Staffing Affect Hanagerial...

Sociological Directing , Effectiveness

Legal-political ControllingEconomic Policy making in

operating areas

JFir

effici

JSystem

efficiency

ne

ne

Source: Richman, B. M., & Farmer, R. Comparative management and economic progress. Homewood, IL:Richard D. Irwin, 1965, 35.

Figure 3. Richman-Farmer model.

......N......

is ;;:;: 44. ,.3-J44J%)i.f'-AkiJi.Q;UIRiRj ?; ,$.' x RIL 1 .. J¥ (W\I1Ui@P:;:: 4%.L# .. AP _,$ 3;.. ¥·lkU""',JiX ",t ca',44 .• C ..,.4., ,H..,';;.\ ;;ji\'l@l!liffl!fJJiBS3i.lW > PU 3%#41 .>; .I,.;; ;,,4:;t'!U.. '!t41•.,__ ,,;:W:,',F-,Wi"?,.;Hfif,,'I"l"))l/'P."'!'l[1i·if'"H Q,j P. '"" , "'~~;~~~.4"'1i,",," Ji) '."",,< Jp,,;

122

Two major criticisms have been made against the Richman-Farmer

model. According to Koontz (1976), the model does not completely

separate the environmental factors from the basics of management

because it puts together actual policies with the basics of management.

Koontz contends that actual policies differ considerably in varying

environments and therefore, cannot be considered as part of the

basics of management.

Scho11hammer (1969) has criticized the Richman-Farmer model for

presenting organizations and management as passive products of the

environment. In his view, Richman and Farmer overemphasize the need

for environmental adaptation and fail to recognize the ability of

management to act in defiance of some external constraints.

Negandhi-Prasad Model

Another popular model in comparative management is the Negandhi­

Prasad model (1971); it was first developed by Negandhi and Estafen

in 1965. The 1971 version of the model is graphically depicted in

Figure 4. The environmental factors included in the mode1--socio­

economic, educational, political, and 1ega1--are similar to those

identified by Richman and Farmer. The model also incorporates the

following management practices: planning, organizing, staffing,

motivating and directing, controlling.

The basic difference between the Richman-Farmer model and the

Negandhi-Prasad model lies in the inclusion in the latter model, of

management philosophy as a major independent variable, that is, a

HanagementPhilosophy

Management Attitudestoward

Employeesf--

Consumers lIanagementSuppl:l "':s PracticesStockholdersGovernment PlanningConununity Organizing Affect ... ManagementAffect .... Staffing

,Effectiveness, Affect .....

Hotivating andEnvironmental directing

Factors Controlling

Socioeconomic '---

EducationalPolitical EnterpriseLegal Affect .. Effectiveness

Source: Negandhi, A. R., & Prasad, S. B. Comparative management. New York: Appleton­Century-Crofts, 1971, 23.

Figure 4. Negandhi-Prasad model.

t-'NW

"" ."""", '¥.4,eAU.(" !$"aJ"U.A .,4 )MA... .;;.;U4b&/.n__ k _;;.19 42%,.-$,44 _A {L Ml.Mi t *.li ;35 \$) Ri-,;;; J kSU$i$J?,:g;;;. # .,' .• A @Cif U44;q:w ik,L,., ,.,($.",.",R. '-kMJ, u;;;: \441.,,"- .;::; .. ,g.,l3i-LS,M,A;;;;;;;;';;;;~ UJ4;:S;i',;iii "!"liP,*"""."","'¥"*"",;;:: I IO',Z, $j\M\ iS$I)J\Ui5'" '4-t4it!t.,

124

variable not determined by the environment. Management philosophy is

defined in the model as management attitudes toward employees,

consumers, suppliers, stockholders, government, and community.

Koontz (1976) has criticized the Negandhi-Prasad model on the

grounds that management philosophy can hardly be seen as being

independent from environmental factors. He further contends that

"the model itself does not make sure that management techniques or

approaches can be separated between basics and environmentally

influenced practices" (p. 87).

Koontz Model

Having argued that both the Richman-Farmer and the Negandhi-

Prasad models were inadequate for analyzing the universality and

transferability of management across cultures, Koontz (1976)

proposed another model which, he felt, was superior to the other

models. This third model is depicted in Figure 5.

According to Koontz, his model is better because it separates

the art and science of management and recognizes the importance of

other factors such as enterprise functions sciences, human and

material resources. The model also stresses the important role of

non-managerial practices such as marketing, engineering, production,

and finance.

Differences Between the Three Modelsand this Study Framework

There are four major differences between the three models

described above and the framework proposed in this study. First of

Basic ManagementScience

ConceptsPrinciplesTheory

~Knowledge of general Managerialapplication Practices

Affect .... ApproachesEnterprise Function ~, Techniques - Effectiveness

Sciences -)-e Objectives due to

Marketing • Policies ~ ManagerialI Programs Factors

Engineering I

Production ----i3 J J~ Affect..Enterprise Due

Finance I ,.Affect Effectiveness 1---.

Ito Effectiveness,

due toHuman and Material -)I Non-managerial 4 Non-managerial

I PracticesResources~

---~~~~£~--) - FactorsNarketing

I

External Environment I EngineeringI ProductionI

Educational ~ FinancePolitical-legal .EconomicTechnologicalSociological-ethical

Source: Koontz, H. A model for analyzing the universality and transferability of management. InH. Koontz & C. O'Donnell (Eds.). Uanagement: A book of reading. New York: McGraw-Hill,1976, 81-90 (article originally published in 1969).

Figure 5. Koontz model......r-.,)

In

($". t ;, £X,A l j P, 4 AI44 %V.1@., 44.4 PPS 4., 41< 044: ,,; .J.Q J) Ut;; ex ,;3t, 4 i$ R _14,;, Pi., hi" » ."h'i!i)f "'1M,P, :'I k,,~,~~. ~'-'''''''''''~=~J~"~~~!~'''-''''''~'!!r!,~,"",,'''''':'''.''''''~<''''T'''''''''~'''''-'''';-''''~''''f'''.~,7'lf'

126

all, the focus of these models is on enterprises, i.e., on

organizations. This study framework focuses on whole countries. It

should be noted that Richman and Farmer considered their model to be

applicable to organizations and countries alike. However, such a

claim is disputable.

Secondly, the three models classify the environmental determinants

of management under such headings as economic, educational, political,

and legal factors. The framework of this study lists the basic

elements of the environment of management as People, Ideas, and

Things.

Thirdly, the three models propose a unidirectional relationship

between management and its environment. They show that environmental

factors affect management but do not show that management, in turn,

affects it environment. This study framework shows that while

management is initially a product of its environment, it modifies

its own environment over time. As a result, the ultimate outcome of

management as shown in Phase III of the framework, comprises a new

environment.

Fourthly, with the exception of Koontz's model, the models show

a d~rect relationship between the environment of management and the

outcomes of management such as efficiency and effectiveness.* This

study framework, by way of contrast, shows an indirect relationship

*This direct relationship is depicted in the models by anarrow between environmental factors and the outcomes of management.

127

between environment and outcomes. The relationship is indirect

because management is an intermediate and intervening variable between

its environment and its outcomes.

The differences between the framework proposed in this study and

existing models in comparative management would seem to indicate

that while current models are helpful in the study of management as

it relates to organizations, they are inadequate conceptual frameworks

for the study of the socio-economic development of whole countries

from a managerial perspective. The framework proposed in this study,

on the other hand, was expressly designed for the study of the

managerial aspects of the development of countries.

Results of Illustrative Analysis of Data

As shown in Chapter IV, a multiple regression analysis was

carried out with data for five goal variables numbered 1 through 5,

six efficiency variables numbered 6 through 11, and two outcome

variables numbered 12 and 13. These variables were fully described

in Chapter IV. The 11 goal and efficiency variables were entered

in the analysis as the independent variables* while the two outcomes

variables were considered to be dependent variables. The study

sample consisted of 37 Sub-Saharan African countries. The numerical

values of the 13 variables for the 37 cases are given in Appendix H.

*In the framework described earlier in this chapter,efficiency is ~ategorized as an intermediate outco~e of management,that contributes to the effectiveness of manageMent.

128

To account for missing data, the analysis was conducted with

the original data supplemented with group medians in lieu of the

missing data. This was done according to the suggestion made by

Talbot et al. (1976) who recommend the use of assigned values that

have a minimal biasing effect to eliminate missing data. For this

study, the median values of the variables were chosen for best

meeting this criterion. To obtain the group medians for the 13

variables, the 37 countries were divided into four groups. This

grouping followed the classification of these countries by the World

Bank (1981) into these four categories: (1) low-income semi-arid

countries; (2) other low-income countries; (3) middle-income oil

importing countries; (4) middle-income oil exporting countries.*

Low-income countries are those with a per capita inco~e equal to or

less than $370, whereas middle-income countries are those with a

per capita income exceeding $370 (World Bank, 1981, p. 142). The

median value of each of the 13 variables was computed for each group

of countries and was used for the corresponding missing value within

each group. The results of the multiple rer,ression analysis are

presented in summarized form and discussed below. A correlation

matrix for all the 13 variables is provided in Appendix T.

*Group I includes countries 7, 11, 20, 21, 23, 23, 34, Group 2includes countries 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31,32, 33, 35. Group 3 includes countries 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, 18, 26,30, 36, 37. Group 4 includes countries 1, 8, 10, 24. See Appendix Ffor the names of these countries.

129

Summary of Results of Regression Analysis withVariable 12 (Physical Quality of Life Index

or ~QLI) as the Dependent Variable

Summary of Results

A summary of the results of the multiple regression analysis with

variable 12 (PQLI) as the dependent variable, is shown in Table 6.

As the table shows, the 11 goal and efficiency variables taken

together, account for about 45% (R2

= .44779) of the variance in the

dependent variable. Of this total, the single largest contribution

(about 25%; R2= .24888) is made by variable 5, i.e., percentage of

central government's expenditures on national defense. ~fuen variable

10 is entered into multiple correlation with variable 5, this

percentage of variance explained arises to 38%. The remaining nine

variables, added one at a time, do not explain much more of the

variance in the dependent variable.

Discussion

The results of the regression analysis presented above suggest

that two variab1es--expenditures on national defense, and educational

efficiency--account for most of the observed variance in the P0LI.

These results could be interpreterl as fo110\7s: since military

expenditures for the 37 countries of the study sample consist, for

the most part, of expensive imports of armanents, it may be safe to

say that these expenditures constitute a severe drain on the

resources of these countries and adversely affect their development.

Table 6

Summary Table of Regression Analysis with Variable 12(Physical Quality of Life Index) as the Dependent Variable

130

Independent variables by orderR

2of entry in regression* Uultiple R Simple R

% expenditures, national .49888 .24888 -.·49888**defense (5)

Educational efficiency (10) . .61530 .37859 -.38645***

Efficiency, services (9) .62976 .39659 .19793

Efficiency, capital (11) .64027 .40995 .21568

% expenditures, health (2) .65761 .43246 .02456

Efficiency, agriculture (7) .66271 .43919 -.01955

% expenditures, economic .66551 .44290 .13033services (4)

% expenditures, education (1) .667 l f6 .44550 .13996

Administrative efficiency (6) .66853 .44693 -.00568

Efficiency, Industry (8) .66914 .44775 .00845

% expenditures, social security, .66917 .44779 .03446housing, welfare (3)

*The numbers in parentheses are the original numbers of thevariables.

**Significant at p < .002.

***Significant at p < .018.

131

That would explain the negative correlation (R = -.49888, p ~ .002)

between percentage of expenditures on defense and the physical

quality of life.

lfure puzzling is the negative correlation (R = -.38645, p ~ .018)

between educational efficiency and the physical quality of life. The

explanation lies, perhaps, in the fact that education cannot, or

should not be evaluated in terms of efficiency; it is one of these

goals that are worth achieving whether they are achieved efficiently

or not.

Summary of the Results of Regression Analysiswith Variable 13 (Per Capita G1W)

as the Dependent Variable

Summary of Results

As Table 7 shows, the 11 goal and efficiency variables account

for about 92% of the observed variance in the dependent variable, per

capita GNP. Variable 7 alone--efficiency of labor in agriculture--

accounts for 83% of the variance. The other 10 independent

variables account for the remaining 9% of the observed variance in

per capita GNP.

Discussion

One variable, labor efficiency in agriculture, accounted for

most of the observed variance in per capita GNP. This finding can be

explained by the fact that all the 37 countries of the study sample

are non-industrialized nations, and agriculture contributes the

Table 7

Summary of Regression Analysis with Variable 13(Per Capita GNP) as the Dependent Variable

132

Independent variables by orderR2of entry in regression* Hultiple R Simple R

Efficiency, agriculture (7) .91308 .83371 .91308**

Efficiency, services (9) .93421 .87274 .08632

% expenditures, economic .94327 .88976 .36106***services (4)

% expenditures, education (1) .94917 .90093 -.03796

% expenditures, social security, .95376 .90966 .13189housing, welfare (3)

Administrative efficiency (6) .95689 .91564 -.29646****

Educational efficiency (l0) .95933 .92031 -.22038

Efficiency, capital (11) .96023 .92205 .21144

Efficiency, industry (8) .96100 .92352 -.25409

% expenditures, health (2) .96121 .92392 -.29410****

% expenditures, national .96132 .92413 -.00661defense (5)

*The numbers in parentheses are the original numbers of thevariables.

**Significant at p < .001.

***Significant at p < .028.

****Significant at p < .07.

133

largest share in their gross national product. However, the degree

of association between the two variables is so high (R = .91,

significant at p ~ .001) that it may be due, in part, to spuriousness.

The problem of spuriousness may also explain why some variables such

as expenditures on economic services, did not account for much of the

explained variance in per capita GNP.

Summary of the Illustrative Analysis of Data

In summary, the multiple regression analysis showed that, of all

the 11 goal and efficiency variables, only three accounted for most of

the explained variance in the two outcomes variables. These three

variables were, in order of magnitude, the following: efficiency in

agriculture, expenditures on national defense, and efficiency in

education.

The value of this finding can only be suggestive. Future research

could check the reliability and validity of the measures used in

this an~lysis to determine their value as important elements of the

framework proposed in the study. Because the analysis of data was

primarily undertaken to show how the eleflents of the framework could

be operationalized, measured, and tested, it can be said that this

purpose was achieved.

General Discussion

To achieve one of the stated objectives of this study--providing

hypotheses for future research--the follo\.ing discussion proposes

134

11 propositions that can be refined and couched in hypothesis form

for theory and research on the relationships between management and

socio-economic development. The proposed propositiona1 statements

elaborate some of the posited relationships between the elements of

the framework developed in the study. *

Proposition 1

The quantity and quality of things under the form of natural or man-

made physical resources that are part of the environment of a

society, constitute a helpful condition of the effectiveness of

societa1 managers in achieving socio-econo~ic development.

One of the weaknesses of classical economic theory in explaining

the process of development stems from a biased emphasis on land, i.e.,

natural resources and capital as key determinants of development.

Land and capital are thus placed on an equal footing with 1abor in

the equation of growth and development.

The abundance of capital and natural resources, assuredly, is a

considerable asset for a country. It is indubitable that the growth

and the development potential of many an oil-rich nation have been

decisively enhanced by oil revenues. Yet, with the possible

*Propositions are similar to hypotheses. According toZetterberg, they are explanatory, theoretical statements. Thefollowing types of propositions have been identified: (1)irreversible: if X, then Y, but if Y, there is no conclusion aboutX; (2) stochastic: if X, then probably Y; (3) coeRtensive: if X,then also Y; (4) sufficient: if X, then necessarily Y; (5) dependent:if X, then Y, but only if Z (Zetterberg, 1965; 69-83).

135

exception of the United States, the developed countries do not possess

more natural resources than the so-called underdeveloped countries.

It can well be argued, that the lack of natural resources may actually

act as a powerful incentive for a nation to devise new ways for

creating material wealth, and open new paths to development.

At any rate, countries without a wealth of natural resources

have been able, throughout history, to acquire these resources from

elsewhere by trading the fruits of the skills and creativity of their

peoples. Today, developing countries that have not mastered the

basics of modern technology can still purchase the most sophisticated

machinery in the international market place. But, as scholars like

Solow (1957) and the human capital theorists point out, a country

can have a wealth of capital and natural resources and still fail to

develop. This point has been strongly made by Salvatore and Dowling

(1977):

Industrialization. At the end of World 'Jar 11,Argentina had a stronger industrial base than wasleft to either of the two defeated Axis powers.Yet, within ten years, both Germany and Japanhad far outstripped Argentina's productionlevels. Economic capability is not measuredsolely by the number of machines at a country'sdisposal.

