Development Administration Historical and Academic Context

 Development Administration Historical and  Academic Context 

To properly define development administration, we must first examine its two components—administration and development—before combining them into a unified concept. Administration, in the context of public administration, is traditionally concerned with the management and organization of public institutions, drawing heavily on principles of efficiency and effectiveness from business management (Wilson 1887; Taylor 1912; Gulick 1937). Meanwhile, development, as used by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), refers to economic processes aimed at improving human well-being, with a particular focus on increasing human capacities and reducing inequalities (Peet 1999; Sachs 2005). This essay will explore both concepts separately and then integrate them into the concept of development administration, arguing for its application on a state-by-state basis to promote societal progress.

Administration in Public Institutions

The concept of administration has been influenced by foundational thinkers such as Woodrow Wilson, who, in his 1887 essay "The Study of Administration," advocated for the separation of politics from administration, emphasizing that public institutions should operate in a business-like manner, prioritizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness (Wilson 1887). This was a response to reforms such as the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which sought to eliminate nepotism and promote a merit-based system in public institutions. Wilson’s ideas were further developed by scholars like Fredrick W. Taylor, who in his 1912 essay "Scientific Management" argued that management should be governed by scientific principles, including clearly defined rules and methods to increase worker productivity (Taylor 1912).

Larry Gulick expanded on this by outlining the functions of government through his POSDCCORB framework—Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting—suggesting a systematic approach to managing public institutions (Gulick 1937). Leonard White and Frank J. Goodnow also contributed to this conversation by discussing the distinction between political and administrative roles, with Goodnow emphasizing the implementation of policies on the administrative side and the formulation of policies on the political side (Goodnow 1900; White 1926). Morton Grodzins and Herbert Kaufman later analyzed the overlapping functions within government structures, describing how decentralization and citizen participation can enhance public administration (Grodzins 1966; Kaufman 1969).

Since the 1980s, public administration has shifted towards a "New Public Management" approach, emphasizing reduced public spending, balanced budgets, and contracting services, often critiqued for its emphasis on efficiency without adequately addressing the political implications of managing governments (Kettl 2005; Light 1997).

Development and Economic Growth

Development, in contrast, has a broader and more complex history, rooted in economic theories aimed at improving living conditions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (Peet 1999). Development economists have traditionally focused on increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of national economic success. However, they have also recognized the need to address inequalities within and between countries, distinguishing between developed, developing, and least-developed nations (Sachs 2005). This classification has shaped international financial and economic policies, particularly through institutions established after World War II, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Milner 2005).

In the 1990s, the World Bank began shifting its focus from purely economic development to include issues like governance, decentralization, and accountability, recognizing that growth must be equitable and socially inclusive (Birdsall et al. 2007). This shift aligned with global efforts like the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which sought to address human development by reducing poverty, improving health and education, and promoting environmental sustainability (Ganapati 2004).

Unifying Development and Administration

Development administration seeks to combine these two fields by applying the principles of public administration to the challenges of economic development. Scholars like Kim Moloney argue that development administration involves transferring Western-style governance principles—such as accountability and decentralization—into developing countries, often as part of technical assistance from organizations like the World Bank (Moloney 2007). However, this approach raises ethical questions about whose norms are being imposed and whether these models truly serve the needs of developing countries (Milner 2005).

Fred Riggs’ concept of "administrative ecology" highlights the importance of tailoring development administration to the unique economic, social, and cultural contexts of different societies. Riggs studied administrative structures in countries like the U.S., Thailand, and the Philippines, emphasizing how historical legacies and cultural factors influence the effectiveness of public programs (Riggs 1961). This perspective suggests that development administration is not a one-size-fits-all solution but must be adapted to local conditions to be effective.

Conclusion

Development administration combines the efficiency-focused principles of public administration with the goals of economic development to create a framework for managing public institutions in developing countries. However, as with public administration, development administration must balance the scientific management of resources with the unique cultural and political contexts of the societies it serves. By taking into account historical legacies, ethical considerations, and human development goals, development administration can promote equitable progress and modernization.

### References

- Birdsall, N., et al. (2007). *Fair Growth*. Center for Global Development.

- Ganapati, S. (2004). "Development Administration: Concepts and Theories." *Public Administration Review*, 64(3), 246-259.

- Goodnow, F. J. (1900). *Politics and Administration: A Study in Government*. Macmillan.

- Grodzins, M. (1966). *The American System: A New View of Government in the United States*. Rand McNally.

- Gulick, L. (1937). "Notes on the Theory of Organization." In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), *Papers on the Science of Administration*. Institute of Public Administration.

- Kaufman, H. (1969). "Administrative Decentralization and Political Power." *Public Administration Review*, 29(3), 245-251.

- Kettl, D. (2005). *The Global Public Management Revolution*. Brookings Institution Press.

- Light, P. C. (1997). *The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995*. Yale University Press.

- Milner, H. (2005). "Globalization, Development, and International Institutions: Normative and Positive Perspectives." *Perspectives on Politics*, 3(4), 833-854.

- Moloney, K. (2007). "Understanding the World Bank as an Organization: A Study of its Public Sector Management Projects (1983-2007)." PhD Dissertation, American University.

- Peet, R. (1999). *Theories of Development*. Guilford Press.

- Riggs, F. W. (1961). *The Ecology of Public Administration*. Asia Publishing House.

- Sachs, J. D. (2005). *The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time*. Penguin Press.

- Taylor, F. W. (1912). *Scientific Management*. Harper & Brothers.

- White, L. D. (1926). *Introduction to the Study of Public Administration*. Macmillan.

- Wilson, W. (1887). "The Study of Administration." *Political Science Quarterly*, 2(2), 197-222.