Technology. Technology speeds development. Butmany less developed countries have imported thelatest technology for their steel mills andtextile plants and progress has not spread toother areas of the economy. Iran at preaent isimporting $3 billion worth of tec' 1,~logyannually, but it will be years before she ranks

. among the developed countries.

136

Natural resources. Natural resources aid develop­ment. Brazil and Indonesia are among the richestnaturally endowed countries of the world but theyrank far behind Holland, which has little morethan an industrious people and a central location.(Salvatore & Dowling, 1977, p. 9; headingsemphasized in original text)

In other words, material resources can enhance the development

chances of a country, especially in the short run. But they are not

the chief determinants of development. This point is to be

emphasized in any attempt to build a managerial theory of socio-

economic development.

Proposition 2

The quantity and quality of ideas in the environment of a society

constitute a necessary condition of the effectiveness of societal

managers in achieving development.

Even more important than the abundance of material resources, is

the availability of ideas that a society creates, borrows, and

otherwise acquires and uses for its development. Two major types of

ideas are particularly influential in shaping the management and

development of nations. The first type is ideology.* It comprises

all normative ideas about the nature of man, the good society, and

the good life. The ideological configuration of a society colors its

*An ideology is defined in Webster (1979) as "the doctrines,opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc." (p. 902).

137

political, economic, and cultural spheres. Ideologies actually

provide nations with their own definition of socio-economic development

and a specification of the ends of development as well.

The second major type of ideas is what may be called utilitarian

or practical knowledge, for want of a better appelation. This type

includes ideas about how to engage in concrete action so as to solve

societal problems and achieve societal goals. Technology and

scientific know-how are of this type of idea.

As Weaver and Jameson (1978) aptly point out, theories of

development incorporate both major types of ideas.

Since different societies face different problems, the ideal for

any society would be to create ideas tailored to its own needs.

But it is a matter of historical record that the most dynamic

societies are those that are also capable of borrowing and

assimilating ideas from other societies. For example, Europe borrowed

the Judeo-Christian ideas from the ltiddle East, and modern Cuba

borrowed some of the socialist ideas of the Soviet Union. In both

cases, the borrowed ideas made a decisive contribution to the growth

and development of these societies. Today, Japan is often cited as

a pertinent example of the ability of a nation to borrow ideas from

elsewhere, modify them according to its own needs, and use them for

its own development.

In ~~~ary, ideas exert such a powerful influence on the life of

a society that their quantity and quality constitute a necessary

138

condition of the effectiveness of societal managers in achieving

development. A managerial theory of socio-economic development will

ultimately prove the tenability of this proposition.

Proposition 3

The quantity and quality of people constitute both a necessary and

sufficient condition of the effectiveness of societal managers in

achieving development.

Although ideas are of crucial importance, the best ideas cannot

ensure the development of a country if the members of society fail

to make a judicious use of these ideaR.

As pointed out in Chapter II, one of the main contributions of

human capital theory to development theory was to rightly point out

that, in the final analysis, people are the single most important

determinant of development. This point has been so well documented

in the literature of human capital theory that it need not be

elaborated here. Suffice it to say that, with regard to the other

two basic elements of the environment, people are the creators and

users of ideas, they attach meaning and value to the physical world,

and they create and consume material wealth.

People initiate and implement all the activities conducive to

development, including the act of managing. They are the alpha and

omega of management and development. Therefore, their <Iuantity

(numbers) and quality (intrinsic value) constitute both a necessary

and sufficient condition of the effectiveness of societal managers in

139

achieving development. This is to say that only people can make a

developed society. A managerial theory of socio-economic development

will by necessity consider people as its cornerstone.

Proposition 4

The relationship between management and its environment is

reciprocative, interactive/iterative, and dialectical.

The relationship of determination between management and its

environment is reciprocal. As said earlier in this chapter,

management is a product of its environment ab initio. Over time,

however, as management grows, it can partly feed upon itself as well

as borrow from other management systems in other environments. In

the process, management becomes a major shaper of its own environment.

Indeed, some scholars have singled out the creation of environments

as the essential task of management. A1banese (1978), for example,

has stated that:

l1anaging, or management, is ••• the work ofcreating and maintaining environments in whichpeople can accomplish goals efficiently andeffectively. These environments involve theintegrated use of human, financial, andnatural resources for the purpose of achievinggoals. (p. 7)

The relationship between management and its environment is also

interactive and iterative. The interactive nature of this relationship

stems from the reciprocal influence that either entity exerts upon

the other. The relationship is iterative because it repeats itself

at any given point in time.

140

Finally, the relationship between management and its environment

is dialectical. At time 1, management is a product of its

environment. In due time, however, management shapes its environment.

The resulting managed environment at time 2 is a synthesis of the

environment at time 1 and management. The relationship is dialectical

because the new environment produces new management that will bring

about another environment and so forth. The process unfolds ad

infinitum.

Proposition 5

The more the managers of a country are effective in developing all

the three basic elements of the environment--people, ideas, and

things--the more their effectiveness in achieving overall socio­

economic development.

On the- surface, the preceding statement seems tautological.

But this semblance is misleading. The statement implies that the

managers of societal systems do not attach the same degree of

priority to the development of the three basic elements of the

environment. In their pursuit of development, nations tend to

adopt, in the long run,'some identifiable patterns of priorities in

allocating resources and human energies to competing problems and

goals. This tendency has been recognized and built upon by the

tenants of unbalanced growth theory.*

*See Chapter 11 for a summary review of unbalanced growth theory.

141

Theoretically, and on the basis of the preferential treatment

accorded to each of the basic elements, it is possible to identify

three archetypes of societies: (1) those that spend most of their

energies and resources on people; (2) those that are most concerned

with ideas; and (3) those that are most interested in things.

One can further envision two extreme ways for a society to

expend its resources: . (1) expending almost all of them on one single

element; (2) dividing them equally between the three elements. Most

societies fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Sutherland (1978) has proposed a tryadic classification of

societal systems that lends support to the typology of societies

presented above•. According to him, there are three types of

societal systems: "systems of spiritual significance, systems of

social significance and systems of material significance" (pp. 283­

284). The spiritual, social, and material dimensions of societies

identified by Sutherland correspond respectively to the three basic

elements of the environment--ideas, people, and things--incorporated

in the framework proposed in this study.

Sutherland further contends that there are not "many systems of

synthetic significance, where all three generic benefit categories

were more or less equally accessible and elaborate" (p. 284). This

contention is in agreement with the fundamental idea discussed in

proposition 5: that countries tend to attach different priorities

to the development of the three basic elements. This tendency is

especially marked in the short run.

The effective management of a country for the purpose of

achieving development requires, in the long run, the balanced--not

necessarily the equal--development of all the basic elements of

the environment. One corollary proposition would be that the

longer an element has been neglected, the harder it will be to

develop, relative to the other elements because long-term

distortions are bound to arise. A managerial theory of development

will help clarify these issues.

Proposition 6

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

enhanced by the degree of agreement between managers and the larger

society on the definition of societal problems and goals, and the

extent to which both groups have the will to develop.

This statement points to two problems in the management and

development of nations. The first problem is related to the

very definition of a country's problems and goals. The relevant

questions here are: Do societal managers and those they lead

perceive similarly the problems faced by their country? Do they

agree on the most pressing needs of their society and on the ways

and means to meet these needs? To the extent that the answers to

these questions are affirmative, one could theorize that the task of

societal managers would be made relatively easier.

The second problem indicated by proposition 6 can be expressed

with these questions: Is there a shared willingness on the part of

societal managers and their people to solve societal problems? Is

142

143

there a will to develop? If yes, does this will arise directly from

the larger society or does it originate from managers and is then

transmitted downwards to the larger society? These questions under­

score'one of the crucial issues in managing a country: enlisting

widespread participation in national development efforts. Oftentimes,

many development programs and projects in many countries fail to

entice the approval and support of the very same people expected to

benefit from them. The key to this problem. may revolve around the

nature and origin of the will to develop and it may be provided by a

managerial theory of development.

Proposition 7

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

enhanced by a high degree of congruence between the overall goals of

society and the operational goals of managers.

In any country, there is never a complete guarantee that societal

managers will give top priority to the most important goals of society

as a whole. For example, the leaders of a country struck with hunger

and disease, may choose to ignore the sufferings of their people and

spend the resources of their country on sophisticated weapon systems

and luxury goods. In such a case, there would be a low degree of

congruence between the goals of society and the operational goals of

leaders.

The importance of goal congruence has been emphasized in a

recent study by Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) with reference to

144

organizations and organizational clans. At the level of whole

countries, it would seem logical to expect low correlations between

low goal congruence and the effectiveness of societal managers in

achieving development. This expectation must be ultimately tested

within a comprehensive managerial theory of development.

Proposition 8

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

enhanced by high degrees of managerial efficiency.

As defined in Chapter I, efficiency refers to the ability of

management to achieve societal goals with a minimal expenditure of

resources. Efficiency increases the likelihood of effectiveness

because it sets free resources that can be allocated to other areas

of need, thereby allowing managers to achieve more goals. Efficiency

allows managers to do more with limited resources and this is very

significant for the development of nations since no country has an

unlimited supply of resources. For a country, high managerial

efficiency translates into increased productivity.

But efficiency will be of no help if managers fail to take

advantage of the opportunities created through efficient management.

The search for efficiency can be counterproductive if it" is done at

the expense of worthy goals that cannot be achieved efficiently.

In sum, efficiency contributes to effectiveness. But it is, at

best, a necessary condition of effectiveness, not a sufficient

condition.

145

Proposition 9

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

enhanced by high degrees of fit between the structure, contents, and

processes of management that prevail in a society.

Research by many management scholars (e.g., Pascale and Athos,

1981; Paul, 1983) has shown that whether management is operating in

the private or the public sectors, its effectiveness depends, in part,

on how all the elements of management fit together and form a

coherent whole. Paul (1983) for example, has shown that in the

developing countries, effectively managed development programs contain

a high degree of managerial coherence and congruence:

They exhibit a surprising measure of congruenceamong their environmental, strategic, structuraland process variables. The mutual fit andinteraction effects among these influences seemto have created a synergy which cannot beexplained in terms of anyone of them alone.(p. 84; emphasis in original text)

Managerial congruence is even more important at the level of a

whole country because macrosocial problems and goals are more complex--

and harder to deal with--than organizational goals, and the structure,

contents and processes of management are not clear-cut at the macro-

managerial level. One of the biggest challenges that await a

managerial theory of development is to specify the types and degrees

of macromanagerial congruence that contribute to the effectiveness of

societal managers in achieving development.

146

Proposition 10

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

facilitated by the existence of an adequate reward/incentives systems

within society.

Some development theorists have advanced the proposition that

any type of political system, i.e., any country, is capable of rapid

development if it has a good internal reward system. The following

quotation is a good example of this line of thinking:

There are many instances from the past andpresent of similar political systems producingquite different economic results. Within ademocratic framework, De Gaulle broughtstability and reasonable growth to France;Peron in A~gentina brought eventual chaos andnear collapse of the economy. Under a Fascistregime, Hitler ran an efficient war machine inGermany; the war effort in Italy soon brokedown under Mussolini. Communism, too, has seenits successes and failures. As a Communistdictator, Stalin succeeded in acceleratinggrowth in Russia; Castro has not been notablysuccessful in Cuba. The military regime inBrazil has had conspicuous success economicallyin r~cent years; the junta of generals in Chilecontinues to have difficulties. In the case ofDemocratic Socialism, Sweden has fared betterthan Britain.

The above seems to indicate that the nature ofincentives within the system is often moreimportant than the type of political systemitself. (Salvatore & Dowling, 1977, p. 10;emphasis added)

Since the reward system within a society is an integral part of

societal management, a managerial theory of development must address

the question of devising and strengthening adequate reward systems

147

that will increase the effectiveness of societal managers in

achieving development.

Proposition 11

The effectiveness of societal managers in achieving development is

determined by the overall adequacy of the existing managerial system

in relation to the environment and needs of a specific society.

Ultimately, the question may be asked as to whether the manage­

ment system found in a country is the most appropriate system for

that country. A continuous assessment of the overall adequacy of

management is necessary to ascertain whether or not management stays

in tune, and is responsive to the changing demands of its environment.

Whenever there is a conflict between the situational/environmental

elements and management, the effectiveness of societal managers is

bound to suffer.

Perhaps, a good illustration of this proposition would be the

case of Poland today. In that country, the strong religious beliefs

of the people seem to be at odds with the professed atheism of

socialist ideology and management. The current economic woes in the

country and the repressive measures taken aeainst the labor movement

are symptoms of the ineffectiveness of Polish leaders to solve their

country's problems. It may well be that the Polish managerial system

has outgrown its adequacy.

A managerial theory of development will provide ways for assessing

the adequacy of any country's managerial system and for changing the

system when needed.

148

Recapitulation

To the extent that the 11 propositions set forth in the

preceding pages are valid, then, the overall effectiveness of

societal managers in achieving development could be predicted

globally in equational form. This would be done by considering

overall effectiveness as a dependent variable which is a function of

the following determining variables: (1) the quantity and quality

of the core elements of the environment; (2) the balanced development

of these core elements; (3) the will to achieve societal goals on

the part of both management and the larger society; (4) the

congruence between managerial goals and societal goals; (5) the

efficiency of management; (6) the mutual fit between the structure,

contents, and processes of management; (7) the reward system; and (8)

the overall adequacy of management.

The validity and, ,hence, the usefulness of this suggested

approach to predicting overall effectiveness, must ultimately be

subjected to empirical testing as part of the development and

validation of a comprehensive management theory of development. Such

a theory will also show whether the terms of the effectiveness

equation specified above are adequate or whether some terms should be

modified, added, or subtracted. In the next chapter of the study,

some specific suggestions are made regarding further research.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This sixth and final chapter presents a summary of the study, a

brief review of its contributions and weaknesses, some suggestions

for future research, and a conclusion.

Summary of the Study Problem and Objectives

One of the newest perspectives on socio-economic development

is the managerial perspective according to which, management plays

the most crucial role in determining the success of a country in

achieving its development objectives. The usefulness of the

managerial approach has been limited, however, because it has not

progressed beyond recognizing the importance of management, and so

far, its proponents have failed to develop a comprehensive theory

to guide further research. There is thus a need for studies that

could contribute to the development of the needed theory. This

exploratory study was undertaken to help meet this need and it

proposed to develop a comprehensive framework for the study of

development from a macromanagerial perspective. The framework

was designed to provide researchers with a conceptual tool for

integrating knowledge on the ~ k tionships between management and

socio-economic development, and for orienting future research

aimed at building a comprehensive managerial theory of development.

149

In sum, the framework developed in the study offered the bare

elements of a comprehensive theory for epistemological purposes,

and it focused on whole countries as its units of study.

Study Design and Methodology

To develop the proposed framework, the study relied primarily

on an inventory method of model building, a method that is perfectly

suited to the nature and purposes of this exploratory inquiry. The

inventory method allowed the author to canvass and synthesize the

relevant literature in order to identify the key variables to be

included in the proposed framework. The study also included a

limited analysis of data with a sample of 37 African countries; this

analysis was solely undertaken for the purpose of showing how the

variables included in the framework could be measured and subjected

to empirical testing.

Study Results and Discussion

The chief result of the study was the proposed framework. This

framework was shown to include three major components: (1) the

background environment of management; (2) management structure,

contents and processes; and (3) management outcomes. Each component

comprised a number of identifiable elements. In describing and

discussing the elements of the framework and the relationships

between them, 11 major propositional statements were put forth.

These statements were intended to offer a basis for generating

testable hypotheses for future research.

150

151

Although some significant correlations were found between

the dependent and independent variables included in the analysis of

data, limited use was made of the results of this analysis and no

implications were drawn from them. The decision to make little use of

this part of the study stemmed from the fact that the analysis of data

was only undertaken for illustrative purposes and did not constitute

a central part of the study. The data for the study came, for the

most part, from the World Bank, and they were analyzed by means of

multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis of data

were presented in Chapter V.

Contributions of the Study

The main specific objectives of the study as stated in Chapter I

were: (1) to develop an integrated framework for the study of

development from a managerial perspective; (2) to suggest ways for

testing the value of the framework as a research tool and to provide

an illustrative empirical testing of some elements of the framework;

and (3) to generate testable hypotheses for future research.

Objectives 1 and 3 were fully achieved with the development in

Chapter V of the proposed framework and the statement of 11

propositions. Objective 2 was partially met in Chapter V with the

illustrative analysis of data; it will be fully met in the penultimate

section of this chapter when suggestions are made about future

research.

152

It is also hoped that the study will make a contribution to

the solution of some of the general problems of comparative

management--deficient conceptualization, lack of knowledge integration,

and micro-analytic bias--by respectively (1) using definitions based

on a synthesis of existing definitions as well as concepts that can

be measured in some fashion; (2) adopting a synthetic, inventory-

based methodology; and (3) focusing on whole countries as the units

of study. Since the study was exploratory, this contribution can

only be suggestive.

The basic overall purpose of the study was to contribute to the

development of a comprehensive managerial theory of social and

economic development. A theory, as defined by Kerlinger (1973) is:

a set of interrelated constructs (concepts),definitions, and propositions that present asystematic view of phenomena by specifyingrelations among variables, with the purpose ofexplaining and predicting the phenomena. (p. 9)

To the extent that the framework developed in the study exhibits

some of the characteristics of a theory as specified by Kerlinger.

it can be said to contain. at least. some of the elements of a theory.

But are these elements sufficient and valid? The answer to this

question and the value of this study. or for that matter, of any

exploratory study. rest ultimately on subsequent research. This

point is well made by McCormick and FranciF (1958):

The scientific value of cas~ studies. lifehistories. and other descriptive and exploratorystudies, apart from suggestions. lies in theassumption that they will be converted first intogeneralized types. and later will be subjected tomore rigorous research analysis. (p. 25)

153

In summary, this study makes a suggestion about how to approach

the study of the relationships between management and development in

order to develop a comprehensive theory of development from a

managerial perspective. The proposed framework represents the bare

elements of a theory but it behooves future research to determine its

epistemological value.

Weaknesses of the Study

Besides the limitations spelled out in Chapter I, this study

has some weaknesses that are exposed below with hopes that future

research will be able to correct them.

Reliance on Verbal Statements

Perhaps the most visible weakness of the study is its reliance

on verbal statements instead of formulations based on empirical

data, for developing the proposed framework, and for discussinG the

relationships among· the variables included in the framework.

Because of the suggestive and non-prescriptive nature of exploratory

studies, the use of verbal statements in conducting these studies

is an accepted practice. In this regard, rkCormick and Francis

(1958) have made this observation:

By exploratory studies are meant those that areintended to be merely suggestive rather thandefinitive; they are expected to open up Broundfor more careful investigation; that is, theysimply record what is observed without any formaltesting of hypotheses. They may use verbalstatements only, or may cite figures, or mayattempt both. (p. 24; emphasis added)

154

Although verbal statements constituted an adequate vehicle

for conducting this study, a reliance on them usually makes a study

difficult to replicate by other researchers,* and leads to untested

formulations. Therefore, this aspect of the study amounts to a

weakness, even though it was justified on methodological grounds.

Narrowness of Theory Base

Knowledge is never created ex nihilo and the value of a study

rests in part on its ability to build on, and contribute to "existing

knowledge. This is to say that a study should be based on the most

current, most relevant, and most complete body of knowledge in the

area of investigation. Because of the highly interdisciplinary

nature of the phenomenon of socio-economic development and the study

thereof, the ideal for the present study would have been to build

on concepts and knowledge drawn from all disciplines relevant to

development. In practice, however, most of the concepts used in

the study came mainly from two areas: the field of development

itself, and the discipline of management, with a particular emphasis

on comparative management. Therefore, the theory base of the study

is somewhat narrower than it should ideally be.

To be sure, the narrowness of the theory base of the study is

mitigated by the fact that both management and development incorporate

many of the concepts of a great number of disciplines. The inter-

d1~_lplinary nature of these two fields of inquiry is documented in

*How this study attempted to meet the criterion of replicabilitywas dealt with in Chapter IV.

155

Chapter I and Appendix A. But still, the theory base of the study

could have been made stronger by tapping directly into the knowledge

accumulated in such disciplines as sociology, anthropology,

philosophy, political science, general systems theory, just to

mention a few.

Weakness of Data Analysis

Another weakness of the study lies in the area of data analysis.

The unreliability of the data used in the study was acknowledged in

Chapter IV. But there are other problems. The procedure of multiple

regression was used without some empirical evidence that the

conditions for using the procedure were adequately met. Furthermore,

although the measures of the variables are all replicable, they

leave something to be desired. For example, in measuring goal

variables, only the percentages of central government expenditures

allocated to competing areas were used. It would have been better

to use percentages of GNP because a central government's budget

represents only a portion of a country's GNP. Due to these short­

comings, it is recommended that the measures be only considered as

examples of how testable measures can be constructed for the

variables related to the elements of the proposed framework.

Suggestions for Future Research

What follows is an outline of sugges'c~ steps that could be

followed by researchers interested in contributing to the development

of a comprehensive managerial theory of development.

156

Identification of Societal Managers

In this study, societal managers were conveniently, but somewhat

simplistically, defined as the major decision-makers within society,

and it was further proposed that national governments were the most

visible managers of their countries. Researchers interested in

developing a sound managerial theory of development should begin with

an attempt to systematically identify and describe societal flanagers.

These could include among others, religious and spiritual leaders,

tribal elders, traditional chiefs, and so forth. If the macro­

perspective proposed in this study is followed, then societal

managers are to be identified and studied, not as isolated individuals,

but as distinct social classes in the Marxist sense, since our

interest lies in the aggregate effects of their collective managerial

actions on the development of their societies. The identification

of societal managers is extremely important because management

cannot be studied independently of managers.

Operationalization and Measurement of Variables

If the framework proposed in this study is to have any value as

a research tool, then, its constituent elements and the relationships

between them, must be empirically tested. The illustrative analysis

of data included in the study attempted to show how variables

related to three important elements of the framework--goals,

efficiency, and effectiveness--could be operationalized and measured

for testing purposes. Future research could do the same for all the

other elements of the framework.

157

To operationalize and measure all the variables related to

management structure, contents, and processes at the level of total

societies, it will be necessary'to develop some ad hoc measures as

well as to use some existing measures in management and organization

theory that are general enough to be applicable to whole societies,

mutatis mutandis. For example, the basic forms of organizations

identified by Etzioni (1961)--coercive, utilitarian, and no~tive

types--and their respective forms of involvement and basis of

authority, are general enough to be applicable to total societal

systems; they could therefore be used with some modification and

refinement to provide guidelines in operationalizing and measuring the

structure, philosophy and style of management at the macromanagerial

level.

In all likelihood, not all the elements of the framework could

be quantified. 'fl.1e concept of "societal will," for instance, cannot

be easily quantified and measured. Nevertheless, a systematic

attempt at operationalzing and measuring all the elements of the

framework will help to identify variables that cannot be measured

with numbers.

Exploratory Research and the Refinementof Research Hypotheses

The identification of societal managers, and the measurement of

the elements of the framework developed in this study, can be under-

taken as part of more extensive exploratory research with large

samples of countries and more valid and reliable data. This type of

research could also help to refine the propositional statements set

158

forth in this study in order to arrive at the most parsimonious core

of quality hypotheses for testing.

Confirmative Research, Predictiveand Causal Explanations

Once clearly refined hypotheses are available for testing, it

will be possible to engage in confirmatory research with even better

data and more sophisticated techniques of data analysis so as to

accept, reject or modify these hypotheses. The next logical step

would, then, be to move toward causal and predictive explanations

of the process of socio-economic development from a managerial

standpoint. A comprehensive and sound theory would have been

developed in the process.

It may well be impossible to establish some definitive causal

links between management and development because causality is one

of the most troublesome areas in social research. Kerlinger (1973)

has asserted that causal notions are not "necessary to scientific

work" (p. 393). He writes in substance:

The position taken in this book is that the studyof cause and causation is an endless maze. Oneof the difficulties is that the lvord "cause" hassurplus meaning and metaphysical overtones.Perhaps more important, it is not really needed.Scientific research can be done without invokingcause and causal explanations, even though thewords and other words that imply cause are .-tlmostimpossible to avoid and thus will oc~c~ionally beused •••• We agree that causal laws cannot bedemonstrated empirically, but we are equivocalabout thinking causally. There is little doubtthat scientists do think causally and that when

·159

they talk of a relation between E and ~ they hopeor believe that E causes S. But no amount ofevidence can demonstrate that E does cause ~.

(Kerlinger, 1973, p. 393; emphasis in originaltext)

Kerlinger's statement implies that special care must be taken in

defining causality as it applies to the relationships between

management and development. It also implies that the establishment

of causal connections is not a sine qua non for the development of a

scientifically valid managerial theory of development.

Conclusion

The main theme that runs through this exploratory study is that

global societal systems must be the primary focus of study in the

search for a managerial theory of social and economic development.

This contention is lent support by both Gestalt theory and situational

or contingency management theory. Gestalt theory states that any

phenomenon is best understood as a whole, not as a sum of its

components. Situational management theory, on the other hand, posits

that the effectiveness of management is contingent upon the symbiotic

interface of management and a particular situation. rfuen dealing

with the management of social and economic development, the "situation"

refers to a total societal system, and management will be effective

only to the extent that it is premised on this fundamental fact.

It is the position of this writer that a global modeling of the

process of development from a macromanagerial perspective is needed

for the development of a comprehensive theory.

160

However, some scholars would disagree with this position. For

example, with regard to what is often referred to in the literature

as "development administration," LaPalombara (1971), Kasfir (1972),

and Gable and Sprincer (1979) have expressed doubts about the

usefulness of global models because, according to them, these models

are too highly general, too abstract, and they fail to reflect the

great diversity of patterns and relationships in the developing

countries.

In reply to these criticisms, it can be said that global, macro­

managerial models designed to grasp the features of total societies

as they relate to development, are not only useful; they are

actually necessary. This point was made in Chapter I when the need

for the study was presented. The case of the field of economics,

with its conceptual division into Microeconomics and Macroeconomics,

was cited as an example of the adequacy and necessity of theory

building at both the micro and macro levels. Macro models are not

sufficient in, and by themselves; but neither are micro models. The

two must complement each other, and in certain areas, one type may

be more adequate than the other.

The point cannot be overemphasized that models are just

conceptual tools created by the human mind. Both macro and micro

models are imperfect representations of real life phenomena. The

framewor-. ,roposed in this study is an imperfect representation of

the phenomenon of development viewed from a managerial angle. In

161

the real world, real life phenomena are entities that are not defined

solely by either their macro or micro parts. The long-term

challenge to social scientists is precisely to bring their conceptual

tools, including their models, closer to reality by arriving at a

level of conceptualization that is so integrated that the lines

between macro and micro models will be obsolete. But for now, it is

necessary to theorize ar both the macro and micro levels. To condemn

global, macro modeling because existing global models do not work, is

abusive.

Another disagreement with the perspective taken in this study can

be seen in a suggestion-made by Negandhi (1973). According to him,

the field of cross-cultural comparative management could be made more

manageable by restricting attention to the functioning of orr,anizations

as the prime concern instead of trying to deal with all the complex

economic and social problems of a society or nation.

Negandhi's suggestion brings this question to mind: If those

who are interested in the study of comparative management, especially

societal management, do not concern themselves with the problems of

social and economic development, who will? To abandon the problem

because of its difficulty will only delay the finding of long-term

solutions. The study of development, whether it is done from a

managerial perspective or from any other perspective~ will always be

difficult and lead to only tentative conclusions. The difficulty is

inescapable because the bottom line is this: development is the

search for a better, indeed, for an ideal society. It may well be

162

that this is an impossible goal to reach; research will show how

close we can get to the ideal. Like any other discipline, the field

of comparative management must make its contribution to mankind's

never-ending quest for knowledge and socio-economic development.

In conclusion, it was in the nature of this exploratory study

to raise questions rather than give answers, to explore rather

confirm or infirm hypotheses, to make suggestions instead of

providing prescriptions. If the questions raised here are asked

time and again by others, and elicit new efforts to find answers,

then the study would have reached its goal: the long-term development

of a sound and comprehensive managerial theory of socio-economic

development.

APPENDIX A

THE EMERGENCE OF A MANAGERIAL PARADIGM OF SOCIO­

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: RATIONALE AND EXPLANATION

163

164

This appendix reviews some of the reasons that point to manage­ment as a crucial determinant of development. As stated in Chapter I,the reasoning of the tenants of a managerial approach to developmentis simple and straightforward. A good summary of this reasoning isprovided by the following quotation:

It is increasingly recognized that management isthe key factor in economic development. Capitalinvestment, the introduction of advanced technologyor improvement of technical and vocational skillscan only be fully effective in raising theperformance of an enterprise, an industry or theeconomy of a country when combined with goodmanagement. (ILO, 1966, p. 175)

Those who stress the key role of management in promotingdevelopment often cite the case of Japan. For example, Drucker (1974)has asserted that this country was able to develop rapidly because itproduced good management:

Japan a hundred years ago was an underdevelopedcountry by every material measurement. But itvery quickly produced management of greatcompetence, indeed, of excellence. Within twenty­five years Meiji Japan had become a developedcountry, and, indeed, in some aspects, such asliteracy, the most highly developed of allcountries. We realize today that it is MeijiJapan--rather than the traditional models of theeconomist: eighteenth-century England ornineteenth-century Germany--which is the modelfor the underdeveloped world. (p. 35)

The case of Japan is also cited by Pascale and Athos (1981).Other scholars point to the United States as a good example of thecontribution of management to development. Johnson, et al. (1976)write:

The most important influence on the growth ofAmerica ••• was the ability of people to managelarge organizations. Settlers coming toAmerica possessed a pioneering spirit and werewilling and able to accept change. Many of thefirst settlers were natural managers. (p. 4)

Some writers go so far as LO assert that the whole field ofeconomics--a major part of the field of development--evolved from abranch of management: household management. Stringfield (1965)emphatically makes this point by stating that the "very word economyhas its root in management through the original Greek, oikonomia,household management" (p. 41).

165

The connection between economics and household management ismentioned in the works of some economists, as evidenced by thefollowing statement made by Heilbroner (1968):

It is a little hard for us to imagine, but in thethird decade of nineteenth century England, aknowledge of economics was part of a proper younglady's accomplishments •••• In those days, economicswas not only esteemed as important but it wasactually a popular study. (p. IX)

Regardless of the role that management may have played in thegenesis of the field of economics, an economic system must bemanaged to bear fruit.

The evolution in management assumptions that led to the questfor a managerial theory of development has been traced by Drucker(1969) whose ideas are summarized in Table 8.

There are many specific .reasons that brought about the idea thata management-based theory of development could well be the mostuseful development theory to date. Some of these reasons are:

Management is an essential and an indispensable activity.

Johnson, et al. (1976) have stated that:

To o~e degree or another, we are all involved inmanaging and are constantly making decisionsconcerning how to spend or use our resources.For example, we may need to choose between buyinga television set and spending the money on avacation, or between studying for an exam andgoing skiing. In such cases, we are managingscarce personal resources according to establishedpreferences and needs. When the officials of acorporation decide between building a new plantand increasing dividends to stockholders, theyare managing the company's resources according toa set of priorities. When the president of theUnited States presents the national budget toCongress for the coming year, he is serving asthe manager of the federal economy. (p. 3)

The foregoing statement suggests that the act of managing isalways permeating all the actions of people. Individuals needmanagement, and so do groups. The larger the group, the more theneed for management; and the more complex the task to be done, thegreater the demand for good management if the desired objectives are

166

Table 8

Change in Management Assumptions

Old Assumptions

1. Only business has "socialresponsibility" •

2. Entrepreneurship andinnovation lie outsidemanagement's scope.

3. Management's task is to makethe manual worker productive.

New Assumptions

1. All in~titutions are accountablefor the quality of life.

2. Entrepreneurial innovation isthe very heart of management.

3. It is management's task to makeknowledge more productive.

4. Management is a science or at 4. Hanagement is both a scienceleast a discipline. and a humanity.

5. Management is the result of 5. Economic and social developmenteconomic development. is the result of management.

Source: Adapted from Drucker, P. F. Hanagement's new role. HarvardBusiness Review, November-December, 1969, 49-54 (emphasisadded).

167,

to be reached. The task of development is a long, arduous andcomplex endeavor which involves whole societies. Such a task cannotbear fruit without good management.

Management touches upon all aspects of human life.

As shown in Chapter 11, owing to the acknowledgement thatdevelopment is a multi-faceted phenomenon that affects and is affectedby almost everything in a society, its study has increasingly becomehighly interdisciplinary. It is now believed that the reality ofdevelopment is best grasped by an interdisciplinary approach, and amanagerial approach is the interdisciplinary approach par excellencebecause, as Nickell, et al. (1976) point out, management draws itsconcepts .and laws from all disciplines and impinges on all aspectsof human life:

It makes use of all the findings of science andof knowledge concerning all aspects of life~­

economic, social, psychological, physical,spiritual and technical. (p. 31; emphasis added)

~~nagement is people-centered.

Today, development thinking largely concerns itself with thehuman element in development, that is, the demographic factors, thecultural values, beliefs and attitudes of people as well as theirbasic needs for food, clothing, shelter and other necessities oflife. And so does management. The ultimate goal of nana~ernent, itsraison d'etre--and its greatest challenge--is to help people achievetheir individual and group goals. To quote Nickell, et al. (1976),

Management is not only a means·to accomplishdesired outcomes through people, as is mostoften the case in business and industry; itis also a means to accomplish desired outcomeswithin people. Personal management is a'meansfor human development, self actualization, andrenewal. (p. 31)

Because of the close connection between people and management,managerial practices are in general, products of the socialenvironment,* and particular brands of management are the reflectionsof different social settings. This point is well stressed byDrucker (1969):

*The relationships between management and its environment arediscussed in Chapter V.

168

But management is also a culture and a systemof values and beliefs. It is also the meansthrough which a given society makes productiveits own values and beliefs. (p. 53)

Management is oriented toward action and results.

Etymol08ically, the word management has as its root the Latinword manus, the hand. This etymology sUf,p,ests that managing is adeliberate action that does not happen by chance. Ther~ is no suchthing as laissez-faire management, properly speaking, even though aparticular manager may have a laissez-faire style.

In the development field, there were times when a laissez-faireapproach was advocated by some theorists, e.g., Bauer and Yamey(1957), as the best way to achieve development. According to suchan approach, government should play as little a role as possibleand allow the free play of the market and private interests. Today,it is generally accepted that in the poor countries, developmentcannot happen without a strong and judicious intervention ofgovernment; the socio-economic system must be managed to develop.

Closely tied to management's orientation toward action is itsemphasis on results as its ultimate evaluative criterion. AsNickell (1976), et al. see it:

Management is planned activity directed towardthe realization of values and the satisfactionof wants. It is the accomplishment of ends.(p. 31)

One of the main limitations of many existing development theoriesis that they tend to be long on analysis but short on results.* Asound managerial theory of development is more likely to overcomethis limitation because achieving results will be its core element.

Management is all pervasive and applies to all tyPes and sizesof groups.

Promoting development implies dealing with all kinds and sizes ofsocial institutions ranging from economic institutions to welfareagencies. If the development efforts are to be successful, all thevarious institutions have to reach the goals for which they wereestablished and make a contribution to society. To do so, they mustbe managed. The all pervasiveness of management and its applicabilityto all types of organizations, have both been emphasized by Albanese(1978) in these words:

*This is to say that the application of these theories does notbring about the expected results.

[M]anaging occurs in parks, ranches, hospitals,farms, universities, cities, labor unions,fraternities, police agencies, churches, airports,community organizations, and so on. [It] appliesto any situation in which people are attempting toachieve goals efficiently and effectively. Sincethat includes every organization, we say thatmanagement occurs in all types of organizations.(p. 9; emphasis in original text)

Management is universal.

Some writers such as Prasad (1966) and Drucker (1974) haveargued that management is basically an American phenomenon. Prasadwrites:

The term "management" is culture-bound andconnotes the management philosophies andpractices or even administrative methods asthey evolved and have taken shape in the westernworld meaning the North American continent andsome parts of Western Europe. It is desirablein the opinion of this writer to use the term"managerialism" instead with the understandingthat this term refers to managerial practicessuch as they can be found in any society. Forexample, such practices may occupy a wholespectrum all the way from small business manage­ment of a workshop in an underdeveloped Africannation to high-level corporate management in amultinational organization such as Unilever.(p. 27)

The claim that any particular country or region has a monopolyon management is disputed by many scholars. It is true that theparticular brand of management that evolved from the IndustrialRevolution to become a profession in its own right, and the formalstudy of management as an academic discipline, have largely beenpioneered in the industrialized world with America making perhapsthe biggest contribution. But the more general art and practiceof management transcend any national boundaries and can be tracedback to the dawn of history. As Ivancevich, Donnelly, and Gibson(1980) a?tly point out:

Organizations and opinions about how to managethem have existed for thousands of years.Documents from ancient China, Greece, Egypt andRome reveal that managers skillfully practiced

169

170

their profession. For example, the writings ofthe Chinese author Sun Tzu discussed militarymanagers. He wrote in 500 B.C. that "now thegeneral who wins a battle makes many calculationsin his temple where the battle is fought. Thegeneral who loses a battle makes few calculationsbeforehand." This early description calledattention to the management planning functionwhich is so important even today.

The pyramids of ancient Egypt are standingtestimony to the management feat of coordinatingthe work of many people. The Greeks and Romansdeveloped quasi-factory systems to manufacturearmaments, textiles, and pottery. These andother early civilizations had managers applytheir skills in state government, the home, andreligious units. It was these early beginningswhich gave rise to the importance of managementduring and after the industrial revolution.(p. 9)

The universality* of the art and practice of management cannotbe overemphasized because without it, a managerial theory of socio­economic development would have very little to offer other thanto advocate the transfer of managerial know-how from the industrializedcountries to the poor countries. That would be a variant of the"missing elements" approach to development, with managerial skillsbeing the elements in short supply in the poor countries. But ifit is accepted that some form of managerial competence, howeverlimited, does exist in any social system, then, the problem is notto transfer from outside but rather to discover from within anddevelop what is available. Any external addition would be welcomedbut only as a supplement that would help improve, change andstrengthen what is available. As Davies (1965) rightly points out,

Entrepreneurial and managerial abilities areinitially talents and gifts which may be foundeverywhere; they are not the monopoly of anysocial or economic class nor are they confinedto anyone country. However, the task ofdiscovering such abilities in countries with a

*By universality is meant the fact that thefound everywhere, albeit under different forms.uniformity.

phenomenon isIt does not mean

very short commercial and industrial traditionand where t in the very recent past t virtuallyall posts of higher responsibility were reservedto the foreignert is extremely difficult andtraining a lengthy process. (p. 15)

To recapitulatet there are many reasons why management plays avery important role in the achievement of developmentt and why amanagerial theory of development would be most useful. Butt asstated in Chapter I; the managerial perspective on development hasnot progressed beyond recognizing the importance of management inthe development process t and a comprehensive theory remains to bedeveloped. This study was undertaken with hopes of contributing tothe development of the needed theory.

171

APPENDIX B

A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF I}PORTANT FACTORS IN THE

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STRESSED BY VARIOUS DEVELOPlffiNT SCHOLARS

172

173

1. Economic factors:

a. Capital formation: Nurkse (1953), Lewis (1954), Kindleberger(1958), Adler (1961), Krishna and Raychaudhuri (1981).

b. Balanced investment: Nurkse (1953).

c. Unbalanced investment: Hirschman (1958), Scitovsky (1959).

d. Foreign Exchange: Krause (1961), Bruno (1972).

e. International trade: Frank et al. (1975), Balassa (1978,1980).

f. Import substitution.

2. Technological factors:

a. Technological progress: Solow (1957), Denison (1974).

b. Adoption and diffusion of innovations: Rogers (1962),Chan (1981).

c. Appropriate technology: Montgomery (1974), Jedlicka (1977).

3. Psychological factors:

a. Achievement motivation: McClelland (1961), ~1cClelland andWinter (1969).

b. Moral conditions: Helleiner (1961).

c. Motivation to work: Boeke (1958).

4. Political factors:

a. Liberation from imperialism and dependence: Sunkel (1969),Rhodes (1970), Rodney (1972).

b. Popular particulation: Esman (1978), United Nations (1978),Cohen and ~oldsmith (1979), van Heck (1979), White (1981).

c. Self reliance: Galtung, et al. (1980).

5. Sociological factors:

a. Urbanization and urban industrial growth centers: Perroux(1955), Friedmann (1966), Hermansen (1969), Southall (1979).

b. Nuclear family: Bauer and Yamey (1957), Higgins (1968).

c. Modernization: Weiner (1961), Rogers (1971), Ali (1981).

6. Education: Schultz (1963), Peaslee ,169), Psacharopoulos (1981),Said and Tyson (1981).

174

7. Mass communications: Rao (1966), Rogers (1976), Ascroft andGleason (1981), Hedebro (1982).

8. Ecological factors: Jackson (1979), Sah (1979).

9. Other factors:

a. Land reform: Raup (1963), Clark (1968), Ballance (1981).

b. Satisfaction of basic human needs: International LabourOffice (1977), Crosswell (1978), Richards (1981).

c. Planning: Haq (1963), Waterston (1965), Lewis (1966),Kulp (1970), Killick (1976), Seidman (1979), Kent (1981).

d. Entrepreneurship: Hoselitz (1952), Walinsky (1962),Katzin (1964), Hart (1970), Killy (1971), Dresang (1973).

e. Public administration: United Nations (1961), Burke (1969),Weidner (1970), Rothwell (1972), Gould (1979).

f. Marketing: Mentzer and Samli (1981).

g. Socio-economic justice: Galbraith (1961).

APPENDIX C

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING }~AGEMENT

175

The following is a list (indicative rather thanexhaustive) of the various factors involved:

1. Group and personal relations and loyalties:

a. the degree of loyalty and sense ofobligation to a group (ethnic, tribal,political or religious);

b. the importance of the family as a socialunit and the degree of kinship to whicha sense of obligation extends;

c. attitudes to friendship and the obliga­tions arising from them;

d. the extent to which working relationshipsmay be personalised;

e. the capacity of the individual to standalone as opposed to his need to belong toand act as a member of a group;

f. the existence of two or more large groups(ethnic, religious, etc.) liable toarouse conflicts within an enterprise.

The above factors may be expected to affect owner­ship, including the willingness to accept financialaid from outside which might mean the introductionof non-family members into positions of control.They may also affect the composition of the top andsenior management groups, organisation structure,delegation of authority, recruitment and dismissal,promotion, training, remuneration, and the composi­tion of working groups.

2. Attitudes to authority and responsibility:

a. attitudes to authority including suchaspects as respect for age, uncriticaldeference to authority, expectations ofauthoritarian behaviour;

b. attitudes to consultation wit.u those inauthority, e.g. where consultation withsubordinates by those in authority may beseen as demonstrating ignorance or weakness;over-eagerness of subordinates to consultand be consulted.

176

c. attitudes to responsibility andaccountability, e.g. refusal to acknow­ledge responsibility for the actions ofsubordinates; reluctance to accept postsinvolving responsibility;

d. attitudes to decision-making, e.g.passing responsibility for decision-makingto higher authority; collective ratherthan individual decision-making;

e. attitudes to delegation of authority;willingness or unwillingness to delegate.

These factors may be expected to affect top manage­ment workloads and efficiency, oreanisationstructure, decision-making, delegation, discipline,and innovation.

3. Educational and intellectual traditions:

a. educational traditions, e.g. the extentto which education may be seen as thehanding down of knowledge rather than asa process of intellectual development;

b. the existence or absence of a scientifictradition;

c. attitudes to new ideas an innovationgenerally.

These factors may affect development and training,including teaching materials and methods, innova­tion, changes in methods, the development ofsystems, problem-solving, and mechanisation.

4. Status and prestige:

a. the status in the community of industrialemployment, especially in managerial andtechnical grades, vis-a-vis otheroccupations and professions; this is linkedwith the "ideal man" of the society;

b. the importance of maintaining personalperstige and of "loss of face";

c. concepts of privileges and obligations ofwealth and power;

177

d. willingness to accept advice, includingthat of paid consultants.

The above factors are likely to affect the qualityof people willing to take up management posts,other than as members of owner groups, all typesof personal relationships including those involvingdiscipline and the introduction of change, and theintroduction of management consultancy.

5. Concepts of justice: e.g. whether seen asimpersonal, as depending on the applicationof laws and rules, or as personal and open toappeal. This factor is critical in all humanrelationships, especially in ~tters ofdiscipline.

6. Attitudes to work:

a. whether work is seen as an evil borne forthe sake of the remuneration, as anobligation to society or as the satisfac­tion of a personal urge to create;

b. whether work is traditionally individualor collective. This factor may affectthe organisation of work (in groups orindividually), systems of remuneration,disciplinary systems, and quality controlsystems.

7. Attitudes to property:

a. attitudes to· property and possessions,e.g. whether property is seen asindividual or collective; acquisitivenessor lack of it;

b. attitudes to public property or theproperty of the enterprise.

This factor may affect marketing management,remuneration, and the delegation of responsibilityfor property, including finance and security_easures within the enterprise.

178

8. Attitudes to women:

a. attitudes to the placing of women inpositions of authority and responsibility;

b. status of women vis-a-vis men;

c. attitudes to the employment of women, e.g.universally employed, employed only ontraditional work, or employed only beforematrimony.

d. segregation of women.

This factor may be of great importance both in thework situation and socially. It may affectrecruitment, promotion, remuneration, workingconditions, including possible provision forsegregation, organisation of work, and supervisionand discipline.

9. Attitudes to public authorities: traditionalattitudes to government, e.g. suspicious,willing or unwilling to co-operate, leaningon government for actions within the powerof individual managements, honesty towardsgovernment. This factor may affect theeffectiveness of management developmentprogrammes in the accounting field and ofconsultancy. It may cause firms to refuse torecommend actions which would benefit thembecause they believe that these are thegovernment's responsibilities.

The following are among the socio-economicand political factors that affect the behaviorof managers or workers and may have to betaken into account by those concerned withmanagement development and the introductionof change into organisations:

a. political stability;

b. the scope and intensity of political orideological conflict in indusL.:

Jand in

the society as a whole;

179

I '

c. government policies affecting industryincluding monetary, policy, taxationvis-a-vis both private investment andstate enterprises, and commercialpolicies, including those relating toimports and to export promotion;

d. the extent of government control of, orinterference with, industry;

e. the extent of competition in domesticand foreign markets;

f. the existence of economic agreements;

g. the credit system;

h. the proportion of foreign investment toinvestment from domestic sources;

i. conditions in the raw material market;

j. the range and medium size of industrialenterprises;

k. the capital/labour intensity of processes;

1. the degree of technological advancementin the country;

m. labour market conditions, includingavailability of particular skills, thesize and nature of labour surpluses;geographical and interfirm mobility;

n. the extent and effectiveness of the socialsecurity system;

o. the state of development and strength ofworkers' and employers' organisations andtheir ability to control the actions ofindividual members of minority groups;

p. the extent 00 which the workers and theirrepresentatives play any significant rolein the management of the entreprise.(lLO, 1966, pp. 175-185)

180

APPENDIX D

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

FACTORS THAT AFFECT MANAGErfENT

181

International Environmental Factors

1. Sociological constraints

a. National ideology: The general collectiveideology of a nation, as exemplified bytheir writing, speaking, and other mani­festations of a national point of view.

b. View toward foreigners: The generalattitude toward non-nationals, as evidencedby overt behavior.

c. Nature and extent of nationalism: Themanifestation of the collective national­istic feelings within the country, asevidenced by actions, writings, andbehavior.

2. Political-legal constraints

a. Political ideology: The political view­points of existing governments, asdemonstrated by the prevailing patternof rule, philosophy of leading politicalparties, and similar factors.

b. Relevant legal rules for foreign business:The special rules of the games appliedonly to foreign owned firms, includingspecial discriminatory labor and taxlegislation.

c. International organization and treatyobligations: Formal obligations of thecountry in terms of military responsi­bilities, political obligations, copyright,postal, and patent obligations, andsimilar matters.

d. Power or economic bloc grouping: Member­ship in formal and informal political,military, and economic blocs, such ascommunist marxist, or neutralist groups;explicit and implicit obligations OL .uchblocs.

e. Import-export restrictions: Formal legalrules controlling exports and imports,including tariffs, quotas, export duties,

182

export restrictions, and similarmatters.

f. International investment restrictions:Formal legal and administrativerestrictions on investments by foreignerswithin the country.

g. Profit remission restrictions: Formallegal and administrative restrictions onremittance of profits of local operationsto foreign countries.

h. Exchange control restrictions: Formallegal and admin±strative controls on theconversion of the local currency to anyor all foreign currencies or gold.

3. Economic constraints

a. General balance of payments position:The general state of the balance ofpayments, including deficits or surplusseson current account, the flows of capital,both long and short term, new terminternational financial obligations, andtendencies for chronic deficits orsurplusses in the balance of payments.

b. International trade patterns: The usualflows of exports and imports to and fromthe country. Patterns of commoditiesand services traded, by countries andregions.

c. Membership and obligations in internationalfinancial organizations: Obligations andresponsibilities of the country towardinternational organizations such as theWorld Bank and the IMF; rights of thecountry as a member of such organizations.

National Environmental Factors

1. Education

a. Literacy level: The percentage of thetotal population and those presentlyemployed in industry who can read, write

183

and do simple arithmetic calculations, andthe average years of schooling of adults.

b. Specialized vocational and technicaltraining and general secondary education:Extent, types and quality of education andtraining of this type not directly underthe control or direction of industrialenterprises. The type, quantity aridquality of persons obtaining such educationor training and the proportion of thoseemployed in industry with such educationand training.

c. Higher education: The percentage of thetotal population and those employed inindustry with post-high school education,plus the types and quality of sucheducation. The types of persons obtaininghigher education.

d. Special management development programs:The extent and quality of managementdevelopment programs which are not runinternally by productive enterprises, andwhich are aimed at improving the skillsand abilities of managers and for potentialmanagers. The quantity and quality ofmanagers and potential managers ofdifferent types and levels attending orhaving completed such programs.

e. Attitude toward education: The general ordominant cultural attitudes toward educa­tion and the acquisition of knowledge, interms of its presumed desirability. Thegeneral attitude toward different types ofeducation.

f.Educational match with the requirementsof industry and manpower utilization:The extent and degree to which the typesof formal education and training in agivenc~untry fits the needs of productiver~terprises and all levels of skill andacnievement, and the degree to which man­power utilization is effective. This isessentially a summary category; dependingon the type of job involved, differenteducational constraints indicated abovewould be more important.

184

2. Sociological-cultural

a. View toward industrial managers andmanagement: The general or dominant socialattitude toward industrial and businessmanagers of all sorts, and the ways thatsuch managers tend to view their managerialjobs.

b. View of authority, responsibility andsubordinates: The Beneral or dominantcultural attitude toward authority,responsibility and persons in subordinatepositions and the way that industrialmanagers tend to view their authority,responsibility and their subordinates.

c. Interorganizational and individualcooperation: Extent and degree to whichbusiness enterprises, government agencies,labor unions, educational institutionsand other relevant organizations cooperatewith each other in ways conducive toindustrial efficiency and general economicprogress. The degree to which individualsemployed in productive enterprisescooperate with each other towards thisend.

d. View toward achievement and work: Thegeneral or dominant cultural attitudetoward individual or collective achievementand productive work in industry.

e. Class structure and individual mobility;The extent of opportunities for socialclass and individual mobility, bothvertical and horizontal, in a givencountry, and the means by which it can beachieved.

f. View toward wealth, material gain andself interest: Whether or not theacquisition of wealth from differentsources is generally considered social1u

desirable, and the way that personsemployed in industry tend to view materialgain.

185

g. View toward scientific method: Thegeneral social and dominant individualattitude toward the use of rational,predictive techniques in solving varioustypes of business, technical, economicand social problems.

h. View toward risk taking: Whether or notthe taking of various types of personalcollective or rational risks isgenerally considered acceptable, as wellas the dominant view toward specifictypes of risk taking in business andindustry. The degree and extent to whichrisk taking tends to be a rational processin a particular country.

i. View toward change: The general culturalattitude toward a social change of anytype which bear directly on industrialperformance in a given country, and thedominant attitude among persons employedin industry toward all types of signifi­cant. changes in enterprises operations.

3. Political-legal

a. Relevant legal rules of the game:Quality, efficiency, and effectivenessof the legal structure in terms ofgeneral business law, labor law, andgeneral law relevant to business. Degreeof enforcement, reliability, etc.

b. Defense and military policy: Impact ofdefense policy in industrial enterprisein terms of trading with potential enemies,purchasing policies, strategic industrydevelopment, labor resources competition,and similar factors.

c. Foreign policy: Impact of policy ondistrail enterprise in terms of tradingrestrictions, quotas, tarrifs, customs,unions, foreign exchange, etc.

d. Political stability: Influence onindustrial enterprises of revolutions,changes in regime, stability or

186

instability over protracted periods,etc.

e. Political organization: Type oforganization in constitutional terms;degrees of centralization or decentrali­zation; degree and extent of red tape,delays, uncertainty and confusion inindustry-government dealings; pressuregroups and their effectiveness;political parties and their philosophies,etc.

f. Flexibility of law and legal changes:Degree to which relevant barriers to theefficient management of industrialenterpirses can be changed and the time­liness of such changes; predictabilityand certainty of legal actions, etc.

4. Economic

a. Basic economic system: Including suchfactors as the overall economic organiza­tion of the country (i.e., capitalistic,marxist, mixed), property rights andsimilar factors.

b. Central banking system and monetarypolicy: The organization and operationsof the central banking system, includingthe controls over commercial banks, theability and willingness to control themoney supply, the effectiveness ofgovernment, policies regarding pricestability, commercial bank reserves,discounting credit controls, and similarfactors.

c. Fiscal policy and the state budget:General policies concerning governmentexpenditures, their timing, and theirimpact; the general level of deficit,surplus, or balance; total share ofgovernment expenditures in grossnational product.

187

d. Economic stability: The vulnerabilityof the economy to economic fluctuationsof depression and boom, price stability,and over-all economic growth stability.

e. Organization of capital markets: Theexistence of such markets as stock andbond exchanges, their honesty,effectiveness, and total impact; the sizeand role of commercial banking, includingloan policies and availability of creditto businessmen; the existence of othercapital sources, such as savings and loanassociations, government sponsored creditagencies, insurance company loanactivities, etc.

f. Factor endowment: Relative supply of realcapital and land (agricultural, minerals,and other raw materials) per capita; sizeand general health of the work force.

g. ~mrket size: Total effective purchasingpower within the country plus relevantexport markets for different branchesof industry making up the total industrialsector.

h. Social overhead capital: Availability andquality of power supplies, water,communications systems, transportation,public warehousing, physical transferfacilities, housing, etc. (Richman & Copen,1972)

188

APPENDIX E

THE STUDY SAMPLE, PART A

189

190

Table 9

Countries Excluded from the Sample

Countries

l. Algeria2. Egypt3. Libya4. Morocco5. Tunisia

6. Cape Verde7. Comoros8. Madagascar9. Mauritius

10. Reunion11. Sao Tome and Principe12. Seychelles

13. Djibouti14. Equatorial Guinea

15. Former Spanish Sahara

16. Namibia

17. South Africa

Reasons for Exclusion

Located north of the Sahara;considered part of the }tiddleEast.

Island nations; not part ofcontinental Africa.

Insufficient data.

Claimed by ~1orocco.

Illegally occupied by SouthAfrica.

Atypical case. Government basedon institutionalized, legallysanctioned racism and oppressionof the majority of the people.

APPENDIX F

THE STUDY SAMPLE t PART B

191

Table 10

Countries Included in the Sample

192

Number

l.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.ll.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.2l.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31 •.32.33.34.35.36.37.

Country Name

AngolaBeninBotswanaBurundiCameroonCentral African RepublicChadCongoEthiopiaGabonGambiaGhanaGuineaGuinea-BissauIvory CoastKenyaLesothoLiberiaMalawiHaliMauritaniaMozambiqueNigerNigeriaRwandaSenegalSierre LeoneSomaliaSudanSwazilandTanzaniaTogoUgandaUpper VoltaZaireZambiaZimbabwe

APPENDIX G

LIST OF 19 NATIONAL BASIC INDICATORS

FOR WHICH DATA WERE COLLECTED

193

194

1. Percentage share of central government expenditures on generalpublic services.

2. Percentage share of central government expenditures on nationaldefense.

3. Percentage of central government expenditures on education.

4. Percentage share of central government expenditures on health.

5. Percentage share of central government expenditures on socialsecurity, housing and other social services.

6. Percentage share of central government expenditures oneconomic services.

7. Gross Domestic Investment, 1960.

8. Gross Domestic Investment, 1979.

9. Gross Domestic Product, 1960.

10. Gross Domestic Product, 1979.

11. Percentage of labor force in agriculture.

12. Percentage of labor force in industry.

13. Percentage of labor force in services.

14. Percentage share of agriculture in GDP.

15. Percentage share of industry in GDP.

16. Percentage share of services in GDP.

17. National literacy rate.

18. Physical Quality of Life Index (P~LI).

19. Per capita GNP.

N.B. The data for all these indicators, e.{cept 7 and 9, are for theyear 1979. See Chapter IV for dath .ources.

1-

APPENDIX H

VALUES OF 13 VARIABLES FOR 37 COUNTRIES

195

196

Table 11

Values of 13 Variables for 37 Countries

Country Variables'"1.D.

Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 '" '" '" '" '" '" 1.25 0.70 0.83 '" 0.13 14 4402 '" '" '" '" '" '" 1.07 1.33 0.84 '" 0.22 26 '"3 20.50 6.00 8.80 28.00 '" 20.50 3.95 0.17 0.24 0.59 0.47 51 7204 20.60 4.70 6.20 30.90 11.20 16.20 1.53 0.33 0.37 0.90 0.14 30 1805 16.80 4.80 8.90 29.50 8.30 27.40 2.59 0.44 0.19 0.40 '" 30 5606 '" '" '" '" '" '" 2.38 0.22 0.18 '" 0.20 21 2907 13.50 4.20 3.00 26.50 25.80 22.40 1.21 0.64 0.42 0.75 0.14 23 1108 '" '" '" '" '" '" 2.69 0.72 0.76 '" 0.19 37 6309 11.50 5.00 7.40 25.90 '" 43.70 1.74. 0.47 0.33 1.64 0.09 21 130

10 '" '" '" '" '" '" 13.17 0.15 0.38 ... 0.29 21 328011 6.50 6.30 5.10 52.00 '" 25.30 1.72 1.11 0.24 0.54 0.24 22 25012 18.70 7.50 2.70 28.00 16.00 19.90 0.82 0.95 2.00 0.53 0.02 41 40013 '" '" '" '" '" '" 2.00 0.42 0.21 '" '" 20 28014 15.60 13.60 '" 20.20 24.00 23.40 1.72 0.11 0.18 * '" 14 17015 35.70 7.80 4.70 31.70 7.20 17.80 3.04 0.17 0.33 1,43 0.32 31 104016 18.70 7.50 2.70 28.00 16.00 18.40 2.29 0.48 0.27 0.42 0.22 31 38017 21.30 5.70 7.10 28.20 '" 34.70 2.42 0.27 0.18 0.35 0.33 52 34018 11.30 6.10 4.70 29.60 2.70 '" 2.03 0.54 0.38 0.56 0.27 51 50019 11.80 5.30 4.80 37.60 11.30 21.30 2.00 0.25 0.24 0.44 0.32 31 20020 21.60 6.20 4.70 12.70 18.60 23.50 2.10 0.45 0.15 2.16 0.16 18 14021 '" '" '" '" '" '" 3.15 0.15 0.25 ... ,.. 21 32022 '" '" '" '" '" '" 1.52 1.06 0.40 '" -0.04 27 25023 23.30 6.00 3.80 19.50 6.10 33.10 2.07 0.09 0.25 2.91 0.31 16 27024 9.60 2.20 6.20 45.80 17.90 13.50 2.40 0.40 0.82 0.34 0.32 28 67025 18.80 6.30 2.90 29.70 12.40 20.40 2.17 0.10 0.19 0.63 0.21 32 20026 19.00 6.00 9.30 13.80 10.70 24.10 2.62 0.42 0.30 1.90 0.23 23 43027 16.00 7.60 6.40 24.80 7.80 26.30 1.83 0.83 0.37 1.07 '" 31 25028 14.00 6.10 7.50 25.60 20.10 26.80 1.40 0.73 0.28 2.80 0.17 34 '"29 5.20 1.70 5.30 39.30 13.60 7.40 2.05 0.77 0.24 0.26 0.08 32 37030 21.40 6.50 4.90 32.30 6.50 27.00 '" '" '" 0.48 0.30 43 65031 12.50 5.90 3.90 45.60 10.50 18.00 1.54 0.46 0.33 0.21 0.22 50 26032 13.70 5.80 10.90 15.90 9.60 22.30 2.72 0.65 0.33 0.53 0.43 27 35033 '" '" '" '" '" '" 1.51 0.86 0.29 '" 0.04 42 29034 15.60 5.50 2.50 29.40 21.89 22.30 2.18 0.60 0.12 1.73 0.28 17 18035 15.10 4.00 4.90 17.90 10.80 18.40 2.27 0.54 0.28 0.38 0.09 32 26036 16.80 7.70 4.00 '" '" 32.70 4.53 0.27 0.48 0.31 0.20 41 50037 '" '" '" '" '" '" 5.00 0.38 0.51 '" 0.13 '" 470

"'See Chapter IV for a full description of each variable. An asterisk in the tablesignifies a missing value.

APPENDIX I

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

197

Table 12

Correlation Hatrix (Data with Group Hedians for l!issing Values)

----Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1

2 0.46903

3 -0.09220 -0.16577

4 -0.49622 -0.47692 -0.14794

5 -0.36972 -0.04971 -0.2384'7 0.16670

6 0.24806 0.39984 0.13812 -0.43982 -0.21495

7 -0.06104 -0.22043 0.12388 0.20811 -0.00011 -0.16491

8 -0.39309 -0.17788 0.01844 0.16014 0.14031 -0.13811 -0.38604

9 -0.03474 -0.09137 -0.17299 0.21291 0.04182 -0.19141 -0.12025 0.39043

10 0.36802 0.18491 0.03606 -0.50585 0.05376 0.43468 -0.18140 -0.10243 -0.24424

11 0.11909 -0.42106 0.15751 0.13583 -0.28834 0.03737 0.22701 -0.18431 -0.09306 0.06710

12 0.13996 0.02456 0.03446 0.13033 -0.49888 -0.00568 -0.01955 0.00845 0.19793 -0.38645 0.21568

13 -0.03796 -0.29410 0.13189 0.36106 -0.00661 -0.29646 0.91308 -0.25409 0.08632 -0.22038 0.21144 0.01121

N = 37

I--'\0CO

kif9P:?'!W';!'MilM:H, JI· .'~P- e; .. F . • n _R!¥.~ .i.,f,,+,._V, ,$,.90. %kZ,_"S .• M&'!$'f.,.*.,e $i"n,," M,:;;';;, ;'Ri, *' .fI£Ii,;;; 1;;;;0)0( * .:;s "A ""'1__1\'_." ., ""_~> 10"'·'" ,VC" ~~~;"""'I""""',~~""'1"""'"~""""_'''';'''''~''''''''~_', ..__. ---..,-","

REFERENCES

199

200

Adamolekun, L. Towards development oriented bureaucracies in Africa.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1976, 42, 257­265.

Adeba¥o, A. Policy-making in Nigerian public administration. Journalof Administration Overseas, 1979, ~(1), 4-14.

Adelman, I. Growth, income distribution, and equity orienteddevelopment strategies. World Development, 1975, 1, 2-3.

Adeniyi, E. Planning and plan administration in Nigeria. Journal ofAdministration Overseas, 1980, 11(3), 160-174.

Adler, J. D. Some policy problems in economic development. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 1961, ~(2), 118.

Ajiferuke, M., & Boddewyn, J. Culture and other explanatoryvariables in comparative management studies. Advanced ManagementJournal, 1970a, 11, 153-165.

Socioeconomic indicators in comparative management.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970b, 11, 453-458.

Al-Araji, A. M. Non-planning approach in administrative developmentpolicy-making in Iraq. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 1977, 43, 357-364.

Albanese, R. Managing toward accountability for performance.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1978.

Ali, K. Impact of agricultural modernization on crude birth rate inIndian Punjab. Pakistan Development Review, 1981, 20(1), 247­267.

Almaney, A. Cultural traits of the Arabs: Growing interest' forinternational management. Management International Review, 1981,~(3), 10.

Altunbay, S., & Kizilian, G. Management information system for aresearch institute in a developing country: A case study.R & D Management, 1982,11(4), 183-187.

Anastos, D., Bedos, A., & Seaman, B. The development of modernmanagement practices in Saudi Arabia. Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, 1980, 11(2), 81-82.

Armer, M., & Grimshaw, A. D. (Eds.). Comparative social research:Methodological problems and strategies. New York: John Wiley,1973.

•

201

Ascroft, J., & Gleason, G. Breaking bottlenecks in communication.CERES, 1981, 36-41.

Badran, M., & Hinings, B. Strategies ~f administrative control andcontextual constraints in a less developed country: The case ofEgypt. Organization Studies, 1981, ~, 3-21.

Balassa, B. Exports and economic growth: Further evidence. Journalof Development Economics, 1978, 1, 181-189.

Prospects for trade in manufactured goods betweenindustrial and developing countries, 1978-1990. Journal ofPolicy Modeling, 1980, ~(3), 437-455.

Ballance, F. C. Rural reform in Zimbabwe. African Report, 1981, 26(4),9-14.

Balogun, M. J. Security of tenure in Nigerian public administration:A brief history and recent development. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 1976, 42, 275-381.

Barish, N. N., & Verhulst, M. (Eds.). Management sciences in thedeveloping countries. Oxford, Great Britain: Pergamon Press,1965.

Barrett, G. V., & Bass, B. M. Comparative surveys of managerial·attitudes and behavior~ In J. Boddewyn (Ed.), Comparativemanagement: Teaching, research, and training. New York:Graduate School of Business Administration, 1970, 179-207.

Bass, B. M., & Berger, P. C. Assessment of managers: An internationalcomparison. New York: The Free Press, 1979. (Prepared incollaboration with R. Doktor and G. V. Barrett.)

Basu, K. S. Management similarities and differences under differentcultures. Indian Management, 1965, !(3), 18-24.

Bauer, P. T., & Yamey, B. S. The economics of under-developedcountries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Becker, G. S. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysiswith special reference to education. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1972 (2nd edition; published for the NationalBureau of Economic Research).

Bendor, J. A theoretical problem in comparative administration.Public' Administration Review, 1976, ~(6), 626-631.

•

202

Bennett, M. Response characteristics of bilingual managers toorganizational questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 1977,30(1), 29-36.

Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. Human behavior: An inventory ofscientific findings. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1964.

Berting, J., Geyer, F., & Jurkovich, R. (Eds.). Problems in inter­national comparative research in the social sciences. Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1979.

Bhagat, R. S., & McQuaid, S. J. Role of subjective culture inorganizations: A review and directions for future research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, &I, 653-685 (monograph).

Bjur, W. The international manager and the third sector. PublicAdministration Review, 1975, 35, 463-467.

Blair, H. Rural development, class structure and bureaucracy inBangladesh. World Development, 1978, ~, 65-82.

Blake,' R. R., &Mouton, J. Motivating human productivity in thePeople's Republic of China. Group and Organization Studies,1979, !(2), 159-169.

Boddewyn, J. (Ed.). Comparative management: Teaching, research, andtraining. New York: Graduate School of Business Administration,1970.

Boddewyn, J., & Nath, R. Comparative management studies: Anassessment. Management International Review, 1970, 1Q(1), 3-11.

Boeke, J. H. Economics and economic policy of dual societies.New York: International Secretariat, Institute of PacificRelations, 1953.

Boguinard, E. K. R€flexions sur quelques principes fondamentauxd'administration et quelques points-cles d'une administration 'ded~veloppement. International Review of Administrative Sciences,1971, 43(2), 117-122.

Boseman, F. G., & Phatak, A. Management practices of industrialenterprises in Mexico: A comparative study. ManagementInternational Review, 1978, ~(1), 43-48.

•Boulding, K. E. General systems theory--the skeleton of science.

Management Science, 1956, ~(3), 197-208.

I·

203

Bourgeois, G., & Boltvinik, M. OD in cross-cultural settings: LatinAmerica. California Management Review, 1981, 22(3), 75-81.

Brigham, E. F., & Pappas, J. L. Managerial economics. Hinsdale, IL:The Dryden Press, 1976.

Brookfield, H. Interdependent development. London: Methuen, 1975.

Bruno, M. Domestic resource costs and effective protection:Clarification and synthesis. Journal of Political Economy, 1972,80, 16-33.

Bryant, C., &White, L. G. Managing development in the Third World.Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982.

Bryce, M. D. Industrial development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Budhiraja, S. B. The role of management in economic development.Indian Management, 1965, ~(4), 16-22.

Burke, F. Public administration in Africa. Journal of ComparativeAdministration, 1969, 345-378.

Cabell, D. W. E. The integration of micro organizational theory andthe comparative management area. Academy of ManagementProceedings, 1977, 312-316.

Caiden, N., & Wildavsky, A. Planning and budgeting in poor countries.New York: John Wiley, 1974.

Chambers, R. Managing rural development. New York: ,Holmes & Meier,1974.

Chang, S. J. Adoption of new agricultural technology: A survey.Seoul National University Economic Review, 1981, 11(1), 51-59:

Chapel, Y. (Ed.). Administrative management for develQpment.Published by UNESCO and the International Institute ofAdministrative Sciences, 1977.

Cheema, G. S. Changing patterns of administration in the field:The Malaysian case. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 1979, 45(1), 64-68.

Choguill, C. L. Towards a theory of plan implementation, based onthe Bangladesh experience. Journal of Administration Overseas,1980, 1l(3), 148-159.

204

Chowdry, K. Social and cultural factors in management development inIndia and the role of expert. International Labour Review, 1966,94(3).

Clark, R. J. Land reform and peasant market participation on thenorth highlands of Bolivia. Land Economics, 1968, 153-172.

Cochran, T. C. The entrepreneur in economic change. BehavipralScience, 1964,1(2), 111-119.

Co1eman , J. C., Stifel, L., & Black, J. E. (Eds.). Education andtraining for public sector management in developing countries.New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1977.

Coles, F. A. Managing economic development in Africa. Journal ofManagement Studies, 1975,2(4), (University of Ghana, Ghana).

Coward, E. W., Jr. Indigeneous organization, bureaucracy, anddevelopment: The case of irrigation. Journal of DevelopmentStudies, 1976, 11, 92-105.

Crino, M., & White, M. Strategic planning in less developed countries.Management International Review, 1980, 20(4).

Crosby, J. Personnel management in a developing country. PersonnelManagement, 1976, ~(9), 19-23.

Davies, J. H. The supply of managerial ability in West Africa.Quarterly Journal of AIESEC International, 1965, l(2), 15-18.

De Beer, C., & van de Ven, T. The efficiency of production systems indeveloping countries: A case study in Peruvian metal workingindustry. Management International Review, 1980, 20(3), 87.

Deboeck, G., & Kinsey, B. Managing information for rural development:Lessons from East Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1980.

De la Torre, J., & Toyne, B. Cross-national managerial interaction:A conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 1(3),462-474.

Delp, P., Thesen, A., Motiwalla, J., & Seshadri, N. Systems tools forproject planning. Bloomington, IN: PAS ITAM, 1977.

Denison, E. Accounting for United States economic growth 1929-1969.• Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1974.

205

De Vogeler, S. J. Social development from the perspective of ThirdWorld management institutes. Paper presented at the 25thAnniversary World Conference of the Society for InternationalDevelopment, Baltimore, Maryl~nd, June 1&-22, 1982.

Deyo, F. C. Local foreman in multinational enterprise: A comparativestudy of supervisory role-tensions in Western and Chinesefactories in Singapore. Journal of Management Studies, 1978,.li, 308-317.

Dornbusch, R., & Fischer, S. Macro-economics (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill, 1981.

Dresang, D. L. Entrepreneurialism and development administration.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, ~(1), 76-85.

Drucker, P. F. Management's new role. Harvard Business Review, 1969,49-54.

Management: Tasks, responsibilities. practices. NewYork: Harper & Row, 1974.

Dwivedi, O. P., & Nef, J. Crisis and continuities in developmenttheory and administration: First and Third World perspectives.Public Administration and Development, 1982, 59-77.

Economic Commission for Africa (U.N.), and World MeteorologicalOrganization. The role of meteorological services in econqmicdevelopment in Africa. Geneva: WHO, 1969.

Eicher, C., &Witt, L. (Eds.). Agriculture in economic development.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Elder, J. W. Comparative cross-national methodology. Annual Reviewof Sociology, 1975, ~, 209-230.

EI-NamaKi, M. S. S. Problems of management in a developingenvironmept. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1979.

England, G. W. Managers and their value systems: A five-countrycomparative study. Columbia Journal of World Business, 1978,11(2), 35-44.

Esman, M. J. Development administration and constituency organization.Public Administration Review, 1978, 38(2), 166-172.

Esman, M. J., & Montgomery, J. The administration of human resourcedevelopment. In The World Bank, World development r@port, 1980.Washingt~n, DC: The Bank, 1980.

206

Etzioni, A. Complex organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1961.

~verett, J. E., Stening, B. W., & Longton, P. E. Some evidence for aninternational managerial culture. Journal of Management Studies,1982~~, 152-153.

Ewing, A. F. Some recent contributions to the literature on economicdevelopment. J~urnal of MOdern African Studies, 1966, !(3),335-348.

Some recent contributions to the literature on economicdevelopment. Journal of Modern African Studies, 1969, ~(1),

165-168.

Ewing, A. F., & Koch, G. V. Some recent literature on development.Journal of Modern African Studies, 1977, li(3), 457-480.

Farid, S. M. Public enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1980, ~(1), 47-51.

Farmer, R. N., & Richman, B. M.: See Richman, B. M., & Farmer, R. N.

Farris, G. F., &.Butterfield, A. D. Control theory in Brazilianorganization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, lI, 574-585.

Flores, F. The applicability of American management practices todeveloping countries: A case study of the Philippines.Management International Review, 1972,11(1), 83-89.

Frank, C., Kim, C., & Westphal, L. Foreign trade regimes and economicdevelopment. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

Friedmann, J. Regional development policy: A case study of Venezuela.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966.

Gable, R. W., & Springer, J. F. Administrative implications ofdevelopment policy: A comparative analysis of agriculturalprograms in Asia. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1979, 12, 687-703.

Galbraith, J. K. A positive approach to foreign aid.Affairs, 1961, 39 (3), 444-457.

Foreign,

Galtung, J., O!Brien, P., & Preiswerk, R. Self-reliance: A strategyfor development. London: Bogle-L'Ouverture, 1980.

Gant, G. :Development administration: Meaning and application.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979-.

207

Geertz, C. Peddlers and princes. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1963.

Getter, D. F.society.

Introducing a HRD programme in an industrializingJournal of European Training, 1975,1(3), 140-150.

Ghiselli, D. E., Haire, M., & Porter, L. W. Managerial thinking:An international study. New York: John Wiley, 1969.

Glen, T. M., & James, C. F., Jr. Difficulties in implementingmanagement science techniques in a Third World setting.Interfaces, 1980,1(1), 39-43.

Goodall, M. Bureaucracy and bureaucrats: Some themes drawn fromthe Nepal experience. Asian Survey, 1975, 12, 89.

Go0 dman , L. J., & Love, N. Management of development projects: Aninternational case study approach. New York: Pergamon Press,1979.

Goodsell, C. T. The program variable in comparative administration:Postal service. International Review of Administrative Sciences,1976, 42(1), 33-38.

Gould, D. The administration of underdevelopment. In. G. Gran (Ed.),The political economy of underdevelopment. New York: PrenticeHall, 1979.

Granick, D. International differences in executive reward systems:Extent, explanation and significance. Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, 1978,11(2), 45-55.

Grant, J. A fresh approach to meeting basic human needs of the world'spoorest billion: Implications of the Chinese and other 'successmodels'. American Political Association, 1976.

Grindle, M. Politics and policy implementation in the Third World.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Gross, B. Management strategy for economic and social development:Part 11. Policy Sciences, 1972, 1-25.

Guhan, S. Management of poverty or vice-versa. Economic andPolitical Weekly, 1982, 1I(42) , 1687-1689.

Gusfield, J. R. Tradition and modernity: Misplaced polarities in thestudy of social change. American Journal of Sociology, 1967,1l(3) , 351-362.

208

Haas, M. International conflict. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.,1974.

Hagen, E. How economic growth begins: A general theory applied to~apan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1958, 22(3), 373-383.

Hanson, M. Organization bureaucracy in Latin America and the legacyof Spanish colonialism. Journal of Inter-American Studies andWorld Affairs, 1974, ~, 199-219.

Haq, M. The strategy of economic planning. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1963.

Haragopal, G. Regulatory vs. development departments; conflictbetween administrative subcultures in rural development.Journal of Administration Overseas, 1980, ~(3), 175-182.

Hart, K. Small-scale entrepreneurs in Ghana and developmentplanning. Journal of Development Studies, 1970, ~(4), 104-120.

Hartman, J. J., & Hedblom, J. H. Methods for the social sciences.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979.

Heady, F. Comparative administration: A sojourner's outlook.Public Administration Review, 1978, 38(4), 358-365.

ed.).

Hedebro, G.Ames:

Public administration: A comparative perspective (2ndNew York: Marcel Dekker, 1979.

Communication and social change in developing nations.Iowa State University Press, 1982.

Heginbotham, S. Cultures in conflict: The four faces of Indianbureaucracy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

Heilbroner, R. L. The making of economic society (2nd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Helleiner, K. F. Moral conditions of economic growth. Journal ofEconomic History, 1961, 97-116.

Helmich, D. L., & Papageorge, A. J. Cross-cultural aspects ofexecutive leadership styles. Akron Business and EconomicReview, 1976, 1(4), 28-33.

Henley, J. S. The personnel professionals in Kenya. PersonnelManagement, 1977, 1, 10-14.

•

209

Hermansen, T. Gr~wth poles and growth centers in national andregional development--A synthetic approach. Geneva: U.N.Research Institute for Social Development.

Hesseling, P. Studies in cross-cultural organizations. ColumbiaJournal of World Business, 1973, ~(4), 120-134.

Higgins, B. Economic development, principles, problems and policie~.

New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1968.

Hirschman, A. O. The strate~y of economic development. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1958.

Obstacles to development: A classification and aquasi-vanishing act. In Uphoff and Ilchman (Eds.), 1972, 55-62(originally published in 1965).

Hirschman, D. The budget calendar in Lesotho. Journal ofAdministration Overseas, 1980, ~(1), 10-27.

Bolt, J., & Turner, R. The methodology of comparative research.I New York: The Free Press, 1970.

Hope, K. R. Development administration in post-independence Guyana.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1977, 43(1),67-72.

Hoselitz, B. F. Entrepreneurship and economic growth. AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, 1952, 12.

Rowell, P., Strauss, J., & Sorensen, P. F. Research note: Culturaland situational determinants of job satisfaction among managementin Liberia. Journal of Management Studies, 1975, ~, 225-227.

Hunt, R. M., & Truitt, N. S. The Poder project in Columbia: Thesuccesses and failures of a pilot popular participation project.International Development Review, 1976, 1£(3), 97-104.

Hunter, G. The administration of agricultural development: Lessonsfrom India. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Hyman, S. Management and world development. London: Isaac Pitman &Sons, 1967.

Iboko, J. I. Management development~atterns in Nigeria. ManagementInternational Review, 1976, li(3) , 97-104.

Ickis, J. C. Strategy and structure in rural development. Boston:Harvard Business School Doctoral Thesis, 1978.

,:~.. ~

210

Ickis, J. C. Central American rural development remembered. Paperpresented at the 25th Anniversary World Conference of the Societyfor International Development, Baltimore, Maryland, July 18-22,1982.

Imoisili, I. C. Key success factors in multinational and indigenouscompanies in Nigeria: A comparative analysis. Columbia Journalof World Business, 1978, 11(3), 40-53.

Ingle, M. Implementation: The state of the art. Washington, DC:USAID, 1979.

International Labour Office. Social and cultural factors in managementdevelopment: Extracts from the conclusions of a meeting ofexperts. International Labour Review, 1966, 94(2), 175-185.

The basic needs approach to development. Some issuesregarding concepts and methodology. Geneva: ILO, 1977.

Inzerilli, J. I. Some hypotheses on the nature of managerial rolesin developing countries. Academy of Management Proceedings,1978, 282-286.

Ivancevich, J. M., Connelly, J. H., & Gibson, J. L. Managing forperformance. Dallas: Business Publications, 1980.

Jackson, I. J. Climate, water, and agriculture in the tropics.London: Longman, 1977.

Jaggi, B. Job satisfaction and leadership style in developingcountries: The case of India. International Journal ofContemporary Sociology, 1977, ~, 230-236.

Jedlicka, A. Organization for rural development: Risk taking andappropriate technology. New. York: Praeger, 1977.

Johnson, R. A., MDnsen, R. J., Knowles, H. P., & Saxberg, B. o.Management, systems, and society: An introduction. PacificPalisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1976.

Johnston, B., & MelIor, J. The role of agriculture in economicdevelopment. American Economic Review, 1961, 571-581.

Kakar, S. Authority patterns and subordinate behavior in Indianorganization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 1£,298-307.

211

Kaluzny, A. D., Warner, D. M., Warren, D. G., & Zelman, W. N.Management of health services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1982.

Kanawaty, G., Thorsrud, E., Semiono, J. P., & Singh, J. P. Fieldexperiences with new forms of work organization. InternationalLabour Review, 1981, 120(3), 263-277.

Kasfir, N. Theories of administrative behavior in Africa. AfricanStudies Review, 1972, !, 155-165.

Katzin, M. The role of the small entrepreneur. In M. J. Herkovitz &M. Hartvitz (Eds.), Economic transition in Africa. London:Routledge, 1964.

Kelley, L., & Reeser, C. The persistence of culture as a determinantof differentiated attitudes on the part of American managers ofJapanese ancestry. Academy of Management Journal, 1973, i(1),67-76.

Kelley, L., &Worthley, R. The. role of culture in comparativemanagement: A cross-cultural perspective. Academy ofManagement Journal, 1981, li(1), 164-173.

Kent, G. Community based development planning. Third WorldPlanning Review, 1981, 1(3), 313-326.

_Kerlinger, F. L. Foundations of behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973..

Kerlinger, F. L., & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in behavioralresearch. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

Kahn, J. Public management: The eastern Carribean experience.Leiden: Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology, 1982.

Kiggundu, M. N., Jorgensen, J. J., & Hafsi, T. Administrative theoryand practice in developing countries: A synthesis. Administra­tive Science Quarterly, 1983, 28(1), 65-84.

Killick, T. The possibilities of development planning. OxfordEconomic Papers, 1976, 173.

Killy, P. Entrepreneurship and economic development. New York:The Free Press, 1971.

Kim, J., & Kohout, F. Multiple regression analysis: Subprogramregression. In N. H. Nie, C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K.Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent (Eds.), Statistical package for thesocial sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

212

Kindleberger, G. P. Economic development. New York: McGraw-Hill,1958.

Kingshott, A. A planning and management system for agriculturalextension in Botswana. Journal of Administration Overseas,1980, 11(3), 183-193.

Kirkgreen, A. H. M. African administrators in action. New York:H. M. Cass, 1979.

Kizilbach, A. H. New perspectives on training for managers fordeveloping countries. American Marketing Association Combined

. Proceedings, 1974, 36, 647-656.

Kleinjans, E. Foreword. In Schramm and Lerner, 1976, IX.

Knight, P. T. (Ed.).Washington, °DC:

Implementing programs of human development.The World Bank, 1980.

Koontz, H. The management theory jungle. Journal of the Academy ofManagement, 1961, ~(3), 174-188.

A model for analyzing the universality and transferabilityof management. In H. Koontz and C. O'Donnell (Eds.), Management:A book of reading. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976, 81-90 (articleoriginally published in 1969).

Korten, D. C. Population and social development management:challenge for management schools. Caracas, Venezuela:de Estudios Superiores de Administracion, 1979.

AInstituto

Community organization and rural development: Alearning process approach. Public Administration Review, 1980a,40(5), 480-511.

The management institutes working group on socialdevelopment: Background informations and work plans. Makati,Philippines: Asian Institute of Management, 1980b.

The management of social transformation. PublicAdministration Review, 1981, ~(6), 609-618.

Social development management. Paper presented at the25th Anniversary World Conference of the Society for InternationalDevelopment, Baltimore, Maryland, July 18-?2, 1982.

Krause, W. Economic development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1961.

213

Kraut, A. Some recent advances in cross-national managemen~research.

Academy of Management Journal t 1975, ~(3), 538-549.

Krishna, R., & Raychaudhuri, G. S. Trends in rural savings andcapital formation in India, 1950-1954 to 1973-1974. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 1981, 30(2), 273-298.

Kulp, E. M.method.

Rural development planning:New York: Praeger, 1970.

Systems analysis and working

Kurian, G. T.New York:

Encyclopedia of the Third World (revised edition).Facts on File, 1982.

Lall, K. B. Economic revolution and managerial tasks. Publishedby the Administrative Staff College of India, 1976.

LaPalombara, J. Alternative strategies for developing administrativecapabilities in emerging nations. In F. Riggs (Ed.), Frontiersof development administration. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress, 1971.

Lastrucci, C. L. The scientific approach: Basic principles of thescientific method. ·Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.,1967.

Lee, J. Developing managers in developing countries. HarvardBusiness Review, 1968.

Lewis, W. A. Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour.Manchester School of Economics and Social Sciences, 1954, ~,139-191.

Development planning. London: AlIen and Unwin, 1966.

Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Lindenberg, M., & Crosby, B. Managing development: The politicaldimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Kumarian Press, 1981.

Livingstone, I. After divorce:and development economics?.!!(l), 35-50.

The remarriage of economic theoryEastern Africa Economic Review, 1976,

Lockheed, M. E., Jamison, D. T., & Lau, L. J. Farmer education andfarm efficiency: A survey. Economic Development and CulturalChange, 1980, 29(1), 37-76.

214

Lombard, F. J. Screening foreign direct investment in LOSs:Empirical findings of the Colombian case (1967-1975). Journalof International Business Studies, 1978, ~(3), 66-80.

Luckham, A. R. Institutional transfer and breakdown in a new nation:The Nigerian military. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971,~, 387-405.

Lungu, G. F. Africanization and the merit principle in the Zambianpublic service. Journal of Administration Overseas, 1980,~(2). 88-99.

MacKenzie, R. A. The management process in 3-D. Harvard BusinessReview, 1969, 80-87.

Maher, D. J., & Rezende, F. A. The growth and pattern of publicexpenditure in Brazil, 1920-1969. Public Finance Ouarterly,1975, 1(4), 380-399.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Marston, R. C.countries.

Management expertise: Its application in developingPA, 1978, 23(8), 54-56.

Methods of research in theHarper & Brothers, 1958.

McClelland, D. C. The achieving society. New York: The Free Press,1961.

McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. Motivating economic achievement.New York: The Free Press, 1969.

McCormick, T. C., &Francis, R. G.behavioral sciences. New York:

McFarland, D. E. Management, humanism, and society: The case formacromanagement theory. Academy of Management Journal, 1977,~(4), 613-623.

McGranahan, D. V. Development indicators and development models.Journal of Development Studie~, 1972, ~.

McLaughlin, M. M. The United States in the north-south dialogue:A survey. In M. M. McLaughlin and the Staff of the OverseasDevelopment Council, The United States and world development.Agenda 1979. New York: Praeger for the ODC, 1979, 77-113.

Melior, J. The new economics of growth. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1976.

215

Mentzer,. J. T., & Samli, A. C. A model for marketing in economicdevelopment. Colombia Journal of World Business, 1981, ~(3),91-101.

Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL:The Free Press, 1957.

Mills, G. E. Local governments in a small state: Jamaica. Journalof AdministratiQn Overseas, 1979, 1!(3), 180-192.

Milne, R. S. Mechanistic and organiz models of public administrationin developing countries. Administrative Science Quarterly,1970, 11, 57-67.

Monaon, T•. D., & Pursell, G. G. The use of DRCs to evaluateindigenization programs: The case of the Ivory Coast. Journalof Development Economics, 1979, ~, 119-139.

Montgomery, J. D. Allocation of authority in land reform programs: Acomparative study of administrative processes and outputs.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 1I, 62-75.

Montgomery, J. D., &Marglin, S. A. Measuring the extent ofgovernmental effort in agriculture: An approach to the will todevelop. In D. Hapgood (Ed.), Policies for promoting agriculturaldevelopment. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1965.

Morgan, E. P. Rural development management. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 1979, 45, 167.

Muwanga~Barlow, C. H. The development of administrative sciences inEnglish-speaking Africa. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 1978, 44, 93-105.

Nambudiri, C. N. S., & Saiyadain, M. S. Management problems andpractices in India and Nigeria. Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness, 1978, 13(2), 62-70.

Nath, R. A methodological review of cross-cultural managementresearch. In J. Boddewyn (Ed.), Comparative management andmarketing. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1969, 195-222.

Comparative management and organization theory:Linking the two. Organization and Administrative Sciences,1974-1975,11(4), 115-124.

Negandhi, A. R. Comparative management and an open systems theory.Academy of Management Proceedings, 1973a, 155-156.

216

Negandhi, A. R. Management and economic development: The case ofTaiwan.' The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973b.

__________• Cross-cultural management studies: Too many conclusions,not enough conceptualization. Management International Review,1974, 1i(6), 59-67.

Comparative management and organization theory: Amarriage needed. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, ~(2),

334-344.

Negandhi, A. R., & Estafen, B. D. A research model to determine theapplicability of American know-how in differing cultures and/orenvironments. Academy of Management Journal, 1965, ~(4), 132.

Negandhi H A. R., & Prasad, S. B. Managerialism for economicdevelopment. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968.

Comparative management. New York: Appleton-Century­Crofts, 1971.

Comparative management. Social Science, 1972, 47(4),235.

Negandhi, A~ R., & Reimann, B. Task environment, decentralization,and organizational effectiveness. Human Relations, 1973, 26,203-214.

Neubauer, ,R. J. Job evaluation--The Mexican encounter. Personnel,191'~ 55(5), 52-56.

Nickell, R., Rice, A. S., & Tucker, S. P. Management in family'living (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.

Niessen, M., & Peschar, J. (Eds.). International comparative research.Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.

Nurkse, R. Problems of capital formation in underdeveloped countries.Oxford: Blackwell and Mott, 1953 and 1967.

OECD. Public administration and economic development. OECD, 1967.

Okoli, F. C. Community development in Africa: Toward a strategyof developmental humanism. Journal of Rural Development andAdministration, 1981,12(1), 10-35.

Ollawa, P. On a dynamic model for rural development in Africa.Journal of MOdern African Studies, 1977, 12, 401-425.

217

Onyemelukwe, C. C. Men and management in contemporary Africa.London: Longman, 1973.

Paul, S. The strategic management of development programmes:,Evidence-from an international study. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 1983, 49(1), 73-86.

Peaslee, A. L. Education's role in development. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change, 1969, 293-318.

Perroux, F. Note sur la notion de pole de croissance. EA, 1955, ~,

307-320.

Pezeshkpur, C. Challenges to management in the Arab world. BusinessHorizons, 1978, 1!(4), 47-55.

Pizam, A., & Reichel, A. Cultural determinants of managerial behavior.Management International Review, 1977, !2(2), 65-72.

Poitras, G. E. Welfare bureaucracy and clientele policies in Mexico.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 18-26.

Portes, A. On the sociology of national development: Theories andissues. In J. Abu-Lughod, and R. Hay, Jr. (Eds.), Third Worldurbanization. New York: Maaroufa Press, 1977, 108-127.

Prasad, B. S. Comparative managerialism as an approach to inter­national economic growth. Quarterly Journal of AIESECInt~rnational, 1966 ~(3), 33-30.

Managers' attitudes in Brazil: Nationals vs.expatriates. Management International Review, 1981, ~(2),

22-30.

Price, J. L. Organizational effectiveness: An inventory ofpropositions. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.

The study of organizational effectiveness. SociologicalQuarterly, 1972, 11, 3-15.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. The logic of comparative social inguiry.New York: Wiley, 1970.

Psacharopoulos, G. Returns to education: An updated internationalcomparison. Comparative Education, 1981, !2(3), 321-341.

Putti, J. M. The cultural setting of management--India and the. United States. Madras, India: The National Publishing Co.,

1979.

218

Raksasataya, A. Development of the administrative sciences inSoutheast Asia and Oceania. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 1978, 44, 50-69.

Rao, Y. V. Communication and development. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1966.

Raup, P. M. The contribution of land reforms to agriculturaldevelopment: An analytical framework. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change, 1963, 1-23.

Reddin, W. J. Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill,1970.

Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. The role of 'face' in the organizationalperceptions of Chinese managers. Organization Studies, 1982,23(3), 201-219.

Rhodes, R. I. (Ed.). Imperialism and underdevelopment: A reader.New York: MOnthly Review Press, 1970.

Richards, P. J. Target-setting for basic needs services: Somepossible approaches. International Labour Review, 1981, 120(5),645-657.

Richman, B., & Copen, M. International management and economicdevelopment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

Richman, B., & Farmer, R. A model for research in comparativemanagement. California Management Review, 1964, ~(2), 55-64.

Comparative managemen~ and economic progress. Homewood,IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1965.

Riggs, F. (Ed.). Frontiers of development administration. Durham,NC: Duke University Press, 1971.

Robbins, L. L. C. The role of management in economic development.Advanced Management Journal, 1965, 30(3).

Roberts, K. A. On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of cross­cultural research related to organizations. PsychologicalBulletin, 1970.

Robock, S.~. Management in underdeveloped countries. AdvancedManagement Journal, 1961.

Rodney, W. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Dar es Salaam:Tanzania Publishing House, 1972.

219

Rogers, E. Modernization among peasants. New York: Holt, Rinehart&Winston, 1969.

Rogers, E. (Ed.).perspectives.

Communication and development: CriticalBeverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1976.

Rondinelli, D. A. The dilemma of development administration:Complexity and uncertainty in control-oriented bureaucracies.World Politics, 1982, 35, 43-72.

Ronen, S., & Kraut, A. Similarities among countries based onemployee work values and attitudes. Columbia Journal ofWorld Business, 1977, 11(2), 89-96.

Roos, L. L. Politics, organizations, and choice: Applications ofan equilibrium model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972,.!1., 529-543.

Rosenberg, R., & Rosenstein, E. Operationalising workers'participation: A comparison of U.S. and Yugoslav models.Industrial Relations Journal, 1981,11(2), 46-52.

Rothwell, K. Administrative issues in developing economies.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1972.

Ryavec, K. W•. Implementation of Soviet economic reforms: Political,organizational and social progress. New York: Praeger, 1975.

Sah, R. Priorities of developing countries in weather and climate.World Development, 1979, 1, 337-347.

Said, A., & Tyson, B. Education and development: The emergingdialogue. Harvard Educational Review, 1981.

Salvatore, D., & Dowling, E. Development economics. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Schaffer, B. Administrative legacies and links in the post-Colonialstate: Preparation, training, and administrative reform.Development and Change, 1978, 2, 175-200.

Schiavo-Campo, S., & Singer, H. W. Perspectives of economicdevelopment. Houghton Mifflin, 1970.

Schollhammer, H. The comparative management theory jungle. Academyof Management Journal, 1969, 12(1), 81-97.

220

Schollhammer, H. Strategies and methodologies in internationalbusiness and comparative management. Management InternationalReview, 1973,11(6), 17-41.

Current research in international and comparativemanagement issues. Management International Review, 1975,~(2-3), 29-35.

Schramm, W., &Lerner, D. (Eds.). Communication and change.Honolulu, HI: Published for the East-West Center by theUniversity of Hawaii Press, 1976.

Schultz, T. W. The economic value of education. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1963.

Investment in human capital: The role of education andof research. New York: The Free Press, 1970.

Schumpeter, J. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1934.

Scitovsky, T. Growth: Balanced or unbalanced. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press, 1959.

Scott, I. Ideology, party, and the cooperative movement in Zambia.Journal of Administration Overseas, 1980, ~(4), 228-238.

Seidman, R. Development planning and legal order in blackAnglophonic Africa. Studies in Comparative InternationalDevelopment, 1979, ~, 3-27.

Siffin, W.tion.

Toward the comparative study of development administra­Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972.

Sigelman, L. In searCh of comparative administration. PublicAdministration Review, 1976, 36(6), 21-25.

Simon, H. Theories of decision making in economic and behavioralscience. American Economic Review, 1959, 49, 245-257.

Administrative behavior. New York: MacMillan, 1970.

Sinha, A. K. Organization building in a developing country: A studyof the central department of food in India. InternationalReview of Administrative Sciences, 1979, ~' 176-182.

Sirota, D., & Greenwood, M. J. Understand your overseas workforce.Harvard Business Review, 1971, 53-60.

221

Sivard, R. L. World military and social expenditures. Leesburg, VA:World Priorities, 1981 and 1982.

Smelser, N. J. Comparative methods in the social sciences. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976.

Smircich, L. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1938, 28(3), 339-358.

Solow, R. Technical change and the aggregate production function.Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39, 312-320.

Southall, A.Madison:

Small urban centers in rural development in Africa.University of Wisconsin, 1979.

Springer, J. F. Empirical theory and development administration:Prologue and promise. Public Administration Review, 1976, 36,636-641.

Stahl, O. G. Managerial effectiveness in developing countries.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1979, 11, 1-5.

Stephens, D. B. Cultural variation in leadership style: Amethodological experiment in comparing managers in the U.S. andPeruvian textile industries. Management International Review,1981, l!.(3), 47--55.

Streeten, P. Development ideas in historical perspective. In RothkoChapel Colloquium, Toward a new strategy for development.New York: Pergamon Press, 1979, 21-52.

Stringfield, H., Jr. Management in a developing economy. Thereorganization of administration required and the assistanceavailable. Advanced Management Journa~, 1965, 30(3), 41-47.

Subramanian, V. Politicized administration in Africa and elsewhere:A socio-historical analysis. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 1977, 43(4), 297-308.

Sunkel, O. National development policy and external dependence inLatin America. Journal of Development Studies, 1969, ~, 23-48.

Sutherland, J. W.management.

Societal systems: Methodology. modeling. andNew York: Elsevier North-Holland~ 1978.

Sutton, F. X., Harris, S., Kaysen, C., & Tobin, J. The Americanbusiness creed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956.

222

Szal, R. J. Popular participation, employment and the fulfillmentof basic needs. International Labour Review, 1979, 118, 27-38.

Szalai, A., &Petrella, R. (Eds.). Cross-national comparativesurvey research: Theory and practice. Oxford: PergamonPress, 1977.

Talbott, A. D., Ascroft, J., Roy, P., & Hursh-Cesar, G. Problems indata processing. In A. Hursh-Cesar & P. Roy (Eds.), ThirdWorld surveys': Survey research in developing nations. Delhi,India: The MacMillan' Company of India, 1976.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (Ed.). Control in organizations. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Tapia-Videla, J. I. Understanding organizations and environments: Acomparative perspective. Public Administration Review, 1976,36(6), 631-636.

Thomas, T. Reorienting bureaucratic performance: A social learningapproach to development actio~. Paper presented at the 25thAnniversary World Conference of the Society for InternationalDevelopment, Baltimore, Maryland, July 18-22, 1982.

Thompson, D. Budgetary structure in developing countries. Journalof Administration Overseas, 1980, 11(4), 250-261.

Thompson, J. D. Technology, polity, and societal development.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 11, 6-21.

Thurber, C., & Graham, L.America. Durham, NC:

Development and administration in LatinDuke University Press, 1973.

Timsit, G. MOdeles administratifs et pays en voie de d~veloppement.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1976, 42(4),349-359.

Ting, W. A comparative analysis of the management technology andperformance of firms in newly industrializing countries.Columbia Journal of World Business, 1980,11(3), 83-91.

Treiman, D. J. Toward methods for a quantitative comparativesociology: A reply to Burawoy. American Journal ofSociology, 1976, 82, 1042-1056.

Tung, R. L. The use of the organizational climate construct incomparative management models. Academy of ManagementProceedings, 1978, 292-296. ,

223

United Nations. Technical Assistance Bureau. A handbook of publicadministration: Current concepts and practice with specialreference to developing countries, 1961.

United Nations.training.

A manual and resource book for popular participationNew York: U.N., 1978.

Uphoff, N., & Ilchman, W. F. (Eds.). The political economy ofdevelopment. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 1972.

Vanek, J., & Bayard, T. Education toward self-management: Analternative development strategy. International DevelopmentReview, 1975, 12(4), 17-23.

Van Fleet, D. D., & Al-Tuhaih, S. M. A cross-cultural analysis ofperceived leader behaviors. Management International Review,1979, 11(4), 81.

van Hanek, B. Participation of the poor in rural organizations.Rome: FAO, 1979.

Villanueva, A. B. Policy articulation of local autonomy in Filipinomunicipal reform, 1946-1960. Journal of AdministrationOverseas, 1978, ~(2), 123-134.

Vozikis, G. S., & Mescon, T. Convergence or divergence? A vitalmanagerial quest revisited. Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness, 1981, ~(2), 79-87.

Walinsky, L. J. Economic development in Burma. 1951-60. New York:The Twentieth Century Fund, 1962.

Wallender, H. W., Ill.development cycle.13(2),' 23-33.

The need for a process of managementColumbia Journal of World Business, 1978,

,ir, '

Waterston, A. Development planning: Lessons of experience.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.

A viable model for rural development. Finance andDevelopment, 1974 and 1975.

Weaver, J. H., & Jameson, K. P. Economic development:. Competingparadigms--Competing parables. Washington, DC: USAID, 1978.

Webber, R. A. Convergence or divergence? Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness, 1969a, -75-83.

224

Webber, R. A. Culture and management. Homewood, 11: Irwin, 1969b.

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Simon &Schuster, 1979 edition.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary. (1971 edition)

Weidner, E. (Ed.). Development and administration in Asia. Durham,NC: Duke University Press, 1970.

Weiner, M. (Ed.). Modernization: The dynamics of growth. New York:Basic Books, 1966 ..

Whitely, W., & England, G. W. Managerial values as a reflection ofculture and the process of industrialization. Academy ofManagement Journal, 1977, 20(3), 439-453.

Wigglesworth, D. C. Management development overseas--Some thoughts.Training and Development Journal, 1981, 35(10), 73-76~

Wildavsky, A. Why planning fails in Nepal. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 1972, 1I, 508-528.

Wildavsky, W., &Pressman, J. L. Implementation (2nd ed.). Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979.

Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. C. Efficient culture I~Q therelationship between culture and organiza ~~ ~~~~mAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1983, , 46

World Bank. Accelerated develo ment in subWashington, DC: The Bank, 1981.

Wright, P. Organizational behavior in IslamicInternational Review, 1981; l!(2) , 86-94.

Wright, R. W. Comparative management in a dynamic setting: Empiricalresearch in Chile. Organization and Administrative Sciences,1976, 2(4), 1-20.

Yavas, U., & Rountree, D. The transfer of management know-how toTurkey through graduate business education: Some empiricalfindings. Management International Review, 1980, !, 61.

Zabra, S. A. Egyptian management at the crossroads. ManagementInternational Review, 1980, !' 118.

Zetterberg, H. C. On theory and verification in sociology. Totowa:Badminster, 1965.

".' :.~~ .

1-TITHEI--------------------

Une des plus r~cent~B approches de le probl~~Gti~ue Ju

NCTE UE i ~~: ~NT~TION DL THl5E

dont 12 peges de prelimin~irE5 ; 12 taLleaux ; 5 figures ; 9 docu-

Th~6e ds rh. D., UnivEr~it~ de IIIo~a, U.5.A., 19L3 (~36

THEORI£. DU ~"ANAGE:ME~a ET vE. vLlCPH,:.t'iENT SC:";10-CCC:(\;Cii',;Ilj UE• • •

MOUElE EXF~ORATOIRE FCUR L'ETUDE DU DEVELOPFEMENT DhNS•• •UNE H.RSf ECTIVI:. tv1.~\CHOU11\II ..GE.R IilLE •

•

ments anne}':ES ; )55 el(!",ente de blbliographie).

t~~_~_.:_RES_Ut;~__J

C'est pour 8lder ~ combler cette l~cune tr6ori~ue que nou~ avens

event pour olJjectif l'~l(,Lrlrc::ti[1n Cl Iur,t: veri t:- LIe thf-'orie lTiBnC'l,/~ricle du

t~r~t nfa pas tt6 dlune grande utllit~ rarcE qulElle nle pes su progrecser

don~ le but d' offrir (lW, chcrcheurs un cutil spiDH:wclegi::ue i'cur int&grer lee

ses efforts de d~vEloppement. Toutefols, cette epproche nul ne mcn~ue

au-dEl~ ~e l~ r~ccnnEie8Ence de 1 1 lmportance cruciale de le gEstion pt ses

connaiEsances e:·,istfmteE f',llr lrT liens :-'ntrE le r;;8n8~:t ,:amt et le t16velop~.e[';1ent·

d~fenseure nlont pes pu d~v~lopper une 50lide th'orie rour ~uider lE5 rech~rc

d:~veloppement.

entre~rls de .:ievE:lepper dene. le cadre de cette thE()e un mcde!le 'omprehen~1f

1 1etude du developr,err.ent deTiE une rerEpE:ctive menag6riale. Le ;'108818 est con~u

soclo-~cGnomlque Est le r~rspFctive mEnag~riBle Dui consid~re le

BDukary 5AV~UGO

::ccnomir:tue dlun!: part, et L:lr;utrr:~ r:'~rtt pcur orienter leE r[ch(~rches futures

(ou gEftion) comme le fccteur le rlue c~terrninant de 16 r6UfEite dlun

.J

- 2 -

un cadre th!.:orir:ue IJE6UCfJUr r::!us comr'let c:t ,deux udn(lte i' la m,tllre du rro-

Richman/Farmer (~) I Ne~ ui,.;,i/Prr)sr=.;G (~) et. Koontz (:3). r~o·,rc;crrr.uli:.:tionEst

plus complE te flBrce c:u:.::, nOIl E'IQUle;,lent, E:lle int~ ~;rc 1 1 t rf intiel C:ES 61icmente

identifies par ler. rU'i;Furs prC:cit88 ct Li'eutrr;s chE:rcheurs, If.Ei:: £~ncore elle

prend comme unlteE d'8n21y~e dL LeEE', des §ccno~1es nstion2lcE 8101'[ ~ue lee

uni teB C;' .:nalyse dE;: ~utr(~r· .. !(1l.1l,lCE ~(!nt surtout l~eE entr priE,es.

t.:n cs qui cunccrnr:.: J...: i/ thod[:lo~.:lie, l' or1g1na11 te dr~ notre C/;iiic,r:::he

r~slde Burtout dens le chci~ 0'unc epproche plur1diEclplin8irE ~E nuture

E:;X~lorBto1re et heuristic,ue C':Ul r.cnvient pLrfci;:ement r:. la ncturc et c.ux

objEctifE LE 1 t~~tude et n.li j'~eri;et L;r:: decr.uvr1er ler impor'i."ntef; vuri6tJles

int.§sr/~es dam~ le "ToLle.

I ARTli,;LiLt,TlLif\i Dt:. U. T~E.SEt__---'Le these Le cOmpOE'E: C:' un d,e",l trE intIoC:uctif, l~E: l'U;- trc char i tres

centraux et [i'un chcpitrr: final l'E cLnclus1on, !Seit En tout six crl::.:pitres.

Chupitr~ I : Introduction• • ••

Dans ce chEp1trs ert ~nonc' le rrobl0rne centrEl de l'~tude. 11 s'tJuit

ie1 dE soulign~r l'importEnce du dtveloppement Et de feire un ra~idE tour

d'horizon du manaGEment co~;p~re qui vient ~clcirEr le siCnificLtion profcnde

de l'8tude. La these cEntralE r~st b~tle sur !E) ntceesi te d' EGseoir lee :. 2St!S

th20riques dE: l' cpproche li1£in2Q ~:r18le c!8 l' f. tude du dr velopperlent. ee cha!·i tre

et ses limltt6, sins1 r;ue 18 d!~1'j ni ticn L:E s rrincir- E:UX cr~nct:iJtfJ et le plan

~,.,I.'

,

. .

- 3 -

CBB~1tre 11 : Revue de le l1tt~reture• •

de recherche sur le ~6veloppement.. .-

Ge cflapi th2 ~~ b.',' VErr: um; revue 2LSt' Z ~:pJ,: I'ofondie >:[,8 ~crits l;,ur le

developpEmmt eX8mine If:S hndcnces I L.Fcurl::.S dEms l' ~vl~lution L:L'r: iLLes Eur le

developpeme:nt depuis la ~E~COnL;(' liucrre ,on, .. i;:olE tl'ut 8n ,-n;:;ly~·,.nt let, point:::

de vue des cherch urs fJur lrL' f't:cteurs d6tt·rninants t:!u d€:velor:rement •

.9hapi tl:;:' Ill.: Revue dE: la 11 tt2EaturE....._

de recherche sur le

msn8~ement•

Dans ce ch::J~itre ~.:cnt revur. et E:nEilvs2r. leE recEnts trav8UX en mJns-

Ql::ment compare pr2u-,'nte.nt un int~r~t ;:,oLlr lE: ::.roblElTie centrr:l r:E hi these.

Chapitre IV : Conc8Etion rt M~thodvloQie 0e l'{tude

Ce ch8~itre ; r~!Ente 18 ~~thodologie £dDrt~e pour (t~diEr le problLme

pas' tout En CXrOs8nt lc~ crn[i~'rrtions d'crdr8 frrticue ~~i crlt d~term1n6 le

choix ue la m&thode d'Gn~roche. Ce ch~- itre f~it 8U2Ei ~t8t J~s sources des

donnees recuel11ie~, de:' ;'8\'E' tnr-lus i..i3nr: lltchantillon de ll!"·tude, de la

sflectlon Et la ~~fure ~CE: ~~ri(bles 2t dES rroc§dur~s stGti~tiq~C8 emplov6es

Chacitre V : R~sultBts et discussion

CB chapi tre ccntiEnt e:n ubr tence une dE::t crirticJn cetC:.iillee du r:~r<dile

d§velopp~ d2n~ l'~tude, une 2n21y~~ rtetiLtiqU2 dE donn~es ~lour illustrer l'~tude

deE liens Entre le~ !Jrincl~cles voricjlea du ffiod~le, une discussiun d8S r6sLltats

obtenus et une fcmTIulatirm (1' hYPllthesef.: oe trsv3il ~our h~s rcct:erChE!f' fLJturcs.

Ces hypothr.[:es sont ::,r6~>r.llteE!L ,-('us fGrlil8 r:e [.:ropositlomc scicntifh:ues i'OiT!ent

commentees"

1!~

, ,t;,

,

\

I.~

, ,J....

- 4 -

Chopitre VI CDnclusion

Dans ce dErnier chE, 11 trE: c!ui conclut l~ these, i1 est !>ropos{ un

r~capitulatlf de 1'~tude ~uivi d'une r~0v~1uation d~s 11mite~ et des :.ug~eGtions

et rE:cOI1'II1:EndE tions ;::-[iur ler r2cherchE'5 u1 t:riEUreEl.

• ; t. -

(1) 8.. N. Richman et R. Farmer. Comp;;,rotive mfln2gen:ent and econOlr:ic progresr.• •

Homewood, I111noi~ : RichErd D. Irwin, 1965, p~ 35

(2) A. r.. NEgandhi et S. L. Pr268d. Comparative mEmryeHient. New Yorl<

App1eton-Century-Crofts, ~S?1, p. 23

(3) H. Koontz. A mod8! for ~nalyzing the univer~a1ity of mEnEge~ent. In H. Koontz

.et C. Cl 'Oonne11, eds. t-1c:ncQr?IT,ent : 8 book of rE6dings. New York : NcGrow-

Hill, 1976, pp C1-S0

Ij,

_.0 \

j1